Law Librarian Blog

Lend-a-Hand Outreach Initiative Launched by LexisNexis

LexisNexis has launched the Lend-a-Hand program for all U.S.-based attorneys who recently worked for a law firm with more than 50 attorneys and are currently unemployed.  The program offers free marketing services, networking opportunities, and employment resources.
 
Lend-a-Hand Program benefits include:

• A free six-month profile on Lawyers.com and Martindale.com.

• Free access to Martindale-Hubbell Connected.

• Free access to the Martindale-Hubbell Career Center.

NB: The LexisNexis Lend-a-Hand program will be available through the end of August 2009. [JH]

Casemaker vs. Fastcase for Caselaw Research

Bob Ambrogi offers a head-to-head review of Casemaker and Fastcase in Law Technology News. He concludes that in terms of coverage of federal and state libraries and the relative strengths of their search tools, "neither stands out as significantly superior to the other. But in their intuitiveness and ease of use, Fastcase has the clear edge." [JH]

Lyons' Recommendations for Free Access to PACER Without Compromising Privacy and Security Interests

In Free PACER: Balancing access and privacy, Susan Lyons (Rutgers University (Newark) Law School Library) presents an excellent analysis of the issues resulting in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts' (AOUSC) abrupt suspension of the PACER pilot program that offered free access to PACER at 17 FDLP libraries. (Reported on LLB here.) Lyons offers four recommendations for how AOUSC can offer free access to PACER without compromising the legitimate privacy interests of litigants:

1. Release all court decisions and briefs in motions and appeals without restriction on the open Internet and make the files available in bulk to anyone requesting them.

2. Give attorneys and litigants free and unlimited access to their own dockets. Under the current system, when a new document is uploaded to the court’s electronic docket, parties receive an e-mail notice that allows them one opportunity to download the document to their own computer without charge.

3. Allow scholars doing empirical research on court records full access to bulk data.

4. Reinstitute the PACER pilot program and expand the pilot to all federal courthouses

For details, see Lyons' AALL Spectrum article. Highly recommended. See also LLB's post, Online Petition Drive Launched to Improve PACER. [JH]

Why Won't Bloomberg Discuss Its Citator?

Stymied by Bloomberg's relucance to discuss the Bloomberg Citator (BCIT) in preparation for what he hoped would be a detailed analysis of BCIT, Michael Robak (Univ. of Illinois Law) was forced to rely on product literature and his own use of BCIT for his AALL Spectrum article, The Bloomberg Citator: A first look at BLAW's citations function. In the article, Robak provides an overview of the features and functionality of BCIT -- helpful for those of us who have not seen BCIT but leaving the reader wanting a more systematic analysis. This, of course, is not Robak's fault.  

Robak concludes that "Bloomberg’s entry into the legal information market appears to be serious and a potentially major challenge to Thomson Reuters and Reed Elsevier. The BCIT product does appear to be an attempt to rethink/re-design the citator concept with an eye toward developing a tool that can quickly and easily provide action-specific information..." Will Bloomberg now talk to Robak so he can follow up this article with a more detailed analysis of BCIT? [JH]

E-Books: Understanding the Basics

Jane Lee, California Digital Library Assessment Analyst, covers e-book essentials in E-Books: Understanding the Basics. In her brief article, Lee observes that "the rise of e-books highlights the struggle to offer services that address the increasing demand for electronic resources while maintaining legacy collections. There will be questions and arguments about the future of books and the role that academic libraries must fulfill, but we must stay focused on the central question. Our materials and methods may change, but our mission remains the same. We exist to support scholarship – whatever form it takes." Hat tip to Digital Koans.

Mark Giangrande (DePaul) observes on Tech Law Prof Blog that the e-book market may open up some if Amazon moves away from linking its own content exclusively with its own reader. See Amazon May Open Up Kindle, e-Book Business To Other Formats. [JH]

The Amended Google-Michigan Agreement: Jonathan Band's Guide to the Perplexed

Following up on his A Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries have released Jonathan Band's A Guide for the Perplexed Part II: The Amended Google-Michigan Agreement. [Press Release] The University of Michigan negotiated the amended agreement that will govern the relationship between Google and Michigan and any partner library if the proposed Google Book Search settlement is approved.

Band's analysis of the amended Google-Michigan Agreement highlights rights and responsibilities of Google and participating libraries, including the following:

• Michigan and any partner library can initiate a review of the pricing of the institutional subscription to determine whether the price properly meets the objectives set forth in the settlement agreement.

• Google must provide to partner libraries information on books, such as whether Google is treating the book as in the public domain and whether a book is being excluded from any display uses for editorial or non-editorial reasons.

• Google will provide Michigan with a free institutional subscription for at least 25 years.

• Michigan is permitted to provide digital copies of the public domain books to academic institutions and research or public libraries for non-commercial research, scholarly, or academic purposes, as long as the library uses reasonable efforts to prevent bulk downloads of the copies.

Hat tip to Digital Koans. [JH]

New Interface for Google's Book Search Engine

Google's book search engine has a new interface that adds a number of useful features including:

• New toolbar option to embed a preview in websites or blogs, a lot like the embed tag used to share YouTube videos

• Better search within each book

• Thumbnail view of pages

• Contents drop-down menu

• Plain text mode that may make it easier to find plain text versions of public domain books.

• Page turn button and animation

• Improved book overview page

Details with screenshots at Inside Google Book Search and Google Operating System blogs. [JH]

Working the Saturday Shift at the Old Law Library?

Having trouble staying awake at the Reference Desk? Then you need to go to Kuku Kloc, the online alarm clock webpage. Set the time of your alarm clock and select the alarm sound. Your choices: cockerel, classic clock, electronic, Slayer guitar, and my personal favorite, military trumpet. [JH]

U.S. Geological Survey Launches Digital Map Beta

The Digital Map - Beta is the first step toward a new generation of digital topographic maps being created by the U.S. Geological Survey. These maps are built from The National Map data, which are integrated from local, State, Federal, and other sources. Tools are available free for download. Users can turn data layers on and off, zoom in and out, and print the maps. As the Digital Map - Beta evolves, the USGS will add historical versions of the topographic maps and will incorporate other data layers including hydrography and contours. Use of the term "Beta" signifies that these maps are initial versions that do not yet contain the full content of the traditional USGS topographic quadrangle maps according to the USGS announcement.

Digital Maps - Beta are available free on the Web in the GeoPDF format. File size is about 15 to 20 Megabytes. Tools are available free for download. Users can turn data layers on and off, zoom in and out, and print the maps.

Release Time Line. This new topographic map series will be released formally this fall. The USGS plans to make an updated version of each map every 3 years. As other data layers are integrated, they will be added to the maps, so that after 3 or 4 years all of the data within The National Map will be shown. In the near future, high-resolution scanned files of all historical versions of the new topographic maps also will be available for free download.

Hat tip to beSpacific. [JH]

Maybe Westlaw thinks Scalia was wrong, but…

On May 26, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Montejo v. Louisiana, which overruled the Court’s 1986 decision, Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986).  To be sure, Justice Scalia in his majority opinion in Montejo stated on page 21 of the slip opinion “Michigan v. Jackson should be and now is overruled.”  Also, on May 26, 2009, my colleague, William Gaskill, planned to use Michigan v. Jackson as a Shepard’s/Keycite example in his Legal Research Bootcamp course.  He sent his class an email asking them to determine whether Michigan v. Jackson was still good law by class that evening.  I opined that students’ answers would be different depending on the time of the day they verified the case.  I was wrong.  The next morning, William had informed me that according to Keycite, Michigan v. Jackson is still good law.
 
We’ve been keeping track of the case over the past two weeks and as of today at 3:30 p.m. EST, according to Westlaw, Michigan v. Jackson is still good law.  West did enter Montejo into its system, but someone must have read over Nino’s quote or maybe they just figured the majority was wrong.  In any event, I hope for sake of criminal lawyers everywhere that this will be remedied soon.
 
By the way, West, Shepard's picked up the change in Michigan’s status.

David C. Walker, Reference Librarian, Charleston School of Law

Product Development Thomson West-Style

Update on Rudovsky v. West Publishing Corp.

The Legal Intelligencer's Shannon P. Duffy is reporting that a federal judge has refused to dismiss a defamation suit brought by two law professors who claim that West Publishing harmed their reputations when it falsely identified them as the authors of a poorly researched treatise update. For background, see LLB's earlier post, Cold Comfort for West in "Sham" Treatise Pocket Part Ruling.

According to the product description, The Complete CAN-SPAM Act Practice Guide: Including Regulations, Case Law and Related Statutes (Thomson West, 2008) "provides an in-depth analysis and explanation of the CAN-SPAM Act, implementing regulations, and case law, presented in a clear, well-organized manner. Helpful for both experts and novices, the text will enlighten this complicated area of law. The author's extensive subject knowledge comes from having won the largest damages award ever granted under the CAN-SPAM Act..."

According to Lance Burke's (Reference/Access Services Librarian, Elon School of Law) book review on AALL Spectrum Blog, "if none of your patrons are interested in this field, it is unlikely this book will be the catalyst that sparks their interest." Burke observes that only 91 of the 422 page text contains analysis by the author, Ian C. Ballon. "The longest chapter of the book, and unfortunately, the most tedious" writes Burke, Scope of the Act’s Coverage "discusses what types of businesses and messages are covered under the act.  While this information would be invaluable to someone who was interested in learning if a particular type of business is covered by the act, it does not make for interesting reading."

Sounds like Thomson West took what would have been an OK practitioner article publishable in an ABA journal, added 331 pages of filler  -- the CAN-SPAM Act and regs, state anti-span laws and court documents from one of Ballon’s CAN-SPAM cases -- and slapped on a $79.00 price tag. In other words, nothing new in product development. For a little more on product development Thomson West-style, see the above sidebar. [JH]

The Next Frontier of Search

Developers are entering the "next frontier of search" by trying to add structure to the mass of unstructured electronic data. Computational search engines like Wolfram Alpha and Google Squared aim to construct a database of factual information based on user search logic and present that data is some structured way, like "squares" akin to a spreadsheet display produced by Google Squared where rows of output represent attributes/characteristics related to the user's search terms.

Early reviews of both computation search engines are mixed and for a variety of reasons. Comparisons abound. See, e.g. Google Squared vs. Wolfram|Alpha … FIGHT! and What Is Google Squared? It Is How Google Will Crush Wolfram Alpha. Expectations are high, far higher I think than what these SEs can deliver. As information professionals, we must also be mindful of fundamental differences in their scope. Google Squared for example searches the Web while Wolfram Alpha's data is not drawn from the Web but from a database that is "curated" by Wolfram Research, meaning its data is drawn only from sources that are edited and checked. There is a huge difference between filtered and unfiltered data and search results will reflect this in addition to the differences in the algorithms used by Google Squared and Wolfram Alpha.

Law librarians have been testing Wolfram Alpha and Google Squared and rightly so -- it's what we are supposed to do. See, e.g., LLB's Early Reviews of WolframAlpha for Legal Research. Greg Lambert is the first (or at least one of the first) law librarians to write about a test drive of Google Squared for legal research purposes. See his Google Squared - Better Than Wolfram Alpha on Legal Searches? In my opinion, both computational search engines eventually will be tools law librarians turn to for factual research of legal documentation, like patent research (Greg's idea, not mine), but these tools will be additions to, not in lieu of, search engines we already use, and they probably will be more useful for business and scientific research than for legal research.

The Next Frontier of Search for Legal Research. I don't believe anyone in legal informatics is claiming otherwise about Wolfram Alpha and Google Squared but the point I want to make here is that the next frontier of search for legal research is replacing the aging search engines we current use regularly in LexisNexis and Westlaw and the only new search engine I have seen in recent years that offers the prospect of doing that is PreCYdent. Right now, the PreCYdent search engine is so closely and unfortunately associated with the free online legal research movement (see, e.g., Bob Ambrogi's Get Your Free Case Law on the Web and his earlier post, Sophisticated Search for Public Domain Law) that we tend to forget how innovative the PreCYdent algorithm is. That will change if/when LexisNexis or Westlaw admit that PreCYdent is better than their own search engines and license it.

It's time to replace the antiquated SEs in our fee-based online legal research services with ones that incorporate modern principles and techniques of information retrieval. Looks to me like a San Diego law prof and his team of software engineers have already accomplished this. For more, see Steven Robert Miller's PreCYdent: A New Search Engine Enters the Legal Research World and LLB's Law Prof as Toolmaker:  An Interview with PreCYdent’s Thomas A. Smith. [JH]

Bing vs. Google vs. Yahoo

PC World compares features of Bing, Google, and Yahoo, mostly via sceenshots of each. [JH]

Washington & Lee Launches LexOpus, Free Online Law Review Submission Service

This looks very interesting and Washington and Lee's John Doyle must have had a hand in its conception. LexOpus is an online law review submission service that should save authors time in finding a law journal that will publish their manuscripts. Snips from the About Page:

LexOpus assists authors and law journals with the submissions process. The system allows an author to submit a work to a sequence of author-selected law journals. An author may also, or instead, invite offers from any journal by choosing to indicate the work as 'open to offers'. Works may be hidden from public view if the author wishes that.

LexOpus will not send simultaneous submissions to journals. What LexOpus will do is convey an author's exclusive offer to each chosen journal in sequence for one week (six weeks for peer-reviewed journals that require more time). On rejection by a journal, or the elapse of the journal's exclusive period, the exclusive offer will move on to the author's next chosen journal. What terminates after each journal's exclusive period is not the offer itself but the exclusive nature of the offer. The contractual offer from author to journal continues on a non-exclusive basis until either the author's offer is withdrawn or the journal rejects.

...

When LexOpus is used by authors to submit completed works to journals the commitment on the part of the author is that:

(a) The author will prioritize a number of journals, understanding that each journal will be notified of the submission in sequence, and that the author is guaranteeing to each current journal in turn an exclusive 7 days (6 weeks for most peer-reviewed journals) in which to accept the author's offer.

(b) Rejection by the current journal will immediately move the work along to the next journal, or the current journal's inaction will move the work along after the its exclusive period concludes.

(c) A Journal may still accept after its guaranteed exclusive period, but will be placed in priority below the current journal. Only after the current journal rejects the work, or its exclusive period expires, will acceptance by the higher-ranked journal become effective.

(d) Authors may remove their work from the submissions process. However, removal is only effective on the current journal's exclusive period expiring, or on the current journal's earlier rejection of the work.

(e) The author, in making a sequence of offers to selected journals, agrees to negotiate a reasonable publishing contract with whichever offered journal accepts the author's offer.

Hat tip to Anupam Chander (UC-Davis), Law School Innovation. [JH]

Will Google Wave Redefine Web Communications?

Google has announced Google Wave, an open source real-time communications and collaboration platform that will launch later this year. It combines features of email, instant messaging, wikis, web chat, social networking, and project management in one in-browser communication client. Mashable's Ben Parr writes "[Google Wave] is already being hailed by some as the next evolution of email. Yes, Google Wave is potentially that disruptive."

In Google Wave: A Complete Guide, Parr has compiled key information, definitions, and links related to the launch of Google Wave. This in-depth guide provides an overview of Google Wave, discusses the terminology associated with it, details information on Google Wave applications, and provides resources for staying current on Google Wave developments. Highly recommended.

Will Google Wave redefine web communications? Watch the video demo from the Google I/O conference. [JH]

Google Wave Demo

Transparency Lite at Launch of Data.gov

Last week, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to the President, announced the launch of a new initiative to open government, WhiteHouse.gov/Open [video on Administration's Open Government Blog]. With the announcement comes the long anticipated Data.gov website. "The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government." See Personal Democracy Forum's coverage, White House Opens Doors on Major Open Government Initiative.

Data.gov includes a searchable data catalog that includes access to data in two ways: through the "raw" data catalog and using tools provided by the site. Note well, you have to agree to the site's Data Policy. See also the site's tutorial.

According to ReadWriteWeb’s Marshall Kirkpatrick, "the initial offering is a bit of a let down." Wired's Alexis Madrigal concurs, "Data.gov launched ... with 47 datasets from across the government. ... That’s a tiny fraction of the Feds’ gargantuan information stores, and the site is clearly in beta, but open-government advocates see the new site as a sign of good things to come for government transparency." [JH]

Early Reviews of WolframAlpha for Legal Research

Call it a fact search engine or a knowledge search engine, WolframAlpha is creating quite a buzz and rightly so. [Blog | Community] The recently launched computational search engine creates data sets from search results on the fly. The results are impressive. Dan Giancaterino, Internet Librarian, Jenkins Law Library, calls it his new favorite business search tool. But early reviews indicate WolframAlpha isn't ready for legal research, at least not yet. Legal Informatics Blog reports:

Currently, WolframAlpha seems unable to answer legal questions, whether they concern identifying primary law or applying law to facts.

Currently, WolframAlpha seems unable to answer most factual questions (even statistical questions) about U.S. courts or U.S. judges.

Search Examples. In a comment to a Legal Informatics Blog post, LLB Contributing Editor, Rob Richards reported that WolframAlpha could not answer four questions he put to the SE:

(1) What is the rule against perpetuities?
(2) What is the statute of frauds in the uniform commercial code?
(3) What is the statute of limitations for murder in Pennsylvania? and
(4) If I am a director of a Delaware corporation, can my liability for breach of duty of care be limited?

Greg Lambert received similar results to questions including:

(1) Number of lawsuits filed against Exxon
(2) Patents held by IBM
(3) General Counsel of Wal-Mart
(4) Chairman of Skadden Arps

On 3 Geeks and a Law Blog, Lambert writes, "in fairness, WolframAlpha is in its infancy and isn't claiming to be a legal research tool at all. No one should expect it to answer all of these questions right out of the box, but I'm hoping that it can develop and expand its data collection abilities to begin answering some of these types of questions. To me, the 'patents' question seems like something that can be integrated into the WolframAlpha database without much difficulty."

Patents, a great idea. Plus all sorts of topical litigation and compliance statistics generated by federal and state agencies and courts. Citation indexes? For more, follow the discussion of WolframAlpha & legal research on the Law Libraries and Librarians Ning Forum.

WolframAlpha Reviews. More generally, see Danny Sullivan's review, Impressive: The Wolfram Alpha “Fact Engine" and Read/Write Web's Wolfram Alpha in Action: Our Screenshots. The Berkman Center posted the below video of Stephen Wolfram's public demo of WolframAlpha. [JH]

ASPIRE: LexisNexis Does Something to Help Law School Grads Whose Law Firm Employment Has Been Deferred

LexisNexis is offering a very accommodating program, ASPIRE, for law school grads who have accepted Associate positions at law firms, but 1) are experiencing a deferred fall 2009 start date, and 2) are taking on public interest work during their deferral period. The LexisNexis’ ASPIRE Program offers:

• Free access to a LexisNexis menu consisting of federal and state case-law, codes, regulations and law reviews.

• The Martindale-Hubbell Career Center which provides access to non-profit interest and pro-bono job opportunities.

• Online training and materials to be better equipped for public interest work.

• Non-profit companies can post job opportunities for free on the site.

ASPIRE Program details. Qualifying students can register here.

Robert Romeo, SVP & GM Research & Litigation Solutions of LexisNexis, was kind enough to answer the following questions I had about the program.

Q. What's the duration; how long will participants have access to resources under this program?

A. As part of the registration process we are asking for fall associates to provide us with the expected dates that they will be engaged in their public interest position.  
 
Q. If no specific period, how will LexisNexis know when to stop access; case-by-case...?

A. Law firms have announced varying lengths of deferral periods, in some cases up to 12 months from the originally intended start date.  We will be as accommodating as possible to fully support these graduates during the course of their deferral period.

[JH]

Above the Law Launches Career Center

Above the Law has put together a nice resource for career planing.  Their Career Center offers two sections. In Firm Snapshots, you can view profiles of individual firms. In Firm Comparisons, you can compare different firms on various metrics.  [RJ]

Black's Law Dictionary Now An iPhone App

The eight editon of Black's Law Dictionary is now available as an iPhone/iPod tounch application. Priced at $49.99, the iPhone app features 43,000-plus definitions, nearly 3,000 quotations, hyperlinked cross-references and audio pronunciations. West developers Dan Bennett and Jay Peyer talk about the iPhone/iPod touch app for Black's Law Dictionary.

Hat tip to Bob Ambrogi.

BTW: The one billionth app, Bump, was downloaded by Connor Mulcahey, age 13, of Weston, CT according to Apple. That's 1 billion downloads in just nine months. [JH]