« Taxing Professional Athletes | Main | Call for Papers: Religion in Law and Law in Religion »
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Future of Legal Research, Part One
Why doesn't legal research work more like Google? Those who have asked this question (and I have the feeling many have) have really been asking two separate questions, the front-end question and the back-end question.
Front-enders wish for a user interface for legal research as simple as Google's interface for search to replace Westlaw's home page's chaotic proliferation of search fields (I haven't used Lexis for a couple years, so I won't comment on it.) Back-enders want search algorithms that work as well as Google's web search engine, algorithms that process simple search queries, not festooned with boolean connectors like & and /p, and spit out the most relevant cases or law review articles. I remember the first time I used Google, feeling like the company had developed secret technology which could read my mind. I've never had that feeling using Westlaw.
I've thought about both of these needs for years. Four years ago, I helped launch Altlaw.org, a website that tried to offer a free and better alternative to Westlaw, one we designed to replicate the front-end simplicity of search. I haven't been actively involved in Altlaw for years, but it seems to be doing well under the leadership of the talented Stuart Sierra. Then, I published a little essay (incidentally, "the world's first law review article that is also a working computer program") in the Villanova Law Review which criticized Lexis and Westlaw for ignoring more than a decade's worth of search engine, back-end innovations.
In a series of posts, I want to provide a status update to this critique, taking into account two new developments in the legal research world. First, last year, Google added legal texts to its Google Scholar project. I recently had an illuminating conversation with Anurag Acharya, the project lead for Google Scholar. Second, Westlaw is about to launch WestlawNext, a significant upgrade, perhaps the biggest in the company's history. Through my wonderful law library, I have taken part in the beta testing project for WestlawNext, which included a briefing by our Westlaw regional rep. I'll probably also have a little to say about recent developments from Lexis, Bloomberg, and the irrepressible Carl Malamud.
Here's my executive summary: The future of legal research is very bright, and things look better than I predicted a few years ago. Both Google and Westlaw have already made significant achievements, although each company still has a long way to go, and each should recalibrate its expectations. Google needs to talk to a few more law firm associates to understand the ways that searching for a case is not like searching the web. Westlaw similarly needs to talk to more law professors, because their new product is geared almost entirely toward law firm practice, and it does not work well for other kinds of legal research.
Posted by Paul Ohm on March 30, 2010 at 09:52 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef01310ffb16f9970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Future of Legal Research, Part One:
Comments
Andy: Shoot! And I thought you had an extra $30K lying around your office that you could send to me. That would take care of my daughter's high school tuition for the next three years.
Posted by: pchuck | Apr 2, 2010 3:40:28 PM
One more thing. Academic law librarie also pay several hundred thousand dollars a year to West and Lexis/Matthew Bender for the print materials. Continuations (pocket parts, supplements, replacement volumes) are where the publishers make their money. Because we are paying so much for the other materials, I think this keeps the price of Westlaw and LexisNexis down for law schools.
If lots of law schools canceled the print materials from West and Lexis then we'd probably see an increase.
I'm sorry for hijacking the post.
Posted by: pchuck | Apr 2, 2010 3:33:53 PM
pchuck -- I didn't mean to suggest that 30k or 60k is not a lot of money (i wish I had that. money!) I'm just trying to estimate (guess?) how much of Westlaw's earnings is derived from firms as opposed to schools. My erroneous understanding was that law schools paid nothing -- thanks again for your correction.
Posted by: andy | Apr 2, 2010 3:32:24 PM
Andy: $60-80K per year for both services may seem like peanuts to you but it still has to be paid. In addition, when law school budgets are being cut that is a lot of money. It is trending upward, not downward. Regardless, it isn't free as you originally stated. As you are well aware, law schools also pass along that cost to the students in the form of tuition.
Westlaw and LexisNexis have different ways of billing for law firms. They generally fall into three different methods: (1) hourly - charged per minute and rate is dependent on the size of the database/source (2) transactionally - charged per search and the rate is dependent on the size of the database/source. (3) flat rate.
Most firms have a flate rate but that may only include select databases/sources. For example, a small-sized (10-15 attorneys) law firm in Florida might have a flate-rate for the Florida-specific databases (statutes, case law, regulations, Florida-specific law reviews/legal periodicals, and Florida-specific practice materials); however, if they want to look at a California statute, then they go outside their plan and have to pay either hourly or transactionally. It also depends on the size of the firm. So yes, small firms or solos can get access to a "slice" of Westlaw or LexisNexis for a pretty reasonable fees but it isn't like they have access to everything.
Regarding the "academic use" stamp and faculty using the services for outside consulting work, I don't have the contract in front of me but I think it includes faculty. It is self-regulating.
Posted by: pchuck | Apr 2, 2010 2:53:10 PM
$30k - $40k seems like peanuts. I remember doing a week of research for a client and the firm billed the client $2500 for the research (the amount actually charged by Westlaw). With 2000 attorneys, the firm probably paid a helluva lot more than $30k-$40k per year (although the cost was generally passed on to clients).
My understanding, though, is that the research services engage in plenty of price discrimination and sole practitioners, etc. can get access to major databases for a reasonable rate, far lower than that charged to the megafirms. Also, at another firm I worked at, Westlaw charged the firm a fixed fee, firm wide, although I have no idea how much. My guess is that the per-attorney cost far exceeded the per student/professor cost charged to law schools.
Regarding the "academic use" stamp, is that meant to discourage faculty from using the services for outside consulting work as well?
Posted by: andy | Apr 2, 2010 2:14:34 PM
Andy: Law schools (usually through the law libraries) negotiate annual contracts with the vendors. The academic subscriptions are determined by the number of students (between $30-$40K per year for each service is the norm)*. Unlike law firms or the government subscriptions, academic subscriptions include in upwards of 90% (a guess) of what is available on Westlaw or LexisNexis. Law firm subscriptions include the databases/sources that they will use and generally don't have the scope of an academic subscription. Both services have some databases/sources that are unavailable on the academic subscriptions (some due to licensing agreements).
As an aside, in the future I think we will see more databases/sources go a la carte under the academic subscriptions for both Westlaw and LexisNexis. There are a bunch of reasons for this.
Regarding the "for academic use only" stamp on it, that is to remind users that they should be using this for academic use and not for their part time jobs working for a firm during the academic year. LexisNexis and Westlaw turn off the passwords during the summer months so that law firms don't hire summer associates just so they can back-door Westlaw or LexisNexis for free. When 1Ls throughout this great land are given their LexisNexis and Westlaw passwords, the vendors make them agree to use the services for academic use only.
What is "free"? I like to tell my law students, you get free access to Westlaw, LexisNexis, HeinOnline, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, LegalTrac and other databases as long as you pay your $35,000 per year in tuition.
* Considering that law schools get access to 90% of what is available on each service, this is a pretty good deal. Throw in paper, printers, vendor academic reps, and other law-school specific things like TWEN and LexisNexis-Blackboard then I'd say we are probably paying less than a non-academic institution.
Posted by: pchuck | Apr 2, 2010 1:59:37 PM
pchuck -- thank you for the correction. I always thought the services were provided for free (to encourage us to tell our students to use it in the future). Everything prints out with an "academic use only" stamp on it...any idea why they require that if we're paying for it? Perhaps it's deeply discounted?
My guess is still that practicing lawyers provide much more revenue than law schools do, although I've already revealed my ignorance :).
Posted by: andy | Apr 2, 2010 1:19:41 PM
Regarding Google Scholar: When they start putting Nimmer on Copyright, Newberg on Class Actions, Wright & Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure, and other current treatises on Google Scholar then I will be impressed; however, I pretty confident that it ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: pchuck | Apr 2, 2010 12:26:55 PM
Andy: As a matter of fact, law schools pay for Westlaw and LexisNexis. It is certainly discounted but law schools pay for it. I wish we didn't have to pay for it but we do.
Posted by: pchuck | Apr 2, 2010 12:22:01 PM
Legal research -- which company are you referring to? Thanks.
Posted by: anon | Apr 1, 2010 2:49:47 PM
I just had some legal research done by this company and they were super helpful. You should really check them out if you need anything done in the areas of research, drafting, appellate briefs, etc. Enjoy!
Posted by: legal research | Apr 1, 2010 2:33:40 PM
I just had some legal research done by this company and they were super helpful. You should really check them out if you need anything done in the areas of research, drafting, appellate briefs, etc. Enjoy!
Posted by: legal research | Apr 1, 2010 2:12:25 PM
"Westlaw similarly needs to talk to more law professors, because their new product is geared almost entirely toward law firm practice, and it does not work well for other kinds of legal research."
Hmmmm...I actually think Westlaw should continue to cater to its paying customers, rather than to the non-paying ones. And, it's far more important for practicing attorneys to have access to legal resources than for academics (they're the ones directly involved in the legal system), so I would hope that Westlaw continues to cater to practitioners. Of course, if Westlaw can cater to academics without hurting practitioners, I'm happy to enjoy the benefits.
Posted by: andy | Mar 31, 2010 10:47:17 PM
Just FYI, I've used free services in tandam with Westlaw and Lexis as the free services are faster, the citation tracking and other bells on the professional services more complete (or they were). You can use both at the same time and speed up your research.
Posted by: Stephen M (Ethesis) | Mar 31, 2010 10:35:55 PM
I'm looking forward to your comments. FYI, here's a link to an interview with Anarag from December 2009, about a week after Google Scholar Legal Opinions and Journals (SLOJ) was released:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id358531781?i=81142400
Law librarians generally aren't impressed with SLOJ as a viable research tool for legal researchers. It follows much the same plan as many other Google products: whip it out and see where it goes. When I've asked for explanations about algorithms or suggested practical tools that would make the results more useful, their response is: "Gee, when you search, you get results, don't you? What's there to complain about?" It's sad because there is so much potential.
Posted by: Richard Leiter | Mar 31, 2010 9:54:42 AM
Agreed. One of the basic lessons of law school is, or ought to be: never trust someone else's summary of a case.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann | Mar 30, 2010 1:02:10 PM
The greatest advance that could happen for Wexis (and, for that matter, for its competitors) is to force a larger window of "surrounding text" on hits. At modern data-transfer speeds, and with modern interfaces, even on a Blackberry-like device one should get more then five to ten words around the "hit"... especially when, thanks to the screwed-up way we do legal citation, "533 U.S. 483" is either three or four of those words.
It reminds me of an incident in practice from almost a decade ago now. In an appellate matter, opposing counsel tried to change the meaning of the summary judgment standard, citing to a relatively recent circuit-court opinion. The paragraph preceding the pinpoint offered by opposing counsel (a H___ grad at BigLaw), though, explicitly denied that it was a summary judgment rule, remarking that what had begun as competing summary judgment motions had turned into a bench trial on an agreed record. Had the search context been +/- 100 words, instead of +/- 5, one would hope this embarassing miscitation would have been avoided.
sarcasm Of course, providing more context would point out the general worthlessness of the vendor-provided headnotes, so I expect this particular improvement to happen Real Soon Now. /sarcasm
Posted by: C.E. Petit | Mar 30, 2010 12:20:43 PM
I'm looking forward a lot to this series. Post quickly, please.
I had an illuminating conversation recently with a law-school classmate who's now in law-firm practice. It came out that Google Scholar sometimes gets the footnote numbering in its cases off by one (like articles, some cases start with a non-numbered footnote). For her, this was all but a deal-breaker. She's going to pull the case from Lexis or Westlaw to cite-check it, footnote numbers included; she's going to have to be the one to do it because even the paralegals can't be fully trusted with the task; if she's going to one of the commercial services anyway, she might as well do her research there. All this notwithstanding the fact that for basic caselaw, Google Scholar is faster, cheaper, and easier to use. We agreed that this was madness, but it's a form of madness deeply embedded in the assumptions and norms of big-firm practice.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann | Mar 30, 2010 10:30:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.