header-logo header-logo

03 September 2009 / Susan Knox
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail

Dispelling technophobia

Susan Knox claims lawyers cannot ignore the omnipresent call of new technology

Today, many people in the UK include mobile phones, PDAs, instant messaging clients and social networking applications as their primary means of communication. Lawyers are no exception, frequently using these tools in their personal as well as professional lives. Many lawyers nevertheless discount newer means of communication as potential sources of evidence, instead focusing on “traditional” sources of electronic evidence such as hard drives, back-up tapes, CDs and DVDs. However, by avoiding these new technologies and tools, lawyers may be overlooking critical evidence.

Newer means of communication
 

Having more or less completed the move to computers, word processors and e-mail messages, Britons are now swiftly moving toward ever more portable versions of these tools. Once, a laptop computer was viewed as the convenient alternative to being tied to a desk or office. Now, many laptop users read and write e-mail messages while on the go using handheld PDAs that also act as phones, portable music systems, GPS devices, cameras and planners. Some

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll