what sort of gadgets can lawyers use in the courtroom? what do they actually use, if anything?

[code_grey]

I think the title says it all. Do they bring laptops? Smartphones without camera? Voice recorders? Goose quills?

Are there any limitations on this beyond prohibition of cameras? Does the keyboard have to be silent?

Is there any specialized software marketed for use by lawyers inside the courtroom?

Or do they take all their notes on paper using a pen?

[Noel Prosequi]

Most modern courts allow the use of internet connected laptops where necessary. I have done trials where all the potential documents were stored electronically in advance of the trial, and then pulled up and shown to the jury and witnesses on screens as needed and then tendered electronically. In my jurisdiction phones are not allowed in court rooms (even on silent) because the regular polling of the network the phone does interferes with the sound recording system. (You know that odd noise your computer periodically makes when your mobile is next to it?)

I have also done trials with real-time transcripts, so that as a witness speaks, the note taker's machine translates the notes into English and the transcript is put onto a computer screen in front of me with a lag of 10 seconds or so. For my part, I don't find this as useful as you might think.

The software to run these things is commonly available. I doubt it is particularly specialised.

At the other end of the technology spectrum (ie, for most cases), trials are document heavy. The documents are typically kept in ring binders and organised according to whatever scheme fits the occasion best. The technology involved is often no more sophisticated than highlighter pens, Post-It notes, and ordinary pen and paper.

[code_grey]

do people actually bring in those laptops and use them?

I did not understand your comment about software. So what sort of software, specialized or otherwise, might a lawyer use in the courtroom on his laptop? Do they take notes about proceedings, review their own documents or in general do they do anything at all on the laptop?

[friedo]

Lawyers are the only beings in the Universe who still use WordPerfect.

[WarmNPrickly]

Wouldn't this all be at the discretion of the judge? That's what I learned from that documentary, "My Cousin Vinny".

As for software. If there is an Internet connection, I'm sure there is a legal abstract service online that could very quickly be cross checked. Obviously, you would have your case prepared in advance, but the opposing argument may throw a curve ball.

[ChrisBooth12]

Originally Posted by code_grey

do people actually bring in those laptops and use them?

I did not understand your comment about software. So what sort of software, specialized or otherwise, might a lawyer use in the courtroom on his laptop? Do they take notes about proceedings, review their own documents or in general do they do anything at all on the laptop?

Google Earth for one

[Tabby_Cat]

No recording devices. A junior lawyer got hit with a contempt a while ago for using a tape recorder (probably actually a solid state recorder) during a hearing.

I've never seen cases searched for on the fly in Court, but I have taken notes on a laptop. Frankly, even if you do find a case on the fly, you wouldn't have had time to read it and know what it says, and if the judge doesn't have a copy of the case you can't very well ask him to your side of the bar and show him your laptop screen.

[Noel Prosequi]

I can only speak for myself, but having a laptop in the courtroom enables me to have a separate link to the depository of electronically stored materials so I can have my assistants pre-fetch documents for me to see in addition to those on the screen visible in the court room. The sorts of documents I am talking about are things like bank statements, medical charts, and so on.

The software I am talking about is database software that allows secure access in various ways to the database of documents and allows them to be manipulated into and out of the class of documents which are formal exhibits. Of course Adobe or the like is necessary because many of the docs are stored as pdf files.

I have also done searches for cases in court, but only cases whose existence I was already aware of and just wanted to able to pull up and quote accurately in response to a developing argument. You don't have time to do actual research once you are in court.

And you don't do much creation of things like Word documents in the court room itself. You might use Word to do an electronic search of the electronic version of the daily transcript in court to find where someone said something about "widgets" for example. Note taking on a laptop is (for me) too cumbersome. Handwritten notes work best.

But the notes are not really simply a detailed recording of what the witness is saying. Much of what a witness says is uncontroversial. And when the witness is called by me, I am on my feet asking questions, so I can't make notes on a computer of that sort.

Assuming you have access to a regular transcript, most notetaking in court is a)a prompt to yourself to do something (like remember to refer to some point or other in your address to the jury, or in some legal argument to a judge) or b) to record a small point of what a witness has said so you can cross-examine on it with some semblance of accuracy. It all happens very quickly (from the perspective of the lawyers, even if the audience is bored stupid by it) and laptops are too intrusive and slow to be used for notetaking for that sort of task. At least that is my experience. Others may vary.

Also, I can access email to send back to the office for stuff if I need it and so on, have my assistants organise witnesses from within the courtroom without having to go outside and make phone calls. That sort of thing.

[Northern Piper]

I don't use a computer in the court room. My practice tends to be focussed on legal argument, either in chambers or on appeal, not trial work, so the documents are usually already filed with the Court in bound volumes, and there are no witnesses. The legal arguments are all supported by written briefs, with voluminous books of authorities in support. If I need to refer to a particular case or statute, I refer the Court to the relevant book of authority. It's very rare that a case or statute is referred to out of the blue by opposing counsel.

Some years ago, I appeared against a very computer literate counsel, who had all of his cases on his laptop, along with his notes for oral argument, and he continually referred to it during oral argument.

I had a beat-up looseleaf binder, with hand-written notes, written with my fountain pen. If I needed to refer to a case, I just relied on a traditional non-electronic data retrieval system, i.e. my memory of the case.

Mrs Piper happened to be in court for oral argument that day, and got talking to opposing counsel. He told her that he found my methods very intimidating, because I was capable of arguing a complex case without having the cases at my fingertips, just relying on memory. So technological gadgets may not always give you an edge.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by friedo

Lawyers are the only beings in the Universe who still use WordPerfect.

That's because we appreciate it's value!

Seriously, WP was originally designed for lawyers, and it just works better for me than Word ever does. It's a far more intuitive program, in my opinion, and also much easier to fix formatting problems, via Reveal Codes. When I'm pounding out a brief against a deadline, it's a far superior program.

[Voyager]

The prosecutor for the trial I was a juror for used PowerPoint for her opening (and maybe closing) argument.

[Noel Prosequi]

There are those pressing for that sort of thing (Powerpoint addresses). For my part, I am against them, although I would be very keen to hear of your experience, Voyager.

My argument is that use of such aids rapidly becomes a Red Queen's Race - running as fast as you can just to remain in the same place. It becomes a contest of who has the resources to generate the coolest slides, and expensive contests like this ought not to be encouraged.

Secondly, my sense is that there is something real in complaints about the Powerpoint Effect. People seem to have a clearer understanding of what the slide is about when it is on the screen but that that clarity evaporates once the slide is off the screen and another takes its place. The illusory sense of having "got it" while the slide is on the screen lulls the juror into taking less effort to remember the content. In effect, people trying to absorb and remember complex and unfamiliar information are paradoxically worse off with powerpoint than they would be if they listened and took their own notes.

Courts are resistant to counsel's slides going into the jury room for fear of maximising the effect of "he who makes the better slides, wins", so there is no answer to be found in saying let the jurors have printouts of the slides.

Of course all of this may be the dinosaur in me, and I am quite prepared to be wrong.

So - your thoughts would be helpful.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Noel Prosequi

My argument is that use of such aids rapidly becomes a Red Queen's Race - running as fast as you can just to remain in the same place. It becomes a contest of who has the resources to generate the coolest slides, and expensive contests like this ought not to be encouraged.

Classic article from the Wall Street Journal about the military's PowerPoint arms race.

"The idea behind most of these briefings is for us to sit through 100 slides with our eyes glazed over, and then to do what all military organizations hope for ... to surrender to an overwhelming mass," says Navy Secretary Richard Danzig.
...

"There is an arms-race dimension to it," says Peter Feaver, a military expert at Duke University and frequent PowerPoint briefer at various war colleges. "If there are three briefings in a row, and you are the one with the lowest production values, you look really lame."

[code_grey]

why does this discussion keep veering off onto things that are done publicly in the courtroom? I hate PowerPoint (as well as the people too dumb to understand arguments not in slide form) as much as the next guy, but my question is primarily about what the lawyers are doing in the privacy of their own laptop (or other such gadget) to help them with the work.

Better software can make smart people effectively even smarter / more effective, even if nobody else sees it on the projector screen. Bad software, of course, can and does have precisely the opposite effect.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by code_grey

Is there any specialized software marketed for use by lawyers inside the courtroom?

FYI, here is an article from the New York Times about artificial intelligence software used to search documents. Of course this is not being used by lawyers inside the courtroom, but is being used to replace the work of lawyers and paralegals during the discovery phase.

[Simmerdown]

Originally Posted by code_grey

why does this discussion keep veering off onto things that are done publicly in the courtroom?

Because the OP does not seem to really set that forth. But you have made it clear now what you were looking for.

Anyway, courtroom-graphics designer checking in:

I was going to go into an explanation of when or why a PowerPoint presentation might be appropriate in a courtroom situation, but I see now that should be a topic for another thread.

I will point out that trial teams will often hire a courtroom technology expert who is responsible for not only displaying the public exhibits, demonstratives, videotaped deposition testimony, etc., but often for assembling these on the fly as the trial progresses. For example, he may need to "cut clips" which basically involves editing out and compiling certain sections of a longer piece of testimony. Or, perhaps, a document needs to have a paragraph called-out (enlarged) and annotated (highlighting, red circles, etc.). This person performing these tasks is considered to be "in the hot seat". Ideally these things are done in the days leading up to the trial, but sometimes they need to be done on the spot. The process is hardly public. The courtroom tech might be considered to be a "human gadget" aiding the lawyer/trial team. To some they are as indispensable as their Blackberry.

[GiantRat]

Originally Posted by friedo

Lawyers are the only beings in the Universe who still use WordPerfect.

Ugh. No shit. In a former life, working for a Federal law enforcement agency as an "IT Guy," we found ourselves crippled when we started relying on MS Office. The USAO couldn't read our investigative reports unless we sent them by "sneaker net" or secure fax. I must have had to install 500 standalone instances of WordPerfect. All of them, of course, "urgent."

Sigh.... end user support was hell....

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Seriously, WP was originally designed for lawyers

I don't think this is true. WordPerfect was originally designed for use by a city government. I suppose a city government may include a few lawyers, but as far as I know it wasn't designed especially for them; it was just a general-purpose word processor. A lot of the features commonly used in legal documents weren't added until years later.

[AK84]

I have used Ipad and my laptop. On the other hand outside of Intellectual Property cases I really cannot recall ever using them during Oral Advocacy.

And a well written case note is worth its weight in gold, it helps you during arguements and can be given to the Judge at the end of arguments; s/he will appreciate it and remember you contentions when writing the judgement, since I really don't know any Judge who actually does read through transcripts unless absolutely necessary.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by code_grey

my question is primarily about what the lawyers are doing in the privacy of their own laptop (or other such gadget) to help them with the work.

And my answer is, not much.

When I'm in my office, prepping for a case, I'm a heavy computer user - cases, statutes and journal articles are all available on-line, I prepare briefs and memos on my computer, I have a lot of e-mail correspondence and exchanges of documents, links, etc. I have two desks, and I find I sit at my computer desk more than my writing desk (I do also write documents - with the aforesaid fountain pen). I'd be lost without computer access in my office.

But when I'm in the courtroom, it's an entirely different type of work. I'm either listening or talking. I'm listening to the judge, to opposing counsel, and (rarely, in my case) to witnesses. I take quick notes, but they're not a transcript - they're to remind myself of points I need to respond to. I have my own notes ready for my orals.

And when I'm talking, I need to already know what cases and statutes I'm going to refer to, and I'll have the citations and tabs in the Book of Authorities incorporated into my notes for orals. One of the easiest ways to distract a judge and to lose the train of your argument is to stop and try to find the reference to a case or statute that you're discussing - whether hunting through the physical Book of Authorities, or doing an electronic search.

It sometimes happens that the judge or opposing counsel may refer to a case or statute that I haven't put into my orals, but if I've done my prep work right, I should have anticipated that, from reading opposing counsel's brief - and I'll know where to find it in opposing counsel's Book of Authorities.

Frankly, if I needed to be poking around on my computer in the courtroom, while either the judge or the other lawyer is talking, it would mean I had not properly prepared, and was losing valuable chances to understand opposing counsel's argument and to adapt my own argument to the points that the judge seemed interested in.

So there aren't many gadgets that I would find useful in the courtroom itself - it's a different type of work from the prep work I do in my office, where the computer is invaluable.

I've heard it said that 90% of court work is done in your office.

[AK84]

^
I have heard it as you need one days preparation for one hours advocacy.

[code_grey]

Northern Piper, thanks for the extended answer. I will try to summarize it for my own clarity and in the battle against ignorance, so correct me if I am wrong.

It sounds like when you are in the court room you need to work with multiple pieces of information, some originating from previous research, some adduced by the opposition and some being both. You generally have this info in the prepared notes (the notes seem to be on paper, though I am not sure from your response) and presumably if your opposition adduces something new, they give you the new documents as printouts.

Perhaps most significantly for the topic of this thread, it appears that the entire organization and integration of the information process is being done inside your head. E.g. AFAIU air traffic controllers organize their plane location and behavior related info either on the original specialized physical maps or using software that emulates that. So from the very start, in a sense, they have had an elaborate user interface to help them keep track of the info they needed to deal with. Similarly, Western staff officers seem to have elaborate map-based software to keep track of a military operation. Accountants seem to have software that keeps track of the entire hierarchy of their financial papers on various levels of detail (or maybe I am idealizing the state of accounting software, having never used it).

Whereas in the lawyer case it appears that the entire underlying model relating the documents is either kept in the lawyer's head or else, at best, gets jotted down as ad hoc notes, and there is no interest in fitting it into a software app that would "institutionalize" / automate parts of the underlying model of your interaction with the documents and notes. Of course such hypothetical software need not be hard or long to "poke around" - user interfaces can be as efficient or as snafu as the designer makes them.

Incidentally, I am aware of existence (though not any details) of the "electronic discovery" software but that, while an interesting topic in itself, does not directly related to the OP since discovery, of course, is not done in the courtroom. I think we should just have a separate thread for that.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by code_grey

It sounds like when you are in the court room you need to work with multiple pieces of information, some originating from previous research, some adduced by the opposition and some being both. You generally have this info in the prepared notes (the notes seem to be on paper, though I am not sure from your response) and presumably if your opposition adduces something new, they give you the new documents as printouts.

...

Whereas in the lawyer case it appears that the entire underlying model relating the documents is either kept in the lawyer's head or else, at best, gets jotted down as ad hoc notes, and there is no interest in fitting it into a software app that would "institutionalize" / automate parts of the underlying model of your interaction with the documents and notes. Of course such hypothetical software need not be hard or long to "poke around" - user interfaces can be as efficient or as snafu as the designer makes them.

That's a fair summary, but as I mentioned, I don't do trials, so trial barristers may have a completely different take on it. My court appearances are rarely more than a day, and often may just be a morning or afternoon, so it's reasonably easy to keep it all in my head.

Mrs Piper is a trial barrister, specialising in commercial matters, and her cases tend to be document heavy. There is specialised software for keeping documents organized for trial purposes, but I don't know much about that. Even so, Mrs Piper relies heavily on her personal review of the documents and her personal understanding of how they all fit together. Again, the prep work is done outside of court, usually in the evenings, prepping for a witness, so that she has all the documents she plans to refer to in her exams in chief and cross-exams ready to go when court opens. It would not be very professional if she had to hunt around for key documents during the course of her exams and cross-exams of witnesses.

The modern trend in litigation is as much disclosure as possible, well in advance of trial, to eliminate surprises.

[Noel Prosequi]

One of the best tools for dealing with large numbers of documents in court is having a junior. In trials or appeals that are document heavy, senior counsel does most of the talking work in general (although juniors do some) and the junior, who typically knows the documents backwards and is not under immediate pressure to speak, can access the documents as the need arises.

Counsel will have organised themselves in advance of any argument or examination or cross-examination of any witness to know what docs counsel want to refer to and roughly in what order. But this is never sufficient because issues always arise on the fly. When they do, and they require reference to a doc not immediately to hand, you lean down to your junior and whisper "Can you get me that receipt from around March 2003 for the 100 widgets where he has scribbled notes on it?" Junior will know what you are talking about and without the pressure to talk will turn it up very quickly. Senior counsel meanwhile, will do a metaphorical soft shoe shuffle till he does.

You can't do this with software.

In an important sense you are right that the organisational model of the documents is in counsel's head. This is because each case is so different that it is difficult to imagine any courtroom management software that could cope without being so general as to require great effort to adapt to a particular case. As always, I am prepared to be wrong, but I have never seen any such software that could remove that obligation for the organisation model to be in counsel's head.

[code_grey]

Noel Prosequi, would a wiki with a good search function be a useful first step in developing a flexible, adaptable interface for managing documents and notes as they are being prepared beforehand or else adduced during the proceedings? Or perhaps a wiki that allows more explicit association between various notes and documents than what we are used to in Wikipedia? Plus perhaps a facility to scan handwritten notes and capture them together with their typed up versions? (that is, if the threat of electronic discovery by the opposition does not drive lawyers into the opposite direction of keeping everything on shreddable paper)

Now, granted, wiki interfaces can be quite clunky. So maybe this would have to be a wiki with a more sophisticated user interface that combines sufficient power and "open sezame give me what I want quickly without wasting keystrokes" simplicity.

[AK84]

Code Grey, without prejudice to what Noel Prosequi says,on the issue of during proceedings if you have prepared well for arguments, you will know what document to adduce, at what time and the relevant portion of the same and have listed them separately along with location.

"My Lord, the Respondent made multiple Applications on this issue and each were duly considered and rejected on various dates, please turn Annex E on pg 133 of the Trial Bundle, where copies of the applications and replies are attached and if it pleases your Lordship, I will take you through them"............

is a lot more persuasive then

"My Lord many applications were made and denied"........" are they any copies"........"errr yes I think" (shuffles through papers)



Point being, that by the time of Oral Arguments you should be prepared and be fully familiar with the case and the brief.

Trying to locate relevant document is something you do in your office the night before and yes a good search function can help, but it is always better to read it your self, easy to miss points otherwise.

[Noel Prosequi]

I don't think I can answer that question. We already have systems that turn documents into searchable pdfs and can create typed versions of handwritten documents. The trouble with typed versions of handwritten documents is that the writing is never clean enough to be completely confident of the transcription.

And I am not sure what you mean by "managing" the documents and notes as they are being prepared. Documents of the order of original exhibits (hospital charts, bank records, etc) have to be crawled over painstakingly by counsel, even if they are voluminous. Only a human mind can make relevant connections. A machine-based linking of documents based on the presence of a particular word or phrase is unlikely to be productive by itself. Counsel typically puts interminable hours of preparation into compiling for himself lists, schedules, indexes and so on. Part of the value of this is that the process of creation of these meta documents helps lodge the original documents in his own memory. It familiarises him with them by the process of constantly clawing them.

But these index documents can be hyperlinked to the e-copy of the original documents to which they refer already. I can already examine a witness from a computer screen list I have created as an aid that allows me to bring up immediately a document I want to show a witness by hyperlink.

You may have in mind some idea with which I am not familiar, but I am not seeing any substitute for manually slogging your way through the material. The detail has to be in your head, so that in the moment the witness blurts out unexpectedly "I have never prescribed Fakesamine to a patient" or says "I don't agree with the proposition that I paid XYZ Co $50,000", you can say "Yes you did", turn to your junior and say ""Find me that prescription sheet for Fakesamine to Mrs Jones or Mrs Brown. It'll be at the back of the hospital chart of one of them." Junior then digs it up, confirms to himself that it is right and hands up a copy which you shove under the witnesses nose. All this with minimal delay and no risk of a search returning nothing because you mispelled Fakesamine or too much because Fakesamine is a common drug.

I just can't see much room to simplify much more, given the need for a human memory to manage all this.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by friedo

Lawyers are the only beings in the Universe who still use WordPerfect.

Look on the bright side: at least it's not vi.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by code_grey

Noel Prosequi, would a wiki with a good search function be a useful first step in developing a flexible, adaptable interface for managing documents and notes as they are being prepared beforehand or else adduced during the proceedings? Or perhaps a wiki that allows more explicit association between various notes and documents than what we are used to in Wikipedia? Plus perhaps a facility to scan handwritten notes and capture them together with their typed up versions? (that is, if the threat of electronic discovery by the opposition does not drive lawyers into the opposite direction of keeping everything on shreddable paper)

Now, granted, wiki interfaces can be quite clunky. So maybe this would have to be a wiki with a more sophisticated user interface that combines sufficient power and "open sezame give me what I want quickly without wasting keystrokes" simplicity.

The thing is, any useful wiki-like thing that organizes and links a case's documents together would have to be done manually by a human being; it's too complicated to be automated. And once someone does go through all the documents and understands how they relate to each other, they won't need an extensive complete wiki anymore, they'll probably just need some summary notes and basic organization. So there's really no point to a wiki system.

On the other hand, there already exist back room document management systems for very extensive and complicated collections -- I don't know much about these, but I assume that since they've been around a while, most features that people really find useful have already been added.

[Northern Piper]

One of the assumptions in the OP seems to be that when we're in the courtroom we're exploring our own case. That's not so. We've done it all in advance. When we're in court, we're past the document finding and organization stages - we're doing the meat of the law suit - argument about what the documents and evidence mean, and how it relates to the law.

Our job as counsel is to show relationships: to show the relationships between the various facts, the statutes, the cases. That is a highly subjective process. And to do it, we already need to have worked out in our own heads what those relationships are, as Noel Prosequi points out. By the time we go into court, we have to have it all in our heads, to be able to put forward our arguments, rebut the other side's arguments, and to respond to any questions from the judge or judges. I don't see a role for software to help me do that.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by code_grey

(that is, if the threat of electronic discovery by the opposition does not drive lawyers into the opposite direction of keeping everything on shreddable paper)

In U.S. law, attorney work product is privileged, whether it is created on paper on in electronic form. And if something is discoverable, it doesn't matter whether it's shreddable, because you can't destroy evidence.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by code_grey

E.g. AFAIU air traffic controllers organize their plane location and behavior related info either on the original specialized physical maps or using software that emulates that. So from the very start, in a sense, they have had an elaborate user interface to help them keep track of the info they needed to deal with. Similarly, Western staff officers seem to have elaborate map-based software to keep track of a military operation. Accountants seem to have software that keeps track of the entire hierarchy of their financial papers on various levels of detail (or maybe I am idealizing the state of accounting software, having never used it).

It just occurred to me that all of these examples are dynamic - the situation is changing constantly, and part of the role of software is to update the individual about those changes. So, in the air traffic controller example, if the controller is focussing on Flight 105, he relies on the software to alert him if any other aircraft is getting too close to Flight 105, or to any other aircraft. It could automatically beep a warning if Flight 239 is getting too close. Same with the battle situations, and the accounting situations - the software can be set to certain parameters to alert the decision-maker about changes in the situation that warrant attention.

But that's not the case in a courtroom. That's a static situation. The events that are the subject of the lawsuit all occurred long before anyone steps foot in the courtroom, and they aren't going to change. Same with the law - it's static at that point. (Of course, well-informed counsel will be aware if there are pending changes to the relevant law in the Legislature, or if there is a case on reserve in the Supreme Court which is relevant and could come down soon.) So you don't need alerts like in those three examples.

[Tabby_Cat]

An analogy I've heard is that a lawyer is like a salesman, and the judge ain't buyin your shit.


Seriously though. Like what Northern Piper said, everything is already known (or should be - if you get surprised in Court, you're pretty much screwed). So your job is to sell your argument to the judge. Sometimes, your case pretty much sells itself and you don't need to do anything. Sometimes, your case is a lemon and the judge can smell that stinker miles away.

But judges don't know everything, and sometimes they miss stuff, they can be convinced. So you try to convince the judge with your logic and your precedents and what have you. But just like a salesman, if opposing counsel throws a curveball at you (so does this thing do oranges?) you have to be right on the ball with the answer (yessir it does, it's got attachment foo model part 3404 $12.34 WITH tax), and not muddle around with your computer (uhh.. let me check my notes).

Can you imagine creating software for a salesman making a sale? That's a lot more like what software for a lawyer in court would look like. Powerpoints, charts, document lists with quick cross references, stuff to make it easier for the customer (the judge) to understand what you're selling and why he should buy your stuff and not the stuff that opposing counsel is selling. Not Wikis.

[Procrustus]

I saw an attorney last week walk up to the podium in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with nothing but an iPad. No paper, no notes, no folders. It was impressive. He had the transcripts of the trial, the entire record, case law and his notes all organized in a way he could access immediately. (I assume he could, the actual argument didn't test his ability to dig deep into the memory. Although deep access to notebooks and folders is tough under any circumstances in oral argument)

In trial work, some lawyers use laptops for taking notes or accessing notes,but it's much rarer than using computers to project documents, video, or animations..

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Look on the bright side: at least it's not vi.

It's a shame they don't use Emacs to write all their legal papers in TeX. Then I'd be half-way to being a lawyer.

[Elendil's Heir]

Most Ohio judges, IME, will now permit lawyers to bring laptops and other gadgets into the courtroom, but it's up to the individual discretion of the judge or magistrate. (Noisier keys might annoy some crusty old computer-phobic judge, I suppose). I'm aware of no specialized software marketed for use by lawyers inside the courtroom. Most lawyers still take notes by hand, and keep paper documents in binders or folders.

And I know you were kidding, but lawyers who appear before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral argument are permitted to take with them the goose quill pens left on counsel tables as a souvenir of the occasion.

[Northern Piper]

code_grey, now that several lawyers have chimed in and commented on the inquiry, I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on what sort of software options you had in mind? have the answers been helpful?

Tabby Cat's analogy is very accurate, by the way.

[code_grey]

I am fully aware that the preparatory work, document review etc requires a lot of thinking. Human thinking and not any imaginary AI that is really just a way to waste government or Microsoft money on research projects getting nowhere.

Nevertheless, when a human is doing work, the human is taking notes. The human is building, entirely in the mind and partially in the notes, a model interrelating the various artifacts he is dealing with. The notes can be entirely on paper. Or they can be in Notepad. Or they can be in wiki with documents linked to them. Or they can be in some hypothetical very sophisticated CMS which will take years to even spec out but will turn out really useful when built.

Similarly, essays can be written on paper, in Notepad, in Microsoft Word, in MediaWiki and using various other tools (many of which might be hypothetical and not invented/built yet). Discussion of which tool is best in which case does not imply that somehow the essay is written by computer and not by human being.

So my discussion here should be understood as pertaining purely to the tools used by the human lawyer to manage, organize, plan and present his case.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

I saw an attorney last week walk up to the podium in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with nothing but an iPad. No paper, no notes, no folders. It was impressive. He had the transcripts of the trial, the entire record, case law and his notes all organized in a way he could access immediately. (I assume he could, the actual argument didn't test his ability to dig deep into the memory. Although deep access to notebooks and folders is tough under any circumstances in oral argument)

This I could see happening more frequently. Appellate courts are moving more and more to electronic filings of all documents, including the transcripts, authorities and briefs. However, it's not a specialised software, so far as I can see. Rather, you are required to file in common formats, such as pdf or rtf. Hyperlinks can be included, so a reference in a brief to the case of R. v. Ladue will have a hyperlink that takes you straight to the report of the case in the electronic book of authorities.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by code_grey

I am fully aware that the preparatory work, document review etc requires a lot of thinking. Human thinking and not any imaginary AI that is really just a way to waste government or Microsoft money on research projects getting nowhere.

Nevertheless, when a human is doing work, the human is taking notes. The human is building, entirely in the mind and partially in the notes, a model interrelating the various artifacts he is dealing with. The notes can be entirely on paper. Or they can be in Notepad. Or they can be in wiki with documents linked to them. Or they can be in some hypothetical very sophisticated CMS which will take years to even spec out but will turn out really useful when built.

Similarly, essays can be written on paper, in Notepad, in Microsoft Word, in MediaWiki and using various other tools (many of which might be hypothetical and not invented/built yet). Discussion of which tool is best in which case does not imply that somehow the essay is written by computer and not by human being.

So my discussion here should be understood as pertaining purely to the tools used by the human lawyer to manage, organize, plan and present his case.

Again there needs to be a differentiation between prep and advocacy. During preparation stage if there can be a software that allows me to make a proper Case Note, including a concise summery of facts as well as prepares law point complete with list of authorities and the relevant ratio for each, I would love that to bits.

On the other hand, my motto as far as Advocacy is concerned is keep it simple. You have to do it to understand, but during oral arguments you are trying to do multiple things at the same time, such as explaining the background, put forward your own case, impeach the other sides, cover your arguments from rebuttal, gauge what the judge finds important and focus on the same etc etc that IMO (and I could be wrong) having multiple computer program mes or electronic devices running at the same time will only hamper you. It take very little to get the whole thing wrong especially when you are being raked over coals by a Bench, without compounding the issue of having multiple lother things running.

[Tabby_Cat]

Originally Posted by code_grey

So my discussion here should be understood as pertaining purely to the tools used by the human lawyer to manage, organize, plan and present his case.

There is such software. We got pitched a while back, I can't remember the name of that software. What it did was basically scan in a whole bunch of documents, did some optical character recognition, and cross referenced everything it could, and you could add in keywords and postits and stuff like that.

Damn I can't remember the name gah. Something like http://www.searchexpress.com/legal.htm but slicker.

Anyway, I think you're massively overthinking things. If you've got a checklist, document lists and a timeline, you've done 50% of the (non-legal) planning. Paper documents mean that you've got to have an intern do up binders, and software can't help with that.

In research, you already have software to help you make associations - that's what Lexis and Westlaw are for. But still, nothing beats a good textbook for condensing all the relevant law into one easy reference - research, even computer assisted, takes time.

I dunno. What else? Law, like sales, just doesn't lend itself very well to computerisation. The peripherals (and especially document management GAH) sure, but until we can get rid of all paper and have complete electronic discovery, you're going to have paper, and you're going to have to have a human shuffle that paper.

[pravnik]

Also, I have yet to get a blue screen from a legal pad in the middle of trial.

[Noel Prosequi]

Originally Posted by Procrustus

I saw an attorney last week walk up to the podium in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with nothing but an iPad. No paper, no notes, no folders. It was impressive. He had the transcripts of the trial, the entire record, case law and his notes all organized in a way he could access immediately. (I assume he could, the actual argument didn't test his ability to dig deep into the memory. Although deep access to notebooks and folders is tough under any circumstances in oral argument)

In trial work, some lawyers use laptops for taking notes or accessing notes,but it's much rarer than using computers to project documents, video, or animations..

That is impressive, but I have to say that in my experience, problems occur when you have to compare two documents at once. Showing a court page 1245 of the transcript where a witness says A and page 2231 of the transcript where a witness says B on the same subject requires looking back and forward between the two. Using the Mark 1 paper record, you stick your finger at one page and your thumb at the other and quickly go back and forth as needed. One screen doesn't let you do that.

And on the impressivometer, I know a counsel who goes to the Bar table with absolutely nothing. Empty table. He is completely blind, but has a prodigious memory. He has a reading machine that allows him to absorb documents, and then it's all in his head, including page references to cases. Remarkable guy. Of course there are limits to what he can do. Large frauds, etc, would, I think, tax him beyond his capacity, which is a shame, because he certainly has the intellectual skills to do them, just not the memory past a certain point.

[code_grey]

by way of a little harmless rant, it's interesting how people seem to be really impressed by those who do more with less, apparently limiting themselves even beyond what would be considered SOP, rather than by those who do more with more (more technology, more clever way to organize work, more division of labor etc). More impressed by John Henry or maybe his modern equivalent than by technical solutions intended to accomplish similar things consistently with less personal brilliance involved. End rant :-)

Well, maybe no such solutions actually exist in this particular (legal) field. But the rant still stands :-)

[Northern Piper]

I think you're missing the point of oral advocacy.

My job when I'm on my feet is to persuade the judges. That's a dynamic, personal activity. I'm at my best when the rest of the courtroom disappears from my mind and there's just me and the judges, talking back and forth. The more I can carry in my own memory, and construct my arguments on the fly, in response to the questions from the bench, the better the advocacy, in my opinion.

As soon as I have to break off, to hunt in my Books of Authorities or a computer for something, that dynamic is weakened. The more frequently I have to do it, the poorer the argument.

For instance, I was arguing an appeal in the Queen's Bench some years ago. The judge was extremely interested in the case and had obviously prepped thoroughly for it. He peppered me with questions over the course of an hour of orals. But I too had prepped thoroughly for it, and had read as many cases on topic as I could find, both from my own province and other provinces. I had the relevant Supreme Court cases in my head. I knew my case, I knew the strengths and weaknesses. And I was able to respond to all of the probing questions from the bench, from a very smart judge who was initially sceptical of my position, without having to break off to hunt through the written materials.

Afterwards, my co-counsel complimented me and said, "You had an answer for all of his questions!" And that told me that I'd done a good job.

So, what software solution can you propose that will help me in oral argument with a sceptical judge? or a panel of sceptical appellate judges, who pepper me with questions, often from different perspectives? what software solution is there that doesn't break the flow of argument?

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

...For instance, I was arguing an appeal in the Queen's Bench some years ago. ... I'd done a good job....

I'm sure you did. But did you win?

[code_grey]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think you're missing the point of oral advocacy.
....

So, what software solution can you propose that will help me in oral argument with a sceptical judge? or a panel of sceptical appellate judges, who pepper me with questions, often from different perspectives? what software solution is there that doesn't break the flow of argument?

well, probably the one that is not used specifically during oral advocacy :-). In general, any software that we may be hypothetically discussing is most likely to belong to the larger class of notes and documents management software. If you don't use notes when speaking, then you wouldn't use such software either. But if you review the notes before speaking, maybe superior notes related software would help you to do that better.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

I'm sure you did. But did you win?

The QB judge accepted my position and allowed my appeal. His decision was upheld on appeal.