Analyzing paper documents can be costly and time consuming. As we increasingly use technology for greater efficiency, more firms are using the iBrief, a competitive tool in legal filling. Less time spent on handling a pleading means more time for the analysis.

In a recent $50 million reinsurance settlement dispute, a three-member arbitration panel had ten days to review a 290-page brief citing voluminous exhibits, deposition transcripts, and case law authorities. And that was just from the petitioner.

A decade ago, a thorough review of the entire file in the allotted time was a near impossibility. Today, however, with the incorporation of Web 2.0 principles like interactivity and innovation, there is a more effective way to analyze vast amounts of legal documentation: the iBrief.

The iBrief was developed seven years ago for attorneys seeking to convert standard paper submissions into a virtual gateway to true legal analysis.

While courts across the country and around the globe are increasingly more comfortable with electronic filings (take, for example, the U.S. federal court system's adoption of PACER), adjudicators still want the convenience of a single record to review, rather than a disparate mass of digital material. An iBrief, the first of which was filed in 2000, provides a cohesive and centralized vehicle to convey a complex argument or series of arguments. It is essentially e-filing 2.0.

From a practical perspective, the iBrief is an interactive filing that permits a decision maker to read arguments, while effortlessly linking to documents and rich media that support them (e.g., case citations, affidavits, exhibits, animations, and video). To a party involved in a potentially business-altering dispute, a submission of this type brings critical arguments alive in a way that was unheard of before its inception.

"Working with the iBrief format made the review process much more bearable," notes Paul C. Thomson III, the principal of Halesite, NY-based Reassess, Inc. and an arbitrator in disputes involving insurance and reinsurance matters for AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Society and the International Association of Insurance Receivers.

For ease of reference, the iBrief can be reviewed on a secure website (though it is generally filed as a CD-Rom). The web iBrief allows collaboration between the members of an arbitration panel or the court. Web-based users can also interact with a notetaking tool that allows them to discuss and save comments locally to their computers. Access is as simple as logging into a website with a username and password and using the navigator for ease of reference to the highlighted links.

"iBriefs help with the pre-evidentiary work that we do by setting the table for the hearing," Thomson adds.

As a result of its effectiveness, this table setting has become much more popular. "The growth of interactive filing continues to be nothing short of explosive," says Steve Stolberg, Chief Executive Officer of TrialGraphix. "With such rapid adoption of technology, we have seen a 50% increase in arbitration iBrief requests over the past year," he adds.

Arbitrators especially like the iBrief because in cases involving cross-examination or evidentiary questions, it prepares the panel by providing a foundation for the challenges that must be addressed, notes Thomson.

A typical iBrief measures about 50 pages and costs an average of $5,000 - $6,000, depending on the number of links (most documents feature 10-12 links per page and 500-600 throughout the work). In contrast, a traditional paper brief requires a confusing series of references throughout directing the reader to an Exhibit A or a Chart 1, etc. The tabs are often overlooked to avoid distraction and typically serve to bulk up a pleading. There is no ability to search the brief itself or a key attachment. Since the only alternative is to spend valuable time combing through a dense sea of text, essential facts are too frequently missed. When both sides are using a paper brief, each is almost on equal footing, but when one is using an iBrief, the advantage is immeasurable.

In fact, a few thousand dollars could often make the difference in an eight or nine-figure dispute. "The iBrief justifies itself in terms of cost," says Caleb L. Fowler, an arbitrator and mediator in disputes involving insurance and reinsurance matters for AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Society. "It cuts down on the amount of time I spend working on the matter and when you multiply that time by three arbitrators, it probably does justify the cost," he adds.

A standard interactive brief contains links in its table of authorities and/or table of contents, as well as links to exhibits, legal authorities, and other cited materials. Most briefs will also contain bookmarked panels that serve as site maps, which seamlessly integrate into the document. A premium iBrief will also contain links in an attached declaration or affidavit, resulting in a sophisticated variation in the levels of linking.

The factors that make a successful iBrief include:

• Ease of navigation
• Precise linking (i.e., links that direct the reader to the exact line cited)
• Bookmarking
• Availability in a secure web-based environment
• Widely-accepted Adobe PDF format

The single most important factor about the iBrief, however, is its ability to convey a point in a direct yet persuasive manner. "The iBrief makes review of the brief easier, and the easier you make something, the more likely people are to see what you want them to see and do what you want them to do," says Robert C. Reinarz, an insurance and reinsurance arbitrator for AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Society in Sisterdale, Texas. Having arbitrated over 40 disputes, Reinarz, the former President and CEO of Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, values the simplicity of an interactive document.

Unlike traditional methods of legal document construction, the electronic formatting of an iBrief enables an advocate to almost ‘speak' with the written word just as he would if asked to present an oral argument to the hearing officer. It is truly a revolutionary tool that has tremendous potential to not only impact the outcome, but to transform the process. "It is a great step forward," says Fowler.

With less time spent on handling a pleading, the reader can focus more attention on the analysis. This is often a critical step given the types of cases in which the iBrief has been most effective. For example, it was used in the dispute between two major credit card companies over exit fees charged to retailers seeking to end a merchant agreement, and by reinsurers to determine whether the events of September 11, 2001 constituted one, two, three or four "events" for purposes of the parties' reinsurance relationship.

The multiple billions at stake and precedent-setting nature of cases of this type underscore the need for effectively articulating novel legal theories. That said, whether a case is worth billions or hundreds of thousands, it is worth everything to the litigants. As such, counsel must take advantage of every opportunity to enhance the arguments that will impact the result.

In an era of electronic filing 2.0, the goal is still lawyering 101 – to win.