Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/25416
A REGIONAL LOOK AT THE EVOLUTION OF LITIGATION SUPPORT Michelle (Australia): Major law firms and government departments started providing internal litigation support services in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. In the early to mid-’90s there were a handful of scanning bureaus, and by the late ‘90s mid-tier law firms started to set up their own litigation support teams. At the same time, the Australian judiciary was pushing for litigation support and better use of technology — the first International Association of Young Lawyers (AIJA) conference in 1998 focused on “Technology for Justice” and was held in Melbourne to a packed audience. The use of practice directions to encourage better utilization of technology was firmly on the conference’s agenda and today most of the higher Australian courts have practice notes or directions in place promoting the use of technology in matters. The prevalence of document- and party-intensive litigation forced litigation support to shift from a small cottage industry to a profession. In addition, the increasing complexity of business record creation has driven the need for improved litigation technology to manage each new challenge. With a diversified legal practice often found in larger law firms, litigation support skills were migrated to transactions and non-contentious practices around the year 2000. WHAT SETS LITIGATION SUPPORT APART IN YOUR COUNTRY? Jonathan (U.K.): Geography helps. The type of law we practice — Roman versus common — also helps. Those who are involved are sophisticated and we are led by the market, not vendors. That has led to more measured developments. Kelly (Canada): Canadian e-discovery case law is not nearly as developed as it is in the U.S. Courts in Canada are divided on whether a separate tort of spoliation exists and they rarely grant sanctions. Sedona Canada and the development of practice directions regarding the use of technology in litigation in various provinces have helped bring more guidance and structure to the industry. Certain provinces have amended their rules of practice to address electronic discovery, however, the language around the management of electronic data is vague and open to interpretation. Recent amendments to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure actually reference the Sedona Canada Principles, but we have no federal court rules specific to electronic discovery. Proportionality is the buzz right now in Canada. Scott (U.S.): Our rules and practices have created requirements that are just not as common outside the U.S. This has led to rapid growth; a small percentage of our market is driven by foreign solution providers, but the vast majority of the market started and operate in the U.S. Michelle (Australia): Australia is a very large country with a comparatively small population. Being so geographically dispersed, each city has its own litigation support community and the core principles and practices differ from state to state. This has caused many industry professionals to develop their own products, and has encouraged Australians to be innovative in the way they deliver services because they are often unable to rely on other techniques, services and products from larger markets. www.iltanet.org Litigation and Practice Support 15