Ross Kodner Gets Taken to Task for Anti-Mac Article

Last week, Ross Kodner published an article on the TechnoLawyer Blog which cautioned against using Macs in your law practice.  As you might imagine, Mr. Kodner's post generated a good bit of discussion in the Macs In Law Offices forum, and I am pleased to present the following response from MILO member Brian Sajdak:

In his recent SmallLaw post entitled "Why Macs Don't Make Sense Once You Look Past the Cool Factor", Ross Kodner concludes that Macs are just not cut-out for the legal marketplace.  I, and thousands of other Mac-using attorneys, couldn't disagree more.  I will respond to the various points Mr. Kodner makes in a moment, but first, a little background.

 

My computing experience started in the mid-1980s with an Apple ][c.  I was in grade school and was the first kid on the block to whose family had a personal computer at home. That was followed quickly by am IBM clone runing Windows, and by 1990 I was well-entrenched into the anti-Mac crowd. I went through high school, college, and law school completely on Windows machines.  

Then in 2002 I started to hear about this new device call an iPod.  After playing with and drooling over my computer-geek brother-in-law's iPod and iBook, I was hooked. I was struck by the way that they just simply worked together, and I would purchase my first iBook in 2004. I write this now on MacBook, my third Apple computer.

 

However, even though I a Mac for personal use at home, my life in a relatively large law firm meant that I was using a PC at work. My house is still home to two Windows machines (although both have been relegated to nothing more than file servers). In June of this year, I swiched to a small firm where my computing choices were not made for me -- and I've made the switch to a Mac-based pratice. The bottom line is that I know the pluses and minuses to both systems.

 

Back to Mr. Kodner's conclusion that Macs don't make sense for the law office.  Aside from the fact that this conclusion is directly contrary his his prior opinion on the subject (see his earlier article, "The Legal Mac: A Practical Option for All Lawyers"), it is clear that this post was nothing more than an attempt to get people talking about him.  (There is no such thing as negative publicity, right?)  

Why do I say this?  Well, Mr. Kodner starts out with an ad hominem attack in which he essentially calls Mac users Neanderthal zealots who can do nothing more than run around grunting "Mac good, Windows Bad."  What that has to do with whether Macs are suited to the law office is anyone's guess. However, if you want to get a mac user's attention, start throwing around the terms evangelical, cult, faithful, etc -- it works every time.

 

After warming up the flamethrower, Mr. Kodner then moves on by noting that there are many Windows-only programs for law firms.  However, he argues, it "makes no business sense to run these Windows apps on a Mac. Period."  Never mind the fact that he makes a living supporting and selling many of the products he lists. Let’s look at his justifications for this conclusion:

• Software costs.  Ok, I do have to buy Windows (if I don't already have a version I can use) unless I want to use Codeweaver's Crossover which runs windows programs without Windows (yes, it doesn't support all windows programs, but it is an option).  I also might POSSIBLY want to buy a third-party application like Parallels or Fusion to run Windows (although Apple's built-in BootCamp does a wonderful job running Windows).  However, if the benefit to the user outweighs these costs, it is well worth it (quality is remembered long after the price has been forgot).
• Time costs.  Yes, that's right, he includes the time and costs of getting your applications installed and set up to download the Windows updates, etc.  However, if I'm buying a new Windows-based computer, I'm spending that time either way (whether on the Mac or PC).  What he doesn't take into account is the quality of the Mac and the time that it saves the user.  When I use my Mac, I don't have to mess around with making sure my virus scanner is up to date.  I don't have to repair my wireless connection every few days like I do on my Windows machines.  I don't worry about my machine crashing.  The slogan "It just works" is true.  The time I save not having to maintain a Windows system more than offsets any additional costs associated with the Mac.  But hey, some people like to torture themselves.
• Technical Support.  I have no experience with this, and he may be right.  However, the reason I don't have experience with it is that I'm not running any PC-only applications. There are Mac substitutes for nearly every product on the list.  They may not be law-firm specific, but they get the job done.  If you're thinking about making the switch, join one of the two Mac Attorney User groups, Macs In Law Offices or MacLaw, and ask the users what they are using as a replacement for a particular program.  There are also plenty of blogs out there by Mac-using attorneys who may have ideas for you.
• Hardware Costs.  Assuming that the premise is correct (that people buy lower-spec'd Windows computers), he's right.  Macs may be more expensive and the built-in iLife apps are not as useful for businesses (although I have used iPhoto and iMovie in my law practice).  However, when comparing similarly spec'd machines, Macs are competitive with Windows machines based on price.  And again, go to your local Best Buy or Apple Store and see/feel the new MacBooks or MacBook Pros -- there is nothing in the Windows world that is this well-made.

Mr. Kodner does conclude with two points that I can agree with.  First, web-based services may not be ready for prime-time.  Plenty of people will disagree, but I like having my information locally-stored and accessible; not on someone else's server that I cannot control. I am also often in a position where I have not internet access.  More importantly, web applications are not needed.  There are plenty of Mac-using attorneys who are practicing every day without these web applications, you don't NEED them either.  That said, it sure would be nice to have Mac versions of many of the legal-specific applications that are available so that I don't have to turn to alternatives.  So yes, legal vendors, please do create Mac versions of your software -- the demand is there, and its only growing.  In the mean time, however, if you're thinking about switching your firm to a Mac, come on in!  The water's fine!

 

Brian C. Sajdak

Brian C. Sajdak is an attorney practicing in southeastern Wisconsin.  His practice focuses on eminent domain, property tax assessment, zoning/development and general municipal matters.  He can be contacted through his firm’s website.

Comments

[Blake Boyd]

Working in the legal environment and closely with around 50 firms ranging from solo to very large firm I can say with complete confidence that there is far more advantages than "the cool factor".

I remember walking into the Watts Law Firm (http://www.wattslawfirm.com/) back in the early 2001 and seeing every desk loaded with an eMac. It was a odd for me at the time, as I was still on the windows bandwagon. But the firm's productivity was phenomenal. And I think that showed off when walking through the main hallway where they have glass plaques showing every million dollar plus verdict they had won. And let's just say.. it was a long hall, and it was overflowing with plaques.

Recently I began working for another firm, WigingtonRumley (http://www.wigrum.com/). Walking into the refinished historic building what did I see? Every paralegal, every attorney with an iMac on the desk. Looking upon the walls you notice hundred's of millions worth of verdicts. My guess is they won those from "looking cool" as well. It had nothing to do with the staff's ability to access and produce any bit of information I needed immediately. Sure...

Just yesterday I provided support for a local day long CLE for the San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association. After setting up the screen/projector, they handed me.. get this.. two macbook pros that were going to run the entire show for every speaker. As the crowd starts wondering in and pulling out their laptops, I was amazed to see a large quantity of Macs. But, I regress, these successful plaintiff attorneys most likely just wanted to look cool.

I could go on and on about the number of firms that are making the switch, and lots of stories about how productivity has increased due to less down time, less SECURITY issues, ease of use, and more. But I won't, I end this comment by recounting a conversation I recently had with a friend who happens to be the CTO of one of the nations largest real estate companies..

Me: Wouldn't life be much easier if you didn't have to support thousands of windows computers and could switch to mac?

CTO: If we switched to mac, I would be out of a job, so no, Windows is great because it breaks so much.

[Julie Kiernan]

I had a post to respond to Mr. Kodner's article as well. However, I tried not to give him attention for his negative post. He is not even running current hardware (we have Intel Macs), Leopard (he still has Tiger) and MSOffice is the least compelling reason to use a Mac. MSOffice is virtually the same PC or Mac. I use Macs at home and our law firm and would never go back to PCs. Daylite, Adobe Acrobat, MSOffice all work fine. Unique to the Mac: Spotlight, Circus Ponies Notebook, TrialSmart and DepoSmart just make the transition easier. Kodner can stick with his PCs.

[Steve O.]

Would someone please bring this post and its comments to the attention of Technolawyer? Mr. Kodner needs to be refuted. Particularly compelling is the fact that this Mr. Kodner is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Hi Technolawyer submission was obviously a publicity stunt.

[Neil J. Squillante]

I'm the publisher of TechnoLawyer. Here at the office we use Macs. I'm writing this comment on a Mac Pro. I have a Mac Pro at home as well. I have an iPhone and iPhone 3G (my original iPhone now serves as an iPod touch). I watch Steve Jobs' keynotes. I read MacRumors.com. Yadda. Yadda. Yadda.

Ross' article is not anti-Mac. And it was not a publicity stunt. He is one of two columnists for our SmallLaw newsletter, which is geared at small law firms. As one of the most well-known legal technologists, Ross does not need to engage in publicity stunts.

Like any columnist, he is entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to yours. At TechnoLawyer, anyone can respond to anything we publish so I encourage you to join and respond to the column if you have something to say. We'll publish your reply in our Fat Friday newsletter.

Finally, I would like to clarify an issue. I wrote the original title of the column, not Ross: "Why Macs Don't Make Sense Once You Look Past the Cool Factor"

It's common in publishing for the production team to write titles as opposed to the author. We have changed the title to prevent any confusion about the nature of the article: "Macs in Law Firms: Get Them for the Right Reasons, Not Just Because"

The article itself remains unchanged. Most people who read the article will find it well-reasoned even if they disagree with its suggestions.

Thank you for the lively debate.

PS: For the record, I suspect that many people still use Tiger for a variety of valid reasons. While I run Leopard on my Mac Pros, I still run Tiger on my 2005 PowerBook, which I use solely for giving Keynote presentations. Thanks to the iPhone, I no longer need a laptop for other uses. I would bet that someday I'll be able to give Keynote presentations from my iPhone. Then I won't need a laptop at all.