About Paul Lomio

Paul is library director and lecturer at law at Stanford Law School. He has a J.D. from Gonzaga Law School, an LL.M. from the University of Washington, and a M.L.I.S. from the Catholic University of America. He is the author (with Henrik Spang-Hanssen) of Legal Research Methods in the U.S. and Europe. He also likes to ride his bicycle.

Becoming the “compleat lawyer” the Aldisert way

From time to time I will get a call or e-mail from a proud parent whose son or daughter has been admitted to Stanford Law School.  The parent wants my advice on a book for their accomplished child to read upon the beginning of their new-found career.  A wonderful book has just come along which fits the bill perfectly:  Judge Ruggero Aldisert’s A Judge’s Advice: 50 Years on the Bench.

This slender volume packs a lot of punch.  In less than 250 pages the judge offers answers to questions that have occupied his thoughts for decades:  : “What is the bedrock of our common law system? What are trial and appellate judges really looking for? What is the logical configuration that is absolutely necessary in any legal argument? What practical challenges do judges face when deciding a case? What is the difference between the philosophy of law and a philosophy of law? What is the difference between a judge making a decision and a judge justifying it, and why does that difference matter to me?  Precedent in the law: When do you kiss it and when do you kill it?”

The judge organizes his thoughts among the following five themes:

  • Our Common Law Tradition: Still Alive and Kicking
  • Logic and Law
  • Avoiding Assembly Line Justice?
  • The “Write Stuff”
  • How Judges Decide Cases

And within these themes are found the following chapters:

The house of the law — The role of the courts in contemporary society — Precedent : what it is and what it isn’t, when do we kiss it and when do we kill it? — Elements of legal thinking — Logic for law students : how to think like a lawyer — Formal and informal fallacies — State courts and federalism — Life in the raw in appellate courts — “The seniors” suggest a solution — Brief writing — Opinion writers and law review writers: a community and continuity of approach — Reading and evaluating an appellate opinion — Philosophy, jurisprudence and jurisprudential temperament of federal judges — Making the decision — Justifying the decision.

While I know that all law students would benefit greatly from reading this book, when I first saw it our international students immediately came to mind as no other single volume that I am aware of so neatly and clearly explains the American legal system.  This book explains stare decisis better than anything else available.

Judge Aldisert writes about his particular passion — the law — with an enthusiasm that is almost exhausting.  Through this book the law student can get a glimpse of just how enormously satisfying the next 60 or 70 years of his or her life can be.

As the judge states in his Introduction:  “. . . These pages flesh out the instruments and implements of lawyers with a far-ranging ‘view from above’ with one objective in mind: to enrich the skills of these men and women so that each may bear — to borrow from Izaak Walton’s The Compleat Angler — the noble title of ‘compleat lawyer.’

This book really should be required reading for all law students, lawyers and others too.  Judge Aldisert is one of my heroes, along with others who inspire me such as Roger Ebert, Vin Scully, Tony Bennett and Keiko Fukuda (Google her)  — people who, while they may have stopped buying green bananas, they have not stopped working and never will.  These are people who make no distinction between work and play and who will be carried off the job feet-first.  They know the secret.   People who I want to be like when I grow up.

Full disclosure:  I was first charmed by Judge Aldisert when I met him during my daughter’s clerkship for him.

Michael Hart, Father of Project Gutenberg

Today’s New York Times includes the lengthy obituary: “Michael Hart, a Pioneer of E-Books, Dies at 64.”

The obit tells the story of the fascinating history of Project Gutenberg, which was born when Mr. Hart typed out the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1971 and made it freely downloadable from Arpanet.   From that beginning, the project has grown to include over 30,000 books.

The obituary also discusses various copyright issues and Mr. Hart’s connection with then Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig when Prof. Lessig met for lunch with Mr. Hart to see if he might serve as lead plaintiff in a constitutional challenge to the Copyright Term Extension Act.  Mr. Hart, after pouring sugar on his pizza, told Prof. Lessig that he saw the ligitation as a chance to “challenge the entire social and economic system of the United States.”    According to the obit. Prof. Lessig was looking for someone a little “less visionary” and enlisted Eric Eldred for the cause, which resulted in the 2003 Supreme Court decision Eldred v. Ashcroft.

New to the legal lexicon: dissental and concurral

A story in today’s Daily Journal reports on the usage by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of two newly coined (by him) words: dissental and concurral.

According to the story, “Chief Judge coins new words for failed en banc calls – Alex Kozinski coined his own words to describe a common practice,” by John Roemer,

Dissental conflates the words “dissent” and “denial” while concurral combines “concurrence” with “denial.” They are intended to replace the clunkier phrases “dissent from denial of rehearing en banc” or “concurrence in denial of rehearing en banc” used by the court.

The words are used “as shorthand descriptions of judges’ widening practice of delivering often-passionate commentary on failed en banc calls.’

So, have some fun and and search for those terms in CALR databases.

The goodness of porn

 

The staff of the Stanford Law Library must abide by two simple rules:  1. Be nice; 2. no porn.

I start my day in the office by reading four newspapers:  The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Financial Times (have I got a great job or what?! – I get paid to read the newspaper).

So imagine my surprise when I turned to page 5 of yesterday’s Financial Times and found a full-page ad placed by the adult entertainment industry in support of the new .xxx internet extension, “WHY THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IS ADOPTING A NEW POSITION.”

According to the ad (and, rhetorical question here:  what will replace the impact of a “full-page ad” when newspapers give up their print editions?), there are many benefits of the .xxx address.

For one thing, all sites ending in .xxx with be scanned daily for malware and spyware.

And $10 for every .xxx domain will go to the International Foundation for Online Responsibility, which develops tools to protect children online.

“.XXX is the most desirable thing to happen to online adult entertainment in a long time,” the ad concludes.

And this ad comes about a week after a news story suggesting that colleges might want to “snatch up .xxx domains.”

But you won’t be seeing LegalResearchPlus.xxx, and my two rules still apply at the library:

1. Be nice.  2. No porn.

If anyone wants more information, the ad points to www.about.xxx and I’d be happy to send along a copy of the full-page ad upon request.

Liking Libraries

The past weekend Wall Street Journal ran a profile of Soleio Cuervo.  Mr. Cuervo is a product designer for Facebook, and part of the team that developed the thumbs-up Like button.  Facebook is my neighbor (although, alas, they are moving to a new headquarters soon) and my neighborhood also has a charming public library, which is part of Mr. Cuervo’s story.

The Man Who Got Us to ‘Like’ Everything

by Geoffrey A. Fowler

The Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday, August 13-14, 2011, p. C11

. . .

His favorite quiet spot to work is the public library in Palo Alto, Calif., near Facebook headquarters. . . . “. . . I find having a little solitude makes me more productive, and the public library is good for that.”

. . .

The high court’s high price

This week’s Bloomberg Businessweek has a one-page chart showing “The Price of Winning at the Supreme Court.”  The case examined is Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n (was Schwarzenegger v. EMA).  Costs included $ 815,008.51 for the work of eight attorneys (other than the partner who argued the case) and $ 125.00 to the George Washington University Law library for the loan of five books.   The lawyers also paid Amazon.com $ 28.49 for a copy of Penny Dreadfuls and Comics: English Periodicals for Children from Victorian Times to Present Day.

Thomson Reuters in the news

From a Wall Street Journal report:

Thomson Reuters Profit Jumps 93%

. . . WestlawNext, which has been sold to over 24,000 customers since its launch in early 2010 and is helping to offset downward pressure stemming from continuing weakness in business from large law firms. Legal revenue increased 9% to $843 million for ongoing businesses and before currency adjustments.

And this from a story in yesterday’s Financial Times, “Thomsons grow restless over Reuter’s progress,” (p. 17, by David Gelles and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson).

. . . the company’s focus is largely on its Eikon platform, which was designed as a rival to the Bloomberg terminal.  Outside observers acknowledge that Eikon was well conceived. “Eikon is a fantastic idea and if they have time it will go far, ” said [Douglas B. Taylor, managing partner at Burton-Taylor International Consulting].  “It won’t be a Bloomberg killer, but it will reset the bar for Thomson Reuters.”

Easy Does It: Examining First-Year Law Student Impressions of the Online Resources They Use Most Often

“Easy Does It: Examining First-Year Law Student Impressions of the Online
Resources They Use Most Often” 

LISA D. KINZER, University of Texas at Austin – School of Law

You’ve got what you get and you don’t throw a fit.

It’s a mantra heard in households across the country when kids sit down at the
kitchen table and realize they do not have what they wanted for dinner. A few
weeks ago, I had a “you’ve got what you get” moment as I was looking over data I
had collected from first-year J.D. students at the University of Texas School of
Law.

The data, as it turned out, were not what I wanted. I had asked
students to name the online resource they use most often, and then to answer a
series of brief questions about that resource. I had intended to (1) measure
student use of WestlawNext, and (2) get a sense of what students think of
WestlawNext. But in retrospect I realized I had not accomplished my second goal,
because I had failed to collect any information about WestlawNext from students
who do not use it. It is not particularly useful to hear about a resource from
its fans, without also hearing from individuals who are perhaps not as enamored
with that resource. So I could not use the data to write anything very
interesting about WestlawNext.

However, some of the data patterns that
emerged were so striking that I wanted to share them. I found that, regardless
of whether a student is using Lexis, Westlaw, or WestlawNext, students are
overwhelmingly convinced that their resource is the easiest and the fastest to
use. I also found that students are not nearly as convinced that their resource
returns relevant material or everything they need. In addition, it seems that
students simply do not care near as much about vendor rewards programs as
vendors might have us believe. And finally, to the extent that their legal
research professors have any preference as to what resource students should use,
students are either unaware of that preference or simply unaffected by
it.

In this paper, I review the data that create these patterns, and then
try to sort out what these patterns mean, practically speaking. I will begin
with an overview of my methodology, then review the results of the survey, and
then turn to the implications and possibilities for further research.

 

Source: LSN Legal Education eJournal Vol. 8 No. 41, 07/20/2011

Making room for cappuccino, and fish too.

While it won’t be front-page news for anyone reading this blog, there was a front-page story in Tuesday’s San Francisco Daily Journal (password needed) about how law firms are reducing the size of their libraries and using the spaces that once held books for people purposes instead.  The story, “Making Space for Collaboration – Libraries, Formerly the Hub of Firm Intellectual Life, Have Been Downsized,” by Susan McRae, looks at how a few local law firms have shifted their focus from books to cappuccino.

. . . Seizing the void [of little-used libraries] as an opportunity, firm administrators began turning unused library space into open meeting rooms, lounges and cappuccino bars, confining the far smaller collections to a few shelves . . .

The story takes a close look at Durie Tangri’s beautiful new offices and features photographs of a modern “common space” and also the firm’s pool table.  The story notes that

Firm lawyers were even willing to make individuall offices smaller to accommodate the collaborative dynamic.  Their print library was confined to one volume of treatises houses in a 3-by-6 foot shelf.

Another firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan

. . . enthusiastically incorporated a cappuccino bar and a couple of saltwater fish tanks into its library space.

At Davis Wright Tremaine its “traditional law library in Los Angeles, which was sitting unused, . . . ” has been turned into a lounge “with comfortable seating and a big-screen TV” while “the remaining law books are kept in a centralized area off to the side.”

At Greenberg Glusker the library space and collection have been reduced by two-thirds.

This pattern of greatly shrinking libraries and getting rid of the books is not limited to law firm libraries.  Here at Stanford University we also see this trend reflected in two newly opened libraries.

The first is the Engineering Library which is part of the newly build Terman Engineering Center.   According to a story in the Stanford Daily, “Terman library adapts to ‘bookless’ system,” the library has “cut down the number of books to about 20,000 from 80,000 and increased the number of e-books to around 40,000.”

And our business school just build an enormous new campus, with a brand new drop-dead gorgeous library.  There the on-site print collection was reduced from 400,000 volumes to approximately 30,000.

 

 

 

After Google Book Search: Rebooting the Digital Library

“After Google Book Search: Rebooting the Digital Library” 
University of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 559

RANDAL C. PICKER, University of Chicago – Law School

The rejection of the Google Book Search settlement means that we are at a point of rebooting how we design our digital library future. There were many criticisms of GBS and the settlement but perhaps chief among those was the risk that approval of the settlement would have locked in a single approach to digital libraries. Google would have received unique access to the so-called orphan works and that would have provided it what may have been a decisive advantage against digital library competitors, both private and public. As we move forward on the orphan works, we need to do so with two principles in mind. First, we need to enable broad competing uses of the orphan works while, to the greatest extent possible, respecting the rights of the orphan works holders. Second, we should not repeat the mistake of the GBS settlement by somehow tilting the table in favor of digital library monopoly, either public or private.

We should want to foster a rich digital library ecosystem. GBS makes clear that we can have large-scale private digital libraries. That is an important development and one that we should seek to enable. If we create use rights for copyrighted works for digital libraries, we should be sure to make those privileges available to both public digital libraries and private digital libraries such as GBS and its successors. Our existing statutory safe harbors for libraries favor noncommercial libraries and archives. The emergence of GBS suggests that that is too narrow a conception of what libraries can be in the digital age and we need a statutory scheme that supports that.

Source: LSN: University of Chicago Law School, Law & Economics Research Paper Series Vol. 13 No. 4, 06/27/2011