Post for February 16, 2010

After hearing that legal research for a single matter can reach $75,000.00, if the researcher uses Westlaw with no regard to cost; I was astonished and had to ask in class why not just get an unlimited plan. I understand that $75,000.00 is the exception, not the rule. However, spending more on researching a single matter then the average family of 4 spends in a year is beyond belief. However, after thinking about it I realized that it would not benefit one of the larger law firms to get an unlimited plan. If we assume that a four attorney law firm can have access to Westlaw’s Illinois databases for $160.00 per month, the per attorney cost is $40.00 per month. However, a large law firm of 3,000 attorneys will most likely need access to all 50 states. Therefore, (using only a guesstimate)the cost of having access to all 50 states would be at the absolute minimum 10 times as much or $400.00 per attorney. So at $400.00 per month, for 3,000 attorneys, the annual Westlaw costs would come out to over $14,000,000. Now I am not sure if a law firm with 3,000 attorneys spends $14,000.00 a year on Westlaw, on a per transaction billing plan. However, I do know that if they are billed per transaction, they can easily pass the cost to the clients; but if they have an unlimited plan, it could not so easily be justified. Therefore, the law firm would have to pay the Westlaw bill out of their own funds rather then pass it on the clients.

Post for February 9, 2010

With most legal resources being digitized and the legal profession’s increasing dependency on electronic research, it is no wonder many libraries have started disposing of their physical copies in order to save space. As discussed in class this poses a few problems, namely the disappearance of previous versions of items and not having the original resource to cite in court. The disappearance of the previous versions of resources is a serious problem that needs to be addressed quickly, because the more we wait the more that will have lost. In regards to the citing from an original source, most courts accept unofficial copies and the remaining courts will inevitably have to accept them also. There is no denying that in doing so we need to put an unbelievable amount of trust in Westlaw, Lexus, Fastcase and the other services. However, with print versions being increasingly difficult to find, it would be unreasonable for courts to do otherwise.

Post for February 2, 2010

What I found to be the most interesting topic addressed in last week’s class is the law librarian’s duty to provide patrons with assistance in finding the law, while at the same time avoiding giving legal advice. No one can argue that it is a fine line between assisting patrons and giving legal advice. What I find more intriguing though isn’t how thin the line is, but where the line is. Everyone can agree that interpreting case law or telling a patron which statute applies is practicing law, but telling a person the location of a courthouse is not. However, everything in the middle appears to be a different shade of gray. Can a librarian tell a patron that he has 30 days to file an answer, if all she is doing is reading the summons word for word? There are countless scenarios where reasonable people can disagree as to whether an act is practicing law. There is no doubt that most librarians will err on the side of caution, but will that have a detrimental effect on service and the layperson’s right to access the law?