The 1998 Law Firm Technology Survey
What are the hardware and software trends among the state's law
firms? How do they use computers in their day-to-day work, and how do
they think those uses will change in the near future? The third annual
technology survey tracks computer use in Wisconsin law firms.
By Dianne Molvig
Editor's Note: To view figures
referenced in this article you must have and/or install Adobe
Acrobat Reader on your computer.
Listen in on lawyers' conversations about
computer technology and you're likely to hear a wide range of
sentiments. Some have embraced computers, others are resigned to their
presence in today's law office, and still others shun these machines
or at least view them as being useful solely to support
staff.
Providing a formal sort of "listening in" on attorneys' attitudes
toward computers is the State Bar's 1998 Law Firm Technology Survey. Now
in its third year, the survey provides a glimpse into Wisconsin lawyers'
expertise and comfort level in using computers. Of the 1,780 attorneys
who initially received the survey, 654 completed it, for a 37 percent
response rate. Surveys went out to a stratified random sample of firms
in order to get a representative cross section of the state's attorneys.
This sampling technique divides a population into subgroups in
this case, firm size and then randomly selects participants from
each subgroup. Of those responding to the survey, 52 percent worked in
law firms with only one attorney, while 34 percent said their offices
had two to five attorneys, and 15 percent indicated their firms had six
or more attorneys. Single attorney firms were slightly underrepresented
in this year's survey responses.
"Many lawyers, and I think the general public, still view computers
as complicated and difficult to learn," notes Milwaukee attorney Tim
Muth, who practices in computer and Internet law. "I think it reflects
the fact that the computer and software industries still haven't done a
good job of making their products user-friendly. There's probably still
a fair amount of justified computer phobia out there."
Lawyers often revealed those kinds of frustrations in the survey
section devoted to write-in comments. In fact, many respondents summed
up their feelings in one word: "Help!"
Digging deeper for reasons behind their frustrations, the survey
found that the number-one barrier lawyers said they face in adopting
technology is lack of time time to research new technological
products and applications, and to learn how to use them adeptly. (See
Figure 1.) Wisconsin lawyers aren't alone. The "no time" lament is
one that Denver attorney John Tredennick, author of the American Bar
Association's two-book series, Winning with Computers, says he
hears often as he travels nationwide talking to lawyers about law office
technology.
But, saying you have no time to learn about computers is like being
"so busy chopping wood you can't sharpen your ax," Tredennick contends.
"Lawyers are too busy to learn how to speed up their efficiency. I hear
that all the time. But it's the worst excuse around. You don't have time
not to learn this stuff."
If that sounds like a challenge to the legal profession, it is,
Tredennick says. He adds that "the microchip revolution is right up
there in the top five" of the major developments in human history, along
with such events as the invention of the wheel and the printing press.
"For people to wince at it is a shame," Tredennick says. "This
technology is liberating. It's an exciting time to be alive."
How are Wisconsin lawyers faring in the revolution? The remainder of
the survey's findings provide some insights.
The "Net" catches on
One of the survey's key findings was a substantial jump during the
past year in Wisconsin attorneys' use of the Internet. Nearly 72 percent
of respondents said their firms now have Internet access, up from 50
percent last year. The 22 percent increase is double the proportion of
lawyers who stated in last year's survey that their firms planned to get
on the Internet in 1998. (Please see a related article on the Internet's
ethics
implications for lawyers elsewhere in this issue.)
Lawyers use
the Internet to find case law, statutes, article citations and texts,
expert witnesses, and more. But the possibilities go far beyond that,
Tredennick points out. "The key to the Internet is that it provides a
collaborative tool the likes of which we've never seen before," he says.
"You can have collaborative extranets, in which you work together with
outside counsel and your clients, and collaborative intranets that allow
you to share work product and your firm's most valuable resource, which
is your knowledge base."
For example, compare an intranet's capabilities, Tredennick says, to
an older system of having a notebook on the shelf containing information
about a specific legal issue you work on frequently. The notebook might
include pertinent statutes, useful articles, copies of pleadings in
prior cases, and so on. "If I have all that in a notebook sitting above
my desk, that's handy for me," Tredennick says, "but it doesn't do any
good for my partners, unless they know that notebook is there. If they
do, they can borrow it. But then the next time I need it I wonder where
it went, or when I get it back I wonder what happened to the missing
articles."
With intranet connections, that material can be available to everyone
in the firm all the time. Solo practitioners can benefit in different
ways, through external connections to colleagues. Even though you have
no partners to confer with, "you could have the expertise of a virtual
group of lawyers anywhere," Tredennick says. Still, lawyers across the
country are only beginning to tap into the opportunities for
collaboration the Internet offers, he adds.
One attorney who is exploring those capabilities is Bob Hagness, a
solo practitioner in Mondovi. "I'm doing work collaboratively with some
of my clients," Hagness says. "I'll work with construction company
clients on contracts, for example, where it's silly to think I know as
much as they do about how some parts of it should be done. Likewise,
there are parts I should do." He also collaborates with other lawyers on
cases, shuttling documents back and forth through email. "We might
exchange drafts several times a day," he says. "We don't want it to take
two or three weeks, and have to pick up and put down a file several
times to get refamiliarized with it. We want to get it done."
Hagness also sees the Internet as invaluable to him and other solos
in "creating a sense of community," he says. "There's no reason to think
I'd have more backup than I have right now if I were in a law firm of 10
or 20 or 50 lawyers, because I can go to WisBar or to one of my
electronic mailing lists and say, 'I have a problem.' I'll get back some
informed opinions from up to a dozen people in a day or so."
Other "Net" news
For many attorneys, WisBar, the State Bar's Web site, is "a
playground where they can learn how to use the Internet," says Green Bay
attorney Mark Pennow, chair of the Bar's Electronic
Bar Services Committee. The survey found that 55 percent of all
respondents, and 70 percent of those with Internet access, say they
visit WisBar regularly. More than half of those with Internet access
check into WisBar several times a month.
"We've tried over time, and will continue to try, to make it
user-friendly," Pennow says, noting that WisBar gives step-by-step
instructions for searching "with what some may say is a condescending
level of instruction. But once you understand how a search engine works
on WisBar, you can pop on any search engine, and you'll know what to do
when you see blanks with a cursor and a search button ... even without
all the explanation and coaching" that WisBar includes.
Attorney Ross Kodner of Milwaukee-based Microlaw, a law technology
consulting company, says he's seen a dramatic change in the level of
sophistication of Internet use among attorneys during the past year
even among those whose computer literacy may be lagging in other
areas. "Part of it is that the public information and excitement about
the Internet has caused everyone to at least go to look at Yahoo,"
Kodner says. "If you look at Yahoo, all of a sudden you know how to use
Findlaw. If you know how to use Findlaw, that's the gateway to
everything."
It doesn't surprise Kodner that the primary hands-on training need
identified by survey respondents was learning how to do legal research
on the Internet. (See
Figure 2.) "Once they get their feet wet they get a sense of what
else must be out there," he notes, "and they don't know how to get at
it. The more they know, the more they know what they don't know."
Lawyers are becoming more Internet-savvy in a couple other ways, too,
Kodner adds. One trend he notes is that attorneys use Lexis® or Westlaw® to do initial searching
for primary case law. But once they have the hits they're looking for,
they disconnect and go to other resources on the Internet, such as
WisBar or federal court sites, where they can get the actual case law
for free. "So they're spending less time on Lexis and Westlaw," Kodner
says, "being much more cognizant of the fact that the meter is
running."
Attorneys also are finding that, because of the Internet, they have
clout to negotiate prices on Lexis and Westlaw packages. More attorneys
are naming their price and getting it, Kodner reports. "Attorneys are
figuring out that Lexis and Westlaw don't have monopoly power," he
explains, "and that the Internet is a tremendous negotiating wedge to
drive into a discussion with a Westlaw or Lexis representative" to get
lower prices on their packages.
Word vs. WordPerfect
Given the word-intensive nature of law practice, it's no
surprise the survey found that word processing again far outranks other
software applications used by attorneys. (See
Figure 3.) As for the word processing software of choice, WordPerfect®
tops the list, with Windows® or DOS versions used by 60 percent of
firms surveyed. (See
Figure 4.) However, Microsoft Word® use in law firms keeps
gradually climbing up from 12 percent in 1996, to 22 percent in
1997, to 28 percent in 1998. One-fourth of the firms said they plan to
switch or upgrade their word processing software in 1999. Of those,
slightly more say they'll opt for Word rather than WordPerfect (31
percent versus 27 percent).
The most common reason lawyers cite for switching to Word is to be
compatible with their clients. But behind that decision, Kodner argues,
is the misconception that compatibility with the rest of the business
world comes by "merely waving one's magical Microsoft wand," he says.
"It's a much more complicated issue than just having the same
software."
For instance, older Word programs can't read documents generated by
newer versions of Word. Even trading documents that both were created by
the same version can prove tricky. If someone sends a document in which
layout is critical, such as a trial brief with footnote and page
references, to someone with a different default printer, the document
will come out with different pagination.
"My view is that in future surveys, smart firms will answer that they
have both Word and WordPerfect," Kodner predicts. Bob Hagness is among
the lawyers who already have opted for that solution. He owns Microsoft
Word as well as Windows and DOS versions of WordPerfect. Each has its
strengths and weaknesses in creating certain types of legal documents.
"Do you know any mechanic who just uses one wrench?" Hagness asks.
"Isn't the whole idea to use the tool that works best for what you
need?"
Another future solution to this quandary may be the adoption of XML
standards in document formats. Both Corel and Microsoft have stated they
will include XML in their products' new versions due out this year. If
that really happens, "the issue of proprietary document formats will
become moot," Kodner points out, "and it won't make any difference what
program you use. The document will come out the same regardless."
Buying trends
Office & Legal Software
Internet Browsers & Software
Voice Recognition Software
Reviews
Vendors
Year 2000 Support
Past Articles
Editor's Note:Links to vendor sites in
this area neither constitute an endorsement and/or recommendation for
any of the products listed. They are provided for evaluative purposes
and as a service to our readers.
Pentium-based computers now reign in law offices, with 73 percent of
firms owning Pentiums®, in contrast to last year's predominance of
486s. (See
Figure 5). Many firms seem to have decided that 1998 was a good year
to buy new equipment, given the significant price drops in the industry
that have brought the cost of powerful systems down below $2,000.
Seventeen percent of respondents said they plan to buy a Pentium in the
next year. Accompanying the shift to Pentiums is an upsurge in the use
of Windows, with Windows 95 use now up to 70 percent, compared to 46
percent last year. Only 6 percent of firms use Windows 98. (See
Figure 6.)
Those using older systems should be looking at their Year 2000 risks,
advises Muth. "A significant minority of firms (33 percent use DOS, 22
percent use Windows 3.x) still are using older operating systems," Muth
points out. "And a substantial number still have 386 and 486 computers.
It's those older systems that are more likely to have Year 2000
problems."
Looking ahead, surveyed lawyers say the top three tasks they plan to
computerize in their offices in 1999 are optical character recognition
(9 percent), Internet access (8 percent), and voice recognition (8
percent). (See
Figure 7.) Pennow predicts that voice recognition will be the next
big leap in technology adoption among lawyers, perhaps replacing once
and for all the magnetic tape-based dictating machine many lawyers still
use.
"One thing the survey didn't ask is how many lawyers type their own
documents, as opposed to dictating them," Pennow says. "I would guess 80
percent still dictate. They are the target market for voice recognition.
Even for those of us who type, if we were presented with a logical,
reasonable, workable alternative in terms of voice recognition, I think
most of us would gravitate toward it." Voice recognition allows direct
input of speech into the computer; what you say is entered directly into
the computer and appears on the screen in typewritten form. Until about
a year ago, voice recognition programs required the speaker to use
discrete speech that is, to ... talk ... like ... this,
cumbersome for the user to say the least. Now the software has advanced
to be able to handle continuous speech, and it does a fairly decent job
of recognizing homonyms in real time (such as to, too, two).
Accompanying any trend toward voice recognition would be a push
toward buying the newest Pentium-based machines, Pennow says, because
voice recognition technology requires a lot of electronic muscle.
"You're going to see people buying more high-powered Pentiums," Pennow
says, "especially, ironically, among the older lawyers, because they'll
want to go to voice recognition."
"If some of the pundits are correct," Pennow adds, "this will become
the tail wagging the dog. Everybody will want a new computer so they can
handle voice recognition the way a lawyer would expect it to be handled,
that is, permitting seamless speech at whatever rate the lawyer chooses
and being essentially error-free."
Another technological tool increasingly making its way into law
offices is the laptop or notebook computer. Of survey respondents,
one-fifth say they own a portable computer, and 8 percent say they plan
to buy one in the coming year. One of those considering such a move is
Bob Hagness. "I think there will be a shift toward more and more lawyers
making a portable computer their only computer," he says. "You don't
have any hassle about whether you have the right things with you all the
time. You don't have to waste time copying things here and there."
Perhaps just as importantly, portables can help lawyers overcome what
they say is their chief barrier to learning to use new technology: lack
of time. "When lawyers say they don't have time," Hagness points out,
"what they're really saying is that they have no desire to spend all
their time at the office." When he owned a portable before, "I found
that some nights I would just choose to fool around and learn more about
how to use a program," he says. "I only did it because it was there. I
wouldn't have walked one block to go to the office to do it."
What can the Bar do?
The survey asked respondents what the Bar could do to assist them in
adopting technology. Fifty-six percent said they would like hands-on
training in computer and software skills, even if it came with no CLE
credit, while 27 percent wanted such training only if it earned them CLE
credit. The Bar plans to offer hands-on technology training in its new
computer training room following its move to new headquarters in summer
1999.
A question new to this year's survey was whether lawyers would be
interested in the Bar investigating and recommending software packages
and hardware vendors. About half the respondents indicated they would
like the Bar to offer such a service, while the remaining half said they
get such help elsewhere or don't need it.
The assorted information derived from the survey will help the Bar
fashion its member services. "We do the survey so we can better
understand the technology needs of members," says Art Saffran, the Bar's
computer services director. "That helps us in planning for the kinds of
products we offer through WisBar, for example. It allows us to keep tabs
on the rate of adoption of technology by our membership, because we are
expecting, over the next 10 years or so, to see a shift toward lawyers
wanting to get a lot of information from the Bar electronically. Also,
by asking questions about training, we get a sense of where member
interests lie."
Dianne Molvig operates
Access Information Service, a Madison research, writing, and editing
service. She is a frequent contributor to area publications.
Wisconsin
Lawyer