Law Technology

Told ?Ya So . . . Sadly, the Expected Mac Response

By Ross

Did I not call this one in my post yesterday about my concerns about Ben Steven’s recent Mac-related Technofeature? Told ‘ya this is what would happen. Kudos to my long-ago mentor David Hirsch for a high-road, interesting as ever (even if I completely disagree with it) response, but it was Randy Singer, Chief Self-Appointed Mac Legal Evangelist who wins the prize for sinking to a new low in personally-attacking vitriole with his slam attack on his MacLawyer list. Here are my thoughts overall in reaction:

First, here’s David Hirsch’s comments, cc’d to me:

From: David Hirsch [mailto:david@iowalawattorneys.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:07 AM
To: MacLaw@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Ross Kodner
Subject: Re: [MacLaw] Re: Kodner writes on Macs again

Interesting. Especially his take on Ben Stevens even though he has never met. Seems like a not-so friendly rivalry.

And Ed [Siebel]…is what Mr. Kodner has below true? Where are ‘ya?

“…So far so good, but here it comes. I just finished reading Ben Steven’s well-written recent Technofeature piece about whether lawyers should switch to Macs. I agree with nearly all of it and with Ben’s conclusion that Macs should definitely be considered. In fact, we are now offering services to our clients who are interested in either adding Macs or switching entirely to the OS X / Mac platform (it’s been a long-time coming - I can’t wait for Mac evangelists to jump all over this saying it’s a knee jerk reaction, etc. etc. - but most of them have no idea how long I’ve been championing Macs as an industry insider - do any of them know I organized one of the very first Mac legal conferences insider of LegalTech West in 2005, working directly with Apple? Probably not - ask Ed Siebel, one of “your” own)…”

Ross will go where ever the market goes.  I would not call him a Mac champion.  But he is largely technologically agnostic, with this caveat — no one likes to move away from what they know.  And somehow I cannot imagine Ross mastering the intricacies of UNIX networking, or digging into the Terminal command line — though he would be fully capable of learning it if he wanted to, and could certainly hire people who knew how.  That said, Ross is a sucker for cool gadgets.  And the Mac has become one cool gadget.  But its true grace and utility will not be availed by running Windows apps in Parallels (though that is an enabling crutch), nor will it be availed by popular Windows apps becoming Mac-enabled with rewrites that run native on OSX.  The best example of the latter point is Word.  It has all of its PC culture ossified into its Mac version.  Of course I am “anti-wordprocessor” anyway, because I think all traditional wordprocessors are obsolete.  But if one must use wordprocessing, why not use Mellel, something I find far less frustrating than Word, and more powerful (in a narrow kind of way).  Or, better still, for major documents, why not use Scrivener, a revolutionary way to compose a detailed document.  And for simple documents (which constitute over 95% of what lawyers do), nothing beats Lotus Notes — which runs identically on a Mac as on Windows.  Actually it runs slightly more elegantly on a Mac, and finally, with 8.0 (we are running 8.5) actually has a modern interface (though that is largely irrelevant for my custom databases that just work like a lawyer works).

But woe is me.  I will always have to have at least one pc because Notes developer will not run native on Mac (and I refuse to run it on Parallels, though it should work there).  But Notes client on Mac is one pretty sight.

The Mac phenomenon can no longer be dismissed as evangelism.  Users who insist on Windows don’t see their own dogma.  There no reason to doubt that Ross’s fascination with Mac is genuine.

David Hirsch   david@iowalawattorneys.com
Harding Law Office (515-287-1454)
1217 Army Post Road
Des Moines, Iowa 50315″

My Response:

David,

Re: Ben Stevens. There?s no rivalry. I wrote a column based on Solosez posts about my concern about blind recommendations of Macs without knowing anything about someone?s practice situations. Without listening. Without understand. Just??get a mac.? That?s irresponsible and has no place in any kind of professional approach. I analogized it to an estate planning practice where someone comes in and says ?I need an estate plan? and before learning anything whatsoever about the client?s needs, the lawyer blurts out ?you need a living trust.? Totally irresponsible ? no clue about the needs and the answer is a generic, ?it?s best for everyone? statement. That?s what my original Technolawyer SmallLaw column (called “SmallLaw: Macs in Law Firms: Get Them for the Right Reasons, Not “Just Because” - notice the first part where I say “GET THEM…” not “DON’T GET THEM!”) was about ? legal technologists ask questions, learn about their clients current and projected needs and then make reasoned recommendations. For Mac lawyers to blurt the uninformed ?get a Mac? line discredits the entire Mac concept because people will associated Macs with that blind emotion-driven evangelism. Macs should be recommended because they make BUSINESS sense and where they are part of a well thought through plan, like any smart IT strategy for a law practice.

Where does Ben come in? There were a series of scathing responses, mostly rude, mean-spirited personal attacks. Ben fanned the flames by seemingly gleefully re-posting the most virulent response by fellow Wisconsin lawyer Brian Sadjak (who responded to me privately saying that it was meant in a tongue and cheek fashion ? right ? call someone essentially a liar and a cheat in public and then say in private ? a nice reflection of why the public generally hates ALL of us).
So I have no rivalry with Ben whatsoever ? I don?t know him. But I do know that he?s more than willing to attack someone in the profession unfairly and in my personal code of appropriate behavior, that?s not being a mensch and that?s never ok.

My interest in Macs has nothing to do with interest in gadgets. Apple computers are definitely not gadgets. David is right that I?m technologically agnostic.  I don?t care where a platform comes from ? from Microsoft, Apple or an open source movement (Linux). What I care about is my obligation to my clients as a consultant to consider the entire set of business circumstances. It?s not an issue of liking it or not but most legal-focused apps I feel are the best choices for my clients are native Windows apps. That?s not my opinion ? it?s just fact. You can run through a litany of alternatives until you turn blue in the face, but why compromise with an alternative when there are better, purpose-built, field-proven choices? Or firms that are fully entrenched in using such products ? it?s not rational to switch and try and fix something that?s not broken. It?s not about Mac v. Windows v. Linux. It?s about a reasoned approach to independently and objectively advising my clients ? that?s my responsibility . . . not just blurting out ?PCs suck, Macs rule, get Macs, WOOHOO! GO APPLE!?

• Windows has always sucked. ALWAYS. XP Pro sucks less than Vista versions but so what, it still sucks. I?ve been on the record for two records saying that.
• I?ve been on the record in front of audiences, in my CLE materials and my articles saying OS X is objectively superior to Windows in every way ? but that it?s not the only factor, but rather, one factor that has to be pragmatically balanced with other considerations.
• I?ll bet that I make less money after 25 years of doing what I do than virtually all the Mac lawyers on all the Mac lists. Why? Because I give away much of my advice for free, helping those in need in the electronic communities where I spend my time. For people to imply that I recommend things because I get paid to do so is a violent and reprehensible lie ? it?s libelous ? it?s never been true and never will be true. Every time I see statements like that, I?m embarrassed to be a lawyer ? if that?s the kind of low-road character these fellow lawyers have. Throwing out any shred of common decency for what? A piece of hardware and a piece of software. It?s utterly disillusioning to think that members of our profession are so wantonly unprofessional and cruel ? people who know NOTHING about me, my career, or what I actually do . . . and who really don?t even read and respond to the substance of the articles I write . . . they are self-programmed to think ?he?s attacking Macs . . . must be evil . . . destroy him.? If it weren?t so disturbing and so personal, it would be laughably absurd. Is that really who Mac lawyers want to be?
• Reality Check ? David, you and I have had this same debate for more than 20 years. The world is never going to drop mainstream word processors like Word to use vi or some other UNIX text editor. You can hope ? go ahead if it makes you feel good. Ten years ago, it was Notes ? we should have all dumped whatever we were using an moved our practices to Notes. It doesn?t matter how good it could be. You can use it. Most others never will. That?s just the way it is. Maybe Word?s stranglehold on editable electronic documents will fade at some point. But that point is not now. And that?s not me defending Microsoft (God forbid) ? it?s me being a consultant and saying here?s the way things are as I see it, to the best of my ability, for now and the reasonably foreseeable future of legal computing (i.e. a five year window at the least).

So I?m not ?fascinated? by Macs suddenly. It?s the fact that I?ve ALWAYS said OS X, with its UNIX core, is an objectively superior operating system to Windows . . . duh. As someone interested solely in the pursuit of excellence, in a perfect world, OS X would be universal. But we don?t live in a perfect world, we live in a practical world. Where people need to get work done with the best tools for the job. To me, right now, that?s running proven legal practice management systems, billing systems, Outlook, document management systems, substantive practice area apps, litigation support products. The right tools for the right job. If those existed under OS X, I?d move my recommendations away from Windows in a heartbeat (did you read the part where I said I *HATE* Windows? Wait, in case, you missed that yet again, did you hear me saying for the 8 zillionth time over 20 years that I hate Windows? Do I need to repeat it again?).

What am I fascinated by? Evangelist who evangelistically plead that they are not evangelists. Macs don?t need evangelists. Macs need pragmatic realists who care more about the business problems lawyers need to address everyday in their practices than their zealous attachment to a for-profit company?s ?cause.?

And then their?s Randy Singer. A fellow for years whose praises I sung and whose book and Mac app lists I’ve long publicly promoted. Randy Singer who apparently represents the worst of Mac evangelism with his genuinely libelous vitriole against me in this public post ? who knows NOTHING of the facts, who calls me a liar (why would I lie? Is there some unknown numbered Swiss bank account where Microsoft funnels enormous amounts of money to me for ?promoting? Windows ? yeah, THAT MUST be it). Who says I recommend whatever I?m paid to recommend, and of course, that?s why I organized the Apple LegalTech West program in 2005 and invited Randy to participate . . . because I was some kind of paid shill . . . nothing?s ever good enough for the Mac faithful. Embrace collaboration with Windows? Bridge gaps with Windows users who make an effort to be open-minded and embracing of a ?who cares about the platform, let?s use the best stuff? approach? All the nastiness embedded in Randy?s MacLawyer list message does is alienate decent people who wouldn?t want to be associated with his ilk. And THAT?S the most ANTI-Mac thing I can imagine anyone doing.

Here?s Randy?s public comment about me and my writings from the MacLawyer list yesterday:

?Ross says:

>> Again, it?s about accuracy and journalistic credibility.

Of which, Ross Kodner has none of the latter and he isn’t
knowledgeable and/or honest enough to be looked to for the former.

Ross can be counted on to say what he is paid to say.  When he was
paid by Apple, he couldn’t say enough good things about the Macintosh:
http://shifei.notlong.com

Now that he makes his living catering solely to Windows users, he is
going around saying ridiculous things such as that the Macintosh has
viruses.  (Ross gives citations to supposed reports of viruses on the
Macintosh, but he either isn’t knowledgeable enough to know that they
are in error, or he is simply a liar.)

It’s hard to treat Ross as credible when he writes anything about the
Macintosh.  I suggest that we just ignore him rather than give him the
attention that he is looking for.?

Look at this discussion? What happened to the substance? Randy Singer says that I?ve made up the content in the links I posted to news media reports about Mac viruses/Trojans/malware/the need to be security-prepared as Macs rise in market share and become bigger potential hacking targets. I DIDN?T WRITE THOSE ARTICLES RANDY. THEY?RE LINKS TO ARTICLES WRITTEN BY MEDIA SOURCES. THE LINK TO MAC ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE AND SECURITY PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE APPLE STORE ? I DIDN?T HACK THE APPLE SITE AND PLACE THEM THERE ? APPLE DID! YOUR BELOVED APPLE! For Crissake, get over yourself and your beloved operating system and act responsibly. You?re a lawyer, just like I am. You have your own states Rules of Professional Responsibility to uphold man! Why would you NOT want other lawyers to take reasonable precautions to uphold their ethical responsibilities and protect confidential client information and your ability to represent them??? WHY??? If there?s a threat, and there really does appear to be, why would you not spend $60 and buy a piece of security software??? Mac users like this need to get their damned heads out of the sand and acknowledge that what comes with increased market share is increased attention by all the bad guys out there who we Windows users know so well ? who would LOVE to earn their chops and sell their services to the organized crime elements behind identity theft and computer crimes ? and tap into a whole new source of victims, now large enough to matter ? Mac users. No operating system is invulnerable. It?s one thing Mac users can learn from Windows users ? complacency and any sense of invulnerability is . . . dangerous.

I love the fact that he cites my CLE materials from the LegalTech West 2005 Apple mini-conference (Thanks! Didn?t realize they were still out there ? I?ll need to update them!). But to support his position, he has to discredit my realistically pro-Mac materials . . . saying I was paid to say what I said. Of course, in his insular Mac world, Randy ignores the fact that I?ve been saying the same things before and ever since that CLE ? my BALANCED pro-Mac comments are infused throughout much of my CLE materials and/or what I write is NOT about operating systems at all. Really unbelievable. It?s like the foul comment I once overhead about someone I knew who had converted to Judaism. The comment was something like ?she has to try to be a BETTER Jew than the rest of us ? you know she?s JUST a ?convert?, right?? Utterly foul. Randy?s comments are NO different.

David, your response, while I disagree with the substance of it, was a reasonable discussion, except where you presumed to know my state of mind. But it was a classic David Hirsch high-road and interesting approach (no different than when you first mentored me when I wrote for your ABA LPM Network 2d newsletter in the mid-90?s as some of my first national authorship) and our regular debates on the ABA?s Network 2d newsletter. I disagreed with you ? often ? but always respected your decent, respectful and intellectually challenging approach.  But Randy Singer?s response is the anti-thesis to yours, and the anti-thesis to all that is decent. He should be ashamed of himself and any decent person on the MacLawyer list should be telling him so. The world doesn?t need more anti-mensches.

When these Mac evangelisms, who I don’t believe speak for anyone but the audiences in their own heads, grow up and act like business people, THEN they’ll be in a position to advocate credibly on behalf of better solutions. I wonder when that day will come . . . because Macs no longer need to be evangelized - they’re part of the business world and not going away. But anachronisms seems to routinely outlast their welcome I guess.

P.S. Should I be flattered to know that MacLawyers apparently read this blog?

Full post as published by Ross Ipsa Loquitur on May 08, 2009 (boomark / email).