Here's an interesting way to look at the evidence you present at trial: as either "lawyer proof" or "jury proof."
As authors Phillip H. Miller and Paul J. Scoptur write in their article, "Four Rules for Discovery," (Trial 3/10)--
There are two kinds of proof: lawyer proof and juror proof. Lawyer proof may get you past summary judgment, but juror proof is what gets you a verdict. Prediscovery focus groups can help you view the landscape of your case from the juror proof perspective.
The distinction is useful because it will force you to cut through the
complicated legal thinking and view your case through the eyes of
Some evidence, of course, will fall into both categories. Neither category should be neglected. The value of juror proof is obvious. As for lawyer proof--that's important not only for summary judgment but also for appeal.
Here's why older lawyers should be looking out for the younger generation (or at least getting with it on technology)--
Most lawyers have trouble with email (and digital information in general) because they don't understand how to navigate that world. Lawyers who don't search for things on Internet are the worst. They lack a fundamental skill that's needed to efficiently attack digital information. Naturally they're inept when it comes to handling electronic discovery. Some of them are committing serious malpractice. But, of course, they have no idea.
The next generation of lawyers will not have this problem, or at least it won't be a prevalent problem like it is today. The young turks coming out of law school today don't have a passive relationship to information. They attack digital information the way sharks attack wounded seals.