Law Librarian Blog

Dream Big or Comments on "A "Modest Proposal on Programming at AALL" and the Report of the AALL Annual Meeting Review Special Committee

I read with great interest the recent blog post "A "Modest Proposal" on Programming at AALL". In that post Mark Gediman suggested that the PLL Summit be folded into the Annual Meeting.  I agree that would be good.  However, that was tried this year. The organizers of the Summit proposed it as an AALL Workshop.  It was turned down by the Annual Meeting Program Committee.  So it was organized as an independent preconference event.  Despite the two extra hotel days, the additional time off from work and the $195 cost I, and almost 100 other PLL members, have chosen to attend the Summit.  How many more would have attended if the Annual Meeting Program Committee would have made it a part of the conference?  By the way, there is still time to sign up by contacting the PLL President, Kate Martin.

The PLL Special Interest Section ("PLL SIS") has 1445 members.  We are the largest SIS.  Yet many of our programs are rejected as official AALL programs and we are forced to schedule them as SIS programs in competition with other events and programs.

In the April 2010 AALL Spectrum, in a column entitled "A New Look at the AALL Annual Meeting", Catherine Lemann, President of AALL stated "I've asked the AMRSC to dream big and come up with ideas for ways to transform the meeting."  Ms. Lemann also stated "We strive to provide educational programming that is relevant to particular audiences and programming that has universal appeal."

So did the Annual Meeting Review Special Committee ("AMRSC") dream big? NO!

Here is some of what they proposed regarding programming:

1. Annual Meeting Program Committee (AMPC) should remain as is with current charge and selection process.

2. Special interest sections should continue ranking their programs.

3. They endorsed the concept of identifying programs by "tracks" which should encompass the competencies of law librarianship.

4. Continue to allow and encourage un-conferences.

5. Make known existing options available re Special Interest Section programming including, but not limited to, the possibility of ticketed programs to help defray costs.

In other words, nothing is changing and if you want relevant and out of the box programming you have to go outside the AALL Conference to get it and/or you may have to pay extra for it.

I do like Mark Gediman's suggestion of a series of program tracks for each SIS with an extra track for cross-disciplinary programs.  However, I am concerned that will lead to isolation from the other Special Interest Sections.  I, for one, think we need more collaboration, not less.  But if the joint programs were not scheduled against other programs it could work.  I also reiterate my call to expand our focus to the world around us and not limit our programming to traditional skills.  We really do need to dream big.

Caren Biberman

Some Thoughts on Programming at the AALL Conference

I'm Caren Biberman, the newest contributing editor to this Blog.  I've been in the legal field for 30 years, first as a practicing attorney and then for the last 17 years as a law librarian.  My first full time job as a law librarian was with AT&T.  Then I moved on to various law firms in NJ and NY.

I am concerned and angry about the lack of respect for the law librarian profession and the many recent layoffs of colleagues.  I agreed to blog so I can talk about issues relating to the profession that I and many of my colleagues feel are pressing.  Today's post's subject is the programming at the upcoming AALL Conference.

At AT&T I attended the conference sporadically but for the last six or seven years I have faithfully attended.  In the early years I sent justification emails to my boss.  I listed each program I planned to attend with an explanation of why attending these programs would be good for my professional development and the company.  I remember listing at least 8-10 programs.

This year when I registered I was hard pressed to find more than 2 or 3 that I wanted to attend when I saw programs like: Making Sense of the Federal Census?; Water Water Everywhere; After Hotel Rwanda & Welcome to Sarajevo: Preserving Trial Evidence & Documentation in a Multi Media Age; Hillmon's Bones: Solving a 19th Century Legal Mystery with 21st Century Research.  And then there was Glass Half Full Explore Techniques for Putting Optimism to Work as a Management Tool in Difficult Times.  Okay, I admit it, I am a born and bred pessimist.  But in these challenging times I frankly think you need a whole lot more than optimism to get you through and that's what these programs should be focusing on.

I am not saying these programs aren't interesting.  And I know I am infuriating some really great people who have worked hard on these programs.  But too many of the programs appeal to a very small subset of the librarian population.  Many programs seem to be repeats of programs done at prior conferences.  We need to provide programming that focuses on the skills librarians need today.  We need to do programs looking at the big picture and not just librarianship.  We need to have new and more advanced programming for the members who come each year.  Can we really afford to be spending time and our organizations' funds attending programs that don't directly have some tangible benefit?  Not in these times.

Frankly, I gave up writing emails based on AALL's programming.  Now I focus on the other valuable aspects of the conference.  I set up 2-3 sit-downs with vendors to discuss issues that arose during the year.  I troll the Exhibit Hall looking for new vendors and products that might be of interest to my firm.  I network with other librarians.  Fortunately, I work for a boss who finds value in these activities.  Unfortunately, that's not the case for a lot of librarians.  It is now much harder to get firms to pay for conferences.  The lack of relevant programming is a major issue.  Quite a few librarians have said the programming at the AALL Conference has declined in recent years and they too are lucky if they can find 2 to 3 programs to attend.  Some have simply decided not to attend.

Having done so, I know it is very time intensive to put together a program and applaud all who do.  But we need to scratch the programming model and start anew.  PLL took steps on its own this year and created a day and one half Summit for private law librarians prior to the conference.  It focuses on the business of law, change agency, staffing, etc. and features outside speakers including a law firm consultant, a business librarian and an analyst in the legal publishing arena.  It provides a ray of light for law firm librarians.  I have signed up for it, if you are a PLL member I hope you did as well.

If the PLL Summit lives up to its promise why go to the AALL Conference?  Why not expand it and create our own conference?  Well, I would miss out on the interaction with the academic and the state, county and court librarians. There is an untapped synergy among the groups and this is what we need to focus on in our programming--programs that appeal to more than just one type of law librarian and that encourage the groups to work together to keep our profession relevant.  We should also reach out to speakers outside of the law librarian community to talk about issues of importance to large groups of law librarians.

We need to expand our focus to the world around us--the law firms, the law schools, the courts and the local governments and talk about the issues facing them.  We need to have a clear understanding of what is happening in the organizations we support and be able to react so we become a highly regarded and sought after profession that is relevant to our organizations.  Focusing on actual law librarian skills is just part of the story.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.  And I do not believe we can do this alone.  We need a educational programming professional to work with us.  I ask all of you to reach out to AALL and voice your opinion (good or bad) on the programming.  Sitting back and grumbling will change nothing.

The opinions expressed in this post are mine alone.

Last Minute Reminder: Applications for TRIPLL Conference Due by Dec. 31

The Teaching Research in Private Law Libraries (TRIPLL) Conference application is available through December 31. The TRIPLL Conference, sponsored by the LexisNexis Librarian Relations Group, will be held April 23 - 25, 2010 in Dallas, TX.

The mission of the 2010 Conference is: Embrace the Challenge:  Build Skills, Recognize Opportunities, Succeed, with the objectives to:

• Enhance communication skills
• Explore emerging technologies
• Tailor training to your firm
• Maximize training opportunities

View the TRIPLL information, including session descriptions. Link for application. The deadline for application submissions is December 31, 2009.

There is no registration fee to attend the TRIPLL Conference. LexisNexis will cover all conference materials, meals, lodging and transportation to and from the airport in Dallas. Attendees are responsible for their airfare to and from Dallas, ground transportation in your city, and any personal incidentals. [JH]

Presenting Ourselves

Earlier this month, JH blogged about the list of top 50 jobs in 2009 from CNN Money.  He rightly noted that "librarian," was not in the list - though there were other jobs that had snippets of what librarians do on a regular basis.  He noted that attorney/lawyer was listed 18th and corporate paralegal was listed 36th.  In the CNN list there were other close matches.  Consider the IT Project Manager ranked 5th, or the Intelligence Analyst ranked 9th.  These are careers unto themselves, but also overlap what many librarians do on a regular basis.  It reminded me of an op-ed piece from Mary Ellen Bates that appeared in the Sept/Oct 2009 edition of Online Magazine titled: Do I Look Like a Librarian?

In the article, Bates discussed this very issue.  Other often new fangled jobs are described in terms that also describe what we and our librarian ancestors have done for a very, very long time: discover, organize, enhance, manage and deliver information.  She also discussed the SLA Alignment Project and its mission to help us remedy and reverse this trend.

The Project presents data on the roles and habits of information professionals and the perception of their roles and value by C-level executives (CEO, CFO, etc.) and other professionals who are in a position of hiring or evaluating information professionals.  The results are the product of 18 months of indepth research conducted by SLA in partnership with Fleishman-Hillard International Communications, Social Technologies, and Outsell. 

One of the aspects of the study that I found interesting involved a language analysis.  Words and phrases that described librarians or the work of librarians was introduced to focus groups to gauge their reaction.  Did they like the phrase or not?  For example, the phrase 'special library" was considered bland, and not as appreciated as the phrases "culture of continous learning" or "knowledge sharing."  Likewise, the often used phrase "manage and disseminate" was unpopular while the phrase "value-added intelligence" was well perceived.

The utility of the language analysis should not be overlooked, especially for those of us seeking positions and rewriting resumes.  For those of us in management who may need to describe the need for a new position in the current economic climate - or justify a position that already exists - these phrases can be turned to our advantage!

The Alignment Project is an excellent initiative by SLA to help its members in a professional and scientific study.  For more information I would recommend the Project wiki. (VS)

Law Firm Electronic Resources Expenditures and Cost Recovery Survey Results for 2007

From Am Law's seventh annual law firm librarian survey (librarians from 94 of the Am Law 200 law firms responded):

Electronic Resources excluding LexisNexis and Westlaw
	2007	2006
Average	$929,308	$970,782
Median	$592,375	$406,659

Westlaw Research
	2007	2006
Average	$1,998,674	$1,681,399
Median	$1,500,000	$1,150,000

LexisNexis Research
	2007	2006
Average	$929,308	$970,782
Median	$592,375	$406,659

Westlaw-LexisNexis Cost Recovery
	2007	2006
LexisNexis recovery is better.	10%	11%
Westlaw recovery is better.	45%	35%
They are about the same.	42%	48%
We don’t recover online charges.	3%	7%

Additional survey results covering librarians’ responsibilities and the library’s budget, resources, and staffing reported in Competitive Advantage: Business Intelligence - Finding, Analyzing and Leveraging It - Reshapes the Role of Law Librarians. [JH]

Kudos to Thompson Hine's Barbara Silbersack

Barbara Silbersack, associate director of library operations at Thompson Hine LLP, was recently elected to the board of trustees of the Cincinnati Law Library Association. She is the first non-lawyer to serve as a trustee since the association began in 1834. Read more about it. [JH]

Impact of E-discovery on Legal Support Staffing

E-discovery is not just raising havoc with trial strategies, risk management, and litigation budgets, it’s also uprooting traditional support staff job descriptions in law firms and corporate legal departments. Legal Technology News Editor Monica Bay explores the ramifications in Can You Adapt? [JH]

Law Librarians and Electronic Discovery

EDD (electronic data discovery or e-discovery) is all over the news these days as law firms and corporations struggle with internal information management and discovery, and learn the ropes of the new FRCP rules.  Law.com has three articles in just the last day or two here, here, and here.  It seems to me an it's area ripe for lawyer-librarian or corporation-information specialist collaboration and increasing the value of librarianship to the parent institution.  Who knows how to mine data better than librarians?  Who can better organize information than librarians?  Who knows the ins and outs of metadata better than librarians?  Just wondering, and also wondering if any librairans are doing this already.  If you know of any, let me know!  [JJ]

LawFirmInc. Survey Identifies Issues Being Addressed by Large Law Firm Librarians

LawFirmInc. Survey

Finances Resources Staffing Electronic Research

Reporting on an ABA Journal Blog post, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Adjunct Law Prof Blog, notes that big law firm librarians are spending more time on rainmaking by performing marketing and competitive intelligence research which increases their prominence and influence with the lawyers who employ them. See his post, Big Law Firm Law Librarians As Rainmakers. A good thing and one that grew out of the rather tedious 1980s practice of using online resources for conflicts research. This conclusion was one of many based on LawFirmInc.'s sixth annual survey of law firm librarians at Am Law 200 firms.

Some snips from Law.com's Survey Says Librarians Like Their Jobs but Are Displeased With Vendors, also based on the LawFirmInc. survey.

Budget Cuts: According to the survey, the average law library budget decreased 3.5 percent in 2007, coming in at $4,251,627 -- compared with $4,408,242 in 2006. And only 45 percent of firms have more full-time library employees than they did two years ago. The average law library staff size is currently 19. Cost recovery has become more difficult, too, with clients increasingly demanding that online research tools be treated as overhead. But perhaps the biggest headaches are coming from the content providers, the vendors who sell access to electronic research tools. They continue to raise licensing fees, introduce new products and market their wares aggressively -- often directly to lawyers.

Vendors: [L]ibrarians clearly have their pet peeve: the online content providers, particularly the big two, Reed Elsevier Plc's LexisNexis and Thomson Corp.'s Westlaw. There was a time when electronic services were supposed to replace books and lower costs. They've done neither. Instead, fees continue to rise each year -- well beyond the rate of inflation, say librarians (licensing fees are typically covered by confidentiality agreements).

On a scale of 1 (very good) to 5 (very bad), LexisNexis scored just a 2.43 for overall satisfaction, marginally better than Westlaw at 2.51. And those numbers are down from last year (when the services scored 2.37 and 2.42, respectively).

Knowledge Management: For most of the last 10 years, knowledge management was overhyped and underdeveloped, but projects are finally gaining momentum, and librarians are playing a key role: Eighty-four percent of those surveyed say that they are actively involved in their firm's KM efforts. The work, they say, can't simply be handed over to the IT department.

Check out the entire Law.com article for details, links to the article's tables provided above. [JH]

Getting into a China-related Law Practice

Firm and corporate law librarians may find a recent post on Chinese Law Prof Blog by GW Law Prof Donald C. Clark interesting because it provides resources that discuss how one establishes a law practice that focuses on China. [JH]

Law Firm Survey: Federal Reporter and Federal Supplement Retention and Retrieval Practices

More and more law firms are facing space issues and budget constraints. This year our firm discussed the reduction or elimination of our Federal Reporter and Federal Supplement series as one possible option to address this issue. We are all aware of the amount of space these sets consume and their annual expense. To make an informed decision, we decided to conduct a quick survey of other firms and see how they are addressing this situation. The survey I sent consisted of four questions that focused on the retention of hard copy reporters, how the costs for retrieval of decisions via WEXIS are handled (overhead or client charged) and if use of “free” resources are encouraged. I also asked for comments.

Forty-two firm librarians responded. The majority provided insight as how their firms are dealing with this situation. Fourteen respondents have gone completely electronic. Eighteen have retained partial sets and ten continue to maintain full sets. An overall lack of space was the predominant response from those who have moved to partial sets or have gone completely electronic. A few firms commented that there was some initial resistance from older attorneys regarding the elimination of the hard copy. Several responses included comments indicating that few attorneys use the hard copy reporters.

The next set of questions revolved around cost recovery. Those who retained full sets rarely used WEXIS to obtain copies of decisions found within these reporters. Those who did, indicate that it was often when books were off the shelf and then those retrieval costs were charged directly to the client if appropriate. The majority of the firms that have retained partial sets, charge the client when using WEXIS to retrieve decisions. The complete opposite is true for those who have gone completely electronic. Most consider WEXIS retrieval costs as overhead. Many commented that due to flat rate contracts using WEXIS was a logic option. There were statements indicating that the cost of obtaining a case via WEXIS was less expensive than manually copying it. Obtain a case instantaneously for $6 -$10 versus the time/cost it takes to stand at a copier.

The relationship between hard copy retention and charging for copying is quite eye opening. Clearly, the majority of the firms who have gone electronic view the use of WEXIS as overhead. Few firms expounded on this decision, but it appears to be due to flat fee agreements, cost savings due to no hard copies, etc.

The final question of the survey pertained to using “free” sources when obtaining decisions. “Free” was correctly interpreted to mean a variety of sources ranging from court websites, to annual subscription type services, to PACER. A small percentage indicated that they encouraged the use of these types of sources. There was an even distribution of responses between relying on WEXIS for retrieval due to editorial enhancements and choosing a source based on attorney preference. Many firms indicated that they relied on “free” sources for current awareness, preliminary research or single case retrieval.

The survey provoked a variety of thoughts regarding the future of Federal Reporter and Federal Supplement retention. Space limitation was the primary reason for canceling the hard copy. The data collected will assist our law firm in making an educated decision regarding the future of our reporters. I hope this information will help your firm if you are facing the same situation. The overall statistics of the survey follow this summary. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding the information provided.

Beverly G. Butula, Davis & Kuelthau, bbutula@dkattorneys.com

	Responses	Percent
Has your firm retained full sets of the Federal Reporter (2nd, 3d) and Federal Supps?
Full Set	10	24%
Partial Set	18	43%
Electronic	14	33%
If you have gone to partial retention, when obtaining a copy not available in hardcopy...
Charge Client	15	71%
Overhead	6	29%
	Several people who have full sets, responded here if they needed to go online for an electronic copy.
If you have gone completely electronic, when obtaining a copy of a case
Charge Client	4	29%
Overhead	10	71%
Do you try to obtain the cases via "free" sources
Encourage Free Sources	6	16%
Depends on Preference	16	42%
Use WEXIS Headnotes	16	42%
	Those who had full sets often did not answer this question, as not necessarily relevant

AALL Career Development Program, Private Law Librarians Asked for Input

As many of you know, AALL will convene an Education Summit at the end of September to establish a career development program for AALL. The Private Law Libraries Special Interest Section needs to hear from private law librarians about what they want to see in such a program. It will be extremely helpful if you took the time to answer the following questions:

1. When you hear "continuing education for librarians," what comes to mind?

2. What topics should be covered in such programs? Experienced librarians - what kinds of training and education do you wish had been available over the course of your career, and what do you need at this time? If you supervise a library staff, what do you wish was available for them?

Newer librarians - coming into the profession, do you perceive gaps in your library school education and personal experience that could be filled by AALL?

3. Who should play a role in identifying needs, developing content and delivering career development programs? Local chapters? Special interest sections? Committees? The AALL executive board? AALL staff? Outside parties? Others (please specify)?

Are there opportunities you can think of where AALL could partner with other organizations to provide career development?

4. What kinds of formats would work in these programs? Live presentations (possibly broadcast to remote locations)? Web seminars? E-courses, similar to what is offered by many library schools? Internships or a more formal mentoring program? Articles? Blogs? Other formats (please specify)?

5. What about the costs of such programs? Would your employer be willing to pay a registration or subscription fee? Should vendors be welcome to underwrite some programs? Would you be willing to "invest" personally in meaningful career development programs that could bring you greater job satisfaction and potentially, a higher income?

Thank you very much for participating in this dialogue

Christine Graesser
Legal Information Specialist
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels
cgraesser@brownrudnick.com

Career Development - Input from Private Law Librarians Requested

As many of you know, AALL will convene an Education Summit at the end of September to establish a career development program for AALL.  The Private Law Libraries Special Interest Section needs to hear from private law librarians about what they want to see in such a program.  It will be extremely helpful if you took the time to answer the following questions:

1.  When you hear "continuing education for librarians," what comes to mind?

2.  What topics should be covered in such programs?  Experienced librarians - what kinds of training and education do you wish had been available over the course of your career, and what do you need at this time?    If you supervise a library staff, what do you wish was available for them?

Newer librarians - coming into the profession, do you perceive gaps in your library school education and personal experience that could be filled by AALL?

3.  Who should play a role in identifying needs, developing content and delivering career development programs?  Local chapters?  Special interest sections?  Committees?  The AALL executive board?  AALL staff?  Outside parties?  Others  (please specify)? Are there opportunities you can think of where AALL could partner with other organizations to provide career development?

4.  What kinds of formats would work in these programs?  Live presentations (possibly broadcast to remote locations)?  Web seminars?  E-courses, similar to what is offered by many library schools?  Internships or a more formal mentoring program?  Articles?  Blogs?  Other formats (please specify)?

5.  What about the costs of such programs?  Would your employer be willing to pay a registration or subscription fee?  Should vendors be welcome to underwrite some programs?  Would you be willing to "invest" personally in meaningful career development programs that could bring you greater job satisfaction and potentially, a higher income?

Christine Graesser
Legal Information Specialist
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels
Cityplace I
Hartford, CT 06103

AmLaw Tech's Annual Survey of Law Firm Libraries

This year's AmLaw Tech's survey of law librarians is now available. It includes:

• Average salaries for top law librarians
• Average library expenses
• Librarian satisfaction with the major information providers
• Library staffing, resources, physical space, and finances of the libraries of the largest law firms

From the article highlighting the survey results:

Contrary to popular expectations, the digital age didn't supplant print. It complemented it. And it hasn't rendered librarians obsolete, either. In ALM's fourth annual survey of Am Law 200 librarians, 71 percent of respondents reported bigger budgets in 2005 than 2004, while 24 percent say their budgets are about the same. Spending on library staff salaries has risen to an average of almost $916,000 in 2004 (up from $783,000 in 2003). And despite recent accounts of university libraries eliminating books altogether, 75 percent of respondents report spending more on print products last year than in 2003.

The survey results also show that, increasingly, librarians are contributing to the bottom line. As partners and clients alike realize librarians often track down information more efficiently than associates and paralegals, more firms are billing for their research time. "There is an acknowledgment that it is much more cost-effective to have expert researchers," says Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr chief librarian Jean O'Grady. Therefore, most firms have boosted their hiring standards. It's not unusual to find librarians with advanced degrees in law, business, the physical sciences, and information technology, as well as library sciences. Even library paraprofessionals are expected to have a bachelor's degree from a top school, plus library or legal experience, says Ruth Carter Armstrong, director of information resources at Goodwin Procter.

As the caliber of the library staff has improved, the work they are being called on to do has become more sophisticated. Instead of shelving and minding card catalogs, librarians now spend more time doing advanced research -- often in support of the firm's marketing or information technology departments. Survey respondents report that their staffs spent 29 percent of their time in 2004 researching nonlegal information compared to 26 percent on legal research.

Law Firm Library Finances | Space | Staffing

Order Survey, $99.

Librarians are, by definition, the greatest research tools that any firm has.

See Large-Firm Life: An Ode to Librarians, New York Lawyer, April 8, 2005

Thanks to beSpecific for the tip.

Meet Michael French, Law Firm Librarian

Michael French was profiled in  the March 14, 2005 edition of Business First. Michael is the law librarian at Woodward, Hobson & Fulton LLP. The 55 attorney firm has offices in Lexington and Louisvile, KY. Michael splits his time between both offices.

Recovering Online Legal Research Costs

The ResourceShelf reports:

Thomson Legal & Regulatory has published a white paper on Cost Recovery for Online Legal Research (PDF; 15 pages). The paper applies primarily to large and medium size firms.

Here's the conclusion:

"As law firms work through the complex issues involved in the cost recovery for online research, it is recommended that they segregate the analysis into its component elements. In analyzing these issues, most firms will seek to be paid a reasonable fee for valuable services provided to their clients, such as modern forms of online research. As discussed in this paper, firms should seek to recover online expense through the direct disbursement method by charging each client for the cost of research conducted in their behalf. As stated in Opinion 93-379, a lawyer “may recoup expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the client’s matter” where the expense can be equitably allocated based on usage, such as “photocopying, long distance telephone calls, [and] computer research.” The direct disbursement approach is more equitable to the firm’s clients, but may require the law firm to undertake additional expense to administer the necessary client tracking procedures. As noted above, firms may wish to add a reasonable administrative charge, and they may seek to reduce such tracking costs through the implementation of automated cost recovery systems."