Does the technology used to write with actually make a difference to what is being written?  This review from The Guardian of Matthew Kirschenbaum's recent book "Track Changes" suggests that at least in terms of literature it doesn't matter whether you use a fountain pen, a Remington or a PC.  I'm sure that in any process the same imagination and thought processes are followed - but is the output better?  Certainly in law the arrival of personal computers in the mid-90s (in New Zealand law firms anyway) revolutionised the way in which we draft documents, and continues to evolve with different and better word processing programmes and document management systems.  A shareholders agreement, though is still a shareholders agreement - even if Microsoft Word makes it an awful lot easier to add more and more to it - so as well as using the technology to spell check we also need to ask ourselves whether just because we can easily add a lot more clauses do we really need to?  Sometimes less is still more, even for a lawyer - after all it can be a lot more difficult to write a short letter than a long one...