The case of the British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh had the whole blogosphere up in arms. The sheer quantity of data crowd-sourced by the general public was astounding. But what impact will this new form of litigation have on the legal profession? And is the trend set to continue?

In 2008, eminent science writer Simon Singh wrote a column for The Guardian in which he alleged that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) promoted ‘bogus’ treatments, including chiropractic therapies for young children with asthma and colic. These recommendations, claimed Singh, were not supported by medical evidence.

The backlash was severe. The BCA rejected The Guardian’s offer of a right to reply, opting to sue Singh personally for libel. A High Court judge ruled that Singh’s comments were factual assertions, rather than opinions, which meant that the journalist was unable to use the defence of fair comment. Things looked very bleak indeed for Singh.

But then something unusual happened. The combination of Singh’s celebrity status, the goodwill extended toward him by the scientific community and the David vs Goliath nature of the case fired up the public. Lawyers and scientists from across the globe began sending in helpful data, from transcripts of chiropractic disciplinary trials to examples of legal precedent.

Robert Dougans, of Bryan Cave LLP, acted on behalf of Singh. ‘This was an exceptional case,’ he says. ‘The amount of legal and scientific interest it generated was unprecedented. We got loads of help from people with our various lines of enquiry: some were dead ends but others were fantastic.’ Scientists and legal professionals across the world dedicated their time and knowledge – for free – to the cause. ‘Of course, in future cases, experts could be paid for providing this kind of support,’ says Dougans.

These mountains of data were all processed and handled by Singh’s legal team. In terms of e-discovery, the influx of data was a challenge. ‘But you only have to actually disclose documents on which you rely or which will help or hinder the case,’ says Dougans. ‘Otherwise the paperwork would have been monstrous.’

Online support for Singh mushroomed. The blogosphere moved beyond simply sharing data, and began to target the BCA itself, demanding that the organisation release the ‘plethora’ of evidence that would show Singh’s claims to be false. Buckling under the sheer volume of requests, the BCA complied and posted all its supporting documentation online. This data was seized by the British Medical Journal and rigorously analysed by the medical community. The ‘evidence’ was debunked and formally squashed in under a day.

This phenomenon has been dubbed wikilitigation by legal pundit David Allen Green. Wikilitigation, explains Dougans, is the act of making the court process accessible to the public, and allowing a two-way dialogue. ‘I was getting requests from the internet community to release everything I could about the case,’ he says. ‘There’s nothing wrong with scanning in pleadings and other documents and putting them online. It creates a truly dynamic process – an information revolution.

‘But we never went all the way,’ adds Dougans, almost ruefully. In April this year, the BCA dropped its action against Singh, ending two years of appeals. ‘We were still at the “comment and meaning” stage, which is a very early point in the case,’ says Dougans. But conducting the case in such a public forum had a number of consequences. Firstly, it shone a spotlight on English libel law in the mainstream media. It has also forced the entire UK chiropractic industry to withdraw unsubstantiated claims regarding the effect of treatments.

But is the trend for wikilitigation here to stay? Dougans is not sure. A very unique set of factors formed the catalyst to this case: ‘It’s hard to predict the next phenomenon like this,’ he says. “But the internet is an exceptional communications network. You can create communities about almost anything.’

Wikilitigation is symptomatic of the wave of change in the legal industry. The traditionally conservative sector has begun to embrace crowd-sourced comment, allowing the public to gather data and work as a community to aid the legal process. In Dougans’ mind, there’s no doubt that opening the floodgates and allowing more interaction between the public and the courtroom is a positive change. The volume of comment and data can be alarming but, in this case, the process unearthed a mine of useful data. ‘Public access is messy,’ he says. ‘But it’s worth it because there are diamonds in there.’