| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
OPEN ACCESS TO LEGAL INFORMATION |
|
<
< | [still under revision] |
>
> | [still editing a bit] |
| | -- By GraceChan - 17 Feb 2010
The Problem With the System Today
Unequal Access is Unequal Justice |
|
<
< | A West report on the American Bar Association website attempts to promote Westlaw by offering the success story of one lawyer who surprises another at a settlement conference with a case decided just a few days earlier that was accessible through Westlaw. It is troubling when Westlaw and, by association, ABA touts this kind of better access to legal information as a way to one-up the opposing counsel. This isn’t better lawyering or even better research ability; it simply means the client and his lawyer are able to afford better access. And unequal access to legal information leads to substantive inequality. |
>
> | A West report on the American Bar Association website attempts to promote Westlaw by offering the success story of one lawyer who surprises another at a settlement conference with a case decided just a few days earlier that was accessible through Westlaw. It is troubling when Westlaw and, by association, ABA touts this kind of better access to legal information as a way to one-up the opposing counsel. This isn’t better lawyering or even better research ability; it simply means the client and his lawyer are able to afford better access. |
| | |
|
<
< | After our research memorandum last semester, our instructor informed our class that we each would have just cost our employers roughly $20,000 in legal research costs. The moral: learn to search efficiently, save your employers money. First, there is the troubling fact that Lexis and Westlaw basically run the class and subsidize the databases for law students as part of a long term sales pitch. Perhaps one relatively modest change to the class would be to have Columbia instructors provide their own Lexis and Westlaw training in addition to teaching lower priced alternatives that are available. Second, I was simply stunned at the price tag. |
>
> | After our research memorandum last semester, our instructor informed our class that we each would have just cost our employers roughly $20,000 in legal research costs. The moral: learn to search efficiently, save your employers money. There were two things that struck me about this. First, there is the troubling fact that Lexis and Westlaw basically run the legal research class and subsidize the databases for law students as part of a long term sales pitch. (Perhaps one relatively modest change to the class would be to have Columbia instructors provide their own Lexis and Westlaw training in addition to teaching lower priced alternatives that are available.) Second, I was simply stunned at the price tag of legal information and its implications for smaller firms and poorer clients. |
| | It turns out that legal research costs are often the second highest cost at smaller law firms, after personnel costs. Although both Westlaw and Lexis offer limited access packages at lower prices for small firms and solo practitioners, such tight-budget lawyers are often still unable to afford either Westlaw or Lexis. And what about the enterprising individuals and pro se parties who want to take it upon themselves to research a legal issue but who are unable to access Westlaw or Lexis? Unequal access to legal information thus leads to substantive inequality because those who can afford better access can afford better outcomes. |
| | 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 and Cornell's Legal Information Institute offer free large collections of legal documents. States such as Wyoming, Oklahoma, and North Dakota courts post final and official opinions online on the day of decision with their own vendor-neutral citation systems. |
|
<
< | //In fall 2009, Google Scholar rolled out a new search feature for legal texts. Although not posing a serious threat to Westlaw or Lexis yet, it has taken over the niche of free search services like AltLaw? and PreCYdent? , both of which have shut down in its wake. Google Scholar is overseen by three people, none of whom have a legal background. As always, Google’s strategy is to index everything and focus on improving search algorithms. Designed for members of the public, its brand name alone may at least give the public a sense of empowerment. Westlaw and Lexis have already been spurred to offer natural language searches as a result of popular search engines like Google and Yahoo. |
>
> | //In fall 2009, Google Scholar rolled out a new search feature for legal texts. Although not posing a serious threat to Westlaw or Lexis yet, it has taken over the niche of free search services like AltLaw? and PreCYdent? , both of which have shut down in its wake. Google Scholar is overseen by three people, none of whom have a legal background. As always, Google’s strategy is to index everything and focus on improving search algorithms. Designed for members of the public, its brand name alone may at least give the public a sense of empowerment. Westlaw and Lexis have already been spurred to offer natural language searches as a result of popular search engines like Google. |
| | Collaboration: Wiki-Law? (To an Extent, Anyway) |
| | -- GloverWright - 24 March 2010 |
|
>
> | Thanks, though I'm actually still pretty far from where I hope to be with this paper. I think I'm going to cut out an introductory paragraph in favor of a paragraph on the current copyright obstacles. I also need to strengthen my Google Scholar analysis if I choose to keep it in (though to be honest, I'm not sure of the impact it will have in the long run).
-- GraceChan - 26 March 2010 |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |