busness_termproj_final.docx

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Law Library

Helen Busness

Digital Libraries-e553

November 29, 2015

1

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library 2

Abstract

Law libraries have been slow to make the shift from print to digital resources, but it is undeniable that reliance on digital legal research is growing and here to stay. As law firms, law schools, lawyers, and researchers are fast discovering, subscribing to the two leading fee-based digital law libraries, Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis (collectively referred to as Wexis), is not always ideal from a usability or economic perspective.

1 Other digital law libraries have evolved to meet user needs, but are these digital law libraries a good alternative? Do they provide the authority, accuracy, currency, coverage and usability required for a digital law library? (Jootaek, 2011-

2012, p. 228) Are they efficiently and effectively providing the information that legal constituencies need? This paper will endeavor to answer these questions by examining the shift from print to digital in the law library context with a special emphasis on Wexis. Next, the paper will explore how best to evaluate a digital law library, and then evaluate a number of no cost digital law libraries based on the criteria selected. The paper will conclude by recommending best practices for a better digital law library to meet the legal needs of a diverse user community.

The best answer for digital law libraries might reside in collaborative efforts that maximize everdecreasing financial and staff resources and spread the increasing costs of collection development.

1 An evaluation of Wexis is beyond the scope of the paper, but the Appendix does include a brief overview of

Westlaw Next which is available at many state and law school libraries. Also included is a price chart of charges that may occur outside of contract for use of Westlaw Next in private practice.


Introduction to the law library and its foray into the digital world

Print vs. Digital

Law libraries have been among the slowest libraries to embrace the move from print to digital resources. While there are undoubtedly those who still prefer to conduct legal research in print, “the reality is that there is no longer a high demand for these items, requiring library administration to think about collection analysis and development in an entirely different way.”

(Chase & Barnes, 2014, p. 196) Despite this growing preference for digital legal research, certain resources such as monographs, treatises, and legal dictionaries do and probably always will have a place on the library shelves. (Chase & Barnes, 2014). As with other libraries, however, preferences for print over digital, or digital over print, vary greatly from user to user.

With this relatively new preference for digital legal research, as Danner, Kauffman, and

Palfry (2009) suggest, comes a “growing role for the academic law librarian” (p.146) rather than a diminished one. Kaufman, a law librarian at Yale, advocates for “assertive reference” where librarians think “strategically about where we can intervene and get those teachable moments to show students that in reality doing legal research is more complicated today than it’s ever been before.” (p. 146). Many students, including law students, overestimate their ability to conduct digital legal research and think they can “find it all by going on to Google”. (p. 146). Law librarians of today need to bridge the gap between technology and the user, and a large part of this new role will be to understand, evaluate and assist users with navigating digital law libraries.

Westlaw and Lexis Nexis—fee-based digital law library

Digital law libraries have long been dominated by Wexis. When I graduated from law

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library school in 1994, we were taught how to conduct legal research through both print searches and

4 digital searches on Wexis. At the start of my career, I utilized Wexis as my first research tool to identify case law applicable to my client’s situation. I remember vividly the sticker shock when

I first saw how much my non-school supported research on Wexis cost my firm, or to be more exact, what the firm passed along to the client.

2

The practice of teaching digital research on

Wexis and no other digital law libraries caused many “law students [to] fall off a cliff the moment they graduate[d], without adequate preparation for their future work and without access to expensive proprietary systems on which they have come to rely.” (Palfrey, 2010, p. 184).

Both Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis have complex fee structures. There are flat rate contracts available where the user purchases access to certain portions of the legal database. There are also options outside of the contract where the user is billed hourly or by transaction. If you are being billed by transaction, it is especially important to be precise (i.e. you have a citation for the document you want) to avoid large, often unexpected charges. (Aycock, 2013). Both Westlaw and LexisNexis offer reduced, flat fees for law schools with no hourly or transactional fees, so new attorneys are often totally unaware of the fee structure for using these databases. Many new attorneys (me included) developed poor research habits with the free Wexis that can translate into costly mistakes in private practice.

LexisNexis has been around since 1973, when it was used to index judicial opinions of the Ohio Supreme Court, but by 1980, it was expanded to include all U.S. federal and state jurisdictions. West Publishing wanted to get in on the digital legal revolution, and thus established Westlaw in 1975 to compete directly with LexisNexis. A bitter and profitable rivalry ensued, whereby “The Big Two” battled for supremacy. (Aycock, 2013). Westlaw sued

2 This is an uncomfortable conversation to have with one’s boss.


LexisNexis in 1986 for copyright infringement and won. A decade later, however, Westlaw’s

5 pagination system and structure were deemed too basic and simplistic to invoke copyright protection. (Aycock, 2013).

The “new” players—government (state and federal), law schools, etc.

Although still the biggest players in the digital law library arena, Westlaw and

Lexis/Nexis are now facing considerable competition; digital law libraries exist in abundance.

There are federal and state law libraries (see for example Library of Congress Law Library and the State of Iowa Law Library) , digital law libraries for each law school in the United States (see for example Seton Hall University Rodino Law Library and University of Iowa Law Library ), many law firms have their own digital law libraries, and there are some “free” digital law libraries geared toward legal practitioners and some geared toward the public (see for example

Findlaw for professionals and Findlaw for the public . )

Evaluation—Literature Review

Why Evaluate?

Evaluating digital libraries, or any library system, is critical to keeping it current; despite the importance of evaluation, there exists a paucity of data on how best to accomplish such a feat. Establishing the criteria on which a digital library will be evaluated is an important first step. “Criteria are then used to develop measures.” (Saracevic, 2004, p. 5). It is important to keep in mind when evaluating any digital library that the user’s perspective can vary greatly from the design perspective; “in use, more often than not, DL users and digital libraries are in an adversarial position.” (Saracevic, 2004, p. 9).


What to Evaluate--Criteria

6

Although no specific criteria have been agreed upon for a digital law library, there are some general agreed upon goals of digital library evaluation. Saracevic (2000) suggests that providing standards and criteria for digital holdings over the internet establishes “trust, validity, and authority…thus promoting access with user confidence, a highly important thing on the otherwise value-neutral Internet.” (p. 357) Zhang (2010) posits that digital library stakeholders are concerned about “being able to access high-quality content and service.” (p.104) Xie (2008) offers that “an evaluation is a judgment of worth. The objective of DL evaluation is to assess to what extent a digital library meets its objects and offer suggestions for improvements.” (p. 1348).

Finally, Palfrey (2010) believes “it is not enough merely to make information available in the public domain; it needs to be accessible, in a timely and understandable fashion, to those who need it.” (p. 184).

More specifically, Saracevic (2000) presents seven levels of evaluation, four of which are user-based and three are system-based. The four user-centered levels are social, institutional, individual, and interface. The three system-based levels are engineering, processing, and content. Xie (2008) presents five types of criteria: interface usability, collection quality, service quality, system performance and user satisfaction. Each criteria has a set of variables upon which to test or evaluate its success. (p. 1357).


Xie’s criteria are illustrated in the chart below:

Interface Usability Collection Quality Service Quality

Scope Mission Search and Browse

Function

Navigation Authority

Help Features Accuracy

Completeness

Targeted User

Community

Traditional library service

Unique Services View and output options

Accessibility Currency Usefulness

System performance

Efficiency and

Effectiveness

Relevance

User Satisfaction

User Feedback

Precision and recall

Contact Information

Zhang (2010) elaborates on Saracevic’s evaluation levels and provides a “holistic DL evaluation model.” (p. 90). She mentions six levels of evaluation found in LIS literature: content, technology, interface, service, user and context. (p.88) Zhang’s model presents 19 core and 18 group-based criteria on which to evaluate a DL. The below table represents the core criteria within the six levels of evaluation. In red are criteria identified as important to librarians

(administrators, developers, and librarians) that seem key to digital law library evaluation.

Holistic DL Evaluation Model

Content Technology

Accuracy

Accessibility

Usefulness

Appropriateness

Ease of

Understanding

Reliability

Ease of Use

Security

Effectiveness

Interoperability

Interface

Ease of use

Effectiveness

Consistency Responsiveness

Interaction support Accessibility

Appropriateness

Service

Integrity

Reliability

Usefulness

User

Efficiency

Successfulness

Satisfaction

Acceptance

Use/Reuse

Context

Sustainability

Managerial

Support

Collaboration

Copyright

7


There is a dearth of literature specifically on evaluation of digital law libraries. Jootaek

8

Lee (2011-2012) focuses specifically on digital law libraries, and he has suggested the following criteria to assess legal information services available on the internet: authority, accuracy, currency, coverage, and usability.

How to Evaluate?

Once criteria have been identified, the question then becomes how to use these criteria to assess the digital library. What are the key benchmarks or measurements to employ to judge overall success or determine what constitutes a “good” digital law library? These questions do not have universally agreed upon answers, but this is an area ripe for further exploration and research. It is crystal clear, however, that these questions need to be addressed in order to build a better digital law library.

Analysis

Selection of Evaluative Criteria for Digital Law Libraries

Below is a chart of the criteria selected to evaluate some of the more prominent digital law libraries in the United States for purposes of this paper. Please note, not all criteria will be discussed for each library evaluation but all were considered in providing the overall rating.

Usability

Search and browse function

Navigation

Help features

Efficiency

Use/Reuse

Interface

Relevance

Effectiveness

Consistency

Ease of Use

Content

Scope

Authority

Accuracy

Completeness

Currency


These were selected based upon the evaluative criteria put forth by Saracevic, Xie, Yang

9 and Lee. Further research in this area would involve vetting and perhaps expanding these criteria with law librarians and other legal and technology experts to establish what criteria and measurements are most suited to the digital law library.

Findlaw

According to their Facebook page, Findlaw for Legal Professionals’ mission is “ to provide attorneys and other legal professionals with up-to-date news and information that affects the legal profession uniquely, including legal technology news, practice tips and firm management information.” Findlaw, owned by Thomson Reuters (also the owner of Westlaw), was started in 1996, and claims to be the “world’s leading provider of online legal information.

(Bowers, 2011, p.2) Based upon review of usability and content criteria, as well as adherence to its mission and goals, this digital legal library would rate a “C”. Findlaw would benefit from a reduction in scope so that it can be effectively maintained to ensure current information and working links. Also, the advertising element of Findlaw, although no doubt an economic necessity to maintain free access, does detract from its effectiveness as a digital law library.

Findlaw effectively provides networking opportunities for legal professionals. By taking out the library function (offering current legal research resources), Findlaw may find a more reasonable and effective and manageable niche market as a legal marketing and networking site.


Usability and Interface

Response times were slow to access information and several times “timed out” prior to reaching the content, perhaps because the webpages contain a considerable amount of scrolling content and advertising. Find an Expert and FindLaw Career Center were two areas that “timed out” on my laptop. The advertising also visually confuses the user and impedes visual identification of content. Having too much content and distractions negatively impact usability as a whole. Given that a lawyer’s time is billable, efficiency is critically important to keep prices low. If, for instance, Westlaw or LexisNexis can get a user the information he needs faster, it may be worth the money to invest in these fee-based digital libraries rather than “wasting time” on a less efficient, yet free, digital law library. A customer satisfaction survey “pops up” repeatedly on the Findlaw professional site. Although a link to a survey might be less obtrusive, the idea of including an option for feedback is an excellent idea to foster continuous evaluation and improvement of the digital library. There are no help features to guide users, which might improve functionality. There is a general search function, as well as an advanced search option available both from the home page and the Cases & Code page. The advanced search uses a


Boolean search with “operators AND, OR, and NOT and the proximity locator NEAR, which

11 searches for terms within fifty words of one another.” (Bowers, 2011, p. 1). Boolean searches are familiar to attorneys since they are taught in law school and an integral part of Westlaw and

Lexis/Nexis searching. In addition to searching, there is also considerable browsing that can be accomplished on Findlaw by jurisdiction and subject.

Content

Perhaps the most prominent content issue of Findlaw is its vast scope which is too large to ensure the site’s accuracy is maintained. Findlaw’s main navigation bar has six tabs: Cases &

Codes, Practice Management, Jobs & Careers, Legal News, Blogs, and Service Providers.

Secondary navigation provides “Quick Links” to Forms, Law Technology, Lawyer Marketing,

Corporate Counsel, Law Students, JusticeMail, and Newsletters. There is also a general and advanced search of FindLaw. Next, one sees the scrolling list of featured blog posts, which is a nice feature to highlight Findlaw’s legal blog. Moving down the page, one finds “Research the

Law” both by search and browse, find an expert, legal forms both for purchase and for free, and news headlines with two tabs: FindLaw Answers and Legal News. Under legal experts, I selected ADR professionals in Ohio. I was surprised to find “Arlington Kung Fu & Tai Chi”

listed.


Another content issue involves the Findlaw Answers section. The questions I reviewed did not properly belong on a professional practice site since they were client questions. The advice offered was not consistently provided by a legal professional, which calls into question the authenticity, authority and overall completeness of the response. Providing legal advice though a digital library seems unwise because these criteria cannot be met. The home page does link to a

Facebook page geared toward professional networking.

Although a nice inclusion, the law student section of Findlaw would perhaps be better served by a more narrow scope to ensure accuracy and currency of the information presented. For

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library example, on the Academic Law Journals and Law Review page (image above), many of the

13 journal links were not current, which brings into question currency, accuracy, completeness, and authority.

Law School Digital Law Libraries

Legal Information Institute at Cornell Universit y

Legal Information Institute’s (LII) mission in simple terms is to provide open access to law. More specifically, LII is “a not-for-profit group that believes everyone should be able to read and understand the laws that govern them, without cost.” Bowers (2011) calls LII “one of the best sites” with a home page that is “clutter-free and easy to navigate due to its simplicity.”

(p.2) As with Findlaw, economics are clearly at issue, and LII has a unique funding model for a university-sponsored digital law library. Twenty percent of its funding comes from private donations and 65% from advertising, sponsorships, and projects like the lawyer’s directory where a fee is charged for appearing in the directory. When first logging on to the site, a pop up window appears asking for a donation. It states that “last year, 94 cancer research hospitals relied on us for free legal information. We think that is important. Your support makes it possible. Please give generously today.” There is also a link to a donation page, which should be enough to encourage donations without the interruption of the pop up window. The site does have a considerable amount of advertising, as well as space dedicated to funding. The help out section gives a list of six funding options that allow the library to provide information at no cost to the user.


Based upon a review of content and interface, as well as fulfilling its mission and vision, LII receives a rating of “A”.


Although the interface is not fancy, it works well and is easy to navigate. It is uncluttered and effective. Visually, the banner listing LII and Cornell was cut off by the pop up donation box, even when this was minimized. It seems like a simple fix, and would go a long way to improving the appearance and minimizing the disruption for the user. Although the donation requests and advertising are somewhat distracting, it is an economic necessity which is well explained on the site. The internal links could be improved upon, as well as ensuring that one can easily toggle between links. There is no advanced search option, and no indication on how to use the search feature of the site to maximize relevant results. Bowers (2011) points out that

“when searching within LII, use the operators AND, OR, and NOT. If an operator is not indicated, the default is AND. The asterisk (*) acts as the truncation symbol and finds multiple roots of the search term.” (p.3). This search type is familiar to attorneys, yet other users may be more familiar with keyword searching so a user guide would be helpful. There is an LII

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library reference desk, but it requires a user name and password, so it would not be available to the

15 general user.

Content

The rich content of LII is truly what earns its place on the A list of digital law libraries.

The scope of LII is large but not so large that the quality of the site is compromised. 90% of the legal content is found in the “get the law” tab on the navigation bar and in legal resources. LII’s

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin and Supreme Court resources are exceptional. They are authoritative, accurate and complete. The LII bulletin staff are students of Cornell Law School, so the bulletin functions in much the same way as a law review. The information on Supreme

Court decisions is well maintained and current; the screenshot was pulled on November 25 th

,

2015, and the November 9 th

, 2015 decision from Mullinex v. Luna already appeared.

Another impressive feature of LII is “Wex”. Wex is a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia with a wealth of information on the law and legal practice. It is community-based and legal experts contribute, but unlike FindLaw, the experts contributing are vetted by LII’s

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library editorial staff, as are their contributions. The material and resource provided, therefore, are

16 authoritative and correct.

Washlaw: Legal Research on the Web--Washburn University School of Law

WashLaw’s mission is to provide “users with links to law-related materials on the

Internet.” The site does a very good job fulfilling this mission, maintaining currency and presenting links to relevant, authoritative information, so receives and overall rating of “B+”. It does not receive an “A” only because there is little original content of the digital law library and no help or resource guides to help navigate the site content.


Washlaw staff do an excellent job maintaining the large number of links on this site; with the exception of one link, all the ones tested were active, relevant to the subject and current. The main navigation is simple yet effectively broken down into ten categories: add your site, contact us, about, U.S. law, states, international, subject index, resources for lawyers, law school, law firms. The law firm link was not active, so content should either be added or it should be removed from the navigation to avoid confusion. The map feature and links to content are

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library 17 innovative and clever, and each link I tried worked well. I clicked on Iowa and went directly to the state law and government page with a tremendous number of relevant state links that were well organized and labeled. From the Iowa page, a navigation menu is provided to other states, as well as to the resources on the Iowa page. This navigation is especially conducive to browsing. The search feature is simple yet effective, and it appears on each page.

Content

Although not content rich in original resources like LII, Washlaw does a tremendous job of identifying, summarizing and presenting the enormous number of legal resources on the web.

Although beyond the scope of this analysis, WashLaw covers both national and international law. Washlaw also hosts 50 some odd list serves to assist legal professionals in networking and

“keeping up,” which is an important feature in an ever-changing profession.

The resources for librarians page is outstanding, and I would suggest including this in any digital law library site.


State and Federal Law Libraries

18

State of Iowa Law Library

The State of Iowa Law Library is part of the State of Iowa digital library system. The digital library, as a whole, is excellent. Compared to the grandeur of the physical law library space, however, the digital presence falls short. I would recommend either a heightened presence on the State Library site, or perhaps a stand-alone web presence more prominently linked to the main site. The mission and goals of a law library in digital or physical form are significantly different from the State library as a whole, and the law library is buried within an otherwise strong digital library. The State of Iowa digital law library receives a rating of “C”.


The State Library of Iowa site is divided into three categories: For Libraries, For Iowans,

For Data Center. The major issue for the State Law Library is lack of visibility and accessibility from the main page. The State Law Library site is accessible only through a link on the bottom of the page under “contact us”. Once the law library is selected, the user is taken to the contact

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library information, which then has a link to the law library website. Entering the term “law library”

19 from the main page does not bring up the law library site itself, but instead brings up a photography exhibition at the library. When that link is accessed, one still is not brought nor referred to the law library site. Navigation, use/reuse and ease of use are all an issue simply to get to the digital library itself. Once there, the library fares a bit better, but the usability and interface issues continue. There is a library chat feature which definitely aids in usability, and unlike many digital law libraries discusses above, the State of Iowa Law Library has a staffed physical presence (albeit seemingly a librarian staff of one). The primary navigation appears on the left hand column of the home page and includes the following 15 categories: ask a law librarian, policy: photography and special events, Iowa Legislature’s digital archive, constitutional debates of the state of Iowa, #IowaConstitution, executive orders of Iowa governors, federal law and regulation, Iowa law and regulation, Iowa courts, state and federal tax forms, state legislative websites, A.J. Small special collections, help finding an attorney, help resolving disputes without going to court, Westlaw Next available at the law library. The order and organization of the navigation topics could be reworked for improved usability and ease of use. Broader categories such as Library Services, to include Westlaw Next, Research Help, etc. may improve the overall organizational structure. The actual digital collections of the library could also be grouped together to better highlight the impressive content. For example, the digitized Constitutional Debates collection could be highlighted more prominently since it is a truly impressive and important part of the library’s collection. The library could also consider breaking down this collection into smaller chunks since the files take a very long time to load and search.

Content


The mission of the State of Iowa Law Library, as mentioned on their website, is to provide

20

Iowa lawmakers, government employees, the Iowa legal community and the general public with a highly specialized legal collection of treatises and both state and federal statutory, regulatory and case law. The collection also contains the abstracts and arguments of the Iowa Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, legal periodicals, and materials produced by the Iowa legislature. Research assistance is available.

The digital library, however, does not have any goals or vision beyond those of the physical space, which are quite different in scope and nature. The collection of constitutional debate materials is a treasure trove of historical information on the development of Iowa and its government. The digitization is good, and the user feels as if they were accessing the original resource. Similarly, the collaboration to digitize the Iowa Legislature’s history is worthy of greater attention and focus on the law library site itself. This impressive collection of historical

(dating back to 1839) and current legislative material was accomplished through a partnership with Law Library Microform Consortium (LLMC) and Google Books. The A.J. Small collection would benefit greatly from further explanation as to the actual content of the collection, and perhaps could be digitized to add to the collection of the digital law library. As it stands now, its inclusion in the digital collection is somewhat confusing. The inclusion of tax forms, information on finding an attorney, and alternative dispute resolution, although helpful, may not fit in with the overall goals of this digital law library. This content seems more aptly placed in the “For Iowans” section of the State Library.


Law Library of Congress

21

The Rolls Royce of digital law libraries is the Law Library of Congress (LLOC). The simple navigation structure belies the exceptionally rich content and quick, clear interface. One can tell that this site was planned very well, and evaluated/updated regularly. LLOC has a discreet yet obvious feedback form that links to a short survey so that users can provide comments and concerns with the digital library. As far as evaluative information, LLOC seeks input content, design, ease of use and overall (usability), which are directly in line with the criteria selected for this paper.


Due to its clear organization, exceptional maintenance and rich content that fits its mission (not

22 too much and not too little), this library gets the highest score of “A+”.


From the Library of Congress homepage, the LLOC is easily accessible from the right hand navigation, under services. While a more prominent location would be ideal, the Library of

Congress seems to have made very intentional selections as to prominence. With so much content, choices have to be made and the link to LLOC was relatively easy to find if not prominent. The top navigation bar has three links: ask a librarian, digital collections, and library catalogs. Although these are not limited to legal resources or collections, it is nice to have access to the general Library of Congress resources from the LLOC. There is also a search box for the

Library of Congress as a whole on the top navigation. The next horizontal level contains law library highlights in a non-scrolling format which alleviates some of the distraction seen in other digital law libraries evaluated in this paper. On the left navigation bar, there is an LLOC search, as well as eight broad categories for the site: law library home, about the law library, research & reports, find legal resources, education & research opportunities, visiting the law library, news & events, contact. All the main navigation categories appear on one screen without scrolling, which improves ease of use. The main navigation both to the Library of Congress as a whole, and LLOC, appear on each page, which supports browsing and makes toggling between pages efficient.

The share/save feature allows the user to share the page on social media, e-mail the page, or save it to favorites; unfortunately the pop-up box would not close unless the page itself was closed, but this would be an easy fix. One more minor usability/interface issue that if remedied might improve overall quality would be to make sure the order of the navigation bars on interior

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library pages mimics the order of content on the page. Below is an example from the “Find

23

Legal Resources” page.

Content

This evaluation will only scratch the surface of what is available on the LLOC site, but I hope to highlight the features other digital law libraries may wish to emulate. I will focus on the

“Find Legal Resources” link. The first link on this page is for collections, which includes a description as well as information on finding the approximately 2.9 million volumes in the

LLOC collection. Of special interest is the LLOC’s efforts in digitization, which to date include: full-text access to laws, bills and resolutions of the first 43 Congresses; full-text access to

Congressional hearings; an archive of over 100 legal b law gs (please note the clever renaming of blog); and an impressive digitized book collection that includes rare books on Abraham Lincoln,

John Adams and piracy trials. Below is an example from Lincoln the Lawyer, one of the digital

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library books in the very impressive an important LLOC digital collection.

24

The legal blawg archive is another unique and important contribution of the LLOC. The

LLOC explains the collection as a “selective collection of authoritative sites (associated with

American Bar Association approved law schools, research institutes, think tanks, and other expertise-based organizations) that contain unique, born digital content.” The LLOC staff, through their careful selection process, ensure authority and accuracy. If users utilize the very thorough web archiving FAQ provided, the richness of the web archive content becomes readily available. For those interested in web archiving, the information presented in the FAQ (which is really more of an instructional guide and tutorial on web archiving combined) is invaluable.

Under the “Research & Reports” section, I would like to highlight two sections: the

“Guide to Law Online” and “Legal Research Guides”. For those searching for additional legal information, these two areas offer a wealth of resources and information. The Guide to Law

Online, according to the website, “is an annotated guide to sources of information on government and law available online. It includes selected links to useful and reliable sites for legal information.” The Library of Congress staff has reviewed, vetted and approved the links for inclusion in the guide, which provides users with the authority they need in legal content. The

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library guide’s scope includes state, federal and international resources, and it has achieved a

25 completeness unparalleled by other digital law libraries. The Legal Research Guides are also an excellent resource for those new to legal research, or for those of us that are perhaps long out of practice. These “how to” guides help the user navigate the library with ease, but also go much further into explaining the resources and how they fit together to, for example, piece together legislative history.

Best Practices

Use of Social Media

Many of the digital law libraries examined while researching this paper contain some usage of social media “to engage their patrons” (ALL-SIS Task Force, 2013, p. 532). These can include YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, RSS feeds, etc. Although not used as one of the evaluation criteria, effective use of social media is an integral part of a digital law library’s overall mission to reach, inform and engage the user. In order to fulfill the user’s information needs, the digital law library must make its presence known to users and potential users. Steele & Greenlee (2011) from the University of Pennsylvania Biddle Law Library, describe the use of social media as one way law librarians can “demonstrate their mastery of an increasingly complicated universe of information.” (p.113). Social media provides an “informal, less-institutionalized face for both the library and its parent organization” that allows a library to

“share information quickly, express opinions, get user feedback, and discuss common themes among diffuse groups.” (Steele & Greenlee, 2011, p. 115).

In order to be effective, social media must compliment the digital law library’s mission and goals. Social media content must be updated regularly, but not too frequently. Posts should


“be short, be concise, be witty, and be fun. Listen a lot, market a little, and don’t be too serious.”

((Hofschire & Wanucha, 2014, p. 9). Posts should also provide “substantive and thoughtful commentary…and not merely link to external information.” (ALL-SIS Task Force, 2013, p. 534)

To be considered successful, a digital library’s social media presence must be followed, accessed and utilized. Google Analytics is one way to measure access and determine usage. Another way is to solicit user feedback through a survey or focus group. (Steele & Greenlee, 2011). Like the digital law library in general, social media plans should be evaluated and adjusted regularly to ensure they are meeting the library’s overall mission and goals.

Collaboration

One area not evaluated above yet mentioned by Yang in her Holistic DL Model is collaboration. The most successful and complete digital law libraries are those where costs, expertise and technology is shared among groups with a common or complimentary mission and goals. Limiting the number of digital law libraries and enhancing their scope and quality through effective collaboration would be an excellent area to focus additional research attention and funding. Palfrey (2010) notes that “there is no end in sight to the shrinking of budgets, staff, and space in libraries.” (p. 174). Even where budgets remain stable, prices for materials, both print and digital, continue to rise. “Law Librarians have no choice but to collaborate…[they] need to work together to envision what we want the information ecosystem in law to look like over time.” (Palfrey, 2010, p. 174). LII is an excellent model for innovative collaboration that can defray expenses without compromising quality. Collaboration can be with corporate sponsors, law firm libraries, other law schools, government entities, etc.—we are limited only by our own vision and creativity as far as building better, more efficient, more effective and more comprehensive digital law libraries. By reducing the number of digital law libraries and

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library improving their quality, a better ecosystem could be fostered that fits the needs of all users; the

27 grant application and funding process might be a good opportunity to coordinate efforts and foster collaboration among like-minded institutions.

Conclusion

The American Association of Law Libraries Ethical Principles states that Law Libraries should strive “to provide open and effective access to legal and related information.” AAAL

Ethical Principles (1999). Palfrey (2010) adds that “our aim should be to ensure that we take advantage of the potential of the digital era to improve access to legal information for legal scholars and practitioners, as well as scholars in other disciplines…and the general public.” (p.

177).

3

Great strides have been made, and continue to be made, in digitizing, organizing, and making available the hugely diverse universe of “legal and related information” to those that need it. What has transpired, however, is the emergence of a large number of duplicative digital law libraries with similar information resources. The quality of these libraries varies greatly. Lack of resources, both staff and financial, are no doubt a large part of the problem. Another contributing factor to less than stellar quality among digital law libraries is that lawyers are not technology experts, and vice versa. These struggles illustrate just how critical collaboration, both financial and resource collaboration, are to making a better digital law library. It takes a village to raise a child and to build a successful digital law library. As with children, until digital law libraries mature, maintenance and care must continue regularly to help them develop and grow. Evaluation

3 Palfrey’s (2010) Six Cornerstones for digital law libraries are: 1) Alignment with the goals of the institutions we are part of, whether schools, firms, or agencies; 2) Establish a system for understanding the changing ways in which users are learning—accessing information, performing research, creating new information, and remixing old information; 3) Coordinate the digitization of legal materials; 4) Put collection policies in writing and share; 5)

Making our own systems more efficient using back-office technology improvements; and 6) Developing human resources. Pp. 185-187.

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library 28 criteria and measures can provide the tools to foster this growth and cannot be overlooked in the digital law library process, especially as quickly as technology and the law develop.


References

Aycock, A. (2013). Chapter 5: The Big Two: Westlaw and LexisNexis. In The Accidental Law

Librarian . Medford, NJ: Information Today, pp. 89-109.

ALL-SIS Task Force on Library Marketing and Outreach (2013). Marketing and outreach in

Law Libraries: A White Paper. Law Library Journal , 4 (105), pp. 525-538.

Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Retrieved from https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html

.

Bowers, S.L. (2011). Free and low-cost online legal resources. Colorado Lawyer , 103 (40), pp.

1-5.

Breakstone, E.R. (2010). Now how much of your print collection is really online? An analysis of the overlap of print and digital holdings at the University of Oregon Law Library. Legal

Reference Service Quarterly , 29 (4), pp. 255-275.

Chase, K.A. & Barnes, E.C. (2014). The road oft traveled: collection analysis and development in a modern academic law library, Collection Management 39 (2-3), pp. 196-210.

Danner, R.A., Kauffman, S.B., & Palfrey, J.G. (2009). The twenty-first century law library, Law

Library Journal 101 (2), pp. 143-156.

Hofschire, L. & Wanucha, M. (2014). Public library websites and social media. Computers in

Libraries , 34 (8), pp. 4-9.

Jootaek, L. (2011-2012). Gatekeepers of Legal Information: Evaluating and Integrating Free

Internet Legal Resources into the Classroom , Barry Law Review 17 (2), and pp. 221 –

242.


Palfrey, J. (2010). Cornerstones of Law Libraries for an Era of Digital-Plus. Law Library

Journal , 102 (2), pp. 171-189.

Saracevic, T. (2004). Evaluation of digital libraries: An overview. Presented at the DELOS workshop on the Evaluation of Digital Libraries. Retrieved November 4, 2015 from

30 http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/DL_evaluation_Delos.pdf

Saracevic, T. (2000). Digital library evaluation: Toward evolution of concepts. Library Trends,

49 (2), pp. 350-369.

Steele, J. & Greenlee, G. (2011). Thinking, Writing, Sharing, Blogging: Lessons Learned from

Implementing a Law Library Blog. Law Library Journal 103(1), pp. 113-123.

Wu, M. (2011). Building a collaborative digital collection: a necessary evolution in libraries.

Law Library Journal 103 (4), pp. 528-551.

Xie, H.I. (2008). Users’ evaluation of digital libraries (DLs): their uses, their criteria, and their assessment. Information Processing and Management 44 , pp. 1346-1373.

Zhang, Y. (2010). Developing a holistic model for digital library evaluation. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (1), pp. 88-110.


Appendix

31

WeslawNext is West Publishing’s product for law schools. Below is a brief sample of a search using this digital law library for those who may be unfamiliar with it.

Home page

Cases page with cases scope information pop-up box, which also functions as a disclaimer to accuracy and authority-two critical evaluative content criteria for digital law libraries.

Search on State, New Jersey, New Jersey Law Reviews & Journals, Seton Hall Legislative

Journal, Schinagl pulls up an article I wrote in law school.


The search results show that the article was cited twice, and this is a helpful and convenient feature that fits well with human information behavior research. Citation chasing is an information seeking tool preferred by many. Bates (1989) refers to this as “ Citation searching

(or "forward chaining"). One begins with a citation, finds out who cites it by looking it up in a citation index, and thus leaps forward.”

It is important to note, however, that a general search in Westlaw under “Schinagl” did not bring up any results. Nor did a narrowed search under states. Once I narrowed the search to New

Jersey, however, the article did come up.

Although certain features of WestlawNext are extremely valuable to the legal researcher, I am not sure that it is always worth its high cost given the ever-improving non-fee based digital libraries.


Ancillary Charges to View Documents on WestlawNext (out of contract) Retrieved from http://www.geeklawblog.com/2010/03/westlawnext-pricing-up-to-3400-per-hour.html

on

11/28/2015

Content

Category

Content

Examples

Per

Minute

Per

Hour

Transactional Document Line

Cases

state and federal cases

$13.33 $799.80 $13.00 $16.50 $.05

Statutes and

Court Rules–

State

state statutory compilations

$18.33 $1,099.80 $16.00 $16.50 $.05

Statutes and

Court Rules–

Federal

Administrative

Decisions and

Guidance–RIA

USCA®

Regulations–

State

Regulations–

Federal

state administrative compilations

Code of Federal

Regulations

Administrative

Decisions and

Guidance–State

state attorney general opinions, state workers’ compensation decisions

Administrative

Decisions and

Guidance–

Federal

decisions of the

Board of

Veterans’

Affairs,N.L.R.B., and E.E.O.C.

RIA’s State and

Local Taxes

Briefs

appellate court briefs

Secondary

Sources–

Journals and

Law Reviews,

Practice Guides, andJury

Instructions

Law reviews, state jury instructions, practice guides

$20.00 $1,200.00 $25.00

$15.00 $900.00 $16.00

$20.00 $1,200.00 $25.00

$15.00 $900.00 $20.00

$18.33 $1,099.80 $25.00

$41.67 $2,500.20 $46.00

$55.00 $3,300.00 $85.00

$33.33 $1,999.80 $30.00

$16.50

$16.50

$16.50

$16.50

$16.50

$16.50

$30.25

$16.50

$.05

$.05

$.05

$.05

$.05

$.05

$.05

$.05


Secondary

Sources–

Premium State and Specialty

Titles

Rutter Group publications,

Florida

Jurisprudence 2d,

Business

Transactions

Solution

$38.33 $2,299.80 $42.00

Secondary

Sources–

Premium

National Titles

Secondary

Sources–

Surveys

ALR®, C.J.S.®,

American

Jurisprudence 2d

$41.67 $2,500.20 $46.00

50-State Surveys $ 56.67 $3,400.20 $250.00

Jury Verdicts and Settlements

summaries of jury verdicts and settlements

$ 38.33 $2,299.80 $35.00

Pleadings,

Motions, and

Memoranda

trial court filings $53.33 $3,199.80 $75.00

Trial Court

Orders

Proposed and

Pending

Legislation

Proposed and

Pending

Regulations

court orders issued by state trial courts

$53.33 $3,199.80 $75.00

state session laws, text of current $15.00 $900.00 $16.00 bills

Federal Register, state administrative registers,text of pending regulations

$15.00 $900.00 $16.00

News Sources–

Basic

News Sources–

General and

Specialty

Publications

News Sources–

Premium

abstracts, archived publications

$11.67 $700.20 $10.00

newswires, regional newspapers, trade journals

$26.67 $1,600.20 $32.00

New York Times,

Guardian,

Euromoney

$30.00 $1,800.00 $36.00

34

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$30.25 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.05

$16.50 $.0

busness_termproj_final.docx

Related documents

Products

Support

busness_termproj_final.docx

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib