header-logo header-logo

20 April 2018 / Helen Pugh , Michael Fletcher
Issue: 7789 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Trial technology (Pt 3)

nlj_7787_fletcher_0

In their third update on trial technology Michael Fletcher & Helen Pugh discuss the drivers for change

The legal community has perhaps been too slow to adopt electronic technology at trial, but, despite the ‘stumbling blocks’ discussed in the last update (see ‘Trial technology’ (Pt 2), 13 April 2018), there are now a number of drivers for change.

First, the courts are increasingly encouraging the use of court-room technology. The shift to mandatory e-filing in the Business & Property Courts is a step in this direction; the obvious progression from paperless filing is paperless bundles. From a purely practical perspective, e-bundles will be far easier for court staff to manage, they take no storage space at court, and are therefore likely to save costs.

Judges also now appreciate the advantages of technology more and, as time passes, are inevitably becoming more digitally astute. Several years ago, many High Court judges would have regarded the idea of an electronic trial bundle with suspicion. Now, the question we are increasingly seeing asked at the

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