Fastcase is releasing an iPad version of their free legal research app (currently available on the iPhone), and announced the launch on Jeff Richardson’s blog iPhone J.D.  Currently you can download the iPhone app to the iPad and run it in the 2x mode, but it is still an iPhone app and looks strange on the iPad’s large screen format.

I’ve gone to the Apps store to find this updated version, but it doesn’t appear to be released as I’m writing this. So, go over to iPhone J.D. and check out the information that Fastcase’s Ed Walters gave to Jeff. (Or, Legal Geekery’s review… really Ed?? Where’s the love for 3 Geeks??)

A couple of weeks ago, I talked with some of the folks at Wolters Kluwer, who are also releasing a new version of their IntelliConnect interface (Web-based… not iPad based… yet!) and one of the comments that caught my attention was that they are also releasing an iPhone enhanced browser-version (as well as Blackberry) for IntelliConnect, but are waiting on creating the iPad app version because they don’t see it as a “larger iPhone version”, but rather as a unique platform that calls for a unique approach on producing applications. The “tablet” computers that are coming out are really changing the way information providers (legal or otherwise) are presenting their information. Even the WestlawNext developers are excited about the tablet interface revolution that is happening. Although it appears that the new Fastcase App isn’t set to take advantage of all of the advantages you get from the iPad (larger screen, touch functionality, etc), Fastcase is doing a great job of being “first to market” for their product.

Maybe Ed Walters will let us give the new platform the “once-over” before releasing it to the public!! (hint, hint!!)

Google Scholar is adding a new feature that allows researchers to conduct a search within the documents that cite to a specific case. This takes its “cited by” function up a notch by allowing you to limit the search to cases or secondary resources that have all cited the same document. I got a note from Google Scholar’s Chief Engineer, Anarag Acharya this morning that laid out some of the details.

Just a quick note to mention that earlier today we added the ability to search within citing articles to Google Scholar. This has been a popular feature request 🙂 It allows you to search the complete text of the set of articles/cases citing a document, It can also be used to limit the results to citations from specific jurisdictions (via the dropdown on search pages or the advanced search page).
A blog post describing this with examples and an illustration is at the Google Scholar Blog

It’s a pretty simple addition, but one that may assist researchers in narrowing the amount of information they need to search in order to find what they are looking for.  Here’s a snapshot of the new feature:

It seems that the handful of folks at Google Scholar are still listening to their users. So, if you have any further suggestions, you should contact them through their suggestions page.

Over the past few days there’s been a number of good posts on the programming at AALL and comments on what some members would like to try differently in the future. I know that there are many AALL members that probably feel that the AALL Executive Board and the conference programming committees have been “picked on” by the criticism and suggestions (and maybe they have), but to look at Catherine Lemann’s response, you see that she and the other members have been paying attention, and compiled an excellent FAQ webpage that lays out, in great detail, the processes they took as well as other answers to questions that have been floating around the blogosphere this week.

This type of proactive, honest and detailed response is exactly what AALL leaders needed to do. Notice that this wasn’t put out to stop the discussion, but rather to put facts out in order to keep the discussion going. Some of the vendors that snap back at critics with answers like “there’s a lot of misinformation floating around” as a way of deflecting issues, could learn a thing or two from the actions taken by Catherine Lemann and others at AALL.

Go check out the FAQ… it has a lot of great details on the process along with some other information that members have been asking about.

Here’s  Catherine’s note to the members of the Private Law Libraries listserv:

There have been a lot of great online discussions taking place among AALL members about how to make the Annual Meeting even better, especially its educational content. This discussion is wonderful to read, because it underscores how active and invested our members are in the law library profession and in AALL.

It is important we challenge each other to make things even better, so we can continue to develop our skills and gain knowledge from each other. I, and the rest of the Executive Board, have been listening and reading and thought more information about how the current process works would be beneficial to the discussion. So we have worked to put together an FAQ to answer some of the questions that have come up in these conversations. I hope you will find this information helpful. We welcome the discussion and your input. Thank you for your commitment to AALL and your colleagues in the profession.

Catherine Lemann
AALL President

I also like the section of the FAQ that asks:

What are the top three things I can do to ensure that programs meet my needs?

  1. Propose a program.
  2. Work closely with your SIS’s Education Committee.
  3. Always respond to AALL surveys which solicit member opinions and ideas.

AALL is successful because of the involvement, enthusiasm, and creativity of you, its members. AALL strongly encourages you to volunteer to help support the professional needs of your law librarian colleagues.

One of my friends (who also happens to be a Westlaw Rep) mentioned that she had some clients that were confused when I discussed “Cost Recovery” in the past:

They are on flat rates, and are small 3 or 4 atty firms….so they were relieved to learn that oddly enough, usage has nothing to do with their pricing and they can use the fire out of it without raising their bill. I was relieved to see that you explained that in the update – thank you!. In my world, 100% of my customers have flat fee subscriptions, and they read your column too. It provided me a wonderful opportunity to explain how their plan works, but the situation was eye opening to me. 

First of all, I’m thrilled that her clients are reading my blog (or is she just saying that to kiss-up??… oh well, either way is great!) Second, I should warn anyone that reads this blog that we have a terrible slant toward how things are done in BigLaw. Toby’s not as bad at is as I am… but, it’s kind of what we know.

I thought that I’d put together a short little presentation that describes the basics of cost recovery (at least in some big firms.) I created this in PowerPoint, then converted it to video using PowerShow.com. The conversion caused a few timing issues, but for a freebie… I’m not complaining! (okay… I’m now complaining. Unfortunately, PowerShow’s presentation is an “auto start” “auto repeat” process that is apparently impossible to turn off, so I’ve embedded the presentation from authorSTREAM instead.)  If for some reason you can’t see this because your IT department seems to think that “embedded video” = “porn” … then you can download the presentation by clicking here. Again, it is a very, very basic overview of how firms recover the cost of Westlaw or LexisNexis searches, but sometimes basic is what we need.


[Guest Blogger – Tracy Thompson-Przylucki]

I’ve given a lot of thought to the issue of Annual Meeting programming almost since my first meeting in 1997. I can recall in my first few years of attendance hearing my more senior colleagues express dissatisfaction with the programming, the scheduling, the no-conflict limitations, etc. As I newb, I was still absorbing so much I couldn’t imagine what they were lacking. But now (and for a few years) I find myself in the same boat. I want to be part of the solution but so far the exact formula for Annual Meeting nirvana eludes me. I still really enjoy the Annual Meeting and wouldn’t miss it for the world, but I’d be thrilled to see some disruptive change, some risk-taking. Even if it failed.

I don’t have any transformative suggestions, but I do have some observations. First, less is more. I’d like the Annual Meeting to be less of a mad dash and more of an opportunity to really connect with our colleagues, vendors, etc. A time to reflect, consider and absorb. Recently, especially since it’s been shortened, the AM feels frenetic and fractured.

Second, AALL (or any organization) just can’t be all things to all people. They have to maximize their resources to approach a Benthamesque balance; the greatest good for the greatest number. There will always be some of us who need/want more.

Third, taking these two points into account, I’d like to see LESS programming (throw eggs and hiss here), limited no-conflict times, and that lost day returned to the schedule (with no programming or exhibit hall on the last day). AALL could facilitate meetings (members sign up for the space they need) on the final day (SISs, committees, working groups, ad hoc groups, chapters, etc.) so that members would have the opportunity to get some of the real work done without conflicts.

I know that the number of programs will always be an issue. I just don’t think we need 6 or 8 programs in one time slot. Maybe 4? And rethink the tracks?

Perhaps (thinking out loud)

  1. New Professionals (<5 years) 
  2. Mid-career Professionals (5-10 years) 
  3. Advanced Professionals (10-20 years) 
  4. Mentors (>20 years). 

Or

  1. Law Library Administration and Management 
  2. Law Library Services 
  3. Technology in Law Libraries 
  4. The Future of Law Libraries and the Profession. 

Are you thinking about all the reasons these won’t work? How about thinking about how they (or others) could work?

I like the approach of crowdsourcing as some part of the selection process (perhaps not definitive) that someone suggested. This puts some of the responsibility on us as a collective. Remain unengaged at your own peril!

When I’ve inquired about the shortened schedule I’ve been told that it was largely a response to PLL members’ needs for less time away from their offices. If that is truly the case (could be urban legend!) front load the meeting with PLL content as much as possible to give those folks the flex they need.

Of course, AALL is a business concern. If they take big risks and fail, they risk losing us, their members and their lifeblood. So all of these comments are offered with one eye on that reality and an all too familiar understanding of the challenges membership organizations face in meeting members’ expectations, especially in this economy.

The first big mistake made on reducing legal fees was the focus by clients on rates and hourly discounts. We have previously talked about the value of this approach. Lower rates do not directly correlate to lower fees. Admittedly hourly rates have some impact, however, lowering unit costs without talking about number of units will have a marginal impact on costs at best.
The Next Big Mistake
Now we’re hearing a lot of talk about the level of associate salaries (especially first years’) and partner compensation from clients and client communities. Although it is not said quite this directly, clients are wanting to see published associate salaries and PPEP (profits per equity partner) numbers go down. Clients seem to be saying “When your comp goes down, that means I’ll truly be saving money.”
Thinking lower first year salaries or lower PPEP numbers will mean lower fees is yet another mistake. On the surface it may sound like there is a direct connection between lower fees and lawyer compensation, however this is not the case. To illustrate this point, consider that giving business to less profitable vendors of any type does equate to savings. In fact it has an equal or better chance of resulting in the opposite.
Taking a higher level view of this trend, I can see its source. In-house counsel have had issues with billing rates and outside counsel comp for years. So when internal pressures rose to decrease legal fees, the first two things in-house counsel would address are rates and comp.
My advice to clients: If you want to impact legal fees, focus your conversations on fees. I can appreciate the frustrations with rates and comp, but you should move past those and shift your attention to the real issue – Fees. I also appreciate that fees and cost savings are a new and challenging aspect of your job. Facing these issues head-on will be the least painful and most effect approach, in the short and long run.

[Guest Blogger Mark Gediman]


Since my post last week (A modest proposal), I’ve discovered that I’ve hit a nerve.  I’ve received several off-the-record responses as well as a few blogged ones, the most recent of which was from Caren Biberman this morning.  I have to say that several things have become apparent to me:

  1. I’m not as “connected” as I thought I was.
    I was unaware of the reports and decisions referenced by Caren in today’s post.
  2. There are quite a few PLLers who feel disenfranchised by the current programming at the Annual Meeting
  3. I have trouble seeing how a registration rate of less than 7% of the PLL membership in the pre-meeting Summit can be pointed to as a positive.
  4. Out the 100 people register for the summit, how many are attending the meeting? This to me would be a telling statistic.
  5. Over 1000 viewings of the post, but only 6 comments.  Hmm…

So, to address each of these:

  1. Why isn’t there better communication between AALL and the membership? Every posssible avenue should be used:
    AALL email list.  
    If it works for the President’s Letter, it can work for these kind of hot topics.
    SIS and Chapter listservs
    My experience with blogging has shown me that only when you let the widest possible audience know do you truly have a meaningful dialog.
    SIS & Chapter Leadership
    These are the people who are more closely connected to the membership, whether geographically or through their library.  Shouldn’t they be utilized more effectively?
  2. This is truly disheartening and should be a major concern for AALL.  The membership of the single largest segment of the association should be made to feel a part of the group.  The consequences of not being inclusive would result in a splintering of AALL, an eventuality no one would like to see.  I have made lasting friendships at the Annual Meeting with people from across the country and across disciplines.  
  3. I’m happy that over 100 people have registered for the Summit, but that means that about 1400 people didn’t.  The question we should be asking ourselves is “What can we do to bring more people to the Annual meeting?”
  4. Relating to 3, how many of the 100+ are sticking around?
  5. This appears to be the “Third Rail” of AALL politics.  Everyone wants to change but very few are willing to speak up.

My suggestion is just one possible solution.  Tracks are not by their nature exclusive.  People will remain free to choose to attend programs that match their interests, regardless of SIS affiliation.  The purpose of tracks is to ensure that needs of each group are being met.

Perhaps the AALL Business meeting in Denver is the proper venue to bring this discussion into the open.  I think that any discussion that has the success of the Annual Meeting and, above all, the Association as its goal is inherently good for the organization.

Marketing is not a bunch of random acts of marketing.

After reading Kim Rice’s blog on “How Can Law Firms Help Their Lawyers With Marketing?”, I just had to chime in.

The science of marketing, which is a combination of accounting, economics, statistics, management and, now, online technology, is a complex and fascinating field to which professionals have dedicated years of study. It is the science of trends—of both people and businesses.

May times I have seen law firms treat marketing as the party-planning crowd: drafting and re-drafting invitations like they are legal documents, creating fancy brochures (online or otherwise) and dreaming up one-off seminars.

But on some occasions, I have witnessed a few firms that have created an admirable alliance between marketing professionals and law firm leadership. Together, they create a firm vision, establishing a marketing plan to achieve that vision and then executing a strategy for its achievement.

This is terribly hard to do. It requires law firm leadership that respects the science of marketing and values the benefits that good marketing can reap. It requires a legal marketing professional that knows how to explain the importance of a marketing plan, then build a team that will execute that plan on a daily basis. Sometimes it requires the strength to say “no” to attorney requests that don’t fit into the firm’s vision. And sometimes it requires a leader to stand up for these decisions.

Marketing isn’t random at all. It’s a war.

A couple months ago we wrote a post about “Inefficient Westlaw Searches Causes One National Firm to Hold Mandatory Training for Associates”. Well, the firm that took on this challenge was Dykema, and I think that they took on an issue that most firms need to address. Pat Orr, Dykema’s Manager of Library Services, was nice enough to follow up with me on the training and give me the ability to share her comments with all of you.

Greg

It’s hard to believe that 2 months have passed since our ” Westlaw Legal Research Best Practices at Dykema” sessions.  As promised, here is the full story.

Our Chief Operating Officer has an executive assistant; a partner transitioning into retirement.  That partner works as a liaison between the practice groups and the COO, particularly for expense review; chalk it up to the economy.  One of the most successful partners was shocked by the cost of a Westlaw search,done by an Associate. He started an email discussion in the Litigation Group which quickly reached the exec assistant partner. Three of the most successful partners in the firm quickly joined in.  All three are avid Library users.  I’m happy to say that it wasn’t long before everyone recommended “Get the Library’s help.”

The decision to not include the Westlaw reps was based on a couple of issues.  The partners wanted all Associates to feel free to ask any questions they wanted and not feel stupid.  They knew the Librarians would give specific examples to illustrate each research tip.  The partners also wanted us to be able to cite specific firm policies, possibly something more sensitive in nature- which we might not do with a vendor present.  We have a great relationship with our Westlaw reps. They knew the decision wasn’t a criticism of their work.  In fact, they helped us write the program.

We divided the program into 2 parts. I spoke about the subscriber agreement, and how it really isn’t a flat-fee contract despite what your billing attorney may tell you.  The reference librarians addressed the specific tips, and how they do a search in Westlaw.  We had more than a dozen questions, and took the time to give detailed answers.  We wanted to be sure that each question got a clear answer.

Of course, it was a big success: attendance was 100%. (Remember, this was a mandatory program. Attendance was taken- food was served!)   As I review the monthly search reports out of QuickView, I can tell that the effort paid off.  We also had feedback from both partners and Associates.  The partners want this program to be mandatory for summer associates, and for the fall associates- even if it’s a repeat for them.  Associates are calling us for guidance before they start a complex project.
We use some of the material as part of orientation for lateral hires. 

My thoughts are that Dykema is a trailblazer in the area of making sure that Associates use resources efficiently. Although it may seem extreme to make all of the Associates attend mandatory training, it really shouldn’t be seen as extreme at all. USING RESOURCES LIKE WESTLAW OR LEXIS IS EXPENSIVE… TURNING UNTRAINED ASSOCIATES LOOSE ON THESE RESOURCES IS IRRESPONSIBLE!!! The first training slide in the presentation lays out the fact that the firm does not have a “FLAT FEE CONTRACT” with Westlaw… and that the firm is charged for each and every search conducted. The idea of a flat fee contract is a holdover from the Associate’s law school days, and it is one of the most difficult things that the law firm librarian has to break in the Associate’s head.

In the presentation that Dykema presents, it lists out 17 points that help the Associates become better researchers. None of the 17 points are earth shattering ideas… but, if you’ve never been trained, or you’ve gotten sloppy in how you conduct research, it was good to be reminded of these simple ideas. It lists the “do’s” and the “don’t’s” of research and specifically lists some things to stay away from (e.g., 50 State Survey Reports at $250.00 a pop…) But perhaps the best slide came with the idea of “Talk to the Experts!!” The slide points out that there is no additional charge for contacting the Westlaw reps or research attorneys for help… it also points out there there are experts on staff in the library that should be contacted as well. I’m glad to see that these points were taken to heart by the Associates and they are now contacting the research experts in their library before jumping into a complex project. That alone shows the benefits that Dykema is reaping from requiring all of its Associates to attend the training.

I give all of those at Dykema that are responsible for initiating, conducting and following up on this training a big round of applause for showing the rest of us the need that exists and a way to take on the challenge through educating those that need help. I hope that all firms learn from this and start working on their own training sessions to improve the way their Associates conduct research.

I love the last slide in the presentation… which dovetails nicely with the Einstein image above. Remember: it is called Research for a reason.


[Guest Blogger Mark Gediman]


Scene: A dark room, the only light coming from two guttering candles sitting on a large weathered wooden table.

Seated around this table are several hooded figures.  A black velvet bag marked with arcane symbols sits in the center of the table.  One of the figures stands and addresses the group:
“OK, here’s the next submission.  Ready? Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock!”
This is how I picture the AALL program selection process.  
The recent blog post from Caren Biberman (“Some thoughts on Programming at AALL“) clearly expressed the frustration that Law Firm librarians are feeling, and let’s be honest, have felt for years about the program offerings at the AALL Annual Meeting.  
I believe that there are a few factors at work here:
1.  A greater percentage of the active members of AALL are from academic and government institutions.  This can skew the program selection process due to a having a different set of priorities rather than a desire to discriminate against one group.
2.  Firms are tighter with professional development dollars, limiting attendance at these meetings.  A librarian commented to me yesterday that she couldn’t use the program offerings to show her firm how it would help her be an asset to the firm.  Instead, she had to use the intangibles of networking, vendor contacts and new products that might be useful to the firm.  A much more difficult case to make.
3.  As someone who has submitted several programs over the past few years, I can tell you first hand that AALL has the most difficult program submission process of the major legal associations.  This definitely has a chilling effect on submissions.
Here is my modest proposal:
I think the annual meeting programs should be organized as tracks broken out along the lines of the major SIS’s (PLL, Academic, Courts & Govt) with an extra track for law librarianship, cross-disciplinary programs (i.e., “How to get published”).  The National Online Meeting and the ILTA Annual Meeting are organized along these lines.  This would allow the individual groups to determine the programs that best meet the needs of their members.  It would also get away from offering programs that may be skewed toward one group but isn’t readily apparent from the description. The audience that a program is geared to would be obvious from the track it is in.  For example, budgeting for firm librarians is a completely different process than it is for academic or government librarians. 
The PLL Summit this year is an attempt to address this need.  However, the time and additional cost for housing and admission are barriers for firm librarians to attend.  If the Summit were folded into the Annual meeting, it would give the firm librarians something that they could show their firms to better justify the expense.  I think implementing this could also result in increased attendance for this group.
I’m all for being inclusive.  I’m thankful to AALL for providing me with a venue to connect with colleagues from across different libraries as well as from across the country.  I think that anything that brings more people to the Annual Meeting is good for both the profession and the Association.