Law Librarian Blog

Why Do States Fail?

As we celebrate the founding of our country and our civil rights and liberties this Fourth of July, perhaps we also ought to reflect on why states fail.

• Which failed states are global security threats and which are simply tragedies for their own people?

• Which countries might blow up next? Are there pockets of success within states of failure?

• Are there pockets of success within states of failure?

• Who (or what) is to blame when things go bad—corrupt leaders, dysfunctional societies, bad neighbors, a global recession, unfortunate history, or simply geography itself?

Check out the recently released fifth annual Failed States Index—a collaboration between The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy. The Failed States Index uses 12 indicators of state cohesion and performance, compiled through a close examination of more than 30,000 publicly available sources, to ranked 177 states in order from most to least at risk of failure.

The 60 most vulnerable states are listed in the rankings here. The ten most vulnerable states are Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Guinea and Pakistan. [JH]

A Delightful Short Film that Has Absolutely Nothing to Do with Law Librarianship

Little man, the way girls are is a story about a boy and his homework, and his attempt to understand girls. [JH]

Thomson West Launches Do Justice and Between Cases

Thomson West has launched Do Justice, a pro bono outreach initiative to support law firm pro bono activities. The Company has also launched Between Cases, a new online resource for displaced legal associates seeking employment and networking opportunities. Details on Legal Current and the Company's press release. [JH]

The Obama Administration’s Proposal to Reform the U.S. Financial Regulatory System

CCH has issued a white paper, The Obama Administration’s Proposal to Reform the U.S. Financial Regulatory System. Written by CCH Principal Securities Law Analyst Jim Hamilton, the white paper identifies the proposal as the most sweeping and fundamental regulatory reform of the U.S. financial and securities markets since the New Deal. From the announcement:

Hamilton explores each aspect of the proposal in depth: creation of a systemic risk regulator; increased regulation of hedge funds and private equity; improving the SEC’s ability to protect investors; harmonizing securities and futures regulation between the SEC and CFTC; regulation of OTC derivatives, including credit default swaps; a strengthened regulatory framework for money market funds; oversight of clearing and settlement systems; creation of a resolution authority for systemically significant financial companies; reform of securitization; new rules on corporate governance and executive compensation; a review of financial accounting standards by the standard setters; and international aspects of financial regulation.

[JH]

Entries for Access Group's Video Scholarship Contest for Law Students Due July 15th

Access Group has launched another video scholarship contest for law students this year. Entitled “My Inspiration,” law students are asked to create a video that describes what motivated them to go to law school. The grand prize is a $10,000 scholarship to law school. Access Group also plans to award up to five additional honorable mention scholarships of $1,500 each. Entries are due by July 15th.
 
Complete contest rules, entry form, and information are available online here. There, you’ll also find the sponsor's tribute video to the 2008 contest winners. [JH]

Lawyer denied bar admission due to large student loans

The New York Times reported that a panel of N.Y. State Appellate judges denied bar admission to law grad Robert Bowman, despite receiving the requisite recommendation from the state's committee that reviews bar applications. According to the Times, the judges reason for the denial stems from the fact that Bowman has not made any substantial payments on his student loans.  As reported, Bowman's 26 year loan history totals more than $400,000.

Matters of deception or breaking the law have been known to disqualify candidates for bar admission, but the panel did not focus on these types of issues.  The Appellate Court ruling  stated that the "applicant has not presently established the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney..."  They specifically noted that his loan disbursements were spread out over a 20+ year history, and he made no serious attempt to pay back any of these loans. The subtext is easy to read here.  They think he scammed the system; however, much is to be said of Bowman's case.

First, Bowman states that he wants to repay his loans.  He also could not practice law until he passed the bar.  It took him four tries to do so (which might be a better reason not to admit him to the bar).  In between his undergrad, law degree and masters of laws degree, he was in a serious accident that nearly severed his leg.  A nice review of the pros and cons of Bowman's case appears on a WSJ blog posting Sizing Up a Student-Loan Horror Story

It does give you cause to think.  What about our recent grads and the current economic situation?  If we do not rebound and they cannot find well-paying jobs, will their licenses be threatened?

How do you feel about Robert Bowman?
(VS)

Bad Legal Research or Faulty Legal Ethics? Or does it matter...

Attorney General Eric Holder and the office of professional responsibility is investigating the use of harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Senate Judiciary Committee based on advice provided by Attorneys Jay Bybee (now a judge for the 9th circuit) and John Woo (now a law professor at Boalt Hall School of Law), both formerly of the Office of Legal Counsel.  One of the main questions about the string of memos provided by the OLC is:  Did the DOJ lawyers provide biased views on the definition of the word torture (that did not include waterboarding as a form of torture), or did they leave out important primary law sources that did define "waterboarding" as a type of torture because they do not possess good research skills?  Of course, sloppy research skills can be considered a form of ethical malpractice too.

Nevertheless, I thought I would repeat some common paths I would recommend to students who ask me the legal definition of a word.  I adopted the skeptical position that perhaps these attorney's did not have benefit of good legal research instruction, and perhaps were operating as a 1L might.

Often, I consult the tried and true "Words and Phrases."  Waterboarding is not in the set, and under torture, there are no cases specifically identifying waterboarding.

Next, I tried Black's Law Dictionary.  Also, no results. So I tried the Oxford English Dictionary.  Though not a legal reference, the OED does carry much weight in the legal profession, so they might have used it!  But waterboarding does not appear there either.

Turning back to my law resources, I tried an ALLCASES search on Westlaw and a combined federal state case law database on Lexis to see if I can find case law defined waterboarding as a form of torture.  While there were some cases the discussed waterboarding as a CIA interrogation technique, it was not formally defined as a type of torture.  (I should point out that NPR did report that there was a 1983 Texas case that did define this action as torture.)

This probably leaves secondary sources to rely on, or international sources that interpret the Convention Against Torture.  Or, prehaps this is one of those "res ipsa loquitur" things... (VS)

JISC Academic Database Assessment Tool

JISC Academic Database Assessment Tool (ADAT) allows you to compare bilbiographic and full text databases.  There are sfour main functions on the site:

1. Compare Journal Title Lists
2. Compare key features of database platforms
3. Compare e-Book platforms
4. Compare charts and statistice (dashboards) of each database

So, for example, with respect to number 3, if you compare NetLibrary to ebrary, you will learn that ebrary lets you export citations to Endnote, while NetLibrary will not. However, ebrary allows you to search by LC Subject trees, while Netlibrary does not.  There are more than 70 categories that they compare in the e-Book platform section.  It is a great service when trying to compare usability of different platforms!

Similarly, their comparison of journal titles in databases quickly provide venn diagrams of overlaps in coverage.  For example, of ABI/Informs 3,984 titles, 1,796 also appear in Business Source Premier (which has a total of 12,978) titles.  If you are using an ERM, chances are that your ERM can do this for you as well.  For those of you not using an ERM, this is an very handy collection development aid that mimics some pricey proprietary software.

The site also informs you when the title list for each database was last updated, and lets you set up alerts for when those updates take place. Contributers are a little sparse but the big names of Proquest and Thomson Reuters are both there, along with others.  It would be nice to see this grow - wouldn't it be fun to compare Lexis to Westlaw? (VS)

OUP USA Head Endorses Google Book Deal

The head of Oxford University Press USA calls the Google Book Settlement flawed but necessary.  Tim Barton published his essay on the settlement in the Chronicle of Higher Education on June 29th.  One of the compelling reasons for embracing the settlement is the restoration of a reasonable form of access to out of print titles, at least in a digital format.  Barton used the anecdote of an essay assignment from a classics class at Columbia University.  70% of students had cited a book published in 1900.  The book was pretty much forgotten, not on anyone's reading list.  The reason? Because it was available through Google Books.  His point is that if it's not online, it's "invisible."  This mirrors the experience of many librarians who teach legal research. They continually disabuse students of the idea that everything is online.  

Locking up content, particularly back catalog content that publishers have no interest in digitizing, effectively makes it unavailable.  That, from Barton's perspective, is worse than Google as the vehicle to accessing the content.  He notes that Google did not start this project with the idea it would become a book publisher.  Rather, the advertising dollars that would flow from the accompanying ads was the target.  Two years of negotiations gave publishers, authors, libraries, others, and yes, Google, benefits from the digitization project.  Google is as much a stakeholder by providing the capital that makes this project possible.  Despite how this all came about, even with restrictions by publishers, scrutiny by the Justice Department, grousing by competitors, making this material available is better than waiting for the perfect agreement.  What some fail to realize is that the deal in place can evolve as the participants gain experience from how it plays out.  

Barton's essay is available here.  [MG]

A Day to Celebrate

The Writer’s Almanac reports that today is the anniversary of the founding of the first circulating library: 

It was on this day in 1731 that Ben Franklin founded the first circulating library, a forerunner to the now ubiquitous free public library. He started it as a way to help settle intellectual arguments among his group of Philadelphia friends, the Junto, a group of civic-minded individuals gathered together to discuss the important issues of their day.

Each of the 50 charter members bought an initial share into the company (40 shillings), which helped fund the buying of books, and then paid a smaller yearly fee (10 shillings) that went to buying more books and maintaining the library. In exchange, the members could borrow any of the books. Donations of books were gladly accepted.

They called their charter the Library Company of Philadelphia, and the next year, Franklin hired America's first librarian, Louis Timothee. At first, the books were stored at the librarian's house, but by the end of the decade, they were moved to the Pennsylvania State House, which is now known as Independence Hall.

Also of interest to the grammar nerds out there, The Writer’s Almanac also notes that today is the birthday of William Strunk, of “The Elements of Style” fame.
[EF]

Lyons' Recommendations for Free Access to PACER Without Compromising Privacy and Security Interests

In Free PACER: Balancing access and privacy, Susan Lyons (Rutgers University (Newark) Law School Library) presents an excellent analysis of the issues resulting in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts' (AOUSC) abrupt suspension of the PACER pilot program that offered free access to PACER at 17 FDLP libraries. (Reported on LLB here.) Lyons offers four recommendations for how AOUSC can offer free access to PACER without compromising the legitimate privacy interests of litigants:

1. Release all court decisions and briefs in motions and appeals without restriction on the open Internet and make the files available in bulk to anyone requesting them.

2. Give attorneys and litigants free and unlimited access to their own dockets. Under the current system, when a new document is uploaded to the court’s electronic docket, parties receive an e-mail notice that allows them one opportunity to download the document to their own computer without charge.

3. Allow scholars doing empirical research on court records full access to bulk data.

4. Reinstitute the PACER pilot program and expand the pilot to all federal courthouses

For details, see Lyons' AALL Spectrum article. Highly recommended. See also LLB's post, Online Petition Drive Launched to Improve PACER. [JH]

June, the Month Chinese Censors Stopped Taking Their Medication

In a recent post on Internet censorship in China, Rebecca MacKinnon writes that June was "the month the censors stopped taking their medication." From her review of recent developments:

Most of China's educated, largely apolitical, internet-connected urbanites have until now been generally willing to accept the political status quo - and with it a certain amount of censorship, thuggishness and injustice, political paranoia and occasional bizarreness - in exchange for overall social stability (compared to any other time in living Chinese memory), economic growth, plus an impressive increase in China's global power and status. But whoever is driving the latest Internet crackdown and the accompanying moralistic propaganda drive may have done substantial damage to the government's credibility.

Hat tip to Donald Clark, Chinese Law Prof Blog. [JH]

Merit Selection or Election of State Court Judges?

Running for Judge: The Rising Political, Financial, and Legal Stakes of Judicial Elections (NYU Press, July 1, 2009) examines the increasingly contentious judicial elections over the last twenty-five years by providing a timely, insightful analysis of judicial elections. The book ties together the current state of the judicial elections literature, and presents new evidence on a wide range of important topics, including: the history of judicial elections; an understanding of the types of judicial elections; electoral competition during races; the increasing importance of campaign financing; voting in judicial elections; the role interest groups play in supporting candidates; party organizing in supposedly non-partisan elections; judicial accountability; media coverage; and judicial reform of elections.

The book is edited by Matthew Streb, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University. Contributors include Lawrence Baum, Chris W. Bonneau, Brent D. Boyea, Paul Brace, Rachel P. Caufield, Jennifer Segal Diascro, Brian Frederick, Deborah Goldberg, Melinda Gann Hall, Richard L. Hasen, David Klein, Brian F. Schaffner, and Matthew J. Streb. [JH]

Opening: Law Librarian - Research Services, USC

The Gabriel and Matilda Barnett Information Technology Center and The Asa V. Call Law Library at the University of Southern California (USC) Gould School of Law has an opening for Law Librarian - Research Services
 
The USC Law Library's primary mission is to support the teaching and research activities of the USC School of Law community, which consists of approximately 600 J.D. students, 125 foreign LL.M. students, and 50 full time faculty members.  The USC law faculty is recognized as one of the most productive and interdisciplinary in the country.  The Law Library also serves the USC community as a whole as well as the general public. 
 
There are 10 professional full time law librarians at the USC Law Library.  The Director of the Law Library is the Chief Information Officer of the Law School, with responsibility for both the Law Library as well as all of the information technology and computing services for the Law School.  USC librarians are eligible to be considered for a promotion to a continuing appointment rank after 6 years of service.
 
RESPONSIBILITIES: Reports to the Assistant Director of the Law Library.  Provides in-depth research and reference service to the USC Law School faculty.  Assists all Law Library patrons in the use of the library's collection and electronic databases.  Participates actively in teaching the legal research courses for the J.D. and LL.M. students as well as special workshops, classes, and tours given throughout the year.  Prepares instructional materials and exercises for these classes and other written materials to help facilitate the use of the library and encourage the utilization of available resources.  Participates in collection development.  Assists with updating the Law Library's web page.  Helps train and provide direction to the library's student research assistants.  Works one evening a week during the regular school year.
 
QUALIFICATIONS:  M.L.S. or equivalent graduate degree from an ALA-accredited library school and a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school.  Excellent communication, interpersonal, and organizational skills.  Ability to work collegially and in a team environment with a strong commitment to service.  High level of knowledge of both print and electronic legal resources, including LexisNexis, Westlaw, and other web resources, and ability to effectively instruct others on their use.  Some relevant experience in an academic law library is preferred. 
 
SALARY AND BENEFITS:  The salary is highly competitive, commensurate with qualifications and experience.  Benefits include 24 vacation days, health care, dental, and optical benefits, and TIAA/CREF and other retirement plans (employee contributes 5% and the university contributes 10% of salary).  Eligible for a semester’s paid leave approximately every 6 years.
 
USC is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.
 
TO APPLY: To be considered for the Law Librarian - Research Services position, please e-mail a letter of application, your resume, and the names and contact information for three references to: libadmin@law.usc.edu; or you can mail these materials to: Albert Brecht, Associate Dean, Chief Information Officer, and John Stauffer Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law Library, MC0072, Los Angeles, CA  90089-0072.

OUP Lexicographers Study the Linguistics of Tweeting

OUP lexicographers have been monitoring more than 1.5 million random tweets since January 2009 and have noticed any number of interesting facts about the impact of Twitter on language usage. Tweets contain significantly more instances of the word "I" than general English text, and verbs are more frequently used in their gerund form (watching, eating, listening). Details on OUP Blog. [JH]

Reminder: NELLCO Executive Director Featured Guest on The Law Librarian This Afternoon

Richard Leiter and Brian Striman will be chatting with NELLCO's Executive Director, Tracy Thompson-Przylucki, about NELLCO and it's many projects and services in today's episode of The Law Librarian. The episode will air live at 2:00 PM (Central). [JH]

2009 Edition of Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual Now Available

Ken Svengalis is every law librarian's best friend. While I buy Bowker's Law Books and Serials in Print once every ten years, I purchase Ken's Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual (Rhode Island LawPress) every year. I always look forward to reading Ken's analysis of legal publishing industry practices and pricing trends -- something AALL should be but isn't doing nearly as well as Ken.

The Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual is the best annual guide for law library collection development work available because of the detailed information provided for every listed title including historical pricing information for supplementation. In my opinion, The Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual is an excellent reference tool too. If you can't get the publication out of your director's or acquisition librarian's hands, reference librarians should insist on buying second copies of this publication for their reference book collection. [JH]

Here's a message from Ken Svengalis, Rhode Island LawPress:

I am pleased to announce the release of the 2009 (13th) edition of the "Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual."  It's the book Kevin Gerson, Director of the UCLA Law Library, recently described as "hands-down the most useful book on legal information ever written."

Under our current economic challenges, it has exactly the information your library needs to confront the rising costs of legal information.  Its genesis in 1996 was one law librarian's response to the challenges we faced then.  Those challenges have grown ever more urgent with each passing year. It contains, among other things, the most extensive annotated bibliography of the legal literature in print, and a buyer's guide useful to lawyers and librarians who are in either acquisition or cancellation mode.  Consider this:

Since the merger of Thomson and West in 1996, West's print supplementation costs have risen 304% (1995-2008), reflecting an average annual increase of at least 11.5%.  There was not the slightest diminution in the rate of increase for 2008, despite an economy which has brought law libraries from New Jersey to California to dire straights, and threats of closure in a number of states.  Moreover, the prices of most West Hornbooks were increased over the past year at rates exceeding anything in the history of that series (generally 35-45%).  These price increases have allowed West to achieve an industry-leading profit margin for 2008 of 32.1% on the backs of struggling law libraries.  Yet, ironically, West will want us to sit down with them at a variety of receptions, luncheons, and parties at the upcoming annual meeting and pretend that this is not happening.  The expense of hosting these functions represents an infinitesimal fraction of the profits they have made off struggling law libraries, most of whose librarians cannot afford to attend the annual meeting because their libraries are so strapped for funds.

In light of the current state of the economy and the perilous position of many law libraries across the country, the current cost and supplementation cost data will no doubt prove an invaluable resource to libraries.  Those of you who have been in the profession for many years will remember the former "FTC Guides for the Legal Publishing Industry."  Those guides required publishers to provide customers the last two years' supplementation costs in their promotional literature, a requirement that was often ignored.  With the demise of the FTC Guides, and the lack of an effective replacement, the availability of this supplementation cost data is virtually non-existent, unless one asks for it specifically.  This is where the "Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual" has stepped in to fill the breach.  After all, it's all about the supplementation.  West, for example, made 86% of its profits off supplementation in 2008 according to its 2008 annual report.  Getting a handle on supplementation costs is the primary way in which law libraries can confront these budgetary challenges.

We are now tracking the costs of more than 2,500 publications, including more than 1,700 legal treatises and hundreds of the leading state and federal publications.  The 2009 edition now includes supplementation costs as far back as 1993 and up to and including 2008.  The initial cost and supplementation costs for the years 2004-2008 are also featured in a 51-page spreadsheet in Appendix H, providing a convenient and time-saving means of conducting comparative product evaluations.  There are also reviews of more than 80 of the most significant new treatise titles published in 2008 and early 2009.  In addition to substantial new content, and a complete updating of all pricing data, the 2009 edition has also been substantially redesigned inside and out (see attached).

This is what the 1996 Thomson-West merger has wrought.  My 2009 edition has, among more than 80 others, a review of Gary Reback's new book "Free the Market" which provides a fascinating examination of the Thomson-West merger as well as expert analysis of the state of antitrust law in the United States from one of its leading practitioners.

Shipments to all standing order subscribers were made last week.  If you are uncertain if your library is on standing order, please e-mail us and we will confirm your status.

I also direct you to the PowerPoint of my presentation to the Association of Legal Administrators on May 19th in New Orleans. Go to: www.rilawpress.com.

We have responded to the current economy by pricing our 2009 edition the same as last year's edition--$149.00.  The 2009 "Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual" may be ordered on our web site (www.rilawpress.com), by email at rilawpress@comcast.net, or by calling our NEW order line  (860-535-0378).  We accept Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, or will invoice.  Additional copies shipped to the same address are only $130.00.  A companion CD-ROM is also priced at $149.00, or $80.00 when ordered in combination with the print edition.

Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Re-Introduced

Senators Cornyn and Lieberman re-introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) (S. 1373) [Press release dated June 25, 2009; Text on Thomas]. Specifically, the FRPAA would:

Require every researcher with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more, whether funded totally or partially by a government department or agency, to submit an electronic copy of the final manuscript that has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Ensure that the manuscript is preserved in a stable digital repository maintained by that agency or in another suitable repository that permits free public access, interoperability, and long-term preservation.

Require that each taxpayer-funded manuscript be made available to the public online and without cost, no later than six months after the article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Details and analysis on Open Access News here and here. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access has issued a call to action: "S. 1373 reflects the growing trend among funding agencies – and college and university campuses – to leverage their investment in the conduct of research by maximizing the dissemination of results. It follows the successful path forged by the NIH’s Public Access Policy, as well as by private funders like the Wellcome Trust, and universities such as Harvard and MIT." [JH]

Twenty Years as an Internet Open Access Publisher

In June 1989, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. launched PACS-L. In his A Look Back at Twenty Years as an Internet Open Access Publisher, he writes "PACS-L was one of the first library-oriented mailing lists, and, at the time, it was unusual in that it had a broad subject focus (public-access computer systems in libraries, such as online catalogs) rather than a narrow focus on a specific library automation system. Although PACS-L's greatest contribution may have been in raising librarians' awareness of the importance and potential of the then fledgling Internet, it was also the platform on which my initial scholarly digital publishing efforts were based." Check out Bailey's chronology of his open access digital publishing efforts from June 1989 through June 2009. [JH]

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules for Franken

The news just broke.  The Court ruled that Franken won the senate election over Coleman.  The opinion from the Court's web site is here.  The Washington Post story is here.  [MG]