Yesterday, the 3 Geeks all got together for a Twitter-style interview hosted by MH Connected‘s Alin Wagner-Lahmy. Although it is hard to get a serious answer out of Toby, Lisa or me, there was something that Alin asked that made me think of how I monitor the enormous amount of information that comes in via “social media” sites. Alin wondered how we find the time to monitor all of the information coming at us via social media sites. My response was that I simply stand beside the river of information with the hopes of catching something good as it swims past. Although, I specifically called it the “river of Twitter” it could actually stand for anything that is Social Media related.

I’m actually pretty lucky in that as a law librarian, my job is to “fish” the river of information at my disposal and pluck the right piece out of that river and turn it over to the appropriate person at the right time. Sometimes, through the addition of analysis, I get to clean and fry the information I caught and serve it as a meal. This isn’t anything new for librarians or research analysts. We’ve been doing this for a long, long time now. The thing that is new is the format of the information, and the vast quantities of raw information that is available.
At one time, the information was limited to the stream in our back yard — books we owned in our library. We would stock this stream ourselves with a few select breeds based on what we absolutely needed to feed ourselves. Occasionally, we’d fish in our neighbors’ streams when we desired something that we hadn’t stocked in our own.
When the information went “electronic”, we decided that the stream in our back yard just wasn’t enough. We needed to fish in the big lake that was stocked by others and we’d buy the rights to pull certain types of information as much as we wanted. We’d also be able to fish for other types of information, but we’d pay a substantial price for it. While we were still stocking our local stream, over time we began reducing the diversity of the information, relying more and more on what we could pull from the big lakes we paid to fish in. It was expensive to fish for information this way, but it was stable, dependable, and we understood where we needed to fish in order to get certain breeds.
Lately, there is an ocean of social media information that we’ve started fishing in. That ocean is stocked for free by millions and millions of people, and very little of it is something we need to catch. However, there are isolated areas in that ocean that contain some of the information we truly desire. Tasty bits of exotic information that you’d pay a premium for in the lake, or even types of information that aren’t even available to stock in those lakes and streams you’ve been fishing for years. The problem is finding the tasty pieces of information in an ocean that is mostly stocked with the inedible type. This is where your experienced information fisherman are most valuable.
Just as you would hire a local guide when you travel to an unfamiliar river, pulling information out of the social media ocean takes experience, patience, and the ability to know what can and what cannot be pulled from that ocean. One of the key things to remember is that this ocean is not a replacement for your local stream or lake. Instead, it is just another place to fish for information. An experienced information fisherman will understand when to fish in the local stream versus going out to the ocean; when it is better to pay a fee at the lake to quickly find the right type of information versus gambling on catching fresh or exotic information that may be found for free in that ocean.
The information stocked in the ocean of social media is diverse and plentiful. But, that doesn’t mean that everything is edible… actually, far from it. So, be wary of those standing beside the ocean that say everything you want is found in the ocean, because it’s not. Also, beware the salesman beside the lake that say he can stock whatever you need in the lake, because he cannot. Nor should you attempt to live only on what you’ve stocked in your local stream. You’ll find that catching the same breed of information over and over again can become stagnating.
There is value in each of these fishing locations, none of which completely replaces the other. The key is in expanding your information resources without forgetting what is stocked in each.


I thoroughly enjoyed Steve Levy’s ITLA web seminar this Monday on Legal Project Management. Of course the subject of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs) came up and the inter-connection between them and legal project management was discussed.

A noteworthy point from Steve was the need to focus on outcomes. He highly recommends that any legal project developed a thoughtful ‘done’ statement which clearly describes what it means for the project to be … done. By doing this you focus your resources (inputs) on getting things ‘done.’

To illustrate the point Steve shared a classic economics story about how the Soviet Union measured success by the amount of inputs being used and not by the outcomes. Factories were rewarded for using materials (inputs) instead of supplying needed products (outcomes). His point is that trying to change outcomes by tinkering with inputs is not a good approach. If you want a different outcome, start by re-defining that, not by fiddling with the inputs.

To their misfortune, law firms reward inputs. And you get what you reward – in this case billable hours. Although clients are rightly upset with this situation, they are equally culpable as they focus their attention primarily on hourly discounts and lower billing rates as a means for changing the outcomes.

If clients truly want to change this situation, they should follow Steve’s advice and shift their attention to outcomes. Tinkering with rates and hours may save a little money in the short run. But if they truly want to change things, lower their costs and drive value, clients will need to sit down with law firms and redefine their outcomes. Happily there are some exceptions and good examples for clients who get this. But the vast majority are currently content to ask for discounts and rate freezes.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Clients and law firms would do well to heed the advice of Steve Levy to focus on outcomes and in the process avoid the insanity described by Mr. Einstein.

I think I can speak for all 3 of us when I say, “Thanks, ABA, for recognizing we 3 Geeks and A Law Blog in its Third Annual ABA Journal Blawg 100.” And a big thanks to all of our readers, commenters and followers. Every time someone interacts with us, we each get a little tingle up our spine and it makes it all worth while. And like hungry little Pavlovian mice, we want to win your affection all over again. All I can say is that it is a pleasure to serve our readership some of our tidbits, much like a cook enjoys serving up his culinary creations. I’m not sure that we are serving anything of true nutritional value–it may only be ballpark food. But, hey, half the fun is just being in the game. Like Toby said to me today, we’ve come a long way since that lunch a year and a half ago when we were saying to each other, “I wish we could just keep talking about all this legal technology stuff all day. This is the fun stuff.” And has it been fun!

[Note from Greg: And if you love us… I mean really love us, vote for 3 Geeks as your favorite Legal Tech Blog!! Although we are soooo much more than just a ‘legal tech’ site!]

It seems that Toby and I have a few extra dollars in our pockets, and we wanted to test some more Crowdsourcing Projects. Back in May, we did a 5 Part Series on Crowdsourcing and had some fun testing out different projects using Amazon’s MTurk Crowdsourcing service. We thought we’d test the value of Google Scholar Legal Opinions & Journal (SLOJ) using a Crowdsourcing Project . This time we’re not only asking our MTurk workers to do most of the heavy lifting, but that we’d also like to outsource the topic of the project to our blog readers. We are the ultimate Delegators!

If you have a project that you think would make a great add-in legal research Crowdsourcing project, put it in the comments below. Remember that the best Crowdsourcing projects are those that ask the workers to perform specific tasks that result in specific results. For example, let’s say I wanted to pull a list of URL’s from the new Google Scholar Legal Opinions & Journals site that match the cases in a volume of a law reporter. The project would first identify all of the cases within that reporter, then submit that list to the worker with instructions to search Google SLOJ, identify the specific case, then cut and paste the URL into the appropriate answer box. This type of one question, one result project works very well with crowdsourcing.
The type of projects that don’t work with crowdsourcing is the one question with many answers project. For example, if you asked the workers to search Google SLOJ to find every 2009 case in New York that deals with Eminent Domain issues, that doesn’t work very well because you’ll either have to assign one person to do all the work, or assign multiple people to do the same work over and over again. To make this type of project work, you’d first need to identify each of the cases dealing with Eminent Domain, then ask the worker to do something specific for each one of these cases. For instance, you could have them read the case then summarize the court’s decision. Or, you could have them identify specific information within the decisions such as who the attorneys are, who they represent, and which party the court ruled.
Now that you see the guidelines for submitting a Crowdsourcing project, let us know what you’d think would make a great Crowdsourcing project for Google SLOJ. Toby and I are ponying up the money for this project, so it won’t cost you a thing. We’ll compile and post the results right here on 3 Geeks.

Now that I’ve had a weekend to play with two different variations of the new Chrome OS (reviewed here), I have to say that I’ve got a lot of mixed feelings about Google’s attempt to jump into the operating system arena. One of the feelings I felt this weekend was completely unexpected — Déjà vu.

In 1995, I was working my way through law school as a programmer/analyst at the university’s main library. One of the projects we worked on that year was rolling out IBM’s OS/2 Warp as our new operating system, replacing Windows 3.1 — Windows 95 hadn’t been released yet. One of the issues we had was what to do with the “Public Terminals” that ran the library’s catalog, web based CD-ROM programs, and Netscape Web browser. The answer we came up with was a “browser only terminal.” So when I booted up the new Google Chrome OS as a virtual desktop, I couldn’t help but become nostalgic for my project from 14 years ago.
Many of the ideas that Chrome is developing now, we tried back in 1995.
  • Everything runs through the browser
  • Any new databases or resources were developed to run via the browser
  • Security on the computer was handled on the remote server
  • Files were stored either on an external source floppy disk (now USB) or on the server (now ‘cloud’)
  • Upgrades to the operating system were handled through remote patches
  • No programs could be loaded on the local computer (OS/2 would hide in the background)
Eventually, our grand plan of running everything through the browser failed. IBM didn’t support OS/2 very well; the demand for Windows 95 programs became too much to deny the students; and, too many companies that we obtained our library resources developed stand alone programs to run their products, rather than web based programs. I think we were probably too ahead of our time to make such an idea work.
They say that everything old is new again. The idea of running an operating system through a web browser is not new and there will still be the same difficulties that we found back in 1995. I don’t think that the Google OS will be a Microsoft, or Apple (or any OS out there) ‘Killer’. But, with Google’s name attached, maybe… just maybe a portion of the public is ready for a web browser only interface to the online world.

Whenever I mention “The Cloud” to my IT/KM friends, I usually see the hairs on the back of their necks stand up and a flash of anger cross their faces. Up until yesterday I assumed that the general dislike of “The Cloud” was one born out of instability and lack of security issues. In fact, here is basically the arguments I get when I ask about law firms using Cloud based applications:

  • law firms don’t like, nor trust storing their data on the “cloud”… with good reason
  • “cloud” based apps are difficult to manipulate and configure to the firm’s individual needs
  • firms will never put confidential data on the “cloud”
  • firms will never put items that have high integrity needs on the “cloud”
  • data that need high availability and flexibility to access that data will never be put on the “cloud”
Usually I can get the IT/KM people to say that it is possible that data that doesn’t fit any of the needs listed above can go on the cloud and can be a cost savings to the firm.
But, when I attended the Virtual LegalTech presentation called “The Challenge of Preserving and Collecting Evidence in a Cloud”, I heard one of the presenters say something that made me think that my IT/KM friends may have other fears of the cloud. Craig Ball, Jeff Fehrman and Tom Morrissey mentioned that many firms are already using “cloud” apps (think Web Mail) and that it isn’t a matter of if the cloud will host more applications and information, but “when and who will hold that information.”
It was the “who” in that statement that made me realize that when applications like email servers and CRM applications go to the cloud, a fundamental structuring change will need to happen with our technology departments. No longer will application support personnel be needed. Instead, we will need high-level contract negotiators to craft the contracts between the firm and the companies providing the services. The “Cloud” may outsource an entire level of IT jobs currently held at law firms.
Just think of the effect that jettisoning your Outlook email system in favor of a web based application like a hosted GMail service. If you don’t need employees to monitor the email, update the software, and service the hardware because all of that is being maintained by the host provider, then why keep these employees? If I’m a Partner at a firm or a Chief Information Officer in charge of budgeting, I’m going to look at this option to see if it will save me money. And, on the surface it seems that if I can get rid of Outlook, my Exchange Server, the hardware to support the system, possibly the Blackberry Exchange Server, plus one or two employees?? I’d do it in a minute… if there were no security or availability issues.
The ‘Devil’ on my right shoulder starts to put two and two together and wonder if my IT/KM friends are also seeing this effect of the “cloud” and playing on the basic fears that the law firm leadership has about putting any information or resources outside the physical reaches of the firm?? Meanwhile the “Angel” on my left shoulder shouts that I’d better listen to my IT/KM folks and not be such a ‘greedy bastard’ (he’s a little foul mouthed angel) in trying to save money while exposing my firm and its information to all kinds of access, security and ethical risks.
I’m probably being over simplistic in my example, but this type of argument is probably going on right now. Cost versus Security… Cost versus Access… Cost versus Risk…. Over time, it seems that the cloud based infrastructure is going to close these holes and create a much harder argument for technology departments to win.

Being a female lawyer has a few perks: the money can be good, the prestige can be great. But as the saying goes, it is lonely at the top. I started thinking about all of this after my esteemed colleague, Toby a/k/a @gnawledge, passed me a dating site for lawyers. He’s heard a number of of my weirdo dating tales as a single female lawyer.

So, with some trepidation, I signed on to www.datelawyer.com. After joining, I immediately noticed a high sleeze factor: players (pronounced: play *yuhz) are clearly obvious. Some of the screening questions include: 1) are you a millionaire? If so, how big of one? 2) what is your occupation—and lists homemaking. Hey, wait a minute! This is a sham! I want my money … oh, wait, its free. Whew. Thank goodness I gave my junk e-mail address.

Over the years, both my sister (she is a solo IP attorney) and I have learned to not tell the men that we meet that we are lawyers. It either intimidates them or little dollar signs start flashing in their eyes.

Or, you get the Zorro types who look upon you like you are some sort of Catherine Zeta-Jones who is ready to duel. And the battle of wits turns them on.

Sadly, if you are like me and don’t like to argue, it is fun for a little while but then it just turns into constant bickering. Blah. What kind of fun is that? And then they sulk when the debates are over and you’ve defeated them.

Then there is the other strong female role model: Mrs. Brown. If you don’t remember the movie, Queen Victoria, played by Judie Dench, has her own devoted manservant, John Brown, who pledges his undying allegiance. Then he dies. Although I could live with that, I am not sure any man out there loves me that much—one divorce has already proven that to be true.

So I yearn to create a new model, one where contracts are made, promises are kept and men and women are respected for what they both bring to the table. Sigh. A real Boy Scout. Although I am no Angelina Jolie, perhaps the new role model is Mr. & Mrs. Smith?

Just watch your back.

Many of you have probably seen the Tweets going around this morning about how Google Scholar has entered into the legal research arena. I have to say that I’m initially thrilled with the idea that after 15 to 20 years of legal vendor consolidation, that we may actually be on the cusp of reintroducing some serious competition.

With major players like Google, Bloomberg and even the ABA jumping into the online legal research arena, the big boys (Westlaw and Lexis – or collectively known as “Wexis”) should be, as one of my esteemed colleagues puts it – “soiling their pants right now.” Of course, I’ve mentioned in the past that pushing out case law is one thing, but adding value and authority to those works is why we keep Wexis around. There do seem to be some attempts at challenging the Wexis authority, especially from Bloomberg (via adding their own headnote system), and through the ABA Federal Opinion Summaries.
It seems that Erik Gerding over at The Conglomerate has been anticipating the competition by asking the questions:
  1. When will Google take on Bloomberg?
  2. When will either take on Lexis and Westlaw?
Perhaps Erik can look back in his crystal ball and let us know how this will all pan out.
There is a lot of buzz and excitement going around in the legal research field this morning about the Google Scholar announcement. Internet for Lawyers put out this review of the new Google Scholar resource. Carl Malamud even jumped in with a comment about how well Google Scholar is citing the Federal case law.
Although we are just at the beginning stages of all of these resources, it is nice to see a little competition coming back to the online legal research world! I, for one, welcome it!

Last week, Toby and I dove into the clean waters that is know as Google Wave. I say that it is the “clean” waters of Google Wave because most people I know have barely stuck a toe in – and most of them immediately pulled that toe back out.

There has been article after article of how Google Wave is going to replace email; that Wave how email would be if we could start all over again; how Wave better to communicate via Google Wave for conferences rather than Twittering about it; or, that Wave ‘Gadgets’ are going to be the iPhone ‘App Store’ of the future. From what I’ve seen so far… it is a whole lot of chatter by a bunch of dreamers, and very little actual success.

I’ve sent invites to some of my technology co-workers and friends only to be told that they simply do not have the time to mess with such a product, or have absolutely no interest in trying to learn Wave. I even tried to get some interaction going last week by creating a Wave to monitor the Journalism and New Media Ecology conference being held at Yale Law. I had two people join in, and one of them was my co-blogger, Lisa. Either people were not interested in the conference topic (which I doubt), or the struggle of understanding how to use Wave in an effective way was too much of a hurdle for most people to try to jump over.
The reason for the lack of success so far has been two-fold:
  1. Google Wave looks like it is still in Alpha testing phase, much less the Beta testing it is claiming (think Linux, pre-1999)
  2. Simply not enough people are engaging the product or each other
I’m usually a big supporter of Google, and I like a lot of what they have done over the past few years in expanding the Internet to include actual applications rather than just information retrieval. But, let’s face it, this isn’t the first time that Google has attempted to replace desktop business applications with cloud-based products (Gmail, and Google Docs) with varying degrees of success. Both of these products are “good” products, but neither have exactly caused Microsoft’s Outlook or Word to become obsolete. It seems like Google Wave might be following the same path as the Google Docs products — great personal programs, but not ready for the Enterprise Level.
Here are some of my suggestions:
  1. Open up more invitations (there are just too few people in this test… and most of them have participated very little)
  2. Stop with the 80 minute presentations on how Wave is so cool, and give me 3 minute “how-to” videos
  3. Navigating through a Wave has to be more intuitive – if you are not glued to the Wave screen, it is too hard to understand what new items have been added since you last visited the Wave
  4. Make Wave Gadgets (Apps) easier to find and use — if the Gadgets are the future of Wave, then make it easy for me to find and use them!!
  5. The “Search” portion of Wave is horrible!! For God sakes, Google… you’re a Search Engine company…. make the search portion as easy as it is on Google!!
  6. Allocate more power to the back-end of Wave — Wave is becoming slow… and getting slower. Try going through the “playback” function on a Wave that has a couple of hundred different communications in it. When I have… I find it to be extremely S L O W ! ! !
Wave is a great idea that is wrapped in a frame of confusion. Google has succeeded in the past by making products that are simple yet effective for the person using it. With Wave, so far at least, it accomplishes neither.
I’ve been thinking about my fantasy search engine would look like, and somehow when I saw this Miller Lite commercial it hit me on what I want my search engine to do. Watch this 30 second ad… then stay with me as I explain….
Until the guy raises the beer, it looks like an e E-Harmony commercial, right?? That’s what got me thinking.
[Note: Suspend your ‘privacy’ fears for a few minutes and think that you are living in a ‘perfect world.’ After all, this is why I called this my “fantasy search engine.”]
If taking a long survey like e-harmony helps connect you to those that fit your personality, can’t something like that be set up to find the news, web pages, and other content that best fits your needs?
There could be an actual “survey” conducted (for the sake of simplicity, let’ call the product “E-Googley“), but a long survey could be supplemented by:
  1. indexing your Twitter (and other social media) posts, the URL’s you post on Twitter, and who you choose to follow on Twitter (and any other social media that is relevant to your search preferences like LinkedIn, MH Connected, etc.)
  2. indexing your blog (if applicable)
  3. submitting any personal writings you’ve done
  4. embedded cookies that follow your browsing preferences (sites that you bookmark, or go to without being prompted from an RSS feed or other reference point)
  5. ranking of items returned in your results (kind of like the Pandora “thumbs up”, “thumbs down” ranking… simple, but effective
Taking all of this information should help the magical E-Googley system start to weight the results you get from your newsfeeds, readers, web searching, etc. – PLUS should start suggesting new items that you should follow and what existing items you should drop off your lists.
Here’s the catch phrase:

E-Googley – We’ll help you find “the one” you need now… and keep a look out for “the one” you’d like to meet later.

This week, Bing added support from Wolfram Alpha, and Google added data from the World Bank to help improve the “data” is supplies for the search results, but I want these search engines to not only work on the backend data, I want it to get to know me better and the kind of results I want to meet. I’m sure with all the cash that Google or Bing has (although e-Bingley doesn’t seem to have the same ring to it..) either could pony up a few million for the E-Harmony survey algorithms and make my dreams come true of a search engine that is truly “The One.”