"In this article, Seth Rowland, an application developer of document
assembly systems, debunks the top five myths about document assembly
software. In doing so, he avoids the smarminess of many industry
spokespeople and even admits to idiosyncrasies and limitations in the
current generation of document assembly products. This honest
approach has resulted in a valuable article that all law firms should
consult before purchasing document assembly software. This article won
the MasterPost, a writing contest in The TechnoLawyer Community." [Technolawyer.com]
Introduction
While document assembly software may not be a "must-have"
for every lawyer, many lawyers who could benefit from the
software do not use it because of a lack of information, or worse
- misinformation. I hope that debunking the five most common
myths about document assembly software will enable you to
make an informed decision and reduce the drudgery of drafting
and re-drafting similar documents on a regular basis.
1.Document Assembly Takes Too Much Time
Document assembly software will not work miracles right out of
the box; proper use requires an investment of time and care in
customizing the system. The amount of effort invested in
building the system will determine the extent to which
document assembly software will help you and your colleagues.
If properly set up, document assembly software should enable
you to create a solid first draft that closely resembles the first
draft of a document you would normally create by the mark-up
and revision of model documents. Once the software is
customized, you have done more than create just one
transactional document; you have provided the logic and
framework for dozens of variations of the transactional
document.
How much time will the setup process require, and how much
time will it save? If you compare document assembly software
to the drafting of a single transaction, document assembly will
always lose. If, however, you compare document assembly to
the drafting of as few as five similar documents, you will find
that you save considerable time and effort by using document
assembly software. If you use the software to create dozens or
hundreds of related similar documents, document assembly
software will change the way you conduct legal business . and
the way you bill your clients.
2.Document Assembly Software Is Too Expensive
Document Assembly software ranges in price from as little as
ninety-nine dollars per user up to several thousand dollars per
user. Nonetheless, the price of the software should not be the
key factor in determining whether such a purchase is
worthwhile. The software is cheap (at any price) compared to
the amount of lawyer time spent on developing a similar system
internally or drafting documents by conventional methods.
Investing in less expensive software with fewer helpful features
will save money at the outset, but not in the long run.
3.Document Assembly Is Not Cost Effective
The best way to determine the cost-effectiveness of document
assembly software is by analyzing return on investment (ROI).
The rationale for document assembly software is that it saves
time and therefore reduces billable hours spent on creating
documents. This argument is obviously not true on the basis of
an individual transaction and would likely deter any law firm
from ever adopting such a system (thus rendering it useful only
for in-house corporate legal departments). However, when one
examines the issue from a broader perspective, considering
factors such as volume of transactions and value billing, the ROI
becomes apparent.
a.Volume
Law firms that use document assembly software can handle a
greater volume of matters. In other words, they can complete a
greater share of each client's business within a given amount of
time, and also take on new clients.
b.Budget Caps
Law firms can deliver work under client-dictated budget caps,
thereby keeping clients happy and encouraging them to send
more of their business to the firm.
c.Value Billing
Law firms can move to flat rates for particular types of work and
then delegate the assembly to paralegals and junior associates,
with senior partners overseeing and reviewing the decision logic
of the system to ensure quality control.
4.Document Assembly Software Is Difficult to Program
On the surface, this statement is not obviously false. Document
assembly programs can be unforgiving; in some instances, a
single programming error can cause the system to crash. The
difficulty, however, does not lie in the programming. You do not
need to become an expert programmer to make document
assembly software work. The "programming" of most document
assembly systems is easy - just a few important commands,
pull-down menus and the like will enable you (a computer-savvy
lawyer, but by no means a programmer) to create the
appropriate syntax and codes. The codes used by the software
are not overly complex and can be mastered in a day.
The real difficulty of document assembly software lies in the
planning. To overcome this difficulty, treat the setup of
document assembly software as you would treat the writing of a
brief. Just as you would outline and organize a brief before
writing it, so too should you outline your strategy for
automating a document. Do that and the actual coding will fall
easily into place. I would suggest that before you touch a single
key, you should write out a complete outline on paper, listing all
decisions and mapping out the results that you want to see.
Problems usually occur when a user marks up a document
without planning and adds syntax almost haphazardly. Such an
implementation typically results in duplicative and inconsistent
code and becomes difficult to maintain. A little discipline and
preparation will go a long way in helping you to avoid these
problems. To make the creation process even smoother, you can
work with a consultant.
5.Document Assembly Is Only Useful for Transactional Work
Document assembly is most cost-effective for a transactional
practice. Nevertheless, the software can add value even for some
types of litigation practice. For example:
a.Pleadings
Templates and macros can expedite the creation of pleadings
and court documents, saving time otherwise wasted on proofing
and modifying caption styles. Field codes (either native to the
word processor or as part of a document assembly template) can
ensure consistent entry of data across multiple pleadings.
Most pleadings are redundant in the styling of causes of action
and affirmative defenses. You can draft these documents more
quickly and with a reduced incidence of error by using clause
libraries. Word and WordPerfect utilities and document
assembly programs like HotDocs and SmartWords support
editable clause libraries. These clause libraries allow you to
store topical blocks of text in a central location with a topic
heading and to "drop" the text into the pleadings at the
appropriate place. If the users are conscientious in their use of
these libraries, they can grow to become invaluable. I can also
conceive of a document assembly routine that handles the
styling of answers (i.e. admit the allegations of ., deny the
allegations of ., deny knowledge sufficient ., deny the
allegations of . but admit ..) and allow the user to drop in
blocks of affirmative defenses.
b.Summons and Affidavit of Service
You can automate summons and affidavits of service very
quickly with document assembly software. Of course, some
lawyers would argue that they can edit a word processing
template even more quickly. Admittedly, a Word or WordPerfect
template can handle these simple documents.
c.Interrogatories and Document Requests
California and some other states have court-approved
interrogatories, which cannot be altered. The only allowable
change consists of omitting certain interrogatories from those
served on the opposing party. Of course, the captions change
from case to case. Most lawyers pull up a list of the complete
interrogatories and delete those that they don't want. Others send
out the entire set of interrogatories and let the opposing party
object on grounds of relevance.
Notwithstanding these pattern interrogatories, lawyers in other
jurisdictions can benefit from using document assembly
software to create interrogatories for both the definitions and the
questions. Document assembly can help prevent the omission of
certain important questions. If you work in a litigation practice
that focuses on one area (e.g., admiralty, securities, personal
injury, malpractice), you will find document assembly software
particularly helpful because it can help you develop a basic line
of questioning for use in all cases.
Document requests are similar to interrogatories. Some states
use specific forms whereas others allow more leeway. As with
interrogatories, you can use document assembly software to
generate definitions and request clauses. The more specific the
subject matter of your practice, the more value you will reap
from document assembly software.
d.Notices, Orders, Affidavits of Service
These tiny nuisance documents accompany the "real work" of
litigators. Using document assembly software to generate them
will enable you to focus on writing fact affidavits and briefs.
e.Briefs
When I worked as a lawyer, I often drafted briefs by conducting
an exhaustive search of the firm's network for briefs with similar
subject matter (we used SoftSolutions). I cobbled together
blocks of text from these briefs and dropped them into an
outline. Of course, I still needed to Shepardize and redraft the
documents, but the process saved an immense amount of time.
With document assembly software, law firms could organize
these key brief components for all to view and use. Again, the
more specialized the firm, the more document assembly makes
sense. For example, if your firm frequently makes Frye/Daubert
motions to exclude scientific evidence, you and your colleagues
can easily build a document assembly system that can generate a
solid first draft.
f.Settlement Agreements
We now return to transactional documents. Settlement
agreements and the more stripped-down releases are perfect
candidates for document assembly software. Structured
settlements often require some logic and some calculations. A
good rule-based document assembly program can handle this
variable language and perform the necessary calculations.
Conclusion
Document assembly software does not make sense for every law
firm, but before reaching such a conclusion, I recommend that
all law firms measure their document assembly needs and
conduct a thorough investigation of the different software
packages on the market. Only after a thorough investigation can
you make an informed decision. If you find yourself reinventing
the wheel every time you draft a document, chances are good
that you will find some salvation amidst the codes, syntax and
templates of document assembly software.
Download
Top Five Myths About Document Assembly - Applications to Litigation Practice
