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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
