Or 2002. There are bugs in 2003 which 2002 doesn't have. That being said, most of the legal and financial world are still on Word97-2003, so you're in good company. We need to use what works, and 2007 et seq. don't work well. There was much MS could have done to improve 2002 - 2003, but instead of really doing that, they changed the interface, added in a few features which we already had through third-party add-ons. When I first used 2007, it wrecked my printer which worked fine with 2003. 2007 had a number of other problems, so I reverted to using my own computer, rather than the one my partner gave me.
There are a number of thoughtless folk who think that anything 'new' must be improved. That's not been true since about 2003, in software. It's not only MS who has made stupid mistakes with their 'upgrades'. I no longer will buy Corel, Adobe, IBM, Symantec and other vendor software in their later editions, because there are significant bugs and removed features; the older versions are better. I just bought several Adobe Acrobat SIX to make up for what Adobe Acrobat X cannot do, and stay on WordPerfect 9 (you can also get WordPerfect for Linux, btw).
So too, with Google stuff. In the last 12 months, Google programming in Youtube, Blogger, gmail has become really annoying. Something's fundamentally wrong with software programming, now. People are making changes that are worse, not better. The whole 'clean' thing seems to be behind it, and the result is not clean, but STERILE. As in, you can't do well what you could do before, because what worked before, has been removed, or replaced by something 10x dumber.