| | |
|
GraceChanFirstPaper 4 - 27 Feb 2010 - Main.GraceChan
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | [EQUAL ACCESS TO LEGAL INFORMATION] | >
> | OPEN ACCESS TO LEGAL INFORMATION | | | -- By GraceChan - 17 Feb 2010
(apologies for the lateness...the more I thought through this, the more I realized I did not yet know, so I'm working on more research right now) | |
<
< | THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT WESTLAW/LEXIS SYSTEM | >
> | Legal research costs tend to be the second highest cost at law firms, after personnel costs [_insert link_]. In 2008, the legal division of Thomson (West) generated $3.5 billion in revenue with a whopping operating profit margin of 32.1%. This money is made from information that is both free and public, though, to be sure, there is value added in the organization and additional information provided by Westlaw. In the first part of my essay, I will discuss the problems with the current system of legal information along with a brief history on how we got here...[transition] | | | | |
<
< | Legal research costs tend to be the second highest cost at law firms, after personnel costs [_insert link_]. In 2008, the legal division of Thomson (West) generated $3.5 billion in revenue with a whopping operating profit margin of 32.1%. This money is made from information that is both free and public, though, to be sure, there is value-added in the organization and additional information provided by Westlaw. In the first part of my essay, I will discuss the problems with the current system of legal information along with a brief history on how we got here...[transition] | | | The nature of the duopoly of Westlaw/Lexis makes it unlikely that change will come from within. Not driven by free market forces. In fact, annual price increases in Lexis and Westlaw have outpaced inflation [_insert link_]. For the second part of my essay, I will discuss the potential impact of Google Scholar Legal and Online Journals (SLOJ) and other possibilities opened up by the Internet. | |
>
> | THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT WESTLAW/LEXIS SYSTEM | | | How We Got Here: A Brief History of West Publishing | | | What is Problematic About the Current System | |
>
> | For the past 25 years, most law firms have operated on a model of passing online legal research expenses to the client, a practice encouraged by Westlaw and Lexis themselves. Yet it is the law firms—the party spared the total costs of using online research—who negotiate the prices with the vendors. This means that law firms have a weaker incentive to pressure the vendors on price than they otherwise might. The duopoly structure has not resulted in the benefits associated with a free market economy. Neither vendor uses price as a marketing strategy. Both negotiate fixed rate contracts with customers (typically confidential) rather than charge a flat rate. | | | The Needs It's Fulfilling | | | The Internet | |
>
> | In 1872, John West, recognizing an inadequately-filled niche in the legal information market, began to issue a series of reporters tied to geographic regions containing all the latest court decisions. Prior to his entry into the market, legal information was in disarray. An excessive and unorganized number of reports were in circulation. Significant time lags existed with the slow release of state court decisions and the delayed availability of publications from the East Coast to the west.
Today, we no longer need to worry about typesetting handwritten opinions or time lags in the availability of information. As more courts begun using word processing to write its opinions, digital copies are made immediately available. Transmission costs are lower while search algorithms continue to improve. Sites such as Justia, Cornell's Legal Information Institute offer free large collections of legal documents.
In fall 2009, Google Scholar rolled out a new search feature for legal texts. Although not posing a serious threat to Westlaw or Lexis, it has taken over the niche of free search services like AltLaw? and PreCYdent? , both of which have shut down in its wake. Still, West employs a 22-step editorial process of 800 attorney-editors who analyze the cases, write the summaries, and approve computer-generated recommendations, with multiple people cross-checking each other's work. Google Scholar, on the other hand, is overseen by three people, none of which have a legal background. Case analysis will be accomplished by automated searching and links. It's designed for members of the public. | | | Subsection B |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |