Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I can review faster using Paper
Smugly, the lead attorney on the matter walks in, adjusts the knot on a tie that costs more than my suit and proclaims, "Just print it out for me. I can review faster on Paper". Translation: you silly kids use that computer thing.
Whoa! Where do we begin to correct this attitude? Well, I say stand your ground and drop a little knowledge. It's probably true that this type of attorney can review faster on paper, but what about the net effect on the review workflow as a whole? When you're working with an automated system and reviewers' issue codes, redactions, and notes are stored in a central database, how do you reflect an attorney's handwritten hardcopy notes back into that system? Someone has to enter everything in on his behalf, right--creating twice the work? If the offending attorney entered it in himself in the first place, wouldn't that be more efficient?
Well, here are the common objections from Mr. Big:
1) "My billing rate is higher than yours, so let's do what's more convenient for me and we'll have you re-enter it at your billing rate (slightly restrained giggle). It will be a net savings for the client because I won't have to waste a lot of time with that confusing software."
2) "With all the more important things I do during the day, I review this material in bed at night. A laptop is too cumbersome, even in a California King-Size. Plus, the laptop screen gets in the way when I want to watch VH-1's 'Flava of Love' on TiVo. Flaaavah Flaaaav! Ahem, but I digress."
These are your rebuttals:
1) Yes, there's a learning curve but please try. The discovery phase should take the next 6 months and the sooner you get the hang of the software, the more savings we can realize in money and time.
2) There isn't really a good comeback for this one, but just explain that working with hardcopy paper is prone to error; illegible handwritiing, misinterpretation during the transcription process, etc. Let's work within the constraints of the system and limit our potential defects.
Write me back and let me know if this works for you guys :)
Whoa! Where do we begin to correct this attitude? Well, I say stand your ground and drop a little knowledge. It's probably true that this type of attorney can review faster on paper, but what about the net effect on the review workflow as a whole? When you're working with an automated system and reviewers' issue codes, redactions, and notes are stored in a central database, how do you reflect an attorney's handwritten hardcopy notes back into that system? Someone has to enter everything in on his behalf, right--creating twice the work? If the offending attorney entered it in himself in the first place, wouldn't that be more efficient?
Well, here are the common objections from Mr. Big:
1) "My billing rate is higher than yours, so let's do what's more convenient for me and we'll have you re-enter it at your billing rate (slightly restrained giggle). It will be a net savings for the client because I won't have to waste a lot of time with that confusing software."
2) "With all the more important things I do during the day, I review this material in bed at night. A laptop is too cumbersome, even in a California King-Size. Plus, the laptop screen gets in the way when I want to watch VH-1's 'Flava of Love' on TiVo. Flaaavah Flaaaav! Ahem, but I digress."
These are your rebuttals:
1) Yes, there's a learning curve but please try. The discovery phase should take the next 6 months and the sooner you get the hang of the software, the more savings we can realize in money and time.
2) There isn't really a good comeback for this one, but just explain that working with hardcopy paper is prone to error; illegible handwritiing, misinterpretation during the transcription process, etc. Let's work within the constraints of the system and limit our potential defects.
Write me back and let me know if this works for you guys :)
Labels: economies of scale, efficiency
¶ 11:39 AM
Comments:
<< Home
it actually makes sence financially for a lawyer to mark up docs and then let interns, paralegals or legal secretaries make the revisions. If an attorney can bill multiple customers and handle multiple cases in the time it takes to check out a file, review it, make edits, and then check in the file... wouldn't you agree that this is the best use of time?
Not really. The time it takes to print blowbacks (even on the fastest printer) for manual review is more than offset by the time it takes to electronically pull up an assignment for second pass review. I think the lead attorneys can create better economies of scale through the automated system once they get over their fear of technology :)
Post a Comment
<< Home
