Since starting Atkinson-Baker over twenty years ago, we have kept ahead of technology in the legal field in many ways. We were one of the pioneers of online scheduling, realtime reporting, e-transcripts and more, and we won an award for our client-accessible database.
One of our commitments we made many years ago, and have adhered to, is to not let technology take over the handling of our customer service in any way. We have made sure we use new technology to enhance our service by giving more flexibility to our clients with scheduling, calendar changing and accessing transcripts online and providing immediate, “live voice” support, 24/7.
We know that you have a choice when choosing court reporting services and we continue to appreciate your business. Please let us know how we can improve our service – technological or otherwise – because, even after two decades, our main priority is to give you everything you need.
Simple Technology in Litigation
By Barbara Lynch, Staff Writer
Recently I came across a short piece spotlighting Chicago’s Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott (The American Lawyer’s 2008 Litigation Boutique of the Year) whose high-tech backbone drives their trial preparation and gives them the edge in their trial presentations.
Philip Beck, one of the firm’s top litigators, gave his view on why his firm is different than others when working with technology:
“We are all hands-on users of technology, both for trial preparation and trial presentation. In the office (including remote trial offices) we have immediate access to whatever information has been stored on the computers, and we can sort it and analyze it instantaneously, without waiting for help from support personnel.
Most senior litigators are still pretty computer illiterate, at least when it comes to anything beyond e-mail. A lot of younger litigators are adept at back-office technology, but few of them can do anything more than run through a PowerPoint show in the courtroom.
By Christine Taylor, Taneja Group, Technology Analysts
There are a lot of lessons to be learned about e-discovery from the many court cases that have been affected one way or another by the ability to or the failure to produce documents during the legal process. Take the case of Legaretta v. AstraZeneca. When defendant AstraZeneca produced documents for opposing counsel to review, it did not include searchable metadata on the millions of documents. In fact, it included TIFF files that ran to tens of thousands of pages each; some documents were so large that only high-end workstations could open them; and — the crowning glory — there were no page breaks in nearly 4 million pages out of 10 million documents.
Ultimately the court dismissed the case, although the judge complained bitterly about the defendant’s poor production practices. Many other litigants are not so lucky.
Production can seem like the poor stepchild of the e-discovery process. Earlier steps like collection and review directly impact the company. But once the massive body of produced work leaves their premises then it is no longer the company’s problem — it’s the opposing counsel’s problem.
» The bench in the middle of a Westminster parliament is 2 1/2 sword lengths long. This is to keep both the government and the opposition at least a sword’s length away from each other in case of a heated debate.
» The only seven letter word in the English language that contains ten words without rearranging any of its letters is “therein” — the, there, he, in, rein, her, here, here, ere, therein, and herein.
» The fingerprints of a koala bear are virtually identical to the patterns of a human’s, so much so that they could be confused with each other at a crime scene.