e is for Evidence

In September 2002, a new question was added to AmLaw Tech’s survey on the use of IT in the top 200 American law firms. The question was ‘Which electronic evidence vendor do you use to retrieve and organize computer files turned over in discovery’. 75% of the US firms cited a preferred vendor. Adrian Palmer is sure that if the same question were asked of the UK’s legal community, it would most likely remain unanswered, or be confused with those companies that scan paper documents into their litigation support systems….

Read More… from e is for Evidence

Editorial

“Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket” said George Orwell. But when the stick is taken from the bucket and chases you wherever you go it is much more disturbing. I find myself suffering from the slings and arrows of the Web marketeers on a daily basis. It is bad enough…

Read More… from Editorial

Businessam

Laura Gordon of Boyds gives an account of the recent Scottish case of Bonnier Media v Greg Lloyd Smith. The case concerned an international trading name dispute and the use of a domain name. She also looks at the latest developments in the tale and the case’s implications….

Read More… from Businessam

Editorial

Lawtel The announcement that, with effect from 1 August, Lawtel was to become part of Sweet & Maxwell left me rather sad. And I was genuinely fearful for the future of online legal publishing. While Sweet & Maxwell have a long and illustrious history and have achieved considerable improvements in their online products, they are…

Read More… from Editorial

Backbytes

D’ya nard ‘er? Notwithstanding my comments in the last issue, reader, I acquired one. An HP Jornada 568 that is, following Neil Cameron’s tempting review in issue vol 13, issue 1. A tribute to the power of the media. Despite its present lack of Internet connectivity, it is now my ‘preferred mobile solution’. It updates…

Read More… from Backbytes

Letter to the Editor

A small error crept into the last paragraph of Michael Hirst’s otherwise useful article on Cyberobscenity and jurisdiction. (I was the defence expert in Waddon and consulted though not instructed in Perrin.) The strict liability offence for possession of child pornography is in fact s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988 not the Criminal Justice and Public…

Read More… from Letter to the Editor