Washington and New York to Mitchell via privacy, Singapore and Lobachevsky

February 17, 2014

The problem with running a website which offers news and updates is that people notice when it lies silent – the essence of news is that it is new. In fact, I have never aspired to timeliness and, as I say often, if it is important now, it will be important in a month’s time. This post supplements a brief note which I put up last week. Most of it is about Washington and its wonderful memorials, about the week in New York with my panels on eDiscovery technology and privacy, and about the things which got in the way when I got home. That includes some ruminations on the fall-out from Mitchell v NGN, on the unpleasant and economically-illiterate thug who carries the proud title “Lord Chancellor” and his minions at the Ministry of Justice, and on the decline of London’s aspirations to be a forum of choice for international litigants, with side references to Hong Kong (where I go next) and Singapore. There is also a bit about plagiarism illustrated by Tom Lehrer. You get variety here, if not necessarily thematic consistency.

I was at LegalTech in New York, the biggest eDiscovery industry show in the world. This was my eighth LegalTech and I know the form by now – back-to-back meetings, a couple of panels to sit on, five party invitations every night, dinners with varying degrees of learning and entertainment thrown in, and someone to talk to round every corner. This year brought the added element of sudden snowfalls leading to deep pools of slush at every crossing, particularly tiresome when your meetings alternate between the Hilton on one side of Sixth Avenue and the Warwick Hotel on the opposite corner.

Our attempts, some four months earlier, to book hotel rooms were defeated by some sporting event which apparently drew most of the US population into New York for the weekend. The cost of flights to the US falls steeply if you include a Saturday, so we went first to Washington D.C. – “we” being me, my wife Mary Ann and our youngest son William. The weather was fine and, as always, we were drawn first to the war memorials. Read the rest of this entry »


A Hong Kong eDiscovery snapshot in the company of Epiq Systems

November 27, 2012

On the surface, my area of professional interest looks pretty narrow. When I launched the eDisclosure Information Project, its proposed scope was implied by the word “eDisclosure” – only the civil jurisdiction of England and Wales uses the term “disclosure”, and I set myself the task of carrying information between courts, lawyers, clients and providers in that narrow context. That proved limiting very quickly: civil litigation is only one of the reasons why parties need to identify, analyse and review electronic information, and England and Wales is only one of several jurisdictions which impose such requirements. The US, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland have relevant obligations in civil litigation and they – the US in particular – export those obligations by expecting foreign parties to comply with their domestic rules when they litigate in US courts or fall within the powers of a regulator or state enforcement body.

That brings in countries with no discovery tradition, including EU countries and those of the Asia-Pacific region, such as China, who have increasing amounts of trade with the US but whose data protection and privacy laws, as well as culture, are inimical to common law discovery demands.

I could purport to cover all this by sitting at home in Oxford distilling what I find on the Internet, and communicating with people around the world by email and video-conferencing calls. That would certainly be easier than what I actually do, which is to get on a plane to go and see things for myself. I don’t kid myself that I become expert in a jurisdiction by dropping in from time to time, but the “carrying messages” part of my role is better fulfilled if I go occasionally to talk with (not just talk to – the listening matters more) people who practice in other places. That took me to Hong Kong for a quick visit to Epiq Systems there earlier this month.

Epiq Systems

Epiq Systems has three business activities, of which the eDiscovery solutions component (the others are bankruptcy solutions and class-action solutions) plays an ever-bigger part in each succeeding year’s accounts. It has grown from being a software-led company (with its processing tool eDataMatrix and review tool DocuMatrix), to being a broadly-based eDiscovery consulting company offering forensics and collections, processing, document prioritisation and document review services. Its first non-US office was in London, which is where I came across it, and it subsequently opened an office in Hong Kong. Epiq uses Equivio’s Relevance product (now part of Equivio Zoom) for predictive coding and document prioritization, and recent acquisitions bring it a wide range of review tools, including kCura’s Relativity, iCONECT and Concordance FYI together with expansion of its managed review services. Epiq’s most recent development has been the opening of a document review service in Hong Kong, allowing it to offer a full range of consultative, technology and review services in the Asia-Pacific region. Read the rest of this entry »


Singapore seeks SaaS discovery solution as London barristers set up shop there

July 2, 2012

The two subjects which comprise my heading are not directly related to each other save that they both point to Singapore’s continuing consolidation as a dispute resolution centre.

The Singapore Academy of Law is inviting proposals from companies able to provide eDiscovery software as a service (“SaaS”) for law firms and organisations in Singapore. The notice about it is here with links to the formal call for collaboration.

As the notice says, the ambition is to provide services enabling law firms and clients to identify and manage large volumes of e-mails and other electronic information for use as evidence in legal disputes.  As I understand it, this is not intended to be mandatory or the only permissible solution for those who have their own software or who prefer to instruct a full service electronic discovery service provider with their applications of choice. The ambition is to encourage law firms with mid-sized and smaller cases to have access to the latest technology.

There is a clear policy here, and it is one which is consistent with recent developments in the Singapore practice rules relating to electronic discovery (I wrote about that here). The Singapore authorities are in a position to drive change in a way which other jurisdictions can only dream of, partly because of Singapore’s size, partly because it can afford to invest for the benefit of litigants generally, and partly because it is driven by judges who are ambitious to make this succeed. Read the rest of this entry »


Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong claiming eDiscovery attention

May 2, 2012

Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong only look close together when viewed from a long way away. They all have a common law eDiscovery tradition, but it is coincidence of timing rather than any specific commonality which groups them together in this post. A group of articles has bunched together in the electronic equivalent of my in-tray (Evernote, since you ask) and it is convenient to pick them off together.

So far as Australia is concerned, I have written recently about Practice Note SC EQ 11 which aims to limit disclosure of documents in the Equity Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court. That no doubt will be discussed at Chilli IQ’s 6th Information Management and eDiscovery Summit, due to take place in Sydney on 19 and 20 June. Confirmed speakers include Michelle Mahoney, Director of Legal Logistics at King & Wood Mallesons, and Browning Marean of DLA Piper US.

The subject headings cover the full range of current talking-points. The unambiguously named Predictive coding: what is it and how could it change the practice of law in Australia clearly aims to give this subject its due.  Michelle Mahoney knows more than most on on How to best manage outsourcing eDiscovery and hosting. Browning Marean is always lucid on legal holds. Add Nuix on Integrating legal technology into your organisation and you conclude that Chilli IQ are not stinting on quality speakers. Read the rest of this entry »


Taking stock of the eDiscovery world

February 15, 2012

This is a good moment to pause a little and look around the eDiscovery / eDisclosure world.  The wide range of topics which make this such an interesting field are all getting an airing at once. The stream of useful and relevant tweets is such that I had to turn it off to get anything done. If it appears to have a largely US flavour, much of it also has relevance in the UK and elsewhere.

I do not feel under any particular pressure to capture it all as it happens, and there are back-room things – the agendas for three forthcoming UK conferences and a White Paper, for example – which have some priority in terms of time allocation than the news stream which, if its elements are of importance at all, will still be so in a week’s time.  My web site also needs some attention to logos and indexes. It is helpful, nevertheless, to list some of the pending stories, if only to head off polite suggestions that I may have missed them. Since the point here is speed, I will ignore my usual rule about hyperlinking to everything referred to.

My involvement in or attendance at some recent events will be covered shortly. Monique Altheim has released videos of the eDiscovery sessions we did at CPDP in Brussels.  Nuix hosted a thought-provoking dinner at LegalTech which stimulated thought about the real meaning of “innovation” in eDiscovery.  It has been said of the cross-border panels hosted at LegalTech by Huron Legal and led by Nigel Murray that “the substantive information conveyed was top shelf” and there is talk of a re-run. Data protection and privacy move back up the agenda anyway thanks to the draft EU data protection regulation. Read the rest of this entry »


A court-led eDiscovery initiative in Singapore

August 16, 2011

I thought I had done with Singapore for a bit, at least until October when I am back there for the InnoXcell eDiscovery conference on 31 October.

A news item on the Asia Legal Business Online website seems worth passing on, however. Headed Singapore: Electronic Discovery Initiatives Launched in Legal Sector, it reports that a steering committee, including representatives from the courts and other interested bodies, including law firms, has been set up to investigate various ways of improving document review, case management and the exchange of discoverable documents.

I will keep in touch with this interesting development and let you know more as things develop.

Home


Rapporteur rounding up the Singapore Electronic Litigation Conference

August 14, 2011

It was a privilege to be asked to be one of the rapporteurs at the end of the International Electronic Litigation Conference in Singapore. Bryan Ghows of UniLegal LLC spoke to one group and I the other, with ten minutes to round up the proceedings. Unusually for me, I actually wrote down in advance what I intended to say, and I give it here as the finale to my series of articles about this excellent conference:

It is proper, at an occasion like this, to address by name or title all the most important people in the room. There are many of you and I have only ten minutes so I will instead simply address “Kind hosts and welcome guests”.

I should say that listening to speeches during lunch is one of my pet hates at these conferences – you have just got a good flow of conversation going and then have to break off and listen to someone speaking. I tried to get out of it by suggesting to Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin that an audience of this calibre does not need to be told what they have just heard, but he said it was proper and it is there in the programme. There is, perhaps fortunately, not much time, so I will pick what seemed to me to be the most lasting points. Read the rest of this entry »


Senior Master Whitaker raises the eDiscovery stakes for unprepared litigants

August 14, 2011

You are busy, I know, and here is another 3,000 words to read. I will repeat here at the top the paragraph with which this article ends, as a taster for what Master Whitaker said in his plenary session speech at the Singapore International Conference on Electronic Litigation.

If Master Whitaker’s opening premise was that businesses are concerned about the costs of discovery, the real concusion from what he said is this: however important the role of judges, whatever is provided as rules, practice directions and court guidance, and however good the technology becomes, the key lies with the clients, both in the way they keep – and destroy – their documents, and in how they select and instruct their lawyers.

Senior Master Whitaker’s talk was headed International Developments in Electronic Discovery. In introducing him, Nicholas Peacock of Herbert Smith referred to Master Whitaker’s other formal title, the Queen’s Remembrancer. That role, he reminded us, was established in 1154; how interesting, he said, that the oldest judicial post in England and Wales should now be at the “cutting edge of bringing technology into the law”.

It is conventional to be polite to your hosts on such occasions, but Master Whitaker clearly meant every word of his opening. Singapore, he said, was a member of a select club of jurisdictions requiring common-law discovery, and punches above its weight in electronic discovery, as appears both from its practice direction and from various decisions. He praised its “forward-looking Chief Justice” (see my post Opening a world class agenda at Singapore Electronic Litigation Conference for a report of the latter’s speech). “Majulah Singapura”, he said, this being Malay for “Onward Singapore”, the nation’s motto. He paid tribute to Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin for his part both in advancing the court processes in Singapore and for his role in organising the conference.

He was, he said, proud of the connection between the Queen’s Bench Division and Singapore which, he said, would continue for as long as he was Senior Master. Read the rest of this entry »


The Singapore Electronic Litigation Conference comes to an end

August 13, 2011

The International Conference on Electronic Litigation came to an end here in Singapore yesterday. I have already given you the core statistics – more than 350 participants from 36 countries. I am staying on until Sunday – as on my recent trip to Hong Kong, the exorbitant airfare for a return on Friday or Saturday far outstrips the cost even of this fairly grand hotel. I don’t mind that, really. I am more likely to get my conference reports written if stuck on my own here than at home.

Lord Justice  Jackson and Vince Neicho of Allen & OveryBrad Mixner of Litigation Edge Pte Ltd and Global EDD Group has been keeping the official conference blog which you will find here, reproducing my posts as well as writing his own, with some photographs in addition (the rest of us were banned from taking photographs, as I have noted before, and the one here of Lord Justice Jackson and Vince Neicho of Allen & Overy is taken with thanks from the official blog).

As you will have gathered from my earlier posts, the conference was not just about electronic discovery but about case management and the whole court-led end of the litigation process. A recurring theme in my posts about the event is that the court really does lead here in relation to the rules, the development of court processes and the wider economic implications for Singapore of becoming the leading jurisdiction in the region. Read the rest of this entry »


Lord Justice Jackson in Singapore: Piloting Civil Justice Reforms

August 11, 2011

The best judicial advocates of proportionate electronic discovery emphasise that, however significant the costs and other implications of discovery, they are but a part of a wider duty to make justice affordable. That duty is distributed – it lies with the judges charged with managing cases and those who devise the rules and procedures; it falls on lawyers and on their clients whose justice is at stake; it is part of the duty of government. Lord Justice Jackson touched on all these in a speech in Singapore which began with Plato and Aristotle and, precisely 45 minutes later, came back to them. The occasion was the International Conference on Electronic Litigation organised jointly by the Singapore Supreme Court and the Singapore Academy of Law.

I do not usually rush out reports of speeches on the day of their delivery, preferring a more leisurely approach with reflective comment. This is a straight transposition from my notes, with little critical or or analytical thought applied.

The evidence in Aristotle’s day, Sir Rupert said, fell within a manageable compass. The instant communications now critical to business were not a boon in all respects. They remain in permanent form to be studied by those with the time and motive, subjected to a full and painstaking analysis by lawyers, and generating “prodigious and sometimes terrifying costs”. Read the rest of this entry »


Jumping Jurisdictions: EDiscovery from California to Singapore

August 10, 2011

I am sorry about all those words from my brief stopover in the UK between California and Singapore – 11,100 of them, 1000 per day and one word for every mile flown to get there and back. What is alarming is that none of those posts formed part of any backlog – this is all current stuff sprung either from the Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat or from other things which have developed in what is supposed to be a quiet month.

It is, I know, more helpful to spread them out and it is possible, in fact, to go away and leave articles to publish themselves. I did not do that because many of them cross-link and you can only link to a published article. Equally, I could publish them from Singapore, which is where I am now, but the agenda here is full enough of new material without having to deal with what will by then be old stuff. Exciting times, represented graphically on my blog stats by three spikes reflecting interest in recent topics.

I am in Singapore for the International Conference on Electronic Litigation organised jointly by the Singapore Supreme Court and the Singapore Academy of Law. This was originally to have been a discreet affair hosted in the Supreme Court building, but so many people signed up for it that it has moved to the Marina Mandarin Hotel. Read the rest of this entry »


UK Government bids for a world-class legal reputation whilst neglecting the basics back home

May 27, 2011

MoJ paper - Plan for growthThe UK Ministry of Justice has launched a paper called Plan for Growth: Promoting the UK’s Legal Services Sector. The opening, at least, is admirably crisp for a civil service document:

It identifies the law as one of Britain’s strengths….

People turn to us because they know they will find world class, highly specialised practitioners and expert judges in the specialist courts. They understand that a decision from a court in the UK carries a global guarantee of impartiality, integrity and enforceability.

…. which is a major contributor to the economy….

These strengths help to explain why the Legal Services sector generated £23.1 billion or 1.8% of the UK’s gross domestic product in 2009 and constituted £3.2 billion in exports – nearly three times more than a decade earlier.

….but which faces competition:

…worldwide competition for legal services is set to intensify over the coming decade. New York, Stockholm, Paris, Geneva, Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong all stand ready to compete with London and other UK jurisdictions as a hub of legal expertise. While the UK’s excellence and reputation is undoubted, costs and speed may affect where companies choose to resolve their disputes. We intend to do all we can to protect our competitiveness and build on our success.

Steps are to be taken as part of the Government’s Plan for Growth…

the Ministry of Justice is committed to working closely with UK Trade & Investment and the sector to promote the UK as the global centre of legal arbitration and commercial law services.

As part of this we have a fine new Commercial Court building:

Dedicated, high-spec business court under one roof – the Rolls Building brings together the Chancery Division, Technology and Construction Court and Commercial Court under one roof, offering a streamlined service to businesses and maintaining the UK’s reputation as first choice for business law. Read the rest of this entry »


Singapore case – Specific Discovery – Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd

April 20, 2011

A new case from the Singapore High Court involves an appeal against an order for specific discovery of documents. The case is Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd
[2011] SGHC 87  The appellant lost and was ordered to disclose more or less what had been demanded. She was ordered to pay costs fixed at $1500.

For now, I will leave you to read it without much commentary from me – my focus at the moment is on conference preparations and interesting and important distractions turn up every time I turn back to what I am really supposed to be doing. In reading it you will note that the rules are very close to their equivalents under the CPR of England & Wales. This was no accident; apart from our shared common law tradition, the Singapore courts watch closely what happens in other jurisdictions and are shrewd to adopt, at a steady pace, those procedural measures which seem to work elsewhere. We do the same, which is why judgments like this are of interest. They have sensibly stuck with the word “discovery” and (a point of sentiment to those of us of a certain age), the discovery rules appear in Order 24, as ours used to.

I will draw attention to one point dear to my heart. The judgment ends with a reference to the passage at paragraph 46 of Digicel v Cable & Wireless in which Morgan J adopted Jacob LJ’s point in Nichia v Argos about unturned stones and smoking guns (see paragraphs 44-52 of Nichia). As quoted in the Singapore judgment it reads:

[T]he [discovery] rules do not require that no stone should be left unturned. This may mean that a relevant document, even “a smoking gun” is not found. This attitude is justified by considerations of proportionality

I quote this in almost every talk I give, and see it as the single most important paragraph in any judgment about disclosure.

My thanks to Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin of the Singapore High Court for drawing my attention to this judgment to which, as I say, I will revert in due course.

Home


A quick eDiscovery trip to Singapore

October 29, 2010

I got back at dawn this morning from the InnoXcell eDiscovery conference in Singapore. I was only there for the two days of the conference and had only just got back from a one day trip to Toronto to attend Applied Discovery’s breakfast seminar on proportionality. My notes about both will follow, together with a catch-up on what else has been happening. The eDiscovery / eDisclosure world is simultaneously expanding and getting smaller.

In discovery as in so many other things, it is often easier to get the hard things right whilst overlooking the easy ones. In the UK Shoesmith case, for example, the documents overlooked by OFSTED lay in a clearly-labelled folder in someone’s My Documents. One of the speakers at Applied Discovery’s session in Toronto last week drew a distinction between things which can be remedied, albeit at some expense, and things which cannot be put right once the critical moment has passed.

I feel much the same about the planning for some of my foreign trips. The hard things involve rounding up panels, preparing slides, organising flights and hotels, and making sure I take all the files and equipment needed to keep working whilst I am away. Inevitably one overlooks something easy – chargers are an obvious example, and I once discovered that a visa was required only when checking in at the airport. Things like this can usually be put right. This is the first time, however, that I have set off without the only thing which is actually irreplaceable – my passport.  What could be easier to remember or to pick up? My son got it to me in time.

Someone once coined a word to describe a place so attractive and accessible that everyone goes there, so making it neither attractive nor accessible. I cannot now remember what the word is, but I have discovered an equivalent concept in preparing to go away – the work needed to pack everything for working on a long flight is so knackering that you fall asleep on the plane and do none of it. I set off with laptop and iPad loaded with sources of articles and draft papers to write, and then slept from Berlin to Burma. There was not much catch-up time on in the 48 hours which separated my arrival in Singapore and my departure. Read the rest of this entry »


Comment on Singapore Deutsche AG judgment

June 1, 2010

Vince Neicho of Allen & Overy saw my post about the Singapore judgment of Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin in Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and others (see Singapore e-Discovery judgment shows international commonality and active management) and has input which is worth passing on. Vince says:

How refreshing that, shortly following the Senior Master’s judgment on Goodale, another judge, Yeong Zee Kin SAR in the High Court of Singapore, has grasped control in an e-disclosure dispute to instil some common sense into the process.

As per usual, Chris has reported the judgment admirably, pulling out the pertinent information for us.  I write this commentary for two reasons:- the first is to rejoice that a judge has corroborated two points that I have been banging on about for years and, second, to seek, with respect, to suggest from a practical angle, that there was an alternative course open to the Yeong Zee Kin, that would have rendered the disclosure more useful in the long run and have resulted in significant cost savings. Read the rest of this entry »


Imminent reform in prospect for Australian discovery process

May 14, 2010

Reform of the discovery process in Australia is said to be “imminent”, according to an article in the New Lawyer. The article says that the Attorney General has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to explore options to promote the early and proportionate exchange of information and evidence in court proceedings with an emphasis on the role of the courts in managing discovery by using their case management powers. My thanks to Simon Price of Recommind for drawing my attention to the article.

The article refers to the experience of international jurisdictions. Those of us concerned with improving the court process are enthusiastic about the exchange of ideas between jurisdictions, particularly where the system of law is similar to ours. Lord Justice Jackson visited Australia as part of his fact-finding tour before writing his Preliminary Report, and we studied the Australian Electronic Technology Practice Note CM 6 when drafting our own new practice direction and Questionnaire. Read the rest of this entry »


Singapore e-Discovery judgment shows international commonality and active management

May 7, 2010

A judgment by Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin in the Singapore High Court last week shows the commonality in court-led management of e-Discovery between common law jurisdictions. The case is Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and others [2010] SGHC 125  and it concerns the Electronic Discovery Practice Direction 3/2009 which came into effect in Singapore on 1 October 2009. Master Whitaker and I were there a few days later, and Yeong Zee Kin was a speaker at that conference. What he says in his judgment was foreshadowed by what he said at the conference.

Before turning to the judgment itself, I take this opportunity to emphasise how small this world is quite apart from the commonality between the laws and practices in each place. The judgment was delivered on 26 April. I found out about it on 28th of April because Serena Lim of BiziBody in Singapore tweeted about it. I re-tweeted it, passed the link to a few people with a specific interest in the practice directions of other jurisdictions, and put it into my “things to write about” queue. This morning, Aaron Bleasdale of Epiq Systems in Hong Kong dropped me a line to make sure that I had seen it. Yeong Zee Kin and I are both speakers at the InnoXcell eDiscovery conference in Hong Kong on the 7 and 8 July. This combination of formal judgments cross-referring between jurisdictions, instant and worldwide communication, international conference platforms, and active interest from all over the place speaks for itself.

The judgment involves a not uncommon story of one party keen to give disclosure electronically whilst the other is not, apparently on the basis that he was already poised to give disclosure on paper and considered that e-Discovery would multiply his costs. Read the rest of this entry »


Nuix joins the e-Disclosure Information Project

March 5, 2010

I am delighted to welcome eDiscovery and electronic investigation software company Nuix as the latest sponsor of the e-Disclosure Information Project.

The connection began at the Ark Group eDiscovery conference in Sydney last year when I found myself sitting next to Nuix CEO Eddie Sheehy and had a drink with him and Browning Marean of DLA Piper US after the conference.  We met up again at LegalTech in New York a few weeks ago, when I went to see Nuix 3 with HHJ Simon Grenfell, Designated Civil Judge, Leeds and North Yorkshire. Nuix 3 is offered by London-based providers 7Safe (itself a sponsor of the e-Disclosure Information Project) and Millnet.

Next week, on 9 and 10 March, Eddie Sheehy is Chairman of the Ark Group Sydney conference and HHJ Simon Brown QC, Designated Civil Judge at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre is on a judicial panel with The Honourable Justice Ian V Gzell, who was a speaker at the LexisNexis eDiscovery conference in Singapore which Browning Marean and I co-chaired last October and at which Senior Master Whitaker was also a speaker Read the rest of this entry »


E-Discovery and Judicial Involvement in Australia

March 1, 2010

Project Counsel is the sister site to The Posse List, both run by the ubiquitous Gregory Bufithis. Project Counsel’s web site carried an article on 25th February with the title In Australia, e-Discovery and enhanced judicial involvement come of age . That is a high ratio of interesting key words to me, with “Australia”, “e-Discovery” and “enhanced judicial involvement” all being hot topics.

The article summarises a look taken by Australian law firm McCulloch Robertson at the development of active court involvement in the management of cases generally and electronic discovery in particular. It includes many elements in common with those which we either have or are promoting in England & Wales following the Jackson Report on Litigation Costs. The general aim is the reduction of the cost of litigation and minimising unnecessary delays. It is some consolation to me, following the recent side-lining of our draft e-Disclosure Practice Direction and ESI Questionnaire, that the introduction of the equivalent in the Federal Court of Australia (originally Practice Note 17, now CM 6) was as long drawn-out and painful a process as we are finding it here. Australia got there in the end, a little over a year ago. Our draft Practice Direction took account of the arguments and difficulties experienced in Australia amongst other places.

Doubtless we will get there in the end, and catch up with not just Australia but Singapore and Canada, both of which introduced also new e-Discovery rules in 2009. We used to lead the world in such things, but that was true also of cricket and economic prosperity. Read the rest of this entry »


New Singapore e-discovery resource

January 13, 2010

Those who come here often will know that I was in Singapore in October last year shortly after the introduction of their Practice Direction No 3 on Discovery and Inspection of Electronically Stored Information . I had been invited to speak at and to co-chair the LexisNexis conference there, and Senior Master Whitaker was in Singapore anyway at the invitation of the Singapore courts. My article about it LexisNexis eDiscovery Conference in Singapore made it clear that I expected Singapore to become a source of interesting and positive developments in the e-disclosure / e-discovery market.

Singapore is of particular interest in that, whilst it clings (quite rightly) to the proper term “discovery”, its discovery rules are firmly based on the disclosure rules of England & Wales. It has the luxury of taking the best of developments in other jurisdictions which, whatever they call the process, require the preservation and exchange of documents. Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers