Law Librarian Blog

Photographic "Dagger" into the Heart of the Dallas Mavericks Mismanagement Lawsuit?

In Mark Cuban Files The Ultimate "Fuck You" Legal Brief, Barry Petchesky reports on Mark Cuban's recently filed motion for summary judgment brief in the lawsuits accusing Cuban of mismanaging the Dallas Mavericks by Ross Perot Jr. (a/k/a Hillwood Investment Properties III, which retained 5% ownership of the basketball franchise after selling the Mavericks to Cuban). Not a particularly groundbreaking legal tactic but for this photograph included in Cuban's June 22, 2011 summary judgement filing:

On June 12, 2011, the World Champion Dallas Mavericks defeated the Miami Heat to claim the franchise's first NBA championship. A true and correct photo of one of the many victory celebrations is incorporated herein:

Under Hillwood's ownership, the team was deemed the "worst franchise" in all of professional sports. Under Cuban's stewardship the Mavericks have become one of the league's most successful teams and are now NBA champions. Accordingly, there can be no genuine question that Hillwood's claims of mismanagement lack merit and Hillwood's claims should be disposed of on summary judgment.

LRW Profs Take Note. According to Deadspin's The Brilliant Legal Mind Behind Mark Cuban’s "Fuck You" Brief, the photo is "a dagger of a brief in the face of a suit accusing him of mismanaging the team, and it shuts down any comebacks. But Cuban deflected credit, telling us 'it was all the lawyers.'"

Editor's Note. Sorry about the naughty language but those are the titles of Deadspin's articles. Hat tip to Brooklyn Law prof Robin Effron's Fun Photo "Evidence" in a Summary Judgment Brief on Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog. [JH]

Sixth Circuit Invalidates Michigan Restrictions On Use of Race in School Admissions

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just opened another chapter taking race into account for admission to public universities.  Michigan voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006 which prohibited all sex- and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting.  This was pushed by Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the famous Gratz v. Bollinger case (539 U.S. 244 (2003)), and Ward Connerly, a former University of California Chancellor who championed a similar proposal in California.  The Court of Appeals today struck down the Michigan constitutional amendment as a violation of equal protection:

Our task is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969).  Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.

The opinion, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Regents of the Univ. of Mich., et al. (09-1111) is here.  A story about the history of the case from the Detroit Free Press is here.  The Supreme Court will likely have the last word on this.  [MG]

Friday Fun: "Too Big to Nail"

Here's the Colbert Report's recent "analysis" on how SCOTUS set a "precedent for gender-equal powerlessness against corporations" by "throw{ing} out a class action lawsuit brought against Wal-Mart" and the legal implications of this ruling.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

A big hat tip to Seton Hall law prof Adam Steinman for posting about this gem on Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog. [JH]

Exposing Oneself in Public Not Good Enough Reason for Firing Professor

A University of New Hampshire professor admitted exposing himself to a mother and her teenage daughter in a grocery store parking lot but an arbitrator ruled that the University could not terminate his employment. Under the University's "moral delinquencies of a grave nature" standard the arbitrator ruled that the exhibitionism was not a just cause for firing the professor. Watch out UNH students! See the news video report at TaxProf Blog for taxpayer reaction. [JH]

"eDiscovery" in Domestic Relations Mutual Scheming: Digging up Dirt by "Friending" Ex-Spouse

On the Globe and Mail Blog, Erin Anderssen writes "[i]n the latest example of two people losing all sense of reason while they part ways, Angela Voelkert, of Indiana, decided to go digital dirt-digging on her ex-husband, David. She created a fake profile on Facebook of a teenager named Jessica Studebaker (complete with a cute picture) and became friends with him." Leonard Greene adds in his New York Post article "[a]nd what she learned was astounding: he was plotting to kill her and run off with their kids, law-enforcement authorities believe." 

However, the Globe and Mail Blog reports:

Except ... all charges were dropped suddenly. It appears Mr. Voelkert had been running a scam of his own. According to The Smoking Gun, he produced a notarized affidavit – signed six days before he first mentioned any sinister plans – that made clear he’d suspected all along that Jessica was really Angela. His affidavit stated that he had “no plans” to harm anyone. “I am lying to this person,” the affidavit states, “to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life.”

For all their mutual scheming, Mr. Voelkert paid the bigger price: He spent four days in custody until federal investigators confirmed his affidavit was real. (In the end, though, it’s the kids trapped in the middle of this mess that deserve our sympathy.)

For details, see:

• She's no 'friend' of hubby (New York Post).
• The most bizarre use of Facebook in a divorce case ever (Globe and Mail Blog)

Hat tip to Family Law Prof Blog's Wild Facebook Use by Divorcing Couple for this gem. But for recognizing the dueling parents children being caught up in this mutual Facebook scheming (don't know if they are old enough to access Facebook), this would have been Friday Fun worthy. [JH]

ABA: This should be a tweet but since I don't use Twitter...

it's a live blog post. So it was 3:22 AM and after I awoke from an 11 hour nap(!), I checked the Twitter feed of my favorite Twitter-er at @sglassmeyer and read the following:

So I just spent a good 5 minutes looking at a webpage for ABA conference info before I realized it was the American BANKERS Association site.

Thanks for making my (very early) morning Sarah! [JH]

Opening: State Law Librarian, Alaska State Court Law Library, Anchorage

State Law Librarian
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
Minimum $6,444.00 Monthly

The State Law Librarian oversees the administration and operation of the Alaska Law Library system, consisting of a major reference and research facility and several collections of varying scope and complexity.  The incumbent reports to and works under the general direction of the Administrative Director and serves as a member of the senior administrative staff.  Duties include managing the planning and implementation of statewide library policies and procedures, overseeing development of research guides and instruction programs, administering and monitoring a $1,000,000 annual budget, and providing legal research instruction and assistance to justices, judges, law clerks, and staff.

Minimum Qualifications: A Master's Degree in Library Science or a closely related field from a college or university accredited by the American Library Association AND three years of progressively responsible professional library experience including at least one year as a professional law librarian.

Substitution: A Master's Degree in Library Science and a Juris Doctorate (JD) AND two years of progressively responsible professional library experience including at least one year as a professional law librarian.

How to Apply - Two Options

Option One: Qualified applicants may submit a cover letter, comprehensive resume, and a list of three professional references with current contact information.  Application packets may be emailed to recruitment@courts.state.ak.us.  They may also be mailed to Alaska Court System, Human Resources Department, 820 W. Fourth Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501 or faxed to Human Resources at 907-264-8262.

Option Two: Qualified applicants may apply online at Workplace Alaska.  Visit http://workplace.alaska.gov and click on Getting Started at the top of the page for directions on creating an Applicant Profile.  To view current Alaska Court System vacancies, go to the Job Posting Board, click on Departments, and then click on Court System.  A completed Applicant Profile and Job Qualification Summary Form must be submitted in order for the online application to be considered.

For more information on the Alaska Court System and the Alaska Law Library system's mission, visit www.courts.alaska.gov. Persons with disabilities who wish to apply and require reasonable accommodation to participate in any portion of the application or interview process should advise us in advance.  If you have any questions or need more information, contact Human Resources at 907-264-8242 or recruitment(at)courts.state.ak.us. 

Open until filled. Interviews may be scheduled during AALL.

The Alaska Court System is an EEO Employer and proudly promotes diversity.

And Yet Another New Tax Target: The Cloud

And while we're on the subject of a new income tax revenue stream for the states see Joe's post below, consider a recent report in the BNA Computer Technology Law Report (12 CTLR 312) that examines the possibility inevitability of states collecting taxes from cloud services.  Software as service is still something akin to tangible physical software as far as the New York State Department of Taxation is concerned.  Adobe markets photo editing capability in the form of an online subscription.  Consumers can subscribe to the software as an alternative to buying Photoshop.  New York would subject the subscriptions to state and local taxes even though no copies of the online code are transferred to users.  As the Department states:

The location of the code embodying the software is irrelevant, because the software can be used just as effectively by the customer even though the customer never receives the code on a tangible medium or by download.

New York State, of course, has the power to interpret its rules in its favor, so why not?  Other states are beginning to follow suit according to the report.  Michigan has a similar ruling, with Illinois and Louisiana looking at the issue.  The taxing landscape may be uncertain now, as the report suggests, but I think other states will join the bandwagon once cloud services and online software access become more popular.  The report notes that Congress is considering the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act to set national standards as to which jurisdiction would be able to collect the tax when more than one can make the claim.  That may make some states unhappy with the choice out of their hands.  You can bet that if treating software that is accessed but never transferred is considered the same as tangible property, states will find a way to further tax things such as streaming media rentals, or any type of subscription delivered over the web.  [MG]

A New Income Tax Revenue Stream? Bill Introduced to Legalize Online Poker

Actually it would legalize online poker if allowed in your state. HR 2366 [Open Congress] would establish a program for state licensing for Internet poker companies for winning (and losing) real money. What the heck, wouldn't that be a "good thing" for licensing fee revenues and income tax purposes (if you win)?

HR 2366 is sponsored by Congressman Joe Barton, R-TX. I'm thinking he may be a Texas Hold'em player. In a WSOP video interview, Barton forecasted that the bill, if passed, realistically wouldn't pass until August of next year. Perhaps that can be sped up a bit. Barton called on Internet poker players to unite -- contact your House representative and ask him or her to add their name to the bill's list of sponsors.

When the interviewer mentioned that she heard that Barton is considered the best poker player on the Hill, he refused to confirm that. In fact he named another representative and a senator who may be better. Is it just me or do you think he was priming the pump for a showdown match? To view the WSOP video, visit this Business Law Prof Blog post.

Jeez, I completely forgot that I joined the Poker Players Alliance years ago until I received an email. Here's part of the emailed PPA Member Action Alert message:

On June 24th, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced H.R. 2366, the Online Poker Act of 2011. This bill will restore your online poker rights by allowing licensed companies to offer Internet poker with real-money play to U.S. residents.  The bill is a huge leap forward for the poker community in the aftermath of Black Friday. Twelve of Mr. Barton’s colleagues have already become sponsors of this legislation:

Rep. Andrews, Robert [NJ-1]
Rep. Berkley, Shelley [NV-1]
Rep. Campbell, John [CA-48]
Rep. Cohen, Steve [TN-9]
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep. Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep. Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13]
Rep. Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]
Rep. King, Peter T. [NY-3]
Rep. Paul, Ron [TX-14]
Rep. Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7]
Rep. Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39]

We are urging the poker community to TAKE ACTION to support this important bill. Below are a number of actions you can take to make your voice heard. Please be sure to share this email with your family and friends and encourage them to act as well. Let’s seize this moment and let Congress know we care about the right to play poker!

This take action page can also be found at: www.theppa.org/takeaction

Well, it's not exactly one of the most pressing issues facing our nation but if the financial industry can legally gamble, why can't I. At least I wouldn't request a federal bailout to cover my losses. And one former LLB co-editor and I want to play Texas Hold'em online in the middle of the night when our long-suffering wives are asleep.

Love the "patriotic" symbolism in the email's image header. [JH]

Let's Call Google+ a Social Networking Site with Walls and Windows

Heard about the launch of the Google+ project: "Real-life sharing rethought for the web"? In Another Try by Google to Take On Facebook (New York Times), Claire Cain Miller writes

The debut of Google+ will test whether Google can overcome its past stumbles in this area and deal with one of the most pressing challenges facing the company. At stake is Google’s status as the most popular entry point to the Web. When people post on Facebook, which is mostly off-limits to search engines, Google loses valuable information that could benefit its Web search, advertising and other products.

What do you think about Google+? As for me, here is my blanket apology to all who have tried to friend my Facebook page. I created the page a long time ago just to have a look-see and as soon as I find my login info, I will delete it. Ditto for Linked-in, etc. Just not "my thing." Ditto for Google+. [JH]

SCOTUS Justices on the Language of Law: Advocacy and Legal Writing (and by Implication Legal Research, Too)

On Legal Writing Prof Blog, Judith D. Fischer (Louisville) writes:

The latest issue of the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing (Volume 13) is a gold mine of Supreme Court justices’ observations about brief writing and oral argument. Several years ago, legal writing expert Bryan Garner conducted video interviews with eight justices. Garner graciously posted these videos on line, and many law professors have taken advantage of their availability. ... Now the interviews are in print. Nearly two hundred pages of nuggets about writing grace the current issue of Scribes.

Yes, 200 pages (and I've just started reading) but, so far, the Scribes issue is well worth the time, even if you have watched Garner's videos of the interviews. Since CJ Roberts once lectured law school students about the "copy and paste" mentality that evidenced no real understanding of the legal issues presented in SCOTUS briefs (!), here's a snip from the Roberts (JGR) - Garnder (BAG) interview as published in Scribes:

JGR: Language is the central tool of our trade. You know, when we’re looking at a statute, trying to figure out what it means, we’re relying on the language. When we’re construing the Constitution, we’re looking at words. Those are the building blocks of the law. And so if we’re not fastidious, as you put it, with language, it dilutes the effectiveness and clarity of the law. And so I think it’s vitally important — whether it’s a lawyer arguing a case and trying to explain his position, whether it’s a legislator writing a law, whether it’s a judge trying to construe it. At every stage, the more careful they are with their language, I think, the better job they’re going to do in capturing in those words exactly what they want the law to do; in persuading a judge how to interpret it; and as a judge, in giving a good, clear explanation of what the law is.

BAG: Do you think the profession could do better on that score?

JGR: Yes. I think we all can do better. We read hundreds, thousands, thousands of briefs in the course of a year at the Supreme Court, and some are more effective than others. And it’s just a different experience when you pick up a wellwritten brief: you kind of get a little bit swept along with the argument, and you can deal with it more clearly, rather than trying to hack through . . . it’s almost like hacking through a jungle with a machete to try to get to the point. You expend all your energy trying to figure out what the argument is, as opposed to putting your arms around it and seeing if it works.

Since the result of legal research is supposed to produce effective legal writing and advocacy -- whether in briefs or oral arguments in litigation or legal memoranda or opinion letters advising clients -- I believe many moot court clinicial law profs and LRW and ALR profs can read between the lines to spot appearances of the disconnect between the legal research and effective legal writing and advocacy skills training, at least in the opinions of SCOTUS justices. Recommend reading ahead of the 2011-2012 academic year. [JH]

Cut the Glut: State-by-State Empirical Labor Market Model for Law School Grads

In The Oversupply of Lawyers in America, ATL's Elie Mystal asks "if we’re producing twice as many lawyers than we need, is it time to close half of the law schools?" I'm inclined to believe Elie's answer is "yes." I'm inclined to agree with him as long as academic law librarians don't join the breadlines with their recent law school grads because they are not responsible for this situation.

Elie is not just tossing out vague, generalized numerical references. His statement is based on an empirical model provided in a recent study conducted by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. On the NYT Economix blog, Catherine Rampell reports on a EMSI estimate of the surplus of law school grads on a state-by-state basis. This is the first empirical model that I have seen which does a state by state analysis. It is pretty scary. While what is happening may be part a temporary downturn, I believe it also is probably the beginning of a structural transformation in the US lawyer labor market. It's happened in manufacturing and service industry sectors. There is no reason to believe the legal profession is exempt.

48 States Producing More Attorneys Than Needed. According to EMSI, every state but Wisconsin and Nebraska (plus Washington, D.C.) is producing many more lawyers than it needs. See the state-by-state stats and the cumulative stats Elie references in the table published at Rampell's The Lawyer Surplus, State by State.

[A]cross the country, there were twice as many people who passed the bar in 2009 (53,508) as there were openings (26,239). A separate estimate for the number of lawyers produced in 2009 — the number of new law-school graduates, according to the National Center for Education Statistics — also showed a surplus, although it was not quite as large (44,159 new law grads compared with 26,239 openings).

Take a hard look at your state's surplus.

Perhaps It is Time for a Noble Experience. Shut down enough law schools until the surplus is replaced with a deficit. It might be an attractive budget cutting proposition at some universities. I'm thinking the irresponsibility of the legal academy deserves it. Let law profs join the breadlines ... but I don't wish that on academic law librarians. They don't vote on maintaining and, in some instances, increasing law school enrollments to offset budget cuts in faculty meetings.[JH]

Sixth Circuit Upholds the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

From the opinion:

Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce.  Furthermore, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance. Finally, the provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity. Thus, the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

[MG]

University of Michigan To Allow Campus Access To Digital Oprhan Works

What to do about orphan books and digital access?  One of the several reasons that the Amended Settlement Agreement negotiated by Google and the publisher and author associations was not approved had to do with these books.  Judge Chin said that it was up to Congress to make changes to the copyright laws to account for their use.  Congress is not one of those entities that tends to move fast when it comes to intellectual property, its bias for big content notwithstanding.  The question remains, without court or congressional approval, what to with that massive amount of in-copyright material where no rightsholder can be identified or located?

The University of Michigan Library System has decided to make these texts available to users who are on campus.  If one can get to a UM library, one can conceivably use the book as if it were the library's physical copy.  The library announced last month that it was researching the status of books in its digital collection so as to identify orphan works. This move to open access to these works is welcome in the sense that it opens some form of access to the content of these books.  The Library System says that its lawyers advised it that this is appropriately fair use under §107 of the Copyright Act. 

Paul Givler, executive director of the Association of American University Presses, disagrees.  He is quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as saying "there is nothing in either the copyright statute or the case law to justify such a sweeping claim."  That's the problem with fair use.  Case law generally fleshes out the factors listed in the statute.  Givens is probably right in that there isn't case law on this...yet.  I would put money that there will be a lawsuit over this, just as there was when Cambridge University and other publishers sued Georgia State University over the practice of placing electronic copies of in-copyright texts from licensed databases on electronic reserve.  The District Court stated:

Here, the evidence indicates that ERes and uLearn have significant noninfringing uses. They can be used to facilitate distribution of materials protected by fair use. They can be used to digitally distribute works for which Georgia State owns licenses. They can also be used to distribute copyrighted works with permission from the copyright holders. They can be used to distribute original materials created by the instructors or materials for which the instructors or the university owns copyrights. uLearn allows instructors to utilize a wide range of tools to manage their courses, such as discussion forums, quizzes, and announcement pages. None of these activities implicate copyright infringement. (Order of September 30, 2010, at page 28.)

There are still other issues to resolve in this case, specifically whether Georgia State's Copyright Policy resulted in ongoing and continuous misuse of the fair use defense.  That is the plaintiff-publisher's burden.  The University defendants have to show that each allegation of infringement under the University's Copyright Policy was fair use.  Nonetheless, the fact that this issue will be resolved and lead to a precedent is far better than waiting for Congress to set rules.  I think that it would be a positive development if a court ruled on what the University of Michigan Library system is doing with digitized orphan books.

The origina issue in the Google Book case was whether Google could scan whole books and make them available in snippet view.  Google claimed fair use.  As we know, that core issue was never litigated. Settlement was preferable at least to th publisher and author groups than setting a precedent against them.  Perhaps Michigan can do us all a favor and get the courts to rule on the ability to use digitized copies of library holdings.  Win or lose, at least we'd know without having to dance around the issue. [MG]

Brief and Directly to the Point: Advice to Law Students and New Grads on Achieving a Successful Transition to "Real World" Legal Research

While less than two pages long (single-spaced), BYU law librarian Shawn G. Nevers' Observations for Summer Research Success [SSRN] should be handed out to every summer clerk and new first year associate by law librarians who is now working with them. Nevers' Legal Research column for Student Lawyers (Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 22-23, April 2011) hits the proverbial nail on its head, starting with the following two tips:

Tools. An important part of preparing yourself for research on the job is to understand the research tools available to you. Your employer simply can’t provide you with the wealth of legal resources offered by your law school library. Because of that, your research tools this summer will be limited in some way. Many law students get a bit squeamish when that becomes a reality.

Asking the right questions before you start your job can help you avoid some of that research-related indigestion. Does your employer use LexisNexis? Westlaw? WestlawNext? Something else? What content is covered in their Westlaw/Lexis subscription? Does your employer pay a flat fee for Westlaw/Lexis or will your research be charged by the search or by the minute? How are clients billed for research? What print sources are available? Knowing the answers to these and similar questions can help you prepare for the research tools you’ll be using this summer.

Research interview. Although you’re not really researching yet, a critical part of the research process occurs when you meet with a lawyer to receive a research project. I like to think of these meetings as a research interview of sorts. Don’t be afraid to ask questions and clarify the research task. There’s nothing worse than spending a lot of time researching the wrong issue. Getting things ironed out initially can spare you an additional trip to the lawyer’s office just for clarification.

Depending on the situation, you may also want to ask the lawyer to recommend a good place to start your research. She may be able to refer you right away to a treatise or another lawyer in the office that could save you valuable time.

Hat tip to Deborah Hackerson's Legal Skills Prof Blog post. Her post also offers sound advice for law students heading out to perform legal research in the "real world:"

I would add a plug for checking your law school library website and any research guides that may help point you to free resources you can incorporate into your research strategy.  Research guides prepared by your law librarians can also help you refresh your memory on how to research a particular topic.

Hackerson notes that "[s]ometimes I’ll even ask a 2L to come back and talk to my next group of 1Ls about his/her summer clerkship experience and how it relates to legal research." Great idea! [JH]

 

Privacy and Security, Not Privacy or Security: Solove on how to make progress in debating the issues

"Daniel Solove is one of America's leading experts on privacy law. In this engaging book, he explains why privacy is everyone concern; it is a crucial social value that must be integrated into our national security policy rather than simply balanced against it.” — Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School.

Daniel Solove is the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School and an internationally-known expert in privacy law, which means you don't have to listen to my 2-cents opinion that I try to read every book and law review article Dan writes on the issue of privacy because I think his scholarship is the best published in the field. However "reading Solove" is not an easy thing to do for this aging and decrepit law librarian, at least not in as timely a manner I would like. Dan is without a doubt one of the most productive privacy law scholars addressing the new normal in this field. Hell, his new work was written while his wife was pregnant and now that they are the proud parents of an 8-month old son perhaps Dan will take a break so I can catch up on my reading.

The book Professor Balkin and I am referring is Solove's latest work, Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security (Yale UP, May 31, 2011)[Link to Amazon]. "Nothing to Hide" is certainly Dan's most accessible book. In the Preface, Dan writes

I have written this book for a general audience, avoiding legal jargon and wonky policy analysis. I've presented more detailed policy proposals in my law review articles, but for this book, I focus on general arguments and principles rather than technical minutiae. Of course, the details are important, but even more important are the basic concepts and themes of the debate.

This does not mean that Dan's new book is privacy-lite. From the Introduction:

The privacy-security debate profoundly influences how .. government [surveillance] activities are regulated. But there's a major problem with the debate: Privacy often loses out to security when it shouldn't. Security interests are readily understood, for life and limb are at stake, while privacy rights remains more abstract and vague.

...

The debate between privacy and security has been framed incorrectly, with the tradeoff between these values understood as an all-or-nothing proposition. But protecting privacy need not be fatal to security measures; it merely demands oversight and regulation. We can't progress in the debate between privacy and security because the debate itself is flawed.

As Georgetown law prof David Cole writes:

Daniel Solove takes on the two biggest challenges to privacy in the twenty-first century:  the rapid development of technology that gives the government the ability to track our decisions, choices, discussions, and movements in real time; and the threat of catastrophic terrorist attacks, which demand increased security measures.  In clear, measured prose, Solove shows how the law of privacy has failed us in addressing these twin challenges, and proposes an innovative way forward.

There is, or at least, there should be a way to balance personal privacy with national security interests in the 21st Century. For example, I, for one, have accepted the "reality" that even if I had something to hide, I don't worry about it because I have no way to stop on-going government surveillance, particular in the Patriot Act era. I've take as a given that government security interests has already trumped personal privacy interests. However, Dan's central premise is that the argument isn't privary vs. security; the debate between privacy and security has been framed incorrectly as a zero-sum game in which we are forced to choose between one value and the other. From the book description:

Solove exposes the fallacies of many pro-security arguments that have skewed law and policy to favor security at the expense of privacy. Protecting privacy isn't fatal to security measures; it merely involves adequate oversight and regulation. Solove traces the history of the privacy-security debate from the Revolution to the present day. He explains how the law protects privacy and examines concerns with new technologies. He then points out the failings of our current system and offers specific remedies. Nothing to Hide makes a powerful and compelling case for reaching a better balance between privacy and security and reveals why doing so is essential to protect our freedom and democracy.

Highly recommended. And not just for law libraries or adoption for law school advance courses or seminars on the policy issues presented. This is a work that also should be acquired by public libraries.

I tend to view legal developments as snapshots of our society's cultural history with policy arguments as glimpses into where future legal history may be made. If you are like me, and have an interest in an accessable general legal and cultural history of privacy, see Frederick Lane's American Privacy: The 400-Year History of Our Most Contested Right (Beacon Press, Hardcover, 2009; Paperback, 2011) [Link to Amazon] for a broad overview of the right of privacy from colonial postal routes, telegraph wires, the widespread use of mailing postcards, to today's technology. The work traces "the lineage of cultural norms and legal mandates that have swirled around the Fourth Amendment since its adoption," quoting from the product description. About "American Privacy: The 400-Year History of Our Most Contested Right," Dan Solove writes "Frederick Lane’s American Privacy is a highly readable history of the right to privacy in America. It brings to life the people, debates, and events that have shaped our current protections of privacy."

At the moment, I'm flipping between the two works, yes pBooks, but I hope to finish both during this year's Independence Day extended holiday weekend.

Note to FTC. No review copies provided for either featured work. Both acquired by me. Once I've finished reading them, both titles will be donated to our little county law library's collection; ever some of our practitioners take time out of their practice because they are interested in matters like these. [JH]

Opening: Technical Services Law Librarian, Widener Univ. School of Law, Delaware

The Widener University School of Law Legal Information Center invites applicants for the position of Technical Services Librarian.  The Legal Information Center is looking for a forward thinking Librarian with interests in the future of Electronic Resources and emerging cataloging trends.  The Legal Information Center is unique to legal education with its complete integration of the Wilmington and Harrisburg branches; resource sharing between both campuses at all operational levels with advanced communication systems permitting total linkage between the two campus libraries.  For more information on the library and the school, consult our web site: http://law.widener.edu.

Technical Services Librarian. Working in a team environment the Technical Services Librarian will work closely with the Technical Services Team Leader and the Electronic Services Librarian with responsibility in cataloging materials in all formats as well as assisting with the serials collection and electronic resources, and participation in public services, including reference assistance as assigned and serving on working teams within the library structure.

Responsibilities. The Technical Services Librarian will serve as the primary cataloging contact for the library and assist in maintaining an accurate and relevant bibliographic database including authority records.  This position will also perform original and complex copy cataloging functions for all formats in compliance with national and local standards such as MARC, OCLC, and LC Cataloging and classification practices.  This person will be responsible for batch loading records from vendor sources, identify, respond to cataloging, and access problems within the catalog.

The Technical Services Librarian will assist with overseeing the lifecycle of electronic subscriptions from trials to ordering to payments to cancellations.  This includes assisting the ILS Administrator in creating and maintaining data on the Electronic Resource Management module, as well as implementing, updating and maintaining linking capabilities for electronic resources.

The Technical Services Librarian will coordinate ordering, payment, receipt, and holdings maintenance of serials in all formats, including managing the access, maintenance, and preservation of serials collection in print and electronic formats, overseeing binding activities, routing activities, and the Journal Exchange Program.  This includes working with vendors and subscription agents, making sure that all materials are available to the Legal Information Center cliental.

Qualifications.

• M.L.S. or M.L.I.S. from an ALA-accredited institution required
• Familiarity with technical services procedures pertaining to serials and cataloging with strong interpersonal skills that facilitate collaboration and teamworkKnowledge of Innovative Interfaces Millennium preferred, proficiency in Microsoft Office products including Excel and Access.
• Experience in Academic or Law setting preferred Knowledge, Skills and Abilities·
• Knowledge of technical services operations
• Forward thinking with critical thinking skills
• Familiarity with integrated library systems, Millennium preferred
• Knowledge of standard cataloging principles, including RDA
• Familiarity with electronic resources
• Excellent oral and written communication skills
• Service oriented
• Understanding of current and emerging trends in library and information services

Salary and Benefits. Salary will be competitive and commensurate with experience.  The position is a renewable twelve-month appointment with twenty vacation days and ten holidays.  TIAA-CREF Retirement Plan.

Contact: Position is available immediately.  Send cover letter, resume and three references to: Marge Gubitosa, Administrative Assistant, Widener University School of Law, Legal Information Center, 4601 Concord Pike, Box 7475, Wilmington, DE 19803  or e-mail mjgubitosa(at) widener.edu.

If you have questions, please contact Sara S. Repinski,  Technical Services Team Leader, Widener University School of Law, Legal Information Center, 4601 Concord Pike, Box 7475, Wilmington, DE 19803 or email ssrepinski(at)widener.edu.

Justia Offers Daily Case Notifications

Justia announced that it will supply daily opinion summaries for cases from the U.S. Supreme Courts, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and all 50 state Supreme Courts.  Summaries are sent via email and can be customized by jurisdiction and topic. Sign-up requires an account from Justia at http://daily.justia.com.  [MG]

Couldn't Attend CALI's Annual Meeting, Check Out Archived Webcasts

Videos of presentations are availabe at the CALIcon11 Webcast Catalog. [JH]

Chief Justice Roberts Announces Retirement of Supreme Court Librarian Judy Gaskell

On the last day of the SCOTUS term Chief Justice Roberts announced yesterday:

”The Court also notes today that the Court’s Librarian, Judith Gaskell, has announced her retirement. She will be leaving us before we reconvene in the fall. Ms. Gaskell has served as the Court’s Librarian since 2003. In the earliest years, the Court did not have its own Library. Members of the Court used their own personal collections or borrowed books from the Library of Congress or other sources. Today, the Librarian manages the Court’s splendid collection of more than 500,000 volumes, directs a staff of 28, and provides irreplaceable research in support of our work. The Court thanks you, Ms. Gaskell, for your dedicated service, and we wish you well in your retirement.”

The LLB Connection to Judy Gaskell's Long and Distinquished Career. I first met Judy in 1978 when she was a reference librarian at the University of Chicago Law School Library and I was a newbie library school student with a part-time gig in the Law Library's cataloging department. In 1979, you might say I worked for Judy because I added a second part-time job there as a reference intern. Judy was a big influence on my decision to become a law librarian specializing in legal reference and research. Jeez, that was over 30 years ago.

LLB's co-editor Mark Giangrande also worked for Judy. As director of the DePaul University Law Library, Judy hired Mark to work reference. I can still remember when Mark told me Judy had accepted the appoinment as Supreme Court Librarian. It's hard to imagine that was back in 2003. Time passes by so quickly.

Mark and I are indebted to Judy and we both wish her well in her retirement. [JH]

I would like to add to Joe's message that I had known Judy for some time before she hired me at DePaul.  I remember her tenure here as a Director with a light touch.   Judy directed the Library by handling the academic work and keeping any law school politics away from our day to day operations and services.  In her approximately 20 year career at DePaul she allowed library staff to do the work they were hired to do without a lot of micromanaging. I can't say that for some of the other Directors with whom I have worked.  It may surprise a reader to know that the DePaul College of Law Library has a low staff turnover.  Many of us hired by Judy are still here, some with tenures as long or longer than hers.  When Judy left for the Supreme Court we showed our appreciation for her work with us by hanging her portrait in the Library reference stacks.  Thanks for everything through the years.  Enjoy your retirement.  [MG]