header-logo header-logo

13 April 2018 / Helen Pugh , Michael Fletcher
Issue: 7788 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Trial technology (Pt 2)

nlj_7787_fletcher

In the second article of a series on trial technology Michael Fletcher & Helen Pugh consider barriers to use

As we discussed last time, the technology is now available to permit a ‘paperless trial’ and yet, particularly given the prevalence of technology in our daily lives, relatively few trials are conducted this way (see ‘Trial technology’, NLJ, 30 March & 6 April 2018). In this article, we consider why this may be the case.

Stumbling blocks

There are many reasons why lawyers may not always use e-bundles, or the full range of trial technology. First, a significant factor is cost. E-bundles and electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) can be costly to prepare and to use, and some cases may simply not merit their use. For example, the cost of an e-bundle may not be substantially different to, and could even be more than, the cost of a hard copy bundle:

  • The cost of photocopying is replaced with the cost of the bundle provider and the cost of the solicitors liaising with
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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll