Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31October 2016 LocalGovernmentLawyer 10 are reluctant to meet their expected share of the costs of the process”. In-house advocacy For the Dispute Resolution 2016 survey, we also looked at another strategy that some legal departments have been adopting in a bid to improve their handling of disputes – doing more advocacy in-house. One in five heads of legal and senior dispute resolution lawyers (22%) expect to increase ‘moderately’ the amount of advocacy done, while one in ten (9%) believe it will rise ‘sharply’. This compares to 58% saying it will stay broadly the same, and 9% suggesting it was ‘difficult to predict’. In what areas is this growth likely to happen? Prosecutions, housing, licensing and social care (children and adults) are seen by respondents as the areas where the possibilities are greatest. But increasing the amount of advocacy you do is seen as not without its difficulties. Among the problems identified are the resources needed for the more complicated, time-consuming matters, the difficulties of doing more advocacy where the team is small, and the recruitment of advocates with the right skills and experience. A more positive reason for continuing to use external counsel to the same degree as before is that they are seen as cost effective and flexible. Tech-savvy lawyers? The survey then looked at the extent to which legal departments are making use of the litigation technology available and found that such technology is used but not by all teams. Secure email and online data repositories are used by 79% of respondents’ teams. Matter management software is the next most widely-used (by 63% of respondents), followed by e- bundling (54%) and document assembly software (46%). E-disclosure software is used by fewer than one in four (23%). Some respondents note that the lack of resources means the money is simply not there for them to invest in technology. The size of the legal team can also affect whether they have access to technology, with larger teams and shared services often but not always better equipped. “We do not have such programmes, largely because we are too small and do not undertake sufficient cases to make such technology cost effective (at least in the short term) although we have been looking at some case management programmes,” reports one respondent. The technology is on the whole well received, although one lawyer says they have to use “lousy software chosen by managers who never use it”. More positive comments include that “it makes case management and progression much easier and more efficient. It saves on storage and archiving of paper bundles”. Another writes: “Case management systems are useful in the event other people need to take over the file. They however require users to have a strict discipline which is not readily adopted by solicitors.” One respondent meanwhile calls for more training on how to use the systems to their full capacity. Describing the technology as “very helpful”, one respondent nevertheless identifies a recurring issue when they add: “Better access to online connections in courts would be very helpful.” This issue of courts and other parties using different technology is echoed in other comments. “Often systems are incompatible,” reports one respondent. “It would be better if all litigators used the same system and litigants in person could be given temporary access or similar.” Another says technology has “limited usefulness, particularly when dealing with litigants in person, and in any event, in terms of limited memory capacity when transferring documents electronically”. No silver bullet Making better use of technology, pursuing ADR where it right to do so, and doing more advocacy in-house are just some of the ways in which council legal teams can adapt to a future of more claims, more litigants in person and greater pressure on resources. Successfully handling the broad range of disputes in which local authorities get involved remains a complex and challenging business, though. What the results of the Dispute Resolution 2016 survey show is that this task is likely to get tougher still. Philip Hoult is Editor of Local Government Lawyer. Fig 5 Fig 6 Among the problems identified are the resources needed for the more complicated, time-consuming matters, the difficulties of doing more advocacy where the team is small, and the recruitment of advocates with the right skills and experience. About the survey The survey was conducted amongst subscribers to the Local Government Lawyer newsletter up to July 2016. Sixty-two local authorities took part.