This Jeff Kerr post on Evolve the Law struck a cord. It opens:

All litigation, both civil and criminal, hinges on disputes about law and facts. We’ve seen massive interest in technology designed to facilitate legal research, but technology for dealing with facts (investigating them, proving them) doesn’t get as much attention.

He explains that with all the focus on e-discovery software, fact management software lags behind:

Fact management software, which is part of the broader category of case management software, fulfills this need. Fact management platforms, from the old (CaseMap) to the new (CaseFleet, FactBox, Allegory) enable litigators to handle facts in a collaborative, reusable, and scalable way. Each platform’s primary unit of data is a fact, which can be linked to other kinds of data, such a legal issues, evidence, and witnesses. The more modern fact management platforms have intuitive and fluid interfaces, which make entering data in them as fast or faster than hammering out a chronology in Word that’s far less useful…

Even so, fact management remains a field that’s ripe for innovation.

My Take:

That’s an understatement. This is what I need in a fact management platform:

• chronology software that links to source documents;
• outline software that allow building outlines linked to witnesses and issues;
• notebook capabilities like OneNote or EverNote to organize material;
• robust search functions;
• interacts with my case management software; and
• cloud based.

There is no product on the market that comes close to meeting these requirements.

CaseMap is still the best fact management software even though it’s not had a major update in at least 10 years and is not cloud based.

Cloud based software like FactBox and CaseFleet solve CaseMap’s biggest glitch of the possibility of losing the path to your linked documents. But they don’t provide the options for organizing material in a fact as well as CaseMap. That may sound minor, but it’s a huge flaw.

Nothing has outline software. If I want to know if I’ve started an outline for a witness, I have to open up NoteMap and look. Then I have to open OneNote and check my notes there. Finally, I check my notes in my case management software, which has a bad note taking feature that I try to avoid, but sometimes use because it’s easy to make a note linked to the case in the phone app.

That’s a lot of running around for something that should all be seamlessly organized in one software platform.

It’s ridiculous that I can’t at least organize notes in Clio. How is that going to work on anything other than a small case? Poorly.

Kerr concludes that we can expect fact management software to get better in the next few years. I hope so. I’m not as optimistic, but I hope so.

There is an opportunity for someone to own the market with a superior product.

I use and am a fan of Clio case management software. I have a diverse practice: a lot of plaintiff, some defense, a lot of non-personal injury and some personal injury. Clio is a great tool for my practice.

But is there better case management software for plaintiff lawyers who specialize in personal injury? Maybe.

Casepeer looks promising for personal injury attorneys. It is cloud based and designed for personal injury attorneys. Pricing plans range from $55 to $85 per user per month.

I can’t recommend enough that attorneys use cloud based case management software. There are a number of good options for every practice.

A few weeks ago an attorney complained about how time consuming it was to find specific deposition testimony in a huge transcript. He still does it by hand with the transcript and word index.

There are two easy software solutions to this problem. One is optional for attorneys. One is a must that many attorneys already have.

The optional product is Textmap. With Textmap, you load all your transcripts from a case and can search them all simultaneously. I don’t know how helpful this sounds. But it is very helpful.

To make it work you need non-pdf formats from the court reporter, such as Ascii. Court reporters will email a transcript in this format to you if it did not come with the deposition.

Searching in Textmap is fast because you can read just the portion with your keyword instead of having to review the actual transcript. In particular, Textmap saves a lot of time when writing briefs.

The mandatory product is Adobe Acrobat, or a similar pdf tool. I prefer the Pro version, but perhaps standard has all you need. I don’t think Reader does much of what I discuss below.

With Acrobat, you can OCF documents to make them searchable. Say you don’t have Textmap or even if you do, you only have a pdf of a deposition. Acrobat lets you search the transcript. It doesn’t work quiet as well as Textmap, but it beats searching by hand.

Acrobat’s search function is great for all documents–not just depositions. I know many lawyers know and use this. But I also know that a surprising number don’t.

Acrobat also lets you bates number and add text to a document. What text might you want to add? How about “Ex. 1”? I am not sure if you can do this with the standard version. I use Acrobat Pro. It makes labeling exhibits and documents for production a breeze.

Another great Acrobat function is ‘Extract.’ Say have you a 100 page pdf containing multiple documents. Extract allows you to pull out specific pages and save as a separate document. If you aren’t doing this already, you waste a lot of time looking for particular pages in a pdf. Or worse, you still print your favorite pages.

Often people looking for new software just need to learn more about the software they have. I do not exclude myself from this. I need to learn more about Word and Acrobat.

A few weeks ago an attorney complained about how time consuming it was to find specific deposition testimony in a huge transcript. He still does it by hand with the transcript and word index.

There are two easy software solutions to this problem. One is optional for attorneys. One is a must that many attorneys already have.

The optional product is Textmap. With Textmap, you load all your transcripts from a case and can search them all simultaneously. I don’t know how helpful this sounds. But it is very helpful.

To make it work you need non-pdf formats from the court reporter, such as Ascii. Court reporters will email a transcript in this format to you if it did not come with the deposition.

Searching in Textmap is fast because you can read just the portion with your keyword instead of having to review the actual transcript. In particular, Textmap saves a lot of time when writing briefs.

The mandatory product is Adobe Acrobat, or a similar pdf tool. I prefer the Pro version, but perhaps standard has all you need. I don’t think Reader does much of what I discuss below.

With Acrobat, you can OCF documents to make them searchable. Say you don’t have Textmap or even if you do, you only have a pdf of a deposition. Acrobat lets you search the transcript. It doesn’t work quiet as well as Textmap, but it beats searching by hand.

Acrobat’s search function is great for all documents–not just depositions. I know many lawyers know and use this. But I also know that a surprising number don’t.

Acrobat also lets you bates number and add text to a document. What text might you want to add? How about “Ex. 1”? I am not sure if you can do this with the standard version. I use Acrobat Pro. It makes labeling exhibits and documents for production a breeze.

Another great Acrobat function is ‘Extract.’ Say have you a 100 page pdf containing multiple documents. Extract allows you to pull out specific pages and save as a separate document. If you aren’t doing this already, you waste a lot of time looking for particular pages in a pdf. Or worse, you still print your favorite pages.

Often people looking for new software just need to learn more about the software they have. I do not exclude myself from this. I need to learn more about Word and Acrobat.

Podcasts have changed the way people consume audio. There are more great podcasts available than anyone has time to listen to. If you don’t already listen to podcasts when you are driving or working out, then you are in for a real treat. Podcasts are to audio what DVRs are to video.

Take the podcast for PTI (Pardon the Interruption). Rather than sit through the t.v. show with commercials, I listen to the next morning it driving to work in half the time of the t.v. show. Or Jim Rome’s Daily Jungle. It’s a 1 hour version of a 3 hour radio show.

My best advice is to not listen to podcasts on the podcast player on i-phones. Podcast apps are better.

I listen to podcasts on the Overcast app. It’s free. It organizes podcasts better than the Apple app and has buttons for fast-forwarding and rewinding in 30 second increments. This allows avoiding commercials.

The Legal Talk Network has many legal related podcasts. These are the legal related podcasts I regularly listen to:

• The Digital Edge
• Law Technology Now
• New Solo (the name is a misnomer- it’s more of a legal tech podcast)
• Mitnik’s Monthly Brushstroke.

Outside the legal sector, S-Town is the best podcast in history. It’s The Wire of podcasts.

Non-legal podcasts I currently regularly listen to:

• PTI (sports)
• Jim Rome’s Daily Jungle (sports)
• The Jim Rome Podcast (sports)
• The Forward (Lance Armstrong’s podcast)
• Stages (Lance Armstrong’s other podcast [Armstrong is a podcast talent])
• The Meb Faber Show (investing)
• Pod Save America (politics)
• wealthtrack (investing).

There are thousands of podcasts on all kinds of subjects. Many last for hours with a new episode every week. I have burned out on many podcasts. See, e.g., Bill Simmons podcast.

A developing area that helps litigators are companies that provide cloud based forwarding of federal court ECF notices. At their most basic level, the services download and email ECF filings for your participating cases.

The key benefit of this feature is that it removes the one free look restriction with ECF notices. I hate getting an ECF notice when I am out of the office and not using my computer. I don’t want to open the document because I will blow my one free look. These services solve this problem.

The two companies I am aware of offering the service are CourtDrive and DocketBird.

I have used CourtDrive pacer forwarding for months. Now I simultaneously receive two emails, the normal ECF notice with the one free look restriction and the forward from CourtDrive. I just delete the normal ECF notice and work with the CourtDrive forward.

It also saves the downloads in case folders on the cloud. It cost $10.00 per month.

CourtDrive also has plans that offer more robust features at higher prices. I’ve tried it and liked it, but am not currently using because I was not using it much.

DocketBird recently came on my radar because it integrates with Clio case management software. It appears to work like CourtDrive.

The only downside is that these services are currently limited to federal court. Hopefully, they will eventually add state court coverage.

I don’t know the best solution for computer legal research. I’ll tell you what I use and have learned over the years. Please post a comment if you have a better solution.

Since last summer I’ve used Fastcase. I pay $95 per month for state and federal law. I don’t have a contract. If I wanted to cancel for a month I could.

About the only difference I have noticed from Westlaw/Lexis is that Fastcase doesn’t use headnotes. I thought I would miss headnotes, but I don’t.

Fastcase is an integration partner with Clio case management software. This allows me to save Fastcase research into my Clio matter files. It’s a nice feature.

The best thing about Fastcase is their business practices. Unlike Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis, Fastcase doesn’t have contracts.

My biggest problem with Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis is not the price ($200 per month-ish) or the contracts (1-3 years). My biggest problem is that both companies go out of their way to try to screw you on the back end.

Both Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis contracts have automatic renewals at increased monthly rates. If you are in a contract with one of these companies, you should cancel renewal now. If you enter into a contract in the future, you should cancel renewal the day you sign the contract. Do it in writing and get a confirmation from them–because you will hear from them again.

In late 2015 I signed a 1 year contract with Lexis. I cancelled renewal immediately and received a confirmation from my happy sales rep. (they clearly work on commission). The contract expired in early 2017. Lexis did not contact me trying to extend or lock down a new contract. Instead, they kept billing me even though I had stopped using the service.

I wrote the company and explained that I non-renewed at inception. Crickets for a few months other than the invoices, which continued.

Eventually a Lexis rep. started calling daily trying to collect. My sense is that he thought this was intimidating, which is a stupid thought when calling a lawyer who knows your game. He disappeared when I explained that I wasn’t under contract. But the invoices continued.

A few months later someone different emails me trying to collect all this money they say I owe Lexis. So I email back copies of my non-renewal email, the Lexis rep’s confirmation and my letter explaining the mistake. Crickets. Think they apologized? No. Think I’ve heard the last from them? Me either.

Westlaw does the same thing. Both companies would rather try to screw you on the back end of a contract than maintain business practices that generate customer loyalty. It would be like Wal Mart charging you $20 to get out of the parking lot. They’d make more money that day. Long term? Not so much.

A company like Fastcase is bad news for Westlaw and Lexis because to deal with them, is to dislike them. They have stupid business practices that are hard to understand.

Count yourself lucky if you are in a big firm or other job where you don’t have to deal with the administrative side of computer legal research. It’s a hassle.

Last week I wrote about PerfectIt, which is proofreading software. Today’s topic is Wordrake.

Wordrake is editing software. Like PerfectIt, Wordrake is a Word ad-in that launches from the top ribbon in Word. There is also a version for emails that I have not tried.

The Wordrake homepage contains a good 30 second video demo about how the product works.

Run Wordrake in your Word document or Outlook email and it suggests revisions. The suggested revisions shorten sentences. With the click of a button, you can accept or reject a suggested revision.

Here are the price plans. $129 per year for Word or Outlook; $199 for both. There are also discounts for multiple orders by law firms. Those discounts can get quiet steep.

In my experience, Wordrake’s revisions almost always improve the text by making sentences clearer. If a sentence can be made shorter, Wordrake will suggest it. This is an important feature for lawyers.

What’s the number 1 suggestion from judges to lawyers about legal writing? “Shorter is better” has to rank at the top. Wordrake ‘rakes’ away the words to make the text shorter. Judges will appreciate you raking your documents. Heck, if I was a judge I would use it to rake my opinions.

To be fair, some attorneys need to use Wordrake more than others. People who write short sentences in active voice will not see as many suggested revisions as people who write in passive voice. Consistently writing in passive voice is the easiest way to make your legal writing long and hard to follow. Identify good legal writing and it’s going to be in active voice.

They don’t teach the active-passive dichotomy in law school. Or if they do, no one pays attention. Over use of passive voice is a common error by young attorneys.

I wasn’t aware of the importance of the active-passive concept until the late 1990’s when I went to a Bryan Garner legal writing CLE in response to my boss Bill Reed telling me that my writing sucked. Reed was fanatical about short clear sentences. He must have gone through two red pens a day editing associates’ documents. The most frustrating part of the exercise was that his edits almost always improved the draft.

The first time I ‘Wordraked’ a brief, I looked at my computer like Bill Reed was about to jump out of it. He could have written the software.

For the last few months I’ve been using PerfectIt proofreading software for professionals. The software functions as a Word add-in. The software reduces proofreading time for the drafter.

PerfectIt checks for typos, misspellings and formatting inconsistencies. It was programmed by lawyers and knows the dreaded Bluebook. This means it knows the proper abbreviations and where the spaces go in common legal citations. If you want to use this feature you need to set it up for ‘American Legal Style’ once you download the software.

If you are a solo or other attorney who doesn’t have the benefit of a second set of eyes proofreading your documents, PerfectIt is great for identifying inconsistencies that jump off the page at some readers.

If you are an associate at a law firm, you may not be aware of how much typos and format inconsistencies drive partners crazy. When you give them a document with these types of errors, they often think that you are lazy or sloppy. They remember it. You may think that something so minor can’t cost you your job. You would be wrong. Any reasonably priced software that helps clean up documents is worth the price for firm associates.

The current price for PerfectIt is $99 for a permanent license. I understand that the pricing structure will soon change to a yearly license for $70. So now is a good time to buy.