 |
|
|
Vol. 73, No. 8, August 2000 |
 Previous
Page
How Well Are Wisconsin Lawyers
Adopting Technology?
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.
|
