Page 13 - PIC e-newsletter Spring Issue 8

Minority Report-
style virtual screens with gestural interfaces may be a little over the top but something as simple as
a mini-projector may be essential equipment for an advocate in court.
To be most effective in the electronic era, parties will likely need to think on their feet and actually demonstrate those thoughts in real time in the new electronic bill by re-ordering, grouping or analysing aspects of work as need dictates. Yet how will this work in practice, if the parties only have comparatively small-screen laptops on which to display their approach, with relatively little expectation that the Court will necessarily be able to replicate it? Am I, in essence, still drawing rings and arrows on paper and pushing it to the middle of the desk? Minority Report- style virtual screens with gestural interfaces may be a little over the top but something as simple as a mini-projector may be essential equipment for an advocate in court.
Those dealing with assessment of costs at Court will need to
be masters of Excel or similar spreadsheet software, able to manipulate the data like a first language; the confidence and speed with which points can be demonstrated by analysis of the information contained in the electronic bill may play no small part in the Court accepting the views urged upon them by either party. An apparent clumsiness or outright inability to translate thought into action on the screen may severely impact a party’s case, with even small delays or slight uncertainty having some overall negative effect.
Many judges now have three computer screens available to them, to accommodate the future of electronic working but is that
really enough? The ACL version of the new electronic bill has the capability to house points of dispute and replies within it, though this is likely to be at least unwieldy and potentially unworkable
in practice; data size in the new bill may well be prohibitive, and there is the potentially bewildering effect of constantly moving around in the bill itself between tabs or scrolling across pages without losing where you are. Even with a PDF/Word copy of the compendium PODs and replies document, scrolling backwards and forwards between the parties’ arguments can be irritating to say the least. The ideal would be for the bill, PODs and replies to be placed on separate screens - but what then of the file?
The expectation as we move into the electronic future is that documents in support of the bill will be filed electronically, through which the court will skim and explore in order to see the documents created or considered relevant to the work done. That presents various problems, in terms of data protection, file transmission and storage but there are also more prosaic issues involved; will the receiving party’s advocate be viewing those files electronically as well on their single screen, explaining to the judge where to find a specific document within the electronic file while trying to keep their place in the bill, PODs and replies? If a party is put to election as to disclosure of a document, how will that work in practice?
Those grumbles aside, there is vast potential for streamlining assessment; with electronic referencing and hyperlinking, there
is the possibility of, say, clicking on an entry in the bill relevant to preparation of the particulars of claim, to take you or the judge directly to the particulars of claim themselves, or the specific draft being worked up and amended, or the documents and evidence relied upon and referenced in preparation of the particulars.
Similar issues could apply to objections and replies, with specific issues or arguments mapped directly to entries in the bill, for the paying party, and supporting documents in the file for the receiving party. With efficiency of this order, there may even be a greater appetite to grapple with the detail of the bill.
We anticipate this electronic future with keen curiosity though slight apprehension and may be proven wrong in all or any of these assumptions. Time will tell, and may defy expectation but while the future is not ours to see, we ought to seek to mould it to best suit the needs of all concerned, and not too easily adopt the view that whatever will be, will be.
www.pic.legal
Spring 2018
INDUSTRY EXPERTS
Dominic Woodhouse
is the National Training Manager – Advocate at PIC.
13