Law lord backs legal outsourcing systems

Lord Justice Rupert Jackson has backed document management tools provided by legal process outsourcing (LPO) firms as key drivers for cost control. Writing in the Final Report of his 'Civil Litigation Costs Review', conducted last year, Lord Jackson delivered a positive verdict on his own, first-hand view of document management systems. He also wrote of the necessity for counsel and judges to learn more about the field, and made several recommendations for cost management in IP cases.

Lord Jackson revealed that, in the course of his research towards the Final Report, he attended a demonstration of leading document management tools. The session involved a presentation by specialist providers, who each took a body of raw data that was used in the Enron bankruptcy case. Jackson was on hand to observe how the providers' respective software could 'search, sample, categorise and organise the data'.

'The object of each of these systems,' he said, 'is to whittle down as far as possible the potentially relevant documents which will be passed to the lawyers for review and to enable the lawyers to search and organise documents passed to them.' Lord Jackson felt the systems developed by each of the specialist providers were extremely impressive, adding: 'I am sure that it would assist other members of the judiciary to know what technological help is available to the parties, to enable them to manage the disclosure process.'

Comments submitted to Jackson in the run-up to his Final Report included material from the UK Bar Council, which stressed how important it was for lawyers and judges to keep up with software developments in the field of e-document management. The Bar Council added that 'early and clear articulation of the specific issues that are likely to affect the disclosure process in any given case' is also required.

Lord Jackson embraced the Bar Council's view, stating that 'judges, solicitors and counsel need to acquire (or have access to someone who has) a much more detailed understanding of the technology available and how it functions. Both practitioners and judges need such an understanding, so that the court can manage the litigation properly and keep the costs of e-disclosure within sensible bounds'. Lawyers need 'both education and training in respect of e-disclosure', he added. 'They need education in the broad capabilities of the ever-developing software systems and in the variables which make one software system different from another. They also need training in how to make the best use of whatever software systems are adopted.'

In his assessment of costs in IP suits, Lord Jackson made a distinction between the major litigation handled at the London Patents Court and the smaller, high-turnover cases held at the Patents County Court (PCC). Honing the scope of each new case through the earlier involvement of the trial judge was cited as a priority for the London Patents Court, which emerged as a well-regarded institution.

For lower-value IP cases, Lord Jackson recommended reforms of the PCC in order to create a small claims track for IP claims of £5,000 or less, plus a fast track for claims of between £5,000 and £25,000. However, he was undecided on the need for an official pre-action protocol for IP cases, as comments from some lawyers indicated that such a system could raise costs rather than lower them. With this in mind, he recommended further consultation.

UK Justice secretary Jack Straw praised Lord Jackson's efforts. 'I would like to thank Sir Rupert for undertaking this review of costs in the civil courts and for producing such a substantial, comprehensive and detailed report,' he said. 'It is a remarkable piece of work which is based on extensive consultation and puts forward a broad range of significant recommendations for reform.'