At least not until after they appear. Louis J. Sirico, Jr. apologies for a robo ad that appeared on Legal Skills Prof Blog, a member of Blog Emperor Caron’s ROBOnanza:
I am sorry that this blog was used for a cheap political stun. I have deleted the ad.
For details about the robo ad by a political group that disparaged one of his colleagues who is seeking election as a trial judge, see Sirico’s post, Ads Appearing on This Blog. — Joe
Hat tip to Legal Informatics Blog for calling attention to D’Aspremont and Van den Herik’s The Digitalization of the Assembly Line of Knowledge About Law: A Reinvention of the Confrontational Nature of Legal Scholarship? [SSRN]. Here’s the abstract:
This paper reflects upon the rise of new tools of production and dissemination of knowledge about law as well as their impact on the dynamics and the nature of the profession of legal scholar. Taking the contemporary international legal scholarship as a case-study, it discusses the potentially dramatic changes brought about by the new media of communication, not only with respect to the configuration of the assembly line of knowledge about law in the 21st century but also regarding the profession of legal academic as a whole.
This paper starts by distinguishing modes of law-making and modes of knowledge-production with a view to showing that these two modes of production of authoritative statements share are not always following radically different dynamics. It then recalls that the production of knowledge about law has always been estranged from the State and rested on a competitive social process between professionals. The paper subsequently makes the point that knowledge-producing processes in international legal scholarship have been dramatically altered in the cyber-age. Knowledge about international law is now created, selected and disseminated through previously unknown channels that cannot be influenced by the State. These mutations have required legal scholars to change how they envisage and construe their contribution to the production of knowledge and thus how they see their own profession. The paper finally formulates some concluding remarks about what it means for the discipline as a whole.
“It’s always interesting to see how a lawyer’s oral argument marries up to their briefing, and for me, it helps give greater context to the points,” wrote Jason Wilson at The Annotated Oral Argument: Tucker v. Thomas (#SCOTX). Check out his example of annotating an oral argument conducted before the Supreme Court of Texas. (NB: the annotation links to open source texts of court opinions and statutory code sections.) He adds, “If y’all like these annotated arguments, I can start posting more here or on Annotations.”
I think Jason is onto something here. While I have little need for Lone Star State annotated oral arguments here in the Buckeye State, I think e-publishing high court annotated oral arguments by an editorial staff that actually knows something (and links to open or opened resources) is a great idea. Hell, that’s why I buy Jones McClure’s annotated federal codes instead of … well, you know.
I would be very interested in annotated US Supreme Court oral arguments, ditto for the Supreme Court of Ohio, if produced by a reliable publisher like Jones McClure. At the SCOTUS level, who might that be? Hint — who is the sponsor of SCOTUSblog and the publisher of USLW?
Hat tip to Legal Research Plus for calling attention to this interesting NBER working paper:
Searching for Physical and Digital Media: The Evolution of Platforms for Finding Books by Michael R. Baye, Babur De los Santos, Matthijs R. Wildenbeest
NBER Working Paper No. 19519; Issued in October 2013
Abstract: This paper provides a data-driven overview of the different online platforms that consumers use to search for books and booksellers, and documents how the use of these platforms is shifting over time. Our data suggest that, as a result of digitization, consumers are increasingly conducting searches for books at retailer sites and closed systems (e.g., the Kindle and Nook) rather than at general search engines (e.g., Google or Bing). We also highlight a number of challenges that will make it difficult for researchers to accurately measure internet-based search behavior in the years to come. Finally, we highlight a number of open agenda items related to the pricing of books and other digital media, as well as consumer search behavior.
At Noon, Central Time, today, Rich Leiter and the gang will be hosting the PLL-SIS Executive Board at Law Librarian Conversations to discuss the new normal in law firm libraries. Topics include a proposed name change for PLL-SIS. Jean O’Grady, chair of the PLL Board, provides more information about the topics to be discussed including for example the success of the annual PLL Summit, on Dewey B Strategic. Sounds like a very interesting program. — Joe
Hat tip to Peter Martin for calling my attention to Citing Legally: Occasional observations about the citation of legal authorities by lawyers and judges. The blog is a byproduct of this year’s revision of Introduction to Basic Legal Citation (online edition hosted by LII) and the forthcoming revision of The Bluebook. Launched yesterday, Citing Legally’s first post is titled Statutes – Citation norms that reinforce copyright claims. Highly recommended. — Joe
I want to thank all the readers of old LLB for making our last month on the Law Professor Blogs Network such a smash hit. Not counting our We’re Moving post, Mark and I published only 2 posts on old LLB in September (because I forgot that I had scheduled them) while traffic reached record-breaking heights — 59,947 page views with 57,395 visits as measured by SiteMeter.
Wait a minute, that’s virtually a 1 to 1 ratio of views per visits. Ditto for August. Normally old LLB’s ratio was 1.4 page views per visit as logged by SiteMeter. I need to amend my early statement:
Thank you robots for making the last two months so special for old LLB.
Typically about 50% of traffic to a web destination is generated by robots. The above 1:1.4 stat for old LLB included such robot traffic. Then there are botnets designed to mess with web traffic stats. See Christopher Steward and Suzanne Vranica’s Phony Web Traffic Tricks Digital Ads (WSJ).
In the case of old LLB’s August-September traffic increase, I think another acknowledgement must be sent out into the uncensored blogosphere:
Thanks Blog Emperor Caron for your tech crew’s “robust testing” before launching the Law Professor Blogs Network’s make-over in August.
Initially I thought googlebot was hitting “LPBN 2.0” just because of the implementation of the redesign generally. Perhaps not. No chance that robots hit old LLB during its last two months so frequently because of the sloppy implementation of robo-ads on Network blogs, right?
I don’t know about current Network authors but I’m thinking this is “bad for business”. As illustrated by LLB’s SiteMeter stats, below, some but not all Network blogs have experienced a similar — purely coincidental, right? — traffic pattern change starting in August. Oops.
And then there is the traffic log for one of two SiteMeters for Blog Emperor Caron’s own blog. Over one million page views in September and 2 million page views since August as of last evening. See the below screen capture. — Joe
ALA’s Virtual Town Hall on eBooks will explore emerging subjects in the eBook lending arena, including digital preservation, reader accessibility, self-publisher engagement, and libraries as publishers. It will take place from 11 a.m. to noon Central time on Wednesday, October 23, 2013.
- Barbara Stripling, ALA president;
- Maureen Sullivan, ALA immediate past president;
- Keith Michael Fiels, ALA executive director;
- Sari Feldman, executive director of the Cuyahoga County Public Library and DCWG cochair;
- Robert Wolven, associate university librarian of Columbia University and DCWG cochair;
- Alan S. Inouye, director of ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy.
Starting at slide 11, Bess Reynolds, Technical Services Manager, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, addresses pain points, budgetary concerns and the failure of vendors to develop library management tools, issues all law libraries, large and small in the private and public sectors, face in acquiring and maintaining today’s digital resources. From her Oct. 4, 2013 presentation at LLNE’s Fall Meeting, “Acquiring and Maintaining Resources for the New Collection” [complete stack below], pain points include:
- Substituting digital formats for print without proper notice;
- Digital versions of print serials that circulated to many may come with a prohibitively high single user price tag; and
- Creating proprietary platforms for eBooks thwarting single silo for discovery
With respect to vendors failing to develop library management tools, Bess notes that busy lawyers don’t have time to register themselves on web sites, manage their passwords and learn new platforms. Internal IT department restrictions designed to protect an institution’s network results in attorneys and librarians not able to install applications or vendor plug-ins. And, of course, any new vendor software scheme requires extensive in-house testing.
It is “important for publishers to hear directly from their customers” because official AALL vendor relations dogma maintains that “we don’t all have the same needs and perspectives.” I believe Bess Reynolds’ presentation underscores that working law librarians are grappling with the same issues regardless of their institutional setting when it comes to acquiring and maintaining resources for the new normal in collection development. — Joe
During this year’s Open Access Week, Oct. 21-27, CALI is hosting a free 30 minute webinar about open access. The webinar will take place on Tuesday, October 22 at 12 Noon Eastern with an encore performance on Friday, October 25 at 3 pm Eastern. Registration details at this CALI Spotlight Blog post. — Joe
Congressional lawmakers—more than two-fifths of whom are lawyers by education—often can’t resist from referring to their law school days when in need of a pithy anecdote for speechifying.
In remarks on the House and Senate floors, members of Congress this year brought up law school in a variety of ways, from arguing that an issue is too difficult to understand—not even a lawyer can figure it out!—to saying that a concept is so easy to grasp that even a first-year law student would not be vexed. Need to make fun of yourself? Mention how you didn’t get into Harvard Law School. Trying to fill time during a filibuster? Tell a story about law school. — Todd Ruger
Ruger proceeds to list seven of the best law school mentions in his National Law Journal article (free registration required). — Joe
What working library won’t be small by “old normal” standards? While missing a wireless node for the BYOD library of the future (hint to vendors), here’s a Minecraft tutorial for designing a small library. — Joe
And law profs don’t like student editors. Wow! And law reviews impact law prof careers negatively. Hum… . Why?
Those are the takeaways from a recent Loyola Law Review article, What Do U.S. Law Professors, Student Editors, Attorneys, and Judges Think about U.S. Law Reviews and the Need for Reform? by Richard A. Wise, Joseph C. Miller, Douglas P. Peters, Heather K. Terrell, Brett Holfeld, & Joe R. Neal [GSTF Digital Library, DOI: 10.5176/2251-2853_2.2.127]. Here’s the abstract
We surveyed 1325 law professors, 338 student editors, 215 attorneys, and 156 judges about their beliefs about U.S. law reviews and the need for reforms. Law reviews play a critical role in the law and legal education in the U.S. They are also one of the best means for social scientists to convey research about the law to legal professionals. Law professors were generally the most critical of law reviews and student editors were usually the least critical. Respondents identified several problems with law reviews. They believed that law review articles are too long. Most respondents also believed that U.S. law reviews have a negative effect on law professors’ careers and that they are not meeting the needs of attorneys and judges. The vast majority of respondents indicated that reforms are needed and that U.S. law reviews should implement blind, peer reviews. We also discuss the significance of our findings for the U.S. legal system and for social scientists who study the law.
About that negative career impact thing, Karen Sloan writes
The law professors surveyed had a more negative take on law review article selection than did the student editors, while the judges and practitioners were largely neutral on the issue. The law professors responded that law reviews frequently select articles based on the author’s credentials instead of the quality of the submitted article, and that law reviews don’t give adequate consideration to articles before making a decision on whether to accept them.
Quoting from Law Review Articles Need A Makeover, Study Finds (NLJ, Oct. 10, 2013; behind paywall).
In other words, “my submission is better than that other law prof’s submission.” Would peer review change that? — Joe
Well, that’s not exactly news but Dean Allard also talks about Brooklyn Law’s two-year program in this interview with Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia.
From the Bloomberg Law description:
Law schools need to find ways to cut the expense of merit scholarships, which they “use to buy students . . . with high LSATs” to improve the schools’ US News rankings, Brooklyn Law School Dean and Patton Boggs Partner Nicholas Allard tells Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia. The money would be better spent on scholarships for students with financial need, he says.
No, not me! The author of lawprofblawg: A blog by a law professor for law professors is. Hey, wait a minute. That sounds vaguely familiar. Oh well, at least Blog Emperor Caron can’t unilaterally delete published posts and insist on pre-screening future posts by that blog’s author. — Joe
Apathy, confusion, difficulty, cost, staffing concerns and legality are just some of the reasons given for not releasing government data according to a series of posts published on the Sunlight Foundation Blog. You can read the Why Open Data series here. — Joe
On Tom Glocer’s blog, former TRI CEO Tom Glocer returned to the day, some 30 years ago, when he and fellow Yale LS classmate, Ron Wright, launched a computer game at YLS that was designed to be a teaching aid for pre-trial discovery. The program apparently was well received at Yale. It even made the New York Times. Glocer republished the article in his 30th Anniversary Post – Can Computers Teach the Law? post. [Glitchy direct link warning; hence the above link to the blog’s front page.] From Computer Gives Yale Law Students a Taste of Court Process (NYT, Dec. 25, 1983):
Professor Fiss, one of Yale’s three professors teaching civil procedure this semester, is replacing what was a written exercise with a computer game created by Mr. Glocer and Mr. Wright. Process of Discovery.
OK, so the NYT article was Christmas Day newspaper fodder. Still, it’s too bad Glocer didn’t bring that sort of innovation to the table at Thomson Reuters. Then again, WEXIS is the cemetery for innovative thinkers. Perhaps he tried.
Don’t know about your non-compete clause but … why not start up an Etsy eCommerce site for one-off e-“legal solutions” like altSEs, apps, etc., handmade by legal technologists? My hunch is many of those creative folks wouldn’t mind giving you a 4% sales commission for the exposure they might get from a legal Etsy site.
Your pal, Joe
Help Us Improve The Bluebook !
The editors of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation are about to embark on the exciting task of making revisions for the forthcoming Twentieth Edition, and we need your help. We rely on user input to guide our revisions to The Bluebook. This survey is an opportunity for you to share your ideas with us as we update The Bluebook so that we can target our revisions to best serve your needs.
Please take a few minutes to fill out our survey at www.legalbluebook.com/survey. Surveys must be received by November 8, 2013, in order to be considered for the Twentieth Edition. Comments and suggestions are also welcome through e-mail to email@example.com.
As an added incentive for the completion of our survey, we will select five participants at random to receive a Kindle Paperwhite e-reader. An additional twenty participants will be randomly selected to receive a free copy of the Twentieth Edition as well as a two-year subscription to The Bluebook Online (www.legalbluebook.com). Winners will be notified by December 8, 2013.
Source: law-lib announcement (republished with permission). — Joe
Hat tip to Jean O’Grady for calling attention to yesterday’s re-launch of the product now known as “Business Law Center on WestlawNext.” After giving a brief history of Thomson Reuters’ many bungled attempts since acquiring Global Securities Information (GSI) in 2005, Jean provides an overview of Business Law Center and comments on this development.
This relaunch is surely about regaining lost “good will” and reinforcing credibility in the corporate practice space. But I suspect that the Business Center is a beachhead from which a greater initiative will be launched. It is becoming increasingly clear that as content has become commoditized, the large legal publishers will maintain their growth and advantage by providing more integrated content, enhancing context and folding content into tools for process improvement.
In this case, the battleground is for control of the transactional desktop. See Thomson Reuters Re-Launches Westlaw Business (Again): The Business Law Center and the Next Great Battle for the Corporate Lawyer’s Desktop on Dewey B Strategic. Highly recommended.
If interested, see also TR’s press release, Thomson Reuters Introduces Business Law Center on WestlawNext: Next generation of business law research supported by Experts On-Call dedicated research assistance, and its companion podcast discussing Experts On-Call.
“Now I’m ready to close my eyes. Now I’m ready to close my mind. … Now I wanna be your dog.
Come on!” — The Stooges
After yadda-yadda-ing about AALL’s prodigious generation of a lot of words that have no real world consequences, the e-Board’s hired help writes
Throughout the year I met with legal publishers in person or by phone to discuss our policies and resource guides and to reiterate the importance of compliance with the fair business practices principles.
And yet no news that even one vendor has committed in whole or in part to Guide to Fair Business Practices for Legal Publishers, 3d ed. Securing commitments was a stated goal, remember? None so far posted. Commitments in whole or in part and outright rejections in the written word authored by AALL’s “vendor partners” is one of those proof-of-concept things.
I continued to expand the list of publishers with whom I am in regular communication, providing them with news about our activities as well as feedback about a wide range of issues of concern to our membership.
Does the list really need to be more extensive than TR Legal Solutions, LexisNexis, BLaw-BNA and Wolters Kluwer. Granted it might be difficult to engage WK in regular communications but … just keeping a feedback loop open with AALL’s so-called major “vendor partners” about a narrow range of issues is hard enough. CRIV Unleashed can handle the rest.
But what really struck me as odd in this year-end review was the following statement from the September 2013 Vendor Liasion Update:
I believe we are in a long period of transition for law libraries and legal publishing as we all struggle to meet the changing demands of legal information users. Law librarians and legal publishers must keep the lines of communication open to ensure affordable and effective delivery of information services. I pledge my support for continuing this dialogue and look forward to working with both groups in the process.
Wait a minute — “working with both groups”! Who the hell pays for this program?! So much for consumer advocacy, the vendor liaison program way. — Joe