REDACT expert in Acrobat 9 Pro. Expert witness please

Question

I am the plantiff in a court case where the defendent is an attorney.  I am not represented. (do not comment on this please).  I am disputing a bill from the attorney who uses Acorbat 9 to scan documents.  The Court ordered the attorney, who is representing my wife, to redact documents and the attorney used a paralegal to do it by hand.  She is billing me for $1,000, I believe out of spite. Twice the attorney refused to redact documents over a period of months.  Finally the Court ordered her to do it..  I protested  the bill as being unreasonbale and the Court has asked for a live hearing, to hear my case.  I need an expert witness whom I will pay to demonstrate the redact capability to show that the law firm could have performed the redact in seconds, not 8 hours.  Now it is a matter of principle, not the money.  If you dislike attorneys as I do, you may be happy to squash this one.  I live in Colorado Springs, CO.  the court date has not been set yet.  It will probably be in October 2009 Thanks. Mike

Answer 1

Thanks for the reply,
I have a little more infomation that I did not include to keep the query short.  This is in response to graffiti.
1.   The attorney's firm has admitted to using Acrobat pro.  The firm has also admitted that they have not pursued training in using acrobat. In normal business practices training is a cost of doing business, and it is an ethical obligation to their clients.  The same as the education they receive to get their degree or to attend seminars, etc.  Furthermore, Acrobat functions such as redact and bates numbering system were developed by Adobe specifically for the legal profession. If any firm is not using Acrobat or similar software, they should be because it is cost effective for the client.  Using technology is ethical behaviour.  Or they should be charging the same rate that they did when technology wasn't available. The statement that thay may not be using Acrobat is not relevant, the statement is predudical towards the attorney and excuses them for not being ethical.
2. This may sound biased, and it is, but here goes, attorneys, who are only interested in how much they bill, have no incentive to reducing their billable hours.  They wish to keep the clock running as long as they can.  That is why this case is so very important.  Why should a cash paying client be charged for their unethical behavior?  Law firms are the only profession which is unaccountable for their hours.  It is very hard to prove they are practicing unethical behavior for their clients.  Let's face it, 1 hour of paralegal costs $150, but the Para legal only gets $40 or so of that amount.  It makes sense for the firm to bill for hours despite there being a more cost effective way to perform the task.
3.  The number of documents may be important, how much is a ton?  I suggest the number of documents is not relevant because a computer can process in microseconds using the find and replace function.  For example, how long does it take you to do a find and replace on your word processor?
4. The firm is supplying other entities both pdf and hard copies but they first scan everything into their own system using Acrobat, then they print it out in hard copy format to distribute.  Instead, they could scan in, redact, and then print.  What is wrong with that procedure?
5.  Or.... if they supply pdf files to other entities, they could scan in, redact and provide the pdf file.
6.   As in any Court case, An expert can do a lot by showing the Court the truth.  In this case, how easy it is make a few keystrokes, and the job is done.
7. Everyone should realize that the judge knows nothing except facts presented to him. Judges are not experts on information, they only make decisions based on testimony and the law, they will not "realize" anything without testimony from an expert. The fact is that Judges hear testimony, they use common sense, and they decide, but they are not experts, especially in technology..  FYI, My testimony alone is not, in the eyes of the Court, fact based because I am perceived as being prejudiced.  That is why I need an expert.  Let's use other examples.  What about the ford pickup truck that starts on fire all by itself, the Corvair that is unsafe, the collapse of Enron, the ponzi schemes, the McDonald coffee spill, etc?, in these cases, the plaintiff testimony alone would not have been enough.   This statement is not a put down to anyone, and it is not idealistic, and I am not fantasizing or a TV addict, but sometimes it is important to use examples, stupid as they may sound, in the simplest of forms, for example:  Law and Order, Boston legal and other TV series are not novels made for TV, they are based on fact, and the fact is that the expert witness plays a significant role and can be the deciding factor.
Sorry, please don't take this personally, but I remind everyone... this cup is half full.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Mike
--end--