The high-profile Berezovsky-Abramovich case was the first paperless trial in the UK. Maria Shahid talks to the man behind the software – and the lawyers who've tried it – about its wider adoption

Billed as the biggest trial in the British courts in terms of value, the case brought in 2011 by Boris Berezovsky against fellow Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich was always going to attract plenty of interest.

With accusations of blackmail, breach of trust and breach of contract, as well as a damages claim of £3.8bn, the scene was set for high drama. The ensuing litigation proved to be a first on a number of counts, not least for being the first case to be heard at the High Court's commercial arm, the Rolls Building.

Housing three new 'super courts', as well as full Wi-Fi access throughout, the hi-tech new venue also provided the ideal setting for the UK's first truly paperless trial.

The dispute dated back to the mid-1990s, a murky time in Russia's recent history that saw the creation of oil giant Sibneft. Berezovsky claimed that he owned an interest in Sibneft, which Abramovich coerced him into selling at a considerable undervalue. Abramovich (pictured) denied the claim.

Most of the disclosure documents dated back 15 years, so the volume of documentation in question was unprecedented. With seven barristers on Abramovich's legal team, and nine on Berezovsky's (not to mention the five law firms instructed during the case), the trial bundles required – each filling around 200 lever arch files and costing around £26,000 – would have been "enough to fill up a whole room" according to Brick Court's Edward Harrison, a junior barrister on Abramovich's team.

"For each party to have had a complete set of trial bundles would simply have been unworkable," adds Addleshaw Goddard's Mark Hastings, who acted on behalf of Berezovsky in the proceedings.

It was inevitable that some form of trial software would be brought into play, and the case became the ideal candidate for the Magnum cloud, described by the man behind it, Graham Smith-Bernal, as "the world's first cloud-based trial management system".

Once the trial bundle content was agreed by the parties, the relevant documents were organised in exactly the same way as a hard-copy trial bundle and then uploaded into the cloud. Members of the legal teams – notably older members of counsel – who still wanted hard copies could simply print them off.

"A huge benefit of the system is the amount of paper saved," says Smith-Bernal. "It replicates what you would want to do with a hard copy, which is why it is so successful."

Smith-Bernal was also the man behind LiveNote, the popular litigation software system used for the management of court transcripts that is now owned by Thomson Reuters. He explains that Magnum is an extension of LiveNote, allowing online access to all case materials, not just court transcripts.

For an 'average' case requiring around 50 lever arch files of roughly 3,000 documents, the upload charge to the system would be about £10,000 (charged at £200 per hour). On top of this there is a user access fee, charged per user, per week, which varies from £50 to £100 an hour based on how early in the proceedings the system is adopted.

Lisa Burton, director of professional services at legal technology and business process outsourcing provider Unified, explains that Magnum "bridges an enormous gap in the legal process".

Before the introduction of Magnum, she says, trial bundles were transferred from internal databases into trial software such as TrialDirector and Sanction. Running alongside this software, LiveNote provided real-time access to court transcripts.

By creating a "secure workspace", Smith-Bernal believes the software not only holds advantages for trials, but also for other proceedings such as arbitrations and, in particular, international arbitrations, allowing arbitrators from different countries access to a communal workspace and pooled resources.

Similarly, in litigation, members of legal teams who are not physically present in the court room can nonetheless be involved in proceedings and know exactly what's going on, as well as communicate with the rest of their team, simply by logging onto a secure server using their own device.

European counsel Kambiz Larizadeh, one of the team at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom that acted for Abramovich, found that one of great strengths of the cloud-based package was its ability to adapt to the requirements of the lawyers involved.

So, for example, lawyers were able to annotate documents online and then set up an email alert system for colleagues they wished to share the annotation with.

Judicial backing

In the Abramovich case, the trial software had the active encouragement of presiding judge Mrs Justice Gloster, who made her pro-technology stance clear at the start of the case.

A screen was set up in Court 26 of the Rolls Court, which brought up any documentation being referred to during the course of the trial. Members of the various legal teams accessed this screen from their own laptops and iPads – as well as any other additional devices they had – and searched relevant documents, again via Magnum, for their own background research.

A hyperlinking function allowed instant access to relevant exhibits when referred to in court. This proved to be a particularly popular feature with all lawyers involved.

"The hyperlinks were fantastic," says Hastings (pictured). "When witnesses were being cross-examined, relevant documents would just flash up on screen. Exhibits can otherwise take up many files."

The ability to listen to transcripts has also been widely praised for allowing those not present in court to take note of nuances of speech delivery that would have been lost from just reading a transcript.

One Essex Court's Richard Gillis QC, instructed by Hastings on behalf of Berezovsky, says that, from a barrister's point of view, a key benefit was the search function, allowing relevant documents to be found quickly for submissions and opening statements.

He admits the older generation at the Bar would undoubtedly need persuading, but believes that "when they see the way the system can crunch information, they will be converted".

But at Brick Court, Harrison is sceptical that the software will eventually lead to fully paperless trials: "It's not suited to cross-examination, where heavily marked-up documents are used. The annotation function of the software was not that straightforward, and it's much more convenient to mark up a hard copy."

Security issues

One aspect of the software that remains a concern for clients is its security. The Abramovich case had already faced problems when a hacker named Igor managed to access highly sensitive documents that were then delivered to Abramovich's Chelsea flat in an envelope.

Smith-Bernal acknowledges "there is an understandable paranoia" over security, but is quick to reassure, pointing to the high levels of security that are in place for his server: "We are monitoring security on our servers 24/7, constantly watching for hackers." The Magnum software uses two-phase login credentials (a username/password and a memorable word) similar to online banking.

Efficiency at a cost

Given the outlay required – not least in the management of such a system – the prevailing view is that, for now at least, Magnum is likely to remain the preserve of high-value, complex litigation.

Another potential hold-up to any wider adoption of paperless trials is the inability of some courts' existing infrastructure to support the technology required to make the system work correctly.

Many older court rooms would need a significant upgrade to allow for better internet connectability and screens that the relevant parties could see. And this technology would not necessarily be available for the jury to review when they retire, possibly meaning that paper copies would be needed anyway.

But in the longer term, Smith-Bernal believes his software will have a part to play in trials of all sizes. He refers to the Ministry of Justice's commitment to improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and providing a "simpler, swifter and more transparent service".

Part of this involves a commitment to "streamlined digital working", notably through the digital review and preparation of case files by the Crown Prosecution Service and the use of secure email.

It is clearly early days, and, for paperless trials to become more widely adopted, it will not only require significant investment in court room infrastructure, but also a change in mindset and working practices from some of the more seasoned litigators.

And while the number of software providers in this area is still limited, the cost benefits on major litigation mean this is not something that should be overlooked.

• Related: 'Like something out of a movie' – key players recount the dramatic Berezovsky-Abramovich face-off