As legal professionals, we strive to improve the efficiency of our practice. One way to achieve this is by leveraging technology. I recall my days working at the electrical retail store Comet (before I entered the legal profession). During that time, I sold a lot of Apple products because they were known for their innovation and versatility, which made them suitable for use in various settings, including commercial environments.
I recall watching an impressive demonstration video showcasing a hotel in the US with a well-developed infrastructure. In this hotel, every staff member was provided with an iPad. Whenever a customer requested a dish such as egg benedict to be delivered to their room, the staff members would receive a notification or a ‘ping’ to fulfil the request. As a result, the customer’s request was attended to promptly.
I was amazed at how seamlessly the software and hardware worked together, eliminating the need for staff members to search for colleagues to complete tasks.
When I started working in the legal industry, I learned about Proclaim, a case management software that facilitates continuous workflow. However, there were certain processes that still lacked a modern approach. One such process was the exchanging of witness statements.
Snail mail exchange
As a former paralegal assistant to a senior solicitor, I recall that every day at a particular time, all the fee earners in the office would receive incoming mail. The solicitor would receive a large envelope in his ‘in tray’ with a label reading ‘DO NOTAL EXCHANGE TAKES PLACE’. OPEN UNTIL MUTUAL EXCHANGE TAKES PLACE’.
I found the concept interesting because I read about witness exchange in my civil litigation CILEX studies, but I had never seen it in practice. I asked him, ‘How would you know when to open it?’ and he replied, ‘Because I’ve already sent our witness statements in the post’.
It was a straightforward process that required trust in legal professionals not to open a witness statement before serving their client’s statements. One would naturally expect honesty from any member of the legal profession.
The issue was complying with the rules of service as per CPR when posting the witness statement.
Served out of time
CPR 6.26 contains a table that fee earners consulted to serve documents to third party solicitors:-
| Method of service | Deemed date of service |
|---|---|
| 1. First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) | The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that day. |
| 2. Document exchange | The second day after it was left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that day. |
| 3. Delivering the document to or leaving it at a permitted address | If it is delivered to or left at the permitted address on a business day before 4.30p.m., on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day. |
| 4. Fax | If the transmission of the fax is completed on a business day before 4.30p.m., on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the day on which it was transmitted. |
| 5. Other electronic method | If the e-mail or other electronic transmission is sent on a business day before 4.30p.m., on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after the day on which it was sent. |
| 6. Personal service | If the document is served personally before 4.30p.m. on a business day, on that day; or in any other case, on the next business day after that day. |
Although the post could be sent via recorded delivery and arrive the next day, the service was not considered effective until the second day after posting. This would add unnecessary pressure on fee earners to prepare witness statements for service.
Email service was a legitimate method of serving parties, but in situations where the other party refused to accept service via email. Without explicit consent from the other party, email service is deemed ineffective. When pressed for time, one may resort to desperate measures, such as faxing statements to third-party solicitors. I had to do this one and I took great pleasure in doing so when email service was refused by the Defendant’s Solicitors.
It’s quite strange, but COVID played a significant role in making e-mail services more common. Although it’s not always a foolproof way of receiving effective service, it’s highly unlikely for a third party to refuse service via email these days. In fact, some solicitors now seek permission for email service right from the beginning. It’s amazing how times have changed.
Technology and witness statements
Witness statements are now predominately served via email, utilising technology to ensure timely and valid evidence. In addition, we have the benefit that statements can be password protected and electronically signed by a witness. Additionally, there is the capability to present documents or items to a witness statement as evidence, including video footage which no longer requires to be burnt on a DVD or other removable media.
As hardware and software continue to develop, the possibilities for innovation are endless. Personally, I find it comforting to know that I can serve evidence on a third party without having to go through the arduous task of printing and posting them. As a consultant, my litigation work is done remotely. It can be difficult to get items printed and posted. I imagine the staff who handle my requests must get frustrated when they see my name pop up again, asking for printing to be done.
Yet some elements of CPR still require ‘hard copies’ to be posted. For example, Part 8 for MOJ stage 3 hearings:-
6.1 The claimant must file with the claim form—
(1) the Court Proceedings Pack (Part A) Form;
(2) the Court Proceedings Pack (Part B) Form (the claimant and defendant’s final offers) in a sealed envelope. (This provision does not apply where the claimant is a child and the application is for a settlement hearing);
99% of low value MOJ proceedings occur on an online portal, but final offers must be printed and submitted in sealed envelopes for adjudication in court. What a strange concept to have in this day and age. (As an additional comment, a judge became extremely upset with me when I informed them that the claimant had not surpassed the defendant’s offer. It appears that opening the envelope was the most exciting event of his day, and I deprived him of that thrill).
Whilst I appreciate there will always be those who would prefer paper files, there have been so many occasions where I am presented with a situation where a judge does not have the papers, and I’m able to e-mail the bundle to them with ease within seconds.
I remember explicitly telling someone that witness statements would be served by email as the primary method, despite that person’s doubts – that has happened. What is the next technological advancement?
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.