| ▲ | Tomte a day ago |
| I‘ve heard it said earlier this year at a legal workshop that not using Microsoft Word in your law firm amounts to malpractice. That was from a well known, respected, and long-time American Open Source lawyer. |
|
| ▲ | droidjj a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| [I am a US lawyer] It's definitely not categorically malpractice to not use Word. Depends entirely on the situation. If a court demands docx and you file an rtf, or you refuse to read a client's redlines because they're in Word, sure, that could be malpractice. The only proprietary software that I think _might_ be malpractice not to use is a legal research service with a capable citator, like Westlaw or LexisNexis. If you rely on a case that was overruled, you can't defend a malpractice suit by saying, "I didn't want to pay for the software." I hear CourtListener (a free legal research tool) is working on a citator--hopefully it's competitive with the paid services. |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | NoMoreNicksLeft a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >I hear CourtListener (a free legal research tool) is working on a citator--hopefully it's competitive with the paid services. Even if. it's not just the citation graph. No headnotes. No restatements. They're about 100 light years away from being close to usable, even if the citator was complete and comparable. | |
| ▲ | weitendorf a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the logic might be: It's a certainty that your clients and colleagues will be using Word to work with you and the rest of the legal system, and some files will use docx. It would be pretty bizarre to turn down work or make things harder for people outside your firm because you refuse to use Microsoft Word. You could use another tool that handles .docx but if it's not directly compatible with Word you're almost guaranteed to run into compatibility issues or maybe serious errors. If you don't even touch Word at all, then the first person to run into them would might be your client. Do you not just immediately decide that it's not worth saving $100/yr to eliminate that kind of risk? If not then you have to say something like "Actually, it's more important that software be free and open source than that thing you pay me to do for you, that costs about two minutes of billable hours, and which every other lawyer uses?"
I don't think someone with that kind of decision making should be a lawyer, not necessarily because it's wrong but because even if it's true, imagine explaining to the bar association that Arch started opting you into nightly builds?Obviously there should be lawyers trying to use open source software, but I can't believe a real person would never run into compatibility issues. Richard stallman as a lawyer explaining that he can't open files sent in formats that do not respect user freedom is such a good bit |
|
|
| ▲ | richardfontana a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This must have been intended as hyperbole. It is true, in some legal practice areas, non-use of Word has been highly impractical or even impossible for a long time, mainly because in the mainstream legal profession generally Word quickly established a chokehold by the late 1990s. Some courts expect Word format. I haven't been close to litigation in ages so I don't know how common a thing this is, but here's an example of an apparent "Word only" federal court: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/attorney-inf... . So sure, in a hypothetical where a lawyer stubbornly refused to use Word in the context of a filing in that court, you can imagine consequences arising to the level of malpractice, but I don't think that's what they had in mind. A more familiar issue to me (and I'm guessing what that speaker was thinking of) is that if you're negotiating an agreement with some other party, and they are using Word (as they most likely will be), it is going to be highly inconvenient at best to insist on using some alternative tool. Red Hat's in house legal team is, er, was not a law firm of course, but ages ago Red Hat attempted to have as many 'back-office' staff use RHEL as possible, with few exceptions related to what was necessary for regulatory purposes. This extended to Red Hat's legal team, which attempted valiantly for a while to use OpenOffice (as was, and I suppose more specifically the RHEL packaging of the go-oo fork in those days) for all document-related purposes, including negotiating agreements with outside parties who were using Word. This proved to be impractical for at least the subset of the legal team that did that sort of work as their daily bread and butter, and eventually they got access to Word on Windows on VMware. Later on, it became possible for Red Hat lawyers to use OS X and Windows with Word, so the issue went away. |
| |
| ▲ | crabmusket a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > This must have been intended as hyperbole. I sure hope so. The idea that if you want to work in [profession x] you have no choice but to pay the [megacorp y] tax is obscene, and should be fought against even as we acknowledge that it is often the reality. We've come a long way since the days of Brandeis and the trust busters. | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm surprised that courts do not mostly/exclusively want PDF. Also, IIRC one of Wordperfect's last strongholds was in the legal sector, as they had so much invested in Wordperfect templates and (I'm told) its citation management fucntionality was good. | | |
| ▲ | freejazz 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | They do. Sometimes courts, when they want a proposed order, demand it in a Word format it so they can more easily edit it themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | freejazz 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Geez, people here really struggle with the law. You have to read that whole thing. That's only for documents that are required to be "submitted to the court in word processing format." It's an unusual circumstance when that is the case. 99.999% of all court documents are submitted as PDFs. |
|
|
| ▲ | crabmusket a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The author wrote more about Word compatibility in their 2022 post https://decoded.legal/blog/2022/10/running-a-law-firm-on-lin... > I had wondered if I would need to switch to Word for some documents but, so far, no. > I don’t know how many “Word documents” I’ve worked on in the last year - low hundreds, at a guess - but there has been no problem. > Even a document with hundreds of tracked changes and comments, and multiple contributors across multiple organisations - an unusual situation for me, anyway - was fine. > (Admittedly, it took me a while how to deal with LibreOffice Writer’s tracked changes function and comments, but that was simply user error.) |
|
| ▲ | jrm4 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Upvoting because it's an interesting statement, and also probably wrong? As a techy person with a law degree that doesn't really practice any more, the "silos" of what each lawyer thinks is and isn't a "must have" is interesting, as well as the huge differences in rates and types of tech adoption; a huge factor here is probably administrative assistants who do a lot of heavy lifting. |
| |
| ▲ | weitendorf a day ago | parent [-] | | you're explaining a clerical issue that lost a client a case caused by compatibility issue to other lawyers in a bar hgearing because your client sent you a document in a format that does not respect user freedom they ask how you've managed to avoid this problem so far, and it turns out that you've been battling it nonstop for years How do you justify that as a lawyer on the basis of "user freedom"? Honestly your best defense is probably true ignorance or bad decision making that led you to choose something that, to non-developers, really only works as a way to save $100/yr or do some crazy new thing that didn't work. But that's still pretty bad. Even if you're some crazy unix hacker wizard who for some reason works as a lawyer, how does never using Word help your client? |
|
|
| ▲ | 40four a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah but they said they use “Word” documents when exchanging with other lawyers, etc. So I take that to mean they are exporting .docx with LibreOffice. I’m not sure I see what would be the issue with that? |
|
| ▲ | vikas123456789 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Our law firm is using onlyoffice and there has been no problem yet. |
|
| ▲ | mushufasa a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not a lawyer but have hired many lawyers and had to interact with them: I agree this is correct. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | tiahura a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That’s recently changed. Wordcraft is now a decent Word clone and is leaps and bounds over OpenOffice. |
| |
| ▲ | physPop a day ago | parent | next [-] | | its pre release no one doing real work is going to risk their income on an alpha test | | |
| ▲ | creativeSlumber a day ago | parent [-] | | why does it matter for a word doc. At the end of the day, what matters is the doc file you save. that's your artifact. Weather you use a cli tool, agent or ms word to create that file doesn't matter as long as the content is correct and the person who receives the file can open it. |
| |
| ▲ | piker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's the point of saving $25 bucks or whatever a Word license is to use a vibe coded application? | | |
| ▲ | tiahura a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not even $25, it more like $10 / seat. Because Wordcraft is faster and more stable than Word. Word rarely crashes, but it does freeze. Wordcraft is freezing about 1/2 as often as Word. For the daily grinding out docs, it's way more viable than Openoffice. But mostly, because having a workflow entirely dependent on a single vendor seems like something to avoid if possible. The last formatting bug I encountered was last week. Claude identified, patched, and pushed in 10 minutes. It doesn't do VBA. However, porting VBA to WC macros is trivial for llms. | | |
| ▲ | hectormalot 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I looked at the Wordcraft repo. It has 1.5k issues and 1.2k PRs, I think all LLM coded, and many from non-contributors, with a first release just 1 month ago. Isn't this a minefield for someone to put in something that exfiltrates data, loads malware, or something else? The project and outcome looks impressive, but I wouldn't dare to run this outside a sandbox right now. |
| |
| ▲ | alansaber a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 25 bucks is 25 bucks. I also feel that losing your license because you tried to save 25 bucks on MS Word seems unlikely (not legal advice). | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent [-] | | Is the cost of Word anywhere on anyone’s hate list? | | |
| ▲ | alansaber a day ago | parent [-] | | Massive amounts of people hate the SAAS model and frequent end of support for older perpetual versions. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thatsallchildsp a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why become hostage to a multibillion conglomerate for "editing text"? It's asinine what people are using Word for. If engineering types need special syntax handling I get it, but lawyers.. accountants.. my god man, plain text is fine with some semi-fancy markup a la markdown renderers these days. Some tables, some red lines, some fonts.. It's trivial. It was not in the 80s but it is now. |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I haven’t used many of these vibe coded clones, but the ones I have used have all been significantly lacking in depth compared to what they are ripping off. I’m sure wordcraft works fine for typing a high school 5 paragraph essay (although, I don’t think high school students still do that). I would be shocked if it can handle revision history, complex redline edits, legal brief formatting, etc. | | |
| ▲ | tiahura a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It handles complex redlines, legal brief formatting, etc. When you convert to pdf, it typically produces identical content streams to Word. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg a day ago | parent [-] | | I just tried it out of curiosity. It doesn't exist in their web suite, when I tried to run it using their launcher it failed to install and crashed the installer. I can't directly refute your claims, but I can say that a program that won't install can't do any of those things for me. I don't care if my lawyer doesn't use word. I do care if they use a buggy, vibe coded that is still in Alpha. Word processing is a solved problem. Free (beer or speech) word processing is a solved problem. Word compatible free word processing is a solved problem. Don't put my case in jeopardy because you want to use untested, alpha software. | | |
| ▲ | tiahura a day ago | parent [-] | | Hard to diag from here. use claude code to launch and diag. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thatsallchildsp a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | All your points are laughably trivial features. We don't "Word" for that bullshit. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | alansaber a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Only if an edge case could cause you to miss things (such as libreoffice missing redlines?). Seems unlikely IMO. |