THis is interesting. I wonder how they
calculated their cost. No wait. Maybe I don't even want to know.
This should just be starting out. Well, most people prefer paper
documents than screen documents. In the case for e-filing legal
paperwork, it's going to save tonnes of paper, if done correctly of
course, but not that the lawyers care.
SEPT 30, 2003
E-filing? It's more paperwork, more cost
Courts to slash e-filing fees after survey shows up variety of
problems; even judges don't find system easy to use
By Selina Lum and Karen Ho
WHEN electronic filing arrived at Singapore courts three years ago,
technology was meant to speed up the legal process, link lawyers'
firms with the courts seamlessly and do away with paperwork.
Now a survey of law firms has shown that things have not turned out
that way at all.
Instead, the firms say e-filing has proven time-consuming, added to
their workload and resulted in higher costs for clients.
And even firms that embraced change most speedily are taking no
chances - they still keep paper records of all their
e-documents.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced measures to improve the $29
million e-filing system, following recommendations by a review
committee appointed by Chief Justice Yong Pung How earlier this
year.
The committee found that even judges and judicial officers did not
use the system, and preferred to rely on hard copies of
documents.
The instability and slowness of the e-system meant they did not
gain much in productivity or efficiency either.
From Oct 15, all e-filing fees will be slashed by 20 per cent,
except for fees for lawyers to serve papers on another party. The
15 per cent surcharge for filings at the service bureaus at the
City Hall Building and Apollo Centre will also be removed.
Penalty charges for filings rejected by the system will either be
waived or capped at $25.
And trial bundles, which are usually voluminous, will no longer
have to be e-filed. That will make for 'significant savings', the
Supreme Court said in a statement yesterday.
Implemented on March 1, 2000, the e-system was meant for lawyers to
file and serve documents electronically and for the courts to store
and retrieve documents.
It was to pave the way for paperless courts, save physical storage
costs and cut long queues at the courts' registry counters.
Big firms bought into the e-system more speedily than medium-sized
ones and small firms were slowest to adapt.
The review team noted several benefits of the system, including the
fact that law firms can file documents 24 hours a day.
Still, the rumbles of unhappiness evident from Day 1 came through
clearly in the survey of 136 out of the 776 law practices
here.
This is a sampling of what emerged:
Two-thirds said e-filing had increased the time spent filing
documents. Scanning documents was time-consuming, and if there was
a transmission glitch, everything had to be scanned all over
again.
Almost nine in 10 - and all the large firms - said e-filing
increased the cost of litigation for their clients.
Four in five - and all the large firms - printed out hard copies of
documents filed in the courts.
While the review committee noted that the e-system had 'made
lawyers jump from the 19th century to the 21st', there were
technical, design and cost problems to be addressed.
The most pressing need was to deal with the cost issues raised by
the firms, it felt.
Lawyers interviewed yesterday welcomed the news that e-filing
charges would be cut, saying the operational costs have proven
'prohibitive', especially for small and medium-sized firms.
Sole proprietor Amolat Singh said clients will enjoy direct savings
from the doing-away with the filing of trial bundles, which can
range from a few hundred to more than 1,000 pages per case.
Now it costs $1 per page, billed to the client.
Mr Simon Tan, a director of Attorneys Inc. LLC, thought the
e-system was simply 'a white elephant because no one really refers
to these electronic documents in court'.
Copyright @ 2003 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.