eDisclosure Information Project

Last week was meant to be one of high output. Most of the videos from earlier events are completed and published, and my son Will is filling my Inbox with drafts of the Legaltech videos. There are pending events to promote (like the Nuix one which I have just written about) and a new disclosure judgment in England and Wales (Serco v MoD, which I have also just written about).

One interruption last week was a scheduled one – to hospital going under anaesthetic so that a camera could be winched down my throat (all clear, thank you). The open road to a publication stream lay before me.

That night, however, my mother died down in Suffolk. This was not truly unexpected – she was 89, and we were told she was dying last June, so she had a pretty good run after that. I mentioned this briefly on Twitter and was quite overwhelmed with the reaction, from people I actually know, people I know only on Twitter, and people I don’t know at all. It was an uplifting experience. Continue reading →

The UK’s Ministry of Defence has, unfortunately for it, become the reverse poster child for disclosure by UK government departments. Its most recent reverse comes in a judgment by Mr Justice Fraser in Serco Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2019] EWHC 515 (TCC) (28 February 2019).

My thanks to Litigation Futures for spotting this and for its helpful summary.

I have more sympathy for the MoD over the 2010 Al-Sweady judgment than I did when I first wrote about it (see Al-Sweady v Secretary of State for Defence: blame for e-Disclosure failures gets personal – and public.

This is partly because of what we now know about the origin of those proceedings, and partly because of other factors, including lack of investment in IT systems, the nature of military operations, and the need for military secrecy. The judgment’s continuing value as a source of instruction lies in its lessons about the importance of explaining properly and timeously what the problems are, and for the fact that a named army officer was criticised personally for his work by the Court of Appeal. I wrote this, quoting the Court of Appeal:

Accordingly, if [insert your own name here] continues to be put forward as a principal or even a significant witness in judicial review proceedings or if he is in any way responsible for disclosure, it is our view that any court seized of those proceedings should approach his evidence with the greatest caution.

The words in brackets which stand substitute for the officer’s actual name are mine. I added that “I would work quite hard to ensure that the name in that sentence was not mine”. Continue reading →

An article called The informed patient by Dr Helen Salisbury in the British Medical Journal interested me not merely because I am an occasional patient at Dr Salisbury’s practice, but because what she says in the article is similar to a change in ideas in the relationship between professional advisers (lawyers and eDiscovery providers in my world) and their clients.

The central part of Dr Salisbury’s article is about patients who feel apologetic – guilty, even – about having researched their symptoms before approaching the doctor:

the apology I find the most surprising is when patients “admit” to having informed themselves about their symptoms or illness. “I’m sorry doctor, I know I shouldn’t . . .” they start, apologising for what’s surely the most obvious response to an unfamiliar symptom—looking it up online

Patients seem to fear being “disrespectful” at apparently “casting aspersions” at the doctor’s expertise. They are expecting this reaction:

Dr Salisbury says that what she is looking for is “a meeting between equals, working together to solve a problem”. Continue reading →

For 12 years or so, this blog has had the address www.chrisdale.wordpress.com. We have now changed it to www.chrisdaleoxford.com.

This is neater and ties in with the name I use for email, Twitter and Skype. The blog itself has stayed in the same place, with redirects handling old links.

We have had a report from one organisation to the effect that clicking on links in the  email notifications can result in unattractive formatting. That link was necessarily made from an old email notification (because there have been no new ones since the change of URL yesterday) and we don’t know whether the formatting results from the redirect, from that user’s browser, or from some other cause.

The only way to send out new email notifications is to publish a blog post, and this is it. Can I please ask those who receive notification emails to click on the link in the email and let me know whether you see the blog post and, if so, if it is properly formatted.

It would be helpful to have both positive and negative feedback, together with the identity of the browser used.

It would be extra helpful, if you do get a failure, if you were to go on to paste the URL directly into the browser and see if that works properly. This will help narrow the field for enquiry.

Many thanks for your help.

Home

This is a Friday afternoon post which, though it is relevant to discovery, is more about using observation and investigation to draw conclusions about photographs. Evidence does not always come in neat electronic packages or from the mouth of an unimpeachable witness.

The picture of Prague at left is taken from the article which made me think about the subject, which I discuss below. In that case, the ambition was to try and work out roughly when it was taken.

On that same theme, here is a picture of Piccadilly Circus and Shaftesbury Avenue in London, widely available via Google with the description “London 1930s”. I will come back to it at the end, after looking at the Prague article.

Continue reading →