Paper v. Technology
One obvious place to save money in litigation might appear to be
cutting out all of the fancy technology, along with its associated equipment
and support personnel. While one could make a simple argument in support of
that move, looking a little deeper can show that exactly the opposite is likely
to occur – the client may actually spend far more to go “old-school,” using
nothing but binders full of exhibits.
Technology can pay
for itself
If you've been through even one trial, you are well-aware
that the hourly time clock spins no faster than when it supports an entire trial
team working long hours, often traveling to the venue and setting up a remote war room. It has been estimated that compared to a hard-copy exhibit trial,
using technology can cut trial time by as much as 30-50%, and can increase the
volume of evidence admitted and displayed by a similar amount. A recent award of $1.03 million in costs was granted in a classic courtroom battle of paper vs. technology. In this case,
Plaintiff’s counsel shared, “I think we would have been here a lot longer
without the technology to pull things up.” Technology can pay for itself.
Costs may be recoverable
When you prevail, many of your trial prep and presentation
expenses may be included in your recoverable costs. While the example referenced above may be leaning toward the high end
just a bit, with the total of verdict plus interest in excess of $100
million, (about 1%), it doesn't appear quite so excessive. At the close of a
successful case (Plaintiff or Defendant), we are often asked to help clarify what
to include in a motion to recover costs for things like graphics, trial prep,
and in-court trial presentation. One thing is undisputed – If you don’t ask for
it, you (or your client, actually) will be footing the bill. While you might
not be awarded 100% of these costs, the majority of outside expenses are
generally covered.
Malpractice claims
can be costly
In the matter referenced above, Defendant’s counsel states, “Jurors
can make decisions without the benefit of graphics and without trial
technicians putting graphics on a screen.” While that statement may be true
without any further qualification, one must also consider whether jurors might
make better decisions when aided with
the benefit of demonstratives and the ability to see the key text of each
exhibit. One reader comment offers a final bit of food for thought: “Very good
article, raises some interesting points about what one needs to do for trial,
could open up the flood gates of malpractice for those that don't. Could make
for interesting strategy discussions.”