Standing Committee on
Legal Technology
February 2003 VOL. 10, NO. 3
Statements or expressions of opinion or comments appearing herein are those of the editors or contributors, and not necessarily those of the association or section.
Contents
* TechnoLawyer.com: Equipping the small law office for less than $10,000
* Office XP for law firms: A review
* TechnoLawyer.com: Digital cameras--diversion or useful tool?
By Rick Turner
Don't worry Mary, I still need you...
Digital dictation technology has, indeed, advanced significantly within the last five years. I am, in fact, dictating my column today on a digital portable dictation device: Sony's ICD-MS1 digital recorder, to be exact. This technology is advertised as a means of facilitating a truly "mobile office." With the Sony model, the mobile office practitioner is given the opportunity to conduct business on the road, in the train station, or at a break in a deposition, and then take the Memory Stick out of the digital recorder upon return to the office, plug it into her or his laptop, and use Dragon NaturallySpeaking software to digitally transcribe the dictation. Presumably, this eliminates the need for secretarial staff. In fact, when our analog tape system went kaput a year ago and we decided to go with the Sony system, my secretary, Mary, expressed a concern for her continued employment prospects in light of this next generation of dictation technology.
Unfortunately, most of us recognize that the concept is usually more profound than its practical application. One of the benefits of dictation to a secretary is that you can summarize your thoughts, particularly on routine tasks, so that the person (a human being) who was taking the dictation can " jump the steps" to quickly and efficiently prepare the document or carry out the task that you had in mind, particularly if this is a fairly mundane and often-repeated task.
Certainly, digital dictation into a Memory Stick, and the use of the numerous "CyberSecretary" services which are available to transcribe that dictation, is a significant advancement. But it still involves the human touch and the human interaction and interpretation of your dictation or your instructions.
Another significant limitation that I have found is with respect to the actual voice recognition software. For years I have used Dragon NaturallySpeaking, but with a headset and microphone. I have dictated routine letters, memos, and even portions of briefs and legal documents with the use of this program. Over the years, as I have "trained" the program, it has learned my speech patterns, my inflections and has achieved a fairly significant level of accuracy. On the other hand, using the same software, but trained in the mode for use with the digital dictation equipment, despite hours of dictation training on the Memory Stick, the level of recognition simply isn't the same and it requires a significant amount of cleaning up, as I am sure I am going to have to do once I finish dictating this article and place the Memory Stick into the port in my laptop for digital transcription by the voice recognition program software.
To sum things up, you don't need to worry, Mary, as I do not plan on letting you go. I still need you too much because I need the human ability to process, interpret, and even anticipate where I'm going. So far, they haven't come up with the computer or a computer program that can anticipate my moves and anticipate my thoughts and my intended directions. Someday that may happen, but I do not think it's going to be in the near future.
Update on virtual courtroom project and on Courtroom Technology Subcommittee
As you may have heard or read in other ISBA materials, President Golden's project to move forward into the future with the pilot program for the "virtual courtroom," whereby litigants can participate through both voice and Web-based access from their offices, is moving forward. Several venues have been selected throughout the state, and Sandy Morganstein, along with Loren and Doug Barringer, have met with members of the Judiciary and circuit clerk's offices in different jurisdictions to make initial preliminary arrangements to equip those sites with the technology necessary in order to conduct status hearings, case management conferences, or other types of court hearings, using the "virtual courtroom." Vendors have been involved and tested and the selection of a vendor to be used for the pilot program should be taking place shortly. Several judges in downstate jurisdictions having expressed a lot of enthusiasm for the project, which is extremely gratifying to those involved. It is expected that the initial trials of the pilot program should take place in the near future. You will be hearing more about this project as it proceeds.
You may recall from my last column that I discussed some of the trials and tribulations in attempting to bring modern visual communication to jurors in what are somewhat antiquated circumstances in most of the state courtrooms in Illinois. Coincidentally, Todd Flaming of our committee brought this issue to the table at the last meeting of COLT. A subcommittee was appointed to address implementing technology to effectively provide for both bench and jury communication in courtrooms. Along with Todd and me, Trent Bush, Peter Mierzwa, David Clark and Alan Perlman will serve on the committee. If any of our readers have a particular jurisdiction or judge who might be interested in participating in some type of a pilot program to consider means and methods of equipping their courtroom with technological updates such as ELMOs, digital projectors with screens, and the like, please contact me at rturner@rturnerlaw.com.
TechnoLawyer.com: Equipping the small law office for less than $10,000
By Jeffrey S. Lisson
This is Part Three of a three-part series that discusses what you need and don't need, when to cut corners, and when to go all out when equipping a solo or small law office for less than $10,000. In Part 1, Jeffrey outlined the hardware required for this endeavor and In Part 2, he discussed software.1
III. Items you can do without
With a budget of $10,000, you'll have to omit a few items. I believe a small firm can omit the following items without significantly impacting productivity:
A. Voice recognition
I have dabbled with it, but don't think it's ready for regular use. Even if it's 95 percent accurate, that means five of every 100 words is wrong. By definition, the computer will generate a word--often an incorrect word correctly spelled. Proofreading becomes very difficult. I found the extra time needed to proofread and make corrections outweighs the value of voice recognition.
B. Digital copier
I investigated a combination digital copier/printer, but the cost was too high. Also, the warmup time before the first page printed was too long, though second and third pages printed quickly. I'm sticking with a standard copier for now.
C. Paperless office
Many lawyers and consultants dream of paperless offices in which every document is scanned and stored electronically. In such an office, lawyers would read mail on their computers, and take entire case files home without packing a single piece of paper.
Small firms can do without this expense for four reasons: First, the amount of digital storage required is tremendous. Second, such a system requires a high-volume scanner, and the staff to use the scanner. Third, it can be difficult to review multi-page digital images, rather than paper copies. Finally, I don't like the idea of putting evidence into a format that can be altered.
D. Video capture
Video capture refers to taking regular videotape and converting it to digital movie clips that play on the computer. I love using video in cases. I also use it in settlement brochures, including PowerPoint settlement presentations. But I find it cheaper to send out the video I need to a local computer store and get a CD back than invest in a video-capture card and a machine with enough horsepower to run it.
E. Wireless networking
Wireless networking is great for home use, but not for a law office. I just don't see how it's secure and confidential.
F. Anti-virus software
Uhm ... I don't use anti-virus software. I've tried it in the past, but found it slowed down and crashed my system. I've tried McAfee and Norton, and prefer the Norton product. But it seems to me that anti-virus software is like closing the barn door once the horse is out. By the time the software company updates its virus definitions and you download the updates, you're likely infected already.
How do I avoid viruses without a software defense? First, I only get on the Internet when I have a reason, and only stay on as long as necessary. This practice prevents "sniffers" from finding and infiltrating your system. Those of you with "always on" connections who stay online all the time are asking for trouble.
Second, I don't download anything from the Internet unless I'm as sure as possible that it's virus-free. That means no music, no little utilities that haven't been vouched for, no games. I don't even download program updates for at least two weeks, so others can see if there's an embedded virus.
Third, I don't open e-mail attachments that I don't expect to receive. E-mail attachments are the number one way viruses spread. I never open attachments, even from people I know, unless I expect it. My mother forwards me hundreds of jokes. I never open them. Even when I expect an attachment, I don't open it if it has an .exe, .bat, or .vbs extension.
Finally, I turn off the preview pane in Outlook Express. That way, I can delete e-mail without viewing it. This defeats some of the new viruses embedded in HTML code, which runs when you view the e-mail message, even without opening it up.
Conclusion
If you budgeted $10,000 and follow my plan, you've got money left over. Use the extra dough to buy faster computers, more storage, a better digital camera, a headset so you can work hands-free from your telephone (and save the cricks in your neck), or to hire a consultant to help make some choices and install your systems.
The "wired" office can be done. It's not easy. It takes patience and persistence to use the computers and software to your best advantage. But I'm convinced that the only way a solo or small office can litigate with the big defense firms is to use technology. If you're ready to take the plunge, I hope the road map in this article helps.
_______________
1. Part One was published in Vol. 10, No. 1 (Oct. 2002), and Part Two was published in Vol. 10, No. 2 (Dec. 2002) of the Legal Technology newsletter.
Jeffrey S. Lisson is a 1985 graduate of Austin (TX) College, and a 1992 graduate of Wake Forest Law School. He is a solo practitioner in Winston-Salem, specializing in criminal defense, personal injury, product liability, and federal statutory causes of action. He is licensed in both North Carolina and Texas. Before law school, Jeffrey was a newspaper reporter for five years. You can contact Jeffrey via e-mail (jlisson@lissonlaw.com).
This article originated in The TechnoLawyer Community, a free online community in which legal professionals share information about legal technology and practice management issues, products, and services, often developing valuable business relationships in the process. To join The TechnoLawyer Community, visit the following Web site: <http://www.technolawyer.com>.
By John Ellsworth
While "software" sounds like something soft and wearable, it is neither. Software is a set of instructions that tell a computer what to do. For example, some software tells a computer to make a word processing program, and to make it appear onscreen. One common brand of word processing software with which many are familiar is Microsoft WordTM. WordTM consists of smaller software groups called Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs. One API might tell WordTM what to make a document look like onscreen. Another might tell WordTM how to print a document. Another might tell it how to save. A complex application like Word might contain a million or more such APIs. All software is composed of such APIs.
Software is nuclear. An API is like an atom. For an API, like the atom, is composed of yet smaller pieces. While the atom contains protons, neutrons, and electrons (and probably more, at least since I left school those many years ago), so does an API contain smaller parts. These parts are commonly called components. Four or five components might make up the API that tells WordTM how to print. Another three components might tell WordTM how to shut down without destroying your data.
The type of software we have been talking about here is what most of us think when we hear "software." But there's more to it than that--there is also system software. System software, like task-oriented software such as WordTM, is made up of APIs that tell computers how to think, how to stay cool, what to send to the screen, how to run the floppy drive, and all those other elements of behavior that could be said to resemble the human body. While the human has eyes and ears with which to sense, the computer has a keyboard with which to sense. The keyboard tells it where it is, much like our senses help keep us oriented. The parallels are almost without end: human thought takes place inside the brain, while the computer's brain is called its central processing unit or CPU. ("How fast is your CPU?"--not unlike what is your IQ? Mensa level?)
Computer thought is made up of instruction sets generated by its APIs. These instruction sets move on what are called threads, and these threads share time using the computer's brain. This is called multitasking. Threads switch back and forth using the brain by the millisecond--each one receiving its fair share of brain time.
Yet what is software? What does software look like? Well, here is an example of a software program deciding between air-conditioning/ON and air-conditioning/OFF:
When you put together enough tasks like that one in our air conditioning example, you have computer programs--software. How many tasks are required before software can be called software? There is no minimum or maximum amount. WordTM contains millions of lines of code not unlike that written above, except for the part about handling the air-conditioner. Embedded software--the software found inside thermostats--might contain less than 200 lines of code. In contrast, the software found in most automobile carburetors today might contain 20,000 lines of code, or even 100,000, in some really smart models.
If you were to send the simple conditional instruction ("If this, then this...") to even the slowest-witted computer CPU, the task would be executed (run) in a millisecond. How fast it executes is up to the CPU chip's operating speed. If you're keeping up, Intel recently announced a new chip capable of doing billions of cycles per second--enough to wear out anyone's thermostat. The chips are aimed at improving speech and image processing. How does this hardware aside apply to software? Hardware is driven by software, and some software operates faster than other software, based on the computer programming language used.
Code is written in what are called "languages," syntactical systems that could be said to resemble French, Cyrillic, Latin, or English. Each programming language contains rules of syntax and a vocabulary to be learned before one can be said to be conversant. "Adonde es el bano?" (Where is the bathroom, Sp.), consists of syntax and vocabulary. The air-conditioning program above likewise contains syntax and vocabulary ("If" is a reserved word in most programming languages and as such has a definite meaning and use, thus it is vocabulary, while the braces { } are syntax).
The collections of APIs that drive computers are, collectively, given names such as WindowsTM, LinuxTM, and UnixTM. In fact, these are the common Operating Systems or OSes about which you hear so much today if you spend time online. Microsoft, of course, owns Windows and more than 90 percent of all computers use Windows. Sun Microsystems makes its own operating system, like Microsoft, but Sun also invented JavaTM, probably the most-used software programming language, for new development, in today's market. Other big-selling software languages are VisualC++TM, C, and Visual BasicTM (which is, first word, and isn't, second word).
How does all this mean business for the attorney? Software developers from Microsoft down to the one-man shop are all after the same thing for their software: protection. Protection means protection both for the look and feel of their software, and to the steps taken by their software to do a discrete task (steps known to software engineers as algorithms).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, under some circumstances, will issue patents for innovative software systems. Copyrights are also part of the IP attorney's toolkit, as are trademarks (WordTM, ExcelTM, JavaTM, and so forth). Copyrights protect the look and feel of software, while patents protect its algorithms. Patent law gives patent owners an offensive weapon with which to protect their works ("prosecute" software wrongdoers).
Legal squabbles involving software often erupt on two key fronts--licensing and patent infringement. Licensing is the contractual part of acquiring software that most all of us have participated in, knowingly or not. This is true because when you buy Microsoft Office you really are not "buying" it at all, you are merely buying a license to use Microsoft Office according to the terms and conditions set forth in the license with which it comes packaged.
Patents are infringed on in many ways, but from a software developer's view, this can usually be said to happen in two main ways. The first is by corporate spying--the sale or transfer of company secrets. The second is by a process known as reverse-engineering. Reverse-engineering is exactly what you're probably thinking it is: starting with what you have (someone's software), and coming to understand how it got there, at least in terms of how it does what it does, the steps it must go through, its algorithms. Software exists that has been written to take apart (reverse-engineer) other software and to report its contents and methods. Likewise, there is software with the job of protecting other software from being reverse-engineered. These programs are known as obfuscators.
There are many work areas in IP law:
* When lawyers talk to software developers, it is important the client come away knowing full well what protection is available, as well as what is not. Does the originator of the first word processing program have a viable claim against its first competitor? This is not unlike asking if Ford has a cause of action against Chevrolet for making cars. But if Ford designs a carburetor and is awarded a patent for its design, no one may build and use the same carburetor design without Ford's consent, however it might be obtained. The same can be said of software.
* Developers need to know how to license their products and what to do in case of license violations.
* Developers and programmers alike need to know, and to agree on who owns the programmers' work once completed. After all, programmers often must rely on their own creativity and knowledge to bring the code to fruition. Careful employment agreements must be struck so as to protect the client.
* With respect to software development, clients must know the definition of negligence. Have developers been successfully sued for the failure of software to do something it was advertised or sold to do? What legal theories apply?
* Lawyer and client must understand security failures, those incursions most often (but not necessarily only), made online against a company's computers and data. Whose responsibility is it to protect against that? Was someone at fault for allowing the trespasser admittance? Are a company's announced "security upgrades" in truth admissions against interest just waiting to happen?