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 3.0 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

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