iAnnotate vs. TrialPad: A review of how a lawyer integrates these iPad apps into trials
By Spencer E. Farris, Esq.
Recently I used an iPad in my preparations for a trial for the first time. Trial lawyers typically require document presenters such as ELMO or document cameras to project exhibits onto a screen for jurors. Although this is light-years ahead of the old-school method of mounting $150 blowups on foam board, it is still relatively primitive — and jurors who spend much of their lives watching law shows on TV are not often moved by primitive.
How to improve a trial presentation through the use of iPad apps
My real goal was to incorporate my iPad into trial work. This thing is too expensive to be a stay-at-home toy! Several trial apps are available for the iPad, but TrialPad and iAnnotate (affiliate links) are my favorites. Each offers me the ability to mark up PDF files and project them for an adapter onto a screen.
Both apps require substantial pretrial thought. If you’re using a document camera, you can decide at trial which exhibit you would like to show the jury. The trial apps require you to scan them and then turn them into PDFs before trial. Photographs must be converted to PDF as well — but modern scanners handle this task with ease. For me this was a positive, because it required me to think about my case and trial strategy a little sooner than might I normally do so.
Integration of the iAnnotate and TrialPad apps with Dropbox
Both iPad apps work well with Dropbox. We scanned documents to Dropbox and then integrated them directly from the app. TrialPad had a slight edge because it was capable of integrating folders full of documents with one click. iAnnotate required me to load documents one at a time. (Both offer integration with iTunes and e-mail attachments.) Edge: TrialPad
The price of these iPad apps for trial lawyers
Though cost shouldn’t be a factor, TrialPad’s $90 sticker is a topic of much discussion on the Internet. iAnnotate comes in at a modest $10. (The cost of either is meager compared with that of a single foamcore blowup, of course.) Edge: iAnnotate
Other iPad app tools for trial presentation
iAnnotate has dozens of markup tools, such as multiple highlight and pencil colors. There are also tools for underlining or striking through text in a document. TrialPad has only three tools: highlight, pencil and redact. For reasons that will become apparent in a moment, I found these three tools more than enough in my typical case. For cases that are truly document intensive, however, more is probably better. Edge: iAnnotate
A seamless trial presentation with the iPad
For a trial lawyer, the true test of trial presentation software is its capacity to seamlessly show the jury the evidence. Both iAnnotate and TrialPad allow you to put a document onscreen and mark it up in front of the jury. Both apps’ makers advertise their creations’ capacity to show the jury one document while the lawyer looks for another in his file. Switching documents onscreen with iAnnotate, however, was clunky at best. Though it’s easy to search your iPad for another document and see it yourself, the app hangs chronically when you try to switch documents on the display. I was unable to move between documents without shutting down iAnnotate repeatedly. In fact, if I changed documents too many times, iAnnotate crashed.
On the other hand, TrialPad performed flawlessly. The interface has sensible Stop, Pause, and Play buttons. You can mark up a document onscreen and then hit Play to display it to the jury. Pausing keeps that document onscreen while you pull up another document. The Play function will then publish the new document to the jury without any of the lag or flicker that plagues iAnnotate. Edge: TrialPad
At a Glance: A comparison of iPad trial apps iAnnotate and TrialPad
- TrialPad and iAnnotate work well with Dropbox.
- TrialPad is more expensive than iAnnotate.
- iAnnotate has more document markup tools.
- TrialPad’s software enables a seamless jury presentation.
- Exhibits may be marked up on TrialPad and saved as hot docs with the original document preserved.
Additional features in the iPad trial apps
TrialPad has some other features that are simply not found in iAnnotate. If you mark up a document with the use of iAnnotate, the changes stay with the document each time you use it. TrialPad allows you to save a markup document as a “Hot Doc” while preserving the original. Hot docs are available from the document menu in a hot doc tab. This was especially useful when I wanted to mark up a document with one witness to preserve the original for later examinations. You can also rotate a page or entire multipage document onscreen with TrialPad — a lifesaver if you don’t pay attention on the scanner end. iAnnotate doesn’t have that feature, at least while projecting.
TrialPad also allows you to work on multiple cases at once and sorts your documents into folders. You can rearrange documents on the fly and rename them, then delete entire cases when you are finished with them. iAnnotate shows you all of your documents and snapshot view, unsorted. Deletion is a one-at-a-time chore.
Verdict: TrialPad wins
Though the iAnnotate app is superior for document markup, it lacks the horsepower needed to make it a credible trial presenter. The hangups and shutdowns may have been a consequence of user error, but the lag in changing documents on screen was inherent in the software. Document organization is rudimentary at best.
The TrialPad app, on the other hand, performed flawlessly from the display end. Document organization is logical from a lawyer perspective. In fairness, TrialPad was designed by lawyers for lawyers. Though it costs nine times more, it is worth it. Eighty bucks simply isn’t enough of a savings to justify bumbling in front of a jury. Or a judge. Or, most important, my client.
The principal of the St. Louis-based S.E. Farris Law Firm, Spencer Farris represents injured personal injury victims and their families in a wide variety of product liability, auto accident, medical malpractice and premises liability cases.
To read more on iPad apps, lawyer reviews, technology news and gadget releases, subscribe to our email newsletters or RSS feeds. You can also follow Lawyer Tech Review on Facebook and Twitter.
Also in Lawyer Tech Review:
The major draw back with TrialPad is the limited functionality offered at an exhorbitant price. At $90 it is the second most expensive app in the iPad app store, and all it will do is show PDF files.
If you are looking for more than a $90 PDF reader, you need to check out Exhibit A in the iPad app store.
Exhibit A is currently the only iPad app that allows you to easily and effectively display all your exhibits, not just PDFs. The user interface is sleek, simple and intuitive.
Exhibit A has A all of the functionality needed to make your trial presentations (easy selection of exhibits, the ability to display documents while selecting the next, saving annotations while preserving the original exhibit, rotation funtions, easy Dropbox integration, etc).
Exhibit A has superior annotation tools, and uses a full screen interface for easier handling of exhibits. Exhibit A fully integrates Dropbox so you can display your exhibits directly from the cloud if you choose.
You don’t have to pay $90 for an app that only displays PDFs. Take a look at Exhibit A. You can find us in the app store at:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/exhibit-a/id392621180?mt=8
Michael –
Thanks for your comments about the article. Our reviewers haven’t tried Exhibit A yet but we’ll add it to the list of apps we should take a look at in the near future.
Geri
I feel that I’m witnessing negative campaigning firsthand!
I’m the developer of TrialPad for iPad. If we want to get into criticisms of the other guy’s app I think I’d be here all night, and run out of space! I choose not to.
I’m very happy where we are. Our sales and our users speak for our product. If you want something cheap in price, we’re not your app. If you want something that speaks to service and quality, and works, we are your app.
Read the last paragraph of the above review again…
Kind regards,
Ian
ian@litsoftware.com
Lit Software, LLC
Developer of TrialPad for iPad
Hi Ian –
Thanks for your comments. As you noted, our reviewer was extremely happy with the way TrialPad performed at trial. And he was also quite pleased with TrialPad’s various features which helped him present a polished presentation to a jury.
Geri
A simple comparison of the cost and functionality of Exhibit A and TrialPad can be viewed here:
http://www.lecturaapps.com/comparison.html
Customers should have this information to make an informed choice. We believe Exhibit A provides the best functionality, stability and price.
Michael Henderson, CEO
Lectura, LLC
Personally, I own all three trial presentations apps (Evidence, Exhibit A, TrialPad) and liken all of them to the game of baseball. Evidence is little league, Exhibit A is minor leagues, and TrialPad is major leagues.
The $90 price is a non-factor in my mind. It was paid for in the fraction of just one trial.
To the CEO of Exhibit A, I’m not so sure the price of your app is as big a selling point as you think it is. Your target market (ie. litigators) don’t care about dishing out five bucks or a hundred, they care about an app that is stable and won’t make them look like a buffoon in court. Your app has some nice features, but it crashes after repeated use and that makes it worthless to the serious litigator. I suggest that instead of concentrating your efforts on differentiating yourself from other apps, you instead focus on making your app more stable and trustworthy so that litigators can come to some sort of comfort level using it.
To the developer of TrialPad, I hope to see more file types in future upgrades, but I’m very pleased with your app thus far.
Hi Tripp –
Thanks for weighing in with your opinion on the trial apps.
Geri
Thanks for sharing your reviews and comments, Spencer, Geri, et al. Wow, looks like it sparked another “session.” There have certainly been a few of these.
It is true that the feedback not only generates interest, but also helps with further development. Well anyway, I think my reviews were among the first published, and I have covered all three iPad apps for trial presentation. Here are links:
http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/2010/12/ipad-apps-for-trial-presentation.html
http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/2011/01/apples-to-apples-two-ipad-apps-for.html
http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/2011/02/exhibit-ipad-app-for-trial-presentation.html
Ted Brooks
Tripp, thanks for your comments. Sorry to hear you have found our app to be unstable. Have you upgraded to Version 1.1.0? Early development pains aside, we have heard nothing but praise for the current version.
Most recent review in iTunes (March 17, 2011):
“Excellent trial, mediation or conference tool. This is one of the best tools available where there is a need to make a presentation using an iPad….This tool is significantly more advanced than what the price would indicate.”
Watch for future updates! We offer the most stable, feature rich, easy to use trial presentation app. And we are just getting started!
As for the price, we believe the current offering of excellent apps by Apple and others at or near $10 make it unreasonable to charge more, even if some lawyers don’t mind paying more.
All the best,
Michael Henderson, CEO
Lectura, LLC
Something about Tripp Siegel’s posting just didn’t make sense to me. We have been receiving rave reviews, but Tripp seemed to be having a very different experience. What is happening?
Tripp, please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you may be schilling for TrialPad. Here is what I found:
There is apparently quite a history in the blogs of people complaining that TrialPad is under featured and over priced. See here:
http://www.maclitigator.com/2011/01/03/trialpad-dedicated-presentation-app-for-the-ipad/
When these complaints are made, Tripp Siegel appears in the comment section castigating the attorneys who voice these complaints and attacking the more reasonably priced competing apps. Here is a sampling:
“[I] think all the concerns about price point are downright funny. First of all, [competing app] is a dud. It doesn’t work…plain and simple.”
“If you’re an attorney that’s sweating ninety bucks, like [complaining attorneys] are, then perhaps you’re not very successful at what you do and should be looking for another profession.”
These comments were posted January 8, 2011 at the above listed link. Although these comments did not address Exhibit A, which was not released until January 17, the similarity to the current criticism Tripp makes of Exhibit A is striking.
Tripp, if you are truly a frustrated user of Exhibit A, please contact me to explain the issues you are having, and we will promptly institute the necessary fixes.
On the other hand, if you are schilling for TrialPad, in fairness to people trying to make a decision you should put your cards on the table.
Michael, are you really the CEO of Lectura LLC? I find it unfathomable that you can be the CEO of anything. Never before have I purchased a product where the CEO of the company is questioning my opinion and/or my identity because I wasn’t knocked head over heels over his or her product. So since I didn’t rate Exhibit A five stars you’ve immediately assumed I am a “schilling” for TrialPad. Will you make this assumption about everybody who doesn’t gush about your app?
I have to say though I’ve downloaded some pretty bad apps in my day I’ve never had buyer’s remorse on any one app until now. Let me give you a piece of friendly advice – never question or indirectly chastise your customers. That’s just bad business. And to add insult to your own injury, you’re displaying it on a public forum, out there for the whole world to see. Tell me, how many people do you think are going to want to run out and buy your app after seeing that???
Now in reference to the link you provided, I stand by my post then as I stand by my post now. Evidence is a horrible app that could’t function for two minutes without crashing. (I requested a refund from Apple for it; I did NOT do the same for Exhibit A.) I also couldn’t import files into the Evidence app. I did NOT put Exhibit A into the same category. As a matter of fact, I said Exhibit A had some nice features that TrialPad didn’t (ie. file types) and I was actually looking forward to your app’s updates until I read your accusatory post. You described my post above as “criticism” and I strongly disagree. What I stated was fact. Upon first downloading your app, it crashed more often than not, and as a litigator I can’t have that. To pay an extra fifty or hundred bucks for the peace of mind that my app will not crash in the middle of a trial is a no-brainer to any practicing attorney. Now whereas I don’t feel I criticized your app, I am openly criticizing you for the reasons mentioned above. And by the way, I went online onto the App Store to see these “rave reviews” you referenced. Your app has a total of 12 reviews, 3 of which are one or two star ratings. So, 25% of App Store reviewers aren’t exactly thrilled about your app either. But I guess they’re TrialPad “schillings” too.
So this is the part where I do as you’ve asked and correct you because you’re wrong – I am NOT a “schilling” for TrialPad. I am no one’s “schilling”. And by the way, if I were a “schilling” for TrialPad or anyone else, I’d have the proper foresight to post as someone else. Question my identity at your own peril, but I respectfully request that you don’t do the same when it comes to my intelligence.
-Tripp
Michael,
I enjoy reading the blog reviews, and users’ comments about TrialPad and other apps as it provides us developers with a wealth of information that would have cost a lot of money in market research just a few years ago. I see no problem with boasting about features and abilities. I feel a large part of your campaign for your own product has been trying to discredit our app. TrialPad has indeed been getting a lot of (well deserved) publicity online. A bit like being a jealous understudy, that publicity has oft been followed by a negative comment about us from you, with a plug for your own app included. This blog is no exception.
I welcome competition because it is good for consumers, as long as advertising and criticisms are accurate. It does neither of us any good to comment negatively, unfairly or deceptively about each other’s apps. Instead, it confuses the marketplace.
Choosing partial quotes from selected reviews and posts is self serving and misleading. The comparison you created of TrialPad and your product also serves only to confuse the marketplace. In my perspective, some “advantages” listed are not advantages at all. A freehand highlighter tool becomes very tedious when trying to highlights 20 lines of text, which is why TrialPad, like desktop trial presentation applications, uses a square area tool. Display from the cloud is another “advantage” we deliberately didn’t include in our app because of our concerns about security in the legal community, and with the often inaccessible or unreliable WiFi/3G networks across the country.
TrialPad was created to aid attorneys in preparing and presenting their matters at trial. Nothing more. The idea was to use my many years of experience in mediations, arbitrations, and trials both here and abroad to the benefit of the presenting attorney. Attorneys can rest happily understanding that TrialPad is not trying to be all things to all presenters, and that TrialPad features are specific to the legal market. As time is often an attorney’s most valuable asset, the speed in which he or she will be able to be up and running with TrialPad is invaluable. Our app doesn’t have a confusing new interface to learn, and has virtually no learning curve, it is just plug and play.
Most importantly, TrialPad was designed to work, TrialPad has been solid, stable, and user friendly from the beginning. We have never treated our users as beta testers, and they have responded very positively for it. Although TrialPad was approved by Apple many weeks before our actual release, we decided to keep working on it to make it as user friendly and as stable as possible. We continued to optimize the clean and simple user interface that allows you to get almost everything done in one screen, not requiring you to navigate multiple windows to achieve the simplest task. Even with the extra development time, we’re proud that TrialPad was still the first trial presentation app available on the App Store. And I like to think we’re the best. I welcome the addition of other legal specific apps as it can only legitimize the iOS platform as a serious business tool and benefit us all, developers and users.
TrialPad is reliable first and foremost, and very simple to understand and use. I believe that is the reason we’ve outsold less expensive presentation apps like yours in the App Store. Another reason is that there are many presentation apps that are priced low, and offer the same reliability and functionality as your app, namely RLTC Evidence and 2Screens, both at $4.99, they are half the price of Exhibit A, and very comparable.
As many iPad owners may know, Apple does not currently allow a developer to charge for updates, hence every update is listed as “Free”. As we never had the intention to put out an app and then sit on our hands, part of our pricing model is to be able to fund future development. I’m excited about what I do, and I’m passionate and enthusiastic about TrialPad and its abilities in the courtroom. Lit Software prides itself on creating apps that we are proud of, and our users are proud of too. Michael, I wish you good luck with your app as you continue to develop it.
I won’t be posting any more responses here, I have to get back to work on the new features we’re working on for TrialPad! More user requested features are coming. And our reputation online and in the App Store continues to be positive and strong.
Thank you to all TrialPad users and supporters, and thank you to Geri for allowing the discussion here.
Kind regards,
Ian
ian@litsoftware.com
Lit Software, LLC
Developer of TrialPad for iPad