Article on legal research in Australia

DEVELOPING LEGAL RESEARCH SKILLS: EXPANDING THE PARADIGM

Terry Hutchinson

32 Melb. U. L. Rev. 1065 (2008)

Article abstract:

This article explores the development of tertiary legal research skills education in Australia in the underlying context of Australian legal education and the transformation of legal research resulting from advances in information technology. It argues that legal research is a fundamental skill for lawyers and that research training in a law, degree must cater for the vocational needs of the individual student w1hether their ultimate focus is practice or higher degree research. It argues that the traditional doctrinal paradigm of legal research is no longer sufficient for modern lawyers and that exposure to additional methodologies needs to be included in research training units. This article argues that w1hile legal research skills education has changed it must continue to develop in order to better cater for the needs of students, the profession and the academy in the contemporary legal environment.

Legal Ontologies Spin a Semantic Web

Legal Ontologies Spin a Semantic Web
By Dr. Adam Z. Wyner
Special to Law.com
June 8, 2009

“The Semantic Web, an extension of the current www, promises to make documents meaningful to people and computers by changing how legal knowledge is represented and managed. Dr. Adam Z. Wyner explains how legal ontologies will help complete the new Web’s design.”

From the article:

ONTOLOGY FOR CASE LAW

Consider an example ontology for case law. There are various approaches to find relevant case law — using text-mining software, search tools, proprietary indices or legal research summaries. These approaches can extract some latent linguistic information from the text but often require researchers to craft the results; indeed, successful information extraction depends on an ontology, and as there is not yet a rich ontology of the case law domain, much information in cases cannot be easily extracted or reasoned with. Moreover, none of these approaches apply inference rules.

Reading a case such as Manhattan Loft v. Mercury Liquors, there are elementary questions that can be answered by any legal professional, but not by a computer:

Where was the case decided?
Who were the participants and what roles did they play?
Was it a case of first instance or on appeal?
What was the basis of the appeal?
What were the legal issues at stake?
What were the facts?
What factors were relevant in making the decision?
What was the decision?
What legislation or case law was cited?

Legal information service providers such as LexisNexis index some of the information and provide it in headnotes, but many of the details, which may be crucial, can only be found by reading the case itself. Current text-mining technologies cannot answer the questions because the information is embedded in the complexities of the language of the case, which computers cannot yet fully parse and understand. Finally, there are relationships among the pieces of information which no current automated system can represent, such as the relationships among case factors or precedential relationships among cases.

In conclusion, the author remarks:

Legal ontologies are one of the central elements of managing and automating legal knowledge. With ontologies, the means are available to realize significant portions of the Semantic Web for legal professionals, particularly if an open-source, collaborative approach is taken.

 

About the author:

Dr. Adam Zachary Wyner is affiliated with the department of computer science at University College London, London, United Kingdom. He has a Ph.D. in linguistics from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in computer science from King’s College London. He has published on topics in the syntax and semantics of natural language, as well as artificial intelligence and law concerning legal systems, language, logic and argumentation. For further information, see Dr. Wyner’s blog LanguageLogicLawSoftware.

Source: Law.com – Daily Newswire

Filming Legal Cultures: French and American Civil Procedures Compared

West’s Legal Ed Center has a free video program called “Filming Legal Cultures: French and American Civil Procedures Compared” in which U.S. and French judges and practictioners dicuss the differences between American and French civil litigtaion. In addition to the video discussion, the site also provides handouts.

https://westlegaledcenter.com

Program Description:

As more and more French companies conduct business in the United States, they face the possibility of being sued.  U.S. companies conducting business in France face a similar possibility in France. It is difficult for them to grasp the nuances of working within these two very different legal systems. It is easier to learn about the law than to comprehend the culture of a foreign court. This innovative project seeks to make such understanding possible through the use of images.

Judge Antoine Garapon, head of the Institut des Hautes Études sur la Justice in France and author of Juger en Amérique et en France, along Daniel Schimmel, an American litigator with Shearman and Sterling will explore some of the intricacies of the two systems in a completely new manner.  Their analysis of images of both French and American civil trials will show how practitioners, companies, academics, judges, and others working in a global environment can reach a better understanding of U.S. and French legal cultures.

The Research Plan for Maximizing Effective Legal Research

Hooray!  It’s Friday.  And that means I get to review the latest Hein Greenslips (a highlight of my week).  Today’s include a reference to a favorite book of mine:

Just Research, 2nd ed.

By Laurel Currie Oates and Anne Enquist

New York: Aspen Publishers, 2009.  $ 51.00

One of our students this past quarter reviewed Just Research, and liked it so much that she bought a copy for herself (we tell students about it, but don’t require it – our required text this coming year is Legal Research Methods, by Michael D. Murray and Christy H. DeSanctis.).  By the way, Aspen, I’d be much more inclined to tell our students to buy a copy of Just Research if you could get its price down to $ 35.00 or less.

Earlier we wrote here about the research log, which is related to the research plan.  Planning and documenting results are key steps for saving time.

Our student concludes her review of Just Research by writing:

I think the biggest takeaway point from the book and the most useful nugget of wisdom is to develop a research plan ahead of time.  This is analogous to setting up logic games on the LSAT.  You can delve right in without a plan, thinking it will take less time, but the setup and planning is key to maximizing efficiency.  I think the same holds true here.  The book presents a number of excellent roadmaps for categorizing, planning and implementing legal research.  I definitely intend to use it as a guide.

Going Behind the Scenes of Empirical Legal Research

A new book crossed my desk today, Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on Methods and Practices, and here’s its description from the publisher’s website (Cambridge University Press):

Conducting Law and Society Research: Reflections on Methods and Practices

Series: Cambridge Studies in Law and Society

Simon Halliday
University of Strathclyde

Patrick Schmidt
MacAlester College, Minnesota

Through interviews with many of the most noteworthy authors in law and society, Conducting Law and Society Research takes students and scholars behind the scenes of empirical scholarship, showing the messy reality of research methods. The challenges and the uncertainties, so often missing from research methods textbooks, are revealed in candid detail. These accessible and revealing conversations about the lived reality of classic projects will be a source of encouragement and inspiration to those embarking on empirical research, ranging across the full array of disciplines that contribute to law and society. For all of the ambiguities and challenges to the social “scientific” study of law, the reflections found in this book – collectively capturing a portrait of the field through the window of the research efforts – individually remind readers that “good research” displays not an absence of problems, but the care taken in negotiating them.

A very candid look at research methods from the leading scholars in the field - Approachable conversations appropriate for all levels, from students to scholars - Topics range very broadly across the leading approaches and speciality subjects in law and society

Contents
1. Beyond methods: law & society in action; 2. Stewart Macaulay and Non-Contractual Relations and Business (1963); 3. Robert Kagan and Regulatory Justice (1978); 4. Malcolm Feeley and The Process Is the Punishment (1979); 5. Lawrence Friedman and The Roots of Justice (1981); 6. John Heinz and Edward Laumann and Chicago Lawyers (1982); 7. Alan Paterson and The Law Lords (1982); 8. David Engel and The Oven Bird’s Song (1984); 9. Keith Hawkins and Environment and Enforcement (1984); 10. Carol Greenhouse and Praying for Justice (1986); 11. John Conley and William O’Barr and Rules versus Relationships (1990); 12. Sally Engle Merry and Getting Justice and Getting Even (1990); 13. Tom Tyler and Why People Obey the Law (1990); 14. Doreen McBarnet and Whiter than White Collar Crime (1991); 15. Gerald Rosenberg and The Hollow Hope (1991); 16. Michael McCann and Rights at Work (1994); 17. Austin Sarat & William Felstiner and Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients (1995); 18. Yves Dezalay and Bryant Garth and Dealing in Virtue (1996); 19. Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey and The Common Place of Law (1998); 20. Hazel Genn and Paths to Justice (1999); 21. John Braithwaite and Peter Drahos and Global Business Regulation (2000); 22. John Hagan and Justice in the Balkans (2003); 23. Conclusion: “Research is a Messy Business” — An Archeology of the Craft of Socio-Legal Research – Herbert Kritzer.

 

And the book makes a good case for why PACER data should be free or at least less expensive for law schools:

From chapter 23, Conclusion: “Research is a Messy Business” — An Archeology of the Craft of Socio-Legal Research:

THE MESSIEST MESS IS THE RESEARCH PROCESS: COLLECTING ORIGINAL DATA

. . . Imagine that you want to study something about trials in federal court.  You could turn to the statistical reports published by the Administrative Office (AO) of the U.S. Courts and extract information from the Reports’ well-digested tables.  Or, you could obtain from the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) the case-level data reported to the AO and deposited with the ICPSR (these data form the basis for the published tables); you could then process these data to create whatever summaries you need.  Or, if you have adequate resources, you could access raw case files through the federal court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system; you would then extract and code the information you want from raw case file data. . . .

Centre for Innovation in Carbon Capture and Storage

The University of Nottigham has developed a Web site for its Centre for Innovation in Carbon Capture and Storage. It offers a diagram of the carbon cycle and news about developments in CO2 sequestration and other carbon capture technologies.

Centre for Innovation in Carbon Capture and Storage

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/carbonmanagement/

Unpublished opinions

A Slate piece, “Sotomayor’s Manly Man Ruling – Her bold ruling in favor of a man who claimed sex discrimination,” by Emily Bazelon, includes this paragraph on unpublished opinions:

Sotomayor agreed to issue an unsigned and unpublished opinion. The term “unpublished opinion” is a bit of a misnomer. These rulings appear in the Lexis and Westlaw databases, where lawyers do legal research. And since a change in the rules in 2007, lawyers have been able to cite unpublished opinions in other cases. But unpublished opinions have second-class status. They’re shorter and often still carry less weight–they’re persuasive rather than binding precedent, in lawyer’s terms. They are not supposed to be the way judges dispose of difficult cases that raise substantive or novel legal issues. But sometimes those cases sneak in, because once a culture of unpublished opinions takes hold in a particular circuit, it’s hard to control. And in the 2nd Circuit, I’m told, there’s a premium on unanimity and consensus, so a 3-0 unpublished opinion might trump a 2-1 published one, in some cases and in some judges’ eyes.

Google, Legal Citations, and Electronic Fickleness: Legal Scholarship in the Digital Environment

“Google, Legal Citations, and Electronic Fickleness: Legal Scholarship in the Digital Environment”

DANA NEACSU, Columbia University – Diamond Law Library

While law review articles are preserved in fee-based databases such as Westlaw and Lexis and thus are reliably accessible for the future, the footnotes, the source of authority and the body of most law review articles which themselves represent the main part of legal scholarship, usually refer to documents which far too often become inaccessible within a few months after their publication. Both government documents and documents privately published on the Internet have an unreliable life-span. This contradictory approach to digitization raises a large array of questions. Among them, is the following: How does this double digitization (that is, digitizing articles which refer to already-digitized, but unreliably retrieved, prior sources) affect the retrieval of legal information? Whose job is it to preserve legal information? As this is a more complex answer here I will only attempt to show that digitization has created a different environment of legal information (which includes legal scholarship) and this new environment proves to be more elusive that we would like to think about it.

 

Source:  LSN Legal Information & Technology Vol. 1 No. 16,  06/03/2009

Bing for travel

As many of us make summer travel plans, I learned about a feature of the new search engine Bing that might be useful.

In today’s Wall Street Journal Katherine Boehret “reviews Microsoft’s new search engine, Bing, which offers related content suggestions, a ‘hover’ option that shows a brief snap shot of web pages, and easy navigation of restaurant and travel information.”

The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, June 3, 2009, p. D1

The Mossberg Solution

Microsoft Effort To Best Google Yields Results

Bing Search Engine is Snazzy, Provides User-Friendly Links; Roger Federer, the Bare Facts

By Katherine Boehret

For people looking up airline flights, Microsoft integrates a technology called Bing Travel into the search.  This tool predicts whether a fare will go up or down in the future based on data aggregation and analysis.  A built-in tool works similarly with hotels, analyzing data to tell if you’re getting a good deal.

Katherine Boehret’s look at Bing is available at:

WSJ.com/PersonalTech

The Past and Future of Wikipedia

David Runciman’s London Review of Books review essay of Andrew Lih’s The Wikipedia Revolution is worth a read.

It turns out that the people who believe in truth and objectivity are at least as numerous as all the crazies, pranksters and time-wasters, and they are often considerably more tenacious, ruthless and monomaniacal. On Wikipedia, it’s the good guys who will hunt you down.

David Runciman

Like Boiling a Frog

London Review of Books, 28 May 2009, p. 14

Yet even a piece of writing that has been edited by so many people can’t resist the occasional cliche. The multiple authors of the afterword write: “The Wikipedia community might be like the frog slowly boiling to death – unaware of the building crisis, because it is not aware how much its environment has slowly changed.”  When I read this, I thought: is it really true that frogs can be slowly boiled to death without realising what’s happening to them? So I looked it up on Wikipedia, confident that there would be an entry. There is: type in “boiling frog” and you go straight to a page that tells you everything you need to know. It gives you examples of the use of the term, its history and a discussion of the veracity of the central idea, including a description of the late 19th-century experiment in which it was first demonstrated and the more recent experiments that have cast doubt on it. Links at the bottom of the page take you to accounts of these later experiments in scientific journals, which suggest that the whole thing is a myth. So there it is: you won’t find any of this in the Columbia, or Encyclopaedia Britannica, or anywhere else for that matter. There is no other way I could have found out about boiling frogs – truly, for all its flaws, Wikipedia is a wonderful thing