The Matlock Blog

So you want to be a lawyer?

You think you want to be a lawyer, huh?  You don't.  Trust me.  I say that as someone that not only is a lawyer, but someone who hates lawyers.  Do something else.

Let me guess.  You want to be a lawyer because you don't like math class, but you don't want to be a teacher, and you haven't figured out there are other things to do with your Bachelor of Arts degree?  

Or maybe you want to go to grad school, but why waste time and money going for a business degree when you're just going to be in the mailroom to begin with anyway, right?  I mean, you're too smart for that.

Of course there is always the classic reason.  You like to argue.  Your momma/ daddy/ girlfriend/ boyfriend/ P.E. teacher/ priest all say you're really good at arguing.  So is my ex-wife.  She's no lawyer.

The truth is you want to be a lawyer because it looks cool on TV and you think you can make a lot of money.  Well, you're right.  It does look good on TV and you can make a lot of money.

Of course, let's consider this for a second.  Let's look at what looks good on TV.  Lawyers do.  Doctors do.  Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agents do.  Professional lie detector guys do.  Strippers do.  Mafia bosses do.  A guy from another planet who has super powers and wears a red cape does except when he's around that strange green rock.  You get the picture.  

The truth is if you base your career on what looks good on TV, you're either too stupid or too smart to be a lawyer.  You figure out which it is.

So you think you can make a lot of money?  Yes.  Or, no.  You see a lot is relative and it also depends on what you lose to get it.  Some people only lose time to gain money.  You spend eight hours completely screwing up my order at Burger King, you still gain about $50 bucks that day.  You spend 2500 billable hours of your life in a year as a lawyer, maybe you lose more, and maybe your gain something.

If money is what you're seeking, no amount of money will gain you what you really want.  I can't begin to tell you what you want, but I can tell you that you won't find it in your paycheck.  

There are those that do this for the love and those that do it for the money.  Which do you want to be?  There are also various ways in which you can accomplish your goals in this lofty little notion we call "the law."  What will you choose?

Gone are the days of Atticus Finch.  The general practitioner is laughed at nowadays.  He doesn't have the skill to handle this case or that case because he doesn't spend every waking hour learning the intricacies of this area of law.  

So you have to pick the exact kind of law you think you want to practice.  Which shall it be, my lady?  Civil litigation?  Family?  Wills and Estates?  Criminal?  Something more specialized?  They all have their costs and they all have their benefits.

May I offer a modicum of advice?  If you do anything, don't practice Family law.  Never on the landscape of this planet has there existed a more foul stench than that of the divorce attorney.  There is a special place in hell for Family Law attorneys.  

People always complain about criminal defense attorneys, and rightfully so (after all, we suck), but at least we have the scratchy blanket of the constitution to pretend to wrap ourselves in.  Family law attorneys don't.  They don't even pretend to.  From carcass to carcass they go, tirelessly looking for that last ounce of blood to suck.

Criminal defense attorneys are generally about ego.  We fight the government.  It's what we do.  Usually we lose, but sometimes we win, and when we do, we usually look good doing it.  But maybe that's just me.

As for civil attorneys, well, they are strange.  It's all about the billable hour.  They rarely set foot in the courtroom and when they do, they try cases with questions to which they already know the answer.  It's as exciting as watching a TiVo'ed episode of L.A. Law.  For the eighteenth time.  And on top of that, none of them are really that bright.

Don't get me wrong.  You have to be relatively intelligent to be a lawyer.  And the better ones are smarter than the others.  But strike up a conversation with a lawyer that doesn't want to talk about himself, and I'll show you someone who made a bad career choice.

You say you want to be a lawyer?  I ask why.  The years of studying, they never end.  The stress of school continues into practice.  And oh by the way?  You're never as smart as you think you are.  Take it from the kid who grew up knowing he was always going to be a lawyer.

But what the hell do I know?

Words matter

Words matter.

They do.  Whether they are the simple ones we like to hear like, “You’re hot” or “I love you”  or they are the ones we don’t want to hear, “It’s not you, it’s me”  or “I don’t love you anymore.”  Or the words that can be the greatest to hear, “Tigers win the pennant!”  (Ok, maybe that’s just me.)  The point is that what we say, and how we say it matter.  Usually.  

There are few places where words can have as lasting an impact as in a courtroom.  Whether it be a defendant pleading “guilty” or a jury returning a verdict, what is said in a courtroom, pretty much by definition, affects people tremendously and does so for life.

Unless of course your a “monster.”  It turns out a prosecutor can refer to a criminal defendant during the course of a trial, and in front of the jury, as a monster and that will result in two more words being uttered by the appellate court; “harmless error.”

It seems that a prosecutor in Ector County, which is way out in west Texas, decided to refer to a defendant charged with sexual assault as a monster.  In front of the jury.  On the record.  Yikes!  That can’t be good, right?  Well maybe no so much.

As it turns out, the 11th Court of Appeals has decided that while the jury argument of this bush-league prosecutor violated every rule set for both jury argument and referencing a defendant, the error was harmless.  In other words, the court thought he must have been guilty, so why bother holding the State to the same rules as the defense.  God forbid I refer to the State’s sole witness as a “whore” and get away with it.

You see, jury argument in Texas is limited to only four areas; summation of the evidence, a reasonable deduction from the evidence, answer to argument of opposing counsel, and the proverbial plea for law enforcement.  Not only that, but there is actually case law that says a prosecutor should not refer to a defendant by any name other than his given name or nickname, and it is improper to refer to a defendant by a derogatory term designed to subject him to personal abuse.  

Ever been called a monster in a good way?  Me either.  

But apparently words don’t matter that much.  You say monster, I say defendant entitled to the rule of law.  You say less, but I know you mean fewer.  

What you say?

You see, we are now playing to the lowest common denominator.  No one can actually speak correctly.  Not only are wannabe prosecutors in sh*tsville Odessa (which will never be as good as Midland by the way) allowed to speak improperly in court where it matters, but now we have gotten to a point where those that try to sell us all of the unnecessary things we buy can’t even do it correctly.

For example:  Less Calories.  

I like Gatorade.  I do.  But for crying out loud.  It should be  “Fewer Calories” not less.  It’s not that hard.  I mean say it out loud and it doesn’t even sound right, does it?  

Ok, for those that apparently went to a fourth tier state school for college, the reason it is fewer and not less is because it deals with something you can count.  Such as fewer M&M’s and less candy.  Fewer ounces of vodka, and less alcohol.  Fewer IQ points, less intelligence.  Is it really that hard?  Come on, try and keep up.  

But I digress.  You’re right.  This really just an opportunity for me to vent about those that can’t properly use the King’s Queen's English.  

But it doesn’t stop with the written word.  It reaches into the realm of the spoken word as well.  The most recent example occurred last night during game number 163 between the Minnesota Twins and my Detroit Tigers.

Anyone that knows anything about baseball knows that a base hit occurs only when someone has reached base.  It ain’t rocket science.  A fly ball out is not such an occurrence.  And if anyone in the world should know this, you would expect a national sportscaster to know this.  Not so much with Chip Caray.  

I paid quite a bit to have DirectTv Extra Innings so that I could watch virtually every Tigers game this year.  I love the local Fox Sports Detroit broadcasters.  But after 162 games, the Tigers and Twins were tied for the A.L. Central title.  It came to a tie-breaker game.  Called by...TBS?

Much to my chagrin, Chip Caray and Ron Daling called the game.  I’d never experienced a game called by this duo.  I’d rather kick my own ass than hear another.  I would rather shove at pine cone up..., well, you get the picture.

There are so many instances of abject stupidity on the behalf of this dynamic broadcasting duo, but I decided to use just this one to make my point. 

I know this post is all over the place, but it’s been a while since I posted anything, and I feel like getting some things off my chest.  Perhaps this will be the new purpose of this little blog of mine.  Maybe I can use it to spread the gossip of the North Texas legal community.  That probably wouldn’t be too popular, right?  Maybe I'll just talk about how things suck.  Maybe, oh, who the hell knows.

The point is this blog is at a crossroads.  Much like I find myself.  Certainly it is a professional blog in the sense that it is associated with this firm.  Yet given certain changes in life, I wonder if perhaps everything shouldn’t change.  

We live in a cynical world.  A world determined to find the worst in people and destroy those that try to do the right thing.  Maybe it's time to embrace that.  Maybe it's time to call out those in this world that suck.

But what the hell do I know?

No thank you. I'm driving.

You really have to hand it to those Texas legislators.  I feel warm and fuzzy knowing they are doing everything they can to ensure Texas is a great place to live and work.  And if State Representative Chente Quintanilla of El Paso has anything to say about it, much safer.  Perhaps, too safe?

Representative Quintanilla has filed this doozy.  This bill would make it illegal to do much of anything while driving, except driving.  

Quintanilla wants to make it an offense for a driver to do any of the following: 
                   (1)  reading;
                   (2)  writing;
                   (3)  performing personal grooming;
                   (4)  consuming food or a beverage;
                   (5)  interacting with a pet;
                   (6)  interacting with a vehicle passenger;
                   (7)  using a personal communications device; or
                   (8)  engaging in another activity that prevents the operator from safely operating the                            motor vehicle.
             (b)  For the purposes of this section:
                   (1)  "Personal grooming" includes:
                         (A)  applying makeup;
                         (B)  shaving;
                         (C)  combing hair; or
                         (D)  attending to another personal hygiene or appearance task.
                   (2)  "Personal communications device" includes:
                         (A)  a radio;
                         (B)  a personal stereo;
                         (C)  a compact disc player;
                         (D)  an audio or video device;
                         (E)  a personal computer;
                         (F)  a two-way radio, including a citizen's band radio;
                         (G)  a pager;
                         (H)  a telephone;
                         (I)  a wireless messaging device;
                         (J)  a facsimile machine;
                         (K)  a radar detector;
                         (L)  a personal digital assistant;
                         (M)  a geographic positioning system receiver; or
                         (N)  a similar device. 

So, let me get this straight.  I'm driving and I can't talk to anyone in the car with me, nor can I change the station on the radio, nor change the CD in the CD changer, nor get the hair out of my eyes, nor take a drink of my Route 44 Coke?  Talk about safety.

Being the lawyer I am, I'm curious about the definition section though.  My hair is longer now, yet I don't really use a comb, rather I just use my fingers.  Is that "combing hair?"  How is a radio a "personal communication device?"  You can't use a CB radio?  Aren't CBs specifically designed for talking while driving, i.e. "Snowman, you got your ears on son?"  (Yeah, I learned to drive by watching Smokey and the Bandit.  So what?)

I'm sure Mr. Quintanilla had the best intentions with this bill.  But maybe he needs a new Legislative Assistant, because this is just silly.  Texas is a big state.  In fact, it's a pretty damn long drive from here to my parents home in Midland.  I can only assume it is even longer from Austin to El Paso for Mr. Quintanilla when he drives home.  

Does he realize it will be longer for him because according to his bill, he would not be able to eat or drink anything on the drive home?  I hope he likes the radio station he has it on (if you can even find one through south central Texas).  That's going to be a long trip when you can't talk to anyone either.  Hope he doesn't get thirsty.  

This bill just reaffirms my belief that the Texas legislature is not exactly the best and the brightest we have working for us, but rather the lowest common denominator of public service.

But what the hell do I know?

Next?

Apparently, there are currently 55 vacant federal judicial openings awaiting President Obama.  Of those 55, 19 are considered "Judicial Emergencies."  A "Judicial Emergency" is actually defined, courtesy of www.uscourts.gov,  as "

Circuit court any vacancy in a court of appeals where adjusted filings per panel are in excess of 700; any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where adjusted filings are between 500 to 700 per panel. District court any vacancy where weighted filings are in excess of 600 per judgeship; any vacancy in existence more than 18 months where weighted filings are between 430 and 600 per judgeship; any court with more than one authorized judgeship and only one active judge.

 Of those 19 emergencies, only one is in Texas.  U.S. District Judge W. Royal Ferguson, Jr., most recently of San Antonio, but, at least to me, more memorably from Midland, took senior status last year.  He was the only Federal Judge in Midland, and in Pecos (if you can believe Pecos actually has a federal courthouse) when I first returned following moving back after law school.  

So, I guess the Western District of Texas will be the Obama guinea pig for Texas federal judge appointments.  

In case anyone in the current administration is reading, I would be happy to accept such an appointment.  Don't mind all those bad things I wrote about you before the election.

Guest Post - The Anonymous Prosecutor Vents

It seems that the purpose of blogging from the criminal defense bar is to complain about ignorant prosecutors that don't understand the lives of criminals defendants, or to talk about how great you are as a defense attorney.  I realize there is a certain marketing aspect to the legal blog, but come on.

I approached Matlock about posting something on his blog with the understanding that it was COMPLETELY anonymous.  With that understanding, I wanted to put a quick spin on the daily grind from your friendly neighborhood prosecutor's perspective.  

Therefore, I present my Top Ten Things Prosecutors Hate About Defense Attorneys

10.  General Rudeness.  This should go without saying, but it seems that defense attorneys forget this all too often.  We work together on a daily basis.  Be civil.  Being rude is never going to help your client.

9.  Forgetting I have other cases, too.  Yeah, I have other cases.  In fact, I might actually have more ongoing cases than you.  Don't feel slighted if I can't drop everything to do your bidding.  On that note...

8.  Expecting me to do your job for you.  It's a crazy system, but I have a job and you have a job.  The judge has a job and, well, you get it.  Just because I know what you should be doing in a given case, and you know I know what you should be doing, don't expect me to do it for you.

7.  "Expecting" anything to be done on a case.  Every case is different.  Every criminal defendant is different.  You know this and I know this.  Don't walk into court and "expect" me to make you the same deal.  

6.  Forgetting I have a boss and office policies.  I don't get to make this stuff up as I go.  As much as I would like to dismiss the crappy case, I can't.  As much as I would like to reduce it to a misdemeanor, I can't.  I have a boss.  We have office policies.  If I want to have this job next week, I have to follow them.  Don't like it, then take it up with my boss.

5.  Acting like a bigshot.  Guess, what?  You're probably not as good as you think you are.  I know you have to look good in front of your clients, but it should stop there.  Yes, there are those of you that are good at what you do, and there are those of you that shouldn't be let in the front door.  We know who you are.

4.  Don't know the law.  This is really not that hard.  You should never show up to court without at least having read the applicable statute, and...

3.  Don't the facts of the case.  You should also know what the case is about.  They are your clients, right?  I shouldn't have to tell you anything about the case, at least not here in Tarrant County where we have an open file policy.  

2.  Don't come prepared with your file.  Tarrant County is a terrific place to be a prosecutor.  The office is fantastic.  An example is that the District Attorney's office is digital, that is defense discovery is available via the internet.  While I don't pretend to understand how it works, I know that defense attorneys can download the discovery.  Showing up to court and "expecting" me to show you the case on my laptop is not going to work.  Ever.

1.  Lying.  This seems so obvious that I feel bad about including it.   But it's true.  We work together on a daily basis.  Chances are, we will work on dozens of cases together personally throughout our respective careers.  Don't lie.  If I am too careless to do my homework and find out your client has two prior felony convictions, that's on me if I don't even bother to ask you.  But if I ask you and you lie to me, bad things happen.  You may slide it by on this case, but sooner or later we will find out if you lie, and you will lose any credibility you have with me and my colleagues.  Remember, we talk about you as much (or more) than you talk about us.

An end to straight-ticket voting?

No, this has nothing to do with criminal law.  Well, maybe it does.  It seems a San Antonio State Senator, Jeff Wentworth, has decided to try to do away with straight-ticket voting in Texas, again.  

According to a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the straight-ticket option has been around in Texas since 1911.  I did not know that.  I also didn't know that only 16 states actually allow this type of voting.  

Personally, I don't care that much about it one way or the other, except that we still vote for our judges.  Here's my problem.  Sometimes, the best judicial candidate might not be in the party majority.  I know, I know.  Hard to believe isn't it?

I've said before that I don't know that an open election for judges is the best way to ensure the public has the best judiciary available.  However, if we are going to have elections, why not at least ensure the voters are at least willing to consider the contest?

With straight-ticket voting, Joe Moron Sixpack can push one little button to vote in every single race.  That's democracy?  My preference would be that every voter has to actually vote for every single candidate or issue they favor.  No express-lane-voting.

If you do away with straight-ticket voting, the judicial candidates might actually have to campaign instead of relying upon the big "R" or "D" next to their name on the ballot.  If that happens, perhaps someone will actually pay attention to whom they are voting.

When judges are on the ballot like political candidates, they should at least be treated as political candidates.  But since too often they are low on the ballot and generally an afterthought, especially in straight-ticket voting, they are put back on the bench with little thought.

There are any number of ways that the "election" of judges could be changed for the better.  Perhaps an appointment process from the governor?  Maybe too, or just as politicized.  Appointed by one of those really cool-sounding "blue ribbon" commissions?  Probably not.

Of course my preference would be that only attorneys vote for judges, but that's probably never going to happen.  I miss Alexander Hamilton.  But what the hell do I know?

The BCS debacle

Just as an aside from the normal conversation on this blog.  Specifically, the detailed scholarly conversation about all things legal-related, as well as the witty opinion of all things.  Seriously, all things. 

While I don't know that I favor the playoff scenario offered by president-elect Obama, I do think we need to slightly modify the current BCS situation.  (By the way, can someone tell the president-elect that "president-elect" is a hyphenated word so that he can change his podium lectern sign??)

Can someone please explain to me how a team can beat a number one ranked team, go 11-1 in their conference (the toughest conference in the nation, by the way; sorry SEC), be ranked number 8 in the final BCS poll, and not be in a BCS bowl?!?  Is there any reason for that other than outdated BCS rules that prohibit three teams from the same conference being in the BCS?  

Well, since my beloved Red Raiders will apparently be playing in the Cotton Bowl against Ole Miss, I'll just look forward to going to Dallas for the bowl game instead of Miami or Phoenix.  Here's hoping for two things:  first that Texas beats the crap out of Ohio State (which has two losses and is ranked two spots lower than Tech in the BCS) and that Florida beats the hell out of Oklahoma!   

Courthouse fashion...or not.

In case you missed it, I haven't really had a lot to write about lately.  Maybe it's the holidays.  Maybe it was my trip to Oregon.  Maybe I've been too busy at work.  Whatever the reason, I just have not had a lot I wanted to talk about.  But I feel like I am cheating all seven of you that read this.  I'm afraid I will be forgotten.  We can't have that.

They say you should write what you know.  While I certainly don't consider myself an expert on fashion, I have generally been pretty knowledgeable about how to dress well for most of my life.  I blame my childhood.  And having either a GQ or Brook Brothers catalog subscription for most of my life.  In any event, I feel quite comfortable commenting on what I think people, especially lawyers, should or should not wear.  So, since Mark Bennett is making rules, so too shall I.

Rule No. 1:  You're a lawyer.  Try dressing the part.  I know this is Fort Worth, but seriously.  Is there another city in the county of the size of Fort Worth where a lawyer would actually walk into court to conduct court business in jeans?  You don't have to wear a Savile Row bespoke suit every day.  But you're a lawyer.  Dress like one.

Rule No. 2:  Shoes are critical.  All too often I see lawyers at the courthouse who actually take the time to put on a suit, but make a critical mistake about their shoes.  There are actually two mistakes in this rule that can be made.  The first is to wear boots with a suit.  I know this is Cowtown (I love you man, but you know who I'm talking to), and I know there are countless others in Texas that do it (yeah, I'm talking to you Bennett), but just because all the other kids are doing it doesn't make it right.  It's wrong.  On a moral level, wrong.  The other part of the shoe rule is that your shoes must be clean and polished.  If you feel the need to wear boots, at least wear nice ones, and not the ones you wore while cleaning out the horse stall.  

Rule No. 3:  Patterns.  I will happily admit fashion is really about individual style and feeling good about yourself.  (So you would think this thinking would allow you to wear boots with a suit, but you would be wrong.)  But some people out there are going to cause me to have a seizure.  The bold pinstripe suite with the checkered shirt and the horizontal stripe tie is too much.  The rule for patterns nowadays is that you can pretty much wear any pattern with any other pattern.  But remember the rule of 3.  Of the three items a man wears (suit, shirt, and tie) one of them must always be a solid.  

Rule No. 4:  For the lady lawyers.  Don't be afraid to put away the pant suits.  This is not a sexist thing to say, but just a reality.  I'm not saying wear a skirt or dress everyday, but sooner or later you will start to look like Hilary Clinton.  And not in a good way.  Is there a good way?

Rule No. 5:  Knowing how to properly tie a tie is one of life's ultimate pursuits.  Learn how.  Every tie should always have a dimple.  Preferably in the middle!.  As for the basics, the little part of the tie should not hang lower than the big part.  Also, the tie knot is very important.  Consider this:

THE SIZE OF A BALL BEARING: "In my spare time, I snort coke and jam with the Strokes."

THE SIZE OF A PINBALL: "I'll be on the Vineyard for the entire month of August. You should come out."

THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL: "The reason you hate me is that pretty much everything I do, I do perfectly. Like tying this tie."

THE SIZE OF A TENNIS BALL: "Yo, Vinny, I'm starving. Let's grab a slice on the way to the reception."

I hope this is helpful.  If not, well, you can't say I didn't try.  

I think my Google is broken

My apologies to Judge Salvant for stating that he had no website. It didn't take a reader long to point out that the judge does in fact have a website for his reelection to the bench of Criminal District Court Number 2.

The website is here.

I know I stated that when I Googled the judge, and Ms. Tolbert for that matter, that I found no website for them. The same is still true. Sort of. Sometimes it pops up, and sometimes it doesn't. Again, my aplogies.

You will find all the information you might need (I suppose) on his website.

And yes, before anyone points it out, that is a sharp bowtie.

Apple of my eye

I am often asked how I run a law office using only Macs. It's easy really. Very well, thank you.

I am somewhat known for the fact that everything within my firm is a Mac. In a world of crashing Windows and the blue screen of death, Macs just work. Add in the fact that I have used Macs since law school, and it's a natural for me.

When I say my office is entirely Mac, I'm not kidding. We have:
Two MacBook Pros (both in my office; one that is actually used and the other us a storage computer)
One iMac (used by my assistant; it's the true workhorse of the firm and the every day-to-day work of the firm is maintained.)
One Time Capsule (a brilliant device; it has one terabyte worth of storage, and doubles as the backup of everything in the office as well as the WiFi source.)
And of course, my iPhone (it's like my American Express card; you'll never catch me without it.)

Using these computers and programs like Address Book, which is part of the Mac OS X operating system, iWork, Mail,iCal, and several other independent software titles, I never have to deal with Windows.

All of this hardware and software allows my office to work seamlessly. I have never had a computer problem in my office. Never.

Seamlessly, means just that. Especially now with http://www.apple.com/mobileme/. My assistant can take a message while I am in court and simply email it to me. The email is accessible through my iPhone. I can dial the number directly from the message. No input. Just click the link and I'm calling. My assistant schedules a meeting for me while I am out, and the appointment is automatically updated on my calendar on my iPhone.

It seems that every day, someone is thinking about getting a Mac laptop. Whether it be the MacBook, MacBook Pro or the MacBook Air, Macs are turning into the chic computer to have. However, as many other attorney have asked me, isn't the downside, especially in the legal field, that the fast majority of programs are only Windows compatible. Are they? Is that a big deal?

My office has run nothing but Macs since its inception, but most programs require a Windows machine. However, there is not a Windows computer anywhere near my office. Except of course virtually.

You see, the Tarrant County District Attorney's office utilizes what is referred to as the Electronic Case Filing System. Essentially, the entire D.A.'s office is digital. There are no longer paper files to be carried by the prosecutors. They only carry their own laptops. Alas, they are Dells.

The ECFS system allows attorneys access to client discovery material through a secure internet connection. The problem? It is a Windows application. No problem.

Even though my office is all Mac all the time, I am able to access the ECFS system using a program called Parallels. This program allows me to run a Windows machine on my Mac virtually. I simply get into Windows, access the ECFS system and download the discovery materials. Once that is done, they are stored on the Macs in the office and accessed later using the Mac programs. No crashing. No blue screen of death.

The other big Windows system employed by the county is what I refer to as WOPR. If you remember War Games with Matthew Broderick, you will understand the level of computing to which I am referring. The black screen with the green letters? Yep, that is Tarrant County's system. No problem.

Using the Remote Desktop Connection software available for download on Apple's website allows me to remotely access the county's mainframe computer to check on the status of any case in court. In fact, this program is now available on my iPhone at the iTunes App Store.

Aside from those two Windoze items, we don't worry about anything. Need a powerpoint presentation for a jury? No problem. I don't use Powerpoint, I just use Keynote from Apple. It's better. But the file is a Word document? Actually, it is simply a .doc file which can be opened without a problem using Pages, Mac's word processing program.

Perhaps the biggest question I get about using Macs relates to case management. I will be honest that I have taken a look at a lot of different programs for this purpose.

I started using Daylite. I heard so many good things about Daylite that I thought it would be perfect. Maybe it is perfect for someone, but just not for me. It is very comprehensive, but it is almost overkill. The upside is that is coordinates all of the information contained in Address Book, iCal, Mail and even individual client files. But it always seemed to big for us.

Following Daylite, we switched to Sutdiometry, briefly. I really liked the idea of Studiometry, but we quickly found there was no automatic syncing between the program itself and Address Book and iCal. This meant we had to enter information more than once.

Since then, we have used Bento, the file management software from FileMaker. This is a relatively simple program, but it is fully customizable and allows for automatic syncing. Since the majority of my cases are set up on a flat-fee basis, there is really no need for any kind of billing or time-management software.

Generally a week doesn't go by when I don't receive an email from someone asking me to review some Mac-based program for them. I have generally taken the position that I'm not that interested in doing it. But that's not really the case. I am a gadget guy, and I love trying new technology. So I think I will change my mind on reviews.

I will try to start reviewing at least one Mac-based program per week. Many of these will be things that I already use, but I will start reviewing some things that I have not tried before. You never know, I guess. I might find something I like.

In the meantime, if anyone has questions about Macs or want me to look at something, I will be happy to consider them.

Until, happy computing. Unless you're on Windoze, in which case your computer has probably already crashed.