Law Librarian Blog

Financing the Dream: Sponsor a 3L or Recent Undergrad

Ruth Carter, a 3L at ASU's Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, has announced Sponsor a Law Kid to solicit help to pay off her law school debt. She writes, "[w]hen I applied to law school, the average debt for a student graduating from my program was ~$50,000. Today, the average debt is over $89,000! That’s insane! How did my education get $40,000 more expensive?!  I have one semester left, plus studying for and taking the Bar. I’m reaching out to the online community to help me pay for it."

Sponsor a Law Kid will run from Jan. 1, 2011 until July 27, 2011, the last day of the Arizona Exam. Each day can have one sponsor and the cost to sponsor January 1st is only $1, with the sponsorship pricing going up by $1 for each subsequent day (Jan. 2nd = $2, Jan. 3rd = $3, Jul. 27th = $208). For details, see her blog post. See also ATL's Small Firm Lawyers Balk at ASU 3L’s Request for Sponsorship by Josh Dickinson.

And then there's Kelli Space who graduated from Northeastern University, Class of 2009, after racking up over $200,000 in undergrad student loans. She's soliciting donations from the public at TwoHundredThou.com. See Gawker story, What $200,000 in Student Debt Looks Like ("That, friends, is goddamn frightening.")

I'm thinking both Ruth and Kelli will need to read the Federal Reserve's Consumer's Guide to Credit Reports and Credit Scores. [JH]

Makers of Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages Cease Production After Receiving Warning Letters from the FTC and FDA

On Oct. 17, 2010, the FTC issued warning letters to the manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages that their beverages may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice that violates the FTC Act, citing incidents “suggesting that alcohol containing added caffeine presents unusual risks to health and safety.” Here's the list of manufacturers and the brands at issue.

United Brands Co., which sells Joose and Max caffeinated alcohol beverages.  The carbonated malt beverages come in fruity flavors, and one 23.5-ounce can of Joose or Max has about the same alcohol content as four regular or five light beers.

Phusion Products LLC, which sells Four Loko and Four Maxed carbonated malt beverages offered in fruity flavors.  Four Loko is sold in 23.5-ounce cans, which have the same alcohol content as four regular or five light beers, as well as added caffeine, taurine, and guarana.  Four Maxed is sold in 16-ounce cans, which have the same alcohol content as about three regular beers and contain added caffeine.

Charge Beverages Corporation, which sells Core High Gravity, Core Spiked, and El Jefe carbonated malt beverages sold in fruit flavors, with added caffeine, taurine, guarana, and ginseng.  One 23.5-ounce can of Core High Gravity or Core Spiked contains the same alcohol content as four regular or five light beers.  A 32-ounce can of grape-flavored El Jefe has the same alcohol content as six regular or seven light beers.
 
New Century Brewing Company, which sells the caffeinated malt alcohol beverage Moonshot.  A 12-ounce bottle of Moonshot contains 5 percent alcohol by volume.

On Nov. 17, 2010, FDA also issued warning letters to the manufacturers that their caffeinated alcoholic beverages are a "public health concern" and cannot stay on the market in their current form because as used in their products, caffeine is an “unsafe food additive” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Experts have said the caffeine used in the beverages can mask the effects of alcohol, leaving drinkers unaware of how intoxicated they are. The FDA is now reporting that the manufacturers are ceasing production of the targeted beverages. Details here. [JH]

Thanksgiving Proclamations

• The First Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1676
• Congressional Proclamation of Thanksgiving, 1782
• President George Washington's General Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789
• President Abraham Lincoln's Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day, 1863

[JH]

Thanksgiving at Plimmoth

• Contemporary Accounts of the 1621 Thanksgiving at Plimmoth
• Source Materials on the Plimmoth Plantation

[JH]

CNET's Top Tech Turkeys of 2010

Starting with No. 1 ranked, "It's not the iPhone, it's the way you're holding it!" and including "Google Street View was spying on you" (ranked #3) and "The TSA needs a Barry White  theme song" (ranked #5). The complete rankings here. [JH]

Christian Legal Society Loses Second Hastings Proceeding

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week rejected the final challenge, at that level, at least in the Hastings Law School case of Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez.  The Supreme Court had limited its review to the issue whether the Hastings nondiscrimination policy which denied official recognition to the CLS was constitutional or not because it prohibited discrimination in some areas (religious) and not others.  This, the Court identified as the uneven application argument.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 9th Circuit to determine the other issue, whether the policy was selectively enforced, which the Court identified as the pretext argument.  The Supreme Court ordered consideration of the issue “if, and to the extent, it is preserved.” 

The 9th Circuit reviewed the briefs in the case and compared them to its process for review.  The Court stated that it considers issues that are clearly articulated in (1) “a statement of the issues presented for review”; (2) “a summary of the argument”; and (3) “the argument” section itself.  It found that while there are various statements in the briefs that could support arguing a pretext claim, these were directed to the Court under the uneven application argument.   Consequently, these did not preserve the pretext claims.

I would expect a petition for rehearing en banc, and if that fails, a second petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.  The original case was decided on a 5-4 split, suggesting that 4 Justices could approve the petition.  I'm not sure the outcome would change with Justice Kagan having replaced Justice Stevens since the original case was decided.

The opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Wu (No. 06-15956) is here. [MG]

Thomson Reuters' New Book Citation Index

TR's Book Citation Index is scheduled for release next year. At launch, some 25,000 volumes will be in the database including titles from from major publishers and university presses. For details, see Nancy Herther, anthropology/sociology librarian at the University of Minnesota Libraries, interview of James Testa, vice president for editorial development and publisher relations, at Information Today. [JH]

The Shadow Scholar - A Must Read

The Shadow Scholar, a disturbing November 12, 2010 article in the Chronicle Review, tells the tale of a person that makes a living by writing student papers. This writer works for an online "storefront" that employs 50 writers. The article exposes a booming business that is recession-proof and describes 3 categories of customers, "the English-as-second-language student; the hopelessly deficient student; and the lazy rich kid."

"You've never heard of me, but there's a good chance that you've read some of my work. I'm a hired gun, a doctor of everything, an academic mercenary. My customers are your students. I promise you that. Somebody in your classroom uses a service that you can't detect, that you can't defend against, that you may not even know exists."

The writer takes no responsibility for enabling student cheating -- asserting that students cheat because they never get caught. If you make it to the end of the article you see the thank you message from the student who purchased a 75 page business ethics paper from this writer that was subsequently turned into a graduate thesis by this writer: "thanx so much for uhelp ican going to graduate to now." [BA]

AALL Giving Opportunities This Thanksgiving

As we give thanks tomorrow, I hope law librarians remember that many of our colleagues who are unemployed or who due to budget cutbacks have been and continue to be unable to participate in professional activities. On AALLNET you'll find a list of AALL giving opportunities including grants, scholarships, and research funds. As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, your AALL contributions may be tax-deductible.  [JH]

Friday Fun on Wednesday Because of the Thanksgiving Holiday: How Not to Get Invited to Interview for a Law School Dean Appointment

U Chicago Law Prof Brian Leiter writes that "Brian Tamanaha (Wash U/St. Louis) has discovered the best way to guarantee one will never be sought after as a Dean" by pubishing his pitch to any law school dean search committee that might have been interested in him until he published this blog post, My "Dean's Vision" Speech.

Two snips but really one should read Tamanaha's entire post.

If we cannot generate more revenue, we must trim costs. These reductions will come in several painful ways, mostly focused on the faculty—directed at compensation and work load.

During my full first term as your dean, I will not award a raise to any faculty member who currently earns in excess of $180,000. Faculty members who earn between $160,000 and $180,000 may receive merit based raises in flat amounts (not percentages), not exceeding $2000 annually. Those who earn between $140,000 and $160,000 will be eligible for merit-based raises of up to $3,000. To supplement these restricted raises, each year I will award several $1,000-$3,000 bonuses to faculty members who have made outstanding contributions to the school. Faculty who earn below $140,000 will be eligible for more generous raises.

I recognize that the high earners among you, many of whom are accomplished senior scholars, will be dismayed by my proposal. Let me say just two quick points in defense. Law professors often remark that we have sacrificed income to become professors since we could have earned more as lawyers (this rationalization justifies the fact that we earn upward of a third more than professors in other university departments except for the medical school). It’s a terrific deal for us. We exchanged money for freedom of time and thought, and quality of life. To be paid two hundred thousand dollars a year is a handsome sum for what we do. The particular salary cut-offs I have identified are arbitrary and open to discussion. But the essential point is that salary increases must be sharply reduced.

...

The norm if I am your dean will be a teaching load of four courses a year. That provides ample time for scholarship, while also getting a full slate of teaching from each professor. My innovation will be to implement what I call the “alternative contribution system.” Under this system, professors who do not engage in substantial scholarship will be asked to teach five courses a year. The fifth course can be anything: a substantive course, legal writing, trial advocacy, supervising a clinic, etc. This is not a penalty for professors who don’t write, but instead it is an opportunity for those professors to make a contribution commensurate with a full time position (teaching two courses a semester does not fill forty hours a week).

The beauty of this proposal is that, in a sense, it gets something additional without asking for anything more. That is, professors who teach a fifth course will still only be asked to put in a full day’s work—no more—which is what they are paid for. If only four professors take up this option, the four extra courses we get will amount to having another full time professor on staff. These extra courses would allow us the flexibility to not replace professors who depart (assuming subject matter coverage is maintained), enabling us to gradually shrink faculty size.

[JH]

Meet the Players Behind (Responsible For) Our Current Financial Crisis

From the product description for Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera's All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis (Portfolio Hardcover, Nov. 16, 2010):

All the Devils Are Here goes back several decades to weave the hidden history of the financial crisis in a way no previous book has done. It explores the motivations of everyone from famous CEOs, cabinet secretaries, and politicians to anonymous lenders, borrowers, analysts, and Wall Street traders. It delves into the powerful American mythology of homeownership. And it proves that the crisis ultimately wasn't about finance at all; it was about human nature.

Among the devils you'll meet in vivid detail:

• Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide, who dreamed of spreading homeownership to the masses, only to succumb to the peer pressure-and the outsized profits-of the sleaziest subprime lending.

• Roland Arnall, a respected philanthropist and diplomat, who made his fortune building Ameriquest, a subprime lending empire that relied on blatantly deceptive lending practices.

• Hank Greenberg, who built AIG into a Rube Goldberg contraption with an undeserved triple-A rating, and who ran it so tightly that he was the only one who knew where all the bodies were buried.

• Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch, aloof and suspicious, who suffered from "Goldman envy" and drove a proud old firm into the ground by promoting cronies and pushing out his smartest lieutenants.

• Lloyd Blankfein, who helped turn Goldman Sachs from a culture that famously put clients first to one that made clients secondary to its own bottom line.

• Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae, who (like his predecessors) bullied regulators into submission and let his firm drift away from its original, noble mission.

• Brian Clarkson of Moody's, who aggressively pushed to increase his rating agency's market share and stock price, at the cost of its integrity.

• Alan Greenspan, the legendary maestro of the Federal Reserve, who ignored the evidence of a growing housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the lending practices that ultimately brought down Wall Street-and inflicted enormous pain on the country.

[JH}

Can (Does) the Roberts Court Say What It Means and Mean What SCOTUS Says?

From Adam Liptak's New York Times feature, Justices Are Long on Words but Short on Guidance:

The Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is often criticized for issuing sweeping and politically polarized decisions. But there is an emerging parallel critique as well, this one concerned with the quality of the court’s judicial craftsmanship.

See Orin Kerr's comments about Liptak's article at Clarity in Supreme Court Opinions, and the Role of Concurrences.[JH]

Google Sued Over Gmail Scanning

Google is a lawsuit magnet, of that there is no doubt.  One of the more absurd suits sent its way concerns the automated process of scanning the content of mail to serve ads to Gmail users.  The Register is reporting on Texas resident Keith Dunbar's suit about email he sent an from a non-Gmail account to a Gmail account holder.  Google, as is well known, scans the content to deliver ads to the Gmail account holder on view of the message.  This activity, he claims, violates federal wiretapping laws.  As a non-Gmail user, he says, he has not consented to the scanning.  He is seeking class action status, damages of $100 per day or $10,000, whichever is greater, and a disgorgement of profits as a result of the scanning.  And lawyers wonder why they have reputation problems.

Google's immediate response to the concept of the suit is that Google, as most web email services, scan all messages on its servers for viruses and spam. Gmail doesn't violate privacy, Google says, because only the recipient gets to actually "see" the message.  No humans are involved in the ad scanning and placement process.  I wonder if Dunbar understands the concept that any email he sends to any webmail account holder is processed and scanned for one reason or another by the receiving servers?  Cue lawyers rubbing their hands in glee at that nugget. 

Most free webmail services include ads, the subject of which is not necessarily determined via content scanning.  However, the subject may be determined by an individual's profile built up via tracking web behavior.  Does that violate the law?  Is it any more acceptable?  Note that the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have had six years to put an end to this practice and/or prosecute wiretap laws.  Both have not acted.  Then there's the question as to whether a Gmail recipient responds or forwards the message, does that make it okay?

If this suit is a trend, why should we stop with wiretapping and privacy laws?  Let's invoke copyright as well.  First of all, anyone who reads this owes me money.  Anyone who ever gets an email from me should determine whether I have given permission to read it, and if I have, at what rate of payment.  Any class action attorneys out there want to take up my cause?  Another report on the suit is at Information Week.

Update:  The complaint is available at Justia, with a hat tip to Gary Price for the link.  Aside from the permission statements, one of the arguments for the wiretap claim is that scanning the emails is not a "necessary incident" to providing the email service (Paragraphs 81-84).  Really?  Google pretty much says up front that the scanning is what pays for the "free" service.  I suppose someone is going to tell me that targeted advertising based on search is not incidental to delivering search results even though I engage that service.  Whoops!  Where's a lawyer when you need one.  [MG]

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: Classic Westlaw Takes on Lexis Advance for Solos With a Curious Twist for a Long Neglected Market Niche

As noted here, Lexis Advance for Solos offers an attractive flat rate monthly price starting at $175 per month for one attorney, and $140 per month for a second attorney, with one, two, or three year licensing options that offers all primary legal sources, plus comprehensive Shepards in a more user-friendly display and LN Court-Link content, plus some not really relevant secondary content for this market segment under one plan option.

TR Legal has kicked the competition in this once neglected market niche up a notch by offering flat rate plans for solos and small firms, meaning more that two attorneys as in three (more?). But while Lexis Advance is built on a new platform, TR Legal is pitching Classic Westlaw, not that shiny new, not yet ready for prime time WestlawNext. At least TR Legal is smart enough to know that WLN kinda sucks for some common state-focused research. Follow the links to Tom Boone's and Paul Lomio's critiques from here. 

Like Lexis Advance, Classic Westlaw for solos and small firms offers one, two and three year contracts options with fixed monthly rate pricing. There are also four plan options for Classic Westlaw for this market (click on image above for a larger display) which starts by selecting a state jurisdiction.

I selected Ohio and the one year option for a one attorney law office for each plan option to get a monthly pricing quote. Having dealt with the folks in the land of 10.000 invoices for a couple of decades, I then used the same criteria after selecting New York. Hum, while flat-rate, the pricing varies based on the jurisdiction you select. See below table. Interesting. I would have moved on by comparing pricing for two and three attorney firms based on jurisdiction but I'll leave that up to you. Go to this page, if interested.

Also note one can order a Westlaw plan online. Apparently, no West account rep required. If that's really the case, no sales commission payout (?). Could this be the future for licensing online services from TR Legal? See also 3 Geek's Are You A Solo/Small Firm Attorney? Get Ready for Phone Sales Onslaught! [JH]

Pricing by Jurisdiction: 1 attorney for 1 year contract (monthly cost)	Essentials Banded Library (WestlawPRO® Online)	Essentials Plus Banded Library (WestlawPRO®) Online)	WestlawPRO® With KeyCite All	WestlawPRO® Plus With KeyCite All
Ohio	$116	$166	$209	$281
New York	$138	$199	$232	$323

Law Prof Launches Consulting Firm for Legal Hiring, Retention and Promotion

Lawyer Metrics offers "evidence-based systems" to select, develop and retain lawyers and counselors. Headed by Bill Henderson (Professor of Law and Val Nolan Faculty Fellow and Director of the Center on the Global Legal Profession, Indiana Univ. School of Law, Bloomington) the consulting firm helps law firms collect and analyze their own data to optimize their employment practices based on metrics shared by successful lawyers. One might say, indeed a recent AmLaw Daily article does say, "Henderson and his researchers are starting to take apart the urban legends that fuel the lawyer recruiting and promotion process." Quoting from Getting Beyond the Conventional Wisdom: A New Look at Firm Recruiting, Hiring, and Promotion.

Note the Lawyer Metrics claim: "We guarantee results. If you are not satisfied, you don’t pay." [JH]

Transitioning from Industrial Production to Social Production of Content: The Failure of Traditional Premises of Copyright Law to Accommodate the Social Web

From the abstract of Niva Elkin-Koren's (University of Haifa Faculty of Law) Tailoring Copyright to Social Production [SSRN]:

The prevalence of social production and the increase in User Generated Content (UGC) destabilize some of the fundamental premises of our current copyright law. Copyright law is primarily designed to regulate the relationships of a single owner with other non-owners and is focused on the sovereignty of the author/owner. Social production, by contrast, requires us to articulate a matrix of relationships between the individual, the facilitating platform and the communities and crowds involved in social production. The transition from industrial production to social production transforms the social relations associated with the production of content and therefore requires adjustment of the institutions that design such relations.

This Article closely examines the social dimension of content production and analyzes the consequences for the governance of content in the social web. The Article proceeds as follows: Part I describes social production and analyzes the implications for the stakeholders involved. I focus on three key features of social production which affect why we create, how we create, and what assets are generated by these social processes involving creation. Part II explains why social production might be incompatible with the current copyright regime. In particular, I argue that copyright law mainly defines rights against strangers and fails to provide a framework for managing the rights and interests within a gigantic group of collaborators.

Hat tip to Media Law Prof Blog. [JH]

Opening: Faculty Services Librarian, Univ. of Georgia School of Law

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:  The Faculty Services Librarian

• Serves as the liaison between the Law Library and the Law School faculty
• Initiates and maintains regular contact with Law School faculty to ascertain specific research and teaching interests, and develops research profiles of faculty members
• Manages the Law Library Current Awareness Program
• Supervises the Law Library Research Assistant program, which provides student research assistance to faculty for short-term research tasks, and provides training for research assistants hired by individual faculty members
• Actively promotes research and teaching support programs to the faculty through one-on-one meetings, group presentations, attendance at faculty lectures and programs, and a variety of written vehicles (newsletter, blog, periodic email, etc.)
• Meets regularly with the Associate Dean for Faculty Development to coordinate activities in support of faculty scholarship, and to develop new initiatives for supporting faculty scholarship, service, and teaching
• Establishes and oversees mechanisms to receive faculty requests for assistance, completes or assigns responsible parties to complete such requests, and maintains communication with the requestor throughout the process
• Promotes faculty scholarship by managing the law school’s Digital Commons, SSRN, and the Faculty Writings Collection, including leading the Digital Commons Team
• Provides reference services, including Reference Desk hours (possible evening/weekend), targeted instruction sessions, and research guides; serves on the Reference Team
• Contributes to the collection development process through material selection, and communication with faculty; serves on the Collection Development Team
• Serves as a member of the Law Library Steering Group overseeing library policy and management; participates in library staff development activities
• Participates in the activities of professional organizations and develops contacts with other professionals doing similar work

QUALIFICATIONS:  A successful candidate will possess strong interpersonal communication skills (including a welcoming manner, active listening, and nonjudgmental response);  excellent project management skills; demonstrated ability to work with all library patrons and staff in a friendly, courteous, and professional fashion; enthusiasm for contributing to a collaborative work environment; and demonstrated ability to work well independently and collegially.

• Required:  Either a JD from an ABA-accredited law school or an MLS or equivalent degree from an ALA-accredited institution, and significant experience providing legal research services to law faculty or attorneys.
• Desired:  Demonstrated proficiency with empirical and statistical research and resources.

BENEFITS:  Standard benefits package includes life, health, and disability insurance; mandatory participation in the state or optional retirement system (TIAA/CREF, etc.); 21 days annual leave; and 12 paid holidays.  Salary and rank adjustments may be made commensurate with qualifications and experience.  More information at http://www.hr.uga.edu/fmec_intro.html .

APPLICATION PROCEDURE:  Send cover letter, resume, and names of three references to:  Maureen Cahill, Chair of Faculty Services Librarian Search Committee, University of Georgia Law Library, School of Law, Herty Drive, Athens, GA 30602-6018, mcahill@uga.edu . FAX: 706 542-5001.  Applications received by December 6, 2010 are assured of consideration.

Initial interviews may be conducted over the phone, or via video chat.

Position available: February 1, 2011.

The Law Library is committed to diversity in its staff and encourages all qualified persons to apply.  The University of Georgia is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution.

Do Law Firms Still Need Librarians?

Apparantly the answer is "yes" even if the law firm library is passé.

If you were designing a law firm today, would you even have a library? I think many, including me, would answer, “Probably not.” As long as the Internet exists, information that was in a law library will be available online. So why bother, right?

Ah ... OK, I guess all law firms are cut from the same cloth, right?

The above quote is the lead paragraph from Patrick J. Lamb's ABA Journal article, Does It Pay to Hire a Law Firm Librarian? But according to this installment in "The New Normal" series about changes occurring in the delivery of legal services, Lamb's all-knowing crystal ball reveals librarians will still be needed by law firms.

If you have someone who is really good at finding the right information, why would a firm need, or even want, to draw a line between where that information came from? But firms do precisely this when they have a "knowledge officer" (internally created information) and a "head librarian" (externally created information). Frankly, information is information regardless of its origin, and one person should manage it. But you can further imagine the important ties that should exist between the marketing department and the knowledge librarian (business development) and between the accounting department and the knowledge librarian (pricing). The library itself may be passé, but the role of the librarian, viewed in this light, is becoming more critical as the volume of information in the world grows.

Oh boy, we're still be needed in the "new normal" era! Before jumping for joy over this nonsense, give pause to Lamb's fundamental navel-gazing assumption: "information is information regardless of its origin." [JH]

Michigan Supreme Court Censures One of Its (Former) Own

Appellate courts are notoriously secret when it comes to deliberations.  That's one of the reasons why books about U.S. Supreme Court deliberations get almost immediate attention from pundits and the public alike.  No matter what, the Court's lack of comment or reaction to any third party statements on its deliberations tend to cast some doubt on the reality.  Other appellate courts, though not as exciting as the U.S. Supreme Court hold the same standards.

However, the Michigan Supreme Court last week issued a letter of censure to one of its former own for secretly taping deliberations and later releasing transcripts of the recordings.  Former Justice Elizabeth Weaver (with two years as Chief Justice) was on a mission to reform the way Justices were selected.  The rest of the Court did not take kindly to her methods when the found out:

None of your fellow Justices was aware that you were tape recording our private deliberations on cases private.  The only exception regards statements that reveal criminal or unethical activities.  You, however, have maintained that you would use your best judgment as to what part, if any, of these private deliberations you would make public.

* * * *

Since leaving the Court you have made public material from Court deliberations although it neither involves neither criminal nor ethical violations by a Justice.  Moreover, you have indicated an intent to continue to do so.  Your stated goal - reform of the way Justices are chosen - could surely be better accomplished without secret recordings and revealing private Court deliberations.

The story in the Detroit Free Press indicated that partial transcripts were released in October to work against the re-election of Justice Robert Young, Jr.  He was re-elected to the Court.  The story notes that the letter will have no effect on Justice Weaver as she is no longer part of the Court.  The Free Press article with more details is here, and it contains links to the PDF copy of the letter to Justice Weaver.  Justice Weaver has her own web site, justiceweaver.com.  [MG]

CCH Launches eBooks for Tax, Estates and Accounting Titles; Law Journal Press Launches Online Editions for Supplemented Treatises

Last month CCH launched eBooks using the Adobe Digital Editions platform for its most popular titles in federal tax, international tax, multistate tax, sales and use tax, state tax, accounting & audit, finance, and estate planning. The eBooks are available from the CCH eBook e-commerce site. [Press release]

Earlier this month, ALM's Law Journal Press announced the launch of Law Journal Press Online.  Law Journal Press Online offers access via the web and mobile to the complete text of its print editions with updates added automatically; annual flat rate pricing for law firms and libraries for acquired treatises with all updates included at no additional charges; discounted group accounts or site licenses, and research functionality that includes the ability to highlight, bookmark, annotate, organize, and print or export research. [Press release]. [JH]