Law Librarian Blog

Tax Foundation's Analysis of $938 Billion Health Care Reform Legislation

The $938 billion health care reform legislation signed by President Obama on March 23 is financed primarily through net cuts to Medicare and an increased Medicare tax on high-income taxpayers, according to the Tax Foundation. "The Medicare spending cuts would save $416.5 billion, or about 39 percent of the bill's 10-year cost. The increased Medicare taxes on high-income people -- including an additional 0.9% Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax on earned income exceeding $200,000 for single taxpayers ($250,000 for married couples) and an "Unearned Income Medicare Contribution" of 3.8% on investment income for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) in excess of $200,000 for single filers ($250,000 for married filers) -- would raise $210 billion, or about 19 percent of the legislation's cost," according to the Tax Foundation's press release. Details on what is contained in some of the larger categories in the Tax Foundation's pie chart (left, click to enlarge) are itemized here.

The Administration's summary of key elements of the health care reform legislation here. Hat tip to beSpacific. [JH]

Will the Student-to-Faculty Ratio in Law Schools Be 7.6:1 in 2038?

Why is tuition up? Look at all the profs in the March issue of National Jurist reports that the average law school faculty size has increased by 40 percent between 1998 and 2008. The average full professor's salary has increased almost 45 percent during the same time period. No data on typical teaching loads for the same time period but clearly it has been trending downward to three courses per academic year (nice job if you can get one).

If profs are teaching less, more profs need to be hired and someone has to pay for that. The article reports that between 1998 and 2008, private law school tuition has increased 74 percent and public law school tuition has increased 102 percent. Some 48 percent of the tuition increase can be attributed to staffing increases according to the National Jurist's study. See also GAO's Oct. 2009 report entitled Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access.

What's driving this tuition-increasing hiring binge? Rankings, of course. The average student-to-faculty ratio has declined from 18.5-to-1 in 1998 to 14.9-to-1 in 2008 and student-to-faculty ratio is a metric used by US News to rank law schools each year. Of course, to improve it's overall US News ranking, a law school's student-to-faculty ratio must be lower than this average ratio and each law school must continually strive to reduce it. ABA accreditation standards be damned, meaning, if memory serves, the current ABA accreditation standard calls for a 20:1 student-to-faculty ratio

At this latest 10-year rate of change, the average student-to-faculty ratio in the legal academy in 2018 will be something like 11.9:1, 9.5:1 in 2028, 7.6:1 in 2038. You get the idea. For a little historical perspective, the article estimates that the average student-to-faculty ratio was 25.5:1 in 1988 and 29:1 in 1978. In other words, the current student-to-faculty ratio in the legal academy is about half what it was three decades ago. 

Law schools also believe their faculty reputation scores, another important metric used by US News, is driven by scholarship. Do note, there is absolutely no hard evidence to believe this is the case but it provides fodder for a rationalization to teach less courses so that time can be freed up to write more articles few read and fewer cite. If profs are teaching less (3 course per year instead of 4 or 5 as in the past), more profs have to be hired and "good ones," meaning ones with a proven scholarly reputation don't come cheap because they are so rare. Hiring more law profs conveniently reduces the student-to-faculty ratio which also helps improve a school's chances for moving up in the rankings so law schools get a 2-fer under this rationalization.

While the US News does measure reputation by peers and members of the bench and bar, the scholarship-push started a couple of decades ago by the ABA's accreditation standards. So let's not place the entire blame on US News for creating the following situation:

"There is a real disconnect in law schools since Langdell, between what the faculty is interested in and what the students are interested in. Faculty care about research while students are focused on how to practice law. There is a gigantic disconnect and the academics have the accreditations rules to promote their views -- at a very high salaries." Lawrence Velvel, dean of Massachusetts School of Law.

How does the legal academy bridge this "gigantic disconnect?" Just comply with the ABA's 20:1 student-to-faculty ratio while making law profs work harder; require them to teach more classes while also producing scholarship. Burn the midnight oil like they did while attending law school and like their students do once they enter the practice of law, assuming there will be jobs for them upon graduation to pay off their law school debt. That's going to go over well in the next faculty meeting; good luck to any conscientious law school dean who is striving to get law profs back into the classroom. Unless the dean has a 10-year appointment, the odds of success are slim to none under the current circumstances.

The reality is that law schools do set their academic and institutional objectives with an eye toward improving their U.S. News rankings (and the ABA's accreditation standards are a contributing factor to escalating law school costs; one complaint being heard about the ABA's draft "outcome measures" is that it will increase the legal academy's compliance costs) but the National Jurist's analysis is overly simplistic. Student-to-faculty ratios, faculty scholarly reputation, and faculty salaries are part of a larger picture. How much cash-per-student being spent is what really drives the U.S. News Law School Ranking results. See Brian Leiter's Per Capita Expenditures is the Tail that Wags the US News Ranking Dog. [JH]

Updated Research Guides from GlobaLex

UPDATE: A Guide to Fee-Based U. S. Legal Research Databases by Mary Rumsey

UPDATE: Basic Guide to Researching Foreign Law by Mary Rumsey

UPDATE: Researching Icelandic Law by Rán Tryggvadóttir and Thordis Ingadóttir; Update by Erna Mathiesen

UPDATE: Performing Legal Research: the Moldovan Experience by Mariana Harjevschi and Svetlana Andritchi; Update by Mariana Harjevschi

UPDATE: Researching South African Law by Amanda Barratt and Pamela Snyman; Update by Redson Edward Kapind

[JH]

Openings: Associate Director for Public Services and Reference/Student Services Librarian, Georgia State Univ. Law Library

First, the Reference/Student Services Librarian, a position newly reorganized to serve the evolving needs of the modern law student. Details on the job duties and required qualifications can be found at
http://careers.aallnet.org/jobdetail.cfm?job=3331096

Second, the Associate Director for Public Services, a dynamic middle management position responsible for planning and supervision of all public services functions of the law library. Details on the job duties and required qualifications can be found at http://careers.aallnet.org/jobdetail.cfm?job=3331017

My First Hands On With WestlawNext

We had our WestlawNext roadshow part two yesterday.  This would be the academic version.  It varied only slightly from the presentation we saw on March 10th here in Chicago in that the promotional videos were not part of the program.  Though we received box lunches, the iPod Shuffles were sadly absent. I learned a few things about WestlawNext that I didn't pick up the last time.  One is that while Boolean searching will still work, a user needs to tell the system that simple searches are, in fact, Boolean.  The algorithm won't interpret [WORD and WORD] anymore.  It's not a very efficient search but I've used it occasionally when the more complex searches don't bring up results.  WestlawNext requires [Strict: WORD and WORD] to make that search.  It extends to other things as well, such as KeyCite.  Use [KC: citation] to bring up citation results directly.  The brackets and case are mine in these examples.  WestlawNext is more forgiving on the mechanical aspects of entering a command or search.

I also discovered that Westlaw.com would be around for "the foreseeable future."  The foreign law databases as well as a few other categories of documents have't migrated as of yet.  This leads to some interesting but unanswered questions on the commercial side.  It's well known that there will be a pricing premium for WestlawNext over Westlaw.com.  TR alludes that some of this will be offset by the efficiency built into the system, but I don't know.  I'm academic and efficiency in using Lexis or Westlaw (or most any database) is not exactly our middle name in this environment.  Questions about final pricing are still out there.  Read through the slight diversion below to see where this is going.

I tried out my temporary three day password starting today with a very cursory search, "Do Illinois courts have jurisdiction in divorce case where the parties are illegal aliens."  Sorry, my English not so good sometimes researching potential legal research problems.  I selected Illinois as a jurisdiction but neglected to remove ALL FEDS, the apparent default, so the search brought up results in both.  I re-ran the search in Illinois alone and brought up results in the basic research food groups.  The Illinois case law that was most relevant (according to WestlawNext) was from the 1950s.  The current Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act went into effect in the late 1970s, not that older case law isn't valid in interpreting a current revised statute.  I did find a relevant statute that described jurisdictional elements, though mostly in terms of statutory construction and subject matter rather than personal jurisdiction.  The results showed me that analysis and extrapolation don't go away with WestlawNext.  This may be obvious to a lot of us who teach research, but think about the students who will say, "cool, just like Google."  My immediate impression is that relevant results will be on point for common legal problems but for less researched or more novel questions, not so much.  I'm going to try this same problem on Westlaw.com and report later on what my results show.

 

We return now to our earlier point.  When I was finished and signed off, I saw a screen which I reproduce in the accompanying picture.  Note that WestlawNext describes some of history I generated as individual searches.  That's not necessarily the way I thought I used the system.  I suppose my question is, if I were a paying customer, what did I just pay for?  Would these be considered separate searches under the various pricing schemes TR has in mind?  Again, this is a test/free password so I have no idea if this is how the final product will reflect different ways of identifying my history or the way it will charge for my use.  Students, take note, while the system is more efficient, you may have to watch how you use it to keep the bills down.  Google is free.  WestlawNext is not.

I suspect TR will have to keep Westlaw.com going for a long time no matter what.  Forcing customers to WestlawNext and higher costs may have the effect of driving them to Lexis.  I'm sure TR would not shrink it's billables to only those willing to pay for WestlawNext.  I'd like a car with heated seats, but I wouldn't want to pay the premium for them when all I want is a vehicle that will reliably get me from point A to point B.  Pricing is going to be the key.  I'm liking the WestlawNext product from the demonstrations and my initial hands on.  I'm not so sure about the marketing at this point.  [MG]

Legal Spend Just Another Corporate Cost: The Evolution of the Practice of Law from Profession to Business

Ari Kaplan, who was the keynote speaker last week at the ABA Techshow, recently reported on the results of his survey about client expectations and shifting business models in the legal profession. The Evolution of the Legal Profession is based on his interviews of 30 practicing lawyers, academics, in-house counsel and CEOs. The legal profession is experiencing a sweeping evolution that will be marked by permanent changes to billing structures, firm organization and value and efficiency expectations from clients according to Kaplan. Some stats from the report:

• 70% agreed that while the economy has always had an impact on the practice of law, the current shift is different. 74% believe the shift will be permanent.
• 62% agreed that the accelerated growth in law firms and the rise in legal fees led in whole or in part to the current state of the market.
• 85% now use alternative billing, including fixed fee arrangements and 85% had heard of instances where a corporate client will not pay for first year associate work performed on their cases.

Wait a minute. Corporate clients won't pay for first year associate work!

BigLaw: A Business Masquerading as a Profession.The survey also reports that 92% feel that client expectations have changed. Legal spend is being viewed like any other corporate cost by general counsels. Does that mean legal work has been commoditized? At a minimum, it means corporate clients expect efficiency, something that conflicts with the traditional billable hour model and current capital structure of most large law firms. Perhaps one of the most telling remarks that captures the changes taking place in the law firm-corporate client relationship comes from Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary for FMC Technologies: “In some ways, we have a business that is masquerading as a profession.” If so, there is a real opportunity here for law schools to produce a new breed of attorney if the legal academy is willing to radically transform itself. Legal doctrine plus legal skills plus legal tech-driven efficiencies might be the order of the day. In a way, this reminds me of the transformation that took place in library science education in the 1980s. [JH]

Benefits of Crowdsourcing Projects for Libraries

Crowdsourcing can harness digital volunteers to transcribe, create, enhance and correct text, images and archives writes the National Library of Australia's Rose Holley in Crowdsourcing: How and Why Should Libraries Do It? D-Lib Magazine, March/April 2010. "Examples of crowdsourcing goals for libraries could be: getting users to mark the errors in our catalogues; rating the reliability of information/records; adding information to records; verifying name authority files; adding user created content to collections; creating e-books; correcting full text; transcribing handwritten records; and most especially describing items that we have not made accessible because they are not catalogued/described yet."

Holley identifies the following benefits of implementing crowdsourcing projects in libraries:

• Achieving goals the library would never have the time, financial or staff resource to achieve on its own.
• Achieving goals in a much faster timeframe than the library may be able to achieve if it worked on its own.
• Building new virtual communities and user groups.
• Actively involving and engaging the community with the library and its other users and collections.
• Utilising the knowledge, expertise and interest of the community.
• Improving the quality of data/resource (e.g. by text, or catalogue corrections), resulting in more accurate searching.
• Adding value to data (e.g. by addition of comments, tags, ratings, reviews).
• Making data discoverable in different ways for a more diverse audience (e.g. by tagging).
• Gaining first-hand insight on user desires and the answers to difficult questions by asking and then listening to the crowd.
• Demonstrating the value and relevance of the library in the community by the high level of public involvement.
• Strengthening and building trust and loyalty of the users to the library. Users do not feel taken advantage of because libraries are non-profit making.
• Encouraging a sense of public ownership and responsibility towards cultural heritage collections, through user's contributions and collaborations.

[JH]

To Scroll or Not to Scroll

This weekend Wired Blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on a study from Arizona State  University that compared student retention of what they read online vs. what they read in print.  The report, titled "To Scroll or not to Scroll: Scrolling, Working Memory, and Comprehending Complex Texts," found that "a scrolling format reduced understanding of complex topics from web pages, especially for readers who were lower in working memory capacity."  The authors, Christopher A. Sanchez and Jennifer Wiley, concluded that the way information is presented can interact with learners abilities to affect learning outcomes.

I venture to say that most of us know this to be true without a study to confirm it, but it is nice to know it has nothing to due with generational preferences. :)

It is something I think about nearly every day, especially during budget season when library directors and collection librarians are asked to look into an increasingly murky crystal ball in order to predict the seemingly whimsical rate increases from legal publishers and arrive at a figure that might be close to reality.  Print collections are increasingly giving way to digital collections.  Our patrons even demand it.  But at what cost?

In addition to the ease of access with a digital collection, there are also cost savings involved for libraries which makes the switch even more attractive.  When faced with the task of reducing budgets, it is much easier to cut a print subscription that is available in a digital format, than one that is not accessible at all.  That is just common sense.  But again, at what cost?

Of course, users can download the online material and print it out at their printers.  In this case, we pass on the cost of acquisition to that of the paper budget line, or just pass the cost on to the user.  And it isn't very green either. If the Arizona report is an indication of how a digital collection can change the effectiveness of an education, what is our responsibility toward our institutions and students? Do we even have a choice? (VS)

National Jurist's Annual Waste of Time: Academic Law Library Ranking

Once again National Jurist has published its asinine annual ranking of law school libraries. 50 percent of the score is based on the number of volumes and unique titles. The ratio of library study seating to enrollment counts for 20 percent. The ratio of full-time professional librarians to enrollment and the number of hours that the library is open each week account for 15 percent each. At least the magazine stopped counting the number of computer workstations because "wireless technology has replaced old school-provided hard-wired stations."

National Jurist might want to rethink some of the other old-school metrics it is has been using to perform this annual waste of time. No, I am not going to report the top X-number of academic law libraries from this ranking. It's utterly too ridiculous. If you can't resist, click on the above link.

Beware the status-obsessed law school dean or prof who wants you to produce a press release about how great "our law library is" based on this ranking. Years back, at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, we just said "no." You see, our library that year was ranked higher than Harvard's law library. Why? Seating-to-student ratio. Oh yeah, that made our library better than Harvard's. [JH]

Chronology of Federal Government Efforts to Restrict and Privatize Government Information, 1981 - 1998

From 1981 until 1998, Anne Heanue and the Washington Office of the American Library Association published a series called Less Access to Less Information by and about the U.S. Government. It's a chronology that documents the efforts to restrict and privatize government information. The entire series on now available in digital format from the Friee Government Information library (click on link above). Hat tip to Free Government Information. [JH]

Round-Up of Practitioner Blogs

Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog
http://www.charlotte-divorce-lawyer-blog.com
http://www.charlotte-divorce-lawyer-blog.com/index.xml
Discusses divorce law news, cases and reports in North Carolina. Published by the Law Offices of David P. Sheehan.

Stock Attorneys Blog
http://www.stockattorneysblog.com
http://www.stockattorneysblog.com/index.xml
Provides insight on stock and securities opinions, reports and news in Florida. Published by Blum & Silver, LLP.

Boston Criminal Lawyers Blog
http://www.bostoncriminallawyersblog.com
http://www.bostoncriminallawyersblog.com/index.xml
Examines criminal law cases, reports and news in Massachusetts. Published by the Law Offices of Lefteris K. Travayiakis.

Florida Injury Attorney Blog
http://www.floridainjuryattorneyblawg.com
http://www.floridainjuryattorneyblawg.com/index.xml
Reports on injury law cases, news and opinions in Florida. Published by the Law Office of Jeffrey P. Gale, PA.

Philadelphia Car And Truck Accident Lawyer Blog
http://www.philadelphiacarandtruckaccidentlawyerblog.com
http://www.philadelphiacarandtruckaccidentlawyerblog.com/index.xml
Reviews auto accident reports, cases and news in Pennsylvania. Published by Pomerantz, Perlberger & Lewis, LLP.

Class Action Attorneys Blog
http://www.classactionattorneysblog.com
http://www.classactionattorneysblog.com/index.xml
Analyzes class action cases, reports and opinions in the United States. Published by Pogust, Braslow & Millrood.

Texas Truck Wreck Attorney Blog
http://www.texas-truck-wreck-attorney.com
http://www.texas-truck-wreck-attorney.com/index.xml
Covers truck accident cases, reports and matters in Texas. Published by the Baumgartner Law Firm.

Copyright Provisions in Law Journal Publication Agreements

Copyright Provisions in Law Journal Publication Agreements [SSRN] found that a minority of journals ask authors to transfer copyright while most journals permit authors to self-archive articles. The author, Benjamin J. Keele (Indiana University Bloomington, School of Library and Information Science), recommends law journals make their agreements publicly available and use licenses instead of copyright transfers. [JH]

New Report Stresses Value of Libraries in Digital Age

The U.S. Impact Public Library Study is among the first to substantially measure how individuals use Internet access at libraries.  The report associated with that study, Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries, relied on a telephone survey, nearly 45,000 online surveys at public libraries, and hundreds of interviews.  In 1996, only 28% of libraries gave patrons access to the Internet.  In comparison, 169 million people visited public libraries, and 45% of those individuals connected to the Internet via the library computer or wireless access even though these same individuals had Internet access at home, work, or elsewhere.  Here are some statistics from the press release:

• 40 percent of library computer users (an estimated 30 million people) received help with career needs. Among these users, 75 percent reported they searched for a job online. Half of these users filled out an online application or submitted a resume.
• 37 percent focused on health issues. The vast majority of these users (82 percent) logged on to learn about a disease, illness, or medical condition. One-third of these users sought out doctors or health care providers. Of these, about half followed up by making appointments for care.
• 42 percent received help with educational needs. Among these users, 37 percent (an estimated 12 million students) used their local library computer to do homework for a class.
• Library computers linked patrons to their government, communities, and civic organizations. Sixty-percent of users – 43.3 million people – used a library’s computer resources to connect with others.

I recently had a question sent to me by a student at another university asking me if I agreed that libraries would go extinct due to digital devices and the general availability of the web.  He pointed me to this articlein the Library Journal Blog which briefly speculates on whether libraries will be extinct in 2019.  My reaction to that question is that libraries will not disappear by any stretch of the imagination.  When people discuss Kindles and iPads as a more convenient way to consume reading materials, one thing they overlook in that statement is exactly who is going to pay for it?  It's always been my contention that the good stuff, that is, the reliable, authoritative, and comprehensive collections of material are behind pay walls.  Libraries, whether academic, public, or specialized, have a large role in subsidizing access through multi-user subscriptions.  So, if one wants access to material behind the pay wall, affiliate with a library or be prepared to bring a checkbook. 

The report above suggests that people use libraries because the Internet connection is better than what they have on their own, or that librarians can offer guidance in a world where information is not federated.  And there is, again, that pay wall.  Public patrons can use Lexis-Nexis Academic at DePaul.  They are stuck with LexisOne or Google SLOJ or another free alternative on their iPads.  None of those, however, have the features in Lexis.  I realize that the Academic version of Lexis isn't the same as what I euphemistically describe as "real Lexis."  Nonetheless, Shepards is available through Academic, and it's what, $7 or so a pop on LexisOne?  Where on the free web is there any reliable or comprehensive citator?  Google Scholar doesn't even come close. 

Then there is the problem of just who's Internet will an individual browse.  Apple will not support Flash.  Flash is not going away and Flash content will be unavailable to the iPad user.  The ebooks on that system are incompatible with other readers (Kindle, Nook) even though they support the ePub format.  These are closed systems designed to lock someone into a vendor.  I expect that more proprietary devices will appear that will have technical restrictions to information.  Content will not be universally available on any device if the current market model maintains.  Libraries may not be able to change how an iPad works, but they will be the most likely source for access to the broadest collection of information on the web by supporting equipment with the broadest system and format access. 

I'll note that the National Broadband Plan intendsto augment the Universal Service Fund with another called the Connecting America Fund.  The USF covers standard telecom access and only supports broadband for libraries, schools, and hospitals.  The CAF is designed to bring broadband access to the same underserved areas and populations that are the focus of the USF.  Libraries are hardly irrelevant when the government plans to spend some $2.7 billionalone in 2010 to connect libraries, schools, and hospitals.  When it comes to the Internet, free wi-fi at Starbucks is simply not going to cut it, especially compared to the electronic services that libraries supply.  [MG]

Friday Fun: What Do You Mean I Have to Teach on Fridays!

Hat tip to Univ. of Florida law prof Jeffrey Harrison's MoneyLaw blog post (Remember the blog's subtitle is "The art of winning an unfair academic game.") [JH]

Substance, Not Intelligence Insulting Marketing Pablum and Evasive Sales Tactics: Lambert's Open Letter to Lexis on Learning from the WestlawNext Fiasco Ahead of the Launch of "New Lexis"

Well, damn it all to hell! Don't you just "hate" it when some energetic young whipper snapper beats you to the punch. I had a first draft of a post on what Lexis ought not do when it launches "New Lexis" as a follow up to yesterday's post, when Greg Lambert's post on the same topic caught my attention. Well done Greg and already published so no need for me do any more work on mine. Just read Greg's Open Letter to "New Lexis.com" - Learn from WestlawNext Mistakes. In a nutshell, Greg advises Lexis to learn from the WestlawNext fiasco:

1. let everyone know exactly who you are, what you can do, and how much you are going to cost us;
2. be nice; and
3. think creatively on how you want to compete for attention against WestlawNext.

Substance, Not Intelligence Insulting Marketing Pablum and Evasive Sales Tactics. In other words, do exactly the opposite of what TR Legal has been doing so far with respect to its launch of the uber expensive WestlawNext.

A little more from this young whipper snapper (stop it ... Greg knows I'm joking; it's not like we bloggers don't communicate amongst ourselves from time to time):

Remember that a good first impression is important, so think long and hard about how you would like to present yourself to us for the first time.  Your cousin, WLN, gave us all a bit of a roller coaster ride in his first few months of life, and although he is impressive to look at, all that other baggage of uncertain pricing and mixed messages from his immediate family has left many of us a bit hesitant about inviting him into our homes.  Here's one last bit of advice for you.  If there is one thing we want from you and your cousin, it is 'certainty.'  We want to know what you do, why you are better and how much you will cost us.  Give us those three things right up front, and I'm sure we'll be friends for a long time.

Well said. I can turn off my computer now and move on to much more important matters, like paying attention to my long-suffering blog widow. She's sitting at the dining room table nearby, and wants to shout out a "thank you, Greg." Oh wait, she has the checkbook out! This can't be good.

If there are more Gen X & Y-ers "out there" like Greg (and I firmly believe there are), I think we rapidly aging, fast becoming decrepit, baby boomers will be leaving the law library profession in very good hands. Carpe diem Gen X and Y law ibrarians. You, too, shall practice the art of the possible one day. [JH]

Chamber of Commerce Releases 2010 Lawsuit Climate Survey

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) released 2010 Lawsuit Climate Survey which ranks the states with the best and worst legal climates for business. According to the survey, the states with the worst legal climates are California (46th), Alabama (47th), Mississippi (48th), Louisiana (49th), and West Virginia (50th). The states with the best legal climates are Delaware (1st), North Dakota (2nd), Nebraska (3rd), Indiana (4th), and Iowa (5th). The worst local jurisdictions were Chicago/Cook County, Illinois (14%), followed by Los Angeles, California (12%). Check out the interactive map.

Hat tip to Sheila Scheuerman, TortsProf Blog. [JH]

Shock and Awe-Inspiring: All Your WestlawNext Pricing Questions Answered in a Simple Two-Page Handout

"You got to love a clearly written two-page document," writes Greg Lambert about "WestlawNext: Overview of Chargeable Events and Chargeable Time." The TR Legal guide identifies "twenty-four scenarios along with three footnotes listing caveats to some of the scenarios," according to Greg. (Emphasis added) I'm taking Greg's word because I stopped counting after 10. Ran out of fingers.

In his post, Greg reminds folks, "don't forget to multiply those per minute charges by 60 and let everyone at your firm know that accessing a brief will cost you $3,300.00 an hour." See his post WestlawNext Pricing - Simple Chart to Answer All Your Questions for the two-page chart. I suggest you download and enlarge it. If your kid has a science fair project coming up, it will make an excellent posterboard display for a project on collective psychopathy. At what point in the many meetings that produced this pricing scheme, do someone forget to ask, "don't you think we might be going about this in the wrong way with "New Lexis" on the horizon and consumer preference clearly in favor of predictable, fixed rate pricing?"

In a comment to his own post, Greg adds "I know that a lot of attorneys were really excited when this resource first came out, but I'm not sure if that excitement continues today." I, for one, have to wonder how many attorneys are going to sit through an explanation of the 24 scenarios before deciding to just say no to WestlawNext until TR Legal comes up with a more reasonable, predictable and simplified pricing mechanism.

TR Legal has achieved a new height in screwing up the launch of a new product. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for the programmers who developed the new search engine. Of course, when you work for the only legal publisher who believes the market has hit bottom and thinks it can maintain its 32 percent profit margin (vis a vis other legal publishers who would be happy to hit a 25% profit margin target in 2010) because the Company owns something like a 40% share of the market and also believes clients of Westlaw users will be delighted to pay for the results of their shiny new search engine regardless of cost, delusional behavior should come as no surprise. At the moment it looks to me like WestlawNext may end up being a Harvard Business School case study of how the shock and awe of naked duopolism can stop consumers dead in their tracks.

TR Legal is going to have some choices to make. Shut down Westlaw sooner rather than later and try to cram down WestlawNext at the expense of alienating its subscriber base or rethink its short-sighted profit objectives and current online pricing models. Those of us who have been around since the beginning of very expensive online legal search, have seen pricing schemes come and go with one clear trend -- consumer momentum has been heading toward predictable fixed rate costs. TR Legal is trying to buck this trend in a very big way.

Wait for "New Lexis" Before Making a Decision About WestlawNext. One has to think that Lexis is watching consumer reaction to WestlawNext pricing and is seeing an opportunity here to gain market share at TR Legal's expense. The best approach in my opinion is to hold off getting locked into WestlawNext until you can evaluate your options upon the arrival of "New Lexis" next year.

Had TR Legal been smart instead of arrogant it had an opportunity to grab market share from Lexis this year by pitching its new search engine while offering reasonably priced fixed rate plans for WestlawNext. Oops. No wonder TR Legal WestlawNext roadshows started off with a statement that no questions about pricing would be answered. [JH]

2010 Legal Research Teach-In Kit Now Available

The Research Instruction and Patron Services SIS has released of the 18th Annual National Legal Research Teach-In Kit, compiled and edited this year by Laura J. Ax-Fultz and David E. Lehmann. The 2010 kit includes legislative history materials, a primary and secondary source matching game, online tutorials, syllabi, and various research assignments. Helen Frazer's "Introductory Guide to Online International Human Rights Legal Research With an Emphasis on the United Nations" is a particularly noteworthy contribution as are Carmen M. Meléndez's "Historial Legislativo de Leyes de Puerto Rico" and "Guía Para Localizar Materiales sobre el Historial Legislativo de las Leyes en Puerto Rico en la Biblioteca de Derecho de la Universidad de Puerto Rico." [JH]

Google Leaves China, Sort Of

Google's China operations have moved their servers to Hong Kong.  Though part of China, Hong Kong operates under a different legal system that was in place when Britain controlled the city as a colony.  This comes in light of Google's decision to stop censoring search results to Chinese citizens.  While China's government insists that self-censorship is the domestic law, Google sees the server moves as a way to comply with the law.  Google.com.hk is not Google.com.cn, and more like Google.com (US).  Not that things have changed much for Chinese citizens using any Google sources.  These, as are many foreign web sites, are censored by the China's firewall.  Don't expect ads for Tiananmen Square '89 t-shirts over the Internet in Beijing anytime soon.  Or anything else that China's government doesn't want its population to hear about. 

James Fallows, of the Atlantic, published an interview with David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, over the the company's recent adventures with the Chinese government.  As Drummond says:

The experience we are trying to offer to Chinese users is like the one on Google.cn, but done without the censorship on our part.

[Would this make any difference to users in mainland China, whose search results are still going to be "filtered" by the Great Firewall?] There is a difference in that we are censoring nothing. The Firewall can block access to certain kinds of search results regardless of how you get to them. They are treating Google.com.hk - treating it like Google.com [that is, as a foreign source that is screened by the Firewall]....

Google is not completely abandoning operations in China as much as its physical presence there.  Chinese citizens can get to any foreign web site directly by typing the URL in their browser unless blocked by the government.  Google will operate at a distance which, to some extent, relieves it of its censorship obligations.  Drummond, again:

People tended to see this as an all or nothing kind of battle between us and the Chinese government, and that based on what we said, we were either going to pull out of China entirely, or else say, Never Mind! From the beginning our view had been, we would like to stay in China and have an operation there and serve the market there, and serve it as locally as we can. We're just not willing to censor the search results any more.

Unspoken here is that if a search result gets through and someone in China clicks on an ad, Google still gets its renminbi.  CNET is reporting on Google's advice to customers to use VPN, SSH, or proxy servers to get to Google Apps and Gmail, noting that the Chinese government can still block these applications if it wanted to.  Google is essentially telling everyone that however the Chinese government restricts the Internet, it's not cooperating anymore.  That presumably means it won't turn over customer information in "criminal" investigations or prosecutions.  That kind of case hasn't come up--yet.  When it does, everyone will be watching for Google's reaction.  In the meantime, the White House supports Google's refusal to censor search results.

In another note, Google reacted negatively to Internet censorship in Australia, where that country's government is trying to force ISPs there to block information at the router level.  Australia does not have anything akin to First Amendment rights in its laws and is attempting to rate and block anything the government finds offensive.  Savvy Australians can use proxy servers to get around such filtering.  The sweep of Australia's plan is broad, nonetheless.  Google has said the plan could "confer legitimacy upon filtering by other Governments."  My earlier post addresses this same concern as noted by a member of the State Department, although in the context of the FCC's attempt at imposing net neutrality on U.S. providers.  I hadn't mentioned Australia's censorship attempts in responding to that issue.  Ars Technica has good coverage of what is going on there.  I recommend the rest of Fallow's interview with Drummond for a fuller picture of how Google sees its China operations in the current circumstances.  [MG]

Is WestlawNext's Search Algorithm Worth Paying a 68% Premium to Use It? (Or Does AALL Have Any Clue What Is Going On?)

And that premium apparently reflects a 45% 3-year licensing agreement discount. See Lisa Solomon's The Immodest Premium for WestlawNext post. See also one library's experience which is now boycotting WestlawNext use here.

Of course, TR Legal approaches pricing on an account-by-account, plan-by-plan basis so these are just is two examples. In other words, hold out for a 67% increase! Better yet, negotiate a monthly cap on "excluded usage" charges. At the moment, I'm thinking a cap of $100 per month sounds about right. Good luck with that.

AALL and WestlawNext. By the way, have I missed it or does AALL have nothing to say on what's been transpiring so far in WestlawNext negotiations (other than (1) publishing one informative albeit very general WestlawNext pricing models interview that communicated West's opinion, and (2) thanking TR Legal for paying for advertising)? Perhaps the examples are "exception to the norm." On the other hand, our association's leaders may just have their collective head buried in the sand. (I was going to say "up their collective ass" but I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming there is some doubt that they have any clue about what is going on.)

Ah well, our association's 2010-2013 Strategic Directions statement won't be reviewed and adopted until April 9-10. Perhaps law libraries should wait until then before considering upgrading to WestlawNext since the Statement's Advocacy Goals include the following:

• Promote AALL policies that support members in establishing fair and equitable business relationships with legal publishers.
• Expand communication channels with information vendors regarding products, product development, and related policies.

Of course, adopting a strategy without taking any action is nothing more than an exercise in empty verbiage. Guess we will have to just wait and see... [JH]