Aiming for the Gold: Legal Research Training

February 23, 2010

In late March, I will be presenting to the Fayette County Bar Association on the topic of Online Research Tools with an emphasis on free sources.  Yesterday, during a stimulating lunch conversation a fellow law firm librarian and I discussed the disparity between legal research in law school and law firms.

These two things have caused me to wonder if there is one way to influence the behavior of future attorneys and get researchers to  concentrate on cost-effective research?  Now my initial idea was to show the actual retail costs of a search to law students. The sticker shock in context of what they actually did should open eyes to possibilities.  Of course it could also scare them into a whole where they refused to reach beyond the easy, cheap results to find the unearthed gem even when it was essential to their work.

Now granted, I know next to nothing to how various law schools teach legal research.  The methods are probably as varied as the schools themselves.  What I do know, is that as a former firm librarian, bills that were beyond control in retail costs were shown to young associates and even partners, as warranted.  This simple demonstration of the cost of information was an effective means to getting attorneys signed up for sessions with our vendor training and our own planned training in the firm.  Or getting the attorney to call the library for their in-depth research because we could provide the results cost-effectively and allow them to spend their time analyzing the essential information.

Cost-effectiveness and time are two critical factors in online research for attorneys.  Hunting and pecking for that “free” resource is often not the best method for saving time and money on a project.  So the balance of the two is extremely important.

Firms that complement the in-depth resources offered by LexisNexis and Westlaw with the easy to use and sufficient resources on FastCase are providing a cost-effective tool.

Attorneys may complain about the need to be able to use all these different systems.  The reality is that most providers are taking their cue from Google and making search as easy as filling-in the box.

I personally have mixed feelings about that fill-in-the-box mentality.  If that’s all that we teach our attorneys and legal professionals to do, there’s a danger of mixed data and the reliance on a subset of results that could be lacking.  I’m not saying that the box isn’t great, it is.  What I’m saying is that we need to teach the reality of what it is that is being pulled out when the box is filled.

I’m looking forward to glimpsing WestlawNext in person, beyond this tutorial.  It sounds intriguing with the ease of use and the fill-in-box and the “work like you” concept that West is selling.

Jurisdiction and primary vs. secondary have always, and will, remain key factors in choosing the universe of legal materials that should be searched.   I just wonder how well those universes are defined to young attorneys.  Early in my career, I had an attorney who told me “No more or less than 20 results.”  He defined the universe narrowly, but he expected me to pull from the entire universe the best of what was available.

Aiming for the Gold

The box makes it easy to accept the first 20 as the best 20.  Or if you take the other approach: “I want to see everything that could possibly be relevant’ you have a wealth of organisms within the universe that must be analysed while keeping in mind the costs of the analysis.  To win the Gold in legal research, training should address both costs and time as well as the universe of sources that are and should be used.

Constance Ard February 23, 2010

Leave a Comment » | Search, legal research | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by answermaven

Poking the Pacer Petition: Part II

September 9, 2009

Earlier this year I poked at the efforts in Academic libraries to petition for free PACER.  I think it is only fair to update my readers on the developments and analysis that Erika Wayne has done since that last post.

The report, based upon a survey conducted by Ms. Wayne, is available here.  I agree that the costs she reports seem high for information that should be “freely available.”  However, they are not excessive in my opinion.

I particularly was interested in this quote from the report release:

In the survey that we conducted just last year regarding Westlaw and Lexis preferences among law librarians, when respondents were asked which other online databases that they would like to have taught in law school, eighty percent of the law firm librarians wanted training provided on PACER.

I think that is a significant statement.  As a former law firm librarian, I often wanted my incoming associates to know better research methods and not be so dependent upon Westlaw and Lexis.  Teaching PACER in law school would be a great advantage.  Then again, so would teaching about CCH Wolters Kluwer and BNA based electronic libraries, and I’m not sure how many law schools have taken up that charge.

What I have difficulty understanding is a statement further down in the report release:

If we allowed all of our students full access, our spending could easily surpass our Westlaw and Lexis costs.

Would full access to PACER really surpass Westlaw and Lexis costs?  Is that because PACER would be a non-discounted cost?  It is my understanding that Westlaw and Lexis offer deep discounts to law schools. Are the discounts truly so deep that a capped usage of $2.40 on the majority of PACER documents would exceed these mega source research tools?

It makes me wonder, exactly what part of PACER is being used by academics.  In law firms, the filings and the opinions (which are free) are the heavily used portions of the resource.  Rarely are the transcripts (which are not capped) used.

So, it comes down to the need for cost-effective research training.  I wholeheartedly embrace the need for law schools to offer access to PACER.  I still stand by the fact that the 2008 average costs (as provided by Ms. Wayne) of $656.74 is not outrageous for law schools.  If PACER is being used more than the law school libraries feel is affordable, then perhaps, they are finally getting the message that law firm librarians have been preaching for years:  cost-effective research must begin in law school training.

I do appreciate the analysis provided by Ms. Wayne and I hope that improvements to the access and cost of PACER move forward in a positive manner but $2.40 or less for the majority of documents in the PACER database is not an excessive cost for the amount of information obtained.  Perhaps that is my bias because compared to commercial options, that is a true bargain for a wealth of information.

Constance Ard September 9, 2009

1 Comment | legal research | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by answermaven

Feeding the Hungry by Sacrificing the Sacred Cows of Legal Research

September 6, 2009

Thanks to the Law Librarian post that alerted me to the American Lawyer survey article that discusses in depth the effects of heavy budget cuts in law firm libraries.

  • 46% of  survey respondents said they had undergone budget cuts.
  • 57% have had staff/payroll reductions

These numbers lead me to assume that resources are examined first.  Cost recovery, judicious usage and possible other sources for the high priced information are being implemented and examined.

I wonder, is now the time for investment in cheaper alternatives, web resources, reliance on blogs and other web created content?  Will Fastcase and Loislaw experience an uptick in their big firm customer base because they provide affordable alternatives to case law and primary resources?

Will Westlaw and Lexis be relegated to the premium content that allows attorneys and librarians alike to efficiently search the TP-ALL and all of the news with one well constructed query?  How will the decisions be made and what exactly are large law firms willing to sacrifice.

These questions lead me to wonder, how will law librarians justify the retention of the sources they know are most critical to firm success?  Will training become even more important so that all attorneys search efficiently?  Are the days of allowing non-expert researchers to have all access passes over?

What will be the methods used to contain costs?  Will it just be slashing of sacred cows or will it be creative solutions that law librarians have dreamed of for years.  Should fall associates and summer associates truly be given free reign to search everything they want?

And how will the information providers respond?  More training, will they answer the call to “exclude” access to databases?  This has been a wish list item for many firm librarians for years and the answer alternates depending upon the year/time/customer. (Check the law-lib archives for discussions on this topic.)

It’s time for collaboration, creativity and reality checks.  In fact it may be past time for these items based upon the numbers quoted above.  We all now that at some point, depending upon environmental influences, nothing is sacred.  Law librarians are a loyal bunch but when survival is at stake the cows best realize that they can be sacrificed to feed the hungry.

Constance Ard September 6, 2009

Leave a Comment » | legal research | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by answermaven

Poking at the PACER Petition

June 25, 2009

Perhaps I’m a bit naive but aren’t courts one of the slowest institutions to invest in technology?  That whole identity of being a government institution that provides justice to indigent criminals and employing lots of people to man that whole justice process seems to preclude such an investment.  Not to mention the fact that the court exists in an industry that is slow to adopt new technology in the first place.

Thus when I read about the petition to enhance PACER here, I was a bit surprised by the third request (and part of the second)

2. Make it more accessible by lowering its cost and improving its Web interface

3. Provide free PACER access to depository libraries

In 2003 a cap of $2.40 was placed on “appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation” documents including dockets and case-specific reports (that includes those complaints and Summary Judgment motions).  How much more affordable does it get?

I understand that free is better.   (I’d love to have free parking and free postage at all times.) However, I doubt that depository libraries will kill their budget for the number of users that come to them to access PACER records.

Seriously, if we don’t even pay the base $2.40 to have access to this information what’s the point?  I know that technically these are government documents and thus should ultimately be free to one and all but the reality is that the users of these documents have a personal or business interest when accessing the information.   Thus users should make an investment into accessing the data that serves their purpose.

I support the principles that Carl Malamud is so passionate about but at some point my practical nature takes over and asks:  What is the reality of web enhancements (#2 in the petition wish list) if the there is no money invested?  Does anyone really think that USGPO or the Federal Judiciary  is going to invest in technology enhancements (no matter how affordable) for an archaic system that still functions when there is no profit motive?  And don’t forget that each court’s PACER records are maintained separately, there is no unionization of this information.  If you want that go talk to the big guns:  Lexis & Westlaw and see how affordable that is for your budget.

So I won’t be signing the PACER petition my fellow law librarians.  Despite my desire for an improved web interface because even in the hard times some data is affordable enough and useful enough to warrant a small investment by me.  If the petition had focused on improved search functions, specific case alert features or other items to overhaul the overall usefulness of the system, you would have sold me.  Price is not the issue with PACER, usability is.

Constance Ard June 24, 2009

2 Comments | Search | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by answermaven

Sealed cases

April 5, 2009

This post at beSpacific discusses the recent vote that will tighten the amount of information diligent researchers can locate on sealed cases.

PACER has over the past several years been working to ensure that private data in court filings is properly redacted and now. Sealed vs. Sealed will be the party information revealed in cases that are sealed by the courts.   It used to be that through PACER you could get a good idea of how important cases progressed through the use of the docket sheet the sealed status will make it harder to match those very interesting newsworthy cases to the actual happenings.  Your information professionals are going to need to be more diligent to retrieve the available information that used to be provided through careful use of PACER.

Leave a Comment » | Legal Issues | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by answermaven