April 10, 2010
NLJ's The Decade's 40 Most Influential LawyersFor NLJ's annual Most Influential Lawyers special report, the editors selected "40 attorneys in a dozen key legal areas whose work between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2009, was so consequential that it helped to push the profession, an industry or a practice area substantially forward." Areas covered: antitrust; appellate; bankruptcy; civil rights; corporate; energy and environmental; in-house; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal education; litigation; and regulatory. List here. [JH]
April 9, 2010
Mr. Justice Stevens Announces His Retirement from the Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens has made official that he is retiring at the end of the current Supreme Court term. This hardly comes as a surprise given his public statements that he was thinking of retirement, and that he hired one law clerk the next term rather than the usual four.
According to news sources, the leading candidates to replace Justice Stevens are are Solicitor General Elena Kagan,, and federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland, and Diane Wood. Judge Wood was named by pundits as a potential candidate to replace Justice Souter when he retired, though Justice Sonia Sotomayor ultimately was confirmed by the Senate. Given the rancor in congress and particularly the Senate over the recent passage of the health care reform legislation, one wonders whether even a non-controversial candidate will have an easy time getting through the process.
Coverage on Mr. Justice Stevens announcement is in the Washington Post. The CRS Report, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee and the President, dated May 13, 2009, is available here. [MG]
Lexis Rewards Your Good Ideas
Just in time for Friday! Lexis is offering librarians 1,000 reward points for the submission of good ideas to share on their Share Your Ideas web page. As you know, reward points can be traded in for tangible goods; however, librarians typically have a short window to earn so many at once: during AALL at the booths! According to the Info Pro group, you can keep your points and continue to add to them during the year. The catch: only the first 100 ideas/librarians are eligible and the idea must be submitted between March 1 and April 17. At the time of this post, I counted less than 15 eligible submissions so you still have time!
How do I know how many were submitted? LexisNexis lets you see the postings.
Among the submitted ideas, the one I like the best was posted by Jeffrey Willins. Although it was posted in Febrary, I still think it should be counted. He suggests that LexisNexis shoudl "publish a list of known bugs that are being worked on to inspire confidence in the consumer base and avoid unnecessary service calls." LN responded and asked for more input which Mr. Willins supplied in detail. Although I am unaware of that "bug list" exists yet, I am hopeful that it will and Mr. Willins will receive a 1,000 points anyway.
Many of the "qualified" postings have to do with Time Matters which I do not use but I understand to be a bit buggy. One of the better posts requests that out-of-contract files be hidden from the menus. I like this idea too. It is very frustrating to click on an item to which you do not have access.
I hope LN takes our input seriously. We should take advantage of collaborative venues and work with vendors who are willing to listen. Well, let us hope that they are willing to listen. (VS)
Friday Fun: Law School Dreams When JD Meant "Ju$t Dollars"
By way of following up on LLB's last two Friday Fun videos -- yes we beat the horse to death and beyond -- comes another Hitler-Law School parody.
GPO Launches Government Book Talk BlogLaunched on March 30th, the GPO's Government Book Talk blog's objective is "to raise the profile of some of the best publications from the Federal Government, past and present." The blog will review new and popular publications and provide information about forthcoming ones. [JH]
April 8, 2010
Digital Economy Bill Passes Parliament, Awaits Royal Assent to Become Law
Britain's Digital Economy Bill passed Parliament in what is characterized as a "wash-up" session. That is the time between the call for a general election and the dissolution of Parliament. The majority and minority gets together and decides what unfinished business is sufficiently supported by both and passes it. That something as controversial as the Digital Economy Bill managed to get through via the wash-up process is surprising. Aside from switching radio from analog to digital broadcast and changes to television programming requirements, the bill takes aim at Internet piracy in the broadest possible way.
Copyright holders can send infringement reports to ISPs which, in turn, must notify subscribers within one month listing the infringements along with information about appeals and other legally required information. ISPs must turn over infringement information to copyright holders on request. If this seems similar to a system where someone must prove themselves innocent of copyright infringement, consider that the draft of these provisions originated with content holders. The lesson of the RIAA in the United States is clear: it is much more expensive for the industry to prove someone guilty than for the accused to appeal their innocence.
The more controversial parts of the bill allows the government to tell Ofcom (the British equivalent of the FCC) to order ISPs to place speed or bandwidth blocks on a user account, suspend accounts or cut off sites for that user account. Ofcom would have to asses the type of sanction, a "technical obligation," as to whether it will work and issue a report before ordering an ISP to take action against its customers. Parliament must approve the action before the government can order the restrictions, which ISPs must accept.
The even more controversial part of the bill allows the courts to issue an injunction requiring ISPs to block access to any “location” that “has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.” While this may seem aimed at sites such as music or movie blogs, or other online sources that contain a fair amount of illegal and infringing content, the words in the section that read "or is likely to be used" present a disturbing potential for prior restraint of a site on the basis of what it might publish. Some critics charge that the government could ban sites such as YouTube or Wikileaks because some of its users could post infringing material. While the charge seems outlandish, it is not out of the realm of possibility, what with Viacom's suit against Google, joined by the Premier Football League and other British entities. Wikileaks may be blocked for future infringing content though the real reason may be to block embarrassing government information. We'll see how this turns out in practice. The language is broad enough that critics are rightly concerned about implementation.
One provision that provided for the fair use of orphan works was dropped on opposition of trade associations that created photographic and graphicl content. One of the last provisions absolved libraries of infringement penalties if it lends a book, or creates a copy when it lends a book in audio or electronic form.
I expect that the copyright content holders for music, video, movies, and publishing may be pleased but may not see the up tick in profits they may expect from implementing the bill. Sites may obscure how they describe content making it more difficult to to identify infringing material, even to the copyright holder. The technically minded can use proxy servers or other firewall tunneling techniques to get to banned sites. These methods are quite popular in places such as China and Iran, with Britain apparently set to join that pantheon of Internet freedom. And there are other distribution systems beyond the Internet. Can we expect to see packages in the Royal Mail containing discs labeled "My 84 year old grandmother's birthday party?" Britain is suppressing an easy method of copyright infringement, but not the only method. Transport isn't everything. George Harrison figured that one out all those years ago. [MG]
Your WestlawNext License Can Be Just Like Your Westlaw License. Part II: Downplaying the Ability to Block Out-of-Plan Resources for a Cross-Database Search Engine in WLN Marketing
During this WestlawNext roll-out, the track record for obtaining clear, precise and comprehensive information from TR Legal Marketing has left something to be desired. To quote Greg Lambert in his open letter to Lexis about learning from WestlawNext mistakes when launching "NewLexis" next year:
let everyone know exactly who you are, what you can do, and how much you are going to cost us. Don't play with phrases like "modest premium" or "we're still working on the pricing" as you enter the world.
Another way to put is, don't open product road shows with a statement that "no questions about pricing will be answered at this time" when a simple, clear and direct statement like the following can be made:
Your WestlawNext license can be structured like your Westlaw license. You can craft your plan resources like in the past, you can block access to out-of-plan resources if that's what you have done in the past and want to continue doing, or you can provide access to out-of-plan resources with charges incurred on a transactional or hourly rate basis based on your decision which pricing model to go with. Plan resources may not be strictly identical but may be comparable. Costs are subject to your plan coverage, the choices you make with respect to blocking or not blocking out-of-plan resources and which pricing model you choose if you choose to provide access to out-of-plan resources.
How hard would that have been? Of course, mentioning blocking, discussed in the first part of this series, does distract from the message that TR Legal Marketing really wanted to get out to end users, namely WestlawNext searches across all databases and isn't that a good thing. Well, it is but... .
Why Downplay Blocking from TR Legal Marketing? The author of a recent Scotia Capital investor analysis report hits the proverbial nail on the head under a section entitled "Pricing Premiums Depend on Client Negotiations with Sales Reps:"
We view the new pricing structure implemented in WestlawNext as a potential driver of additional revenue through increased content subscriptions and pay-through fees. With WestlawNext, customers no longer have to pay for each search conducted; instead users are only charged when a document is fully viewed. The potential exists for Thomson Reuters to capture additional revenue above the premium rate increases as law firms now can search across WestlawNext's entire database, populating results outside of the law firm's subscription. This is beneficial for the company's earnings as customers pay a higher rate to view documents out of their subscription jurisdiction, and a rise in content subscriptions may occur as customers become aware of databases, that are relevant to their business.
(Emphasis added.) The complete Scotia Capital report, WestlawNext Strengthens Positioning, can be purchased here. Highly recommended.
The marketing objective here is to promote WestlawNext's cross-database search engine. Exposing the user population to additional databases which if unblocked but out-of-plan over time may lead to subscribers wanting to expand their plans to reduce their variable out-of-plan costs. In these WLN "upgrade" days, that can be a very expensive proposition if negotiations are going to proceed along the lines of TR Legal's traditional 3-year license. Here's an instance where the vendor and institutional buyer have something in common. For a across-database search engine, both may want to expose end users to the entire range of of West's 40,000-odd databases to see if some will be used and, if so, how regularly. But at what expense to the subscriber?
Finding Common Ground under WLN. A common ground can be reached during this WLN "upgrade" period. While maintaining your existing Westlaw contract, a vendor like TR Legal that wants to be your "partner" could easily offer to provide WLN under an selection of plan components similar to your existing Westlaw plan for a reasonable temporay access charge with out-of-plan resources left unblocked but uncharged for a trial period of reasonable duration, one that is long enough to train users and then to evaluate their use of the cross-database search engine accessing all WLN resources. By trial period, I do not mean one month!
TR Legal could provide itemized monthly billing statements for what your costs would be based on in-plan and out-of-plan usage. At the conclusion of this trial WLN period, you could evaluate whether you want a WLN license and, if so, want to increase or decrease your selection of plan components based on usage and cost of out-of-plan resources and whether you want to block or unblock out-of-plan access under the terms of WLN pricing.
Anyone been offered a 6-9-12 month WLN trial period along these lines? If a Company is thinking long term about providing a cross-database search engine with an eventual shutdown of Westlaw and a buyer must evaluate costs at the institutional level, this wouldn't be an unreasonable way to conduct business. [JH]
April 7, 2010
Teacher who was suspended for facetiously threatening on Facebook to kill students gets her job back
We'd previously reported on the story of a sociology prof who posted a couple of tongue-in-check messages on Facebook expressing that she'd “had a good day today, DIDN’T want to kill even one student :-). Now Friday was a different story.”
When a student reported her message (which the prof assumed was private until Facebook unilaterally changed the privacy settings for all users) to administrators, she was placed on leave.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed is reporting that the prof in question was recently reinstated:
Though [she] said her co-workers have been either welcoming or distant, a few of her students have been blatantly opposed to her return. She said on her first day back, three of her students "stormed out" of class, complained to the department chair and administrators, and called the media. After that, campus police officers were posted outside her classroom.
Notwithstanding her students' response, the professor in question felt that the school overreacted to her facetious Facebook messages.
[The professor] still holds that the "radically extreme response" to her Facebook posts was a result of a racial-harassment complaint she filed the month before her suspension, and of an essay she wrote for The Chronicle Review in 2008 that described some of the challenges black faculty members face.
The Facebook comments, Ms. Gadsden said, were intended only for family and friends. She said that she wishes she had never started an account, and that she got legal advice not to take it down at this point.
"I wish the administration had looked at the bigger picture," she said. "It was a bad joke, but it was a joke."
You can read the rest here.
Barbara Bintliff to Become Next Director at the University of Texas Tarlton Law Library
From Acting Director Terry Martin's email to the Tarlton family of librarians:
It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve as director of the Tarlton Law Library for the past two academic years. But I am nonetheless relieved and happy to announce that service approaches its end.
In 1966, Dean Page Keeton went looking for a library director to succeed Helen Hargrave, who served 25 years as the Tarlton Director and was much beloved by law students who had interrupted their studies to serve in WWII. Keeton contacted Dean Edward King at the University of Colorado for advice. King bragged about Colorado’s new librarian, Roy Mersky. As King later told Mersky, “I mistakenly told him you were the best law librarian in the country.” Roy always wondered about the true sentiment behind that phrasing. At any event, Keeton persuaded Mersky to move to Austin and history was made.
If not once, why not again? Putting aside any concerns about a pattern of repeated raiding of a fellow institution, Dean Larry Sager has also found the next Texas director at Colorado. I am very pleased to inform you that this coming August Professor Barbara A. Bintliff will become the Joseph C. Hutcheson Professor in Law and next director of the Tarlton Law Library.
Barbara is well known as a leader in the law library profession, a former President of the American Association of Law Libraries, a member of the American Law Institute, a noted teacher, scholar, and consultant. She is involved in cutting-edge issues, having served on the ALI Consultative Group developing Principles of the Law of Government Access to and Use of Digital Information and serving as Reporter for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Drafting Committee on Authentication and Preservation of State Electronic Legal Materials. She recently organized the Conference on Legal Information: Scholarship and Teaching held at the University of Colorado Law School that produced the Boulder Statement on Legal Research Education.
Barbara is well regarded as a mentor and educator of law librarians. She will be a natural successor to Roy Mersky as the director of the Tarlton Law Library and as a leader of the new Texas dual MSIS/Juris Doctor Degree program.
As a scholar, teacher, colleague, and library manager, there are few in her class. The entire staff and I are thrilled. Wish her well.
The law school's announcement is here.
Check Out HeinOnline's New Beta Law Journal Library Collection Home Page
Finding from its development survey that the majority of users are searching the Law Journal Library Collection or they are accessing articles and documents using a citation, HeinOnline has created a Beta home page for the Law Journal Library. From the HeinOnline blog post:
We invite you to test this new Beta Collection Home page for the Law Journal Library and provide us with your feedback. To access the Beta Collection Home page, click on the Resources tab in the upper left hand corner from within the Law Journal Library, then click on the link in the sidebar that says "Beta Collection Home". Or, you can follow this link to test out the new page, http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/JournalsLanding?collection=journals&men_tab=nav&men_hide=false
Leiter's Top 25 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact by Citation Count, 2005-2009
Chicago law prof Brian Leiter's latest analysis aims to identify the 25 law faculties with the most “scholarly impact” as measured by citations during roughly the past five years. The methodology is similar to Leiter's past citation studies, listed here, but untenured faculty are excluded this year. At the institutional level, Leiter cautions that "citation studies are but one measure of the scholarly distinction of faculties. They tend to favor smaller faculties over larger faculties, which no doubt explains why schools like Texas and Virginia and Georgetown come out behind schools like Vanderbilt and Cornell, even though I don’t think any informed scholarly judgment would rate them that way."
In addition to ranking the top 25 law schools overall, for the period covering 2005-2009 Leiter ranks the ten most cited law profs, the ten most cited female law profs, and by 13 areas of specialization, the top ten or top 20 most cited law profs in the below listed specialties. About the specialties rankings, Leiter writes "The impact ratings correlate decently but imperfectly with scholarly reputation ... The ordinal rank in the “top ten” list should not, however, be taken to correspond to scholarly excellence or reputation. But those in “the top ten” are usually thought of as among the leading scholars in the area."
Specialties covered in Leiter's five year citation study:
- Administrative Law (including regulation and telecommunications)
- Commercial Law/Bankruptcy
- Corporate Law/Securities Regulation
- Criminal Law & Procedure
- Family Law
- International Law
- Intellectual Property/Cyberlaw
- Law & Economics
- Law & Philosophy
- Legal History
- Public Law Areas (incl. constitutional law and legislation)
April 6, 2010
Maryland Legislature Backs Down on Threat to Clinical Funding
Various news outlets are reporting (here and here, for example) on the controversial budget proposal in Maryland that would require the state funded University of Maryland environmental clinic to turn over client and other information or forgo $250,000 in state funding. Two University of Maryland students editorialized against the proposal in the pages (or should that be the screens) of the Baltimore Sun.
The latest reports are that the budget legislation has been modified to ask for limited information, but without any penalties for failing to supply the information. The move by certain members of the Maryland legislature was motivated by a pollution suit the clinic brought against a chicken supplier for Perdue, and names the company as one of the defendant. Perdue threatened to move business out of Maryland to a more favorable business climate. The ABA, when it feels compelled enough to get involved in the management of law schools, issued a statement by President Carolyn B. Lamm, denouncing the proposal as an intrusion in the lawyer-client relationship.
It seems as though public interest clinics are getting under the skin of legislators around the country for various reasons. The New York Times summarizes similar developments in other states, including one in Louisiana where the legislature wants to bar state funded clinics from bringing suits against government agencies, companies or individuals. Is anyone left? Can dogs be defendants? Perhaps the Maryland legislature should work with business to conform to environmental laws rather than punish the people who point out the alleged violations. That might obviate the need for a suit at all. Additional coverage appears in the Legal Writing Prof Blog. [MG]
FCC Loses Comcast Appeal on Net Regulation
In what seems a surprise to no one, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the FCC in its attempt to regulate Internet providers. The case arose when the Commission asserted authority over Comcast for slowing down or dropping peer-to-peer connections on its network. The FCC required Comcast to disclose its network management practices, which it did "voluntarily." Comcast then challenged the Commission's decision on appeal at the Court of Appeals.
The Court, for its part, analyzed the issues strictly on the basis of the Commission's jurisdiction to regulate Internet management practices. The FCC's original order against Comcast were based on policy statements the FCC made in a footnote in one of its documents. On appeal, the Commission asserted ancillary authority to regulate Comcast's network management practices as drawn from various court decisions and congressional policy statements contained in the Telecommunications Act. The Court analyzed the arguments for jurisdictional authority against the test set out in American Library Ass’n v. FCC 406 F.3d 698 (D.C. Cir. 2005):
We recently distilled the holdings of these three cases into a two-part test. In American Library Ass’n v. FCC, we wrote: “The Commission . . . may exercise ancillary jurisdiction only when two conditions are satisfied: (1) the Commission’s general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the Communications Act] covers the regulated subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.” 406 F.3d at 691–92; see also Order, 23 F.C.C.R. at 13,035, ¶ 15 n.64 (citing the American Library test). Comcast concedes that the Commission’s action here satisfies the first requirement because the company’s Internet service qualifies as “interstate and foreign communication by wire” within the meaning of Title I of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 152(a). Whether the Commission’s action satisfies American Library’s second requirement is the central issue in this case.
The Court considered every point the Commission raised for a grant of ancillary authority and rejected every one of them. The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court. The decision, as it stands, impedes the ability of the Commission to write more definite rules on network neutrality regulation. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined principles of network neutrality last fall, and the rulemaking is still pending. The authority for the Commission to go forward is in doubt with this opinion.
The most likely scenario is for Congress to specifically grant authority to the FCC when it considers legislation to implement the National Broadband Plan. Members of Congress have spoken out on the issue of network neutrality. Nonetheless, it's going to take an intense lobbying effort by consumer and public interest groups to match the deep pockets of the ISPs and content providers who are against Internet regulation. It should be interesting to see how the players line up after this development. The opinion from the Court of Appeals is here. [MG]
Your WestlawNext License Can Be Just Like Your Westlaw License. Part 1: You Can Block Out-of-Plan Resources for WestlawNext
In a March 16th post, I asked what I thought was a relatively simple and direct question: will there be pure fixed rate contracts for WestlawNext? Being a cross-database search engine, it was prompted in part by:
- a CRIV interview with Mark Schiff, TR VP, Product Marketing, by Caren Biberman, Director of Library & Information Services, Cahill Gordon & Reindel which omitted this matter in the section of pricing by going straight to transactional and hourly options for out-of-plan access; and
- TR Legal Marketing literature, most notable, WestlawNext: Pricing Guide for Commercial Plans which reviews generally the three board categories of "chargeable events" on WestlawNext without once mentioning that out-of-plan resources can be blocked by subscribers. See Greg Lambert's analysis of the Pricing Guide and its comment trail.
This rather large gaping information hole about WestlawNext pricing has been the topic of discussion on some AALL listervs with some librarians saying absolutely no way is West going to let them block out-of-plan WLN resources and others saying yes they will. The fact that this debate was taking place says something about WLN marketing, and, perhaps, about what folks are hearing or not hearing from their reps.
It isn't all that hard to come right out and state up front in the Company's marketing literature that structurally your WestlawNext license can be the same as your Westlaw licenses, is it?
- You create your plan and negotiate its fixed-rate pricing
- Here's the similarities and differences in plan components, what databases are included, etc.
- You choose to block or not block out-of-plan resources and blocking is available to all subscribers.
- You have one of two pricing schedules to pick from for accessing out-of-plan resources: hourly or transactional rate pricing
Anyone following the marketing literature (in most instances ferreted out by Greg Lambert for 3 Geeks and a Law Blog, who first published the WestlawNext: Pricing Guide for Commercial Plans and later the WestlawNext: Overview of Chargeable Events and Chargeable Times, we all understand licensing elements (1) and (4) above. In a series of private emails with some West sales managers (names withheld to protect the well-meaning) prompted by a listserv post on blocking availability published by one, I can confirm (3), by which I mean you can choose to block or not block out-of-plan resources and blocking is available for all subscribers, be they law firm, government sector, etc. Don't know much about (2) yet because there have been some conflicting reports published.
At this point, I believe blocking to be the case because I find the sources of this information to be very credible and their statements have been unequivocal. To paraphrase one statement made by an account manager, this means that your WestlawNext license can be just like your Westlaw license.
It Takes the Entire Law Librarian Blogosphere to Extract Information from TR Legal. Some of my fellow bloggers may be surprised that we finally got a straight answer from TR Legal on blocking. It came from Sales, not Marketing and I will be happy to buy the first round of beers for the folks who provided it the next time we meet. The moral of this story is that it sometimes it takes an entire law librarian blogosphere to extract information from TR Legal for general use by law library professionals.
The complaint from some in TR Legal has been that "mis-information" about WLN is being published. The response is make detailed information readily and promptly available. If it takes a 20 or 30-page document to spell things out, we will read it. Detailed comparisons of Westlaw and WLN features tell us about the product's features; detail comparisons of Westlaw and WLN's licensing structure, plan components and pricing will tell us something specific about cost structure and will inform us ahead of a hopefully productive discussion with our sales reps. Absent that, information gaps are going to be discussed in public because it's not mis-information if the information is not made publicly available.
Questions posed that are not answered by TR Legal Marketing to the community at large remain open for debate and speculation. The issue of blocking specifically and pricing generally could have been easily and quickly addressed by Anne Ellis when she started getting pricing questions to her very first post on Legal Current. She did not address those issues, meaning many remain unresolved. It's not like TR Legal doesn't monitor AALL listservs or law librarian blogs.
The days of leaving this to Sales to spell things out one-on-one completely in private are over. Folks are sharing by way of the blogosphere (and listservs) what they are reading when they find something to read and what they are hearing. They are openly comparing notes when communications conflict or at least are substantially different from what others are hearing from their sales reps.
It Should Come as No Surprise Why This Is Happening. It is hard to fix a vendor-client relationship that has deteriorated to the degree that it has with TR Legal. Which vendor do you think gets the lowest marks for providing detailed and trustworthy information about their products and services in vendor literature and direct communications, in responsiveness to issues and their prompt resolution for products and services, and in the reasonableness of annual print continuation pricing and online pricing for the value of the resources provided? Most know the answer. If not, see here and here.
Why does it take the entire law librarian blogopshere to extract information from TR Legal for the community at large?. They have a Librarian Relations Program, perhaps they should put it to work. We might even come to trust it. The WestlawNext roll-out could have been a start to rebuilding a better vendor-buyer relationship. So far, that hasn't been the case. [JH]
April 5, 2010
Let's Speed Up Cash Flow for Print: West's New Billing System Moving from Monthly to Weekly Invoicing
In West pokes itself in the eye again, Betsy McKenzie reports that West is apparently moving from monthly to weekly billing unless the library has an LMA contract. "To make matters worse," Betsy writes "the invoices will be mailed separately from the item, so that the Acquisitions department will have to verify receipt and be sure it was the correct item as a separate step." This new billing program will be implemented in phases according to Anne Ellis, Senior Director, TR Legal Librarian Relations. Betsy republishes Ann Ellis' Acquisitions listserv announcement here. It closes with the following statement:
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that West offers a variety of predictable pricing programs, including Library Maintenance Agreements. These programs provide a great way to simplify the administration and processing of your print account and manage your print budget. We have a model for everyone, and you can contact your sales representative or account manager for more information.
Herding Libraries Into Multi-Year Print Contracts. Betsy writes "You can see how they are trying to herd us into the LMAs, but it's not really very subtle. Some representatives WILL say out loud what Anne does not put into writing: this is what you get for dropping out of your LMA. Some folks have actually been told that to their faces. ... This is pretty clearly a punitive action designed to drive libraries into the LMA program, NOT to ...'make our business relationship as easy for you to manage as possible.'"
Of course, many public law libraries cannot legally enter into long-term print agreements. Many other law libraries simply do not want to make a long-term print commitment in this Shed West Era. Another benefit to West not mentioned in Ellis' statement is that weekly invoicing may prompt faster payment; let's get the cash flowing into the bank ASAP.
- The only solution is to replace West with a vendor that will serve better.
- And to ask our state Attorneys General consumer protection divisions to investigate the Thomson-Reuters business practices.
What's Wrong With the Annual Subscription Model? I would add that there is a third solution. West should switch to an annual subscription model by title like Lexis has for many of its print continuations. Of course, that would require clearly specifying annual cost by title for all materials being received for that title during a 12-month subscription period. Impossible? Of course not, West knows when pocket-parts, etc., are going to be printed and how many new bound volumes will be printed by title well beyond the next 12 months. That, in my opinion would "make our business relationship as easy... to manage as possible." [JH]
Opening: Law Library Directory, Univ. of Kentucky Law
The University of Kentucky College of Law invites applications for the position of Director of its Library. The Law Library has a strong commitment to service and is one of the state’s largest law libraries with a collection of 490,000 volumes and volume equivalents.
QUALIFICATIONS: Qualified candidates must hold both a J.D. degree from an ABA accredited law school (or foreign equivalent) and a M.L.S. degree from an ALA-accredited library school (or foreign equivalent). The successful candidate must have strong communication skills, supervisory experience in an academic or library setting, and a knowledge of emerging technologies and their application to libraries. Candidates must also display the ability to work with the Dean of the College of Law to further the mission of the College Law and the Law Library.
DESCRIPTION AND RESPONSIBILITES: The Director of the Law Library is responsible for overseeing all aspects of library operations including managing the Library’s daily activities, strategic planning, collection development, and leading a staff of ten to twelve librarians and support staff. In addition, the Director will lead the Law Library in determining library policy, administering library programs and furthering the mission of the Law Library and its commitment of service to students, faculty, alumni, and members of the bench, bar, and public. The Director will also be responsible for administration of the library’s budget and ensuring that library resources are used to successfully support the College’s research, teaching, and service missions. While the Law Library operates as a unit of the College of Law in all respects, it is expected that the Law Library Director will work collaboratively with administrators and personnel from other libraries and colleges within the University.
The Director of the Law Library reports directly to the Dean of the College of Law and will serve as a tenure-track member of the College of Law Faculty. Individuals applying for this position should demonstrate a strong commitment to scholarship as well as an active involvement in professional organizations such as The American Association of Law Libraries, the Association of American Law Schools, and the American Bar Association. The Director may also be asked to teach Legal Research or other related courses in the Law School curriculum.
SALARY AND BENEFITS: Director of the Law Library is a tenure–track position. Rank, salary, and tenure status will be commensurate with the Director’s experience and qualifications.
APPLICATION PROCESS: Interested applicants should submit a letter of intent, resume and the names and contact information of three references to:
Amy B. Osborne
Head of Public Services
University of Kentucky
College of Law Library
620 South Limestone Street
Lexington, KY 40506-0048
amyo (at) email.uky.edu
Review of applications will begin June 1, 2010.
April 4, 2010
Round-Up of Personal Injury Practitioner Blogs
Alabama Injury Attorneys Blog
Discusses injury law cases, reports and news in Alabama. Published by Farris, Riley & Pitt, LLP.
San Diego Personal Injury Lawyers Blog
Provides insight on injury law reports, opinions and news in California. Published by Kerckhoff Law.
Modesto Injury Lawyer Blog
Examines injury law cases, legislation and reports in California. Published by the Law Offices of Ben Roberts.
Chicago Injury Lawyer Blog
Analyzes injury law cases, opinions and reports in Illinois. Published by The Deratany Firm.