header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Legal News , E-disclosure
printer mail-detail

Lawyers unhappy on e-disclosure rules

News

There are widespread concerns among litigators about ambiguity in the e-disclosure rules, a new survey reveals.

The study by Ipsos Mori for KPMG Forensic, shows 48 of the 100 UK litigators asked believe that judges and masters are ill-equipped to make e-disclosure case management decisions and should be trained on the difficulties routinely faced in an e-disclosure exercise.
Sixty-eight per cent also support the establishment of an independent body of industry practitioners to promote best practice and training in dealing with the disclosure of electronic documents.

Guidelines on e-disclosure were introduced into the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) two years ago, yet only 17% of lawyers believe they have had a positive impact. Nearly half (43%) believe they have not and 56% believe they have made litigation more costly. The survey shows that 48% cases cost £500,000 or more, with 26% costing over £1m.

KPMG Forensic says costs could be reduced if the two sides  met earlier, as the CPR suggest. In fact, 39% say they had never met their opponent to discuss it and of those that had met, in 29% of cases it was not until, or after, the case management conference.

Paul Tombleson, head of forensic technology at KPMG Forensic, says: “E-disclosure can be immensely complex and costly, and litigators have called for renewed energy in agreeing clearer case management guidelines.”

Issue: 7293 / Categories: Legal News , E-disclosure
printer mail-details

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