This month I would like to add my two cents (well, with inflation it might be a quarter by now) to the debate regarding Word vs. WordPerfect. I don’t know whether doing so will dampen the fury of the debate to any measurable degree but at least you will have the perspective of someone who has used and taught both programs to law firms.

First, let’s dispense with the easy situations and then move on to the more difficult ones.

Scenario #1: Firm has already upgraded from WordPerfect DOS to WordPerfect for Windows (any version for more than 1 year).

This situation is a fairly easy call to make. Stay with WordPerfect unless you have an extremely good reason for making the switch to Word (i.e. a major client requires Word format).

Why? Because you have invested a lot of time and effort into acquiring an understanding of WordPerfect and Word doesn’t offer any real reason to change. Time and effort equate to value to the firm. Why would you throw away this value unless you were receiving something significantly more valuable in return? This would be like Nolan Ryan giving up his fastball because he heard other pitchers were having a lot of success with the slider. If it works, don’t fix it (but make sure you install all of the patches if you have version 8!).

Scenario #2: Firm has always used Word.

Another no-brainer. Despite what the local “WordPerfect is the true word-processor” groupie says, the two programs are virtually deadlocked in both capability and features. It would be a big mistake to waste valuable resources on something which will provide such a pitiful or non-existent return.

Scenario #3: Firm was in WordPerfect (DOS or Windows) and moved to Word within the last three months.

Now, we’re starting to get into tougher territory. The move from WordPerfect to Word is a difficult one for many reasons. The most common complaint is the lack of ‘reveal codes’ although there are more fundamental differences that cause most of the problems. Let me explain and then I’ll start preparing for the onslaught of WP hate mail.

The only reason someone needs ‘reveal codes’ is because they didn’t know what they were doing in the first place. You don’t have to fix what is done correctly to begin with. This is important in the transition to Word because the user is now in a new program with foreign menus and terminology. If there was ever a time for ‘reveal codes’ this is it and now it is gone!

There are two reasons a firm gets into trouble in the changeover to Word. First, the firm makes a poor business decision and does not conduct professional training. Second, the lawyers do not make it clear to the staff why it was IMPORTANT to move to Word in the first place. Consequently, even if training is conducted the staff is still resistant to the idea and learning suffers as a result. This immediately transfers to the bottom line as productivity declines.

If this sounds familiar then you are in luck! All you need is a few focused training sessions on Word combined with a little PR and productivity will rebound very nicely. The answer is not a move back to WordPerfect.

Scenario #4: Firm is in WordPerfect DOS and is making the move to Windows word-processing.

This is always a difficult decision point, however, there are several factors which should have an impact on the decision-making process.

First, Corel has closed the last of its U.S. based operations facilities and retreated to Canada. Second, Corel has lost money in almost every quarter for the last two years and only avoided a shutout by slashing its marketing budget. Third, Corel is making a push to become the office suite of choice in the Linux world. Fourth, there is virtually no overall difference in features or capability between the two programs. Fifth, you should be using a document assembly program anyway. Sixth, many governmental and business sectors have already decided to standardize on the Word format. Seventh, Microsoft could lose the entire net worth of Corel for many years before even breaking a sweat. This means staying power. Eighth, you should be using a document assembly program anyway.

Based on the above, I generally recommend that IF a firm is considering a move to Word this is the time to make it. WordPerfect for DOS and WordPerfect for Windows are very different and the inability to salvage the old merge/macros was a disastrous faux pas for Novell (they owned WordPerfect at the time). In addition, I worry about the long term ability of Corel to keep up the pace set by Microsoft.

Of course, if the firm is dead set against leaving WordPerfect, I don’t feel this is a major mistake either. The important thing is to avoid developing expertise in both programs since this means there has been a substantial waste in resources at some point in time. Consequently, if the firm decides to remain with WordPerfect for Windows it should try to stay with it unless there is a substantial need to change.

Scenario #5: Firm has already upgraded from WordPerfect DOS to WordPerfect for Windows (less than 1 year).

This is the most difficult situation to resolve. Most firms will experience a loss in productivity when moving from DOS to Windows regardless which word processor they choose. This is especially true when the firm had taken advantage of the powerful merge/macros available in WordPerfect for DOS.

Whether the firm should scrap WordPerfect and move to Word before investing any more time and effort in the program is again a function of how NECESSARY/IMPORTANT it is to move to Word. You already own the WordPerfect software. Why not learn to use it properly? How should the firm attempt to recoup its lost productivity?

Fortunately, there are available solutions. All of the solutions vary in their effectiveness and cost. The most effective carry the highest cost.

First, in Windows the concept of ‘Templates’ has emerged. These are basically the old ‘Go By’ documents placed in a special folder and used to create new documents. The template should have fields inserted to replace all of the variable information in the document.

This capability is built into the word processor and requires little specialized knowledge. Anyone who knew how to use the old merge/macros could learn this in a matter of hours.

Second, there is software specifically made for automating document production. The HotDocs product is the most popular example of ‘Document Assembly’ software. This type of product is very powerful, yet fairly simple to learn and use, and can perform very advanced text replacement and logic functions. Anything from simple letters to complex wills, contracts or pleadings can be automated using this type of software.

Last of all, the most complex option is to integrate the document assembly software with case management software. This is the most advanced system in current use and requires a considerable amount of training to master.
The ability to access specific case information, such as the amount of the loan or the date of separation, in the case management software combined with the ability to then reuse that information to assemble documents provides maximum efficiency.

For example, suppose you have a Personal Injury case for John Brown. Mr. Brown mails in his completed questionnaire and a staff person enters the information in the corresponding fields in the case manager. Later that day, the attorney wants to call the adjuster handling the case. The attorney opens the case manager to Mr. Brown’s file, clicks on the adjuster’s name to access all contact information and picks up the phone. All of the information in the questionnaire is available without requiring the paper file so the attorney can speak in detail about the case. Meanwhile, the paralegal is creating the Medical Record Release form, the Employer Release and several other documents by reusing the information the attorney is viewing during his discussion with the adjuster.

This one-time entry system is currently available and working in many law firms throughout the state. However, the complexity and corresponding cost has deterred many firms who feel the benefits over other methods doesn’t justify the additional cost.

While this is rarely true, each firm must make its own independent evaluation of the available methods of document assembly. The only truly bad decision is to not utilize any of the above methods.

Conclusion

There are many scenarios in the Word vs. WordPerfect battle but the most significant aspect of it all is that document assembly methods make most of the old arguments moot. In other words - quit fighting about it and move toward document assembly.

The vast majority of the firm’s documents must be automated in order to be efficient and this limits the impact of the raw word processor to a fraction of what is once was. Make sure to evaluate both short and long term costs when making the decision as to which document assembly options to select. Firms which invest substantial time in Templates only to then proceed to HotDocs only to later move to Case Management based document assembly have wasted far more time and money in the long run.

In addition, regardless of which word processor you choose, please obtain quality training for the firm. It will cost you a lot less than the lost productivity in the long run.

So, in the final analysis, Word vs. WordPerfect is not the great battle we anticipated. It’s a fizzle, a yawn. Training and document assembly are the real keys. Of course, if you just want to see the veins pop out on someone’s forehead then find a WordPerfect user and mention how much easier Word is to use. Funny how that doesn’t seem to work the other way around.

Lee D. Cumbie is the founder of Cumbie Law Office Automation Consulting, one of the Technology Assistance Program consultants for the N.C. Bar Assn. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Campbell University where he teaches the Law Firm Computer Lab course. Lee is a member of Tyson & Cumbie, PLLC in Fayetteville, N.C.
Lee earned his B.S. degree from Regents College after military service in the U.S. Navy. He earned his J.D. from Campbell University, cum laude, in 1997.

Resources to get you started:

NetsaversCenter Y2K Section www.suttondesigns.com/NetsaversCenter/Y2K/Y2K-Links.html
Year 2000 Software Windowing Solutions www.suttondesigns.com/NetsaversCenter/index.htm
PC Magazine Online www.pcmag.com/y2k
PC Magazine October 6, 1998 "What To Do About the Year 2000", Jim Seymour, p. 100
Ziff-Davis ZDNet www.zdnet.com/y2k
Year 2000 Information Center www.year2000.com
Legal/Management Issues www.y2k.com

Netsavers Y2K TSR Scanner Kit, V. 4.0.1 www.suttondesigns.com/NetsaversCenter/Y2K/NetY2K
The RighTime Clock Company www.rightime.com
DMX II www.dmx2.com
Computer Experts Ltd www.computerexperts.co.uk
UniComp Products www.unicomp-products.com
Network Associates www.nai.com