Trust but Verify

I am fascinated by this story in which a person managed to persuade at least five television stations to put him on the air to demonstrate his prowess as a yo-yo champion. I understand that producers for morning shows have to fill their air time and I understand the desire to fill that air time with a yo-yo champion. That is something unusual and could be entertaining.

However, I am baffled by the fact that these stations apparently did no research before letting this guy go on live television. Obviously, this did not work out well for the stations. In one instance:

At WISC in Madison, Strasser was booked and ready to go on “News 3 This Morning.” But things took a strange turn when Strasser said on the air, “Do you want to hear a scary story?”

Colin Benedict, the station’s news director, said the anchors were confused. They thought a yo-yo champion was supposed to be on.

Instead, Strasser started talking about his personal story of alcohol and drugs.

And the yo-yo tricks? Benedict said Strasser tried one but the yo-yo fell apart and onto the studio floor.

That was enough for WISC. The anchors took over and Strasser was off the air.

What did this guy do to get on the air? He sent the stations an email:

In each case, producers at the television stations received an e-mail from Joe Guehrke, saying he represented Strasser and ZimZam Yo-Yo, “the world’s first ‘green’ ” nonprofit toymaker.

Guehrke told the stations that Strasser, whom he called a “master yo-yo artist,” would be in their area to bring his environmental message and “zany sense of humor” to kids.

Guehrke wrote in one e-mail to a TV station that Strasser was a dynamic talk-show guest who comes “equipped with a roster of amazing yo-yo tricks, juggling and fun tips about how kids and adults alike can take small steps to make the world a greener place.”

The e-mail solicitation stated that Strasser was a runner-up for Rookie of the Year in 1995, grand champion at the Pensacola Regional and was nominated for the Walt Greenberg Award in 2000.

There is no Walt Greenberg Award in yo-yo, and there is no evidence Pensacola ever hosted a yo-yo tournament or that Strasser won a rookie of the year award.

Maybe I am strange, but when I am contacted by someone or some company that I have never heard of before, the first thing I do is Google that person.

According to the information in the news story, it appears that a reasonable web search would have revealed that this guy was not who or what he claimed to be. If you can’t find a reference to the Walt Greenberg Award anywhere, that should be a pretty good clue that it does not exist.

The internet is a powerful tool and it is good for things other than legal research and Twitter. Keep that in mind. There is nothing wrong with listening to what people have to say. However, it is someone that you have never dealt with before, take the two minutes required to run a Google search and see if the information you find (or do not find) supports what the person is telling you.

Remember STFW. (If you don’t know what that means, Google it).

Multiple Monitors Does Not Mean Multitasking

I am a big proponent of using multiple monitors. Given this, you might be surprised that I agreed with much of what John Heckman had to say in his recent post Dual Monitors and Multitasking–A Contrarian View. John explains:

I recently reorganized my office and wound up with an extra monitor.  Since “everybody” swears by dual monitors (or more) I thought I’d give it a shot.  Much to my surprise I found the extra monitor distracting and somewhat annoying.  After using the second monitor for a couple of weeks to see if it would grow on me, I finally dumped it.

This will probably stir up vigorous protests, but in thinking about it, I realized that dual monitors is a special case of multi-tasking. While I can see certain cases where it would be useful, in general I think people are kidding themselves if they think they are being more productive when multi-tasking.  Some exceptions include things like sending emails on your Blackberry during boring meetings (which by definition aren’t very productive anyway), or having multiple documents displayed side by side when you are trying to consolidate them.

John then goes on to talk about a Stanford study that shows that humans are not good at multitasking. And that what we often think of as multitasking is really just dividing our attention between multiple things for short periods of time.

The fact of the matter is that “multitasking” in a real sense (or as a computer would understand it) does not really exist. What multitasking really amounts to is that you divide up your time into more or less small “slices” and simply switch rapidly from one “slice” to another. You are still doing one thing at a time, but switching back and forth in rapid succession. So if you “multitask” by doing four things in twelve minutes, you actually focus (for example) on each one of them three times in one minute “slices.” For better or worse, human beings simply do not have quad core (or even dual core) brains.

I agree with everything that he has to say here. Multitasking for humans just means we do more things less well. However, that is not a reason to abandon a multiple monitor set up. Now, if you are using your multiple monitors to monitor Twitter, constantly check your email, follow your Facebook friends, watch the stock ticker, and monitor the score in your favorite game, you are likely not increasing your productivity at all. In fact, I feel pretty comfortable that your productivity is abysmal.

Multiple monitorsHowever, I do believe that multiple monitors can benefit many attorneys. An example of this how I use multiple monitors in my practice. At my office, I work with a three monitor set up. I have my laptop monitor along with two external monitors. the external monitors are the same size and resolution.

The external monitors provide more space to work on and they are my primary working monitors. On my laptop, I keep open my time and billing program, thus helping to ensure that I do not forget to keep track of my time. I also use this monitor to stash any programs or documents that I have open that I am not using at the moment.

I use the monitor in the middle as my main working monitor. In my experience, when I am working on something, I am almost always looking at something else. Sometimes it’s other pleadings, sometimes it’s discovery documents, other times its legal research. Regardless, it is usually something. This something, is what I have on the left monitor.

Thus, I regularly use multiple monitors, however, I am not using it for multitasking, I am using it to keep the information I need to do my job in the best position for me to work with it.

Obviously, my set up will not work for everyone. However, I think it is something to consider.

Note: I believe that John acknowledged these benefits in his post.

What Going Paperless Means to Me

One of the problems that I have when describing my paperless practice to others is the fact that my practice is not really paperless. I use plenty of paper. In fact, a couple of days ago, I mailed out close to 100 pages of paper in court filings and courtesy copies. Because of this, I have, at times, had trouble explaining exactly what I am talking about.

Fortunately for me, I have found the answer I have been looking for. I recently checked out the About Page on the Going Paperless blog by Molly DiBianca. In that About Page, she explains:

Although there seems to be a whole lot of chatter about what exactly a “paperless office” is, exactly, I’d suggest it’s not so complicated.  Certainly, I still use paper.  And plenty of it, truth be told.  The “paperless” part is not that paper is not used–it’s that paper is irrelevant.  In a paperless office (at least as I’ve defined it), there is no reliance on a paper file. Everything (and I mean everything) is filed electronically using a document-management system.

This system didn’t come together overnight. It took practice and tweaking.  It also took dedication to build the trust in the system that is necessary before abandoning paper files altogether.  But it does work and, honestly, it’s really easy to use.

I think this encapsulates the idea of a paperless office perfectly. Yes, I have and go through plenty of paper in my office. However, that is because the systems of third parties make me do so. For me, however, the paper is irrelevant.

The more I think about the concept of a paperless office, the more I am starting to believe that it is a state of mind much more than a process. Sure, you have to implement proper processes to make sure that it is working properly. However, a paperless office must first start in your mind.

You must convince yourself that you do not need the paper version of a document to work with it. Once you start down this path, I believe that you will quickly discover that it is, in fact, more efficient to work with an electronic copy of a document than with a paper copy. However, you will never reach that discovery if you do not first shift your state of mind to an understanding that you need not rely on the paper files.

Renumbering Your PDFs

I work with PDFs a lot. I can’t tell you the last time I pulled a paper file to look at a document in it. Instead, I look only at my electronic copy of a file. Navigating in a PDF, however is not always the easiest thing to do, especially if the creator did not include bookmarks or other reference points.

An additional problem can arise when you are working with a document that has different styles of page numbers. An example is a brief, that may include pages i through x for the prefatory matters and Arabic numbers after that.

At her blog Going Paperless, Molly DiBianca, provides a useful, easy to follow, step-by-step tutorial on how to remumber your pages in a PDF.

The process she describes is easy to do and it is post I definitely recommend that you check out.

Second Monitors Allow You to Work Smarter

I know that I have written about this concept a lot. Thus, rather than blathering on about how much a second monitor can increase your efficiency, I will point you to an excellent post from Laura Calloway, the PMA for the Alabama State Bar. She begins:

If you’re not already doing so, one of the most productive (and cost effective) technology changes that you can make is to add a second monitor to your computer.  Adding a second monitor is inexpensive, (generally under $200 for the monitor and an additional video card, if you need one).  If you already have an extra one lying around the office, so much the better.  And unlike lots of other technology upgrades, adding a second monitor won’t tie up a whole afternoon – or longer – and make you want to pull your hair out.

Go here to read her entire post.

Fighting Crime Through Facebook

I don’t practice criminal law. However, in the event that a future criminal stumbles across my website, let me offer a piece of advice: Don’t steal someone’s phone, take a picture of yourself, and upload that to the internet. Yes, I realize that the phone was set to automatically upload photos to facebook when the phone was connected to a computer. However, I don’t find that to be a very good excuse.

I mean really, if you have stolen a piece of electronic equipment, shouldn’t you make sure it isn’t going to phone home before you plug it into a computer?

HP Buys Palm. Yawn

Today, in response to the news that HP has bought Palm, Futurelawyer said:

There was a time when I salivated at every new Palm product, and greedily grabbed one for myself. There was a time when a Palm was part of my wardrobe, and accompanied me every waking moment. But, alas, time marches on. Old friends die. Sometimes, they get sold to a new owner, and die with a barely audible whimper.

Ditto.

My Latest Acquisition: Samsung P2570HD

I have written before about how I believe multiple monitors can improve your efficiency. Last week I was working at home and the second monitor I had was not cutting it. The resolution did not allow me to see enough to work properly. Consequently, I jumped on to Amazon and started checking out their monitor selection. At the office I have two external monitors. For the house, however, I decided to go with one, larger monitor. Thus I picked up this beauty.

Samsung MonitorIt is a Samsung P2570HD. Basically, I just picked up a 24.6 inch monitor that doubles a TV, if I want it to. The picture has the monitor next to my laptop for comparison’s sake.

The reviews on Amazon were pretty good and I have to echo those. It is a beautiful monitor that works really well. (I have not tried using it as a television yet). The picture is nice and clear and it displays two pages side by side in Word just beautifully.

If you are looking for a larger monitor, you could certainly do a lot worse than this one. Do check the prices on this, however. The price Amazon has is currently more than what I paid for it. However, you can buy it from J&R (through Amazon) right now for slightly less than what I paid for it.

Metra: The Way to Really Not Work

In the Chicago metro area, our public rail transportation to and from the outer suburbs is provided by Metra. Overall the service provided by Metra is pretty good. Traffic in Chicago can get pretty congested during the construction season (approx. January through December). Metra provides a nice alternative to sitting in traffic. In general the trains run on time and are as comfortable as can be reasonably expected.

That does not mean, however, that Metra is perfect. Far from it, in fact. In many ways they are mired in the past. As an example, in September 2009, Metra took the forward thinking step of deciding to accept credit cards. It would be nice to say that Metra finally bowed to the public pressure and gave their customers what they wanted. However, it turns out that is not exactly the case. Instead, Metra now accepts credit cards because the Illinois General Assembly passed a law requiring Metra to accept credit cards.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that Metra has decided to continue down its self-selected road of remaining mired in the past. According to the Tribune, Metra won’t be providing wi-fi service anytime in the foreseeable future:

But WiFi doesn’t fly on Metra. The commuter rail agency, which still punches tickets by hand and only recently started taking credit cards, says providing wireless Internet is too expensive and technologically challenging.

A Metra spokesperson stated:

“We barely have enough money to operate let alone add such a luxury,” Metra spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said.

That doesn’t seem to have stopped many other rail providers, who I presume are existing in the same tight economy that Metra is is. The Tribune reports that wi-fi is or soon be available on trains in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, New York City, Northern California, Boston, and Amtrak’s northeast commuter lines.

Metra seems to be quite short sighted by focusing on the costs here. Surely there is some provider who will be willing to front the cost for this. The Tribune reports:

New York’s MTA, with an $800 million budget shortfall, doesn’t plan to pay anything for WiFi installation, spokesman Aaron Donovan said.

MTA asked potential providers to pay for the equipment and service themselves. In return, MTA plans to offer incentives, such as advertising considerations. MTA’s Internet might not be free because companies may be allowed to charge customers, Donovan said.

It seems to me that the real problem here is not the cost, but rather Metra’s commitment to not providing convenient services for its riders.

Maybe Blago’s Attorneys Should Have Attended an ISBA CLE

At Law and Conversation, Helen Gunnarsson is reporting about the motion recently filed by attorneys for Rod Blagojevich. The motion, which seeks to subpoena the President, was supposed to contain redacted information. The information, of course, was not actually redacted, and, instead, was simply covered by black boxes. As Helen notes, both the Tribune and the Sun Times are reporting that this error was caused by a “computer glitch.”

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. A “computer glitch” does not cause this problem. The problem is caused because someone did not redact the document properly. There are ways in which a document can be properly redacted, and ways in which it is not properly redacted. Having a document that is improperly redacted is no more a computer glitch than having a document that is properly redacted.

As Helen mentioned in her post, Nerino Petro and I spoke on this issue at the ISBA Solo and Small Firm Conference last fall. Additionally, Helen recently wrote about this topic in the ISBA Bar Journal. Further, both Nerino & I reprised our presentation just last week in Chicago. Further, one need not look far to notice the large number of news stories that talk about redaction done wrong.

This is not a complicated task. Further, it is not one that you can ignore. Before the Northern District of Illinois allows you to sign in to the CM/ECF system, it requires you to check a box stating “I understand that, if I file, I must comply with the redaction rules. I have read this notice.”

Clearly this check box does not prevent someone from filing an improperly redacted document. However, it should make attorneys question the fact of whether they have properly redacted the document they are about to upload to the ECF system.

Updated:

I am glad that someone in the mainstream media has finally pointed out that this was not caused by a computer glitch. As Eric Zorn states:

Not to get too fussy, but the computers used in this caper all seem to have performed perfectly. The “glitch,” discovered yesterday at almost the same time by competing reporters, was in the brain of the person on the Blagojevich defense team . . . .

Thanks Eric for pointing this out.