So Who Does Write Those Expensive Supplements and Updates to Big Name Treatises?

Here’s a story from The Legal Intelligencer, “Law professors seek injunction over ‘sham’ treatise supplement that raises the question:


Law professors seek injunction over ‘sham’ treatise supplement
The Legal Intelligencer

Shannon P. Duffy

April 16, 2009

An ugly dispute has erupted between West Publishing and two law professors who claim they were falsely identified as the authors of an annual supplement to a treatise on Pennsylvania criminal law even though they had nothing to do with writing it.

In a federal lawsuit, professors David Rudovsky of the University of Pennsylvania and Leonard Sosnov of Widener Law School claim that the December 2008 supplement, or “pocket part,” to their book, “Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure — Law, Commentary and Forms,” was so poorly researched that it will harm their reputations if allowed to remain on library shelves.

. . .

Cancelling LexisNexis and Westlaw

 

I was reading the New York Law Journal.  The April 6, 2009 issue has a front-page story, “Cash-Strapped Lawyers Strive to Slash Costs,” part of their “Hard Times” series, a “series of occasional articles about efforts by solo practitioners and mid-sized firms to weather the recession.”  The April 6 article, by Vesselin Mitev, profiles a number of attorneys, including Manhattan entertainment lawyer Theodore Blumberg, which includes this information:

” . . . Mr. Blumberg said he keeps a watchful eye on costs.  He has gotten rid of his Westlaw and Lexis accounts and switched to a cheaper service.”

The History of CALR, Part 2: An IRS early effort to automate

Today’s is April 15th.  Tax Day.  Over at the Law Librarian Blog you can read “Tax Day Trivia” and “Celebrating April 15 with Two New Tax Op Websites.”

Here on Legal Research Plus we’ll celebrate the day with the second installment of our occasional and random look back at some of the early days of computer-assisted legal research.

Today’s intallment comes courtest of Michael J. Lynch, Director of Law Library and Professor at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School.

Another really primitive (abortive) “automated system” was one developed by the I.R.S. in the sixties called Research and Information Retrieval Activity (RIRA).  I co-authored an article which not only described this system, but argued that its contents ought to be available to private attorneys either in discovery under the Federal Rules, or in response to
Freedom of Information Act requests. 

I.R.S had compiled a “Uniform Issue List”:  the outline of concepts relevant to tax litigation.  Case abstracts were created and indexed by attorneys and microfilmed including addresses to microfilm location of all briefs and other case documents. A monthly print-out updated the list of all cases in the system by issue numbers.  A reader-printer could locate and print abstracts.  The abstracts led the users to the microfilm of briefs and documents.  The system now seems inpossibly cumbersome — a somewhat automated index to mere microfilm.  But at the time it seemed like an incredible mine of organized legal research.  As I read the description it hardly fits our concept of an “automated system.”  It seems to me that the primitive possibilities of the sixties technologies inevitably led to its abandonment.  But at the time we, the authors, proudly suspected that our claim of public access discouraged
further development. Private attorneys were really worried about the research advantage it would give the government lawyers (probably unduly worried).

The RIRA wasn’t really a computer system, it was a project that we now recognize as a computer project done with intermediate technology.  Reader-printers seemed really cool in the sixties, I suppose.  The topic outline was the sort of thing West might have done. 

For the full story, see:   Berrien C. Eaton and Michael J. Lynch, “Tax Practice as Affected by the Freedom of Information Act and the Information Retrieval System.”  Proceedings of the 17th Annual Tulane Tax Institute, p405, 1967.

Law Journals and Open Access: A Call to Action

Here’s a little article I just wrote for Speaking of Computers, ”an e-newsletter for the Stanford academic community.”  This has been covered here before, but I think it’s a message worth repeating, especially as we brace for budget cuts and some hard decisions.  And besides, now I have a really nice photo to share!

 Law Journals and Open Access: A Call to Action

In November, I had the pleasure of attending a meeting of the so-called Gang of 10 law library directors (directors from some of the nation’s top law schools) held at Duke Law School in Durham, North Carolina. One of the activities of this meeting was the drafting and signing of the “Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship,” which calls for all law schools to stop publishing their law journals in print format and to rely instead upon electronic publication, coupled with a commitment to keep the electronic versions available in stable, open, digital formats.

Why Open Access?
Each of the nation’s 200+ law schools produce at least one student-edited law journal, containing scholarship and important policy pieces from law professors, judges, distinguished practitioners, and students. The bulk of legal scholarship is published in such law journals. Here at Stanford Law School we produce nine such journals. Right now the only way to access all of this significant content electronically is through expensive databases such as HeinOnline, LexisNexis and Westlaw.

It would be a better legal information world if researchers could reliably turn to the host law school for any law journal from that school and find all of its articles, available for free in open and stable electronic formats.

Open Access Leaders
It was especially fitting that this inspirational document was drafted and signed by us while at Duke. Duke is a leader in the open online repository movement, with the Duke Law Faculty Scholarship Repository created in 2005, and all Duke law journals made accessible online since 1997. The Duke Law Faculty Scholarship Repository is a full-text electronic archive of scholarly works written by the Duke Law faculty, as well as other scholarship produced at the law school. A scholarship repository and open access law journals go hand-in-hand.

The chief architect of the Durham Statement was John Palfrey, the new library director at Harvard Law School, who is also a leader and visionary in the open access movement. In May 2008, the Harvard Law School faculty unanimously voted to make each faculty member’s scholarly articles available online for free.

What’s Next?
The Durham Statement is our exercise in aspiration, with the hopes of getting more – eventually all – law schools on the open access bandwagon.

There are issues yet to be resolved. For one thing, especially during these difficult economic times, financial analysis is needed. Law schools receive royalties from the online databases that provide law journal access – some schools far more than others – so the cost-savings to the schools from ceasing print and to the schools’ libraries from no longer having to buy, bind and shelve issues needs to be carefully weighed against any potential loss of revenue income. And there are additionally important archival and standards issues to be debated and decided.

The Durham Statement seeks to move the analysis, debate, and discussion forward.

For More Information
Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship
http://legalresearchplus.com/2009/02/20/durham-statement-on-open-access-to-legal-scholarship/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/durhamstatement

The Duke Law Faculty Scholarship Repository

Harvard Law School open access motion

durhamdrafters1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The authors of the Durham Statement. Top row, left to right: Dick Danner (Duke),
Radu Popa (NYU), John Palfrey (Harvard), Claire Germain (Cornell),
Paul George (University of Pennsylvania), Jim McMasters (Northwestern),
Blair Kauffman (Yale). Bottow row: Paul Lomio (Stanford),
Judith Wright (University of Chicago), Terry Martin (University of Texas).

Computer Programming and the Law: A New Research Agenda

“Computer Programming and the Law: A New Research Agenda”

Villanova Law Review, Forthcoming
U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-08

PAUL OHM, University of Colorado Law School

This essay proposes a new interdisciplinary research agenda called Computer Programming and the Law. By harnessing the power of computer programming, legal scholars can develop better tools, data, and insights for advancing their research interests. This essay presents the case for this new research agenda, highlights some examples of those who have begun to blaze the trail, and includes code samples to demonstrate the power and potential of developing software for legal scholarship. The code samples in this essay can be run like a piece of software – thanks to a technique known as literate programming – making this the world’s first law review article that is also a working computer program.

Source: LSN Information Privacy Law Vol. 2 No. 14,  04/14/2009

Open Secrets – Open Data

The Center for Responsive Politics is posting 200 million data records on-line today — FOR FREE.  The data set will be available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/action/data.php.

According to an announcement on OpenSecrets.org, the following data sets, are now available in CSV format:

-CAMPAIGN FINANCE:
“195 million records dating to the 1989-1990 election cycle, tracking campaign fund-raising and spending by candidates for federal office, as well as political parties and political action committees.”

LOBBYING:
“3.5 million records on federal lobbyists, their clients, their fees and the issues they reported working on, dating to 1998.”

PERSONAL FINANCES:
“Reports from members of Congress and the executive branch that detail their personal assets, liabilities and transactions in 2004 through 2007.”

527 ORGANIZATIONS:
“Electronically filed financial records beginning in the 2004 election cycle for the shadowy issue-advocacy groups known as 527s.”
[Hat tip to Ellen Miller and the Sunlight Foundation]

China Law Libraries Online

The Law Librarians of China (China Law Libraries Online) have revamped their Web site.   All content is in Chinese, but they expect to post English language materials in the near future.  Hat tip to Wei Luo.

The China Law Libraries Online Web site does post links to 17 major law school libraries in China:

 

Peking University School of Law, Law Library
http://www.law.pku.edu.cn/tsg

 

Tsinghua University School of Law Library
http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/docsn/fxy/lib/index.htm

 

Chinese People’s University Law School Library
http://www.law.ruc.edu.cn/library

 

Sun Yat-sen University School of Law Library
http://202.116.73.59/library/rule.asp

 

Chongqing University School of Law Library
http://law.cqu.edu.cn/fxtug/Index.asp

 

Chongqing University School of Law Library
http://law.cqu.edu.cn/fxtug/Index.asp

 

Hunan University School of Law Library
http://law.hnu.cn/index.php/action_category_catid_6.html

 

Nanjing University School of Law Library
http://law.nju.edu.cn/Article/ShowClass.asp?ID=20079331283361

 

Xiamen University Library Law Library
http://210.34.4.20/library/lib_law/main1.html #4

 

Wuhan University Law School Library
http://210.42.125.38/

 

Sichuan University School of Law Library
http://fxy.scu.edu.cn/tsqb

 

Yantai University School of Law Library
http://www.law.ytu.edu.cn/index.html

 

Shanxi University School of Law Library
http://202.207.216.178/list.php?fid=39

 

Liaoning University School of Law Library
http://law.lnu.edu.cn/release/ziliao

 

Jilin University Research Center for Theory of Law Library http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/info.asp?id=205

 

Jilin University Research Center for Theory of Law Library http://www.legaltheory.com.cn/info.asp?id=205

 

Zhejiang University Guanghua School of Law Library

http://www.lawlib.zju.edu.cn

 

China Law Libraries Online http://www.chinalawlib.org.cn/

The History of CALR, Part 1: More on Thomson West and FLITE Takes Flight

THE HISTORY OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED LEGAL RESEARCH (CALR)

______________________________________________________

First in an occasional series

More on Thomson West Merger and FLITE Takes Flight

********************

This is the first in an occasional and somewhat random look back at the early days of computer-assisted legal research (CALR).  It stems from a post here earlier in the week about a terrific new book by noted antitrust lawyer (and Stanford Law School alumnus) Gary L. Reback, Free the Market!: Why Only Government Can Keep the Marketplace Competitive (catalog record copied below). The very readable book gives an insider look at the merger (Mr. Reback represented LexisNexis) and as Jonathan Zittrain notes on the jacket, “Gary Reback offers a powerful defense for government’s role in protecting market competition. He draws from rich historical examples and his own extraordinary personal vantage point: his victories and defeats at the front lines of the most high-profile antitrust cases of the past two decades.”

Thomson West Merger

In 1997, Mr. Reback took a vacation to Hawaii after he had “spent a year of futility . . . trying to convince the Justice Department to block an anticompetitive merger that would raise the price of hiring a lawyer for just about every consumer of legal services anywhere in America.”

Storytelling for Lawyers and Monopolizing the Law

Chapters 14 (“Storytelling for Lawyers”) and 15 (“Monopolizing the Law”) tell the story of the 1996 merger of Thomson and West, “. . . the largest publishers of court opinions, treatises, and other materials used to do legal research. No other company was even close in terms of market share or customer usage.” And, as an earlier post here suggests, the end result of this merger created a wrecking ball for academic law library budgets. In my opinion absurd and obscene annual price increases was indeed an effect of this merger.

These two chapters trace through some of the very interesting history of legal publishing, electronic and otherwise, from the 1870s to present.

At one point in chapter 15 Mr. Reback states “. . . both Thomson and LexisNexis started charging law schools for online legal research, originally provided free of charge.” I shared this information on the law library directors listserv.

A few directors contested that statement and commented that, to their knowledge, neither Lexis nor Westlaw was ever free; a couple of other directors weren’t so sure and thought that perhaps there were some free installations.  But this comment also elicited a small flood of memories and reminiscences from directors about the very early days of CALR.

Stanford Law Library’s First CALR Terminal (Lexis only)

I myself came to stanford in 1982.  At the time the library had one Lexis terminal, and no Westlaw terminal.  The terminal was the so-called “DeLuxe” terminal, which was a large sit-down consol, reminiscent of the “con” of an early Star Trek starship.  It was located in a room shared with our photocopiers and microforms, both of which were used far more than the Lexis terminal.  For one thing, there was a daily blackout period and we could not access the database between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. There was no downloading of documents, and printing was done laboriously, one screen shot at a time.  Connection was via an internal modem and a phone line paid for, I think, by Lexis.

Dick Danner, from the Duke Law Library noted on the listserv that “the early history of Lexis from an insider’s perspective, with a bit about Westlaw, can be found in: William G. Harrington, ‘A Brief History of Computer-Assisted Legal Research,’ 77 Law Library Journal 543 (1984-85).”

The Air Force Starts Digitizing the Law – FLITE (Federal Legal Information Through Electronics) Database

And then J. Denny Haythorn, Associate Dean of Library and Information Services & Professor of Law at Whittier College School of Law shared this very interesting story about FLITE (reproduced with permission):

In the Law Library Journal article the author refers to the system the Air Force had developed by the late 1960s. The Air Force system was called Federal Legal Information Through Electronics (FLITE) and was operated from the basement of the Air Force finance center in Denver at Lowery Air Force Base.  FLITE had a large staff inputting federal court reports, administrative court reports (e.g., Comp Gen, Board of Contracts Appeals, etc.), US Code sections, CFR sections, and military regulations into databases. There was a staff of research attorneys who received calls from government lawyers for research and they would help formulate searches in the database.  The Finance Center did not use their computer mainframe at night so the searcher would run overnight and be printed.  The research attorneys would call back with the results the next day and sometimes mail the printouts to the requesting attorney.

More powerful minicomputers and the internet simplified the search process to ultimately be more like the commercial services thought FLITE kept the research attorneys for assistance with searches.  The office also continues to maintain unique databases of information use by military lawyers.  FLITE purchased the first PC computers for Air Force legal offices and began a program of law office automation using shareware software (PC Write for example), commercial software, and software specifically written by the office.

FLITE also was an early adopter of CD and DVD technology.  The goal was to have Judge Advocate General attorneys in the field with legal resources for a standalone law office.

The office still exists and is now located with the Air Force Judge Advocate School at Maxwell Air Force Base, in Montgomery, Alabama.  In the 1980s I was one of the research attorneys as they made the transition from batch, overnight searching to real time searches and then user searching directly on the internet.  I also worked on the manuals for some of the software.

Denny will be contibuting more about his experiences as a CALR pioneer, so please stay tuned for later installments of this series.

And here’s the catalog record for Free the Market!

Author: Reback, Gary L., Stanford Law School graduate, J.D.(1974)
Title: Free the market! : why only government can keep the marketplace competitive / Gary L. Reback.
Related e-resource: Publisher description
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0906/200804668
Imprint: New York : Portfolio, 2009.
Physical Description: x, 416 p. ; 24 cm.
Note: Signed by the author. CSt-Law
9-d.html

Note: Includes bibliographical references (p. [397]-403) and index.

Contents: Protecting competition — Product distribution –Patent and coypright limitations on competition –
Monopolies and market exclusion — Mergers and acquisitions.Subject (LC): Trade regulation–United States.
Subject (LC): Competition–United States.
ISBN: 9781591842460
ISBN: 1591842468

CALL NUMBER
HD3616 .U47 R136 2009

Legal Education and Research in India

The 50th Anniverary issue (v.50 #4) of the Journal of the Indian Law Institute has two articles of interest:

Legal Education, Resarch and Pedagogy – Ideological Perceptions

A. Kakshminath  pp.606-628.

To Mould Millennium Law Researchers and Teachers: the Role of the Indian Law Institute

S. Sivakumar  pp.699-706.

The Sivakumar article lists the twelve national law schools in India (see footnote 7 on page 701):

1.      National Law School of India (Bangalore)

2.      NALSAR (Hyderabad)

3.      National Law Institute (Bhopal)

4.      National Law University (Jodhpur)

5.      Hidayatullah National Law University (Raipur)

6.      Gujarat National Law University (Gandhinagar)

7.      National University of Advanced Legal Studies (Kochi)

8.      Chanakya National Law University (Patna)

9.      Rajiv Gandhi National Law University (Patiala)

10.  Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University (Lucknow)

11.  National Law School of Delhi (Delhi)

12.  Indian Law Institute (deemed a university under the Presidentship of the Chief Justice of India)

IRS data: 15% of large financial services companies were audited in 2008

Just in from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse:

“Newly released data from the IRS show that only 15% of large financial services companies — those with $250 million or more in assets — were audited in 2008, compared with 64% of all other similar sized corporations. And when they were performed, these financial service audits appear to have been less thorough than those in other industries. In addition, fewer of these audits were being performed by the IRS agency group with special expertise in large financial service corporations, while the number performed by other IRS groups more than doubled since 2004.”

“These latest findings on the IRS, based on documents and data obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act, are available at
http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/207/