Vol. 70, No. 10,
October 1997
1997 Technology Survey
Second Annual Technology Survey Tracks
Computer Use In Wisconsin Law Firms
By Dianne Molvig
Computers have become nearly as pervasive as telephones in today's office
settings, and law offices are no exception. The 1997 Law Firm Technology
Survey conducted by the State Bar of Wisconsin found that among responding
attorneys, nearly 98 percent reported having computers in their offices.
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? |
Still, despite apparent widespread use, sentiments toward computer technology
remain all over the map, as reflected by survey respondents' write-in comments.
"It's overrated," stated one attorney. "The learning curve
is very high." But another wrote: "Without [computer] technology
I could not compete with even small law firms. With it, I hold my own against
the largest firms in the Midwest." And many lawyers probably can identify
with their colleague who volunteered this reaction to computer technology:
"I love it and hate it depending on whether things are going right."
Clearly, even though computers are prevalent, they're far from problem-free,
according to the lawyers who use them. The second annual Bar technology
survey attempted to pinpoint problems lawyers experience and track their
computer usage patterns. 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?
About the survey
Surveys were sent to a stratified random sample of 1,738 Wisconsin law
firms, addressed to "managing partner." Surveys were returned
by 695 firms, for a 40 percent response rate. According to the project's
survey research consultant Gene Kroupa, "This response rate is sufficient
to provide an accurate overview of law firms' technology usage."
Responding firms closely approximated overall State Bar membership statistics
in the areas of firm size and geographic location. In a stratified random
sample, the population is divided into subgroups and a random sample is
then selected from each subgroup. For the technology survey, the population
of Wisconsin law firms was divided into subgroups based on firm size. A
random sample was then selected from each of these subgroups to obtain a
representative sample based on firm size. (See Figure
1 for a breakdown of respondents.)
Richard Rodgers, a law professor at Campbell University in North Carolina
and a nationally renowned expert on law office computer technology, believes
Wisconsin lawyers may well be at the forefront of adopting computer technology.
Contrary to what many believe, the leading edge is not in Manhattan or Los
Angeles, he contends. "The solo practitioners are the ones pushing
on the edges of what we can do with computers," Rodgers explains, "...and that allows you to innovate. I think you'll find more computer use among
lawyers in Wisconsin than in any state I know, except possibly North Carolina."
The remainder of this article highlights some of the findings of this
year's technology survey and opinions on what the results mean.
Getting out the words
Surveyed law firms were asked to rate the degree to which their firm
used a computer for various functions, by marking scores ranging from "0"
for no usage to "5" for high usage. Figure
2 shows the aggregate results, along with comparisons to rankings from
last year's survey.
Not surprisingly, word processing and document assembly are the computer
functions law offices use most. The most popular word processing software
remains WordPerfect, although its usage level is down by 12 percent from
last year, while Microsoft Word is up 10 percent (see Figure
3). WordPerfect 5.1 use fell about 13 percent from last year, although
it remains the WordPerfect version of choice among attorneys surveyed.
"People shake their heads at how a program that's a decade old can
still be the preeminent word processor for lawyers," says Green Bay
lawyer Mark Pennow, chair of the Bar's Electronic Bar Services Committee.
"The answer is it just works. It's the lingua franca, if you will,
of word processing for lawyers."
Still, the survey numbers show that some law firms steered away from
WordPerfect in the past year - a shift also reflected in the general population,
according to computer industry observations. Industry observers speculate
the shift may be due in part to uncertainty about WordPerfect's future since
it changed ownership from Novell to Corel.
Gary Bakke of New Richmond is one lawyer who made the switch to Microsoft
Word, although he now regrets it, even to the extent that he's pondering
switching back to WordPerfect. "We had 12 years invested in WordPerfect,"
Bakke says, "but things that are intuitive for us for WordPerfect don't
exist in Word. Many people are happy with Word, but I find that the better
you were with WordPerfect, the less you'll like Word. Nobody told me that
before I bought it."
Despite such problems, the survey indicates a shift toward Microsoft
Word is under way. "Microsoft has more ability in terms of support
and development dollars that go into continued improvements and upgrades
to the product," says Milwaukee attorney Timothy Muth, who has long
been a Microsoft Word user. "So I think the universe of choices and
level of support and commitment to the product is greater for Microsoft."
Microsoft Word also has become the leader in the corporate world as a whole.
Notes Muth, "When I'm emailing documents back and forth to clients,
I don't find many businesses who have WordPerfect outside of law firms."
On the other hand, WordPerfect committed recent strategic blunders that
have disheartened at least some attorneys. Leigh Webber of Practice Management
Institute, a St. Paul-based technology teaching/consulting firm, refers
to one of these as the "Great Betrayal." "That has to do
with the macro language," Webber explains. "If you were to add
together the total cost to law firms around the country of developing all
the macros they have developed over the years in using WordPerfect for DOS,
my guess is it would easily be billions of dollars. But the newer versions
of WordPerfect (6 for DOS, 5.1 for Windows, and so on) have a completely
incompatible macro language, which means that lawyers' enormous investment
in automation procedures has been made worthless. That's why a lot of firms
have hung on to their WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS; they don't want to abandon
all their macros."
The upshot of all of this is that selecting word processing software
can be a headache for lawyers, especially in light of how central a function
word processing is in any law firm. The debate over WordPerfect versus Word
surely will continue.
Is change inevitable?
The DOS operating system continues to predominate in law firms, according
to survey results. But while DOS is fine for word processing, many lawyers
reach a point when they want more from their computer technology than DOS
can give them - such as accessing the Internet. Hence, Webber sees many
firms that have put off buying new computers in recent years now taking
the plunge. "I've seen a lot of that in the past year," he notes.
"And of course when you buy a new computer, you can't buy one that
doesn't have Windows 95 on it."
As Figure 4 shows, Wisconsin law firms'
use of Windows 95 is up by 29 percent since last year's survey, while use
of DOS and Windows 3.x dropped by roughly 15 percent and 10 percent respectively.
Another 18 percent of survey respondents plan to convert to Windows 95 within
the next 12 months.
The trend toward Windows 95 also ties into choice of word processing
software. As Webber points out, "The difference in pain between going
from WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS to WordPerfect for Windows, versus going from
WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS to Microsoft Word for Windows, is very little. It's
painful either way." That factor, plus the doubts about WordPerfect's
strategic direction, may spur more lawyers to turn to Microsoft Word.
As for computer hardware, Figure 5 indicates
that the 486 PC has become the computer most commonly found in law offices
(an average of about five per office), with the Pentium ranking second (an
average of about four per office). Pentium use gained somewhat since the
1996 survey, while 486 use stayed about the same and 386 use dropped significantly.
Of the respondents that intend to purchase new computers over the next 12
months, most expect to purchase Pentiums.
"With the advent of 32-bit computing - that is, computing that requires
Pentiums - coming along, I think we're due soon for a second wave of [computer]
purchasing," Pennow predicts. "Lawyers who equipped their offices
with 486s and swore that would be the last computer they'd buy for a long
time, are in for a significant economic surprise in the next couple years
when support for the 16-bit applications drops off, and the 32-bit Pentium
world becomes the de facto standard."
The "Net" gains
Almost 50 percent of Wisconsin lawyers now have Internet access, a sizable
jump from last year's 30 percent figure. Another 11 percent plan to hook
up to the Internet within the next year.
Librarian Jane Colwin sees those numbers reflected in major changes in
how attorneys and judges use the State Law Library, which has long offered
a photocopy/fax information service. "A lot of lawyers used to call
us when they read about an opinion in the newspaper the day after the court
issued it," Colwin notes. "Now they've figured out how to go to
the Bar's home page and get it themselves."
The Internet provides a wealth of information: caselaw, statutes, sources
for finding expert witnesses and more. By no means, however, does the Internet
meet all of a lawyer's research needs - at least not yet. Major proprietors
of online research services and legal publishers are moving to fill that
gap.
"One of the most interesting developments," notes Ross Kodner,
an attorney and owner of MicroLaw, a Milwaukee-based consulting firm, "is
that there's enough substantive material now on the Internet and a large
enough critical mass of people using it so that the proprietary online research
services, such as Lexis and Westlaw, feel the pinch. So they're rolling
out Internet-based access to their services."
While Kodner envisions continued increased use of the Internet by lawyers,
that trend brings implications that are both "good and bad," he
warns. "What I'm referring to is lawyers whose only computer experience
is Internet-related. They don't know a lot of basics about computer usage,
but have learned to be quite adept at Internet usage."
This leads to a knowledge gap that Kodner characterizes as "genuinely
dangerous." One risk is that because others in the firm come to view
these individuals as computer power users, which they're not, they get asked
for advice they're not qualified to give. Another negative result may be
an "undue emphasis on the importance of the Internet in the firm's
overall ability to generate its work product and serve its clients,"
Kodner says.
"I don't want to sound negative because I believe the Internet is
an essential tool for any firm of any type. But it's part of a whole collection
of tools that a firm uses to get its job done. By focusing a lot of effort
on the Internet, potentially to the detriment of core production tools,
firms can suffer some serious efficiency losses. You have to put it in the
proper perspective."
Barriers to using computer technology
Lack of time topped the list of reasons lawyers cited for either not
adopting computer technology at all, or not learning to use it as effectively
as they could in their work (see Figure 6).
There was little variation in the ranking of barriers to computer use even
when firm size was considered (per data not revealed in Figure 6), with
the exception of financial constraints, which was less of a barrier in large
firms.
In addition to the information in Figure 6, Richard Rodgers points to
obstacles lawyers don't like to talk about. One stems from the belief that
proficient computer usage demands being a skilled typist. "You don't
have to be a Della Street typist to use a computer," Rodgers says,
citing himself as a prime example. "When I get up [in front of a group
of lawyers] I hold up two fingers and say, 'These are the digits with which
I make my living.' My wife says I type like a pharmacist."
"The notion that you graduate from a typewriter to a computer is
wrong," Rodgers adds. "Computers aren't to be considered typewriters.
[Otherwise] you'll never get the benefit of computer technology, because
computers can do things typewriters never dreamed of doing."
Another factor concealed behind the "I don't have the time"
argument, Rodgers contends, is the fear of looking foolish. "A lawyer's
ego is the size of the Goodyear blimp," he says. "They've been
to law school where they're taught omniscience. If the computer makes a
fool of me, there will be a crack in this veneer of omniscience. That's
very hard on lawyers."
Conclusion
The State Bar will continue to track trends in how Wisconsin attorneys
use computer technology in their law practices. Why? Information on trends
may help individual members and various Bar groups make decisions about
technology use. And survey results can help the Bar identify further opportunities
to help meet members' technology and information needs.
Dianne Molvig operates Access Information Service,
a Madison research, writing and editing service. She is a frequent contributor
to area publications. |