Canadian Lawyer

so it could analyze my voice and use that to fine tune the recognition of my speech for more accurate transcription. Upon completing a dictation, I had the option to either send the audio file back to myself or to my assistant. The audio file would then be converted to a Word document or an e-mail, and either me or my assistant would edit the transcribed text. By the end of the test pilot, I found there were advantages and disadvantages to speech-recognition technology over digital dictation. It was useful in cases where I wanted to prepare short and simple letters or e-mails, such as a quick note to remind a client about an upcoming due date. The audio file would quickly come back to me and I could easily convert it to a Word document or e-mail for editing. Further- more, for these short and simple letters or e-mails, where I tend to use normal, everyday vocabulary, I found the speech- recognition was sufficiently accurate. However, I found the transcription accuracy significantly declined when my dictations involved a broader vocabulary and even more so where I used words that are similar sounding and are more likely to be confused with each other. For example, when working on patent appli- cations relating to biotechnology or phar- maceuticals, I often use complex terms for chemical compounds such as "substituted pyridazine carboxamide compounds" or "triazolo-pyridazine derivatives." Differ- ent chemical compounds often sound similar and are easily confused. Unfortu- nately, the transcription accuracy of the speech-recognition technology declined to an unacceptable level in some cases. On the other hand, my assistant has grown accustomed to working on patents relat- ing to biotechnology and pharmaceuticals and therefore, will almost always tran- scribe these terms accurately. I also found the accuracy of the speech-recognition technology declined due to my own ten- dency to use "um" and "uh," as well as when there was noise, such as the phone ringing or another person speaking as they passed by my office. My assistant is adept at ignoring these distractions when they are recorded in a dictation, but the speech-recognition technology was not. At the end of the test pilot, I believe ntitled-1 1 most of the other lawyers shared the same opinion as I did. Speech-recog- nition technology offers several advan- tages, but for some tasks (especially those related to the patents portion of our practice), the transcriptions were not sufficiently accurate. In many cases, the lack of accuracy led people to spend more time editing a transcribed docu- ment than they would probably spend if they simply typed it while listening to the digital audio file. For the time being, I will continue using digital dictation. With this being said, I would certainly be willing to try speech-recognition technology again if some more advan- ces are made to improve performance. Jason Leung practises intellectual property law and is the director of knowledge management at Ridout & Maybee LLP in Toronto. He can be reached at jleung@ridoutmaybee.com mind knowing that my clients' orrmat mi I have safe and sec se ure ininfo tiion is REASON #5 ow REASON # ve pea eace of www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com A U GUST 2012 19 12-07-13 10:11 AM

• Cover