Law Librarian Blog

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA And People Power

Two articles in CNN Money take an interesting look at the recent legislative successes and failures to extend intellectual property laws.  One article, Millions in SOPA Lobbying Bucks Gone to Waste details the intersection between corporate lobbying and the populist uprising that derailed SOPA and PIPA.  Media lobbying was in the millions, as was the opposition, mostly funded by Google.  Other tech companies were firmly against the legislation but spent in the hundreds of thousands. 

What did the legislation in was the demonstration of opposition by the people who use the Internet more than the Googles of the world.  That, apparently, got the attention of Congress more than corporate dollars, not that any of those dollars are marked return to sender or anything.  The article suggests that Internet companies should pick their battles “more carefully going forward.”  Sure, but the level of engagement on the part of the public over an issue that was publicized as against its interest suggests the public could be rallied on other issues.

The second article, Meet SOPA’s Evil Twin, ACTA, is an example of what happens when government and industry work quietly together.  ACTA, in theory, is about counterfeit goods (that’s the C in ACTA) but spends an inordinate amount of language on piracy of intellectual property.  It imposes DMCA style regulation on its signatories, without necessarily requiring the safe harbor protections.  That’s not surprising since the track record of the courts in the United States is to take them seriously, much to the vexation of media companies.

I’ve written about ACTA plenty of times, and it’s not as if articles haven’t appeared in the press.  There was, however, no real outcry about the terms of the agreement or its development in secret except from the usual suspects.  The United States signed the law a while ago, and now reports indicate that the European Union is about to sign on.  That generated a DDoS attack on the European Parliament web site and protests in Poland.  Weathering the storm after the fact is something governments take into account.  Where were all of you when the treaty was negotiated?  Major pressure at that time might have made a difference politically.  The anti-SOPA/PIPA protests shows what's possible when the public conscience can be mobilized. Politicians take note:  money isn't everything.  [MG]

Friday Fun: TV Station Uses Hand Puppets to Recreate Courtroom Scenes in Corruption Trial

Why? Because the TV station was not allowed to take cameras into the federal courtroom to cover a former Ohio county commissioner. Lowering the Bar's Kevin Underhill, comments "I think that all court proceedings should be reported in this way, but would settle for either puppet coverage of arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court or a full reenactment of the Rod Blagojevich trial." [JH]

Preteens Like eBooks (and some of them will be applying to law school in about ten years)

According to recent surveys connduct by RR Bowker’s PubTrack Consumer in October and November of last year, preteens find eBooks "fun and cool." Apparently, some are introducted to eBooks in the home when their parents hand down their eReaders after they upgrade to new ones. Unlike teenagers surveyed, preteens are not as concerned about the restrictions on sharing digital content or on e-Books not being a social technology. For a recap of the survey results, see paidContent's Laura Hazard Owen report, New Stats: Kids Find E-Books ‘Fun And Cool,’ But Teens Are Still Reluctant.

One should also note that preteens are more likely to be exposed to enhanced e-textbooks than any other pre-college age group because the interactivity and multimedia being embedded in enhanced e-textbooks for grade schoolers improves the learning process. No doubt this will have a trickle up effect all the way to enhanced law eBooks used in legal education. Apparently, TR Legal doesn't want to take a long-term perspective on the law school publishing market.

TR Legal did make a stab at offering some unenhanced law school eBooks to students by way of law library purchasing last year. My understanding is that it was a flop because the cost to academic law libraries approached the prices some (many, most, all?) paid for Weslaw. Oops. Haven't the gurus in the Land of 10,000 licenses who are running TR Legal into the ground heard about academic law library budget cutbacks yet? My bad, it's all about the "guaranteed revenue stream" at TR Legal. Just keep repeating that mantra as if it is working as well as now as it formerly did before the recession. 

Whoa. Any chance TR Legal wants to unload its current law school publishing assets now and then use the proceeds to develop a new product line of enhanced law school eBooks that could be launched in several years? Perhaps we will be seeing student editions of practitioner-focused ProView-ed editions in the not too distant future. Pure speculation on my part but when one can't trust what a legal publisher like TR Legal says, such speculation is warranted. Potential buyers of TR Legal's academic legal publishing assets, if there are any, beware. [JH] 

For the Love of It: On why law profs write fiction

Actually, on why one law prof writes fiction. See Ohio Northern Univ. law prof Scott Douglas Gerber's article, "Why a law profressor writes fiction" in the January 2011 issue of The National Jurist at 14 (subscription required.) Gerber admits the reason is "for the money assuming you can get the publishing industry's attention" but considering the ups and downs of trying to publish works of fiction, it all boils down to "if you write fiction because you enjoy it _ nothing more, nothing less _ you will never regret that you do."

Gerber has first-hand experience. His most recent legal thriller is Mr. Justice (Sunbury Press, 2011). This is his third novel. All three have been published by different publishers. His earlier novels are The Law Clerk: A Novel (published by Ohio Northern University Press, as distributed by Kent State University Press, 2007) and The Ivory Tower: A Novel (University Press of the South, 2001).

Kind readers, do note that Gerber [web profile] does not only write legal thrillers. His most recent work of legal scholarship was published by Oxford University Press last year. See A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary, 1606-1787. [JH]

Report Suggests Students Don't Need Many Library Services at Crunch Time

There is an interesting report from Project Information Literacy (based at Washington University Information School) called How College Students Manage Technology While in the Library during Crunch Time.  Here is the abstract:

Abstract: The paper presents findings from 560 interviews with undergraduates on 10 campuses distributed across the US, as part of Project Information Literacy (PIL). Overall, the findings suggest that students use a “less is more” approach to manage and control all of the IT devices and information systems available to them while they are in the library during the final weeks of the term. In the hour before we approached them for an interview, more respondents had checked for messages (e.g., Facebook, email, texts, IMs) more than any other task while they were in the library. A majority of respondents who had checked for messages during the previous hour had also prepared assignments and/or studied for courses. More respondents reported using library equipment, such as computers and printers, more than they had used any other library resource or service. Over half the sample considered their laptop their most essential IT device and most had a Web browser and, to a lesser extent, a word processing application running at the time of the interviews. Most students were using one or two Web sites at the time of the interviews, but there was little overlap among the Web sites they were using. A large majority of the respondents could be classified as “light” technology users, i.e., students who use one or two IT devices to support one or two primary activities (at the time of the interviews). A preliminary theory is introduced that describes how studentsʼ technology usage may be influenced by locale (i.e., the campus library) and circumstance (i.e., crunch time). Recommendations are made for how campus-wide stakeholders—faculty, librarians, higher education administrators, and commercial publishers—can work together to improve pedagogies for 21st century undergraduates.

While the subjects of the study are undergraduates, much of the use of the library mirrors what I see anecdotally from the reference desk as we get near exams.  The few questions we get at that time relate more to technology and equipment than it does to anything law related.  My impression is that most students have acquired most of the information they need for their outlines by that time and the library is the setting where they are putting it together.

Here are some of the findings from the report.  81% of interviewed students used technology to stay in touch with friends via social media or messaging systems.  Few students used library resources compared to the equipment located there.  39% used computers and printers; 11% used research databases; 9% used library books; 5% used face-to-face reference; and 2% used online reference.  Although the report covered undergraduate students, I’m not sure that Lexis or Westlaw use by law students would be much different in these circumstances.

There are four promised recommendations for librarians at the end of the report.  These are (1) assessing the library’s role as a refuge; (2) designing mobile apps to support new study habits; (3) explore the viability of social media one course at a time; and (4) learning beyond self-styled techniques for managing IT devices.  The recommendations have no specific answers.  The concern with number 1 is the distinct lack of engagement students have with the library at crunch time. 

As to the first recommendation, the authors received more complaints about WiFi connectivity and printer/copier maintenance.  I have to agree that law students raise similar complaints.  They urge libraries to consider what services students actually need at these times compared to what libraries make available.  I’m not sure how this issue necessarily critical as library services generally don’t change at these times.  Student needs might change but I’m not sure there is a gap where the library might provide different services.  The complaints tend to be facilities based rather than resource based.

The second recommendation suggests libraries either create or license mobile apps that enhance study opportunities for students.  It’s an interesting idea, but one that would require broad university support for creation and implementation, plus money for support.  The third recommendation is another where the role of the library within the greater institution comes into play.  Blackboard and its alternatives were designed for collaboration in a controlled environment.  I’m not sure social networks could be a substitute for them given the requirements of confidentiality in federal law.  Social networks like to be, well, very openly social.  Still there is room to create software that turns class sites into class hangouts, assuming that is what a student wants.

The fourth recommendation builds on the fact that students tend to use fewer devices, mostly a laptop and/or a smart phone for connectivity.  Odd that tablet computing hasn’t made the cut yet, but I suppose that is fodder for a future study.  The real problem isn’t the devices themselves, but perhaps teaching students to use them better for note taking or identifying other specialized software.  Librarians could fill a role in teaching best digital management strategies.  The last idea is the most interesting.  That’s a service libraries tend not to supply.

A PDF copy of the report is here.  [MG]

Content In Their Containers: The birth of a new form of legal publication and how it will be sold

"Content, Not Containers!" is the brief comment Jason Wilson added to his tweet that calls attention to CALI Director of Content Development Sarah Glassmeyer's recent CALI Spotlight Blog post. Content is certainly important but the reality is content is always shaped by its container, be it in print or electronic format. Just look at how secondary sources have been chopped up into itty-bitty content slices by our major legal search vendors in their database displays. Not a good thing in my humble opinion but the database container provides links to cited sources which is a good thing.

One solution to the content destruction of databased secondary sources while the preservation of embedded links is the rapidly coming generation of enhanced law eBooks by our major commercial vendors. Of course, they are going to provide links to their own online search services. However, following the industry maxim, do the opposite of whatever TR Legal is doing, I'm willing to place two bets:

First, our other major legal vendors of enhanced eBooks won't link to their "next-gen" search services databases until their legacy (aka "classic") services are vaporized. TR Legal ProView eBooks link to WestlawNext, not Classic Westlaw. Talk about "customer experience," the TR Legal way -- let's frustrate the hell out of our eBook buyers until they finally adopt WLN.

Second, our other major legal vendors won't allow just anyone who has an institution-based and supplied user account to acquire one of their enhanced eBooks that can be charged to the insitution's billing account without prior authorization from the person who has to pay those charges. Talk about "customer education," the TR Legal way -- let's really po our institutional buyers with our OnePass end-around (which may lead them to having to adopt WLN).

More about TR Legal's ProView sales-OnePass user account stunt later; oh hell, let's get it over with now. Even some West folks have complained about it. Can we hope that the Company listens to its own employees and has changed this sales stunt since I gave it a look-see in December (and promptly emailed my West rep an "under no circumstances will we pay those charges because it violates Ohio state law for county law library purchasing")? Beyond the world of Ohio county law library statutory requirements, I think every other private, academic and public sector law library may want to examine the terms of its Westlaw-WLN licenses to see if this use of their OnePass accounts is even legal. But if so, is it desirable?

If this sales tactic has not been changed since I last looked, do note well, TR Legal has its usual CYA in boilerplate displays covering terms and conditions of sales and a certification statement prior to the execution of the ProView sale. However, isn't it a bit ironic that TR published on Dec. 21, 2011 a press release titled Online Shoppers Are Careless Reading Their Legal Agreements, Says New FindLaw Survey.

e = enhanced. Sarah's The Enhanced Book post covers two topics.  

One, the amazing possibilities that ebooks offer, especially in an educational context. And two, that traditional publishers really need to up their game when it comes to ebook production.

She adds

When it comes to ebooks, especially educational ebooks, the content can be greatly enhanced and shaped by the container it is held in.

I certainly agree but wouldn't emphasize educational eBooks. In the legal context, Sarah's content enhancement statement, in my opinion, applies to all enhanced eBooks. The day is coming when the "e" in law eBooks will stand for "enhanced."  It will be the norm at least in law eBook customer expectations, perhaps as early as the end of this year. Someday, this "e" will encompass more than just links to commercial database resources. It will include multimedia. It will also include work product enhancing materials like text editable downloadable forms, contract clauses, etc., that may not databased-linked but may be upsells.

Hopefully, those remaining smaller legal publishers provide links to reliable open access primary legal sources as well as free downloading of work product enhancing materials. Wait 'n see. In the meantime, Sarah's The Enhanced Book post is highly recommended. [JH]

Another Attempt To Unmask An Anonymous Poster

A lawsuit against media streaming company Grooveshark by music labels is fertile ground for determining whether an anonymous commentator can be unmasked, and under what circumstances media shield laws apply to protect that person’s identity from being revealed in court.  In this particular case, an anonymous Grooveshark employee posted comments to Digital Music News identifying practices by the company that encouraged copyright infringement.  Grooveshark was not amused and served a subpoena on the site to unmask the employee.

Digital Music News was even less amused and is resisting on the basis that media shield laws should protect these sources from disclosure.  An article in paidContent suggests, and I think correctly, that this is an open question.  The New York media shield law may apply depending on circumstances, including whether the identity of the employee (and further developed information flowing from that unmasking) is essential to Grooveshark’s defense.  Note that Universal Music, the plaintiff, is using the disclosure as evidence against Grooveshark.  I would think both sides would have an interest in developing the truth of the statement.  I suppose Universal could just as easily depose various Grooveshark employees under oath about company practices.  An anonymous posting could rise to the level of supporting an allegation against Grooveshark, but as iron-clad evidence?  I doubt it.

It should be pretty interesting to see where this winds up as a matter of principle.  Digital Music News claims it deletes its source information of posters to frustrate these types of requests.  A court may still rule that the company may need to try and search its records in any event.  A casual reading of commentary on the issue of anonymous posting suggests that courts balance the need for the information against First Amendment concerns, with statutory or judicial definitions of who can claim to be a journalist.  Is someone who writes a letter to the editor considered a journalist?  Is someone who comments anonymously any different because it takes place on the web?

Various commentaries suggest that the outcomes in these type of cases are all over the place, depending on circumstances.  What is not in doubt is that First Amendment protection for anonymous posting is not absolute.  A good legal analysis is in First Amendment Protection Afforded to Blogs and Bloggers, 35 A.L.R.6th 407.  More information about the case is in paidContent.  I’m not sure if Digital Media News has the better argument unless the ultimate information sought from unmasking the commentator can be developed through other means.  [MG]

Time and duty to one's employer is "of the essence" in vendor relations; much less so for AALL

Most if not all of us who have budgets to manage, collections to develop, and patrons to serve view vendor relations as something more than just is "a topic on everyone’s mind." We have been and continue to take actions because that is what our employers pay us to do. But when and to what degree of involvement AALL is going to take actions to support its institutional members continues to be "a topic on everyone's mind."

When? To quote from the Vendor Liaison January 2012 e-Update (date stamped Jan. 23, 2012 via my RSS feed)

Developing a vendor relations policy has been one of my top priorities from the beginning because it will provide the basis for how we address issues as an Association. Now that my regular work with committees and task forces has become more routine, I have time to work on articulating the issues that will form a framework for such a policy.
 
I envision this to be analogous to AALL's Government Relations Policy  in that it will describe AALL's role in consumer advocacy and the expertise of its members on issues related to library relations with information vendors. It will address the areas of interest and concern that are important to law libraries and on which the Association might take a position. Because the Executive Board has primary responsibility for approval of Association policy, the vendor relations policy will be drafted for discussion and adoption by the board.
 
Although I do not have a timeline for completing work on the vendor relations policy, I do hope to have initial discussions with the Executive Board at its spring 2012 meeting in late March. At this time, I would like to invite AALL members to help me formulate the list of issues for discussion. What vendor relations issues are important to your library? What are the issues on which the Association should take a position? In what ways should the Association support its members' consumer advocacy efforts?
 
Please email me no later than February 15 with your thoughts on these issues. I hope to hear from many of you in the coming weeks.

Really other work was more important? Only now have time for working on a "top priority" policy draft which is supposed to be the basis of the Vendor Liaison's paid-for tasks? This is not a criticism of our current Vendor Liaison. She's employed by the E-Board so she has to follow their marching orders.

Do note, members have what, something like a three weeks to contribute to this specific stage in the timeline-devoid process. Jeez, if the blog widow says OK, I hope to retire in six years ... will AALL be finished with this work by then? But more is going on.

To what degree of involvement? AALL Chapter Presidents received the following email also date-stamped Jan. 23, 2012 but not mentioned in either the January 2012 Vendor Liaison Update or the January 2012 AALL eNewsletter:

Monday, January 23, 2012 7:09 PM
To: AALL Council of Chapter Presidents
Cc: Margaret Maes
Subject: [c-chpr] Survey on Vendor Relations Chapter Leaders

Vendor Relations is a topic on everyone’s mind as we struggle to purchase and maintain resources for our libraries and patrons.

Margie Maes, AALL Vendor Liaison [email link omitted to avoid robo-scraping] wants to know if any chapters have a vendor relations committee or liaison, and if any chapters have conducted any recent programs relating to vendor activities.  Please click here [link omitted] to answer this brief survey. You can answer the survey yourself or delegate it to a committee chair or board member.  Also, more than one person per chapter can respond.

As a reminder, you can request a visit from Margie as part of the Chapter Visit program. Go to the Chapter Visit page on AALLNET to find information on policies and procedures for Chapter Visits.

Margie Maes and I thank you in advance for your help with this survey

By "I" instead of "we" I guess is meant the first of the three sig lines in the email.

Patricia Barbone, AALL Chair of the Council of Chapter Presidents, 2011-2012.

Here are the survey questions:

Vendor Relations in the Chapters

Survey on Vendor Relations Activities in the Chapters

Patricia Barbone, Chair of the Council of Chapter Presidents, is conducting this survey on behalf of Margie Maes, AALL Vendor Liaison, to learn what chapters are doing regarding vendor relations.

* 1. What is your NAME?

* 2. Responding for which CHAPTER?

* 3. Does your Chapter have a Vendor Relations Committee or Liaison?

* 4. Has your Chapter done any vendor relations related programming or activities? If yes, please tell us how.

* 5. Are you considering any programming or activites related to Vendor Relations in the near future?

* 6. Are you planning on creating a Vendor Relations committee or appointing a Liaison in the near future?

* 7. Do you think Vendor Relations is a topic that Chapters should address?

8. Do you have any additional comments about Vendor Relations?

Some of the work that has keep the Vendor Liaison too busy to draft a vendor relations policy has been publicized, namely "working" with CRIV and "supporting" the work of the task forces and activities initiated by the Vendor Colloquium Action Plan, (Library Procurement Process Improvement Task Force and the Guide to Fair Business Practices for Legal Publishers Revisions Task Force, both established in October 2011), plus supporting the Price Index for Legal Publications Committee for which the January 2011 AALL eNewsletter just announced the E-Board's appointment of an Index Editor (according to the job posting, I think one should say hired) for a three-year term effective Feb. 1, 2012. The above survey, however, is the first I (but not only I) have seen about the E-Board, by way of the Vendor Liaison, delving into Chapter-level structures and activities on this matter.

A justifable concern? In survey monkey fashion, the above Chapters survey looks innocent enough. Certainly it can (read will) be reasoned that the survey results will provide information for the development of AALL's national-level vendor relations policy. However, based on the AALL's antitrustism-inspired cram-down of its web communications policy at the Chapter level for their websites and listservs last year and our association's 2007-to-date history of rejecting any vendor-buyer relations annual meeting program proposals that go beyond our E-Boards' comfort zone, there is a damn good reason for Chapters to be worried about AALL strong-arming Chapter vendor relations both in terms of committee structures and future programs that may address in any way shape or form vendor-buyer issues among chapter-level members. Of course, not even AALL can censor the whispers in hallways between Chapter-level meetings or the more noisy hotel bar conversations about vendor relations.

Here's a thought since the suggestion has been made. Instead of having whichever E-Board member who draws the short straw to attend your Chapter's annual meeting, insist on having the Vendor Liaison attend it. Go to AALL Chapter Visits. I've attended too many chapter annual meetings where the E-Board member did his or her happy talk presentation that was so boring few questions were asked by the attendees, fewer answered with any real information value. If AALL refuses to the send the Vendor Liaison (she might be too busy, you know, since her mandate appears to become E-Board's go-to person to get involved in just about everything even remotely considered to be "vendors-related") then I think the appropriate response just might be "an E-Board member is not welcome because we want to hear from our your employee and only our your employee."

One way to look at my suggestion is that if the Vendor Liaison is kept busy traveling across this great land of ours, a bastion of aggressive capitalism for legal publishers demonstrating monopolistic tendencies whenever and wherever they can (meaning, particularly in many state markets), to attend Chapter annual meetings, it is less likely that AALL can do any more damage. Since it is clear that "time is not of the essence" in AALL's relationship with its members on this matter, why not. 

One basic question remains. A much more fundamental way to look at this is to question how can our association go about developing a vendor relations policy without first having an antitrust policy in place? Oh, my bad, our association has been implementing the Board-rejected draft antitrustism policy, meaning, of course, AALL has its de facto policy in place.

Is there any reason why AALL needs a more restrictive antitrust policy than ALA? See AALL's Biggest Blunder of 2011. [JH]

Why are we still citing to page numbers?

Never one to mince words, Jason Wilson answers the question asked in the title of his post, Why the fuck are we still citing to page numbers in cases? Highly recommended. Do note he also lists the 16 enlightened states that have adopted paragraph-level citation rules.

Adding paragraph numbering to e-text inventories is doable. It actually wouldn't be all that expensive or difficult for online vendors to add paragraph numbers to court opinions. Any well-formed e-text (except perhaps PDFs) can be programmed to insert a damn paragraph number by way of regular expressions-like commands. Entire database files can be executed at once as long as e-text coding is consistent. Essentially the regular expression commands would be:

1. Find text of opinion section code;
2. Find code for start of paragraph;
3. Insert paragraph number;
4. Find next paragraph code;
5. Insert paragraph number by adding 1 to last paragraph number;
6. Continue process until end of text of opinion section code is found;
7. Move to next opinion file and start the processing again. 

Anyone think I hand-coded the above numerically ordered list? The above process is familiar to all who use "find and replace" functions in word processing applications.

But which major legal search vendor will be the first to do it? Probably not West! I have a hunch that if a major vendor unilaterally decided to add paragraph numbers to court opinions across the board "for the hell of it," it would propel the adoption of a more enlightened citation norm and as Wilson notes, one with greater pinpoint references.

Some may ask but what about citation indexes? That indeed would take more work if applied retrospectively by way of correlation tables requiring human editors to identify pinpoints. Doing so would be problematic at best where cited references do not include quotes from the text. Best, I think to leave legacy citation lists untouched and just move on. 

At some point in time, text and tools have to adjust to the reality of electronic legal publishing. The "page" should be "history" by now. [JH]

Judge Orders Production of Unencrypted Laptop in Bank Fraud Case

There’s a case out of federal district court in Colorado involving a suit for bank fraud where possible evidence is on an encrypted laptop.  The defendant in the case apparently has the password and isn’t telling.  So far, she has defended the government request for the password as violating her Fifth Amendment rights.  Yesterday the Judge overseeing her case issued an order compelling her to present the government with an unencrypted version of her laptop.  The government is forbidden from using the act of production as a means of authenticating documents found on the laptop.

The Court determined that the government knows of the existence of the files, and even though it does not know the content of any specific file, that is not a barrier to production.  The Court used the precedent in the Boucher case out of Vermont.  That case involved child pornography on an encrypted laptop.  The Boucher court ordered production of an unencrypted laptop by the defendant with the same limitations.

The few cases on point that exist and cited in the Judge’s order tend to favor disclosure despite the Fifth Amendment language against self-incrimination.  The distinction seems to be the fact that by not authenticating the content through the act of production, the Fifth Amendment is not implicated.  The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, though the few appellate decisions cited in the Judge’s order tend to agree with this principle.

The case is United States v. Fricosu (Criminal case 10-cr-00509-REB-02).  Wired has commentary to the case via CNN, and provides a PDF copy of the order.  My earlier coverage of this case is here.  [MG]

Law School Transparency's Class of 2010 Placement Data Disclosure Findings Raise Red Flag on Need for Oversight

From the Executive Summary of the Winter 2012 Transparency Index Report (January 2012) by Law School Transparency:

As a new year unfolds and the debate about legal education reform continues, efforts in furtherance of law school transparency remain critical. While transparency of law schools’ post-graduation employment data will not solve all of legal education’s problems, it can put pressure on the current law school model and thereby act as a catalyst for broader legal education reform. This is true whether it occurs through the process of seeking transparency or because of the information that such disclosure ultimately reveals.

Having had their long-standing practice of withholding basic consumer information called into question, law schools have responded with new attempts at disclosure in advance of the ABA’s new requirements. Adequate disclosure should be easy to achieve; law schools have possessed ample information, in an easy publishable format, for many months. But as the findings of this report show, the vast majority of U.S. law schools are still hiding critical information from their applicants.

This report reflects LST’s analysis of the class of 2010 employment information available on ABA-approved law school websites in early January 2012. The Winter 2012 Index reveals a continued pattern of consumer-disoriented activity. Our chief findings are as follows:

• 27% (54/197) do not provide any evaluable information on their websites for class of 2010 employment outcomes. Of those 54 schools, 22 do not provide any employment information on their website whatsoever. The other 32 schools demonstrate a pattern of consumer-disoriented behavior.
• 51% of schools fail to indicate how many graduates actually responded to their survey. Response rates provide applicants with a way to gauge the usefulness of survey results, a sort of back-of-the-envelope margin of error. Without the rate, schools can advertise employment rates north of 95% without explaining that the true employment rate is unknown, and likely lower.
• Only 26% of law schools indicate how many graduates worked in legal jobs. 11% indicate how many were in full-time legal jobs. Just 1% indicate how many were in full-time, long-term legal jobs.
• 17% of schools indicate how many graduates were employed in full-time vs. part-time jobs. 10% indicate how many were employed in long-term vs. short-term jobs. 10% of schools report how many graduates were employed in school-funded jobs.
• 49% of schools provide at least some salary information, but the vast majority of those schools (78%) provide the information in ways that mislead the reader.

Taken together, these and other findings illustrate how law schools have been slow to react to calls for disclosure, with some schools conjuring ways to repackage employment data to maintain their images. Our findings play into a larger dialogue about law schools and their continued secrecy against a backdrop of stories about admissions data fraud, class action lawsuits, and ever-rising education costs. These findings raise a red flag as to whether schools are capable of making needed changes to the current, unsustainable law school model without being compelled to through government oversight or other external forces.

See also the Live Transparency Index on the Law School Transparency website. [JH]

How Libraries Can Go High-Tech on a Tight Budget

It may not be as big an issue in the private sector which knows how to justify the costs associated with using 21st century tech but it can be a fairly big deal in the academic and government sectors. In Daniel A. Freeman's How to Go High-Tech on a Tight Budget on ALA TechSource Blog, he writes

For libraries, it's one of the biggest conundrums of our time. To be the library your patrons want and need you to be, you've got to be high-tech, offering fast, IT-integrated services people can't get on their own. Yet to do this, you have to spend money...money you do not have in your budget.

In a new ALA TechSource Workshop, trainers and technology experts Robin Hastings and Maurice Coleman will show you how you can utilize the latest technology tools and train yourself to stay on top of new trends without breaking the bank, and in some cases, without even touching it.

Maurice and Robin will discuss best practices for using technology to keep your library connected and up to date. With their expert guidance, you will be able to evaluate and implement low-cost and free tools for your systems and your patrons. You'll learn about sources of information and training that are available to you and your staff.

Granted this presentation does not focus on law libraries per se but ALA consistently offers the kind of professional intelligence on timely and emerging issues AALL does not. I'm thinking AALL's preoccupation with annual meetings could be substantially reduced by stealing a chapter fron ALA regarding professional and educational e-delivered opportunities.

Here's the details for the ALA TechSource Workshop from the Association's eCommerce site:

How to Go High Tech on a Tight Budget (ALA TechSource Workshop) 
Maurice Coleman and Robin Hastings
Item Number: 1541-8880

Wednesday, February 1, 2012, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Eastern: Session 1
Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Eastern: Session 2
 
Publisher: ALA TechSource
Price: $85.00

[JH]

 

Supreme Court Action Today: GPS Tracking, Sex Offender Registration, Preemption, And Tort Immunity For Police

The United States Supreme Court issued four opinions this morning, one of which is receiving significant press coverage.  That case is United States v. Jones (10-1259).  The Government obtained a search warrant allowing it to install a GPS tracking device on a vehicle used by Jones.  The warrant allowed for the device to be attached within 10 days and in the District of Columbia.  Government agents, however, installed the device on the 11^th day and in a parking lot in Maryland.  Jones was tracked for 28 days and ultimately convicted on drug charges using evidence derived from the tracking.  The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the conviction holding that the evidence obtained by the warrantless use of the GPS tracking device violated the Fourth Amendment.  The Government argued on appeal that a warrant was not necessary and that Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy on city streets.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.  The Court said it was beyond dispute that  a car is an “effect” in the words of the Amendment.  The basis for the Court’s holding comes from case law protecting a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” rather than strictly location-based monitoring jurisprudence.  Justice Scalia wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor.  Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.  Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. 

The case of Reynolds v. United States (10-6549) concerns whether the registration requirements of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act applied to pre-Act offenders.  The Act requires convicted sex offenders to provide states with current information for names and addresses including circumstances where an offender moves to a different state.  One provision of the Act gives the Attorney General the authority to specify the applicability of the registration requirements to pre-Act offenders.  The Attorney General issued and Interim Rule several months after the Act passed.

Reynolds was a pre-Act offender registered in Missouri.  He later moved to Pennsylvania without updating his Missouri registration or registering in Pennsylvania.  He was indicted for failing to register under the Act.  He defended on the grounds that the Interim Rule violated the non-delegation doctrine and that the Attorney General violated the Administrative Procedure Act by publishing the Rule without notice or comment.  The District Court rejected his arguments on the merits, but the Third Circuit rejected the same claim by holding the Act applied to pre-Act offenders irrespective of the Rule.  The Circuits were split on the applicability of the Act in these circumstances.

The Court held that the Act does not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General acts.  The Court based its reasoning on the interrelation of the statute’s provision.  As there was a rule in place before Reynolds moved, the questions as to whether he is covered under the rule and Act are remanded for determination.

The third case is National Meat Assn. v. Harris (10-224).  The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) regulates the operation of slaughterhouses to ensure the safe handling of meat and humane treatment of animals.  California amended its penal code to account for the treatment and use of nonambulatory animals used for human consumption in California.  The terms of the California amendment are different from the FMIA.  The District Court granted an injunction to the National Meat Association on the grounds that the FMIA preempts California law.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the California law only regulates the kind of animal slaughtered and nothing else.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the FMIA preempts the California law.  The FMIA preemption clause has a wide sweep and as the Act covers the treatment of nonambulatory animals, it comes into play here.  Moreover, the FMIA covers the treatment of animals not intended for human consumption, so the California amendment covers the same territory.  Justice Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

The last case from today is a Per Curiam opinion regarding the immunity of police for civil federal tort claims in conducting a warrantless search.  That case is Ryburn v. Ruff (11-208).  Police were investigating a rumor that a student was intending to shoot up his school.  They visited the house of the student and received no answer after announcing their presence.  They called the house and could hear the phone ringing.  They next called the student’s mother’s cell phone and discovered that she was in the house and requested to speak with her in person.  She finally spoke with them in person at the front door.  When the police asked her if there were any guns in the house, she immediately turned around and ran back into the house.  The police followed her and ultimately spoke with the student and both of his parents.  They ultimately concluded that the rumor was false.

The parents brought a §1983 civil right suit claiming that the police had violated their Fourth Amendment rights.  The District Court held for the police, giving them some latitude in a developing situation.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed for some of the police, but not all.  While agreeing with the District Court’s finding of facts, it questioned whether the Police in question had qualified immunity.  That Court held that the belief that police or others were in danger of imminent harm was objectively unreasonable.

The Supreme Court examined the various circumstances such as the reason for the visit, the behavior of the parents and specifically the response to the question about guns and concluded that the police were entitled to qualified immunity.  The Court ordered that judgment be entered for them.  [MG]

Round One in Duncan Law v. ABA Goes to the ABA

Last week, US District Court Judge Thomas A. Varlan denied Duncan School of Law's motion for a temporary restraining order and for a temporary injunction in the law school's antitrust and due process lawsuit against the ABA for failing to grant the school provisional accreditation. Judge Varalan wrote that Duncan School of Law is "unlikely" to succeed on the merits in the litigation in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order.

On The Faculty Lounge, Gary Rosin outlines where Judge Varlan's opinion tracked the ABA's brief in opposition at Duncan v. ABA: No TRO or Temporary Injunction. See also Martha Neil's ABAJ news story, Federal Judge Nixes Duncan Law TRO, Calls School’s Future Success in Suit Against ABA ‘Unlikely’. [JH]

Congratulations to Linda Maslow, 11th Librarian of the Supreme Court of the United States

Last week SCOTUS announced the appointment of the Court's 11th Librarian, Linda Maslow, to replace Judy Gaskell, who retired in September, 2011. Maslow has had a long and distinguished career at the Supreme Court's library. Quoting from the Jan. 17, 2012 press release:

Maslow has served as Assistant Librarian for Research Services at the Court for 23 years, responsible for the planning and implementing of all research services to the Court.  She administered a department of 7 staff, including 6 professional research librarians.  She was a member of the Library’s senior management team, handling matters including space planning, collection development, electronic resource management, budget planning and technological innovations. 

The press release adds that Maslow served as Acting Librarian since Gaskell’s retirement and worked at the University of Michigan Law Library, starting in 1984 as a reference librarian and then serving for four years as chief reference librarian before joining the Supreme Court library's staff.

Congratulations! [JH]

Is Greater Scrutiny by the Media Leading to a Decline in Law School Applicants?

On Legal Skills Prof Blog, Jim Levy reported that

According to a password protected report posted in the "law school" section at LSAC.org, both the number of applicants and applications to ABA accredited law schools for the fall 2012 term has dropped more than 15% since last year.

LSAC director of communications Wendy Margolis confirmed the figures for the ABAJ here but with one hugh caveat:

“The caveat is that we are very early in the cycle,” Margolis says. “So these numbers change considerably.” The number of applicants at this time last year represented about 48 percent of the ultimate count.

For the moment, the total number of applicants at ABA-approved law schools stands at 31,815, a drop of 16.7 percent from last year. The total number of applications is 233,361, a drop of 15.3 percent. [JH]

Browsing On A Sunday: Megaupload, Banning Sex Offenders From Libraries, And Better World Books

The fallout from the Megaupload seizure by the U.S. government continues.  The immediate reaction saw denial of service attacks on web sites the Department of Justice and media giant Universal earlier last week.  Additional attacks continued through the weekend taking down Universal Music again, and all of CBS.  The latter lost all files on its web server as hackers gained root access to the site and erased everything.  The site was down for 20 minutes.  That may not sound like much, but dealing with that situation isn’t exactly a casual set of circumstances for a web master.

File sharing service FileSonic reacted by disabling file sharing completely on its site.  The only individuals who can download files at this time are the ones that uploaded them originally.  Some reports indicate the site is deleting files and accounts.  Customers of FileSonic are in a slightly better position than those of Megaupload.  At least FileSonic users can get their files from the site.  Legitimate users of Megaupload, that is, those not using the site to share illegal content can’t get to their files.

One point that seems to be lost in the press is the possibility that the United States government has access to customer accounts and transaction records from Megaupload.  That information would be useful for other infringement prosecutions against individuals, or possibly in civil actions by media companies in the case of pirated material.  This kind of information can provide a more solid link between an individual and content compared to tracking torrents.  I wonder if it will get that far.

One other bit of related news is that famed attorney Robert Bennett will not be representing Megalupload in the criminal case after all.  He had signed on earlier but is forced to disqualify himself on a conflict of interest involving another, unnamed, client.  Megaupload is still putting its legal team together.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that sex offenders have First Amendment rights that allow them access to public libraries.  The city of Albuquerque, New Mexico issued an administrative order in 2009 that barred access to libraries by registered sex offenders.  An affected individual brought suit with representation by the ACLU.  The case has an unusual procedural posture.  The District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff as the city believed it had no burden to answer the motion, and thus, provided no evidence.   The Court of Appeals agreed that the city had to respond and upheld the grant of summary judgment.

The Court said the procedural aspects of the case guided its ruling.  It noted that the problem of sex offenders having a high rate of recidivism is real and suggested that the city try again to create a ban that was narrowly tailored to address the problem.  The case is John Doe v. City of Albuquerque (10-2102, January 20, 2012).  The 44 page opinion is here.

And finally, word comes via press release that Better World Books is partnering with Ingram to use funding from the sale of surplus books as a credit with Ingram.

All libraries that work with Ingram can participate in the program, and registering for the service is easy.  Better World Books coordinates pick up of surplus materials and lists items for sale. A percentage of each sale is remitted to Ingram and a non-profit literacy agency selected by each library.  The proceeds of the sale are credited to individual library accounts by Ingram for use on new materials.  Items that do not sell are donated or recycled.

Disclosure:  My library partners with Better World Books as a way to extend the life of books that we no longer need.  [MG]

Round-Up of Law Practitioner Blogs

aratoga County Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
http://www.saratogacountycriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/
http://www.saratogacountycriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/index.xml
Discusses criminal law cases, news, and related matters in Upstate New York . Published by LeCours, Chertok & Yates, LLP

Kansas City Car Accident Lawyer Blog
http://www.kansascitycaraccidentlawyerblog.com/
http://www.kansascitycaraccidentlawyerblog.com/index.xml
Examines accident and injury cases, news, and related matters in Kansas City Missouri. Published Aaron Sachs & Associates, P.C

New York Divorce Lawyer Blog
http://www.newyorkdivorcelawyerblog.com/
http://www.newyorkdivorcelawyerblog.com/index.xml
Provides informative articles on divorce, collaborative law and mediation in New York. Published by The Law and Mediation Office of Andrea Vacca P.C.

Atlanta Injury Lawyer Blog
http://www.atlanta-injurylawyerblog.com/
http://www.atlanta-injurylawyerblog.com/index.xml
Examines personal injury cases, news, and related matters in Atlanta, Georgia. Published by The Wallace Law Firn, L.L.C.

Allen Texas Criminal Law Blog
http://www.allentexascriminallaw.com/
http://www.allentexascriminallaw.com/index.xml
Examines criminal law cases, news, and related matters in Texas. Published by Rosenthal & Wadas, PLLC

Cameron Stracher's Comic Novel in Progress: The Socratic Method

Here's little entertainment for the academic law librarian who drew the short straw for today's reference desk duty --  Cameron Stracher's The Socratic Method. The first two installments are titled "Gunner Bingo" and "The Law School Trifecta." [JH]

Supreme Court Action: Texas Redistricting And The Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Texas redistricting case today.  No one seemed to get what they wanted, depending on how one reads the headlines surrounding the decision.  The case is Perry v. Perez (11-713).  Texas is a covered jurisdiction under §5 of the Voting Rights Act.  That statute calls for pre-clearance of redistricting plans by the District Court for the District of Columbia.  Texas submitted the plan to that Court with trial pending.  In the meantime, other plaintiffs sued Texas over the plan in the Western District of Texas claiming that the legislature’s plan discriminated against African-Americans and Latinos.  The Texas population grew by four million residents since 2000 with three quarters of that growth from those groups.

As the pre-clearance mechanism was not going to result in a plan in place by the time of the Texas primary, the West Texas District Court redrew the map.  The Court considered this map and redrew some of the boundaries.  Texas appealed.  The Supreme Court held that the Texas District Court  redrawn map should have given more deference to the map drawn by the legislature.  It did not accept the original map as that is still in process before the District for the District of Columbia.  Even as an interim map, however, the Texas District Court should defer as best as possible to the legislature’s attempts provided they did not violate the Constitution.  The Court provided specific examples of where the District Court fell short and remanded the case for another draw in light of today’s opinion.  Magic 8 ball says try again.

The opinion was Per Curiam.  Mr. Justice Thomas, citing himself in a separate opinion, would hold that §5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, implement the Texas plan as is in the interim, and let the Texas District Court hear the Constitutional challenge.  [MG]