Legal Cheek has done a good job of upping the ante in relation to my “bundle rage” post last week. Lashings of phrases like “Top Judge”, and “rows”, “ranting” and “slamming”. I’d characterise it as more of a pitiful howl of frustration than some kind of legal punch up. But hey. That’s Legal Cheek for you – everything is a story not a conversation.
What I’d wanted to say even before Legal Cheek posted his “Bundle rage: Lawyer hits back after top judge labels page limit rule-breakers as ‘delinquents’” (but which I had been prevented from doing due to the more pressing need to compile, read and analyse a number of actual bundles for actual real live clients), is that the President gave a speech on Friday last to the FLBA, and in it he did two things : he gave credit where it was due to hard working professionals and he opined on the merits of electronic bundles. And I kind of like that idea.
When I say “like”, that’s a heavily qualified “like”. I don’t particularly want to have to learn a whole new way of working, but I recognise that in theory at least e-bundles make total sense and could represent a massive improvement in efficiency and cost terms.
But but but….I am just not sure how that can be translated into reality in the current economic and political climate where investment into the justice system is (sadly) just not a priority.
My husband is forever reminding me how ridiculous it is that we cart around these vast swathes of paper, in suitcases and shoulder bags, on trains and in car boots. And if we did it properly we’d just need an ipad or a laptop.
And in my turn, I am forever reminding my husband that we don’t even have wifi in court, and that in most courts the 3G signal is so poor (read non-existant) that we can’t even email the judge the draft order we’ve just agreed…that the judiciary are using laptops that were once uber-whizzy but which now look as outdated as the kit from the original startrek series, that we have barely functional secure email set-up that tends to frustrate efficient communication more than it actually enhances security, that electronic bundles requires more than just hardware (which, incidentally not all practitioners have or can afford), but also requires software. Good software that deals with pagination and navigation and annotation and cross referencing.
All those things require resources. And planning. And coordination (both of and between the judiciary and other professionals). And as far as I can tell we have none of that. Every bit of the “modernisation” of our Family Court is being done within existing budgets.
Electronic bundles are more than an ipad and a giant pdf.
I don’t think electronic bundles can be done on a shoestring.
I don’t think electronic bundles can be done on the basis of need and desire.
I think we should aspire to electronic bundles, regardless of the personal inconvenience of learning something unfamiliar.
But I don’t think we should abandon paper until we have a plan for making electronic bundles a functional reality.
As ever, the practicalities require careful thought. What about witness bundles – will there be “witness ipads”? What happens when a witness is IT illiterate?
What about parties who don’t have access to the internet, or can’t afford a device, or just can’t work the damn thing? How do they access (literally) justice? And, I might ask the same question of the recent suggestion of online judiciary. My client base often have mobile phones, but this is generally their only means of accessing the internet or of viewing electronic material.
So. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not me picking a fight with a Top Judge. It is me asking the question – how can we make it a reality? And how can we make it happen so that it promotes justice rather than degrading it? I’m not sure we can do that right now.
There is a article on Local Government Lawyer website on 18 December 2014 called The E-Court bundle has landed which suggests they have addressed many of the issues you raise (website address below).
I am generally very sceptical of these claims having worked as a locum at several local authorities and being always amazed at the rubbish, counter productive case management systems they have purchased at great expense (the social work systems are usually worse). I also intend to have a word with the court staff about the president’s claim that they now have a functioning software system.
I give more credit though to the Nottinghamshire claim as a fellow locum has worked there recently and -whilst criticising some aspects of Nottinghamshire social work- tells me that their case management & bundling arrangements are the best she has seen. She particularly praises that all done by using off-the-shelf software like Microsoft so that cost is minimal (why Notts could afford to give computers to the court) and so it is reliable.
Link is http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21227%3Athe-e-courtbundle-has-landed&catid=54&Itemid=22
Thanks for that info Walklikeacat. I will take a look. I know some sols firms have bundling / case management systems which always seem quite whizzy but they do require someone (as I understand it) in a sweaty room somewhere to be on hand to scan / upload / data enter everything.
I absolutely agree that the court does NOT really have a functional IT system. I have seen the “electronic files” that some courts are now trialling, and they are no more than scanning docs and putting them in folders on a drive somewhere, marked by case number. One has to navigate in and out of folders to move from one document to another. That sort of thing won’t work for proper trials or for advocates.
Have now looked at it and it does look good, although it is still early days it seems – first full trial with live evidence scheduled this month (see here https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=D5AE3C560770CF00!18820&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AOp2O9YEgzFZQMo). Whether it can be rolled out nationwide (who would pay?) I don’t know, and I’m not sure how it could ever be feasible in private law disputes. The trouble with these pilots is that, like FDAC, it depends on the investment and enthusiasm of charismatic and driven LA management and results usually in a postcode lottery (I am in an area where some families get the chance to go through FDAC whilst others don’t and it feels very unfair).
… and then there’s ODR (online dispute resolution) for family cases where it might work – https://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/online-dispute-resolution-can-it-work-for-family/…
Tut-tut again, Lucy. It’s “non-existEnt”.
One of these days you’ll thank me when you did not make the same mistake in a skellie for a hearing before HHJ Bloody-Pedantic – who as you know sits everywhere!
oops. *self-flagellates*
Ooh, please post a video on YouTube.
Andrew: behave. Break the habit of a lifetime and BEHAVE!
😐 Yes, do behave…
I think your point re Internet access is important; applications for Universal Credit can only be done electronically, which means some people will, in practice, be excluded:
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/east_herts_cab_internet_access_summary_report__oct_2012_.pdf