The Top Three Reasons Law Firms Are Not Using Digital Dictation Technology
In my profession, it is common to ask a lot of questions. Truly, it's necessary. A Virtual Assistant is someone who has to know as much as possible about a particular client's systems or way of doing things in order to best configure and make use of available technology to help them do it better, faster, for less cost -- whatever the client is looking to gain.
I started my VA career almost eight years ago and limit my practice to virtual assistance to the legal industry. Over the years, I have asked many attorneys, law firm administrators, paralegals, HR managers, private investigators, IT administrators, managing partners, office managers, secretaries and others about the processes used at their firms. Some use document management software, some don't. Some have websites, some don't. Almost without fail, when asked what the attorneys use for dictation, the most common response: a tape recorder.
That's good, because dictating is a very efficient process, even with a tape. According to Dictaphone, in 1952 recorded dictation was established as "a time saver over handwriting and stenography among attorneys, physicians and other professionals". The first mini-cassette recorder was marketed in 1973. Do you believe it? That same little recorder still in use at most firms in the US today is the technological equivalent of listening to music on an 8 track!
In any event, if your firm uses tape based dictation, then it is already understood that recording actual firm work product is a good way to get things done and if your firm does not use dictation, perhaps you should be starting with digital so keep reading.
Why Upgrade To Digital Dictation?
Although not as old as dictation itself, digital dictation has been around for quite some time. The medical profession has been using digital dictation technology (call in and portable recorders) for over a decade. Why? Upgrading to a digital dictation process provided hospitals, clinics, doctor's offices and insurance companies with:
o the ability for doctors to work remotely with nothing more than a phone or portable recorder and internet connection
o centralization of document workflow for multiple user, multiple site operations
o the ability to monitor work in progress and overall productivity
o the ability to track and report various metrics and criteria
o the ability to utilize remote transcriptionists and save on personnel costs
The way I see it, any size firm has as much to gain as a comparably sized medical practice by upgrading to a digital dictation process - so the question remains, with so much to gain, Why haven't they!? (Read that list above again - with your firm in mind.)
Why Aren't Firms Using Digital Dictation?
The main reason, I believe, is no one has put 2%2B2 together yet. Since digital dictation technology isn't "new", not much attention has been paid to it outside the medical industry. Just recently, however, British and other European law firms have been in the news discussing how upgrading to digital dictation has been easier and better than expected.
What About Here in the US?
Listed below (in reverse order) are the top three responses I have received over the years to the question: "Why hasn't your firm upgraded to digital dictation?"
Number 3: "Digital dictation, isn't that speech recognition?"
No, speech recognition is not digital dictation. Speech recognition is software. It takes the human voice and converts it to text. Speech recognition software requires training to each specific user - hours of training for most applications, making the implementation of this technology not practical in most firm settings.
Digital dictation is the recording of your voice with software or equipment that provides dictation functions - stop, rewind, insert and so forth. With digital, however, the recording does not go onto a tape, it gets saved as an audio file (i.e., .wav, .dss). Unlike speech recognition, digital dictation requires a transcriptionist and software to type the recorded thoughts.
By the way, one reason why I firmly believe speech recognition software can never replace a good legal secretary/transcriptionist - no matter how much you train it, it can never catch when you say "defendant' and you should be saying "plaintiff"! ;)
So, while you may have heard or read about the pitfalls of speech recognition technology, digital dictation is a different animal altogether.
Number 2: "If it ain't broke..."
Yes, it is true that tape dictation works and has worked for decades, but so does a typewriter, an abacus, even a compass for that matter. Upgrading to digital dictation is not a fix, it is an improvement to a known process. It is the natural evolution of dictation - from human being (secy), to recorded (tape), to digital (sound file).
When upgrading to digital, what should be highlighted is that those making the recording no longer need to be in the same physical location as the person doing the transcribing - or in today's lingo: can work remotely! Depending on how the capture process is set up, so long as firm's dictators have access to a telephone or the internet, they can produce billable time.
Since the dictation file created with digital is electronic in nature, it can be manipulated much the same as any other computer file -- stored, routed through networks and so on. This makes the dictation file itself much more convenient and user friendly in today's electronic environment (networks, multiple offices, document management software, retention requirements).
Along with remote work opportunities for firm dictators, upgrading to digital dictation provides reporting and tracking on each file as it travels through the process or all of the metrics that a tape based dictation system simply cannot provide. Hold up a tape and ask an attorney what's on it and see what s/he says! If it were a digital file, however, you always know the date and time a file was created, by whom, how long it is, what client it is for, what matter it pertains, and more.
So, from an administrator's as well as dictator's perspective, upgrading to digital dictation provides quite an improvement for how the work gets done.
and... my all time favorite response to...
"Why hasn't your firm upgraded to digital dictation?"
Number 1: "We don't like change."
I am not kidding! I have heard this exact phrase more times than I care to admit!
Other than, of course, this response helping me to realize that firms can take forever to reach a decision, it presents quite a conundrum. Why? When upgrading to digital, not much actually changes in the process for the dictator. In fact, Olympus and other major manufacturers even have portable digital recorders in their professional line that have a slide switch. Truly, a digital recorder which mimics an analog recorder's functions.
Therefore, when properly configured, other than the fact that an attorney does not have to get up from his chair to hand a tape to his secretary (or leave on her chair), when upgrading to digital, dictators do not "do" anything different.
Wrapping It All Up
At some point, every firm has to weigh the pros and cons of any technology upgrade. With more and more equipment and software necessary to stay competitive, no wonder no one is looking for another "upgrade". Unlike so much of the technology available today, however, digital dictation technology is not "new". It is very stable and has been robustly tested, successfully implemented and utilized in various sized environments for over a decade.
This should, IMHO, make an upgrade to digital dictation a must for any firm's 2009 technology budget.
