You know that Microsoft Word automatically replaces some text as you type, but did you know you can customize the AutoCorrect settings? These tips, adapted from Affinity Consulting Group’s “Microsoft Word for Legal Professionals,” will speed up your document drafting. How Microsoft Word AutoCorrect Works AutoCorrect uses a simple matrix to determine when to replace the characters you type with different text. There are two columns in the matrix. The first is the text that gets replaced when typed (we’ll call this the “Replaced Text”). The second is the text that is inserted in the place of the replaced text (we’ll call this the “Inserted Text”). As soon as Word recognizes that Replaced Text has been typed, it springs into action and swaps the Replaced Text out with the Inserted Text. For example, when you type the closing parenthesis in “(c),” Word replaces it with a “©”. If you frequently need to use a “©” in your document, this can save you the time required to insert the symbol from the ribbon. However, if you more frequently need to type “(c)” for statutory references, this feature can get pretty annoying quickly. Undoing Autocorrections as You Type When Word autocorrects text you’ve typed, you can quickly undo it the moment it happens: Hit the undo button.Use the undo keyboard shortcut (Ctrl + Z).Or hit the backspace key. Note that the backspace key only works if you haven’t typed anything after typing the Replaced Text. Customizing the List of AutoCorrect Entries Customize the AutoCorrect list to minimize the number of autocorrections you need to undo as you type. You can also add custom AutoCorrect entries to make drafting faster. To access the list, go to the File menu and open your Word Options. Click on Proofing on the left-hand side, then click on the AutoCorrect Options… button at the top of the Proofing options. You’ll find the list on

Abacus Payment Exchange (APX) is a proprietary tool that has been built from the ground up and engineered exclusively for law firms. If queried, most law firms would point to March of 2020 as the point in time that everything changed.  Not that you need to hear this again, but this was when the coronavirus pandemic began to shut down modern life in a truly disruptive way. Since then, it seems like we’ve all been living in a “Twilight Zone” episode. But the ongoing pandemic sped up some societal trends that were already occurring before its arrival.  For example, the convenience economy was already here; the pandemic just super-charged it. You were shopping on Amazon before; now, you do it for just about everything. You were streaming movies before; now, there are umpteen streaming services, and you’re sitting on your couch instead of going to the movies. And when was the last time you held physical cash in your hand? It’s been a while, right? Consumers pay for everything via online transactions. Yet, many lawyers still only offer the ability to pay via check or (preferably) bags of cash. While channeling Saul Goodman may work on your streaming service, it doesn’t hold water in real life. And, lawyers who talk about how their clients actually prefer cash or check payments create a self-fulfilling prophecy: because those are likely the only payment options they offer.  Make epayments available, and almost everyone will select that option, as they do in literally every other aspect of their lives. Balance Forward: Introducing Abacus Payment Exchange (APX) AbacusNext recognizes the value of epayments to law firms, which tend to get paid more and more quickly when utilizing that option, even accounting for payment processing fees. To that end, the company has launched its proprietary Abacus

The benefits of living your life and building your practice in the service of others. Being of service is at the heart of a business trend known as servant leadership. It’s a phrase we’re hearing a lot about these days, yet the principles are as old as the ages. The term, however, was first coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in a 1970 essay, “The Servant as Leader.” Since then, dozens of books and articles have been painstakingly composed on the topic — explaining, dissecting and advising on what servant leadership is and how to implement it. So, what is servant leadership? Servant leadership is a management style in which you lead by placing the needs of your team first. Given the fear and uncertainty surrounding managing hybrid work and holding onto talent through “the great resignation,” it’s no wonder that law firm owners are rethinking their leadership style. In theory, servant leadership is something most of us may already be incorporating not just in our law practices but in our daily lives. We are leading with the “humble and willing” concept that we are first and foremost the servant. The optimal and expected result of this philosophy is that by interacting with others (in this case, our clients and staff) with a natural inclination to serve, we build trust and garner inevitable respect. Strong Foundation Greenleaf laid out a fairly straightforward concept: “Caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built.” These are profound words and yet most of us have experienced the opposite of what those words encapsulate — namely, the managers who act as bullies, the egocentrics, or the tyrants who enjoy domination over their staff’s daily lives. It’s an artificial sense of power

Here are a few reasons to make building your network a priority early in your legal career.  I spent the first four years of my legal career at a “just keep your head down and do good work” law firm where billable work rained down on everyone. It’s all I focused on. There seemed to be little incentive to do otherwise. And it may have been fine if all I wanted was to work at one law firm my entire career. Twenty years later, after many twists and turns in my career, it’s easy to see the illogic of my thinking. Of course, I should have focused on building my network, not just billable hours, from day one. It’s something every associate, no matter how junior, should prioritize. After all, there is nothing more powerful than a strong network. Short-Term Thinking Leads to Delayed Network Building For a law firm associate, the primary return on investment from high billable hours is fairly obvious: an increase in compensation. At the same time, it’s often fleeting. The benefits of a powerful network, on the other hand, are lasting — and far more valuable in the long run — because building a practice is nearly impossible without a network of allies. But here’s the rub: The ROI from a network, like that of a monetary investment, takes time to compound. So you can’t wait until you need a network to build one because a network must be nurtured. If you try to build a network in a hurry, it will come across as transactional — you looking for something but not in a position to give anything in return. Here are a few of the reasons to make building your network a priority: We are in an era of plentiful work and a

Law students and young lawyers often ask more seasoned lawyers what it takes to be a great lawyer. There are lots of answers to that difficult question, though admittedly, it may depend on who you ask, how long they’ve been practicing, and their practice area. For me, an often overlooked answer is the competency of being intellectually curious and asking questions. Being intellectually curious is a skill that can easily set baby lawyers apart from their contemporaries. This Common Faulty Presumption Can Stunt Your Growth as a New Lawyer Most new lawyers tend to lean hard into exuding only confidence and capability. As a result, they feel that asking questions is somehow out of bounds because it is presumed to be seen as stupidity. This faulty presumption makes it hard for young lawyers to ask clarifying questions or “why” questions when given an assignment because they are afraid to look like they don’t know what they’re doing. Rather, when given a new assignment, baby lawyers tend to furiously write copious notes, receiving the assignment as “marching orders,” only to take them to their office, close their door, and expend a lot of energy and stress trying to figure out, first, what their actual assignment is, and then second, how to execute in the time allotted. There can be a similar pattern when turning work product in, where young lawyers simply submit their work and don’t ask questions or for feedback. Or when they are given feedback, they sit quietly and nod profusely, eager to show that they “get” it, even if they don’t. This pattern tends to repeat itself over the first year or two and can be quite stunting to a young lawyer’s growth. The All-Important “Why” What’s missing in this common pattern is the competency of intellectual curiosity

Let attorneys be attorneys and leave the admin work to those who get paid to get it done. It’s a battle as old as WordPerfect versus Word: Should lawyers type? Since lawyers have keyboarding skills, how many can be assigned to one admin assistant? Two? Three? Five? Imagine all the cost savings … right? Wrong. Instead, imagine all the headaches. All the extra stuff that you, the lawyer, get to do — or worse, pile up because you are too busy to handle it. Am I saying lawyers shouldn’t know how to do administrative work? No. I’m saying you shouldn’t have to do it. The Shrinking Admin Assistant: How Did We Get Here? Long ago, before lawyers began worrying that robots would replace them, tech companies with war chests flush with capital started pitching the many ways “technology” removes the need for assistants. Like assistants were the problem. Here’s the disconnect: Technology requires input — usually keyboarding, but also formatting, calculating, and searching. Whatever the input, it should not be done at the highest cost to the firm — lawyers’ time — or to the detriment of lawyers’ mental health and overall well-being. According to the “2021 State of U.S. Small Law Firms” report from Thomson Reuters, the proportion of lawyers’ time spent practicing law has dropped to a new low of only 56%, barely half of their time. The report, released this week, says that lawyers are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks impacts their ability to practice law. They now rate it as their top concern. This is why, when I hear that a tech “replaces” the need for a human in the process of law firm operations, I call it what it is: BS sales tactics. Three Reasons Admin Staff Are Integral to Your Law Firm’s Operations Here

Let attorneys be attorneys and leave the admin work to those who get paid to get it done. It’s a battle as old as WordPerfect versus Word: Should lawyers type? Since lawyers have keyboarding skills, how many can be assigned to one admin assistant? Two? Three? Five? Imagine all the cost savings … right? Wrong. Instead, imagine all the headaches. All the extra stuff that you, the lawyer, get to do — or worse, pile up because you are too busy to handle it. Am I saying lawyers shouldn’t know how to do administrative work? No. I’m saying you shouldn’t have to do it. The Shrinking Admin Assistant: How Did We Get Here? Long ago, before lawyers began worrying that robots would replace them, tech companies with war chests flush with capital started pitching the many ways “technology” removes the need for assistants. Like assistants were the problem. Here’s the disconnect: Technology requires input — usually keyboarding, but also formatting, calculating, and searching. Whatever the input, it should not be done at the highest cost to the firm — lawyers’ time — or to the detriment of lawyers’ mental health and overall well-being. According to the “2021 State of U.S. Small Law Firms” report from Thomson Reuters, the proportion of lawyers’ time spent practicing law has dropped to a new low of only 56%, barely half of their time. The report, released this week, says that lawyers are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks impacts their ability to practice law. They now rate it as their top concern. This is why, when I hear that a tech “replaces” the need for a human in the process of law firm operations, I call it what it is: BS sales tactics. Three Reasons Admin Staff Are Integral to Your Law Firm’s Operations Here

MyCase, a long-standing case management software provider, has established itself as an effective all-in-one solution for law firms, jam-packed with in-house features. Thus, MyCase has traditionally restricted the number of integration partners to only the most popular and ubiquitous technology platforms, like Microsoft Office and MailChimp, to name two. Now, in step with the growth of the legal tech space overall, the MyCase universe is beginning to expand. MyCase is still an effective standalone platform for law firms, but MyCase will integrate with other top-shelf technology partners when the opportunity presents itself. And so, opportunity has knocked: MyCase recently increased its slate of integration offerings by two, adding CalendarRules and Smith.ai to its stable. Let’s take a look at each, in turn. On the Docket: MyCase Adds CalendarRules Integration CalendarRules is a calendar add-on feature that pulls and calculates deadlines for specific courts around the United States. If there’s one thing lawyers worry about more than revenue, it’s malpractice claims; and, one consistent bogeyman invading those nightmares is missed court deadlines. CalendarRules makes it easier to manage court deadlines, including updates to rules, while largely removing human error from the equation. Now, MyCase users can add CalendarRules features to the MyCase calendar. Once the integration for CalendarRules has been installed through MyCase, users simply select the “Add Court Rule” option from the calendar or a case page to add CalendarRules functionality. From there, a handy wizard guides the user through the setup of the particular ruleset, through the selection of a case type, relevant jurisdiction, and rules triggers. Once that’s done, the user selects “Calculate,” and the relevant court deadlines are added to the MyCase calendar. (Note that available jurisdictions are based on the user’s underlying CalendarRules subscription.) MyCase users also have additional functionality available to them, in tweaking these

The Apex Court, while hearing an appeal, made an observation that any changes in the date of birth, specifically in the service records, could not be claimed as of right. The bench denied the existence of this right even in cases of compelling evidence placed before the court. In the instant case, the employee/respondent of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited filed a plea requesting its employer to change his date of birth. Later, he also filed a suit for declaration regarding his date of birth, however, the same had been dismissed by Trial Court. Thereafter, on an appeal to High Court, the bench allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the corporation approached the Supreme Court wherein it contended that the right claimed by employee could not be provided and the advantage of alteration could not be extended to a State-government servant. The counsel on behalf of corporation backed its argument by contending that the request could’ve been allowed, provided the employee had made an application within three years from which his birth date and age had been accepted and recorded in the service records, or within one year from the date of commencement of Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, whichever appeared to be later. The counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the employee had filed the application for the first time after the lapse of 24 years. The apex court bench accepted the contentions of corporation and observed that such applications could be processed only in accordance with the relevant provisions. The same could not be entertained when filed after a long delay or when the employee had reached the age of superannuation. The bench further observed that the application for alteration in date of birth

The Apex Court, while setting aside High Court’s order, made an observation that a person could not be summoned and detained in absence of a crime registered against him as the same would be violative of natural principles of justice. In the instant case, the petitioner first approached Andhra Pradesh High Court and sought for relief against any arrest in absence of a notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier, his wife had lodged a complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Even after the High Court passed an order in his favor, he had been forcibly taken and detained by the police officers. In furtherance to this, he filed a contempt case alleging the non-compliance of High Court order. The police officer who arrested him had been held guilty of contempt and later sentenced to three months of imprisonment. However, the same had been set aside by the division bench on the ground that no crime had been registered. The bench also placed reliance on the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. The bench backed its order by observing that in absence of crime record, the question of arresting the writ petitioner would not arise. The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, observed that there had also been clear cut violation of directions issued in D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal. The bench reiterated the directions issued in the aforesaid cases and held that prima facie reason would be violation of basic principles instead of no crime being registered against the petition. The bench, however, modified the sentence awarded by the court from three months to 15 days of the responsible police officers. The post Summoning and detaining order should be backed by reasonable crime registered against a