Entire Issue - National Association of Legal Assistants

lawyers and assistants can see the names of all participants
monitoring the Internet deposition. They can also read either
public messages posted to the entire group or private messages
sent directly to them.
On one part of the screen, the court reporter’s real-time
transcript scrolls along as the words are spoken. While the proceeding
is in progress, associates, co-counsel or assistants can
begin marking obvious testimony points in the transcript for
later review as well as adding notes to any section.
As the deposition progresses, lawyers can instantly object
to portions of testimony by clicking a drop-down menu with
several types of objections, such as relevance, asked-andanswered,
etc. The lawyer then clicks the “send” button and all
parties hear the objection spoken by a synthesized voice and
see it appear in the transcript.
Online deposition transcripts are automatically synchronized
with the streaming audio and video. When lawyers or
other legal professionals edit the transcript for pre-trial preparation
of witnesses or to select significant portions for use at trial,
they are simultaneously editing the video. This can save the
firm and its client hundreds or thousands of dollars in video
post-production costs.
Before Internet depositions, videoconferencing was used
for remote participation in legal proceedings, but it required a
large video camera, bright lights and a videographer to operate
the equipment. Internet depositions require less equipment and
no videographer. The costs are much less, and the unobtrusive
equipment is less distracting or intimidating to the witness.
Process Service Automation
Clearing firms are now in place to automate those segments
of the process service industry that have long frustrated
lawyers—namely, the service of papers in other jurisdictions.
Process service is a huge industry—a $3.6 billion
market handling about 100-million documents annually. But it
is also a “mom and pop” kind of business with thousands of
little firms scattered across America. Many service only their
own locality, and this “local” mindset explains many of the
industry’s limitations. It works well locally, but once a lawyer
seeks to serve papers in another jurisdiction, the system falters.
Generally, the responsibility for getting such inter-jurisdictional
papers served falls on the legal assistant. Until now, paralegals
have had two options—both bad.
With one option, the legal assistant locates a process server
in the area to be served, negotiates a price, sends the papers to
the process server, then follows up to ensure that the papers are
served properly. This involves establishing a business relationship
with an unknown entity for a one-time transaction. Because
there is no likelihood of repeat business, the process serving firm
has no incentive to provide the same level of service that it offers
its regular customers. The law firm is gambling that it has selected
a reliable firm, and even when it is right, the shepherding of
the papers requires an inordinate amount of time.
The other option is for the law firm to assign the job to its
local process-serving firm. They, in turn, subcontract the job to
a firm in the other jurisdiction and follow up to make sure that
it’s done right. Although interjurisdictional process service pays
much higher margins, most firms regard it as a nuisance and
provide it only to maintain their customer base. They call it
“foreign” process and treat it accordingly.
Compounding the problem is the fact that some process
servers fail to comply with the requirement that papers must be
served according to the rules of the original jurisdiction.
Rather than check on the rules of the original jurisdiction,
many find it quicker and easier to follow the more familiar
rules of their own locality. As a result, about half of all interjurisdictional
serves are not completed correctly, and many
have to be repeated.
An obvious solution is to turn the job over to a “clearing”
company that can handle the work expeditiously and provide a
high level of supervision. In the past few years, such “clearing”
companies have begun to provide law firms with more reliable
inter-jurisdictional service. However, they are still something of
an innovation, and many law firms are unfamiliar with them.
Here’s how they work:
First, the legal assistant initiates the process by contacting
the service provider by phone, fax or e-mail and telling them
that papers are ready to be delivered. The lawyer’s office receives
immediate confirmation automatically by fax, e-mail or online.
Next, the service provider’s system automatically dispatches
a courier to pick up the papers. An expediter simultaneously
assigns the job to a process server in the target area. The
documents are then transported to the service provider’s office,
where they are scanned into the system and either e-mailed,
faxed or shipped to the process server.
The system then monitors the service process until it is
completed successfully and provides online status reports to the
law firm 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Once the paper is
served, the system automatically notifies the lawyer, and a
proof of service is generated, executed by the server, and
shipped overnight to the law firm.
End-to-End E-Procurement
Law firms are already using the most basic form of e-procurement
simply by buying products and services over the Internet.
Many may even be using software packages that automate the
Internet ordering process. Using a system such as this can save
time and cut postage and paper costs, but without integration to
back-office finance systems, the firm misses out on the largest
opportunities for savings. Taking full advantage of e-procurement
means tying the firm’s procurement system not only into its financial
system but into the systems of its suppliers as well.
continued on page 24
FACTS & FINDINGS / AUGUST 2003 23