Does It Compute?

Google Search Tricks

Every once in a while I learn (or re-learn) some nifty Google search tricks.  Here are a few.

Define. This is useful not only (or even not mainly) for words, but also for computer programs.  For example one of my disk drives recently started thrashing. The culprit was a program called “vsmon.exe.” Not being certain what exactly this was supposed to do, I typed in “define: vsmon.exe.”  I got references not only to the program (in my case run by Zone Alarm) but also ways to remove it, other information, and so on.  One caveat: be wary of programs that claim to be virus-removal programs. Some of them can be fake and in fact install new viruses or trojan horses on your PC.

Site: or Blog: This is a fantastic tool.  If you type in “site:www.heckmanco.com” and then a search term, Google will search only that site.  Works with either “site:” or “blog:” so if you remember that a given blog had a useful entry, but not when it was, you can search just that blog for something in the entry you remember.

Filetype: Useful if you want only a certain file type. For example “filetype:pdf” and then a search term will only find PDF files that contain that term.

Conversion/Calculator. Google supports all kinds of conversions and calculations, from simply mathematical ones (1234*5678) to metric, kilometer, currency and many others. Experiment, you may be surprised.

John Allen Poulos -- Irreligion

John Allen Poulos is a mathematician who has written a series of short popularizing books revolving around mathematical issues. I first got to know his work through his book Innumeracy, a brilliant exposition of how people ignore mathematical issues and the harm it can cause them.

I just finished his latest book, Irreligion, subtitled “A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up.” Poulos takes a dozen of the most common arguments for the existence of God and demolishes them.  But his approach, unlike the attack-dog stance of Richard Dawkins (who argues in his “The God Delusion” that raising children is any given religion is a form a child abuse), is wry, witty and common-sensical – irreligious in a word.  Here’s a sprinkling of quotes from the book and authors he quotes.

Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Poulos uses simple probability calculations to show that “confirmation of a person’s unreliable statement by another unreliable person makes the statement even less reliable.”

“It’s been my experience that everything being equal, people are more impressed by fatuous blather that they don’t understand than by simple observations that they do. Disdaining Occam’s razor, they like their explanations hirsute.”

Ambrose Bierce’s definition of “pray:” “To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.”

“Since literal truth is not always the paramount concern of people, it seems that the untruths underlying faith may make ordinary life more bearable.”

Stephen Weinberg: “With or without religion, good people will do good, an evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion.”

Credenza -- "Amicus Lite"

Gavel & Gown recently released an add-on to Outlook called “Credenza,” sometimes known as “Amicus Lite” or practice management software for people who don’t want to invest in practice management software. It is designed for up to 3 users (although that may be expanded a little) and costs $9.99 per user per month. So for 3 users, it would be $360 per year.

One of the central conceptual differences between Outlook and practice management software such as Amicus, Time Matters or Practice Master, is that Outlook is individual centric, whereas practice management software is matter-centric. In Outlook I see MY emails, calendar, tasks, etc. In practice management software all information is organized around the file or matter.  I see all the emails, calendar items, tasks, etc. that are related to the matter, without regard to who has entered, sent or received them.  This is obviously much more powerful than Outlook and you don’t have forward copies of emails, yell down the hall, etc. to find “missing” material.

Credenza is designed to overcome this problem by adding three modules to Outlook: Matters, Time sheets and Phone Messages.  The Matters (or Files) module lets you link other pieces of Outlook to the Matter the way you would in a full-blown practice management system. Within the Matter you see tabs for Email, Time, Phone Messages, Appointments, Tasks, Notes, a Chron listing. You can even create a certain number of Custom Fields of various types (memo, number (but not currency), date, check box, drop-down lists).  The options and structure of Credenza follow those of Amicus very closely, so a user wanting to upgrade to Amicus (as Gavel & Gown obviously hopes they will) would not have a major learning curve.

Links to your Outlook contact list, emails, etc. can be related to a given Matter. The functionality of Credenza is fairly limited. In particular, there are no links to billing and accounting packages (although you can export a list of time entries and then import it to a time & billing package) and no provisions for any document assembly (even simple things like fax cover sheets or retainer letters). However, many people use only a fraction of the functionality of Amicus, so this lack may not be perceived as a major issue.

Credenza adds two columns to the Outlook display: the name of the Matter with which a given email has been associated and whether or not a time entry has been made.

You can configure Credenza so that information from the various Outlook accounts are shared (with a current limit of 3 users) even if you are not using Exchange – which most firms with only 3 users would not be.

If you don’t what to invest significant time and money in a full-fledged practice management system, and if you are willing to live with (or even prefer) an essentially “out of the box” implementation, and if you have three or fewer users, Credenza may be worth taking a look at. 

Tarzan Meet Jane, Save Planet

I recently watched “Tarzan Meet Jane, Save Planet” right after its release through On Demand (aka Avatar). The graphics are stunning and worth watching, but otherwise the main reversal in this 100 year old plot is that Jane shows Tarzan the wonders of the jungle and not vice versa. I was reminded of this connection because when I was a kid I read the first editions my mother had read as a kid of virtually the entire series (with a distinctive red binding).

And of course there are so many loose ends that it practically begs for sequels. Why do they use poison arrows? What is the connection between Unobtainium and the Gaia spirit of the planet? What about the other clans (the horse people are the best)?  But the graphics let you put aside all such small-minded objections.

Is a Virtual Law Office Really Possible?

I recently saw the following post by Paul Deschenes on the “Virtual Lawyer” Group in Linked in. Paul is Partner and CEO of Advologix.com, one of the leading SaaS Practice Management programs. (Others being Clio, RocketMatter and Houdini, Esq.). The Virtual Lawyer group has had a number of interesting discussions about the feasibility of operating a “Virtual Law Office” or various “virtual” legal functions (paralegal services for example). Definitely something worth following if you are interested in this issue. 

Paul does a great job of running down the options that are available, although I’m not certain that anyone would want to use ALL of them. I don’t see giving up a real physical mailing address, for example – how are you going to get FedEx deliveries? But just knowing what options are available is extremely useful.  Paul’s post follows:

    Let's look at the operational feasibility of this. I think the "possibility" of this is really left to the capability of the lawyer/firm to adapt to this concept. I think some level of technical capability is a must to really be efficient at this. I've seen many wannabes try, but ultimately their capability to adapt to change (vs. their desire) is not always there and the result ends up being a loss in efficiency and effectiveness.

Practice management systems. First let's get this out of the way. I will have to plug my own company, Advologix.com. AdvologixPM is a web based comprehensive practice management system that manages your entire client management and work product process from intake to invoicing.

There are other web based law practice management systems out there as well. In general cost $50 - $150 per month per person depending on functionality desired. Web based practice management systems offers the virtual firm added benefits as they are service based, so support should always be included.The cost will vary based on functionality largely. The less expensive tend to be time and billing only based, while the more expensive will include capability to customize extensively to your practice and include features like trust/retainer management, document automation and document management.

Now that is out of the way (although a key component) I have just finished helping someone go virtual, from scratch. This is where it gets even more amazing with all the "cloud" based business services that can have a scalable firm infrastructure up and running in a day.

GoDaddy.com - get a domain name for $1 a month

Intuit Web Sites - get an attractive site built with easy to use tools for $5 a month

QuickBooks Online - get started with their basic package for $10 a month
Grasshopper.com - get a full voicemail, phone, FAX and virtual PBX system for $10 a month for numerous voicemail boxes

Google Apps Standard - get email, calendaring, online documents and more for FREE. Don't use a standard Gmail account.

MailboxForwarding.com - Get a central business address to have all your mail delivered and scanned for you to view online. Have the physical mail securely shredded or forwarded to your actual address. $20 a month although your geographic physical address you can choose is somewhat limited. Many other services like this are available with more options/cost

Legalzoom.com - Get all your incorporation and other business startup documents - $200-$800 (although I'm sure many of you can handle this yourselves). There are cheaper options, but I liked their customer service.

Sprint Mobile Device And 4G Network Connectivity - Pay $59.99 a month for UNLIMITED 4G internet connectivity and get a free 4G USB plug in card for your laptop. 4G is the NEW cellular data service with speeds rivaling Cable/DSL. You will have highspeed internet, anywhere you go where civilization exists.

Sprint Mobile Phone - Pay $70 a month for unlimited everything with a Blackberry for $100

GoToMeeting.com - Online collaborative meetings with voice conferencing - $50 per month. Other services available for less, but this is the gold standard for a service of this type for small business.

Dell Laptop - Get a well equipped Dell Laptop ($450), with Microsoft Office for $700

What's not included? Wherever you are going to sit and your Starbucks tab. Depending on your ability, technically speaking, maybe $500-$1000 for some technical expertise to help you get it all going.

Point is, you can start a solo or small firm and your ENTIRE first year technical, business management software and communications infrastructure cost out the door, would be around $5000-8000. Then less in subsequent years and a continually declining per employee cost based on the number of people in your firm. Also remember no servers, phone systems, or any other hardware/headaches, AND all your pay per month services will include free service and support.

Dual Monitors and Multitasking -- A Contrarian View

I recently reorganized my office and wound up with an extra monitor.  Since “everybody” swears by dual monitors (or more) I thought I’d give it a shot.  Much to my surprise I found the extra monitor distracting and somewhat annoying.  After using the second monitor for a couple of weeks to see if it would grow on me, I finally dumped it. 

This will probably stir up vigorous protests, but in thinking about it, I realized that dual monitors is a special case of multi-tasking. While I can see certain cases where it would be useful, in general I think people are kidding themselves if they think they are being more productive when multi-tasking.  Some exceptions include things like sending emails on your Blackberry during boring meetings (which by definition aren’t very productive anyway), or having multiple documents displayed side by side when you are trying to consolidate them.

I did a post last year about a Stanford study that shows that when people try to multi-task, they do each “task” less well than if they worked on one thing at a time. So while you may get “more” work done, it is very likely to be of a lower quality.  Is the trade-off worth it? The point seems to be worth repeating, so here it is:

The issue of multitasking gets sporadic attention – most recently on the subject of texting while driving (which could also be construed as a death wish). But it is not new. I always recall my driving instructor many years ago saying that you shouldn’t try to make out while driving because you couldn’t pay proper attention either to the road or to the girl.

One of the most recent studies, done at Stanford, is the one that many recent news stories are based on. It shows that:
 

    “People who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information do not pay attention, control their memory or switch from one job to another as well as those who prefer to complete one task at a time.”

The fact of the matter is that “multitasking” in a real sense (or as a computer would understand it) does not really exist. What multitasking really amounts to is that you divide up your time into more or less small “slices” and simply switch rapidly from one “slice” to another. You are still doing one thing at a time, but switching back and forth in rapid succession. So if you “multitask” by doing four things in twelve minutes, you actually focus (for example) on each one of them three times in one minute “slices.” For better or worse, human beings simply do not have quad core (or even dual core) brains.

This understanding is behind one of the classic recipes for ways in which lawyers can more efficiently manage their workflow is to set aside one or two periods in a day to deal with email, and to turn off your email during the rest of the day to avoid distraction.

However, this sort of advice runs counter to the current obsession with multitasking, texting, twittering and instant answers to email. Thus the growth of 2-monitor (or even 3-monitor) setups is due to the desire to keep more and more programs open at the same time and swap back and forth between them. Similarly, people who run stock tickers or sports tickers, not to mention Instant Messaging clients on their desktops are just inviting interruption and distraction.

Multi-monitor setups can be very useful if you regularly work on tasks that involve consulting multiple sources – but just having your email open on a right-hand screen is an invitation to disruption and lack of productivity.

To increase productivity you have to reduce the tendency toward rampant multitasking. Or, to put it another way, instead of dividing up your time into “slices” of 2 minutes, and switching back and forth, try to divide up your time into bigger slices of 15 minutes, half hour, etc. In some cases you may not be able to control this.  There are phone calls you absolutely have to take. However, in others – only dealing with email twice a day in segments of a half hour at a time or answering all your phone calls at the end of the day, for example – you may be able to bring at least a small amount of order to the chaos of multitasking. This approach is embodied by an attorney who is in a meeting or working on drafting an important document and tells his assistant to “hold my calls.”

In short, what the Stanford study cited above shows, is that people who “multitask” do each one of the tasks less well than someone to takes the same amount of time but does them one at a time. So yes, most of what passes for multitasking is inefficient and counterproductive – and will lead to performing each task less well than if it were done as a single task all at once.

Amicus - Worldox Link

You learn something new every day.  I have been complaining about the Amicus - Worldox link in Premium Edition for some time now (the link was foolishly dropped in the Small Firm editions after 5.1 Takeaways are bad business). The default link brings you to all the files for a given client/matter.  That is fine if there are 50 documents, but what if there are 500 documents?  Not so fine.

It turns out that there is in fact a “search Worldox” function buried as part of the normal search function in Amicus, which lets you search by date, document type, or other criteria in addition to client/matter.  It takes a couple of extra clicks, but the functionality is in fact there. 

Copier / Scanner Security

It turns out that all those convenient MFP (Copier, Scanner, Printer rolled into one) have a couple of serious security issues reported in Sharon Nelson’s Ride the Lightning.

The first is that the hard drive of the copiers store every document that has been scanned, printed, copied or emailed. Some copiers, such as the Konica Minolta Bizhub, wipe the data after every print job. Others have the capabilities to do so, but it may be an additional charge to implement. Others leave everything on the hard drive.  So when you turn in a copier, you need to make sure that the hard drive is wiped.

The second security hole is that many copiers/scanners can email the resulting scan to the user. Many firms do this by default. However, there is frequently nothing to prevent anyone from emailing a document to anyone inside or outside the company, or sending a brief email message from any user (i.e., not just the person using the machine at that time) to anyone outside the company (“we hereby cancel our contract...”).

Yet another area where a review of security procedures is a must.

Lexis Nexis: 1984 Revisited

Most software programs have some sort of Privacy statement in which they say they will not give away your personal information to anyone, except maybe third parties whose software integrates with theirs.  The Amicus Attorney statement is fairly typical in this respect. It reads, in part:

    “We use the personal information we collect from you for providing you with information, products and services that we believe to be of value to you. ...
    “In general we do not disclose your personal information outside of our company. However, if you purchase a third party product from us, we may provide your contact information to the developers of that product so that you can be notified of updates and upgrades to that third party product. ...
    “At times we may be required by law or legal process to disclose your personal information.”

In the wake of the Annual Maintenance Program for Time Matters and PCLaw, the Lexis Nexis privacy statement is rather dramatically different:

    “Credit Investigation and Approval. You hereby authorize LexisNexis to make whatever credit investigation it deems appropriate in order to provide you with the Products and Services. By this order, you further authorize LexisNexis to exchange any information received in the course of such investigation. LexisNexis may request reports from credit reporting agencies or others. If you ask whether a credit report was requested, LexisNexis will tell you and if a report was received, LexisNexis will give you the name and address of the agency that supplied the report.”

For the full statement, see the Lexis site here.

In other works not only do they run a credit report in order to let you have the privilege of purchasing their software, but they reserve the right to give any information about you to ANYBODY AT ALL under the guise of a “credit investigation.”  1984 revisited anybody?