The bad boys of legal research, Ed Walters and Phil Rosenthal of Fastcase, are once again looking at unique ways to look at legal information and create new methods to cull that information. In the latest iteration, they have come up with a way to use an algorithm to identify court cases with negative treatment. They are calling this enhancement, “Bad Law Bot”, not to be confused with J.J. Abram’s movie production studio called Bad Robot.

The idea of algorithmically setting up a way to identify ‘bad law’ has been floating around since the idea of placing legal decisions in database began. When I was at the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s OSCN.NET, we dreamed of doing exactly this same type of identification of bad law, but simply did not have the technology, expertise, or guts to take on that challenge. Looks like Walters and Rosenthal are stepping up to the plate to take a swing at it.

Ed does list a couple of caveats, that should be expected when you use technology to replace humans on decision making processes like this:

  1. It’s an algorithm… thus the “bot” name
  2. If you see that Bad Law Bot has presented negative treatment, then that means there’s a good chance the case has probably been overturned, however if Bad Law Bot doesn’t show negative treatment, that doesn’t necessarily mean the case is ‘good’ law. You should double-check with Shepards or KeyCite.
Despite these caveats, the fact that Fastcase is willing to go out and present something like this to its users shows that they are ready to test the boundaries of what you can do with legal information, technology, Big Data concepts, and the guts to go out and actually do it.
Bad Law Bot is available starting on April 25th, and the press release from Fastcase is included below. Also, Ed Walter’s introduces the product in this two-minute YouTube video.
Fastcase Enhances its Authority Check Citator Service

“Bad Law Bot” Uses Big Data to Identify Negative History for Judicial Opinions

Washington, DC (April 25, 2013) – Legal publisher Fastcase today released an algorithmic enhancement to identify overturned or reversed cases in its Authority Check system – Bad Law Bot. Bad Law Bot uses algorithms to identify court cases that are cited with negative treatment and to alert researchers of a case’s negative citation history.

The Bluebook manual for legal citation requires that, when courts cite a case that has been overturned or reversed, they say so right in the citation. Judicial opinions, and particularly their citations, are full of this kind of “big data” about which cases are still good law. Bad Law Bot scours all of the citations in judicial opinions. When the opinions cite a case as being overturned, Bad Law Bot flags the case for Fastcase users, identifying negative history as reported by the courts.

“Fastcase’s Authority Check feature is already a very powerful tool for identifying whether your case is still good law,” said Fastcase CEO Ed Walters. “Authority Check includes data visualization tools to see the later history of cases, citation analytics and filterable lists of later-citing cases. The addition of Bad Law Bot, to help identify negative history, is a major step forward. This is the first of many additions to Authority Check that we’ll roll out over the next year.”

The new Bad Law Bot feature helps users identify negative treatment of the cases judicial opinions. However, because it only reports what cases say in citations, researchers should rely on Bad Law Bot as an aid to identifying negative history, not as a comprehensive guide.

Since 1999, Fastcase has been building smarter research tools for understanding the law. In 2012, the company launched eBook Advance Sheets available for the major eReaders (iPad, Kindle, Android, and Nook). 

In 2010, Fastcase was the first company to launch an app for legal research, and later, the first company to launch an app for iPad. The American Association of Law Libraries named Fastcase for iPhone the 2010 New Product of the Year. In 2011, Rocket Matter named Fastcase’s apps for iPhone and iPad the Legal Productivity App of the Year and the company furthered its mobile market presence by debuting the Fastcase for Android app in 2012. Lawyers on the go appreciate Fastcase Mobile Sync, which allows full integration of its mobile apps with the desktop version of Fastcase.

Fastcase has gained very strong momentum in the legal research market and continues to challenge the norm in legal publishing and legal technology. Fastcase was voted #1 in Law Technology News’s inaugural Customer Satisfaction Survey, finishing first in 7 out of 10 categories over traditional research providers Westlaw and LexisNexis. Fastcase has introduced new opinion summaries, Fastcase Cloud Printing, and has been named to the prestigious EContent 100 list of leading digital publishing and media companies alongside Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook for two years in a row.

For more information on the Bad Law Bot feature, visit the Fastcase Legal Research Blog at www.fastcase.com/blog and watch this video: http://youtu.be/ZsKu7FoO2Ns.

About Fastcase

As the smarter alternative for legal research, Fastcase democratizes the law, making it more accessible to more people. Using patented software that combines the best of legal research with the best of Web search, Fastcase helps busy users sift through the clutter, ranking the best cases first and enabling the re-sorting of results to find answers fast. Founded in 1999, Fastcase has more than 500,000 subscribers from around the world. Fastcase is an American company based in Washington, D.C. For more information, follow Fastcase on Twitter at @Fastcase, or visit www.fastcase.com.

###

The Legal Duck is a brand new, very exclusive, and extremely expensive restaurant owned and operated by Lena Dewey and Daniel Cheatom, two of the most successful attorneys in our fair city.  Last week, we sat down with Lena and Dan to discuss their new endeavor…

3 Geeks:   So, what inspired you two to try your hand at being restaurateurs?

Lena:  Dan and I were partners at DCH for nearly 25 years…

Dan:  We both made partner the same year.

L:  Back when we were associates, we realized that we were both passionate about good food. We dreamed about one day opening a restaurant together.

D:  A couple of years ago, Lena strolled into my office and said, “You know, Dan, I think it’s time. We’ve got the money. We’ve got the knowledge.  We’ve still got the passion for good food. Let’s do it.”

L:  So we went for it.

3G:  And you decided to go with a legal themed restaurant?

L: You know what they say, go with what you know, right?

3G:  A number of critics have faulted you for your unusual style. For instance, the average lunchtime meal at The Legal Duck lasts about 4 hours.

L:  When we set out on this journey we decided we would take everything we had learned from our combined 70 years the legal business and apply it to running this restaurant.

D:  We would provide only the finest foods, prepared by the finest craftsmen in the business.  Our Partners and Associates are artists, creating unique and wonderful experiences for our customers.

L:  Perfection takes time.

3G:  Which brings us to another complaint that I’ve heard about the food not living up to the promise.

L:  Really? Where have you heard that?

3G:  Michelin gave The Legal Duck their first ever 2 Negative Stars.

D:  Well, I don’t think their reviewer really understood the value that we are bringing to our diners.  We are exclusively focused on providing the greatest meals to the people with the biggest appetites.  We aren’t really interested in creating commodity food.

3G: Which raises an interesting point. Michelin seemed to believe that’s exactly what they were getting.

L:  In consultation with our service associate, the Michelin reviewer decided to have a simple sandwich, the “Big Mike”.  

3G: Yes, he described it as, “two grass-fed Kobe beef patties, a mild tomato and mayo spread, a sprig of romaine lettuce, gruyere cheese, thinly sliced gherkin pickles, Vidalia onions, all on a sesame encrusted brioche bun.”  Doesn’t that remind you of anything?

D:  It sounds like an amazing sandwich.

L:  Yeah, my mouth is watering.

3G: Changing the subject… You mentioned the initial consultation with your Service Associate.  Can you talk a little about the unusual experience of dining at The Legal Duck?

L:  Sure! You are greeted at the front door by our lovely receptionist and asked to take a seat in the waiting area. 

D:  We believe anticipation is a big part of an enjoyable dining experience, so we ask people to wait even if there are no other diners.

L:  Once you are seated, you are visited by our Service Associate, who asks you a few questions about the kind of meal you are interested in having. 

D:  The kinds of meals you’ve eaten before? Who you’ve eaten them with? Etc. 

L:  Exactly. Then she or he will take that information and do some research on the kinds of meals that other people in your situation have eaten in the past. The associate, will consult with a more experienced Senior Service Partner or two and together they will draw up a customized menu for your perfect meal.  

D:  Then the entire service team will seek advice from an expert chef on the best method for preparing your meal, presentation suggestions, etc. 

3G: You mentioned your chefs, but I understand that you don’t actually have a kitchen in your restaurant.

D:  That is correct.  We’ve determined that the actual preparation of the food can be accomplished more efficiently and economically off site.  

L:  We have subcontracted food preparation to an industrial food services company that primarily caters to major airlines.  We’ve found that they can prepare the food at a tenth of the cost that we could do it ourselves. We pay them ten times what the airlines pay and they give our meals priority.  It really is a win-win.

3G: But isn’t the preparation of food the actual service that you, as a restaurant, should be providing your customers?

L:  (laughing) No. We work in conjunction with our customers to design and implement the perfect meal for their enjoyment.  

3G: Which someone else makes?

L:  Yes.

3G: Uh…OK.  One final question: The average bill per diner for lunch at The Legal Duck is over thirty-five hundred dollars.  First, how is that possible? And as a follow up, how do you justify those prices?

D: Yes, I admit our restaurant is expensive.  But we provide unparalleled customer service and we stand by our work.  We have only had to sue a handful of our diners for non-payment.

L:  And thirty-five hundred is not so much when you realize how much work is being put into each meal. To produce the typical four-hour meal requires at least six hours of a Service Associates time at, let’s say, a hundred and fifty dollars an hour. Then each Partner is charging around three hundred an hour, Expert Chef’s don’t come cheap, maybe five hundred… 

D:  Yep, depending on the time of day. Then there’s the minor incidental expenses for the ingredients, the preparation, and of course, the delivery of the food.  Before you know it, it’s real money.

L:  But it’s worth it.

D:  Yeah, we couldn’t be happier.

A consultant recently asked “Are you making this decision for the firm, or are you making this decision for the club?” The question has stuck with me and it is one that I’ve asked others when it comes time to make decisions that are going to cause some people to have to change their habits. It is a pretty straight forward question, but there is a lot of meaning behind it. Do you do something that benefits everyone, and causes pain to a few, or do you do something that has little to no benefit for everyone, but keeps a few select people happy?

Whenever  hear something like this, I immediately think of the scene in the movie Office Space where there is a banner hanging over the staff that asks “Is This Good for the COMPANY?” The Draconian concept of stiffling innovation and individuality and relying upon following every rule and playing your part as a single cog in a great big machine. With “The Firm or The Club” question, however, I don’t think it falls into this “Is this good for the Company?” category. Instead, I think it allows for creativity and innovation and discourages the collective and blindly following the rules. In fact, I would say that this question gets raised whenever new ideas and innovation are shot down rather than when new ideas are accepted. Most times when new ideas are dismissed, it tends to fall under the idea that “we can’t do that because Partner X, who has been with the firm for 150 years, wouldn’t like it.”

So the next time you have a discussion about changing the way you are doing business, and the idea is challenged or dismissed, ask those making the decision if they are deciding upon what benefits the firm, or what benefits the club?

I watched an excellent presentation by Anil Dash to the Berkman Center at Harvard where he talks about the craziness of Terms of Service that we take as “law” and how there is already a massive civil disobedience being conducted by the youth when it comes to YouTube and copyright violations. He talks about searching for the words “no infringement intended” on YouTube and how he sees it as poetry. He says that youth are basically saying:

I’m not trying to step on your toes, and I know there is some reason I shouldn’t do this, but the world needs to see this video and I’m going to put it up. 

We all know it is going on. We all know that it is blatant copyright infringement. However, we tend to write it off as just a fad, or just something that comes with the technology advancement, and not actually thinking of it as a solid form of social disobedience where a large number (millions??) of people are taking action to show that they think that sharing the information trumps the rules/laws and they are just going to start breaking that law because they either feel it shouldn’t apply to them, or that their need to share is greater than their need to follow the rules.

After a long email thread with a number of my friends about the Lexis move to convert some of their publications to ePubs and eliminate the paper versions completely, I started to wonder if there is a similar revolution brewing in the library world. Librarians tend to be solid rule followers. They tend to follow contracts and terms of service to the letter and snap at those that try to skirt the rules. However, as the formats change and we are forced to accept those changes without some sensible alternatives, and as the contracts become more restrictive, or the terms of service become more limited, will there be those that begin to put their own version of “no infringement intended” on these services (for, they really can’t be called “products” any longer), and make them accessible to the people they need to share them with?? Will there come a group that says:

Look, I’m not trying to step on your toes, and I am paying a fair price for your product, but your actions are making it very difficult for me to get the content to the right people, and I’m going to fix that in spite of your rules.

Take a look at Anil Dash’s presentation (around the 56:44 mark it will start at the “Civil Disobedience” section.) This section only takes a few minutes to watch. I suggest that when you have an hour, to take a look at it in its entirety. There are a number of relevant issues that he addresses of how the Information Age is shifting, and many of us are not even realizing it.

Happy Library Week!! My thanks to Katie Brown for pointing out the Anil Dash presentation.

I just saw my first Auto-Reply text message for someone that is driving. At first you may say, “Greg, that’s a good idea, because I hate seeing people text and drive!” And, I would agree with you. However, my first experience of the Auto-Reply Text was actually via a Facebook post. I’m sure it won’t be the last time I see it, and I can tell you right now that I’m already annoyed by it.

AT&T’s DriveMode AutoReply, or Sprint’s Drive First are a great ideas. While you are driving, and someone texts you, it will automatically send out a reply like this:

AT&T DriveMode AutoReply: Thanks for your msg. I’m driving and unable to reply. I will get back to you soon. When it comes to texting & driving, it can wait

Again, great idea, but the problem with texting these days is that it is no longer just a plain text. People have many of their social media resources connected to their text messaging platforms, and the lines get blurred on what’s a text versus a post versus a status update. So, the simple idea of auto replying to someone that you are driving, and are being safe, really isn’t something that you need to put as a Facebook reply, or Tweet.

I know that it is all easily fixed by going in and changing your Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Blogger, Tumblr, Instagram, etc., etc., accounts to ignore those autoreplies. But, that can be quite a task, and almost as annoying as the autoreply itself, or even as annoying as this Dale Earnhardt Jr. commercial’s “But, who sent the text??” portion.

Remember: Don’t text and drive!! I’m tired of having to honk at you when the light turns green!!

Last week I went to Chicago to sit in on the AALL Executive Board’s Spring meeting. I also crashed a couple of TechShow parties while I was there, just for fun. During the Thursday morning stragegy meeting, the presenter, Paul Meyer, consultant with Tecker International, made a comment that resonated with me. Paul talked about the trap that members of a non-profit executive board fall into, especially one where there is a lot of member input and volunteerism involved. The trap is that whenever a suggestion or proposal is made by the members, the answer the Board has to the proprosal is never a “Yes/No” answer. Instead, the answer is:

“Yes/Maybe/WhatCanWeDoToFixThisSoWeWon’tHaveToSayNo”

Of course, I’m paraphrasing Paul’s actual statement. He went on to talk about why it is the resposibility of the Board to sometimes say No, and explain why we had to turn down the proposal (money, time and resources were the main contributors.)

It made me think back to last year’s PLL Luncheon when a consultant spoke about librarians never saying “No” to anything, but instead saying “Yes, we can do that is we have X number of Dollars, and Y number of People, so what can we do to get those dollars and people?”

I understand both consultants’ meaning here and know that the difference between saying “No” and saying “Yes, with conditions” is really determined by the audience to whom you are talking. The thought that’s been lingering around my mind over the weekend has been focused on whether many librarians are overusing the “WhatCanWeDoToFixThisSoWeWon’tHaveToSayNo” option and not using either the “No” or “Yes, with conditions” options at all? We do not like saying no, and we are not all that fond of saying yes, with conditions either. However, it would suit us well to brush off our “No’s” every once in a while because in order to be a leader, it is necessary from time to time to understand that leadership sometimes means saying no.

 

A couple weeks ago, Michael Robak guest blogged about his experience on Why ReInvent Law Was Not Just a ‘Preaching to the Choir’ Conference. There was, and still is, a lot of discussion on this Silicon Valley conference, both with the presentation model, and the content. Now you can see for yourself what all the buzz is about. The ReInvent Law Channel now has many of the six and twelve minute videos available for you to watch for free. Here are a couple of my favorites on the concepts of visualizing law (Joe Kelly), and who owns the law (Ed Walters.)

Image [cc] Highways Agency

The story goes something like this:

Sitting in a Partner’s office a few months ago, a research librarian was listening to the speech the partner was preparing to give the client.  Suddenly, the librarian ran into one of those moments where her own experience suddenly became very relevant. As the partner jumped through a specific legal issue, the librarian jumped in and mentioned that this sounded very similar to a recent case she researched for another attorney a few weeks back. It wasn’t a published case, but rather a trial issue that ended up settling out of court. Within a few minutes she emailed the trial documents she had saved from the original suit, and the names of the attorneys working on that matter. By the end of the day, the attorney contacted the client with a solid answer to how they would defend the client and the matter settled within the next few days. Perhaps the partner would have found a similar case as she researched the issues, but by being in the right place at the right time, the librarian’s experience pushed everyone in the right direction.

Similar stories happen all the time in law firms, and the keys to the success revolve around the processes of getting the library researcher out of the library and in the areas of the firm where the attorneys are working. The librarian wasn’t there to conduct training or talk about the latest legal research tools. She was there to listen. She was there to observe. She was there to learn. She was there to share her knowledge and add to the overall conversation. In most situations, she does not have to contribute directly to the meeting, but by being there, soaking in the information being relayed between attorneys, she may be able to contribute in the next meeting, or in an unrelated practice group meeting.

We’ve talked before about the Embedded Librarian model and the value that this type of structure can bring to the firm. In ways, it increases the ability to contribute to the strategy of the lawyers by having someone in the room with diverse experiences. That moment of happenstance when someone shares their seemingly unrelated experience and knowledge on the topic and can bring in a fresh perspective and approach on how to solve the issues at hand.

The situation is not the easiest to create. There are barriers to entry in many cases, and a history of how things are always done around the office. There must be a motivation on the part of the librarian to overcome that history and a determination of finding ways to break though those barriers. The ability to communicate, in all its various forms (listening, observing, analyzing, interpreting, and talking), in ways that contribute and add to the conversation can only happen if you are actually a part of the conversation in the first place. Happenstance can only happen, if you happen to be there and express your stance on the issue.

CANO Strategists shy away from the camera
Image [cc] justinmaier

Turns out that some legal bloggers are using a system of mentioning company names in order to boost traffic to their blogs. This strategy, known as Company Alert Name Optimization (CANO), takes advantage of companies like Thomson Reuters, LexisNexis, and BloombergLaw, including subsidiaries like BNA, CCH, Practical Law Company, Matthew Bender, and even smaller companies like Hein Online, Fastcase, Casemaker, and Jones McClure Publishing, all in the hopes that those companies have alerts that will funnel traffic set up by products like Google Alerts, WestClips, Lexis Publisher, InfoNgen, ShiftCentral, Eqentia, Manzama, Ozmosys, FellSoft, Vocus, Aurora WDC, or Digimind. The practice is pretty shameful, yet seems to work very well in drawing traffic from those monitoring their company or competitor brand names.

CANO isn’t just limited to company names. Some legal bloggers go as far as to name law firms by name. The bigger the better. So, AmLaw 100 firms like Baker & McKinzie, DLA Piper, Greenberg Traurig, Hogan Lovells, Jones Day, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Sidley Austin, Skadden, White & Case are all prime cases for CANO strategists. A larger list of firms that are commonly mentioned are listed below.

CANO strategists are extremely crafty in constantly finding creative ways of bringing traffic to their blogs. Some will even mention other popular legal blogs in the hopes that they are monitoring their brand. The Blawg100 Winners from the previous year are prime candidates for CANO strategists to use. Blogs like Legal As She Is Spoke, The Velvet Hammer, Divorce Discourse, Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, Lowering the Bar, IPWatchdog, Inside the Law School Scam, The Delaware Employment Law Blog, Koehler Law, Abnormal Use, Groklaw, SCOTUSBlog, California Corporate & Securities Law, and The Legal Writing Prof Blog are all creatively inserted in to blog posts that may or may not have anything specifically related to the topic of the post.

Beware of CANOs. Their name-dropping strategy may lure you onto their site, but once you’re there, you find out that the topics may not cover things like Gay Marriage Supreme Court arguments, or BigLaw Billable Hour Churning at all. It is simply a strategy to artificially increase webstats in order to drive advertising from companies like Google Ads, or Amazon, or Apple, or Bing. They go as far as to republish, or link out their CANO activities on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Tumblr and more.

So a word of warning to you on this April 1st, beware of the CANOs and their ability to mention company names that are not relevant to their blog posts. Some of the common names are list below:

Adams and Reese
Akerman Senterfitt
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Alston & Bird
Archer & Greiner
Arnall Golden Gregory
Arnold & Porter
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz
Ballard Spahr
Bancroft
Barnes & Thornburg
Becker & Poliakoff
Berger Singerman
Best Best & Krieger
Bingham McCutchen
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Bracewell & Giuliani
Braff, Harris & Sukoneck
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Bryan Cave
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Carlock Copeland & Stair
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Cohen Milstein
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Connell Foley
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz
Conrad & Scherer
Cooley
Cooper & Kirk
Cozen O’Connor
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Debevoise & Plimpton
Dechert
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote
Dilworth Paxson
DLA Piper
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles
Dorsey
Dorsey & Whitney
Drinker Biddle & Reath
Duane Morris
Fish & Richardson
Flaster Greenberg
Fox Rothschild
Freehills
Freshfields
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Fulbright & Jaworski
Ganfer & Shore
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Greenberg Traurig
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
Herbert Smith
Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas
Hogan Lovells
Holland & Knight
Horton, Shields & Knox
Horvitz & Levy
Jenner & Block
Jones Day
K&L Gates
Kabateck Brown Kellner
Kilpatrick Townsend
Kirkland & Ellis
Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
Latham & Watkins
Locke Lord
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Gold, Lazris & Discenza
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
McCarter & English
Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Morrison & Foerster
Nixon Peabody
Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus
Nossaman
O’Melveny & Myers
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Perkins Coie
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman
Proskauer Rose
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
Rawle & Henderson
Reed Smith
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
Robinson & Cole
Ropes & Gray
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
Saltzman Chetkof & Rosenberg
Seyfarth Shaw
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
SNR Denton
Sprague & Sprague
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
Stark & Stark
Sullivan & Cromwell
The Pagan Law Firm
Thompson Hine
Thorp Reed & Armstrong
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
White & Case
Williams & Connolly
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Winston & Strawn
Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor

I recently stumbled across a report, How College Students Evaluate and Use Information in the Digital Age, from Project Information Literacy (PIL). The report was published in November of 2010, based on research conducted in the spring of that year. Therefore, some of these students might be entering your firms this year as summer associates or have already joined your ranks in other positions.

The entire report is fascinating, but one particularly disturbing finding was about how these students use librarians, especially as compared to their responses from the prior year. In ranking “Sources used for Course-Related Research”, the students placed librarians second from the bottom (above Blogs) at 30%, down from 47% the prior year. When asked about their personal “Everyday Life Research”, the students ranked librarians at the very bottom at 14%, down from 33%.
I think it is fabulous that Librarians were listed as a “source” right along with Google and Wikipedia, and that as early as 2009, almost half of the students used librarians as a source. What isn’t so great is the 17% drop in just one year. 
What is also interesting is that PIL found in a 2009 study that the students do use the library, but just not the librarians or the services provided.

As a whole, the results suggested that students do, in fact, use libraries—but most of the respondents used library resources—not librarian-related services.

I happen to believe that law students, as opposed to undergraduates, do utilize the librarians as sources to assist them and that some of this does carry over into the law firm. However, it still feels like we are starting in a hole and trying to back-fill our way up to level ground. 
How can we get there? PIL offers a thought-provoking recommendation in the 2009 report:

Librarians should systematically (not just anecdotally) examine the services they provide…this may require looking at things through a new lens, if need be. Questions should be addressed about how and why services and resources are used—not only how often (e.g., circulation or reference desk statistics)…At the same time, we recommend librarians seriously question whether they are developing a set of “niche services,” which only reach a small percentage of [users].
 

The recommendation that we examine the “how and why” we do what we do is absolutely key and one that we need to be able to answer in a way that makes sense to management and clearly demonstrates value. So take any statistics you are currently gathering and add in this component. It might make a big difference.

Colleen Cable is a Library Consultant for Profit Recovery Partners bringing the “consultant angle” to Three Geeks.