1972, October, Pg. 1. The Computers Are Coming! The Computers Are Coming!.

• Author: by John D. Ward

1 Colo.Law. 1

Colorado Lawyer

1972.

1972, October, Pg. 1.

The Computers Are Coming! The Computers Are Coming!

1Vol. 1, No. 12, Pg. 1The Computers Are Coming! The Computers Are Coming!by John D. WardJohn D. Ward, Denver, is a partner in the firm of Garrett, Johnson, O'Hara and Ward and chairman of the CBA committee on law and technology.Historically, one portrayal of the lawyer has been Daumier's stoop-shouldered figure bent over rust-brown books, intensely thumbing pages in the dusky recesses of a dimly lit library. As the shibboleth goes: "Them days are gone forever." The technology of the ubiquitous, amazing computer has come at last into the law, and the reality is that a lawyer can now sit before a TV console with a typewriter keyboard at its base, question a machine in his own language, and in minutes have a response in terms of store decisis.

The RealitiesThanks to the work of OBAR(fn1) and Mead Data Central, a system now exists whereby reported case law can be stored and yielded in full text in conformance with the word or phrase inquiry of the lawyer. Research by computer is five times faster than the conventional method.

Basically, without getting too bogged down in "computerese," a system is described as having full-text and on-line features. "Full-text" means the user can rely on every word contained in the data base as the object of the search; i.e., the machine searches for the word, or phrase, submitted to it by the user. "On-line" reflects the computer's ability to respond to multi-users employing telephone line communications.

These two characteristics have expanded the dialogue arena between the machine and user. Since every word stored in the data base is deemed a search object, the user can select his own approach, choose his own key words and thus avoid the frustration of attempting empathy with the logic of an indexer ensconsed in some remote publishing house.

A simple example may illustrate.

After entering the system by pushing certain buttons on the keyboard base, the user types contributory negligence, and the machine begins its search. After perhaps five to ten minutes, a message is flashed on the TV screen: 193 cases. Do you want to add, reject or copy? The user then types add minor child. The machine resumes search and in another five to ten minutes, another message: 25 cases. Do you ... etc. Undaunted, the user then types add seven-year-old. Again the search, and another five to ten minutes of suspense

2until the screen shows: Three cases. Do you ... etc.At this point it is astute to browse, commanding that the printed pages appear on the screen one at a time. The user can determine whether he wants the case to be made known to anybody. The words used by the operator stand out on the TV screen in a color different from the surrounding printed material, and should the user desire, he can have all or any of the cases printed out on hard copy by a high-speed printer installed alongside the machine.

Do not allow euphoria to take hold as an effect of the foregoing. The inquirer's logic does not always conform with the treatment and approach given a problem by the courts. The issues presented in the example were rather simplistic, and many queries require sophisticated thought process. Browsing may reveal that the cases are not close enough in point or contain only tangential treatment of the issue with which the user is concerned. The user may have to back up several steps and submit other facts or concepts to the machine. Hit and miss has not been completely eliminated.

Needless to say, research by computer is not free. In Ohio, some users bill the computer expense as costs while others include...