« Nigerian Scam Targets Inventors | Main | phosita ::: quick links for 2005-06-13 »
June 10, 2005
Fast Typist = Efficient Lawyer?
Russ Krajec had a great post yesterday on How To Save Costs on Patent Drafting. He claims that the typing speed of your patent lawyer or agent is critical, particularly when you are being billed by the hour. However, I'm not quite sold on his criticism of dictation:
It seems that many of the attorneys much over the age of 40 have non-existent typing skills. Many of them dictate their work, and must pay a secretary to transcribe and format the documents. While this system has some advantages, (namely that the attorney can dictate while he is in the car and bill you while running to the grocery store), dictation is generally more inefficient that someone who can type, and the turn around time is always longer.
This statement is somewhat contrary to what the "over 40" set has been telling me. Some of the more experienced lawyers I've worked with have taught me that dictation isn't necessarily for speed. Instead, it causes you to look at the big picture and have a roadmap before you start "writing." I currently start with an "outline" that I erase as I fill in the details of the patent, but I'm also trying to learn this mysterious new skill called dictation.
In yesterday's New York Times article, Spending Time to Save Time, the author mentions using a dictation program to respond to e-mail. He also talks about using typing shortcuts to increase his typing speed.
While Russ's overall point is valid, I'm not quite ready to give up on my dictation lessons just yet.
Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:33 AM.
Permalink: Fast Typist = Efficient Lawyer?
| Comments (4)
| Sphere: Related Content
I'm not sure how it works in patent practices, but in my wife's commercial litigation practice (I'm not a lawyer), you're not billed for secretarial time. Although I'm sure there are plenty of firms that do break out the charge to their clients. I think the bottom line is that an experienced attorney can speak much faster than they can type; even if it's just for a preliminary draft that is edited after having the words on paper. By having your staff transcribe the attorney's first draft, a lot of the document's formating is also taken care of for them. I'm not sure if I would want to pay my attorney to type and format all of their own work product.
Posted by: rdv at June 11, 2005 01:43 PM
As a "over 40" lawyer (patnet attorney) who types 120 words per minute, I have found dictation to be more efficient than typing. I have noticed in myself, and observing many other attorneys who type, that the speed is not material to efficiency. For example, most attorneys spend way too much time formating their documents as they type. Having a secratary format the document, do the spell check, etc., is much more cost efficient than having the client pay for such at an attorney's rate.
Posted by: Ron at June 13, 2005 06:01 AM
Having been a proficient typist for many years, I tried dictation for a while, but it did not work for me. I am sure that it works for some people better than typing.
I like typing because I can flesh out an outline as I write, and occasionally bounce between sections of the outline as needed.
Also, I spent a good deal of time developing template documents so that the formatting is complete before I begin writing.
Whether you dictate or not, being unable to type will greatly hinder any computer related operation, especially email.
Posted by: Russ Krajec at June 14, 2005 09:08 AM
I thought good lawyers were the ones that won cases. But eh, what do I know.
I'll throw this out: this profession is so insulated by the lack of litigation of work product that people are actually looking at your TYPING SKILLS to decide whether or not you're worth anything.
If more patents were litigated, about 40% of the practice, including, most probably, some of the world's best typers AND dictators, would get tossed out.
Posted by: Matt at June 23, 2005 11:42 AM
