Lawyers – Overcome the “Google Search Fallacy”

We have been seduced by Google and other broad search tools to believe that with the right search term entered into a single search box, a searcher can find the results they need.

Instantly.

Often, Google (and Bing, and their competitors) return a good enough result among their first few hits. And for much of what we seek outside the practice of law, good enough is indeed “good enough.”

Google_MichelangeloSearch for “birthdate of Michaelangelo” and Google returns a result in 0.67 seconds that answers the question, corrects spelling and illustrates the results. The search reported a specific fact, and its most likely answer, although one can’t immediately verify the source of the information.

For practice the practice of law, “good enough” is not a high enough standard for search. Lawyers must find precise results, know their sources, and determine whether they are authoritative and complete. Often lawyers must gather a collection of results, review them, and explore where else the search will take them to assure that the search meets the lawyer’s responsibilities to their client.

Success in searching builds on many ways, many places, many times. It takes more thought and analysis than one search, more time than Google’s instantaneous results.

Contract Companion (formerly Eagle Eye) at Work – A Lawyer’s Perspective – A White Paper published in 10 Serial Episodes

Microsystems is publishing my white paper on its Contract Companion (formerly EagleEye) product in 10 serial episodes. The white paper explores in depth the needs for empowered agreement drafting and checking with Contract Companion’s capabilities. Episodes appear every Thursday on Microsystems social media pages:

The episodes can be found here:

Let’s Be Safe Out There

Favorable mention for the latest Collaborista Blog post from Jeffrey Brandt at PinHawk.

 

Let’s Be Safe Out There

Security from the Start

In my latest post on the Collaborista Blog, I explore how to begin a matter employing sufficient security, especially for email communication. I wrote,

There are legal matters deserving “Highly Confidential” or even “Top Secret” treatment from the start. However, more common matters such as secret merger negotiations also need protection.

Read the full post at Practicing Law Securely — Security from the Start.

“Top 12 Objections to Scanning and Destroying Paper” published by ILTA, November 2015

From the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), a November 2015 digital white paper, “Business and Financial Management – Driving Client Value” includes the article, ” Top 12 Objections to Scanning and Destroying Paper.”

In 2016 and the years to come, lawyers must be prepared to work in a world of rapid and disruptive change. When necessary, take lessons from children and grandchildren. Trade the litigation bag full of papers for a tablet with scanned documents. Your lower back surely will appreciate.

 

Technology Property September / October 2015

The Probate and Property magazine of the American Bar Association has published my contribution to the Technology Property column in its September / October 2015 issue.

Why do we need a power assist for document drafting and editing? It should help us to create and complete agreements, contracts, and other work products and to fashion client communications that are clear, correct, and complete. It should help make drafting precise and exact, free of error and ambiguity. It should help us against the pressures on fees, for which proofreading may not be collectible time. In a world that expects turnaround at the speed of e-mail, we may be hard-pressed to proof thoroughly. Though the prevalence of e-mail and instant messaging has made much of our communication less formal, words remain our stock-in-trade and, nearly all the time, deserve and require careful craft.

Practicing Law Securely – Current Developments, October 2015

The Practicing Law Securely series on the Collaborista blog now includes current developments reports. Here are Practicing Law Securely current developments for October 2015.

Follow the link to the full collection of Practicing Law Securely blog posts.

 

Practicing Law Securely – Information Rights Management: What, When, How

To practice law securely, we can add the capability of “information rights management” (or IRM, for short) to our toolbox.

This blog post will begin to answer these three questions:

  • What is IRM?
  • When should we use IRM?
  • How do we put IRM to work?

Read the story at http://blogs.intralinks.com/collaborista/2015/06/practicing-law-securely-information-rights-management-what-when-how/

 

A new Outlook on life (without Autocomplete) – Another way to Practice Law Securely

In the news from a favorite source, Office Watch – “Presidential Passport Details Leaked – Outlook Is Blamed” citing a story in The Guardian, Personal details of world leaders accidentally revealed by G20 organisers. Has the time has come to shed this email crutch (pardon, feature) and (at least) reduce the risks of sending email messages to the wrong person. For instructions, see the Office Watch article.

First, before we get to what happens in the address fields, great advice from the legacy of my late colleague, Gerard Haubrich. Write the message first, check it (twice), then add addressees. That prevents the embarrassment of sending an incomplete message by a slip of the finger.  Adopt and master this good habit on any and all devices. If the content of address field helps focus writing the message, try starting “Hi [Bob].” Formality may occasionally demand “Dear [Mr. Blacksberg],” that would be a rare emails. I am fond of “Good morning, [Bob]” (it’s always morning somewhere, no?).

Now what?

Start typing in the address field and nothing happens. Where are all the names that used to appear? Do you have to open Contacts and find a name? Do you need to remember how to type a long email address correctly? In Outlook, there is another shortcut solution. Start typing the name or email address, and press CTRL K. If there is only one match in your contacts, that will autocomplete. If there are many, you are supposed to see a list of all of them. That’s better. You only need part of the name, so long names should not be a challenge. If you must pick the name from a list, you are more likely to make a correct selection than Autocomplete, since the act of choosing requires more detailed focus and care. That’s what we sought, even if there is a bit of a price in time.

BUT…

CTRL K lookup has a different matching pattern than Autocomplete. Autocomplete matches first names, but lookup does not. So far, last name matching seems much more successful.

Stay tuned for further developments.

 

 

Practicing Law Securely – Working with the Shared Repository

The Practicing Law Securely series on the Collaborista blog explores in greater depth issues arising from working with a secure shared repository in the latest post, “Practicing Law Securely – Working with the Shared Repository.”