May 18, 2012
"Seamless Combination of Legal Research and Business Information, Unlimited Access and Transparent Pricing Provide Value to Modern Legal Practice"
Ah ... OK.
In looking at some of the job descriptions from previous Jones Day positions, they do ask that applicants be proficient in both Lexis and Westlaw research, so they do appear to have both services at the time of bringing in Bloomberg. It would be unusual for a firm (even one as big as Jones Day) to keep three legal research tools on the budget, so we'll have to see if they end up dropping one of the current resources.
Nice touch Gregster! That's a quote from Greg Lambert's post. The title is context self-explanatory -- Another Notch In Bloomberg's Belt: Jones Day. ("Those that I've talked to find it interesting that there is no quote from Jones Day representatives in this press release.") This is a notch in BLaw's belt at the very high end of the private sector food chain. A post-DLA Piper BigLaw adoption announcement has, however, taken longer than what was expected. Details about publicized BigLaw adoption Number 2 to follow, maybe -- check 3 Geeks. But I'm thinking it will be unlikely that additional informaton will address the matter re: how come it took so long? Perhaps BLaw's PR staff finally just give up trying to get a quote from someone, anyone, at Jones Day.
More important questions to observers, like WEXIS, are:
- When will BLaw achieve its 15% market share objective?
- Will BLaw be successful in keeping that share under the Company's known 5-year license terms with opt-out after year 2 or year 4 before per seat costs approach the retail rack rate in year 5?
- How many BigLaw firms will opt out based on usage data and opt back into BLaw's separate BNA resources centers?
- Will BLaw jack up the pricing for BNA resource centers to make them so cost prohibitive that sticking to the "plan" aka the BLaw K ends up being the the only real choice for BLaw-BNA content?
More fundamental and much more interesting questions pertain to the customer base: (1) solo provider? or (2) primary provider with a secondary provider, perhaps for a smaller user population? or (3) multiple providers selected on the basis of in-plan practice area resources at a flat rate for smaller user populations?
Those questions do not dwell in the seeded soil of the Six Sigma-ed planned garden of incrementalism. They reside in the ethereal realm of commercial prophecy. Nothing seemless, nothing transparent, but unlimited access to change or be changed there. [JH]