header-logo header-logo

Litigators frustrated with disclosure pilot

19 May 2021
Issue: 7933 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure , Technology , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
A survey of 250 litigation lawyers has uncovered concerns about the disclosure pilot scheme (DPS), currently underway in the business and property courts.

The DPS, which began in January 2019 following research by a Disclosure Working Group (DWG) and runs until the end of 2021, gives parties a menu of models for disclosure as lawyers grapple with ever increasing quantities of digital data.

In the survey, ‘Disclosure pilot scheme, the inside view’, commissioned by global law firm Alvarez & Marsal, 97% of respondents expressed frustration with aspects of the pilot, while 70% said the scheme was unfit for purpose and 74% thought it exacerbated the adversarial environment of litigation.

Phil Beckett, managing director at Alvarez & Marsal, said there was a danger the scheme may ‘be placing further barriers between parties in the crucial early stages of disputes’.

Ben Sigler, partner at Stephenson Harwood, said: ‘In my experience, the DPS has significantly driven up the costs of disclosure.’

Some 85% of the lawyers said technology was a determining factor when choosing their disclosure model, and 77% called for more effective use of technology.

Most respondents disagreed with the opposing party on which model to use more than half the time. 68% of respondents are engaging with disclosure models that were not available pre-pilot.

However, DWG member Ed Crosse, Simmons & Simmons partner, said the DWG is considering rule changes in response to points raised as part of its ongoing review, and has also received some positive feedback. The pilot is likely to be extended. 

Crosse agreed with the findings on the importance of technology. He said the DWG is keen to avoid the extra procedures driving up costs in lower value cases, and is considering advising a light approach to the rules in such cases.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, said: ‘As I commented to the working party that developed the pilot; my long experience tells me that the changes to civil procedure that reduce the costs of litigation are few and far between. True to form, the survey suggests that the pilot has increased the costs of litigation. This is unsurprising since the process raises tactical issues and choices and parties will be seeking to take advantage of them. But, and it’s a big but, something needed to be done to address the avalanche of data that has fallen upon modern litigation and the pilot, whilst far from perfect has sought to address the issue.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll