Information received by an engineering expert from a client attorney is filed by the date received by the expert using the format of year-month-day (such as 24-1-1 or 24-2-1 or 24-3-1) so the computer can sort the information into date order with the balance of the expert’s case files.
I have found that the computer file structure for cases used in law offices is not efficient when used by engineering experts that file incoming information by date. Lawyers and engineering experts work differently.
Law offices often transmit information to experts via a share-type file (share file) over the Internet. The share file can contain one file or many files. The best practice is for the paralegal to upload new information first into the file structure used by the law office for use by lawyers, and second into the expert’s share file using a dated file totally independent of the law office file structure. When new information arrives at the paralegal’s desk, the procedure is repeated.
Ultimately, the expert’s share file will consist of many dated files that reflect the date each information packet or file was added to the expert’s share file by the law office.
One advantage of this system is the circle of communication can be completed between the law office and the expert’s office. Because the dated files in the expert’s share file double as a permanent record by date of when information packets or files were added to the share file by the law office, it is easy for the expert to periodically confirm that the files the expert downloaded from the share file into the expert’s files are current.
The information in the expert’s share file becomes a record of the information the expert should have in the expert’s file on a date-by-date basis. Checking the share file information against the expert’s computer files can reduce errors such as when an email with a share file link is inadvertently: (1) sent to Junk (2) deleted or (3) missed, or (4) the share file link is downloaded into the wrong file by the expert. Sometimes the expert simply forgets to download some newly provided share file information.
I call the system outlined above the Ruth System after the paralegal that first introduced it to me in about 2020 (and later explained to me by other paralegals).
In contrast to the Ruth System, when the expert’s share file mimics the law office’s file structure, newly added information can be difficult if not impossible for the expert to locate in the gigabytes (GB) or terabytes (TB) of information leaving the expert to hunt for the newly added information similar to trying to find a needle in a haystack.
A filing system that works for a lawyer doesn’t necessarily work for an expert. Even when the paralegal attempts to explain where to find the newly added information in the law office file structure, newly added information isn’t always easy to find when rummaging through GB or TB of existing information.
When the expert’s share file mimics the law office file structure, the expert gets inundated with duplicated information. In this hypothetical example, the first round of information sent to the expert from the law office is 20 GB arranged in the law office’s file structure. Then the law office receives 1 GB of new information which is integrated into the law office’s file structure and uploaded to the expert’s share file and sent to the expert. The expert has now received two files of information from the share file with each file arranged in the law office’s file structure downloaded at different dates into the expert’s computer file system. The first file has 20 GB, and the second file has 21 GB of which 20 GB is duplicated. In this hypothetical, the law office then receives another 3 GB of new information which is uploaded by the paralegal to the existing 21 GB expert’s share file configured in the law office’s file structure and sent to the expert. The expert now has received three files from the share file system downloaded at different dates resulting in three differently dated expert files on the expert’s computer totaling 65 GB of which 41 GB is duplicated information and only 24 GB of the information is unique. After receiving new information in this fashion, it is not too long before the files on the expert’s computer are out of control GB or TB wise with the newly-provided information almost impossible to find buried in the GBs or TBs of duplicated previously-sent existing information.
After receiving the initial 20 GB of information in the above hypothetical, by using the Ruth System all the expert needs are the new 1 GB and 3 GB files of new information for a total of 24 GB in three differently dated files resulting in no duplicated information. My experience is that when the expert’s share file mimics the file structure of the law office, the expert drowns in duplicated information which causes confusion and inefficiencies and drives up the expert’s cost.
When an attorney forwards information to the expert outside the share file system via an email attachment for example, the engineering expert files the information by the date received for consistency and file organization.
In the Ruth System, explained in this blog, the information packets or files are sent to an engineering expert one time via a share file as the law office receives or generates new information packets or files; these packets or files are then downloaded by the expert and filed by date and labeled appropriately in the expert’s filing system. Once the law office adds a dated file to the share file system, the dated file is never removed. New dated files with new information are simply added to the share file. There is no need from the perspective of an engineering expert for a law office to repeatedly send the same information via a share file in the law office file structure with the new information integrated into the same information that was previously provided to the expert.
The best practice is for the law office to place each packet of new information (in a dated file) into the expert’s share file. Thus, the new packet of information has a unique dated file so the expert can quickly and cost effectively identify the new information. And the expert can quickly compare all the files in the expert’s share file against the expert’s filing system to confirm that the expert has downloaded all the information from the expert’s share file. If the expert discovers the expert missed downloading a file from the share file, it can be downloaded (because the law office never removes a dated file once placed in the share file).
Frankly, the dated files placed into the expert’s share file by the law office need nothing more of a description than the date because the transmittal(s) is included within the file. The date using the format of year-month-day is the key identifier and organizer. Towards the end of a case, the expert’s share file may consist of a dozen or more files labeled with dates, nothing more. The computer keeps the file in date order because of the date format used: year-month-day.
The other advantage of the Ruth System is when the expert is asked to prepare a report, the paralegal forwards to the expert a list of all the information that the paralegal provided to the expert via a share file or otherwise. Thus, the expert can quickly crosscheck that all the information sent by the paralegal was received. Because the expert is required to list all the information provided by the law firm in the expert report, the subject list with the appropriate legal descriptions can be a help: (1) confirming that all the information sent from the law firm was received by the expert, and (2) listing the information in the expert’s report.