[Publisher's Note: Today, a special treat — a guest TechnoEditorial by industry legend Ross Kodner. In the TechnoEditorial below, Ross responds to some questions about the state of legal technology recently sent to him by a reporter unaffiliated with TechnoLawyer. — Neil J. Squillante]
WHAT SOFTWARE, GADGET, OR DEVICE DO YOU THINK ATTORNEYS MOST NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THEIR WORK HABITS?
Lawyers don't need more gadgets and devices. Lawyers need to re-focus on how to better use the basic tools they already have for document generation, case information management, document/email/paper management, and their billing and financial systems.
Most firms I encounter barely use the systems they've already spent money on — including things as mundane as Microsoft Word. Smart law firms realize that effective use of technology is not about buying new things to solve problems in most cases, but rather focusing on better use of the core systems they already likely own. And realizing that ultimately, it's all about smart, simple, and practical procedures, and workflow. And further realizing that technology tools are just enablers to make sure processes from initial contact with a prospective client, through conflict checking and matter intake, through case handling, all the way to file archiving closure are done in the most effective way.
BUT IF THERE WAS ONE SOFTWARE APPLICATION LAWYERS REALLY NEED ...
I'd have to actually make it three (sorry — I can't decide):
First: Microsoft Word 2007 — the latest release of this product is LEAPS AND BOUNDS superior in every way to its miserably obtuse, perpetually mystifying, and downright exasperating predecessor Word 2003. Where Word 2003 has been a virtual instrument of torture for its users (victims?), Word 2007 is so dramatically improved, it seems almost un-Microsoft-like in its totally revamped and eminently logical layout. It's the first time I've ever publicly praised Microsoft Word.... I even have a new CLE program on precisely this subject that has been presented already around the country. It can be downloaded as a PDF.
As I've been pointing out in my CLE programs for several years, the next one is a little utility for Outlook users called Anagram. This little $30 Outlook-connected software utility allows you to highlight a name/address block in any program — in a document, in an email, on a Web site — and with a single keystroke, it splits it into individual fields of information and inserts them as an Outlook contact. This is a HUGE timesaver and the difference between saving contacts and not having the time to bother with the tedious manual approach. Thanks to techno-pal Browning Marean from DLA Piper for this tip — it's saved me, as well as hundreds of my clients, a significant amount of time.
Next up would be Metadata Assistant by PayneGroup. It's the first and, in my opinion, still the pre-eminent metadata removal and review tool for Word, Excel and PowerPoint files. In spite of years of educational efforts, a shocking number of lawyers are seemingly unaware of what metadata even is, no less its very real danger and threat to expose confidential information in electronically transmitted documents. And then add in the practical issues related to viewing hidden metadata in electronic documents obtained via discovery in litigation and this becomes perhaps the single most important piece of software that needs to be installed, and in informed use on every single law practice computer worldwide.
WHERE IS THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IN THE MOVEMENT TOWARD ELECTRONIC FILING AND WHAT SORTS OF SOFTWARE WILL THAT REQUIRE?
While this question addresses this issue in Wisconsin, many states are in much the same position in regard to e-filing. I'd say Wisconsin is slightly behind in state-based electronic filing of court documents compared to what I've seen in other states. Of course the Federal Court system has had electronic filing for years through its Pacer system. What Wisconsin lawyers need to prepare for the eventual and inevitable electronic filing in state courts and agencies is the ability to create PDF files from every workstation in their office.
The safest (but most costly) way to do this is using actual Adobe Acrobat (currently version 8 Professional is chock full of useful legal features like Bates stamping, secure redaction, etc. and is the version most should have) and especially to master it's critical functions related to securing PDFs to prevent alteration be recipients and removal of PDF metadata using the Examine Document feature in the latest release. Acrobat also supports secure digital signature technology which may very well be required for verification of online-filed court documents in Wisconsin (and likely other states) in the future.
MANY ATTORNEYS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SECURITY OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND ARE THEREFORE HESITANT TO USE IT? ARE THOSE CONCERNS WELL-FOUNDED?
Absolutely. Sending an email containing confidential client or firm information over the Internet makes it disturbingly easy to intercept and exploit. I don't think there's anyone out there today who doesn't get the concept that ordinary email is completely insecure. But the vast majority of lawyers routinely, and in the ordinary course of business, send confidential and sometimes highly sensitive information via email every day.
This poses a fundamental technical ethical issue — if a lawyer knowingly transmits confidential information which they are ethically duty bound to protect over a known insecure medium, could it not be argued that each incident could constitute an ethical violation? It's an interesting subject for debate.
Until we have an explicit ethics opinion or rule that clarifies what obligations a lawyer has to protect confidential client electronic communications, I recommend erring on the side of caution. I tell my clients they should include a "Communications" section in their engagement agreements. It should state something to the effect of:
"We will use Internet email to communicate with you and on your behalf during the course of our representation of you. It is widely known that ordinary Internet email is entirely insecure. If you would like us to engage in something more secure than ordinary Internet email, please indicate so, otherwise we will presume that ordinary Internet email is acceptable."
I believe this satisfies the lawyer's obligation — the client is made aware of the risk and is given an opportunity to opt into some kind of secure/encrypted email approach.
DO YOU FIND RESISTANCE AMONG ATTORNEYS TO ADOPT NEW TECHNOLOGIES? IF SO, WHAT DO THINK IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THAT RESISTANCE?
Sure. Perpetually. It's not just lawyers — it's most people. Human nature makes us pain avoiders — we tend to gravitate towards the easiest way to do the things we have to do. Change flies in the face of pain avoidance. Most lawyers I've met tend to bristle at the idea of changing their technology and interrupting the daily status quo. Even if logically, they know their practice is inefficient in many areas, they at least have gotten really good at efficiently being inefficient! It's the age-old progress-limiting trap of the devil you know often seems preferable to the one you don't.
The irony here is that the way to break out of that vicious circle and get off the endless treadmill is to step back and streamline practice approaches and procedures to improve client representation and minimize the stress of the reactive situations where fires have to be put out. Of course, alternatively, there's always Prozac.
The minority of my clients continent-wide, however, who see that change can be intensely positive. They see that there are always way to improve a practice approach, and streamline operations and maximize profitability by reducing non-billable administrative time as much as possible through smart application of procedures and technology, and that client service/retention can often be dramatically improved. These firms are the "super-competitors" because they'll eat change-resistant law firms for lunch before the victims even know it has happened.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF VOICE RECOGNITION SOFTWARE IN GENERAL? IN TERMS OF APPLICATION IN THE LEGAL FIELD?
Voice recognition has been around since the mid-1990's in a mainstream sense. But finally, within the last 12 months, after more than 15 years of hype and frustration — voice recognition now works the way most users would expect it to.
The latest version of the leading Dragon NaturallySpeaking voice recognition software is just plain stunning.... It works the way people expect with virtually none of the drawbacks of prior generations such as cumbersome initial "training" requirements. Run it on a contemporary PC with a capable USB-connected headset or an approved handheld digital recorder and people will be blown away by how effective it is. Even if they had bad experiences with prior releases of these products.
Everyone can talk faster than they can type, and with body text being entered into word processing documents, lengthier emails, even time entries and case notes dictated into your case manager, voice recognition and its companion related concept of digital dictation now meet or exceed expectations. Now if only they can overcome the early bad experiences people had that turned them off to earlier iterations of this technology.
Colleague Jim Calloway blogged about the current edition of Dragon NaturallySpeaking (version 9). It's a must-read for TechnoLawyer member Chris Middleton (see his Question below) and everyone else for that matter.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE FELT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED YOU THAT I HAVEN'T?
I could go on ad infinitum on topics like why I think law practices would be certifiably nuts not to have mission-critical tools such as case management and document managements systems, the critical distinctions between IT (Information Technology) and LT (Legal Technology), or how effective my Paper LESS Office process has been over the years, or how lawyers using WiFi connections in public wireless hotspots is absolutely insecure and should never be done when transmitting client-related information versus using secure wireless broadband cards offered by cell providers, or how badly law firms tend to apply process and systems training for their lawyers and staff using "memorization" as the modality versus task oriented knowledge-building ... but we can leave those for another day.
A version of the above article originally appeared in Ross Ipsa Loquitur, a legal technology blog written by industry legend Ross Kodner. Ross serves as the president of MicroLaw, which has helped law firms with technology since 1985, and is the only five-time individual Technolawyer @ Award winner, including the lifetime achievement award for Legal Technology Consultant of the Year in 1999. He also contributed to BlawgWorld 2007-08 with TechnoLawyer Problem/Solution Guide.
About TechnoEditorials
A TechnoEditorial is the vehicle through which we opine and provide tips of interest to managing partners, law firm administrators, and others in the legal profession. TechnoEditorials appear first in TechnoGuide, and later here in TechnoLawyer Blog. TechnoGuide, which is free, also contains exclusive content. You can subscribe here.
