Standing Committee on Legal Technology
November 1999 Vol. 7 No. 1
(Notice to librarians: The following issues were published in Volume 6 of this newsletter during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999: October, No. 1; April, No. 2.)
Statements or expressions of opinion or comments appearing herein are those of the editors or contributors, and not necessarily those of the association or committee.
Contents
* Can your computer count past 1999?
* Inexpensive time and billing software
* Word® word counts and the type-volume limitations
By Jerry Gorman
For the first time in its existence, the Committee on Legal Technology (CoLT) has a technological neophyte (aka dummy) as its chairman. From its beta birth, CoLT has been blessed with amazingly competent leadership. High tech gurus such as Alan Pearlman, Paul Bernstein, Margo Lynn Hablutzel, David Yavitz, and Todd Flaming have provided not only excellent leadership, but also mind numbing command of the techno-legal world and the gizmos that drive it. Now, it's my turn--sort of a Mr. Smith Goes to Silicon Valley.
Like most lawyers, I did not grow up with computers. Pong baffled me. But also like most of you, Microsoft, the Internet, e-mail, and Palm Pilots have forced their way into my life. Now, I can't imagine working without creating and editing my own Word files; consulting an electronic calendar/docket, task and notes lists; e-mailing fellow workers and clients. Laptops, Palm Pilots, and, therefore, files travel with me between office, home, and appointments. There are days of amazing frustration--Excel spreadsheets still mystify me at times; but also days of tremendous productivity--document creation and editing by three lawyers sprawled between our Chicago and Champaign offices.
My goal while Dummy Chair of CoLT is to convince, educate, cajole, shame, or whatever, those who have yet to advance their practices to at least an essential level of computerization, to do so. At first, it will befuddle and frustrate you even more than dating, but eventually you will be, maybe not a better person, but certainly a better lawyer for it. To help this along, CoLT is going back to basics. We are planning a series of seminars called "Boot Camp for Attorneys" that will provide lawyers with basic understanding of how computers work, what systems and programs to use, and how to use them to make your practice more efficient, profitable, and most import, enjoyable. Stay tuned to the ISBA and CoLT for information about the dates and locations of these seminars.
CoLT, with Todd Flaming as editor, has already produced the "Lawyer's Guide to Using Computers." This resource book for the beginner and the expert will be available from the ISBA around the first of the year. Also, this Newsletter will start carrying a regular "Boot Camp" column for us techno-wannabes.
For the more adept, CoLT will continue to provide guidance through this newsletter and the activities of the committee. Alan Pearlman, aka the Electronic Lawyer, who always has something to say--some of which I now understand--will start a regular column called "Toys." That column will focus on the cutting edge of what's available in new hardware and software for attorneys.
Finally, CoLT is working with the ISBA Ad Hoc Committee on Electronic Filing providing technical guidance on how to bring electronic filing to Illinois courts. This is an ambitious project, but one that will aid attorneys and the public by streamlining our judicial system.
Stay tuned through this newsletter and visiting the ISBA website, ISBA.org, as we adapt to the new ways even we dummy lawyers must work. Ok, now how do I save this document?
Can your computer count past 1999?
By James Bumgarner
If your computer and software are programmed to assume that all year dates begin with "19," you should see what you can do to fix them before the year 2000; or, before that, if your projected calendars, amortizations, or due dates extend more than three years from today. Because of the two-digit system instituted when we had limited random access memory and disk space, it is possible that your entry for the year 2000 will show up as 1900.
This problem, if you have it, is not as simple as attempting an override. Your payroll, pension plans, case management, due dates, and all databases may well be programmed with two digit dates. If that is true, even a elementary knowledge of computer and software programming tells you that the number of lines of code involved is astronomical.
If you are an expert you might enter codes indicating that "00" is greater than "99" when in ascending sequence. As an alternate, if you don't have to go back too far, you might try coding 00 to 59 to indicate 2000, 2001, etc. By 2059, there will be software to take care of any problem with 2060. If you are not up to these possibilities, try commercial fixit software, but be sure to get a guarantee. A defective program could require you to take the time to erase and restore, assuming you have adequate backup.
Bob Bemer, a 70 plus year old computer expert, who created the escape key sequence and was IBM's chief of programming standards, is working on a fix that lies in changing the object code (machine code). Here a compiler translates higher level languages into the code (ones and zeros) that actually run the computer. If this level is adjusted, it would obviate the thousands of changes required to update software programs. As he helped to establish ASCII and to use the name COBOL for a computer language, and to develop the standard for binary digits (bits) to be contained in groups of eight (bytes), he might well succeed. By the way, he created the backslash command that the World Wide Web has reversed to the forwardslash.
If you have better ideas than these, let your Standing Legal Technology Committee know at jimbum@bumgarner.org, or to David Clark, dmclark@nvsn.com. Meanwhile, watch those statute of limitation dates that go past December 31, 1999.
Since the above was written, the Wall Street Journal has published articles on two consecutive days, the first on July 25, 1996 on the first page of the Money & Investing section, and the second on July 26 on the first page of the Marketplace section. Mortgages and insurance policies could be cancelled or miscalculated, and even time stamped email and voice mail wold be subject to interruption.
It appears that Prudential Insurance company has some 125 million lines of code. That corporation and GTE are likely to spend in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is so pervasive that anything having a chip will have to checked out and reprogrammed if unable to pass the year 1999. For those who know computers, the fix should come early to permit as long a period as possible for testing the system changes. This may be one area where businesses will cooperate out of necessity because of the gargantuan efforts that will be required.
More recently, the Wall Street Journal has published and additional article, July 25, 1998, on page C1. According to this article, the year 2000 is the CEO's big secret. The main reason is the cost of reprogramming. Prudential has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and GTE could spend several hundred million. It is no wonder that the corporations don't want to alert stockholders to such enormous expenses. Litigation experts are getting ready for the rash of possible tort and contract cases that will arise when the repairs are not made in time. A more than four-year insurance policy written today extends beyond the deadline. Mortgage, note, and payment schedules are in peril.
Tort lawyers might well start boning up on the liabilities that may arise as a result of deadline failures and miscalculations. Inordinate corporate and business expenses due to errors causing losses to businesses and to their customers might well be considered due to negligence. Of course the same applies to civil litigation and other matters that rely on scheduling or noticing.
By David Clark
Just when you thought it was safe to get past the pitfalls of an automation project, the work is only half done. The execution of the planning and purchasing will yield you some measure of satisfaction in the joys of being operational, but what about the contingency of facing disasters both small or large?
The secret of success is in the planning and that remains true when facing the inevitability of some sort of failure. The problems could be within the network, within the workstation, within the software, or even in the data. What do you do? How will you react? Will overwhelming panic set in?
If you plan for failure as diligently as you have planned for success, you'll be just fine. Sounds contradictory doesn't it. It is vital as well as true.
Develop a checklist of disaster "what ifs". Write down your plans. See that more than your network administrator knows and understands what the steps are in your recovery plan.
Let's look at some of the component pieces. First, data. Making your back-ups religiously isn't enough. A wise tip is to rent a safe deposit box at a bank close by. See that on a weekly basis you place copies of your back-up data, whether they are tape or even optical copies. A small fireproof safe can be a good investment to store the daily back-ups. These are simple and relatively inexpensive precautions.
I recommend to my clients that they mirror or duplex data on the hard drive of their server. Most of my clients operate in a multiple server environment, so it is an easy way to separate operations/programs from data storage.
In the case of workstation failure, if pre-planned precautions are taken, critical data can be protected. I prefer that in a network environment, each user be given access to several drives. An "m" drive can be individualized as a "my data drive" having limited access, but still storing the data on the server allowing complete back-ups to be made. An "s drive" can segment clusters of workstations in a "shared drive" between attorney, paralegal, and secretary or combinations you determine. In this way documents or data is shared electronically, avoiding "sneaker nets." An additional drive like "t" standing for "total office" affords sharing with all parties on the network. Each and every drive is backed-up as they are resident on the data server. This provides security for both individual and collective data.
Invest in some spare component pieces. Have an extra hard drive, or a CD drive or even a floppy drive. They are inexpensive and when the inevitable hardware failure occurs, your network caretaker can swap them very easily when problems are diagnosed.
Setting up multiple print stations allows re-routing of print jobs if a printer goes down. Give them distinct names for easy identification. Having these multiple sites also can allow a variety of printers. (New combination printers offering features as faxing, printing and scanning are both new and surprisingly affordable.)
Use your consultant to aid in the preparation of your emergency plans. He is sure to think of things that you will overlook. Use the consultants' experience and knowledge to your advantage. Most certainly, your consultant is an overlooked resource in the post-installation life of your network.
Good luck. Make your luck be good. Planning will lessen worries and will be cost-efficient in the long run.
Inexpensive time and billing software
By Adrienne Albrecht
We recently upgraded our entire computer system. In exchange for our old, tired Lantastic network, we opted for a new, fast Windows Nt system running their Backoffice Small Business Server. Our time and billing program had been Timeslips, which was built on a series of upgrades from the original $100 DOS version. Before my eyes, I watched Timeslips grow from an inexpensive, user friendly program into an 800 pound monster. The cost and complexity had grown so much that it was no longer practical. The final blow came when we received a post card from Timeslips warning us that our version (6.0) was not Y2K compliant. When I went to their recommended web site, I learned that Timeslips did not have a fix for our version. I e-mailed the folks at the Sage group and asked them what they were going to do about it. Their response invited me to spend $1,000 to upgrade to their current version. Since the current version has been panned in reviews I have seen and heard, I decided to look elsewhere.
The first program I came across was Time and Chaos. Time and Chaos is a nifty inexpensive docketing program with a time and billing add-in. However, it does not convert other programs very well. It did not serve our needs to take the date we had already accumulated and make it accessible to the new one. We already had our schedules and tickler system input into Lotus Organizer. I liked this program a lot and lawyers to whom I showed it were thrilled. However, they weren't already using any computer program for scheduling or billing.
Then, I found RTGBILLS. It is available at http://www. rtgsoftware.com/. Like most good programs these days, it has a demo available for free that can be downloaded on line. Since it costs only $50 plus $10 for each additional timekeeper (lawyer); and claimed to be able to convert from Timeslips, I purchased a copy. It took a while, but I was able to convert our existing timeslips database and import it into RTGBILLS. The technical support person impressed me. When I was struggling to convert our existing database, he sent me messages asking how I was doing just because he hadn't heard from me.
RTGBILLS does not have the multiple levels of security that Timeslips does. However, it is much more user friendly. Since it is designed specifically for small law firms, it uses phrases and concepts that lawyers understand. It's security is based on utilizing two separate programs. RTGBILLS is the full version that the bookkeeper and lawyers uses. RTGTIMER is simply a timekeeper that gives the users access to client names and matters and allows them to input time and view reports of the timekeeper's entries only. It requires that the timekeeper transfer data to the billing program. There is also a free program called RTGNAMES that gives the user access to client names, addresses and phone numbers for use in work processing and client contact purposes.
Running this program on the network has been both easy and trouble free. There are some features that I would like it to have that it lacks. However, the technical support person has been most responsive. Also, it could use a better print spooler. It was a bit tedious when I had to go into the control panel and fiddle with the printer settings in order to make sure it would work properly. However, I am impressed that we were able to get this program up and running with access to our old billing data and without any specialized training in a matter of days. For a total investment of $80 in a three-lawyer office, we can live with a few shortcomings.
Another program that I came across is Bill Power. Bill Power is featured on the Lotus Organizer web site. It's address is www.billpower.com It is a nifty, inexpensive, program that basically reads data contained in Lotus Organizer, Microsoft Outlook, and Act and allows the user to bill from them. Like RTGBILLS, it is inexpensive, downloadable from the web, and has a free thirty-day demo. These time limited demos need to be used with care; because the only way to access the data you have put in them when the time limit expires is to purchase the program. Also, the technical support staff is very responsive. I like software companies that actually solicit my input.
When I inquired about converting from Timeslips, the people at Bill Power responded by reminding me that, since their program uses the contacts section of Outlook and Organizer, I would need to convert to Outlook or Organizer. This company, also, seems dedicated to enhancing their software and responding to their customers. If and when we ever successfully get Lotus Organizer converted to Microsoft Outlook and have all of our data in one place, Bill Power looks like it could actually help us achieve the ever elusive goal of single entry input for all of our client information.
My quest thus far has shown me that there really are programs out there that can handle our time and billing needs for very little money. Best yet, they promise and deliver free technical support.
Word® word counts and the type-volume limitations
By John C. Craig
Under Rule 32(a)(7)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a principal brief may exceed 30 pages only if it: (1) contains no more than 14,000 words, Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(i), and (2) includes a certificate of the attorney that it complies with this "type-volume" limitation, Rule 32(a)(7)(C). Headings, footnotes and quotations count toward the limitation, but the corporate disclosure statement, table of contents, table of citations, statement with respect to oral argument, any addendum containing statutes, rules or regulations, and any certificates of counsel do not. Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare the brief. Rule 32(a)(7)(C).
In DiSilva v. DiLeonardi, Nos. 99-1754 & 99-1769, (7th Cir. July 21, 1999) (on discharge of order to show cause), http://www.kentlaw.edu/7circuit/1999/jul/99-1754A.html, counsel for appellants, who relied on the Word Count (Tools/Word Count) feature of Microsoft Word 97 in certifying appellants' brief as containing 13,824 words, unwittingly ran afoul of this limitation.
The word count on which counsel for appellants relied was incorrect because of the unexpected way in which the Word Count feature in Word® functions (or perhaps more appropriately, malfunctions). As explained by the Seventh Circuit in finding that sanctions were inappropriate and discharging its order to show cause:
Appellants' brief was prepared with Microsoft Word 97, and an unfortunate interaction occurred between that software and the terms of Rule 32. All recent versions of Microsoft Word (Word 97 for Windows, Word 98 for Macintosh, and Word 2000 for Windows), and some older versions that we have tested, count words and characters in both text and footnotes when the cursor is placed anywhere in the document and no text is selected. In recent versions on both Windows and Macintosh platforms, choosing the Word Count function brings up a window listing the number of characters and words in the document. A checkbox at the bottom of the window reading "Include footnotes and endnotes," when selected, yields a word count for all text and notes. But if the user selects any text in the document this checkbox is dimmed, and the program counts only the characters and words in the selected text. Microsoft Word does not offer a way to count words in those footnotes attached to the selected text.... To determine the number of words that are included in the limit, counsel selects the "countable" body portions of the brief--which causes Microsoft Word to ignore countable footnotes. Counsel who do not notice that the count-footnotes box has been dimmed out may unintentionally file a false certificate and a brief that exceeds the word limits.... When the count-footnotes checkbox is dimmed, even counsel who are aware that the brief contains footnotes may suppose that the software included these automatically.
In DiSilva, because counsel for appellants had selected the "countable" portions of the brief so as to exclude from the word count those portions permitted to be excluded under Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), Word® failed to include in its count the 1,232 words contained in the brief's 20 footnotes. Including the footnotes, appellants' brief actually contained 15,056 words, exceeding the 14,000 word limitation by a substantial margin.
In response to the Seventh Circuit's order, a copy of which the court forwarded to Microsoft, Microsoft has released a solution, in the form of a macro for Word 97 and Word 2000 that will report the word count for selected text, with options (enabled by default) for including or excluding the word count of footnotes and endnotes referenced by that text. The macro is available at http://officeupdate. microsoft.com/2000/downloadDetails/swcmacro.htm. Users of Word 97 and 2000 who intend to rely on the Word Count feature in preparing briefs that are subject to word-count limitations would be well-advised to download and install this macro. Whether Microsoft will make a similar macro available for the "other versions" to which the court referred in its order is unknown at this time.
Questions and answers from the ISBA discussion group
By Adrienne Albrecht
Frequently, legal technology questions are posed and answered on the ISBA main discussion group. Any ISBA member can join it by signing up at www.isba.org. This discussion can prove illuminating because it allows members to obtain the benefit of the experience of other lawyers who have encountered, and perhaps solved, similar problems. One frequent request is for a simple, inexpensive, and user friendly program to create amortization schedules. Several lawyers have suggested good solutions.