Legal Tech Blog

Archive for the ‘Litigation Support’ Category

Multnomah County Courthouse Open House

Posted on: April 14th, 2016 by Angel Falconer

We have blogged previously about some of the improvements we would like to see at the new courthouse. Next week is your opportunity to share your own ideas and learn more about the new Multnomah County Courthouse. Attend the open house in person next Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4-6 PM or online at the project’s website.

A Courthouse Wish List

Posted on: April 7th, 2015 by Angel Falconer

Anyone who has provided assistance in trial presentation will identify with this. When I go to trial I bring with me everything you might expect: miscellaneous office supplies, several volumes of paper exhibits, a rolling bookcase, a laptop, small printer, second monitor, splitter, and if I’m sharing equipment with opposing counsel, a switch; and since most courtrooms were not built with any of this technology or the extra set of hands required to run all of it in mind, I find I usually also need a chair, small desk, projector, a table for my projector, sometimes my own projection screen, speakers, lots of cords, extensions for all those cords, power strips, my own personal hot spot, and plenty of duct tape. Most judges and court personnel are very friendly and accommodating, and I do my best to try to make all this extra gear fade into the background, but unfortunately, sometimes, despite my best efforts, cords that extend to the opposite side of the room get in the way, there is no ideal place to project evidence onto a screen without blinding someone, binders overwhelm witnesses and attorneys, and my presence behind counsel’s table, with all this equipment, does not go unnoticed. The good news is that any distraction it causes is temporary and is outweighed by the benefits of being able to publish and annotate key evidence for the jury and display dynamic demonstrative exhibits for them without fumbling around with large poster boards (not to mention the advantage of being able to edit them on the fly). However, hauling it through security (often up stairs in buildings that also weren’t built for ADA compliance), setting it up and breaking it all down (sometimes several times to make way for other court proceedings) can be time consuming and very difficult. It sure would be nice if courtrooms were designed to handle modern-day trial presentations, and as Multnomah County considers plans for the new courthouse, I hope that they’ll make a few improvements. Here are some suggestions that would help with some of the biggest obstacles:

  • Several power outlets located at counsel’s table;
  • Empty shelves behind counsel’s table and in the witness stand;
  • Speakers, large projection screen, and monitors that both sides can tie into and positioned so that everyone in the courtroom can see and hear the evidence;
  • Lighting designed for displaying electronic evidence;
  • Space behind counsel’s table for a paralegal or someone else hired to assist with trial presentation (maybe even a small desk or table?);
  • Internet access.

Obviously, the most important thing is that we build a secure courthouse that won’t crumble in an earthquake, but I think there’s also an opportunity to design it for the courtroom technology that attorneys and jurors have come to rely on and expect.

[Revised] Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Posted on: April 4th, 2014 by Angel Falconer and Josh Ross

Now that the public comments period has closed for the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we thought it was time to do a more in-depth follow up to our post about Judge Scheindlin’s criticism of the proposed changes.  Rather than reading all of the thousands of written submissions (you can do that here) we did a breakdown of all of the speakers’ comments at the public hearings before the advisory committee and reviewed the materials that will be considered at their next meeting here in Portland, OR next week.  Read more…

Trial Presentation Made Easy

Posted on: January 8th, 2014 by Steve Larson and Angel Falconer

The following article was published originally on December 19, 2013 in the American Bar Association Class Actions and Derivative Suits Litigation Committee Fall 2013, Vol. 24 No. 1 newsletter.

Jurors, trial judges, and arbitrators have grown to expect that lawyers will use technology in the courtroom to help present the evidence. As a result, lawyers must know how to manage the trial exhibits, demonstrative aids, and other visuals to be used at trial in an electronic environment.

With all of the new apps available for the iPad and other tablets, a lawyer can now do much more on his or her own. Complex cases like class actions, however, typically have a large number of trial exhibits, videotaped testimony, and fact patterns that involve hard-to-grasp issues that require more sophisticated demonstrative aids. In those cases, it can be invaluable to have an assistant who can rapidly find and display trial exhibits, visually connect a piece of testimony to a demonstrative exhibit, and pull up videotaped deposition testimony for impeachment.

Many capable, independent third parties offer their services to assist with trial presentation. An in-house paralegal experienced in current trial presentation software, however, provides several advantages over an outside consultant:

First, an in-house paralegal may be as familiar with the documents as the lawyer, if not more so. That familiarity makes the process of calling out or highlighting a specific part of a document very smooth. It also makes the process easier if the lawyer goes off-script during the course of his or her presentation. Jurors, judges, and arbitrators notice and appreciate that a lawyer and trial assistant work well together.

Second, an in-house paralegal has a more hands-on role pretrial than an outside consultant and therefore will be familiar with the witnesses, themes of the case, and what demonstrative aids are intended to emphasize. He or she will often be able to suggest a trial exhibit to use for cross-examination and may offer a layperson’s perspective on how the evidence is unfolding during trial.

Third, it is easier to practice opening statements and closing arguments when working with someone in-house. The lawyer will have the opportunity to practice different approaches before trial because in-house paralegals are in the office almost every day. And the paralegal’s feedback could lead to important changes to how and in what order visuals are used during opening statements and closing arguments.

It may seems like a huge undertaking to train a paralegal to use the necessary hardware and software, but a few simple steps can make it relatively painless.

Trial presentation software programs offer customized training solutions, including on-site training for lawyers and staff and thorough written materials. Then it’s just a matter of practice, practice, practice. Starting as early as possible with building the trial database and practicing with case evidence in the database will give the paralegal the opportunity to see what works, identify technical problems, make corrections and adjustments, or seek out more training in advance of trial.

Going through the practice sessions together multiple times will help the lawyer and paralegal learn the best ways to communicate with each other. A paralegal who knows the case may also be able to help the lawyer refine the message. Others who sit in on a practice session can provide additional feedback.

Courtroom logistics are a critical part of trial presentation. Coordinate with courtroom personnel in advance to make sure that equipment and additional furniture can be accommodated (there might not be room at counsel’s table for your paralegal). Visit the courtroom to get a feel for the layout, including where to access electrical outlets, set up a projector or monitors, and place demonstrative aids. You should also figure out where the attorney can best engage the jury while being able to communicate with the paralegal. The technology available in courtrooms varies greatly; you may need to make arrangements with opposing counsel to share some of the technology, such as monitors or projectors. If possible, set up and test all equipment the day before trial to prevent disasters from happening later on.

There is no replacement for experience, but the more the lawyer and paralegal practice together, the more confident both will be in each other’s abilities.

Given the potential for better performance, increased satisfaction from the fact-finder, more peace of mind for the trial lawyer, and lower costs for the client, using an in-house paralegal for trial presentation is an alternative that should be considered.

© 2013 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

E-Discovery Sifting Through the Electronic Era

Posted on: May 6th, 2013 by Josh Ross and Angel Falconer

The following article originally appeared in the Spring 2013 issue of Trial Lawyer magazine, the quarterly journal of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.

Although electronic discovery has been a regular part of litigation for many years, dealing with the many facets of identifying, collecting, managing, storing, requesting and producing electronically stored information (ESI) remains a daunting task. Frankly, it can be a headache. Over the past decade, the increased focus on electronic discovery has created a morass of disputes, costs and stresses for litigators and their clients.  Adequately dealing with discovery of ESI requires a careful balance of competing interests: the need to fully investigate and uncover all potential evidence, and the desire to work efficiently and cost-effectively without bankrupting your client.

Despite volumes of articles, commentaries and blogs written on e-discovery – not to mention legal opinions – some lawyers choose to ignore it.  For example, we represented a plaintiff in an accounting malpractice case a few years ago. The defendant produced key memoranda that we suspected were modified prior to production in litigation. To find out, we served a supplemental request for those documents in native format, including metadata showing when the documents were created, revised and printed. The opposing counsel’s written response read, in part: The request “is unduly burdensome and vague. We do not know what it means, or what a response would look like.”  Read more…

Invest in the Future Now: Law Professors Suggest a Paradigm Shift in How Law Firms Should Operate

Posted on: March 12th, 2013 by Angel Falconer

Last week, ReInventLaw, sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation and Michigan State University, held the first of a series of  TED style talks to discuss the future of law practice and the changes in technology and regulation we might see.  The ReInvent Law Laboratory was founded by MSU professors Daniel Martin Katz and Renee Newman Knate.  Its message is simple: Innovation. Technology. Entrepreneurship.  Professor Katz teaches e-discovery at MSU, one of very few law schools that offer such courses, and he has a warning to firms that continue to ignore the storm brewing and fail to invest in the tools required to deliver legal services in the 21st century: invest or lose out.

http://computationallegalstudies.com/2013/03/10/innovation-in-legal-the-future-is-already-here-it-is-just-not-evenly-distributed-slides-by-professor-daniel-martin-katz-reinventlaw-laboratory-msu-law/

Insourcing Litigation Support – Part Two

Posted on: March 7th, 2013 by Matthew Clover, Angel Falconer and Josh Ross

In Part One of this series we provided an overview of the reasons we decided to primarily insource our e-discovery processes. In this post, we will cover the investment associated with the initial setup, and maintenance of, an insourced e-discovery program. Our firm invested an initial outlay of funds to get up and running, and regularly invests in the costs associated with maintaining the system. The initial investment might include hardware to run the back end databases, and the software for processing, reviewing, and producing documents. Insourcing also increases the complexity for the IT department, especially in smaller firms that have smaller departments, as you will likely be working with a database server for the back end of one or more of your e-discovery applications. Lastly, insourcing will affect your storage, backup, and archiving strategy, not to mention creating its own specific issues for IT to troubleshoot. However, our experience shows that we (and our clients) save money over the long run by insourcing.

Read more…

Insourcing Litigation Support – Part 1

Posted on: January 25th, 2013 by Angel Falconer, Matthew Clover and Josh Ross

Recently, we’ve seen a few pieces about the various reasons law firms bring litigation support in house (insource), including e-discovery processes, or outsource all litigation support to third-party vendors or co-counsel.  These articles got us talking about our own choice to bring much of this work in house. Read more…

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.

About this blog

The goal of this blog is to provide a forum for discussing issues related to technology used in law firm and case management, and share information about CLEs, legal opinions, articles and products that may interest Oregon practitioners in the area of e-discovery.

About the author

  • Angel Falconer

  • Angel Falconer
  • Angel Falconer is Stoll Berne's Litigation Support Manager. She supports attorneys and clients through the entire litigation process and has worked on cases involving the securities laws, complex commercial disputes, class actions, unfair competition and trade secrets. Angel has expertise directing large-scale discovery projects and helps manage Stoll Berne's in-house e-discovery systems. Angel supervises electronic evidentiary presentations in arbitration hearings and in state and federal trial courts.
Follow stollberne on Twitter

Subscribe to this blog