I’ve been hearing that there is a new “spooky” website out there called Spokeo that is freaking people out about how much information this site can find about you using just your name or email address. According to the website Smarterware:

Spokeo is the new people search engine that’s freaking users out, because when you “spokeo” yourself there’s a good chance you’ll find your home address, phone number, interests, gender, occupation, wealth level, marital status, photos, and more. 

So, I jumped out there and attempted to search on my name, email, and phone numbers and it was creepy to find how awful the results were. Apparently, I don’t exist on any of these social networks that Spokeo indexes. This really surprised me, because I’m not exactly very protective about my identity on social networks and I expected at least something back. But what I got was NOTHING!! I even tried to see if any of my co-bloggers showed up… again, NOTHING!!

As someone that has written about the wealth of personal and company information that is out there on social networks for competitive intelligence research, I’m highly disappointed in the hype behind Spokeo that doesn’t seem to be warranted. If you want to find information on someone, leave Spokeo off your resources and do a simple Google search instead.

Joe Hodnicki, over at the Law Librarian Blog, pointed out post from Ryan Deschamps blog (The Other Librarian) where Ryan challenges librarians to personally rebut the 10 reasons he lists why librarians cannot claim professional status. Ryan’s list of ten reasons is thought provoking, and meant to be a little over-the-top, but does note some of the challenges that librarians face when defending their profession. He’s received nearly 100 comments on his post (some of which go through a point-by-point rebuttal), so he’s definitely hit a nerve with librarians. As many of you may remember, I recently modified a Will Rogers’ quote and said that “I’m not part of any organized profession… I’m a law librarian.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge that librarians face is that we are such a diverse profession that it makes it very difficult to throw a rope around what we do and how we are defined. The term “librarian” has been watered down so much that it could mean one hundred different things to one hundred different people. It would be like defining the term “teacher” and placing everyone from “Sunday School Teacher” to “College Professor” under that term and asking everyone to justify “teaching” as a profession. I almost hate to reprint the list of ten reasons here, but here they are…. I’ll discuss a few of the “professional librarian” issues following the list:

  1. Librarians Have No Monopoly on the Activities They Claim
  2. There are No Consequences For Failing to Adhere to Ethical Practices
  3. Librarianship is Too Generalized to Claim Any Expertise
  4. ’Librarian’ Assumes a Place of Work, Rather than the Work Itself
  5. Peer Review in Librarianship Does Not Work Because There is No Competitive Process to Go With It
  6. Values Are Not Enough
  7. The Primary Motivation for Professionalization is the Monopoly of Labor
  8. Accredited Library Schools Do Not Adequately Prepare Students for Library Work
  9. Competing Professions Are Offering Different Paradigms to Achieve the Same Goals
  10. Nobody Can Name a ‘Great’ Librarian

When Ryan says “Professional Librarian”, that narrows the field down, at least in my opinion, to those who have a Masters’ Degree in Library Science (MLS, MLIS, etc.) and work in a specific area of librarianship. I’ll take specific issue with reason number three above that Librarianship is too generalized to claim expertise. My expertise is “law librarianship”; I have a MLIS and a JD (as do about 1/2 of those who are members of the American Association of Law Libraries – AALL); I work as a law librarian in a law firm, and; my expertise is in legal research and knowledge management. However, all of these are ‘voluntary’ skills and accomplishments, as there are no laws, regulations, or ethical requirements that prevent anyone that happens to work in a library, regardless of qualifications, to hold themselves out as a librarian.

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of this discrepancy is the fact that the Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington does not have a Library Degree, nor was he ever trained as a professional librarian. Billington has done wonders for the Library of Congress since his appointment in 1987, but the fact that he’s done great things does not diminish the fact that the highest post in the country with “Librarian” in the title is held by someone that is not a professional librarian. This would be like appointed someone that has never been a lawyer to the US Supreme Court. There’s no law preventing a non-lawyer from becoming a US Supreme Court Justice, but it has never happened. I could be wrong here, so correct me if I am, but I believe that the Librarian of Congress has always been a “political” position and has never been held by someone with a library degree.

I’m being a little unfair in this example, as Billington’s position is primarily one of obtaining funding and essentially being the equivalent to a Chief Operating Officer (COO) of a large organization. To be a COO in a law firm or accounting firm does not require you to be a lawyer or accountant. But on the other hand, COO’s of law firms or accounting firms don’t take on the title of ‘lawyer’ or ‘accountant’ either. Therefore, this tends to advance reason number four above that ‘librarians’ assume a place of work (the library), rather than a profession.

There are a number of valid issues raised by Ryan and his list of ten reasons, so I’m only scratching the surface with this post. I’m pretty confident that I could personally defend why I hold myself out as a professional librarian while admitting that the profession (especially through its professional organizations) needs to do more to enhance the reputation of the profession. Although it is frustrating to work in a profession that is constantly being asked to defend why it is still relevant in the age of Google, I still love being a law librarian and continue to do my part to keep the professional relevant and vibrant in this exciting time of ever expanding access to information.

Today’s my last day in New York and I’m ready to get back to Houston where the bathtubs don’t sit in the middle of my living room, surrounded by two walls of plate glass windows, overlooking a park full of joggers. As I mentioned earlier this week, a few bloggers were asked to come to NYC to take a fresh look at Wolters Kluwer (WK) IntelliConnect product and give them some feedback about what we thought about it. I’ll give a more in-depth review later, but I did want to make some comments of what I thought about the people I met with yesterday. 

The meeting was held on the WK training floor, there were four bloggers including me, and about eight or nine WK folks. After a short introduction and an overview of the product, we started having a real conversation about what was good, what needed fixing, and where the product and market were heading in the future. All of us seeded to have had some lightbulb moments throughout the day where some of our preconceived notions were challenged and most of us walked away at the end of the day a little better understanding of each other. 

Wolters Kluwer is going through a transition right now where it is attempting to move away from being a ‘holding company’, to one that is integrating all of its different acquisitions into one platform.  As many of us remember, WK’s IntelliConnect had a number of problems on its initial launch last year, and has been scrambling to regain its footing after stumbling out of the gate. I specifically  asked them if they understood the image problem they had from some of its users, and they all said that they do understand that, and that was one of the reasons they asked us to be there.

One of the notions I had to overcome was the fact that IntelliConnect is not a legal research tool in the same way that Westlaw or Lexis is designed. IntelliConnect is designed for ‘power users’ in specific legal practices. It was interesting listening to the conversations between the bloggers telling WK that they need to make changes in the interface to work in a way that younger associates expect their online research to look and feel. At the same time, WK kept coming back at us with the fact that the product was developed to work the way that their advanced users wanted… And that was to make it more like using the books than using online research. That brought up the question that none of us could find a simple answer to, and that was how do you balance the needs of researchers that on one end of the spectrum are traditional treatise-in-the-books kind of researchers versus the incoming Google ‘give me a search box and let me go’ type researchers? That seems to be the $64,000 question… Which is probably how much this bathtub in my hotel room costs.

Tom O’s post on “Proportionality” solidified an idea I’ve been contemplating. Tom’s post is on reducing the cost of ED. He quotes from Craig Ball, who says the market may be paying 5 times too much for ED.
So here’s where my idea comes in. What if you went to a law firm or ED company and said, “How can you deliver a service for X% less?” First off, the answer can not be “We Can’t.” This is an exercise to see how you can. Of course, there’s a chance you might not be be able to, but the point is going through the exercise.
Further to my idea – what if a law firm asked the same question about one or more of their services. I think the exercise would be very enlightening. It goes to Bruce M’s post on Quality and what is “good enough.” The exercise will highlight 1) What doesn’t need to be done, 2) What needs to be done “good enough,” and 3) What still needs to be done the same way (e.g. excellent or superior). Another consequence of this effort will be the focusing of technology resources towards a business goal (versus addressing yet another tech need). Ultimately this approach should reduce the price to the client and the cost to the law firm. If done right, it will also improve the margin for the law firm.
This exercise – IMHO – will lead to the hard questions about law firms restructuring. Instead of talking about leverage, billables, alternative fees and compensation as if they are the ends, they will become the means to a successful business model.
It’s way past time for law firms to engage in this exercise. What have we been waiting for?

A year and a half ago, I wrote a post that discussed all the benefits that Twitter had over traditional listservs. I’m still a big advocate of Twitter and how much information I can gather in a short period of time, but listservs still may be the King of social networks when it comes to communicating with a professional network. I learned this first-hand this week when I asked for some help from my fellow law firm librarians.

I’m flying up to New York this afternoon to meet with the programmers, sales reps, and marketers for CCH’s IntelliConnect product. CCH, part of the mega-legal-vendor Wolters Kluwer (WK), has asked a few law bloggers to come meet with them, review the product, give them some feedback about their product. [note: WK is paying for the flight and hotel room, and six-months subscription to a couple of IntelliConnect databases … and hopefully dinner!!] I’ll blog about the experience next week and let you know about my meeting with this group, and what I think about the product. The biggest problem that I had was the fact that I’m really not a power-user of IntelliConnect (although I do use it, and my firm has a significant subscription with the product in the Health Care area). In order to bone up on my ability to come to New York prepared to ask the tough questions, I turned to the Private Law Librarians listserv for help… and the help poured in!!

Within minutes of my sending an email to the list explaining what I was doing, I received about a dozen or more responses listing out problems and suggestions that my peers would like me to bring up while I’m there. Some of the issues were simple requests, while others pointed out significant issues that they had encountered with the product. Thanks to the folks on the listserv, I go to New York better prepared to discuss the product as a representative of not just a blog… but as a representative of a community of professionals that still monitor the 20th Century social networking tool called a listserv.

The experience reminded me of why I loved listservs years ago, and why they are still very relevant today. So listservs, please accept my apology for thinking that your importance in the professional social community was coming to an end. Although other social networks may try to replace you, you are still one of the best resources out there for gathering feedback from a network of people with a common interest.

As recently as last Friday, I made the claim that the legal profession is in a Buyer’s Market for legal services. I’ve even made the same statement here at 3 Geeks. Pondering over the weekend got me re-thinking that assertion. After an enjoyable dialog this morning with Jordan Furlong on a range of topics, I mentioned this concept to him. Talking over it further solidified the idea in my mind. We’re not in a Buyer’s Market right now. Lawyers are in a plain ole Competitive Market.
In its simplest definition, a Buyer’s Market is one that has more sellers than buyers. Looking at the legal services market – has there been some big shift in the number of buyers or sellers recently? No. There has been a downturn, but that’s not the same as a shift in the basic equilibrium. Numerous reports have shown that the seeds of the current situation for law firms were sown a few years back, but only recently came to roost. For a number of reasons firms have for years been able to raise prices without much regard to the market. This is no longer the case.
My main point is that since we are not actually in a buyer’s market, instead of tactics focused strictly on price competition, we should be contemplating survival in a competitive market. My prior blog post noted above on Change Happened, argued that we are in the ‘New Normal.’ For law firms this new normal means that in addition to dealing with rapid technological change, we must now learn how to function in a competitive market. This means being innovative, efficient and effective, pricing competitively (hourly or AFA) and focusing on the right markets and service lines. This is, in the words of Karl Polyani, the time for The Great Transformation of the legal market.
My suggestion: Keep you hands inside the car at all times. This is going to be one big thrill ride.

I am sure that by now that all of you have at least checked out a virtual conference. Yeah, they are kinda goofy but it is an easy way to learn about vendors and hear some great webcasts without leaving your desk chair. Well, the other day I was being interviewed for a news story–okay, sorry for the little bit of self-promotion but hey if I don’t toot no one will (err …)–I started going off on one of my new favorite riffs: virtual court rooms. I was telling the reporter that I could envision a time, maybe in a 100 years, when we will have virtual court rooms. Juries will log into the courtroom. The lawyers will present audio, video and documentary evidence virtually. Judges will be able to preside without having to wear those black robes. Just think of the ramifications: jurisdictional issues, jury selection, proving up evidence. The technological issues of cross-examination, objection, recording and preserving a record. Would it eliminate the need of court reporters? Would create a need for court room technologists? Which raised another thought for me today: if we could have virtual court room, why couldn’t we have virtual law firm partner retreats? Frankly, I don’t think the large law firms would go for it. They love seeing each other and swapping war stories. The golf games, the spa time and the clay shoots. But it is already happening on the corporate side. Investor Relations reported that more and more companies are choosing to hold virtual annual meetings. So maybe it will happen in my life time.

Well, at least now we can assume we know where a lot of those 132 jobs at Banks-Baldwin are going to wind up. According to the Philippine Business Mirror, Thomson Reuters Legal (TR Legal) is using its 275 employee Taguig City, Philippines office as a launching pad. According the article, the Filipino office will be where the “data are processed, codified, proofread, analyzed and validated by Filipino employees and packaged as products for the customers in print, digital or online format.”

Outsourcing to India and the Philippines is not new, even for TR Legal. I did find it interesting to see the wording that TR Legal COO Vin Caraher used when describing what they are doing.  Caraher said that this office is “not legal outsourcing. We’re hiring and training them as our employees.” Granted, this is not legal outsourcing, but the semantics of the discussion are probably pretty hard to hear from those at Banks-Baldwin who are watching their jobs go to overseas offices. It’s also got to sting when they also read from Caraher that TR Legals expansion in the Philippines “reflects our commitment to growing our capabilities in the Philippines. The work being done at this site by our highly skilled and talented team is critical to our global content operations, and in supporting legal professionals around the world.”  John Elstad, Senior VP of Legal-Editorial Operations, seemed to go a little further in his comments than TR Legal usually does when discussing the work performed at its off-shore operations by saying that they don’t just gather data, but analyze the data and “add value to it.”

It seems that legal editorial work has gone the way of manufacturing and is making its way out of the United States and off to India and the Philippines. Again, not a shocking statement… we’ve all watched this trickle away for years now. This is just one more chapter in the ever shrinking legal publishing market, and the race to find the cheapest labor pool. Perhaps the good new will be that will all the savings that TR Legal is getting through moving positions overseas, perhaps we’ll see a drop in the price of their products?? If not, then how are we, the customer benefiting??

This week has seen a great string of blog posts that discuss the relationship between Librarians and Knowledge Management professionals. I’m going to give you a reading list below (read them throughly, there will be a test!). As I read through these posts, a slightly morphed quote from Will Rogers kept popping into my head… “I’m not part of any organized profession. I am a Law Librarian.” Let’s face it, the term “Librarian” can bring up a range of legitimate categories that others place us in…  from “book shelvers” to “catalogers” to “researchers” to “collection development’ers'” along with a dozen or more other categories. As Mary Abraham states, “Consider that 25 years ago, an information professional was a librarian and during the last 15 years, knowledge managers have become the information professionals du jour.”

The title of “Information Professional” or “Knowledge Worker” is no longer owned by the library, and I think this frustrates a lot of librarians (myself included) whose talents for managing information bleeds over into the area of what is perceived now as Knowledge Management. The area that Nick Milton’s graph identifies as the “Explicit Knowledge” (that information that is created and organized within the firm) is where the battle seems to be taking place. But, I agree whole-heartedly with Nick and Nina Platt that KM and Libraries either stand together with a common goal and take advantage of the talents we each bring to the table, or we all get marginalized.

KM and Librarians are all under the pressure of “taking the human out of the process.” The biggest strengths for both of us is the human analysis we bring to what we do. Many of the powers-that-be think that they can slap a Google Search Engine on some huge internal database and magically organize all the data that flows in and out of the firm. Both KM and Librarians are walking on the edge of a very sharp sword where we have to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of how we organize and manage information (external and internal), while at the same time being asked to look for ways that automation basically reduces the number of people we need to do our jobs. That’s a tough job to do when you’re working together… fighting over that sliver of turf in the middle makes it that much harder.

Reading List:

  • Reflection on KM and Libraries in Law Firms
    When the library is under the KM folks, the library tends to be marginalized.
  • Librarians vs Knowledge Managers?
    How much [library marginalization] was due to difficult personalities or bad management?
    Is there something in the law firm “caste system” that makes it challenging for lawyers and non-lawyers to work together?
    Do librarians respond differently than knowledge managers? If so, is this due to personality type or training?
  • KM and Content Management, The Turf War
    Either [KM & Libraries] sit in one team…or we have two teams but with a common framework and aligned strategies. We don’t fight each other, as this puts both content management and KM equally at risk.
  • Content Catalysts
    [I]n an effort to shift the conversation, I’d propose to expand the roles available for information professionals.   What if we were to add a new category:  Content Catalysts?
  • Musings on the Librarian’s Role in Knowledge Management in Law Firms
    I have always said that librarians will be employed in law firms for a long time to come and have never been too concerned with those who have been painting a darker picture.  Lately, I’ve been doubting my stand on this topic and have been become more and more concerned with our future.
  • Catalog Content Not People
    At the end of the day, it’s critical to know what work needs to be done and then assign the right people to the task based on their talent, experience, temperament and inclination.  That is a far better approach than to match people to tasks on the basis of labels or stereotypes.
  • Knowledge Managers, Librarians, Practice Support, and Business Analysis
    My guess is that in a decade, BigLaw will have more clearly defined business process experts and analysts and a range of practice support professionals. Some of the them will do KM and library work; some will be KM professionals or librarians.

A couple weeks ago, Bob Ambrogi (who has a great looking new site, by the way) reviewed Paper.li, a resource that creates a newspaper-like result out of specific Twitter accounts. Paper.li, or “Daily on Twitter” as they call it, does some pretty cool things, including automatically categorizing tweets into topics (Technology, Travel, Health, Crime, etc.) The resulting page also has embedded video and pictures, which partially satisfied my need for “The Daily Prophet” type interaction. I have to say that I really like what I’ve seen so far, and have a few “advanced features” that you might want to test out for yourself.

About six months ago, we reviewed another Twitter-To-Newspaper site called Twitter Times. I still use it almost everyday in order to catch up with those folks out there that I follow. Right off the bat, however, I noticed that Paper.li offered some advanced features that Twitter Times doesn’t (create a paper based on a hashtag “#” for example).

Make Use of the Hard Work of Others (The Work Smarter, Not Harder Approach)

First of all, you can “Daily on Twitter” someone else account. Why would you want a “Daily on Twitter” of someone else’s Twitter account? One obvious reason is that there a some people out there that have a very focused use of Twitter.  Say they only follow what Law Firms are tweeting; or the only follow topics of politics; or they only follow issues like technology or health. With Paper.li, you can take advantage of all their hard efforts and have a daily synopsis of what issues they are discussing or reading.  Let me give you an example of how this feature would work using the topic of “Health”.

The first thing I’d want to do is look at Paper.li’s “Health Topic” page to see who the “big players” are that already have a “Daily on Twitter” set up. Right off the bat, I found someone that fits the profile I’m looking for by the twitter name of @hxjournprof.

I click on her “Daily on Twitter” feed, and I narrow that down even more by going to the “Health” section of the paper and clicking the “Health” link to take me directly to the health section.  Right away I see this is a gold mine of Health Topic information and I book mark this page to return to later. If I wanted to, I could actually have Paper.li send me an email notification (via the “notify me” link) letting me know when the page has been updated (usually every 24 hours).

How great is that??  I’ve just taken advantage of all the work that an expert in this particular topic has compiled (hope you didn’t mind, Christy!!), and now I have a quick and easy way of keeping up with all that information in one handy place! I think my Dad calls this the “work smarter, not harder” technique. One thing to remember is that the topics are limited, and are automatically generated.  This means that you don’t have a great amount of flexibility, and things tend to get mis-labeled based on the limitations of Paper.li’s taxonomy algorithm.

Create a Newspaper Focused on Particular Twitter Accounts


This approach is something that can be really useful if you set it up correctly. Let’s say that you want to create a Daily on Twitter newspaper based solely on law firms that use Twitter. What I did was set up a separate Twitter account (@amlaw100) and followed a bunch of active law firm twitter accounts. I cheated by going to some twitter lists that I knew of, and just went through and followed the active firms. Within a few minutes, I had about 70 firms that I was following. Then I went back to Paper.li and created a “Daily on Twitter” of law firms. Easy as pie! Now I have a single page I can go to and easily read what the law firms are tweeting about. It’s a nice looking format, and I can share it with others if I wanted… like I’m sharing it with you right now!!

Limits of Paper.li

  • Paper.li is still in Alpha testing, so they could actually pull this at any time, or completely re-write how they set up the results. So don’t get upset if either of these happen, as that’s part of “Alpha testing”. 
  • You’re limited to 3 “Daily on Twitter” papers that you can create. This is based on you giving Paper.li access to your Twitter account… if you have more than one Twitter account, each one can have up to three.
  • Paper.li cannot index “private” Twitter accounts (make sense to me.)
  • Topics are limited and controlled by Paper.li
  • Results are automatically indexed under topics based on Paper.li’s taxonomy, and a lot of results can be mis-labeled, or simply not placed under a topic at all.
Even with all of these limitations, Paper.li definitely has some use for people that like their information in an easy-to-read and easy-to-access format. I highly recommend that you go give it a test drive and see if it is something that you find as useful as I do.