{"id":571,"date":"2014-07-14T15:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-07-14T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hub.findingsimple.com\/au\/electronic-documents-can-law-office-go-paperless\/"},"modified":"2022-08-03T16:04:44","modified_gmt":"2022-08-03T05:04:44","slug":"electronic-documents-can-law-office-go-paperless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.au\/legal\/posts\/electronic-documents-can-law-office-go-paperless","title":{"rendered":"Electronic Documents… Can Law Offices Go Paperless?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Are legal records worth the paper they\u2019re written on? Electronic documents and records are replacing their paper counterparts in many sectors, but the legal industry is taking longer to adapt. While electronic records provide the security that crucial information is backed up should something happen to your office, can online legal documents fulfil the same evidentiary requirements and benefits as paper copies?<\/p>\n

Paper use is dying hard in the law office. In part this is down to habit, but there are also key legal ramifications for using hard copy \u2013 in particular, the notion that electronic copies can be tampered with.<\/p>\n

To get an idea of how attached lawyers are to paper, document-management company Fuji Xerox commissioned a study called Paper Still the Rule for Australian Law Firms<\/a>. It sampled 100 Australian law firms with fewer than 300 employees, and discovered astonishing results.<\/p>\n

According to the survey, 80 per cent of law firms still printed all or most of the documents they received electronically, while 79 per cent use hard copies when exchanging documents with other firms. The survey found the dominant reasons for using hard copies was force of habit, with legal requirements running a close second. Ease of access came in third.<\/p>\n

The legal ramifications<\/span><\/h4>\n

In the past, the law stipulated that lawyers must keep hard copies of documents for seven years, which explains some of the resistance against relying purely on electronic files. However, the Evidence Act 1995<\/i> states that in the majority of instances original documents are no longer required, and copies of documents are as good (and as admissible) as original documents in most legal proceedings. This Act applies to all Commonwealth jurisdictions, as well as several states \u2013 including NSW and Tasmania \u2013 that have adopted the law.<\/p>\n

Of course, it would be possible to call into account the integrity of the machine used to produce the electronic document or the copy of the original paper version. However, section 146(2) of the Act states it is reasonable to assume that if a machine produces a given output in the course of its normal use, then the output of the machine can be considered to have integrity with the hard copy.<\/p>\n

The practicalities of electronic versus paper<\/span><\/h4>\n

In theory, then, it is perfectly feasible for law firms to go completely electronic. However, whether it\u2019s practical for them to do so remains another matter.<\/p>\n

Global law firm King & Wood Mallesons<\/a> has examined how the legal fraternity uses electronic documents. The firm\u2019s overview found that although evidence laws had changed to accommodate electronic recordkeeping, lawyers still faced several key challenges when using electronic records versus soft copies. These included:<\/p>\n