REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM

REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM

A-1 1. Introduction 1.1. The Electronic Filing System (EFS) was implemented in the Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts on 1 March 2000, from which date all writs were filed electronically. Thereafter the system extended in stages to the remaining originating processes in several phases. By 2003, the EFS had been in operation for 3 years. In April 2003, the Honourable the Chief Justice appointed an EFS Review Committee to conduct a thorough review of the EFS. This review would ensure the continuing relevance of the system as the needs of the Singapore legal sector and the technology evolve. 1.2. The EFS Review Committee was chaired by the Director of the Singapore Academy of Law, Ms Serene Wee and comprised members from both the Bar and the Judiciary. A list of the members of the EFS Review Committee is at Annex A. The Review Committee submitted an internal report of its findings and recommendations to the Chief Justice on 16 June 2003. After further consultations with the various constituents, the Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee on 7 August 2003. 1.3. Pursuant to the Chief Justice s acceptance of the Review Committee s recommendations, an Implementation Committee was established to oversee the implementation of the recommendations made by the Review Committee. This Committee is chaired by the Chairman of the LawNet Management Committee, Second Solicitor-General Mr Lee Seiu Kin. 1.4. This report seeks to inform the members of the legal profession and the general public about the changes and refinements that will be made to the EFS. It will be in two parts. The first part of this report summarises the Review Committee s findings and recommendations. The second part of this report outlines the various changes and refinements that will be made to the EFS for the immediate and long-term future. Part I Report of the EFS Review Committee 2. The EFS review 2.1. The Review Committee evaluated the achievements and progress of the EFS against the original goals of the system when it was first proposed to the LawNet Council 1 in 1995. It also sought to identify the main benefits of the EFS, 1 The predecessor of the present LawNet Management Committee.

A-2 assess the impact of the EFS on the various users and propose solutions to improve the system. 2.2. The Review Committee focused its work on four principal areas, namely (a) process issues; (b) technology issues; (c) EFS as a court-hearing tool; and (d) cost issues. Sub-committees were established to focus the review on each of these issues. The list of members of the various sub-committees can be found at Annex B. Questionnaires were also sent out to the Judiciary, law practices and endlitigants to gather their views on the EFS. Finally, site visits were conducted at the Supreme Court, Subordinate Courts and a law practice to gain first-hand understanding of the actual usage of EFS. 3. Objectives of the EFS 3.1. EFS was originally proposed as a profession-wide system for the filing and service of documents by law practices, and for the Courts to have an electronic document storage and retrieval registry. It was to pave the way for a paperless court system. The EFS as implemented was presented to the legal profession as a system with both electronic filing capabilities and electronic hearing capability. 4. Achievements of the EFS 4.1. The EFS is a fully functional system. The system has carried over 1.5 million documents and 20 million pages since it first started. 4.2. As an information technology (IT) development project, it has won the prestigious National InfoComm Award for innovative use of technology in the Supreme Court. 2 Further, in the latest report by Accenture on egovernments around the world 3, favourable mention was made of the Supreme Court s innovative solution in the justice arena. The success of the EFS was given specific mention in this report. More recently, the EFS was awarded the Innovation Award under the E-Business category at the inaugural Managing Information Strategies (MIS) awards. 4 2 3 4 It won the National Infocomm Award awarded by Infocomm-Development Authority (IDA) on 23 April 2002. egovernment Leadership: Engaging the Customer dated 8 April 03 at p 40. A copy of this report can be found at http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/gove_capa_egov_leadership.pdf. MIS Asia Magazine is an IT magazine with a circulation of 14,813 in Asia. The award was given on 19 September 2003.

A-3 4.3. The EFS has provided the Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts with a fully electronic civil registry. Documents are filed and stored electronically, thereby saving physical storage costs. Case files are retrieved electronically, bulky files no longer have to be moved around and court registries no longer encounter the problem of missing or misplaced files. More importantly, the EFS has obviated the need to manage long queues forming at the Courts registry counters for the filing of court documents. 4.4. EFS has built up the confidence of the legal profession in the use of IT as a business tool. Out of the 778 law practices in Singapore, 380 of them are connected to the EFS. 64% of all lawyers in Singapore have electronic access to the court systems through the EFS. 4.5. With EFS, court documents can now be submitted for filing 24 hours a day. In 2002, 37% of all documents filed through the EFS were filed after registry hours. Law firms are also able to serve documents on each other electronically. Inspection of documents and extraction of court orders can be done through the EFS without lawyers having to make on-site inspections at the Courts. EFS has also provided other value-added services for lawyers, such as CaseWatch 5 and SMS alerts 6. 5. Impact analysis of the use of EFS in law practices 5.1. Notwithstanding the benefits created by the system, a survey of law practices conducted by the Review Committee reported several process and cost issues with the EFS. These included increased time spent preparing documents for filing, and increased operational costs due to EFS. A summary of the results of the survey of law practices conducted between 28 April 2003 and 5 May 2003 can be found at Annex C. 5.2. Due to the large volume of data being transmitted, the EFS transmission speed is not always constant. If transmission terminates mid-way, the law firm is required to re-file the documents. The task of scanning documents into the system can be time-consuming. 5.3. The responsibility of accurate data entry now rests on the law practice. If any document contains any substantive or editorial error, even a minor one, the law practice has to re-file the document and pay a rejection fee based on the size 5 6 CaseWatch is a service which alerts subscribers when a suit is filed against a party they are keeping track of. Lawyers can now receive alerts of documents filed via their hand phones using the SMS, or Short Messaging Service.

A-4 of the document filed 7. The rejection rate in 2002 was about 5% of documents filed. 6. Impact analysis of the use of EFS in the Courts 6.1. A survey of the Judges and Judicial Officers in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts was done as part of the review. The Review Committee found that Assistant Registrars and Deputy Registrars regularly use the EFS during chamber hearings to call up documents and record proceedings. However, both Judges and Judicial Officers are not using the EFS extensively for trials in open court. Due to the dynamic process of a trial, most Judges and Judicial Officers have found it more efficient to rely on hard copies of documents. 6.2. Generally, the common problems faced by users of the EFS at the Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts are the instability and intermittent slowness of the system. This is especially so in the Subordinate Courts where there is a larger caseload. The system instability and latency 8 of EFS has meant that Judges and Judicial Officers have not been able to gain as much in terms of productivity and efficiency from the EFS as an online litigation tool, as had been originally projected. 7. Costs 7.1. When the EFS was implemented in March 2000, there was a moratorium to reduce the court fees for documents by 15% 9 to offset the expected increases in costs for the litigant arising from EFS fees. The moratorium was lifted on 28 February 2002. Subsequently, EFS fees became an extra layer of costs for the end litigants. 7.2. A majority of law practices indicated that the EFS has increased the cost of litigation. 10 The Review Committee found that the troubling cost item of EFS 7 8 9 10 Currently, when the law practice submits a document and if that document gets rejected, a set of transmission fee plus document process fee is deducted from the law practice s account. When the document is subsequently re-filed in accordance with the requirements, another set of EFS fees ( rejection fees ) are incurred for the re-filing of the second document. System latency is the protracted delay between the time a user requests for a document from the EFS and the time the document is presented on his screen. In other words, stamp fees would be adjusted to 85% of Appendix B schedule in the Rules of Court. 86% of the law practices which responded to the Review Committee s survey indicated that the cost of litigation has increased as a result of EFS. Out of these law practices, the majority of them (about 30%) indicated that costs of litigation increased by 25% or less. See Annex C for details.

A-5 fees is the transmission fee of $1 per page. Litigants who use the service bureaux pay even more: they pay 15% more in stamp fees and an additional manual handling charge of $20 per document. 8. Overall assessment of the EFS 8.1. The EFS has provided the Judiciary with a fully electronic registry system. Law practices have seen improvements in some areas since the introduction of EFS. For example, law practices are now able to file documents electronically and dispatch clerks no longer have to spend time waiting in queues at the court registries. Searches of cause books, extraction of documents and inspection of court files can now be conducted electronically from within the comfort of the law office and immediately upon approval, without the need to wait for the physical file to be retrieved. 8.2. However, the Review Committee was also aware that law practices on the whole have increased their time spent on filing documents through the EFS. Costs have gone up because of filing fees. The conveniences of the EFS, e.g. cause book searches and electronic service of documents, need to be balanced against the additional costs and processing time required for filing. There are technical latency and system instability problems that need to be addressed. Overall, the costs of the EFS system have outbalanced the tangible benefits that have been derived from using the system. 8.3. The Review Committee felt that the implementation of the EFS had caused the legal profession in Singapore to take a huge step in the adoption of IT. It has been said that the EFS has made lawyers jump from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first. In the age of the Internet, this is a significant strategic advantage in an increasingly globalised world. It is an advantage that must be held and, if possible, improved upon. 8.4. However, in maintaining that advantage, the Review Committee recognised that the technical, design and costs problems had to be addressed. A systematic programme must be put in place to resolve those issues, which must be done in consultation with the Bar. Meanwhile, the most pressing issues of costs have to be resolved swiftly. 8.5. To that end, the Review Committee proposed a two-pronged approach to develop the EFS towards its desired state. First, whatever that can be resolved of the technical, design and costs issues in the present system, should be resolved in the short to medium term. Secondly, in the long term, the EFS should evolve towards a new and better version that would build upon the experience gained in developing and operating the present system and take advantage of the latest technology. The following paragraphs summarise the recommendations of the Review Committee.

A-6 9. Immediate enhancements to the EFS 9.1. The Review Committee s recommendations for the immediate future are three-fold: (a) reducing EFS fees and reducing the volume of documents for filing; (b) resolving the technical and process issues related to the EFS; and (c) repositioning the use of the EFS as a hearing tool. (a) Reduction of EFS fees 9.2. After consultation with the Law Society, and having regard to the survey of law practices and discussions with the EFS operator, CrimsonLogic, the Review Committee recommended a 20% reduction of EFS fees across the board. The Review Committee took into account the lawyers call to have a reduction in EFS fees to alleviate the added layer of costs with the introduction of EFS, the requirement on the Judiciary to recover costs of its EFS operations and the need of CrimsonLogic to run a viable business. 9.3. In order to further assist the reduction of EFS fees, the Review Committee recommended a reduction in the volume of pages that have to be filed electronically. The general principle proposed by the Review Committee was that documents which are not essential to the judicial decision-making process need not be filed electronically. 9.4. The Review Committee also recommended that the manual handling fees for documents filed at the Service Bureaux be reduced from $20 to $16. The Review Committee took the view that the original aim of discouraging the law practices from using the Service Bureaux so that they will install the EFS frontend system is no longer as pertinent. Most law practices which are inclined to install the EFS front-end system would have done so by now. 9.5. There is currently no upper limit on the quantum of rejection fees. The Review Committee recommended that rejection fees should be capped regardless of the length of document. 9.6. The Practice Directions allow a winning party to claim $0.50 per page for every document filed through the EFS as disbursement from the losing litigant. The Review Committee recommended that the quantum of this disbursement should be reduced proportionately in line with the reduction of the other EFS fees. (b) Solutions for resolving the present technical and process issues 9.7. The Review Committee recommended an exhaustive technical audit of the EFS system to identify the exact causes for the present latency and instability of the system. This is required to rectify the technical issues.

A-7 9.8. The Review Committee also recommended that document rejection be minimised. Certain document descriptions in the Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts registries have to be streamlined to minimise the chances of errors being made. Technical and process changes were also recommended to reduce potentially costly rejections by the system. 9.9. Many law practices are currently scanning all their documents for filing. This has resulted in large-sized, image-based files being created and transmitted from the law practices to the EFS. Such a process can take a long time. The Review Committee recommended that CrimsonLogic conduct a major exercise within the next three months to educate law practices on the best practices for preparing and filing court documents. 9.10. The Review Committee recommended that the look and feel of the frontend system installed at law practices be redesigned to make the interface more user-friendly. It was also recommended that a basic case management system be offered to law practices to track and manage their cases electronically. (c) Repositioning the use of the EFS during hearings 9.11. The EFS has proven to be useful for chamber hearings. In particular, it facilitates the efficient retrieval of documents. For the immediate future, the EFS should be enhanced for more efficient hearings. The technical audit of the EFS should identify the causes of the instability and latency issues that are encountered during hearings. Once they have been identified, technical solutions will be explored to reduce the instability and latency. 9.12. To make the EFS a better document retrieval tool during hearings, technical solutions will be explored to enable faster access to documents and enhancing the usability of the EFS as a hearing tool for Judges and Judicial Officers. 9.13. The Review Committee recommended that until such improvements are made, hard copy documents could be used in trials and more complex chamber hearings. At the same time, the EFS should be available to supplement paper documents where this will help counsel to better present their cases. 10. EFS in the long term 10.1. It was recognised by the Review Committee that the EFS will have to adapt itself to and take advantage of new technologies in the long run. To that end, the Review Committee recommended that the development of a new and better version of the EFS ( EFS 2.0 ) should commence in order to fully harness current and projected technology for electronic filing and service of documents.

A-8 10.2. The Review Committee also recommended that a review of the Rules of Court be conducted to move away from the current paper-based civil process paradigm, so that technology can be better employed for the electronic filing of documents under a set of modernised Rules of Court. In addition, the Review Committee also recommended the development of an Electronic Hearing System (EHS) as a separate system which would be interoperable with EFS 2.0. 11. Implementation Committee 11.1. The Review Committee recommended that an EFS Review Implementation Committee be set up to oversee the implementation of recommendations, co-ordinate with the Rules Committee to review and modernise the Rules of Court. The Implementation Committee should also develop a more detailed road map for the development of EFS 2.0. 11.2. The Review Committee further recommended that the implementation issues be placed under the LawNet Management Committee which comprises representatives of the Judiciary, the Law Society and IDA experts. This was thought to be appropriate as the EFS is one of the services offered under LawNet. 12. The Review Committee s concluding remarks 12.1. The Review Committee emphasised that to a very large extent, the success of the EFS in the future will greatly depend on a strong commitment by the relevant constituents, viz. the legal profession, the Judiciary and the technology vendor to make it work. In order to achieve that, the legal profession and the Judiciary have to see immediate results in the implementation of the recommended solutions. Part II The EFS Review Implementation Committee 13. The Implementation Committee 13.1. The Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee on 7 August 2003. Thereafter, the Chief Justice appointed the Chairman of the LawNet Management Committee, Second Solicitor-General Mr Lee Seiu Kin, to form an EFS Review Implementation Committee to implement and oversee the recommendations of the Review Committee. The members of the Implementation Committee are listed in Annex D.

A-9 13.2. The Implementation Committee will carry out its functions in three phases and has set up three corresponding working groups. The first working group (WG1) will focus on the immediate task of reducing EFS fees and the volume of documents that have to be filed. The second working group (WG2) will look into and resolve the technical and process issues. The third working group (WG3) will develop a blueprint for the new version of the system and coordinate a review of the Rules of Court. The first two working groups have been constituted, and they comprise members from the Bar and the Judiciary. The list of members of each of these two working groups is appended at Annex E. The following paragraphs outline the work that has been or will be done by each working group. 14. Working Group One Effecting the immediate changes 14.1. The task of WG1 is to effect the EFS cost reductions, look into the possibility of reducing the volume of documents that have to be filed through EFS and inform the members of the legal profession and general public about these changes. After several rounds of discussion, WG1 has proposed the following. 14.1.1. First, it was proposed that the penalty charge for rejected documents be waived where the rejection is due to the law practice selecting the inappropriate document type for the document filed and for errors in the entry of data into the fields required by EFS. However, where the rejection is due to the law practice making other types of errors, e.g. by preparing documents in coloured ink or scanning in pages prepared on dark coloured sheets of paper, thereby resulting in the document being unreadable, it was proposed that the penalty charge for rejected submissions should be capped at $25. By imposing a cap on the penalty charge based on submissions rather than documents, litigants would be able to enjoy greater cost savings in the event that multiple documents are rejected in one submission. 14.1.2. Secondly, after consultation with the Law Society and the Judiciary, the amount of disbursement allowed under paragraph 43HH of the Supreme Court Practice Directions and paragraph 38HH of the Subordinate Courts Practice Directions will be reduced to $0.40 per page. 14.1.3. Thirdly, the cost of service of documents through EFS will be reduced. The new cost structure is based on the number of pages, but will cap the charges at 2 levels. For documents of 500 pages or less, the cost of service of documents through EFS will be $0.50 per page plus $5, up to a maximum of $10. Documents with more than 500 pages will be charged at $20 per document. 14.1.4. Fourthly, to address the recommendation that the volume of documents that have to be filed electronically be reduced, it was

A-10 proposed that trial bundles (as defined in Order 34 Rule 3A of the Rules of Court) no longer have to be filed electronically. The documents that form the trial bundles are usually voluminous and their dispensation from electronic filing would represent significant cost savings. They can be submitted in hardcopy but a soft-copy of the documents has to be furnished to the Courts on CD-ROM to ensure that the electronic case file is complete. It was proposed that this solution be adopted in lieu of the recommendation to rationalise the types of documents that need not be filed electronically. Such a practical measure would yield significant savings to litigants. This would also obviate the need to identify which documents are essential and which are not. This aspect will be further detailed when a thorough review of the Rules of Court is conducted. 14.2. In the spirit of reducing the costs even further, WG1 has also proposed the following additional fee reductions. 14.2.1. First, to encourage the use of the Service Bureaux as a real alternative to filing documents electronically, the 15% surcharge in stamp fees for documents filed at the Service Bureaux will be removed. 14.2.2. Secondly, after consultation with CrimsonLogic, it was proposed that manual handling fees for documents filed at the Service Bureaux be reduced from $20 to $13.50 with a surcharge for highvolume documents. 11 14.3. These proposals are in addition to the 20% cut in EFS fees across the board recommended by the Review Committee. With the 20% cut in fees, document processing fees will be reduced to $4 per document and the transmission fees will be reduced to $0.80 per page. 14.4. The Implementation Committee has accepted these proposals of WG1. The Rules Committee has approved the amendments to the Rules of Court and the Chief Justice has approved the amendments to the Practice Directions which would give effect to these recommendations. These amendments to EFS fees are expected to come into effect on 15 October 2003. 15. Working Group Two Improvements in the medium-term 15.1. The focus of WG2 are on the following objectives: (a) To improve the performance and stability of the system; 11 For documents consisting of more than 200 pages, an additional fee of 5 cents per page from the 201 st page will be levied.

A-11 (b) (c) To improve the filing at the front end so that law firms have a basic case management tool; and To improve the usability of the system as a hearing tool for Judicial Officers during chamber applications by providing a customised front end. 15.2. WG2 has already commenced working with CrimsonLogic to assemble a team to conduct a systematic technical audit of the EFS to identify possible causes of system stability and latency. This exercise will be conducted over a period of about four weeks to be completed around end October 2003. 15.3. At the same time, WG2 will also be examining the processes that occur when documents are filed. By having a clearer understanding of the various processes that go on, changes can be made to the system to enhance efficiency in the document filing process. 15.4. Once these exercises are completed, the filing at the front end will be redesigned to offer a basic case management tool to law practices. It is hoped that the filing process can be made more intuitive and user-friendly. The registry client will also be enhanced to recapture the interactivity that existed in the past at the registry counter. 15.5. In order to improve the usability of the EFS as a hearing tool for Judicial Officers during chamber applications, a customised user interface will be provided. Other ways of improving usability like the deployment of dual screens will also be considered. 16. Working Group Three Blueprint for the new version of EFS 16.1. The direction of WG3 has been set by the Implementation Committee. With the EFS, the principal mode of filing documents is now electronic. Many issues in the present system arose from the fact that its architects consciously decided to replicate the paper-based system. This was necessary at the time to ease the transition from paper to electronic filing and to minimise changes to the civil procedural rules. 16.2. Three years on, the profession has adapted to electronic filing. The Implementation Committee is keenly aware that if electronic filing is to be the predominant mode of filing documents, the Rules of Court will have to be modernised to cater for this. This will be the first task of WG3. 16.3. WG3 will also be capitalising on the experience obtained from the current EFS in order to develop EFS 2.0, which is more appropriately called an electronic litigation system. Civil litigation in Singapore will greatly benefit from

A-13 ANNEX A MEMBERS OF THE EFS REVIEW COMMITTEE Chairman Ms Serene Wee, Director SAL Members Mr Lau Wing Yum, Registrar Subordinate Courts Mr Toh Han Li, Senior Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Mr Giam Chin Toon, SC, Senior Partner, Wee Swee Teow & Co Mr V K Rajah, SC, Managing Partner, Rajah & Tann Mr George Lim, Senior Partner, Wee Tay & Lim Mr Vinodh Sabesan Coomaraswamy, Partner, Shook Lin & Bok Mr Andrew Chan Chee Yin, Partner, Allen & Gledhill Mr Roy Yeo Kan Kiang, Partner, Chia Yeo Partnership Secretariat Mr Yeong Zee Kin, SAL Assistant Director Mr Loong Seng Onn, SAL Assistant Director Mr Kok Seng Kiat, JLC/SAL Honorary Secretary Mr David Lee, JLC/SAL Honorary Secretary

B-1 ANNEX B MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS SUB-COMMITTEES OF THE EFS REVIEW COMMITTEE TECHNOLOGY SUB-COMMITTEE Chairman Mr Yeong Zee Kin, Assistant Director, Singapore Academy of Law Members Mr Rama Tiwari, Senior Associate, Drew & Napier LLC Mr Goh Seow Hiong, Senior Associate, M/s Rajah & Tann Ms Gladys Tay, Senior Executive IT Manager, Supreme Court Ms Karen Wong, Information System Manager, Subordinate Courts PROCESS SUB-COMMITTEE Chairman Mr Yeong Zee Kin, Assistant Director, Singapore Academy of Law Members Ms Sharon Lim Hui Mien, Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Mr Andrew Chan Chee Yin, Partner, M/s Allen & Gledhill Ms Miranda Yeo, Magistrate, Subordinate Courts COSTS SUB-COMMITTEE Chairman Ms Serene Wee, Director, Singapore Academy of Law Members Mr V K Rajah, S.C., Managing Partner, M/s Rajah & Tann Mr Lau Wing Yum, Registrar, Subordinate Courts Mr Toh Han Li, Senior Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Mr Kok Seng Kiat, Justices Law Clerk / SAL Honorary Secretary Mr David Lee, Justices Law Clerk / SAL Honorary Secretary

C - 1 ANNEX C SURVEY OF LAW PRACTICES 1. SURVEY BACKGROUND & SCOPE 1.1. This survey of law practices was conducted as part of the Review to gather representative views from the legal profession. 1.2. Law practices were chosen as the target of the survey, instead of individual lawyers, because the Secretariat felt that the views of the law practices would be more reflective of the impact of the EFS on a firm level. 2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2.1. The Survey Questionnaire was sent out to all 776 law practices in Singapore through the Law Society of Singapore. 2.2. To encourage feedback, a covering letter from the President of Law Society was enclosed to the Questionnaires that were sent out. Responses to the Questionnaire were to be returned to SAL. The Questionnaire, together with the letter from President, Law Society, is enclosed. 2.3. The survey period was from 28 April 2003 to 5 May 2003. 2.4. The law practices included in the survey were divided into three categories: (a) small (law practices with 1-5 lawyers); (b) medium (law practices with 6-29 lawyers); and (c) large (law practices with 30 lawyers or more). 2.5. At the end of the survey period, very few responses were received. As a result, an effort was made by SAL to call up law practices who have not responded to the survey. This took one week. The survey period was eventually closed on 12 May 2003. 2.6. The Research and Statistics Unit (RSU) of the Subordinate Courts assisted the Review Committee in compiling the responses and generating the data tables for the first 106 valid responses.

C - 2 2.7. After a first-round of analysis, RSU s professional opinion was that the small practices were under-represented and the large and medium sized practices were over-represented. The RSU found that the proportional distribution was not within the 95 percent confidence interval level. 2.8. Pursuant to RSU s request to boost the sample for small-sized law practices, SAL made another effort to call up the small-sized law practices to urge them to respond. This took place from 22 May 2003 to 26 May 2003. As a result of this further effort, an additional 37 responses from small law practices were gathered. Unfortunately, of these 37, only 30 were valid responses. 2.9. At the end of the day, a total of 136 responses were received. The profile of the law practices according to these three categories is as follows: Size of law practice Total number of law practices in Singapore of this size Number of law practices of this size which responded to the survey Percentage of law practices of this size who responded to the survey Large 15 6 40% (>30 lawyers) Medium 80 24 30% (6-30 lawyers) Small (1-5 lawyers) 681 106 15.57% Total 776 136 17.53% 3. OVERVIEW OF SURVEY FINDINGS Section A: Profile of Law Practices which Responded 3.1. Of the law practices which have responded: 3.1.1. 100% of the large-sized practices had installed the EFS Front-End System; 3.1.2. 92% of the medium-sized practices had installed the EFS Front- End System; 3.1.3. 46% of the small-sized practices had installed the EFS Front-End System. (Percentage) Large Medium Small Total Law practices NOT installed with EFS front-end system 0.00% 8.33% 53.77% 43.38% Law practices installed with 100.00% 91.67% 46.23% 56.62%

C - 3 (Percentage) Large Medium Small Total EFS front-end system Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3.2. Of the law practices which have installed EFS: 3.2.1. 29% of all practices incurred costs of $5,000 or less installing the hardware and software; 3.2.2. 32% of all practices incurred costs of between $5,000 and $10,000; 3.2.3. 38% incurred costs of $10,000 or more. Amount Spent ($) (Percentage) Large Medium Small Total 12 Between 400 & 1,000 0.00% 4.55% 6.12% 5.19% Between 1,001 & 5,000 0.00% 18.18% 28.57% 23.38% Between 5,001 & 10,000 16.67% 40.91% 30.61% 32.47% Between 10,001 & 20,000 0.00% 18.18% 6.12% 9.09% More than 20,001 83.33% 13.64% 28.57% 28.57% No valid response 13 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 1.30% Section B: Use of Hard Copies 3.3. For documents filed in the Supreme Court: 3.3.1. 7% of all practices said that they printed out 50% of the documents or less; 3.3.2. 6% of all practices said that they printed out between 51% to 99% of the documents; 3.3.3. 79% of all practices said that they printed out all the documents. Percentage of documents the law firm printed out Large Medium Small Total 0-25% 0.00% 0.00% 7.55% 5.88% 26-50% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 0.74% 12 Total for each table indicates the percentage as a total of all practices who have responded. 13 No valid response means that the law practice either (a) gave no response for this question; (b) the pages for this question were missing; or (c) that the law practice gave Not Applicable as their response.

C - 4 Percentage of documents the law firm printed out Large Medium Small Total 51-75% 0.00% 4.17% 0.94% 1.47% 76-99% 0.00% 0.00% 5.66% 4.41% 100% 100.00% 91.67% 74.53% 78.68% No valid response 0.00% 0.00% 11.32% 8.83% 3.4. For documents filed in the Subordinate Courts: 3.4.1. 5% of all practices said that they printed out 50% of the documents or less; 3.4.2. 7% of all practices said that they printed out between 51% to 99% of the documents; 3.4.3. 81% of all practices said that they printed out all the documents. Percentage of documents the law firm printed out Large Medium Small Total 0-25% 0.00% 0.00% 2.83% 2.21% 26-50% 0.00% 4.17% 2.83% 2.94% 51-75% 0.00% 4.17% 1.89% 2.21% 76-99% 0.00% 0.00% 6.60% 5.15% 100% 100.00% 87.50% 78.30% 80.88% No valid response 0.00% 4.17% 7.54% 6.63% 3.5. When asked how the law firm s need for hardcopies have changed with the introduction of EFS: 3.5.1. 13% of all practices said that their need for hardcopies has decreased; 3.5.2. 32% of all practices said that their need for hardcopies has increased; 3.5.3. 51% of all practices said that their need for hardcopies has remained the same. Need for hardcopies has: Large Medium Small Total Decreased 0.00% 16.67% 12.26% 12.50% Remained the same 83.33% 66.67% 46.23% 51.47% Increased 16.67% 16.67% 36.79% 32.35% No valid response 0.00% 0.00% 4.71% 3.69%

C - 5 3.6. When asked why hard copies were needed, the law practices gave the following reasons (the reasons below are arranged from the most frequently cited, to the least frequently cited): Reason cited Percentage of law practices who cited this reason 14 Lawyers need copies for preparation for trials 84.56% Lawyers need copies for preparation for chamber hearings 82.35% Lawyers need copies for use during trials 82.35% Lawyers need copies for use during chamber hearings 80.88% Disputants need copies 77.21% Lawyers need copies for filing 75.74% Subordinate Courts need copies 55.15% Supreme Court needs copies 49.26% No valid response 2.95% Section C: Time spent preparing and filing 3.7. When asked whether the time spent preparing documents has increased, decreased or remained the same, with the introduction of EFS: 3.7.1. 4% of all practices said that it has decreased; 3.7.2. 26% of all practices said that it has remained the same; 3.7.3. 65% of all practices said that it has increased. Time spent preparing documents has: Large Medium Small Total Decreased 0.00% 0.00% 4.72% 3.68% Increased 50.00% 45.83% 69.81% 64.71% Remained the same 50.00% 45.83% 19.81% 25.74% No valid response 0.00% 8.33% 5.65% 5.89% 3.8. When asked by how much time the time spent on preparing documents has increased, the law practices stated that the time taken for preparing the documents increased by 2 hours or less (their response is broken down by the type of action): 14 Note that the total do not add up to 100% as the respondents were encouraged to give more than one response.

C - 6 Type of Increased by action < 1hr 1-2 hrs 3-5 hrs 6-10 hrs >10 hrs No valid response Writs in 27.21% 23.53% 7.35% 1.47% 1.47% 38.98% Magistrate Court Writs in 29.25% 24.53% 6.6% 1.89% 1.89% 35.85% District Court Writs in 24.26% 19.85% 7.35% 1.47% 2.21% 44.86% High Court OS actions 20.59% 22.06% 6.62% 1.47% 0% 49.27% in High Court OP actions 15.44% 16.91% 5.15% 2.21% 0% 59.56% in High Court Court of 11.76% 10.29% 8.82% 2.21% 2.94% 63.98% Appeal matters 3.9. When asked whether the time spent filing documents has increased, decreased or remained the same, with the introduction of EFS: 3.9.1. 10% of all practices said that it has decreased; 3.9.2. 14% of all practices said that it has remained the same; 3.9.3. 67% of all practices said that it has increased. Time spent preparing documents has: Large Medium Small Total Decreased 16.67% 16.67% 7.55% 9.56% Increased 83.33% 70.83% 65.09% 66.91% Remained the same 0.00% 4.17% 16.98% 13.97% No valid response 0.00% 8.33% 10.37% 9.57% 3.10. When asked by how much time the time spent on filing documents has increased, the law practices stated that the time taken for preparing the documents increased by 2 hours or less (their response is broken down by the type of action): Type of Increased by action < 1hr 1-2 hrs 3-5 hrs 6-10 hrs >10 hrs No valid response Writs in 29.41% 27.21% 6.62% 1.47% 0.00% 35.30% Magistrate Court

C - 7 Type of Increased by action < 1hr 1-2 hrs 3-5 hrs 6-10 hrs >10 hrs No valid response Writs in 29.41% 26.47% 5.88% 1.47% 0.00% 36.77% District Court Writs in 27.21% 23.53% 5.88% 1.47% 0.74% 41.18% High Court OS actions 26.47% 24.26% 5.88% 0.74% 0.00% 42.65% in High Court OP actions 19.85% 18.38% 6.62% 0.74% 0.00% 54.42% in High Court Court of 12.50% 14.71% 8.82% 2.94% 0.74% 60.29% Appeal matters Section D: Cost 3.11. When asked whether the operational costs of the law firm has increased, decreased or remained the same due to EFS: 3.11.1. 5% of all practices said that it has decreased; 3.11.2. 4% of all practices said that it has remained the same; 3.11.3. 85% of all practices said that it has increased. With EFS, operational costs has: Large Medium Small Total Decreased 0.00% 8.33% 4.72% 5.15% Increased 100.00% 79.17% 84.91% 84.56% Remained the same 0.00% 8.33% 3.77% 4.41% No valid response 0.00% 4.17% 6.60% 5.88% 3.12. Of those law practices which responded that operational costs have increased: 3.12.1. 60% of all practices said that it has increased by between 0 to 50%; 3.12.2. 14% of all practices said that it has increased by between 51 to 100%; 3.12.3. 5% of all practices said that it has increased by more than 100%.

C - 8 Operational costs has increased by: Large Medium Small Total 0-25% 50.00% 50.00% 26.42% 31.62% 26-50% 16.67% 20.83% 31.13% 28.68% 51-75% 33.33% 0.00% 16.04% 13.97% 76-100% 0.00% 0.00% 2.83% 2.21% >100% 0.00% 0.00% 6.60% 5.15% No valid response 0.00% 29.17% 16.98 18.38% 3.13. When asked whether the cost of litigation for their clients have increased, decreased or remained the same due to EFS: 3.13.1. 4% of all practices said that it has decreased; 3.13.2. 2% of all practices said that it has remained the same; 3.13.3. 86% of all practices said that it has increased. With EFS, cost of litigation for clients has: Large Medium Small Total Decreased 0.00% 12.50% 2.83% 4.41% Increased 100.00% 83.33% 85.85% 86.03% Remained the same 0.00% 0.00% 2.83% 2.21% No valid response 0.00% 4.17% 8.49% 7.35% 3.14. Of those law practices which responded that costs of litigation for their clients have increased: 3.14.1. 60% of all practices said that it has increased by between 0% to 50%; 3.14.2. 18% of all practices said that it has increased by between 51% to 100%; 3.14.3. 7% of all practices said that it has increased by more than 100%. Cost of litigation for clients has increased by: Large Medium Small Total 0-25% 33.33% 45.83% 26.42% 30.15% 26-50% 33.33% 25.00% 30.19% 29.41% 51-75% 0.00% 0.00% 17.92% 13.97% 76-100% 16.67% 4.17% 2.83% 3.68% >100% 16.67% 4.17% 6.60% 6.62% No valid response 0.00% 20.83% 16.03% 16.18%

C - 9 3.15. When asked how EFS has changed the cost of filing documents for a typical file, the most number of respondents said that the costs increased by 0-25%. The breakdown of the responses by the type of action is as follows: Type of action Writs in Magistrate Court Writs in District Court Writs in High Court OS actions in High Court OP actions in High Court Decreased Increased by 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 75-100% >100% 5.88% 32.35% 22.79% 15.44% 3.68% 6.62% 5.88% 32.35% 21.32% 16.91% 3.68% 6.62% 5.88% 27.94% 19.12% 14.71% 4.41% 8.09% 4.41% 29.41% 17.65% 12.5% 2.94% 8.09% 3.68% 21.32% 13.97% 9.56% 3.68% 5.15% Section E: Experience with EFS 3.16. When asked whether they agreed with the statement: EFS has made it more convenient for the law firm to prepare documents for litigation in the Subordinate Courts: 3.16.1. 24% of all practices agreed with the statement; 3.16.2. 66% of all practices disagreed with the statement. Convenience to prepare documents Subordinate Courts Large Medium Small Total Strongly Disagree 16.67% 29.17% 42.45% 38.97% Mildly Disagree 33.33% 29.17% 26.42% 27.21% Mildly Agree 33.33% 16.67% 20.75% 20.59% Strongly Agree 0.00% 12.50% 1.89% 3.68% No valid response 16.67% 12.50% 8.49% 9.56% 3.17. When asked whether they agreed with the statement: EFS has made it more convenient for the law firm to file documents for litigation in the Subordinate Courts: 3.17.1. 39% of all practices agreed with the statement; 3.17.2. 55% of all practices disagreed with the statement.

C - 10 Convenience to file documents Subordinate Courts Large Medium Small Total Strongly Disagree 16.67% 29.17% 42.45% 38.97% Mildly Disagree 0.00% 16.67% 16.98% 16.18% Mildly Agree 66.67% 25.00% 19.81% 22.79% Strongly Agree 16.67% 20.83% 15.09% 16.18% No valid response 0.00% 8.33% 5.66% 5.88% 3.18. When asked whether they agreed with the statement: EFS has made it more convenient for the law firm to prepare documents for litigation in the Supreme Court: 3.18.1. 24% of all practices agreed with the statement; 3.18.2. 58% of all practices disagreed with the statement. Convenience to prepare documents Supreme Court Large Medium Small Total Strongly Disagree 16.67% 29.17% 33.96% 32.35% Mildly Disagree 16.67% 29.17% 25.47% 25.74% Mildly Agree 50.00% 20.83% 17.92% 19.85% Strongly Agree 0.00% 16.67% 1.89% 4.41% No valid response 16.67% 4.17% 20.76% 17.65% 3.19. When asked whether they agreed with the statement: EFS has made it more convenient for the law firm to file documents for litigation in the Supreme Court: 3.19.1. 38% of all practices agreed with the statement; 3.19.2. 50% of all practices disagreed with the statement. Convenience to prepare documents Supreme Court Large Medium Small Total Strongly Disagree 16.67% 29.17% 33.96% 32.35% Mildly Disagree 0.00% 20.83% 17.92% 17.65% Mildly Agree 50.00% 25.00% 18.87% 21.32% Strongly Agree 33.33% 25.00% 13.21% 16.18% No valid response 0.00% 0.00% 16.04% 12.5% 3.20. When asked whether they agreed with the statement: EFS has made it more convenient for the law firm to serve documents on other law practices: 3.20.1. 38% of all practices agreed with the statement;

C - 11 3.20.2. 43% of all practices disagreed with the statement. Convenience to serve documents on other law practices Large Medium Small Total Strongly Disagree 0.00% 16.67% 26.42% 23.53% Mildly Disagree 0.00% 8.33% 22.64% 19.12% Mildly Agree 33.33% 58.33% 21.70% 28.68% Strongly Agree 66.67% 12.50% 5.66% 9.56% No valid response 0.00% 4.17% 23.58% 19.12% Section F: Hearings 3.21. When asked, to what extent the law firm has been able to depend on EFS for paperless proceedings in chamber hearings at the Subordinate Courts: 3.21.1. 27% of all law practices said to some extent ; 3.21.2. 65% of all law practices said not at all. To what extent paperless in chamber hearings Subordinate Courts Large Medium Small Total Entirely 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% To a significant extent 0.00% 8.33% 0.94% 2.21% To some extent 83.33% 37.50% 21.70% 27.21% Not at all 16.67% 50.00% 71.70% 65.44% No valid response 0.00% 4.17% 5.66% 5.15% 3.22. When asked, to what extent the law firm has been able to depend on EFS for paperless proceedings in open court hearings at the Subordinate Courts: 3.22.1. 21% of all law practices said to some extent ; 3.22.2. 70% of all law practices said not at all. To what extent paperless in open court hearings Subordinate Courts Large Medium Small Total Entirely 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% To a significant extent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% To some extent 50.00% 37.50% 16.04% 21.32% Not at all 50.00% 58.33% 73.58% 69.85% No valid response 0.00% 4.17% 10.37% 8.83%

C - 12 3.23. When asked, to what extent the law firm has been able to depend on EFS for paperless proceedings in chamber hearings at the Supreme Court: 3.23.1. 28% of all law practices said to some extent ; 3.23.2. 56% of all law practices said not at all. To what extent paperless in chamber hearings Supreme Court Large Medium Small Total Entirely 0.00% 0.00% 0.94% 0.74% To a significant extent 0.00% 8.33% 0.94% 2.21% To some extent 83.33% 50.00% 19.81% 27.94% Not at all 16.67% 41.67% 61.32% 55.88% No valid response 0.00% 0.00% 16.98% 13.23% 3.24. When asked, to what extent the law firm has been able to depend on EFS for paperless proceedings in open court hearings at the Supreme Court: 3.24.1. 21% of all law practices said to some extent ; 3.24.2. 63% of all law practices said not at all. To what extent paperless in open court hearings Supreme Court Large Medium Small Total Entirely 0.00% 0.00% 0.94% 0.74% To a significant extent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% To some extent 50.00% 33.33% 16.98% 21.32% Not at all 50.00% 66.67% 63.21% 63.24% No valid response 0.00% 0.00% 18.87% 14.71% 3.25. When asked, to what extent the law firm has been able to depend on EFS for paperless proceedings for Court of Appeal hearings: 3.25.1. 18% of all law practices said to some extent ; 3.25.2. 43% of all law practices said not at all. 3.26. It is important to note that 33% of all law practices gave a NA return to this question. To what extent paperless in Court of Appeal hearings Large Medium Small Total Entirely 0.00% 4.17% 1.89% 2.21% To a significant extent 0.00% 8.33% 1.89% 2.94% To some extent 83.33% 25.00% 13.21% 18.38%

C - 13 To what extent paperless in Court of Appeal hearings Large Medium Small Total Not at all 16.67% 54.17% 41.51% 42.65% No valid response 0.00% 8.33% 41.51% 33.82%

D - 1 ANNEX D MEMBERS OF THE EFS REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Chairman Mr Lee Seiu Kin, Second Solicitor-General Members Mr Richard Magnus, Senior District Judge, Subordinate Courts Ms Serene Wee, Director, Singapore Academy of Law Mr Foo Chee Hock, Acting Registrar, Supreme Court Mr Lau Wing Yum, Registrar, Subordinate Courts Mr Toh Han Li, Senior Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Ms Cornie Ng Teng Teng, Deputy Registrar, Subordinate Courts Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, Senior Counsel, Messrs Rodyk & Davidson Mr Jim Lim Kheng Huat, Partner, Messrs Shook Lin & Bok Mr Andrew Chan Chee Yin, Partner, Messrs Allen & Gledhill Secretariat Mr Yeong Zee Kin, Assistant Director, Singapore Academy of Law Mr Jason Chan Tai-Hui, JLC/SAL Honorary Secretary Mr David Lee Yeow Wee, JLC/SAL Honorary Secretary

E - 1 ANNEX E MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUPS OF THE EFS REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Working Group One Chairman Ms Serene Wee, Director SAL Members Mr Foo Chee Hock, Acting Registrar, Supreme Court Mr Lau Wing Yum, Registrar Subordinate Courts Mr Toh Han Li, Senior Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court Mr James Leong, Deputy Registrar, Subordinate Courts Mr David Lee, Justices Law Clerk/Honorary Secretary SAL Mr Jason Chan, Justices Law Clerk/Honorary Secretary SAL Working Group Two Chairman Mr Yeong Zee Kin, Assistant Director SAL Members Ms Ho Su Ching, Assistant Registrar Supreme Court Ms Cornie Ng, District Judge, Subordinate Courts Ms Sharon Lim, District Judge, Subordinate Courts Mr Andrew Chan, Partner, Allen & Gledhill Mr Rama Tiwari, Senior Associate, Drew & Napier LLC Mr Goh Seow Hiong, Senior Associate, Rajah & Tann Ms Gladys Tay, Senior Executive IT Manager, Supreme Court Ms Karen Wong, Information System Manager, Subordinate Courts Mr Lee Kah Moon, Vice-President Legal, CrimsonLogic