WestlawNext for Legal Research Game 1: 2 home runs and 1 strike out

We used WestlawNext for the 1L first Legal Research and Writing research assignment this fall.  It is the same exercise that was used last year, so all six instructors knew exactly what the good cases are.  The problem involves a delinquent child and whether she should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult.  Since our legal research mantra is “secondary first” we started by looking at legal encyclopedias and found a nice summary at 27A Cal. Jur. 3d, Section 215, ” . . . At a fitness hearing, the minor who is presumed to be unfit under the juvenile court law has the burden of rebutting the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence . . . ”

So we just cut ‘n’ pasted that sentence into the WestlawNext search box, limited our results to California, and pressed search.   Some WestlawNext magic then occurred.

The results screen presented one statute, Cal. Welfare & Inst. 707.  And that is the statute the instructors want the students to find.  Bingo!

The search also brought back 44 cases, which is a really nice number for a 1L assignment —  not too many to sift through and not too few to get started.  And not only was the quantity of cases  ideal, all of the instructors said, “ooh, those are really  good cases” when we demonstrated the system for them.  Everyone was suitably impressed with WestlawNext’s ability to ferret out the very best cases for the assignment.

Those are the two home runs.

The system appears to break down at the administrative level.  There is a regulation the instructors want the students to find, but it did not appear on the first page of the results list.  Instead all sorts of extremely unrelated regulations appeared, such as:

Section 1593. Aircraft and Aircraft Parts.
18 CCR Section 1593 Title 18. Public Revenues

We didn’t look through all the regulations since none of the first ten presented appeared to have anything at all to do with juvenile law.

We did play around with several searches using different words and phrases, but in no instance did relevant regulations appear, at least not high on the results list.

So while the students were very impressed with WestlawNext’s ease and ability to hone in on highly relevant statutes and cases, the administrative law limitation does help with  librarians’ job security.

This entry was posted in Computer Assisted Legal Research and tagged by Paul Lomio. Bookmark the permalink.

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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s