There's been talk for years about paperless offices and paperless courtrooms. The idea is to make life easier, but I wonder whether it does. At trial, there's usually a need for paper copies of exhibits even if computers are used--the jurors need the paper copies when they deliberate, the judge might want a copy to see up close, the court of appeals might want them for an appeal. The "paperless" component doesn't make things simpler, but just the opposite; it adds an additional layer of complexity to the proceedings.
In the office, things might be a little different. I know at least a couple of law firms that scan every piece of paper that comes in through the mail. I'm not sure what happens to the paper afterwards. But that's not supposed to matter to the lawyers, since once the paper is digitized, they can peruse their files on their computers without worrying about where it went.
Does it work? Not for me. Even though I've been around computers most of my life, there are many tasks for which I much prefer paper. If I have an afternoon to get my mind around a new case, for example, I'd find it much easier to do if it was presented to me in four bankers boxes rather than on a computer disk. And no matter how hard I try, I'll never get used to reviewing medical records on a computer. I need paper than I can mark on, tab, order, re-order, etc.
Do others think like me? Or am I just hopelessly backwards?