apps
Recently I tried three, and reluctantly settled on one. After a long chat with the founder of one of the others, I’m thinking again. Not so long ago, I tried out three apps designed for lawyers to handle paperless bundles: to make them, and use them. As I explained,
bundles
tl;dr: Not without some pain, and considerable cost if you’re a solo practitioner. But we have a winner. Albeit at the cost of breaking a fundamental rule of British journalism.* It turns out my blog on nested emails struck a chord. Several cries of pain rang out. Clearly
attachments
A heartfelt plea from a non-Windows, non-Outlook user: sending a string of emails, containing other emails, containing attachments, is a huge timesuck. Think how much advice I could’ve given in the time I spent disentangling it… I’ll keep this short. Sending Counsel nested emails is a waste of
bundles
OK, I would say that, because the QBD requirements are pretty similar to what I’d advocate. Nonetheless, this is the shortest, clearest exposition I’ve seen. I’d go with it. The torrent of official and quasi-official advice emanating from the judiciary about how the legal system can run
annotation
I’m not saying it’s unheard of. But it’s vanishingly rare to find a barrister who works on paper and who doesn’t festoon her bundle with sticky notes – whether purpose-made and translucent, or torn-up Post-Its. Combined with cardboard tabs to create sections, it works. But in a
bundles
As I may have mentioned, I can’t say I’m upset at the demise (at least for the moment) of the paper bundle, and the normalisation of delivering a soft one. But what if you’re instead faced with all kinds of disparate files, and you’re the one
bundles
The idea of surviving without back-breaking bundles of paper fills many barristers with an existential dread. Not me… I’ve still got a picture of the day my first red-tape-tied bundle arrived. I was grinning like an idiot. I’m sure most of us remember that. Somehow we get misty-eyed