Your article 'Protocol offers more e-disclosure guidance' (see [2006] Gazette, 1 June, 11) has created something of a stir among the litigation support community and those looking at e-disclosure. Opinion among experts is much divided on the TIFF v PDF issue, even in the Litigation Support Technology Group (LiST).


The article states that TIFF was chosen by LiST 'because TIFFs are supported by more litigation support systems than PDFs', while 'a TIFF image is easily viewed with no further installation from a standard Windows PC'. The problem, however, is that without a litigation support system, TIFF images cannot be searched or otherwise manipulated.


As a review using software with search-and-find functionality can be up to eight times quicker than a manual review, the choice of TIFF as a format potentially starts to put smaller law firms who do not have access to such systems (and clients of those firms) at a considerable disadvantage.


PDF is not only a smaller file format and more secure but it can also be searched using free or inexpensive software, such as Adobe Acrobat. For smaller numbers of documents, PDFs can be created using the same software, rather than outsourcing to e-disclosure service providers. Using PDF as a format for exchange means smaller law firms without large resources can access some of the cost savings for their clients that using technology offers.


Exchange of electronic evidence is therefore an issue that impacts on the overriding objective, particularly in terms of ensuring parties are on an equal footing, and on the management of law firms in terms of personnel and IT infrastructure. The rules and processes created to manage the emerging e-disclosure arena must meet the needs of the many, not just the few.

Jonathan Brewer, head of practitioner solutions, LexisNexis Butterworths, London