Case Management

The Ideal and the Reality Compared

December 22, 2007 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

Much has happened on the Mac front since my last post but work intervened so I haven’t had time to write it all down. I’ll take a stab at it now, at least a part of it.

You’ll recall that I discussed six First Principles of law office software to use in evaluating my current Windows setup. To review, those first principles are:

1. Core software programs are integrated.
2. Case management software facilitates integration.
3. Data stored in the case management program is easily merged into documents (e.g., letters, pleadings and briefs).
4. All software has a pleasing interface and works intuitively.
5. When you hit a key or click a button, stuff happens instantaneously.
6. Data is easily accessible and all reports are easily generated.

Most of those first principles deal with practice management software so in this post I’ll focus on Timematters 7.0 Professional (TM), the Windows software I currently use to manage my practice. But first, a few preliminary comments.

Practice management without practice management software
It is possible to practice without dedicated practice management software. I did it for many years. I represent people with Social Security disability and Worker’s Compensation claims so my office deal with lots of medical records. Before we switched to TM in 2003, I used a combination of Lotus Organizer (a contact manager with a notebook theme) WordPerfect 8.0 (WP) and the Windows directory to manage case files. To make it work, I wrote a lot of WordPerfect macros and created a lot of merge forms to automate some of the routine aspects of document generation. I bought a couple of books on WP merges and macros and taught myself the basics. And, of course, the internet had websites that were dedicated to WordPerfect (when WP still had some market share). So information was available, and I knew what I wanted to do. It was pretty interesting to set up, and the system worked well.

Now document management is even more important than it was ten years ago. That’s because Social Security recently moved to an electronic file as the official file in Social Security disability cases. So now my office scans everything. Not only are there more documents to keep track of, there’s more software to learn. Adobe Acrobat has become a key player in case preparation because all new records in a Social Security case are scanned into PDF format or converted into PDF from TIFF format (the mystifying choice of file format SSA made when it implemented the electronic file).

I use Acrobat to annotate and bookmark all my Social Security files. We maintain one master PDF file containing all the records related to a particular client’s case. As we receive records, they’re added to this PDF file. With bookmarks and annotations, Acrobat makes it very easy to find a particular page in the file, highlight important information, or layout a case summary right on the PDF file. Maybe I’ll write more about that in another post.

When I used the Organizer/WP/Windows directory combo, I’d input basic client data into Organizer, export a data file of all client info into a format WP could read, then used that data to merge into selected WP merge forms. The macros I wrote made it easy to do this from within WP. I’d hit a hotkey and a dialog box would open. This dialog box had a client code field that I would fill in with an 8-letter client code (e.g. Kevin Morton’s code would be “mortkevi”). Then, from a list of merge forms that appeared in the dialog box, I’d check the ones I wanted to generate. Then I just clicked enter. All the merges were performed, and the macro also took that 8-letter client code and switched the windows directory to that client’s particular subfolder (e.g. \clients\mortkevi\07-ss123\) in the background. Saving the newly-merged documents was just a matter of naming each document without worrying about finding the client’s folder.

Each client also had a “narrative” file which was just a WP document we named aaa.wpd. Every time anything happened in the case, a note was made in the narrative file so that we’d have a chronological history of the case at our fingertips. A macro could retrieve any client’s narrative file with a few keystrokes. It was all pretty slick.

But there were disadvantages. Exporting and importing data was clunky. And the data couldn’t be manipulated much in Organizer. I tried doing some things with Microsoft Access but it was too complicated a job to justify the time it would take to come up with a workable solution. So we soldiered on, always keeping an eye out for something better.

Moving to practice management software
When Timematters 5.0 came out, its interface got an update, and I finally decided I could stand to look at it long enough to work with it. So in 2003 we made the move. It was easily the biggest investment of time and money (lots of money) I’ve ever made in a software upgrade. It was a difficult transition. TM was the first piece of software I just couldn’t get my head around on my own. Very powerful, highly customizable and wholly proprietary.

TM requires VERY CAREFUL PLANNING right from the beginning to minimize big stress later on. This may be true of any case management program, but I suspect it’s particularly true with TM just because you can customize so many things in the program. Customization comes with a cost. If you discover a few months after you’ve been using the program that you want to revise your data entry forms, for example, good luck. It can be done, but you’ll have to move a lot of existing data around and it’ll take you a solid 20-hour weekend at least–if you’re well-organized. Or you can spend thousands to have a certified independent consultant (CIC) do some of it for you. Your choice.

All that being said, the basic TM program is a very good program, and no Mac software currently does what TM can do. (More about that in a future post.)

Comparing the Ideal to the Reality
Which brings us to the point of this post. I’ll briefly review my current Windows software and then compare the functionality of that software with the first principles I talked about earlier.

Here’s the core software I’m currently using:

Okay. So, let’s see how the Reality compares to the Ideal. Bear in mind, this is not a scientific comparison. I don’t have the time or inclination for that. This is just an off-the-cuff, impressionistic assessment that I think is pretty accurate so far as it goes.

1. Core software programs are integrated.

I’d define the core software programs in a small, networked law practice as the practice management, general and trust accounting, billing, e-mail and word processing programs.

Practice Management. TM combines a calendar, customizable data entry forms for each area of practice, customizable display of client and contact data via lists and powerviews, a document management system, an integrated e-mail client, an optional billing program and the capability to link with other billing programs. It does the basic data entry and data retrieval well. It does document generation and document management well. The rest is not up to par. See below.

Email. No integration. TM has a built-in e-mail client that crashes the program unless handled with great care. Not worth the effort so I continue to use Outlook Express which is not integrated with TM in any way. If we want them in the program, e-mails are a cut and paste operation.

Billing. Limited integration. Billingmatters never lived up to its billing. Buggy and counterintuitive. We stuck with Timeslips. TM has a link to Timeslips but we didn’t set it up given the problems folks experienced with the e-mail and billing programs.

General, payroll and trust accounts. No integration. All handled with Quicken.

Wordprocessing. Moderate integration. Wordperfect is not integrated with any other program natively. But there are some great features in TM that make the two programs a strong combination. More about this below.

2. Case management software facilitates integration.

One of the reasons I switched to TM was because it held out the promise of tight integration between data entry, calendar, documents, e-mail and billing functions. But TM never lived up to its promise. As mentioned above Billingmatters and TM’s e-mail client weren’t dependable.

However, there are a couple of TM features that deserve high praise. The first is the TM Save utility, a macro plug-in that places a couple of buttons on a Word or Wordperfect or Adobe Acrobat menu bar. One button (the TM Open button) can open an existing document previously saved to the TM document record system. Another button (the TM Save button) saves a new document to the TM document record system.

TM Save creates a document record which is just a dialog box with customizable data fields related to the document and a pointer to the location of the document on your harddrive. (TM doesn’t actually save the document within the TM database.) By choosing your client from a drop down list in the document record and naming the document, the document is saved to the appropriate folder and the file path is automatically generated and recorded in the TM document record.

This feature is especially useful when scanning documents. A new PDF, scanned and opened in Acrobat, can be saved directly to the client’s folder with the TM save button. Same with a new Wordperfect doc. It’s a great time saver.

The other praiseworthy feature is the merge function within TM. TM has it’s own clunky merge word processor (called the formattable clipboard) which is difficult to format and no fun to use. So we don’t use it. But TM can merge data with WordPerfect documents. The merge process is not intuitive. It requires some effort to set up, but it works. I had to rewrite my merge forms to work with TM, but once that was done, TM and WP have worked well together.

So, on balance, I’d say that TM facilitates integration between the database and the wordprocessor, but its implementation in e-mail and billing just isn’t very good. (BTW, I’m not yet ready to produce a video podcast, but I really wish I could. Demonstrating how TM does some of the things we’ve customized it to do would be very nice right about now.)

3. Data stored in the case management program is easily merged into documents.

Here the ideal and the reality meet, although it takes a while to get to the “easily” part.

4. All software has a pleasing interface and works intuitively.

Interface

I’m no fan of the standard database interface with its rows and columns and heavily outlined data cells. TM’s interface is still only marginal. It needs customizable keyboard shortcuts. (I’m using version 7.0–a later version may have these.) Icons are tiny so clicking is a precise operation.

However, it does have the Powerview–a kind of web page (its coded using HTML) that can be displayed next to a list of contacts or cases (or other records). It can be customized to show only the data you want in any arrangement you like. (See here for some examples of powerviews.) You’re only limited by your ability to code in HTML. You can dress up that page quite nicely. We take pics of all our clients and put them on the Powerview. We make our clients names nice and big (for those of us with aging eyes). We highlight and color-code important data. And you’re not limited to one powerview. You can create multiple powerviews which focus on different subsets of data. It is one of the best features in Timematters.

Most Windows software just isn’t that nice looking when compared to the Mac interface. (I actually enjoy using Quicken 98 with its familiar checkbook metaphor. One of the few programs where the metaphor works well.) So, from an aesthetic standpoint, Windows gets a C+.

Intuitiveness

TM is not intuitive. Not even close. It is feature-packed, and it rejects the Less is More approach to software. It believes that More is More. As a result, it can be overwhelming to customize and use–which is why there’s a healthy market for CICs and training programs. You just can’t do this on your own and get very far.

TM does not use standard Windows conventions where you’d expect them. For example, you can’t drag columns around in a list view. While you can select all records in a list using Ctrl + T, selecting non-contiguous records requires mouse clicks for each record. No way to click and then shift + click to select a subset of records.

Wordperfect 12.0 with its reveal codes feature is as intuitive as a wordprocessor can be. When formatting goes loopy, Alt + F3 opens the reveal codes window, and usually within a few seconds, you can figure out the problem and fix it.

Timeslips 8.0 works pretty well. It’s got the Fisher-Price interface that makes it relatively simple to find your way around.

Outlook Express does what it’s supposed to do. Nothing really counterintuitive about it.

Quicken 98 is very easy to use. I’m amazed it still works. It does have a small display issue on my machine but I can work around it.

5. When you hit a key or click a button, stuff happens instantaneously.

With the exception of Timematters over our XP network, stuff usually happens pretty quickly. But Timematters can take 30-45 seconds to display a subset of data onscreen. For example, a list of 5000 contacts may contain 50 judges. TM allows you to create “quicktabs” which are filters that are displayed as tabs on the contact list. I’ve created a quicktab for judges. When I click on that tab, I will wait the aforesaid 30-45 seconds before those judges are displayed. I don’t even bother any more.

6. Data is easily accessible and all reports are easily generated.

This principle applies specifically to Timematters. And TM does an impressive job of making data accessible in powerviews, merges, onscreen reports and printed reports. Although its calendar reporting is rudimentary, the powerview feature makes up for it.

As mentioned earlier, with the powerview, all significant data related to a particular client can be displayed in one window. We’ve also programmed the powerview to show a list of all phone notes in the case. We decided almost from the beginning to use phone records as the exclusive means of documenting activity in the case. By confining ourselves to one record instead of using other records available in TM (like the Note record or the Mail record), the powerview can display a single chronological list of all activity in the case, just like the old narrative files we used in Wordperfect. Otherwise we’d have a chronological list of note records, followed by a chronological list of mail records, followed by a list of phone records and so on, with no way to blend them into a single chronological list. (I know there’s the “timeline” feature, but it doesn’t display the content of the note onscreen.)

Also, each note is “live” in the powerview which means that if any note needs editing, just click it to bring up the phone record to edit.

Finally, we’ve included the client’s photo in the powerview and coded the address field so that by clicking on it, a google map is invoked from the powerview.

I haven’t spent much time with the reports function, except to create a custom Case Review report which groups clients by case status (where they are in the Social Security pipeline) the last activity on the case, when the next activity on the file is planned, etc. Many TM users use Crystal Reports to design reports.

So, with the exception of the anemic calendar report, TM does a good job retrieving and displaying data.

Conclusion
So what’s the verdict? I think we’re doing quite well with what we’ve got. But we’re not nearly as integrated as I’d like us to be. I’d like to be able to associate incoming and outgoing mail to a client or contact with a few clicks. I’d like to seamlessly transfer data between the practice management program and our billing and trust accounting programs. I’d like to be able to merge and save documents in less steps than TM requires. I’d like the ability to select multiple documents to merge at one time (something I can do now using a WordPerfect macro in conjunction with TM; but I’d prefer that TM had that capability built-in). I’d like TM to run much more quickly over the network with less crashing (it crashes 2-3 times per week). Finally, I’d like easy syncing of contacts, calendar and todos with Google web-based programs.

The bottomline is that things work satisfactorily, but they could work much better.

So now we’re faced with the Ultimate Question: What can a Mac do that I’m not already doing in Windows? I hope to answer that in the new year.