Does It Compute?

Document Management Systems -- the "Killer App"?

Ross Kodner recently published an article in Technolawyer arguing that Document Management Systems (DMS) may well represent the “killer app” – the holy grail of software programs.

Ross makes many of the arguments that I and other consultants have made for years. A DMS will organize your practice and make the process rapidly locating and retrieving documents vastly more efficient than is possible with manual systems that rely on using some configuration of Windows Explorer file trees. Thus it will save you time (and money) and, by standardizing best practices, result in a higher quality work product.

A DMS truly represents a better, more efficient, way to work – and as I am fond of saying, human progress is advanced by lazy people looking for a better way to get something done.  Or, as Ross puts it, “A DMS harnesses human nature and our natural inclination to ultimately gravitate towards the least painful way of getting things done.”

Paperless Office -- Taking a Case With You

So you have a Paperless Office (or nearly so). All your emails are saved, documents, incoming items that have been scanned, etc.  You want to take your whole case with you to court on a laptop. What’s the best way to do this?

There are a number of options, depending on what your current configuration is.

Larger firms with a higher volume of litigation, will have invested in a true litigation support/trial preparation software such as CT Summation or Verdict Systems “Sanction.” So the question really comes up only if you need to do this on a less costly scale.

If you are using a document management system such as Worldox, you can simply export the entire case to your local hard drive (or even a flash drive), and retain all the organization, searching, etc. of the DMS. This is by far the easiest and most efficient way to proceed. In fact, if you need to take an entire case to court on a regular basis, it could be a decisive reason to invest in a document management system.

If you have a do-it-yourself handyman’s solution, you can copy the entire directory containing the case. Or better, use one of a number of tools available to synch the directory in question either with your laptop or an external hard drive.  Putting in on an external hard drive has the advantage that you are not dependent on your specific laptop, you can access the files from anywhere. 

However, this solution then raises the issue of how you efficiently organize and search for files.  You can use Copernic or a similar solution to full text index the files, but this does not allow for any other organizational principle.

Or, you can turn to third-party tools such as pdfDocs to create “binders” of files. This lets you search them and gives you a table of contents. 

Lastly, if you have a solution such as Time Matters, you can create a clone and then use a separate utility to synch the files (since synching the document files in TM may not be an option due to limits on the size of the clone file).

If you employ this type of solution and your program is expecting the data files on, say, the “F” drive, there is an old DOS trick that may help. Create a directory on your C: drive called “fakeserv” or some such.  Create and synch the same directory as exists on your server to “fakeserv.”  For example: c:\fakeserv\docs\client\case.

Then create a batch file with a DOS substitute command that reads like this:

subst f: c:\fakeserv

(you can create this in notepad and then save it as e.g. “local.bat”) So if your documents are normally on f:\docs\client\case, the operating system will recognize the directory c:\fakeserv as f: To run the batch file, simple double-click on it.

Obviously this trick will not work if you are dependant on UNC naming conventions, but it is something I use all the time.

Security - At What Cost and From What Threats

Reader Thomas noted that Acrobat Professional can also “undo” basic security that may have been applied to a PDF document (although digital signatures would be more difficult).

This is true, and raises a more general point: what levels of security are required for different types of threat. On the one end you have targeted theft of corporate secrets. On the other end, you have the situation where law firms do not want to send out zip files because clients won’t know how to deal with them.

Basically, there are three kinds of threats: (1) general curiosity - “I wonder what’s in this file?” and employee hostility (“I’m going to quit tomorrow and want to see how much damage I can do”; (2) random hackers that are just trolling the web; and (3) targeted maliciousness by extremely savvy people.

From the security point of view, there is the principle that higher levels of security require more work by the user. How many people actually secure their email using PGP, for example? By and large it’s “too much work.”

Basic security - whether PDF files or the “security” of the built-in password function in Word or WordPerfect, is very primitive. Commercial and even freeware products are available to break these passwords. Of course, this implies forethought - you have to make the effort to obtain one of these products. Basic security therefore is intended to deter only casual and/or not very knowledgeable people.  Unless you are working on high-profile, high-dollar cases, basic protection is probably adequate in most cases.

Planning for Scanning

About a month ago, I blogged on “Moving Toward Paperless.” (January 14). This is an expanded and updated version of what I began to lay out there.

This assumes you want to move toward large-scale scanning: if you are only scanning a few documents a day, the solution you adopt is not terribly relevant. But significant economies of scale can be achieved in larger batches.

The first issue is: where are you going to put the documents and how are you going to organize them. At this point, the need for a full-fledged document management system such as Worldox, Interwoven’s Worksite or Hummingbird (Docs Open) becomes overwhelming.  Otherwise the volume becomes overwhelming and as someone said, you can’t automate chaos.

There are three logical steps when you scan a document:
(1) scanning the document, i.e., running it through the scanner;
(2) OCR’ing the document (this is the most time-consuming part of the equation); and
(3) saving the document to the DMS or elsewhere.
(4) Finally, depending on the implementation, deleting the original scan to avoid duplicates.

For some documents you can omit step two (receipts, handwritten notes, etc.), but if you want the resulting document to be searchable, you need to OCR it, and this is the most processor-intensive and time-consuming piece of the equation.  Since the whole point of fully automating your document store (documents, scans, emails) is to have everything searchable, this should be done an overwhelming majority of the time.

When you consider the entire operation, to the extent that you can off-load parts of this process to a background or automated function, you can save significant amounts of time.

Step 1.  Actual scanning. If you use a large-volume multi-function machine as scanning, there is a workflow issue. people have to get up from their desk, go to the scanner, scan, go back to the desk and save or manipulate the scanned document.  Therefore the multi-function machines are good for big documents, but quite inefficient for, say, incoming letters.  Therefore you will want to have some smaller scanners on the desktops of people who do things like processing the mail.

Step 2.  OCR. This is the most time-consuming part of the process and the part that it is easiest to off-load to an automated background operation. The major OCR programs, Abbyy and OmniPage, let you set up a “watch” directory and you can then schedule the OCR, even for off hours. Larger-scale programs such as eCopy or pdfDocs will also let you do this. One of the issues that comes up when using any of these programs in conjunction with desktop scanners is that they pop up the result in Acrobat, and you have to deal with it there - obviating the benefits of a background process. One solution is to configure the Microsoft Office Document Scanning process to simply dump the scans into a central location. This avoids having to deal with the intervening step.  Unfortunately, this operation sometimes reverses text (i.e., produces a black background) but this can usually be corrected through the OCR software.

3.  Saving to Document Management.  If you use eCopy, there is are plug-ins available that let you scan directly to DMS’s such as Worldox, Interwoven or DocsOpen. This is an optimal solution since it compresses the entire operation into just one step: Fill out the profile information, hit Scan and you are done.

pdfDocs will perform the OCR in the background and then give you an option to save to the DMS, eliminating cleanup.

Worldox integrates directly with Acrobat, so you save directly to Worldox. Omtool has a free utility that puts a “Save to Worldox” item on the File menu, but otherwise does not do anything that is not already done by the native Worldox/Acrobat integration.

4.  Cleanup. Unless you adopt a large-scale solution, you will be left with the task of cleaning up the intervening scans after they have been saved. If you use HotDocs, more recent versions have a pdf driver that will let you save successive scans to the same document name. You can then “Save As” and put the document into the document store without worrying about it. 

Obviously, not all of these options apply to everyone, but adopting even some of them can make your process a lot more efficient.

Considerations on Implementing Document Management

I’ve been blogging about specific aspects of document management recently. I want to try to pull some of these thoughts together into something a little more systematic.

The first thing to understand about document management systems is that they take over the way you work. Unlike the “document management lite” systems often included in Practice Management programs such as Time Matters or Amicus Attorney, they are not optional. Firms frequently begin by wanting the ability to “opt out” if they feel like it. But document management systems are like being pregnant: you can’t just choose to be pregnant every other day!

However, the ability to be able to track all document creation, changes, etc. is increasingly critical to a firm in this age of eDiscovery, so mandatory implementation is an essential ingredient of a good document management system.

Once you have decided to “go for it,” what are the things to consider?

The first thing is the structure of the firm. A boutique firm requires a much simpler structure than a general firm with numerous different practice areas. For a larger firm, you also need to consider whether the various practice areas are self-contained (in effect, the firm is a collection of boutique firms) or intepenetrated, with secretaries and paralegals working for multiple practice areas. 

This has consequences for the structure you wish to put in place, in particular whether you have one or multiple “profile groups” (think of it as dividing up the document store into different compartments). 

Do you want additional profiles for (1) confidential information (accounting, HR, firm management, etc.), or (2) personal information?  How do you want to deal with users’ requests for a space to store their “personal” stuff.  It is important to distinguish here between truly personal documents and “work in progress,” drafts, documents that are not done, etc.  The latter are obviously part of the firm’s work product.

The answer to this depends on the firm’s culture. In principle any documents produced on a computer owned by the firm belong to the firm. However, this principle is most often honored in the breach.

Second, as I noted in my blog of January 24, a document management program is a centralizing force. If every attorney currently has their “own” version of standard form letters, implementing document management is a golden opportunity to consolidate these into a “firm standard” document. And while you are at it, you might also want to decide on a firm standard font - that way all documents that go out of the firm bear the firm’s imprint, not just its letterhead. 

A third critical element is the current structure of your document store. If documents are stored in some sort of client-matter system, the transition will be relatively easy because users are accustomed to thinking that way. However, if your documents are stored by user, with each user free to make up their “own” system, or, perhaps even worse, stored by document type (all pleadings together), then the transition requires a good deal more planning. In cases where each user has their “own” system, it will be replaced by a standardized system which is therefore more likely to meet resistance.

One possible solution that I often recommend is to create a matter for each user under the “Firm - General” matter. This gives people a place to store things without putting them on the C: drive. I sometimes also recommend creating a “moved” document type. This enables users to move a large number of legacy documents into the DMS at one time and tends to reduce complaints. Of course, it just perpetuates the existing mess, but in many cases that is a reasonable trade-off.

Scanning and email integration are increasingly important elements.  It is important to have a firm-wide policy on email. The best option is to mandate moving all email into the DMS. This makes all the email regarding a specific matter available to everyone concerned with that matter regardless of who sent or received it. It also lightens the burden on Outlook/Exchange and greatly facilitates eDiscovery should the need arise.

Careful attention should be paid to the process of getting existing emails into the document management system.  Many attorneys use Outlook as a junk catch-all, and it is not unusual to find an attorney with 5-10,000 emails in Outlook in a completely disorganized fashion.

This will likely be an area of considerable attorney resistance. They are too disorganized and too used to working in a specific way. On the up side, most attorneys readily see the tremendous advantage that all emails concerning a specific case or matter will now be available to everyone regardless who sent or received them.

An important aspect of this issue is to make it easy for them. In some cases, you might assign an assistant or paralegal to move, say, the last 6 months or emails to the DMS. In addition, you can set up what Worldox terms “Quick Profiles” so that emails can simply be dragged and dropped to a specific matter without the need to fill out profiles.

Generally, there are two ways to proceed.  If the attorney is an organized type, with client sub-folders in Outlook, or if the Firm has instituted public folders organized by client matters, then the emails can be batch imported into a DMS such as Worldox. I have seen people import as many as 3,000 documents in a single pass (though I recommend splitting it into smaller batches).

If the attorney is a disorganized type, try sorting the emails by sender or recipient. The chances are that most of the emails to or from a given individual belong to a small number of cases, or even a single case. This greatly simplifies the process of importing them.

Giving careful attention to these considerations can make your implementation much smoother and result in more satisfied users.

Document Management as a Centralizing Force

Document management programs manage your documents.  Yawn. What else is new? 

One factor that many, even most, firms do not pay sufficient attention to is the ability of a document management program to act as a centralizing and organizing force that can result in a higher quality of documents produced.

It is not unusual to go into a firm and find that different attorneys use different versions of standard forms, letters, provisions in standard motions, etc.  Sometimes different attorneys even use different fonts for correspondence.  Why is this?  In some cases it is because the firm is dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree and is really just a collection of attorneys who have banded together for convenience.  In most cases however, it is just laziness and the general tendency to become increasingly disorganized as time goes on.

In principle, however, it should be possible to determine the “best version” or “best language” for a given function.  So when there are multiple versions of what is essentially the same document, a document management program greatly simplifies the task of identifying them, putting together the best version and saving them into a forms bank or brief bank.

This not only leads to better and more standard output, but it is a great tool for training new attorneys: “this is the language we use for this motion,” etc. The time spent identifying and codifying the “best version” will be well-spent.

Every Installation a Snowflake?

“Every installation is a snowflake - unique.”  In a literal sense, this is of course true - every installation has tweaks and details that are unique.  However, underlying this uniqueness there is a structure and archetypal categories that, when understood, make it easier to get to the final “tweaking point” needed to round out a good installation.

Take document management.  When you implement a document management system, it is important to see how a firm organizes its currently existing documents.  If documents are organized in some fashion by client, it makes it much easier for users to understand the principles of a document management system.  If, however, each user organizes their “own” documents in their own way - and each one has their own system of categories with perhaps several dozen sub-directories, then it is much harder to accept the centralizing principles of document management.

Document management also serves as a centralizing force.  Thus it is to a firm’s advantage to have consistent form letters. But in the model above, if each user is responsible for their “own” documents, a larger firm can have literally a dozen or so versions of the “same” form letter.  This is not only inefficient but reflects badly on the firm.

I plan to develop on these ideas in a longer essay in the near future.

Moving Toward Paperless

Ross Kodner coined the term paperLESS - meaning that while it is utopian to eliminate paper entirely, significant steps can be taken that will make your office more efficient.
If you are just scanning a few documents a day, it really doesn’t matter. But if you want to scan every piece of paper that comes through the door – or anything close to it -- even small savings in time can add up to a major amount of time.

When you start scanning any significant volume of documents, the need for a full-fledged document management system such as Worldox, Interwoven’s Worksite or Hummingbird (Docs Open) becomes overwhelming. 

There are three logical steps when you scan a document: (1) scanning the document; (2) OCR’ing the document; and (3) saving the document to the DMS or elsewhere. For some documents you can omit step two (receipts, handwritten notes, etc.), but if you want the resulting document to be searchable, you need to OCR it, and this is the most processor-intensive and time-consuming piece of the equation. 

So to the extent that you can off-load parts of this process to a background or automated function, you can save significant amounts of time.

The configuration you wind up with will depend on your volume, the number of people scanning and the type of scanners you have. Most firms deploy a combination larger printer-scanners and small desktop units. The reason is simple: for large scanners there is a workflow issue – people have to get up from their desk, go to the scanner, scan, go back to the desk and save or manipulate the scanned document. This is efficient for large documents (where the overall speed counts) but inefficient for 1-2 page letters (where the setup is the bulk of the time).

For large volumes, you want to off-load the OCR process so that the user does not spend time doing it.  The major OCR programs, Abbyy and OmniPage, let you set up a “watch” directory and you can then schedule the OCR, even for off hours.

There are also a number of solutions which will integrate with your document management system, thereby eliminating another step.  If you use eCopy, modules are available that integrate with Worldox or other DMS’s. DocsCorp also offers a solution that lets you move scanned documents to the DMS efficiently. 

As with many solutions, this is not a “one size fits all” – you will have to tailor your solution to fit your specific needs and situation.

Document Assembly - Greatest Productivity Enhancer

Document assembly routines are arguably the area that provides single greatest savings of time and increase in productivity and quality of the final product. Yet many, if not most small firms do not avail themselves of this functionality.

Full-blown document assembly programs such as HotDocs can be fairly pricey to implement. On the other hand, I had a client that did Estate Planning who spent several thousand dollars developing a wills package. But the end result was that it cut the time it took him to generate the package from over an hour to about 3 minutes! He rapidly recovered the expense.

Even without investing in a program like HotDocs there are a number of lower-end document assembly approaches that will save tremendous time and money.

If you are using a practice management program such as Amicus Attorney or TimeMatters, use the built-in document assembly routines. These will enable you to pull information already in the program and insert it into templates.

Even without these develop templates in Word or WordPerfect to automate letterhead and basic letters (everybody does retainers!).  Even a small investment here will result in dramatic savings, including the cost of pre-printed letterhead and having it reprinted every time there is a change.

Lastly, “auto-text” programs such as Active Words can be used to automate entire clauses of letters, a kind of primitive document assembly.  Thus you type “sig” and Active Words expands this to the final blurb paragraph (“please feel free to call me at.... if you have any questions concerning this matter”) as well as your signature block.

Brief Banks - Why Aren't They More Common?

Every time I set up a Worldox installation for a firm, I try to encourage them to create a “Brief Bank” – a set of standard forms that incorporates the best language and provisions that they have come up with over a period of time. 

Doing this fulfills three main functions:

1) It standardizes the forms, contracts, agreements, responses to interrogatories, etc. that the firm uses.  In so doing, it also improves the overall quality of the firm’s product, since it helps ensure that somebody does not re-use and old, outdated or superceded document. In many firms, individual users have their “own” forms - consolidating them would obviously be to everyone’s advantage.  Of course this does not address the issue of dysfunctional firms where one attorney wants to use one font, and another attorney insists on a different font (and the same with forms, provisions, etc.)

2) It increases productivity, since attorneys would not have to rely on their memory and “hunt around” for the most appropriate document in a given situation.

3) It decreases errors (thus also increasing productivity). An attorney would no longer have to worry about forgetting to change certain names, pronouns, etc. since it would be a “fill in the blank” type form.

Despite the overwhelming arguments in favor of doing this, very few firms seem to get around to it. Why is this? 

I believe it is largely due to the well-known fact that when considered as business propositions, many smaller firms are very poorly managed. Law Schools do not have courses in managing a business. In particular, they almost never have a technology plan, or consider even an approximate Return on Investment analysis of a new system. 

Characteristic of this thinking is the syndrome captured by the question: “which do I want, a new computer system or a new Mercedes?”  Guess which one usually wins.

The other side of the coin, a more far-seeing analysis, was provided one time in a firm I was working for. When I suggested a new software program, the name partner thought about it and said “No, I don’t think we can do that right now, but keep the suggestions coming because every software program I DON’T own presents a potential competitive advantage to competing law firms.”