I have found it impractical to get lawyers to use anything other than Microsoft Word even when there are clear benefits (like online collaboration and shared version history). The reason they give is that they don't want a shared history (need to be able to clean document history for sending to external stakeholders) and that they know the other side will be using Microsoft Word anyways. So it's an equilibrium because they know the other side will use Microsoft word so then they have to use Microsoft Word.
I have forced our lawyers to use better technologies but then we end up with Microsoft word documents from opposing counsel. So back to Word it is.
There's a gravitational pull that is not worth us spending any % of a $1000/hr bill on; this is a scenario where doing anything different where they have to be trained is costlier than keeping the status quo, where that is a MSFT Word license the fraction of the cost of a billable hour.
I have forced our lawyers to use better technologies but then we end up with Microsoft word documents from opposing counsel. So back to Word it is.
There's a gravitational pull that is not worth us spending any % of a $1000/hr bill on; this is a scenario where doing anything different where they have to be trained is costlier than keeping the status quo, where that is a MSFT Word license the fraction of the cost of a billable hour.