How Well Are Wisconsin Lawyers Adopting Technology?
The
Impact of the Internet on CLE
Nearly half the respondents to the fourth
annual technology survey say they're very comfortable using computers
and are interested in staying current with new technology. Alarmingly,
the other half say their computer skills are at most adequate or worse.
Observers are concerned that merely adequate computer skills are not
good enough in today's competitive legal marketplace.
by Dianne Molvig
n light of recent survey findings, how well
Wisconsin lawyers are doing in adopting technology depends on whether
you view the glass as half full or half empty.
Nearly half the respondents to the State Bar of Wisconsin 2000 Law
Firm Technology Survey described themselves as "very comfortable using
computers" and having "an interest in keeping abreast of new
technologies." But 2 percent said they never use computers and never
intend to, while 15 percent stated they use computers only when
"absolutely necessary" and that their computer skills are limited.
Thirty-four percent of respondents acknowledged that using computers
daily is necessary to practice law. Lawyers in the latter group assessed
their level of computer skills to be "adequate."
The fact that roughly half the surveyed attorneys rated their
computer skills as at best adequate, and at worst limited or
nonexistent, is a cause for concern in the eyes of many observers.
Merely adequate computer skills are not good enough for law firms to
thrive in today's world, they say.
"It comes back to client service," says Debra
Hix-Sykes, an administrator for a Milwaukee/Madison-based law firm and
an office management consultant for other firms in the state. "It used
to be that if you were meeting with clients to try to win their
business, they'd ask about what type of work you did and what victories
you'd had. Now some of the first questions are 'What kind of technology
systems do you have in place? Can you communicate with us in an
efficient manner?' And it's not just the corporate clients asking those
questions."
Attorney Ross Kodner, president of MicroLaw, a nationwide
Milwaukee-based law technology consulting firm, agrees with Hix-Sykes'
assessment. "What I'm seeing in the field right now is that the
marketplace is dramatically changed," he says. "Clients are demanding
far more technological savvy from their lawyers. And I'm not sure this
survey reflects that they're getting it" in Wisconsin.
In fact, Kodner would go so far as to say the survey suggests the
state's attorneys are slipping backwards in technology usage. "The level
of technology focus in our state is minimal compared to what other
states are doing," he says. "We're behind the curve, and we used to be
way ahead of it. This survey should be a wake-up call."
Who Responded
The State Bar staff sent a survey questionnaire to 1,773 Wisconsin
law firms in April 2000. Selection of surveyed firms was by a stratified
sampling, based on firm size, to obtain a representative cross-section
of the state's attorneys. Survey responses came back from 607 attorneys,
for a 34 percent response rate.
Of those responding, 52 percent were in one-attorney firms, 32
percent worked in two-to-five-attorney offices, and 16 percent were from
firms of six or more attorneys. These percentages are nearly the same as
those of the most recent previous survey, completed in 1998. Again, in
this survey, as in the last, sole practitioners are under-represented
compared to the Bar as a whole where firms of one attorney now account
for 68 percent of all Wisconsin firms.
Responding attorneys represented law firms statewide, with the
smallest proportion of the firms (12 percent) located in the 22-county
northwest region, and the largest proportion (24 percent) located in
Milwaukee County. The remainder were in the southwest (22 percent),
central (17 percent), northeast (13 percent), and southeast outside of
Milwaukee County (13 percent).
The rural/urban split was even, with 38 percent of respondents having
their primary offices in cities with a population of 100,000-plus, and
the same percentage located in towns with populations of less than
25,000. These proportions are close to those of previous surveys in 1998
and 1997.
Systems Used
Pentium is the computer of choice among the state's lawyers, with
roughly 88 percent of firms owning Pentium I, II, or III machines.
Twenty-five percent, however, currently own Pentium IIIs. Seventeen
percent of firms say they'll buy Pentium IIIs within the next year.
As for operating systems, only 5 percent of firms have adopted
Windows 2000, and 9 percent use Windows NT Workstation. Windows 95 (46
percent) and Windows 98 (60 percent) still prevail in most Wisconsin law
offices. A sizable proportion still use DOS (21 percent) or Windows 3.x
(8 percent), considered by technology experts to be obsolete. The fact
that these figures add up to more than 100 percent, however, indicates
that many offices use multiple operating systems. Thus, many firms still
using DOS and Windows 3.x perhaps also have computers equipped with
newer operating systems.
As for future plans, only 4 percent of respondents said their firm
will go to Windows NT Workstation in the next year, and 12 percent will
adopt Windows 2000 during that same period. Fifteen percent will upgrade
to Windows 98.
As Kodner sees it, too many lawyers in the state are slow on the draw
to upgrade their equipment and systems. And that can hurt their ability
to keep or attain clients. "I know plenty of law firms," he says, "that
have been given ultimatums by their clients, saying, 'If you can't
communicate with us electronically, we don't want to use you.' I would
predict that in the next two years, it will be far more the norm that
any communication with clients and any transfer of documents will be
done electronically, rather than by sending paper. Firms that can't do
that aren't going to continue to exist."
That trend, Kodner adds, applies in rural and urban settings. "There
are lots of manufacturing companies in small towns," he points out. "Or
it could be the local hardware store that's more computerized than its
law firm, and says, 'Stop sending us paper.'"
Milwaukee attorney and computer consultant William Gleisner observes
that in his work with firms around the country, he sees a much faster
pace of adoption of Windows 2000 and Windows NT Workstation elsewhere
than in his home state. Lawyers using the older systems are missing out
on capabilities only newer systems can provide.
As just one example, Windows NT Workstation or Windows 2000 are
necessary to support Citrix application server software. With Citrix, a
firm having two branch offices in, say, La Crosse and Eau Claire, can
have lawyers in each office dial up to work on the same document
simultaneously.
Or a sole practitioner could use Citrix to access data on an office
computer via a laptop, no matter where he or she may be. "Say I have a
case that has thousands of documents," Gleisner explains, "I could put
that on my laptop and go with it. But maybe I want to put it on my
server back in my home office, and then I don't have to worry about
clogging up my (laptop's) hard drive. I can just call into my server and
work with those documents wherever I am."
The point, Gleisner emphasizes, is that "things are changing very,
very fast. And we're well beyond simple Windows applications." Looking
at survey results on technology usage patterns, he doubts most Wisconsin
lawyers are poised to take advantage of the new possibilities.
Another observation on trends in operating systems comes from Green
Bay attorney Mark Pennow, chair of the State Bar's Electronic Bar
Services Committee. Noting the possible breakup of Microsoft, Pennow
predicts "a dramatic upswing in the law office implementation of Linux,"
a system created by a nonprofit, worldwide consortium of programmers.
"In fact," Pennow says, "it's a poorly kept secret that Microsoft is
already working on porting over Word and Excel and a bunch of other
applications to the Linux platform, in anticipation that they're going
to get cut in half and will need to compete on multiple software
platforms. So it's likely that the world of Linux will expand
dramatically for the law office."
How Lawyers Use Computers
The survey asked respondents how much they used
computers to perform various tasks. Figure
1 shows the results. The scale ranged from 0 to 5, with 1 indicating
low usage (1 to 19 percent), 2 for 20-39 percent usage, 3 for medium
usage (40-59 percent), 4 for 60-79 percent usage, and 5 for high usage
(80-100 percent). Most firms do not plan to computerize in the next year
any tasks that they haven't done so already, and responses revealed only
modest interest in increasing computer use for most applications.
A few comparisons to the 1998 survey findings
illustrate today's modest interest in increasing computer usage. In
1998, document assembly was at 4.1, versus the current 4.0; time and
billing was at 4.3, versus the current 3.7; calendaring was at 3.4,
versus 3.0 today; and conflict checking was at 3.2 versus the current
3.0.
The medium to low usage levels for many tasks, other than document
preparation, indicate that many lawyers aren't getting all they could
out of their computers, technology experts say. For instance, lawyers
ought to consider making far greater use of automated conflict checking,
advises Hix-Sykes. "We can no longer rely on our old methods of having
physical file cards or relying on memory," she notes. "And it's only a
matter of time before our malpractice carriers want firms to use more
than manual methods."
And while the "jury is still out" on whether and how attorneys can
practice in multidisciplinary settings, in which lawyers pool their
expertise with other nonlawyer professionals to jointly serve clients,
MDPs spur an even greater need for computerized conflict checking. In
such settings, Hix-Sykes points out, "Lawyers are going to be exposed to
additional people, additional companies, and they'll need a
conflict-checking system that's quicker and more accurate."
Lawyers also could be making better use of computerized
presentations, Hix-Sykes says. "It depends on the clientele you're
serving," she notes, "but it can have a powerful impact. It's something
lawyers should consider learning, especially when they're trying to do
business development." Likewise, much potential remains untapped for
using computer technology to present information in a clear, engaging
way in trials before juries.
Figure
2 shows the frequency of use of various applications, ranging from
"never" to "daily." This question was not asked in the 1998 survey, so
no comparisons with this year's results are possible. Naturally, the
highest daily usage numbers are for word processing (91 percent), a task
for which law firms use WordPerfect more than Microsoft Word (see
Figure
3). Sixty-eight percent access the Internet daily, and 50 percent
send email outside the office daily. But 17 percent of lawyers still use
the Internet only monthly or never, and 0 percent send email to parties
outside their firms at most once a month.
Legal research by CD-ROM gets nearly as much daily usage as legal
research by the Internet (29 percent versus 31 percent) - a finding that
concerns Kodner. "Those firms using CD-ROM are relying on the
once-a-month updates," he points out, "and that means for the 29 days in
between those updates they're (potentially) giving their clients
outdated advice."
The high "never" usage levels for such applications as intranet (85
percent), extranet (95 percent), and voice recognition software (87
percent) indicate a huge need for education, says Kodner.
What Lawyers Want and Need
Visiting the State Bar's WisBar Web site is a fairly regular practice
for many state attorneys. A total of 92 percent of surveyed lawyers have
visited the site at some point, and 52 percent check the site at least
several times a month (see Figure
4).
Still, while 68 percent of respondents indicated they log onto the
Internet daily, only 5 percent go to WisBar that often. "I think that
reflects that we've done a good job working on the medium," Pennow says.
"We have a great Web site that has plenty of pizazz and lots of
potential. But we need to work on the message. There's obviously
something WisBar doesn't provide."
That situation may be remedied somewhat upon completion of an
initiative to put on the Web electronic copies of all Wisconsin Supreme
Court cases dating back to the 1940s, as well as all Wisconsin Court of
Appeals cases. Currently, only cases from 1995 forward are available
online.
But WisBar's potential extends far beyond that, to include enormous
possibilities for continuing legal education. "Right now WisBar does a
good job of providing static information," Pennow says, "and it does
somewhat of a good job providing knowledge, that is, information in
context. We don't do any kind of a job at all of disseminating wisdom -
that is, knowledge tempered by judgment. We have a good deal of wisdom
penned up in the continuing legal education (CLE) materials. Yet none of
that surfaces on the Web site."
Many survey respondents agree that they'd like to be able to access
CLE materials via the Internet. Thirty-seven percent said they'd be
interested in purchasing CLE seminar materials by downloading the audio
lectures and/or written materials. An equal percentage also want to be
able to purchase CLE book chapters, and 74 percent would like to be able
to buy legal forms over the Internet.
Stumbling Blocks
Remaining at the top of attorneys' list of barriers to adopting
computer technology is the lack of time for research and implementation.
In the 2000 survey, 57 percent of respondents cite time scarcity as an
obstacle to using computers in their practices (see Figure
5). This percentage has stayed at roughly the same level ever since
the State Bar's first technology survey in 1996. Tied for a rather
distant second place were "shortage of financial resources" and "lack of
training," both at 38 percent - compared to 35 percent and 38 percent,
respectively, in 1998.
Sheryn Bruehl, an Oklahoma attorney and nationwide speaker on
technology, says she empathizes with the time shortage issue. But she's
learned - sometimes the hard way - that investing time and effort to
learn technology pays off. "I see lawyers spending two or three hours on
projects their secretaries could have done for them in 15 minutes with
the right tools," Bruehl says. "I've done the same thing. I've left my
office many, many nights at 11 o'clock."
Then a few years ago her firm installed case management software. "My
capacity to do work," she notes, "increased radically just by organizing
the details - not searching for files and papers, not looking for lost
information, and not retracing my own steps over and over. What had been
overwhelming for me six months before was maybe 40 percent of my work
capacity" after installing case management software.
Still, finding the time and energy to get started with technology can
seem impossible. That's when it's wise to turn to outside help, says
Bruehl, adding that she's surprised to see 20 percent of survey
respondents marked "lack of knowledgeable vendors and consultants" as a
barrier to technology usage "when Wisconsin has some of the best in the
country," she says.
Paying for outside expertise can be a smart investment, Bruehl
argues, emphasizing that she makes her living from her law practice, not
from consulting, and thus she has no stake in drumming up work for
technology consultants. "Lawyers will spend $3,000 on a computer they're
using as just a glorified typewriter," she says. "They truly have no
idea of the scope and power of legal software available to them. But a
law technology consultant could spend an hour with a firm and show it
how to save $10,000 or $20,000 a year in billable time or staff
salary."
Ironically, the logic of investing in technology help - whether for
hiring consultants or enrolling in training seminars - often escapes
attorneys, Bruehl says. "It strikes me as funny that they're the same
people who tell their clients they can't afford not to have an
attorney," she notes. "Lawyers know that people (who try to handle their
own legal matters) cheat themselves because they don't know what they
don't know. I think attorneys are in the same position when it comes to
technology."
Surf or Sink
Reading between the lines of the survey results, technology experts
glimpse lingering attitudes that hinder effective use of law technology.
In the eyes of many, technology may still be just one more detail to
worry about and spend time on, one more expense to pay for in today's
overhead-heavy law firms. But, in fact, technology is a tool for
survival in today's competitive marketplace, where the "million-pound
gorilla of multidisciplinary practices hangs over us," Kodner says.
Fending off that kind of competition demands "knowing what you do
well," he adds, "and being able to do it even better because you're
extremely efficient and you're very lean internally. You have minimum
overhead because you use technology as much as possible."
That's been De Forest attorney David Grove's goal ever since he set
up his sole practice right out of law school five years ago. From the
start, his business plan called for a staffless office. His thinking was
that "if I had this standard one-lawyer and one-secretary office, and
then slapped technology on top of that," he says, "all I'd do is
increase my costs. So I said I'm going to get rid of the staff idea."
Technology has enabled him to do that and thus keep his overhead costs
low. "We're running at 28 cents on the dollar in a bad year," he says,
"and in a good year we're at 21 cents. That's a big difference. I mean,
we're talking about dollars you keep in your hand here."
Technology continues to develop at a rapid pace and "will absolutely
increase exponentially lawyers' ability to function," Gleisner says.
"It's no longer a situation where the practice of law is your primary
focus and technology is just something that gets in your way. Technology
is going to be the way you practice law. It's as if we're, in effect,
body surfing through life on technology waves, and it's going to be the
people who learn to body surf best who will survive. That's the way it
is. Welcome to the 21st century."
Dianne Molvig operates Access
Information Service, a Madison research, writing, and editing service.
She is a frequent contributor to area publications.
Wisconsin Lawyer