Ben Stevens at The Mac Lawyer is switching his office to Pages after another bad experience with Word. As I’ve been preparing for the move to Macs, I’ve worked with Pages, Word 2008, OpenOffice and NeoOffice. (BTW, Erik Schmidt at MacLawStudent did a review of Pages and some other word processors earlier this year. Jeff Kabbe at Apple Briefs discusses the word processors he uses here. ) I also dabbled with Sheepshaver and an early version of WordPerfect for Mac, but it was far too complicated to set up, much less rely upon, as a dependable office word processor. I own and love Scrivener. I’m using it catalog all the stuff that needs to get done as I prepare for the transition, but it’s strengths are not suited for general law office work. I even looked at TextEdit . . . briefly.

Well, a couple of days ago, the folks at Marketcircle made up my mind for me. They released version 3.7.4 of Daylite, a beta version that includes merging support for the iWork suite of programs–Pages, Numbers and Keynote. As you know, I’ve settled on Daylite as my practice management program. This latest release seals the deal.

Pages has always been a stable, elegant program. I’ve been using it for non-business purposes since I bought my MBPro last November. But the only game in town so far as merging with Daylite is concerned had been Word 2004 (and now 2008). I bought a copy of Word 2008 earlier this year and created some simple merges with it, but I really didn’t (and still don’t) like the interface. And, of course, it’s Word.

Fortunately, my practice does not require a lot of collaborative word processing so I am not married to Word. As the federal courts move to PDF, the format of a word processing document has become less important. What IS important in my practice is the ability to get data out of my practice management software into a word processor. With this latest version of Daylite, that requirement is now satisfied, and I couldn’t be more pleased.

Pages does have a funky format, saving a document in a package which contains other files, and this means that the minimum file size is at least 80k. By comparison, a comparable Word document is 24k, and a TextEdit doc is only 4k. Considering the storage capacity of today’s computers, this isn’t a deal breaker. Besides, we are scanning most of the paper in our office; we can delete the Pages doc once the scanned version is in the client’s folder.

Now that I can merge Daylite info with Pages, I’m pretty excited about the possibilities this opens up for my practice. I’ll talk more about that in future posts.

I’ve been able to emulate the Timematters (TM) powerview using a modified version of Andy Warwick’s FTP Login widget described in Screencast No. 1. I’ve been able come up with a simple document management system that is less cumbersome, though less comprehensive, than the TM system. And I can also show the content of all notes in a single window in the Heads Up Display (HUD) in a project. In short, I can duplicate a lot of what I like best about TM by using widgets and some simple coding.

So now it’s on to the subject of merging. I’m a big fan of integration. Being able to get data out of DL and into a word processor is very important to me via the use of merge templates. I just crossed into that new frontier this past weekend, and I was pleased to discover that the merge capability in Daylite, at least for internal merges with the built-in editor, is much better than I expected. And it is very fast.

Merging with Daylite’s Built-in Editor
Thanks to two folks I’ve never met, Scott McCulloch and George Qualley, I’ve tweaked some of the code they’ve shared on the Marketcircle forum to create a sample merge letter in Daylite that pulls data from many sources during a single merge: the project, the contacts linked to that project, and the data in any custom form linked to the project. This is a Big Deal. It means, at the very least, that I can create a merge document using any data that is either (1) in a project or (2) connected to a project with just a few keystrokes.

The downside is that the built-in editor’s lack of page numbering, headers and footers, and other basic word processing capabilities make multi-page merges problematic, but even here, the built-in editor can generate a rough draft without the formatting which can then be copied and pasted into Word or Pages to complete the final draft. It could even be copied into Wordperfect running in Fusion or Parallels if your federal court requires Wordperfect format.

Merging with Word 2008
Merging with Word 2008 also works, but there’s also a significant downside. The merge keys available for external merges are much more limited than those for merges with the built-in editor. That means that for most merging, the built-in editor will have to suffice.

Merging Data into Government Forms
We use lots of Social Security forms and Industrial Commission forms in my practice. I have these forms in Wordperfect merge templates. The merges are fairly simple to run. To do the same thing with Daylite, you have to turn to Word 2008. The built-in editor doesn’t have the feature set necessary to do this.

So I recently tested a theory, and after several trials, it worked. Here’s what I did. I made an image of the form, inserted the image as a watermark in Word 2008, then used tables (one cell tables!) to precisely place the merge keys over the different boxes to receive merged data. I also used these table cells to type in data that doesn’t change (my name, address, phone number, etc.). Saved it as a .doc file. Then, when running the merge from within Daylite, I selected Word and the .doc file and completed the merge. It worked and it was reasonably quick about it. It would be better if you could add mergekeys to a PDF document and merge directly into that document, but I don’t think that’s possible. So, for now, this might be an acceptable workaround.

All this to say that I’m beginning to think that Daylite will work as an effective case management alternative to Timematters. I hadn’t felt this way for quite a while.

I’ll probably do a screencast on merging with the built-in editor and one on the widget I’ve customized to display a scrolling list of notes within a few weeks. The first two screencasts were plenty long (probably too long) so I’ll try to bring the next one in under 15-20 minutes.

Then it’s on to consider using Daylite to do some interoffice communication. Ben Stevens gave a very helpful presentation at the Macs in Trial seminar at the end of February. He packed a lot of good ideas into 10 minutes. (I didn’t make the seminar but got a copy of the DVD yesterday.) I want to try out some of what he’s doing with Daylite.

Finally, I’ve been keeping an eye on time and billing programs. I’m more willing to ditch the integration principle when it comes to these programs, if only because they are such complicated animals. Frankly, there’s not much out there that combines the great Mac interface with the tools needed to handle time and billing. But this isn’t a deal breaker in terms of moving to Macs. VMWare Fusion runs my Windows programs quite nicely, and if we have to use some legacy software until Mac developers catch up with their Windows brethren, I can wait.

There’s also the reality of actually practicing law. Clients always come first, and the last few weeks have been pretty busy. So the blogging has been pretty sparse. Of course, a lot has been happening what with the keynote at Macworld Expo his week, introducing all the new gear and the upgrades to existing stuff. Lots to think about, but I’ve got to keep my focus on the task at hand.

Which brings me to Daylite. This is not a review of Daylite so much as a lament.

You’ll recall we’ve looked at the six principles of an integrated practice, compared how our current office configuration stacks up against those principles and found that in many ways, we’re doing fine. Timematters, despite its quirky interface and glacial network speed, really does work. You can do some very nice things with it, given the time and inclination. And since Timematters is the hub around which my practice revolves, I need something on the Mac side that has a comparable feature set. So I’ve been looking at Daylite 3.6 off and on for the past month.

But as I’ve demo’d Daylite, I’ve come to realize that there are big obstacles on my way to the Lonely Mountain. I guess I started out with the belief that Mac software was further along that it actually is, at least with regard to case management software. Sadly, there isn’t a practice management package for the Mac that comes close to the power of Timematters. That’s what I lament. It’s not that Daylite is so bad, it’s that there’s nothing better, nothing that really would make it easy for solos and small practice attorneys to leave the frustrations of Windows for all that Mac goodness.

Several lawyers have reviewed the basic features of Daylite (see Ben Stevens and Jeffrey Kabbe for recent examples) so I won’t plow that field again. In this post, I’ll focus on a few things that Daylite doesn’t do that it needs to do to become a serious player in the practice management arena. It feels presumptuous saying that, but integration, especially the ability to merge case data with wordprocessing documents, is such an obvious thing to make any kind of practice more efficient, I don’t know why it isn’t discussed more on the various Mac law outposts.

Daylite does many things quite well. It’s linking features, use of categories and keywords and smart lists, and it’s integrated e-mail system all seem to work as advertised (sync features excepted). It would be easy enough to modify to use in a Social Security or Worker’s Compensation practice. During my trial period, I never got to test it over a network. I wish I had had the time. Still, the basic building blocks of a solid practice management system seem to be in place. And it looks good. So what does it lack? Here’s a quick list:

1. Robust merge capability. DL does not provide a ready-for-prime-time merge capability, even with Microsoft Word. Its built-in editor, while faster, stores all its output in the database, which would probably create a big drag on the system over time, particularly over a network. it’s built-in editor doesn’t make custom form data fields available for use in a merge template, nor does it handle multi-page merges. Without a more robust merge integration capability, DL is really hurting. I’ll be very interested to learn if Word 2008 (now coded for intel macs) handles merges better

2. Single pane summary of all relevant project data. DL doesn’t provide the ability to get a single-screen overview of a case the way Timematters does. Timematters uses a thing called a Powerview to display any data in the TM database in a single HTML window. Daylite has something called a HUD (a heads-up display) which also extracts data from the DL database. The big difference is that the HUD only displays the default data from the program, and usually a subset of that data. Not TM. You can build really complex powerviews if you have a basic understanding of HTML. It’s much more difficult to create HUDs. A much greater facility with programming language is required.

With TM, I have all the information I need to answer a phone call and be up to speed on the status of the case within seconds, without hunting down a file or drilling down several menus. In DL, this same information resides in several windows, not all of which can be displayed simultaneously. And of course, the display of that information is determined by DL; there isn’t any customization. Because none of DL’s default views can be customized, the only way to get the TM overview is to create a customized HUD. I have some ideas about how to do this, but when I upgraded to Daylite 3.7 today, Daylite crashes on opening. I’ve sent in an e-mail for help but it’s Saturday afternoon, and Marketcircle’s website says they’ll try to get back to an e-mail support request within 2-4 days. Agra Sangria! Could be the middle of next week before I’ll know if I can get 3.7 to run. Hopefully, we’ll get it fixed and then I’ll be able to play around with the HUD. If it works, I’ll try to record a little demo of how it works.

3. Lack of customizable data entry forms. As mentioned above, DL lacks any way of customizing the data entry forms and some of the terminology DL uses. So, for example, a project cannot be renamed a case. But you can name a smartlist whatever you like so it’s not too big a deal. Not a deal breaker, just a disappointment. By comparison, TM has scores of customizable fields, numerous ways to customize data entry forms, and all the data is readily available for merging with Word or Wordperfect.

4. Lack of a way to customize the display of data within the program. This is a more serious issue. Daylite provides 12 extra text fields and four extra data fields per contact or project. But this information cannot be displayed in a list view. Daylite also provides a way to create custom forms with different kinds of data fields (text, date, etc.) but the data in these forms is displayed in two columns—a column of labels and a column of data. No way to customize the display. And no way to use the data in external (and perhaps internal) merge forms. So if you want to get your data out of Daylite and into a form letter, you can’t. It’s trapped in the database.

5. Lack of documentation. It’s entirely possible that the last sentence in the paragraph above is incorrect. But there’s no easy way to find out. The lack of documentation about merge matters is itself problematic. There are likely more merge keys than meet the eye. Some of the power users on the MarketCircle forums have discovered data fields that can be used in various places. Good luck finding that info yourself. MarketCircle could help themselves by doing a better job of documenting existing features.

Even if I had the time and smarts to create a HUD that duplicates TM’s powerview, I’m still left with another significant problem—merging data into Social Security forms. (Okay, this last issue is not a DL issue per se so I won’t put it on the list.) If there were a way to convert a PDF doc–SS forms are available on the ssa.gov website in PDF format–into an HTML doc that retained all the formatting, then there might be a solution to the dilemma. My current SSA forms are optimized for WordPerfect, and execute flawless merges. I’m wondering if it’s possible to save an image of the PDF and use it as a watermark in a Word 2008 template. Perhaps I could locate the merge fields over the appropriate boxes on the watermark image. I’m hoping that Word 2008 will provide something like that.

So that’s a quick rundown of my Daylite Dilemma. I can get data into the program, but I can’t get it out via merges. I can display some data in the program but not in the way I want. And I can’t display all data relevant to a single case in a single window. The biggest of these problems is the merging issue. I’m optimistic that I can figure out the HUD issue, so in a strange way, that gives me hope that I can solve the merge problems. Time will tell, but in the short term, I have no way to test my ideas because 3.7 refuses to run.

There’s much more to say, but I’ll stop for now. In my last post, I mentioned that you CAN manage your practice without practice management software. All these Daylite issues have given me some ideas about how to create better workflows with a kind of hybrid approach using practice management software and some of the functionality built into OSX. I’ll likely write more about that in the months to come.

For now, Cheers!

The First of the First Principles
The core software programs are integrated.
Integration means that (1) there should be as little duplication of data entry as possible and (2) there should be a seamless means of accessing that data across programs. If we enter a client’s name, address, telephone number, social security number, etc. in our case management software, that data (or some subset of it) should be accessible to our e-mail program, our word processor and our billing and trust accounting programs. And if we send or receive facsimiles and e-mail, they should be easily associated with the proper client or contact. Integration reduces data entry errors and speeds the flow of work.

The Second First Principle
Case management software facilitates integration.
That means that the most important program on your computer is your case management program. Case management software manages contacts, cases, calendars, documents, e-mail and faxes. It handles the merging of client and contact data with all kinds of documents as well as the transfer of data to billing and trust account programs. It does these things seamlessly and without requiring eight keystrokes to get a particular task done. It has the flexibility to store large amounts of unique data on a particular client or case, through the use of customizable fields.

Good case management software facilitates integration. Bad case management software makes you want to throw your computer out the window.

The Third First Principle
The data stored in your case management program is easily merged into letters, pleadings and briefs.
Lawyers produce tons of documents. An efficient law office merges client, case and contact data into all kinds of word processing documents. Merging is the sine qua non of a good case management program. Without the ability to merge data into sophisticated documents, law firms can still function . . . in the same way that a 737 can fly with one engine out. But it’s not the ideal.

The Fourth First Principle
The software you use needs to look good and work intuitively.
One of the most attractive features of the Mac is that its features are attractive. If you ever get a chance to browse Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines, you’ll find out why. In about 900 pages, it covers the philosophy and psychology of computer use from an Apple perspective. It’s a fascinating read. (Not that I’ve read it–I just gave it a really thorough skimming.)

The point is, there are good reasons why the Mac interface is clean, uncluttered and bright. A cheerful interface means a cheerful staff. Form (if supported with good substance under the hood) can drive better function. And that has all kinds of positive implications for your practice. Apple understands that. So Apple encourages independent developers to design products following its human interface guidelines.

The Fifth First Principle
When you hit a key or click a button, stuff happens.
The software and the OS on which it runs should produce fast, reliable responses to user input. Poorly designed software is a big drag on productivity. If your case management program, like Marley’s ghost, is bound by a ponderous coil of chain, your staff will not be happy. On our network, for example, it is not uncommon to wait 7-15 seconds to go from one client record to another client record in TimeMatters. (Could this have been one of the catalysts that led me to buy a Mac? Hmmm.) Anyway, after trying everything we could think of and consulting with the experts, we simply live with it. Well-designed software runs fast and reliably over a network.

The Sixth and Final First Principle
All all relevant data is easily accessible and all reports are easily generated.
It doesn’t do us much good getting data into a program when we have to struggle to retrieve it. Good case management software makes it easy to get data in and get data out, in lots of different forms, including merged documents, reports and syncs with PDAs.

So that’s a set of First Principles by which to judge a law office setup. I’m sure there are additional Principles and maybe a few corollaries or caveats I haven’t thought about. If I think about them, I’ll revise the list. For now, this should give me enough to (1) judge my existing setup and (2) determine if the Mac will make it better. So in the next post, I’ll spend some time comparing the Ideal law office to my own Reality.