Legal Research

Computerized legal research costs

By Shaunna Mireau

I see a change coming on how Alberta Courts deal with costs for computerized legal research. Mr. Justice MacLeod in Aram Systems Ltd. v. NovAtel Inc., 2010 ABQB 152, wrote:

[23] With great respect to those decisions made at an earlier time, I think that the view of computerized legal research as a mere alternative is no longer consonant with the reality of current legal practice. Such research is now expected of counsel, both by their clients, who look to counsel to put forth the best possible case, and by the courts, who rely upon counsel to present the most relevant authorities. Indeed, it might be argued that a lawyer who chooses to forgo computerized legal research is negligent in doing so. This is particularly so given that many law firms and indeed governments are now cancelling hard copy subscriptions to legal resources in favour of the electronic versions. The practice of law has evolved to the point where computerized legal research is no longer a matter of choice.

[24] In response to Justice Watson?s reference to Bob Cratchit?s coal, I would point out that the disbursement claimed in these cases is for access to the legal databases and is based upon the time spent doing research for the particular client on the particular matter. There is no suggestion that the disbursement is meant to reimburse the law firm for the cost of computers as capital assets. In my view, disbursements for electronic legal research are similar to disbursements for photocopying; it is the copies, not the copiers, that are being paid for.

[25] Nevertheless, I am bound by the weight of authority and must therefore refuse to allow the disbursement. Perhaps the time has come for our Court of Appeal to revisit this issue, but in light of the existing authority, I am not in a position to do so.

Emphasis mine.

This is more of a handkerchief floating to earth than a gauntlet being dropped, but still, I see this as a call to action for modernizing how disbursement costs for computer assisted legal research are dealt with. I am certain that if legal research is performed for a matter today, a computerized gathering method is used for some part of that task. I feel confident suggesting that there is a fee paid to someone for a significant portion of the information required.

This issue of cost recovery for has come up on Slaw in the past. See Recovery of charges for searches on online databases redux and Judges and electronic searches and the many comments posted. While these posts deal with disbursements allowed by a taxing officer, similarities exist with reasons for costs in the cause.

Any suggestions from readers on where this issue is headed in 2010?

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on March 09, 2010 (boomark / email).