Not a Brain in a Vat

I’m not a brain in a vat. At least I don’t think so. (Lame attempt at humor there, I know.) Well, assuming that I am embodied for real, then equally “for real” are all the file folders, unfiled documents, notes that I’ve taken, treatises, deal books and loose-leaf reporters spread around my office. What I’ve found, the longer I’m in this game, is that the unavoidably physical task of assembling contract precedents for review, the very act of having to jump up from my desk countless times during the day to get my hands on a document or a volume is plain annoying, “wearying” is perhaps the best way to describe it all.
I’m in pretty good health, exercise regularly, don’t smoke and enjoy long walks in NYC – so it’s not a physical disability, thank God, that makes all this scrambling around painful. And, despite my affinity for tech, I do agree with those who say that there’s little yet on the tech front that can outdo good lighting and words printed on white paper to make the reading experience enjoyable. Also, it’s not the disorderliness of my office that’s the source of pain here; those items mentioned above as being spread around my office are far from being scattered randomly over desk and floor.

I guess what I’m saying here is that, as a senior lawyer -- but one who’s still very much involved in the hands-on practice of law (I do a great deal of “first draft” drafting, always at the computer mind you, and I review and comment on a lot of other lawyers’ work) – what I really want to do is just think and get paid for doing so. (I’m putting telephoning and negotiating at the bargaining table aside. They’re a big part of my day, too; but I’m more often than not at my desk drafting or reading). In asking whether document storage, sorting and retrieval systems can alleviate the “scrambling” around that I find so painful – and I mean with respect to ALL kinds of documented materials, not just files stored in the firm’s document management system – am I posing a question that goes to the “intelligent” application of information technology to law or am I just day-dreaming of a George Jetson kind of practice?

In answering my own question, let me ask you to consider how much more efficient I could be if those relevant drafting precedents could be found with a few mouse clicks, if the files from the deal under review didn’t have to be hauled from file room or even from my office floor to my desktop, if the regulations contained in the loose leaf service could appear on my wide screen flat-panel monitor in a column adjacent to the very document that I’m drafting or have under review. We’ve come a long way since the mid-70’s when I started to practice and it’s a far cry from the days of “White-out” (sp?) and cut-and-paste document assembly, so perhaps it’s plain old laziness that has me write my post today. No, I insist that the rallying cry should be “automate all but the thinking” (but see a previous post on artificial intelligence). Eliminate every bit of the drudgery and time-waste with intelligent machines and software use, and let me do what I really want to get paid to do – think, analyze, advise.

Comments

[Tom Collins]

I've had your "brain in a vat" post rattling around in my head since last week and thought I'd try responding. Your mention of reading print-on-paper makes me think you've already read The Myth of the Paperless Office, by Sellen & Harper (MIT Press 2002). The mention of getting all your info on a wide screen connects to some of my own posts wistfully hoping for exotic displays for viewing and manipulating information. If you haven't seen Speilberg's tech-thriller, Minority Report, rent it and watch just for his vision of a future information society and those really cool wall-sized monitors!

But your suggestion that we "automate all but the thinking" makes me cringe a little. One of my major concerns about the "silver bullet" view of KM is the danger that we'll lose some of what goes into thinking. How many times to we find something important in a file or a reference book (on on the shelf next to them) while we're looking for something else? How often do we suddenly discover a new argument or an alternative way of approaching a problem during the "document assembly" (that process we used to call "writing") phase?

This semester I'm taking an independent study course in my Informatics program. One of the issues we're going to examine under a theme of "personal KM among lawyers" is the phenomenon of information discovery by serendipity and how technology is and/or might be better used to support/induce such discoveries.

If you, or your readers, have any suggestions on resources or starting points, or ideas to contribute (we also may be looking for lawyers/firms to act as guinea pigs), please let me know.

[Brint Butchart]

Your goal to "automate all but the thinking" is a good one, and I don't believe reaching it is that far off. The market is full of software tools to relieve much of the drudgery that you mention. But there isn't one vendor who offers all of the "features" you mention, and the issue becomes one of systems integration. But what systems, how should they be chosen, and how can they be integrated? A combination of DM systems, research tools, document assembly tools, portals and portal-like applications could provide your solution, all a few mouse clicks away like you envision.

I'm a non-lawyer who has been doing IT and KM in law firms for over a decade. What I've seen at several firms (not just ones I've worked in) is that a solution gets offered and sometimes work proceeds towards an initial or interim solution. Once that milestone is reached, even if it's successful, work often stops or the focus changes. Part of the problem is that most non-lawyers doing this work don't have a clear enough understanding of the goals of the attorneys needing the solution. Also many attorneys often don't understand the technical difficulties involved and get frustrated when they don't have a fix right away. And since "technical difficulties" often translate into $$, those who drive the budgets may balk after the excitement of the initial launch wears off.

One other thought - it might be possible to automate all but the thinking for the attorneys who will consume this knowledge. But in order to ensure that the content is accurate and timely the knowledge managers providing the content and the systems providing the framework will need to devote considerable time and effort into ensuring the accuracy, quality and timeliness of knowledge delivery - another long term cost associated with such solutions.

In closing I'll offer an answer to the "cringe" in the prior post - yes, the process of creative thinking does often lead to ideas not earlier considered. But a well designed KM system should be able to deliver that as well. For me it gets to the heart of the difference between information and knowledge. Information is static and doesn't change. Knowledge, knowledge creation and the conclusions we draw from static information is dynamic and creative. So a desktop KM system that automates all but the thinking should also be designed to allow for the creativity of human thought and provide ways for your mind to wander while you are doing the thinking, advising and writing for your clients.

[UCL]

I'll never forget the look I got when, after making the move from a small to a large litigation firm, I asked the person in charge of my transition, "So, do you guys have a system where everything coming into the firm so attorneys can just look at documents on our computers?" The answer was, of course, "No."

The stereotype I had in my head was that big firms, particularly with their economies of scale, can afford to go "paperless" (as, in fact, my small firm was planning to do just before I left). Reality hit me like a brick wall. My office currently has an entire bookshelf filled with my "top 10 most used hard files" in it.

[Michelle Azar]

I just wanted to mention that you can achieve at least some of your vision by having two screens for your PC (I do, and I have programs running side-by-side at all times, Westlaw on one side, word processor on the other, for example), which makes cutting and pasting so incredibly easy compared to flipping back & forth on one screen. Then I save everything I write on WP, and can do a word search to find documents I want to use again. All I need now is for someone to scan in every piece of valuable paper.
Yes, it's still cut and paste, but I find it much more efficient than searching for paper files.

[Robert Griewahn Jr]

I found Tom Collins' comment interesting, and it holds true for me. The serendipity of paper legal research is often missing when using electronic legal research methods. It's impossible to count the number of times I've come across an important idea on one of the pages that resides close to the page I picked up the book to look at. That just doesn't happen very often when I use an electronic legal database. It worries me.

[Rug]

I think you ought to really look at what's available out there – your wants and dreams here aren't exactly fiction. There are wonderful ways you can get into storing your data and files etc. I think you just don't know about it, because it does take a little knowledge of IT etc. to know what's available out there.

Knowing that you're a lawyer, you probably don't have the time to check up what's available. That ought to be someone else's job. Your IT guy, as an example. He ought to be working at improving your office. Thing is, you'll also need to hire someone to scan some docs in but I'm sure those interns can always do it well. Then you need someone to set it up right-- there are companies like e-filing etc. that can probably give you a solution, but they won't come cheap!

[taylor]

Ugh! I think their is a misunderstanding between creative writing and word salads. I would not want the above "BLOGGER" to edit my work. WHAT YA TRYING TO SAY?

[J F]

Does this story relate to William J. Beggs from Bloomington, Indiana, law firm of Bunger & Robertson? Apparently Mr. Beggs bungled a civil case involving Jan P. Szatkowski and Seth Patinkin, leading to several ethical violations and accusations of participation in a criminal conspiracy to deprive Patinkin (and possibly other Jewish landowners) of the fruits of his rental business. Patinkin is a protege of Nobel prize winner John Nash and was named to the "30 under 30" list of Indiana University last year.

[GHD Pink]

I agree with your thoughts. Good writing. Looking for more article like this.

[casino bonukset]

Ce sujet est très intéressant et agréable ... J'aime cette sujets et post.