Definition of algorithm : 

noun al·go·rithm ˈal-gə-ˌri-thəm  – a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer

When I attended the WestPAC Law Librarian meeting in Jackson Hole, WY a couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to sit in on 
University of Colorado Law School’s Susan Nevelow Mart’s presentation on legal researcher’s reliance on algorithms for online legal research. Susan’s presentation discussed her SSRN Paper entitled “The Algorithm as a Human Artifact: Implications for Legal {Re}Search” where she breaks down the algorithmic affects of Westlaw, Lexis Advance, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Ravel Law, and Casetext. 
The key thing to remember, says Mart, is that we “need to remember that the algorithms that are returning results to them were designed by humans.” That includes all the “biases and assumptions” that come with the human experience. In other words a little bias and assumption on the part of the people developing the computer algorithms can cause dramatic changes in the results produced with similar content and search terms. As a researcher, Mart states that it is important that we “acquire some expertise about the technology at the meta-level.” How can you trust the results if you are not familiar with the way the tools are designed to index, search, and retrieve those results? The problem with this argument is that most legal research providers don’t want to reveal very much about the processes that go on behind the scenes to pull those top 10, 25, 50, or 1000 results. Mart is calling for more “Algorithmic Accountability” from our legal databases in order to help legal researchers better understand the biases present in the retrieved results.
Mart’s paper and research behind it attempt to test the different legal research databases on same search terms and same data content, and evaluate the results to see where results overlap and differ. The experiment wields results that are, in Mart’s words “a remarkable testament to the variability of human problem solving.” The top ten results from each resource showed very little consistency, and “hardly any overlap in the cases, and only about 7% of the cases returned were in all six database results. That low of a return rate should cause a bit of a shudder to run up the spine of legal researchers.
What is a researcher to do in this day and age of very little Algorithmic Accountability? First, researchers need to call upon these database providers to give us more detailed information about how their algorithms are set up, and the technical biases that result from these rules. Mart states that “the systems we use are black boxes,” that prevent us from understanding how these technical biases skew the results of our searches. “Algorithmic accountability will help researchers understand the best way to manipulate the input into the black box, and be more certain of the strengths and weaknesses of the output.”
Until we better understand the processes that go on in the background, researchers today should expand their searches, and use multiple databases in order to reduce the effects of technological bias. Mart explains that, “[t]he uniqueness of results may show something about the world view of each database that suggests that searching in multiple databases may be the 21st century version of making sure that multiple authorial viewpoints are highlighted in a library collection’s holdings.”
Within the SSRN paper, Susan Nevelow Mart presents the findings of her Empirical Study and breaks out the results by:
  • Uniqueness of Cases
  • Relevance
  • Relevant and Unique
  • Number of Results Returned by Each Query
  • Age of Cases
The different databases have individual strengths and weaknesses in each category, and the results, read as a whole, back up Mart’s suggestion of searching multiple databases. Until legal research providers begin to open up their black boxes and adopt more Algorithmic Accountability, researchers will need to expand our own legal information literacy with a better understanding of how each database compiles, categorizes, indexes, searches, and prioritizes the results. Hopefully, Mart’s research, and pressure from lawyers and researchers will help push these providers to shine a little more light into their algorithmic black boxes.

[ed. note – Updated at 11:30 CT to include Ravel Law as part of the databases reviewed by Susan Nevelow Mart. – GL]

One of the best features that Lex Machina provides for Intellectual Property attorneys is their increased accuracy of information pulled from PACER. The improvements that Lex Machina has made on Cause-of-Action (CoA) and Nature- of-Suit (NoS) codes entered into PACER make it an invaluable resource to clearly identify relevant matters and weed out irrelevant cases. By improving the data, Lex Machina reduces the “garbage in – garbage out” effect that exists in the PACER database.

Now Lex Machina has turned its focus on cleaning up another annoyance found in PACER data, as well as many of the other platforms that pull data from PACER. The Attorney Data Engine analyzes the PACER information and identifies the attorneys that are actually associated with the case, even if those attorneys do not show up on the attorney list via PACER.

I talked with Karl Harris, Vice-President of Products at Lex Machina, a couple weeks ago, and he gave me some insights on the new Attorney Data Engine, and how they are increasing the accuracy of identifying attorneys and law firms that are actually working on the cases filed through PACER. Karl mentioned that in New Jersey and Delaware, two very important states when it comes to Intellectual Property cases, only about 54% of the attorneys that work on the cases, actually show up in the PACER information. That means that nearly half of the attorneys are missing from the metadata produced by PACER. When accuracy is important, missing nearly half of the attorney names can cause quite a problem.

For those of us that ever put on a demo for an attorney of docket information, we know that one of the first questions the attorney asks is “can you find ‘X’ case, which I represented ‘Y’ client?” If you cannot find that information, the demo may as well end right there. Attorneys are issue spotters. If you cannot get accurate information, they will not trust that the product actually works.

With the new Lex Machina Attorney Data Engine, you should be able to find the attorney information, even if PACER missed it.

Here is an overview of the three components of the Attorney Data Engine:

  1. The PACER metadata itself: Every time Lex Machina crawls PACER data, they keep a historical record and can identify when attorneys are added or removed from a case over time. This makes the PACER data better by itself.
  2. Pro Hac Vice Extractor: Docket entries will mention when attorneys are added Pro Hac Vice to a case. Lex Machina also keeps a record of attorneys associated to law firms (over time.)
  3. Signature Block Analyzer: Lex Machina analyzes the documents attached to the docket entries and identifies the signature blocks for each attorney. Even if the attorney’s name doesn’t show up in the Docket entry, if they have a signature block, they are then associated with the case. 
Karl Harris states that the Attorney Data Engine makes Lex Machina “the best source for reliably figuring out which attorneys are involved in which cases.” 
It will be interesting to watch Lex Machina grow over the next couple of years, and to see how its new parent company, Lexis, assists in advancing its progress through access to additional data points. It is not a far jump to see how the Attorney Data Engine processes can be turned into a Company Data Engine using Lexis’ company information databases. Lexis has the content, and Lex Machina has the analytical resources to make that content better. It should make for some interesting results as the two companies learn how to adapt processes to the different products. 

Okay… it’s Friday. It’s snowing in Dallas, and it’s a bit slow around the office. But, when I saw that Reed Elsevier was going to change its name to RELX, I thought maybe it was a joke to draw attention away from the black/blue vs. gold/white dress discussion. Apparently not.

I’m sure there was a big Think-Tank of Marketing Gurus involved in this decision, but on the surface it looks like it was a room of Gen Y’s that had never heard of the band Frankie Goes to Hollywood… otherwise, they would have seen snarky posts like this one… or this one… or this one, coming.

Not sure what CEO Erik Engstrom is trying to pull off here, but I think for the next few weeks, he’s going to catch a bit of ribbing for this decision.

Does R E L X stand for:

R: Reed
E: Elsevier
LX: LexisNexis??

If so, then maybe those of us in the legal industry can RELX… I mean, relax. The RELX Group, plc became official on February 26th, with the official, and final move to the name coming on July 1st this year. The website is already active. Quite Frankie… I mean, frankly, it’s a bit confusing.

As we find out more behind the decision to change the name to a four-letter acronym, let me leave you with some great lyrics to a great song, and see if Mr. Engstrom is up to make making it his intention, and keep scheming those schemes.

But shoot it in the right direction
Make making it your intention-ooh yeah
Live those dreams
Scheme those schemes
Got to hit me
Hit me
Hit me with those laser beams
Good luck getting rid of that earworm.

For those of you who have been under a rock for the past few weeks (like me), you may not have heard of the changes that Lexis Advance is making to the look and feel of the product next month. Lexis is calling this a “New, Cleaner Look” that doesn’t change the steps you take to research, but changes the way the results appear on the screen and how you navigate those results.

The biggest change is that the results are now “Tab-less.” If you have used Lexis Advance in the past, you know that the tabs that ran across the top could quickly become unwieldy. In fact, I asked one of my research staff last night to jump out of Lexis Advance and into another Lexis platform in order to do some fact finding for me. This created an immediate plea for me to wait until they were completely finished with their current project because they would lose their – and this is a quote – “precious tabs.” This immediately made me think of Gollum, and a few images later, I sent the researcher back the picture to the right.

Here’s a video that just came out for the Academic users, but it shows some of the streamlined changes, and the new tab-less results. The new look is to launch next month, so start getting the word out now.

Atlanta - Downtown: Georgia State Capitol - House Chamber
Image [cc] Wally Gobetz

Well, it didn’t take very long for Carl Malamud to respond [PDF] to the cease and desist letter from Georgia Code Revision Commission Chairman, Joshua McKoon. I applaud Malamud’s resolve and willingness to call the State of Georgia out on its request, and its claim to copyright on the official state laws.

Malamud immediately comes back on the State’s copyright claim by stating “It is a long-held tenet of American law that there is no copyright in the law.” He goes on to site court decisions backing his argument, and also points out that the “unannotated” version that the State provides online for free is a poor substitute for the official law and that to use the unannotated would place the user at a higher risk of peril. The money quote is:

No matter how you slice that cheese, it all looks the same. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated, every component of it, is the official law.

The State of Oregon held similar claim to their official state code, and after conducting a hearing where they “listened to citizens and to their own legislative counsel, kindly invited [Public.Resources.Org] to speak, and at the end of the day unanimously waived any assertion of copyright in the Oregon Revised Statutes.”

Malamud states that this type of dissemination of the law should be something that states should encourage and support, not send out threats and prosecute.

I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly. Good luck Carl!

Here is a reprint of Malamud’s letter. The PDF version is online at

Hon. Joshua McKoon,
Chairman Georgia Code Revision Commission
319-A Coverdell Legislative Office Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Hon. David Ralston
Speaker of the House
House of Representatives of Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Hon. David Shafer
President Pro Tempore
Georgia State Senate
321 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334

Dear Senator McKoon, Speaker Ralston, and President Pro Tempore Shafer:

Public.Resource.Org is in receipt of the communication of July 25, 2013 from Senator McKoon concerning your notice of purported copyright infringement. Your notice claims copyright infringement for the publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. Your letter claims “all copyrightable aspects of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are copyrighted under United States copyright law” and disclaims any copyright “in the statutory text itself or in the number of the Code sections.”

We respectfully decline to remove the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and respectfully reject the distinction between “the statutory text itself” and additional materials, as both are integral part and parcel of the only Official Code of Georgia Annotated, such material constituting the official law as published by the State.

It is a long-held tenet of American law that there is no copyright in the law. This is because the law belongs to the people and in our system of democracy we have the right to read, know, and speak the laws by which we choose to govern ourselves. Requiring a license before allowing citizens to read or speak the law would be a violation of deeply-held principles in our system that the laws apply equally to all.

This principle was strongly set out by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall when they stated “the Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court, and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right.” Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834). The Supreme Court specifically extended that principle to state law, such as the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, in Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888) , where it stated that “the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute.”

This principle has become embedded clearly throughout our country. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has stated that “any person desiring to publish the statutes of a state may use any copy of such statutes to be found in any printed book, whether such book be the property of the state or the property of an individual.” Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, 137 (6th Cir. 1898) (Harlan, J.). These strong precedents are reflected in the official policy statement of the U.S. Copyright Office: “Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.” Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices § 206.01 (1984)

The principle that there is no copyright in the law, and that no license is therefore needed, has been fundamental to the evolution of our legal system. West Law could never have built that magnificent edifice of American jurisprudence, the Federal Reporter, if each court had imposed restrictions on promulgation. If citizens are required to obtain a permission before repeating the law, does that not strike at the very heart of our rights of free speech under the First Amendment? If ignorance of the law is no excuse, how can we restrict dissemination of those laws?

The distinction between “the statutory text itself” and additional materials perhaps would have some bearing if the publication in question were the independent commercial endeavor of a publication firm. If such a firm were to copy the state statutes and compile that information with additional analyses and summaries and were to do so as a strictly commercial endeavor, we understand and respect that this material would be their private property.

However, the publication in question is not by some independent endeavor, it is by the Official Georgia Code Revision Commission and the document is clearly labeled as the official Official Code of Georgia Annotated. Your hired sub-contractor states this clearly in their marketing materials:

“The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) provides users with the official Georgia statutes, fully annotated and including guidance from the Georgia Code Commission. If you live or work in Georgia, the OCGA is the essential reference you need to guide you quickly and efficiently in understanding the Georgia statutory scheme.” [Emphasis in the Original]

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated is a publication of the State and it is the definitive statement by the State of the law. Any lawyer would ignore this publication and any of its components at his or her peril. Any citizen wishing to read the Official Official Code of Georgia Annotated would have trouble distinguishing between the “statutory text itself” and those materials outside the box. No matter how you slice that cheese, it all looks the same. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated, every component of it, is the official law.

Your letter also notes that “the unannotated Georgia Code…is available to the public at no charge at” In addition to numerous technical and usability deficiencies, this site is subject to two different terms of use. The first, which must be accepted before entering the site, stresses that only “the latest print version” of the Code is official and authoritative. The second set of terms has 8 parts and 35 subparts and permits only “insubstantial” uses and even prohibits use of the Code in “newsletters” and “articles.” As you can see, when copyright prohibits citizens from speaking the law of the land, substantial concerns are raised under the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions.

A similar situation occurred in the great state of Oregon when we received a Cease and Desist notice on April 7, 2008 for publishing online the Oregon Revised Statutes. As with the present situation, lawyers for that state demanded licenses as a condition to publication and attempted to make a distinction between the law and the additional organization of that material by the Legislative Counsel of Oregon.

I am pleased to tell you that the State of Oregon decided that this was an issue that should be decided by the people of Oregon and their elected officials. The Speaker of the House and the Senate President called a hearing of the Legislative Counsel Committee, listened to citizens and to their own legislative counsel, kindly invited us to speak, and at the end of the day unanimously waived any assertion of copyright in the Oregon Revised Statutes.

Not only was copyright waived, something very special happened. With the restrictions on use of the Oregon Revised Statutes lifted, a law student at the Lewis & Clark Law School was able to take this material and develop a vastly better version of the Oregon Revised Statutes for the people of his state to use. Restricting use of the codes restricts innovation, making it harder for citizens and lawyers to know and understand the law. Restrictions on the Official Code of Georgia Annotated hurts democracy and the citizens of Georgia by making their laws less accessible.

In Oregon, the assertion of copyright dated back to the 1940s and the state had carried that policy forward. When the people of Oregon looked at the issue in the light of our modern era, the decision was very clear. Is it not time, in light of developments such as the Internet, to revisit those restrictions?

Our publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated should be encouraged, not threatened. Our publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is unimpeachable act, not one that should be prosecuted. I would be more than happy to come to Georgia to discuss the matter with you, and would strongly encourage you to discuss the issue with the people of Georgia.

Sincerely yours,

Carl Malamud



Oh, Georgia, Georgia, Georgia. Really?? A Cease and Desist letter asking Carl Malamud to take down a copy of your state code?? Really??

If you haven’t read this latest act of attempting to control state statutes (and probably insure that that juicy little Lexis contract), take a look at the C&D Letter [PDF] dated July 25, 2013 that was written by Josh McKoon, Chairman of the Georgia Code Revision Commission and posted by Malamud on

According to the letter, Malamud let the Georgia Assembly know back in May that he was going to post a copy of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated on his website, and sure enough, there it is “with no restrictions to its access.”

Of course, it is the “Annotated” part that seems to have made the Commission ink this C&D. Most likely because that part is claimed by Lexis. If you have ever spend five minutes in a room with Fastcase’s Ed Walters, you’ve undoubtedly heard his tales of how stingy Lexis is with the Georgia Code. It seems that the agents of the State of Georgia are very much in agreement with the idea that no one should have free access to this annotated material.

Fear not though! According to the letter, an unannotated version of the Georgia Code is available to the public for free at

All kidding aside, I actually see why Lexis would claim a copyright to the Annotations… but why is the State of Georgia bringing the C&D letter? Do they actually have standing? (My Civil Procedure memory is a bit rusty.) Does the State have the copyright, or is it Lexis? I have always assumed Lexis owned that right. Maybe not??

I wonder if Georgia would allow Carl Malamud to place the unannotated version, or would that bring yet another C&D Letter? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Malamud is pretty feisty and doesn’t like it when states claim copyright on their statutes. It could make for an interesting legal battle.

Image [cc] PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE

As I sat through a demonstration of the LexisNexis Digital Library (eBook) platform, there were a few thoughts that crossed my mind:

  • The eBook platform for law firms is inevitable
  • How do I keep from suddenly having (paying for) the same “book” in three formats – print, database, and eBook?
  • Holy crap… I’m going to need a really good Technical Services Librarian to manage this!
Whenever a question came up about actually managing a digital collection, the common response was, “the library can simply go to the [eBook platform/library catalog] and run report X” or “process and distribute eBook Z” or “recall the eBook” or “place the eBook on hold” or “place the link to the eBook in your 852 or 856 fields”, and so on. Again, most of the conversation assumed that your Acquisitions librarian, Serials librarian, or Cataloger would simply do their job, but the resulting item was simply an eBook instead of a traditional Monograph, Personal Copy book or a Treatise. In an era of shrinking physical books, the role of the technical services librarian didn’t seem to be a vital. However, in the era of managing eBook collections, that role may be rising from the ashes of the collection.
Bess Reynolds’ article, The Challenges of E-Books in Law Firm Libraries, hits the issue right on the head when she wrote:

The mechanics of acquiring and distributing books, making sure they are up to date, and retrieving books from departing attorneys are all part of the job of the technical services department. Transferring these tasks to e-books was therefore already within our department’s job description.

She goes on to talk about the interaction between the Integrated Library System (ILS) and the eBook distributor and the need to manage the collection for the firm. The key to success is the seamless transition between physical book and electronic book for the actual user (read: attorney.) That seamless transition seems to hing upon the firm’s ability to manage, distribute and maintain the collection and the vendors ability to create a method flexible enough to allow the firm to handle the eBooks in the way that works best for that firm. The connecting piece in this puzzle is a good technical services librarian. So, if you don’t have one already, you better start looking now.

Big hat tip to my friend Jason Wilson in pointing out the new rebranding of Westlaw into the new “Legal Solutions” product, and for pointing out that Thomson Reuters is using a very familiar looking color and layout design that seems to be borrowing heavily from the Bloomberg Law product. Perhaps Orange, Gray, Black, and Blue are just the hip trends in New York these days. But, seriously, if you took away the mention of Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters’ Legal Solution, you might be hard pressed to tell the difference in the two products. [Note: an Arthur Andersen alum pointed out that they actually had this color scheme by in 2002 way before TR or Bloomberg started using it.]

Jason sums up my thoughts quite nicely on the similarities:

TR pages are getting dangerously close to the same color scheme of Bloomberg Law, and it makes me wonder why they are trying so hard to compete with something that hasn’t seen widespread adoption?

Alright Lexis… apparently you’re late to the game. Time to switch Lexis Red, and go with a Bloomberg Orange! After all, anyone that is in the know, knows Lexis is much more in the crosshairs of Bloomberg than Thomson Reuters is.

Judge for yourself (FYI – Bloomberg=Left; Thomson Reuters=Right):

Lexis put out this video from the AALL Boston conference (with many familiar faces you may recognize.) In a post on their “This is real law” site, they talk about the perceptions of law librarians (think Forbes “worst Master’s Degree for Jobs), and the new roles that law librarians are taking on. Many of the same ideas we hammer away at here on 3 Geeks, such as, Librarians without Libraries, Librarians as Technology Drivers, Librarians as Researchers, Not Searchers, and many more.

Take a look at the video and listen, not only to the clever snippets of quotes from these law librarians, but also notice the theme of moving away from traditional library services, whether that is “brick and mortar” libraries, or “I’ll pull that book/case for you” librarians. There is a lot of potential out there for proactive law librarians that are willing to take on the risk of breaking tradition and moving into areas that make us more valuable to those that we serve.

Also: I know a lot of these folks (like Estes, Trotta and Sellers), but there are a few that I am not familiar with… I know, I know… I should know them all!! So, if you recognize these commenters, could you put their names and a bit of their quote in the comments so everyone can put a name and face to the quotes? Thanks!! – Greg

NOTE: Micheal Saint-Onge from Lexis was able to get me a list of names for the librarians in the video. Thanks Mike!!

Librarians in the video:
Jean-Paul Vivian
Nassau County Supreme Court Law Library
Principal Law Librarian
Mark W. Podvia
Dickinson School of Law Library of the Pennsylvania State
Assistant Law Librarian and Archivist
Andrew J. Tig Wartluft, Esq.
Thomas M. Cooley Law
Reference Librarian
Mark E. Estes
Bernard E. Witkin Alameda
County Law Library
Law Library Director
Christine Sellers
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough,
Research Specialist
Daniel B. Cordova
Colorado Supreme Court Library
Supreme Court Law Librarian
Emily R. Florio
Fish & Richardson P.C.
Manager of Libraries
Kyle K. Courtney, Esq.
Harvard Law School Library
Faculty Research and Scholarship
Yesenia  P. Santiago
MetLife and Pace
University School
of Law Library
Law Librarian
Thomas Sneed
Emory University School of Law
Associate law librarian for research and electronic services
Dawn Smith
Loyola Law School
– Los Angeles
Acquisitions/Serials Librarian
Joan Taulbee
Hodgson Russ LLP
Manager of Library and Information Services
Victoria K. Trotta
Arizona State University Ross-Blakley Law Library
Associate Dean for Information Technology and the Ross-Blakley
Law Library

Just got a press release from Jill Goodkind at Bloomberg announcing that Jones Day has brought them into the fold for their legal research needs. This is the second mega firm that is using Bloomberg (DLA Piper being the other.)

We’re trying to gather more details, (such as “did Jones Day drop Westlaw or Lexis to bring in Bloomberg?”) but I thought this was big enough to push out to let everyone know the news.

Those that I’ve talked to find it interesting that there is no quote from Jones Day representatives in this press release. In looking at some of the job descriptions from previous Jones Day positions, they do ask that applicants be proficient in both Lexis and Westlaw research, so they do appear to have both services at the time of bringing in Bloomberg. It would be unusual for a firm (even one as big as Jones Day) to keep three legal research tools on the budget, so we’ll have to see if they end up dropping one of the current resources. It will be interesting to find out more information about what prompted them to bring in Bloomberg and if more mega firms are to follow.

Seamless Combination of Legal Research and Business Information, Unlimited Access and Transparent Pricing Provide Value to Modern Legal Practice
New York — Bloomberg Law, the legal research system from the world leader in data, information and news services, today announced a firm-wide agreement with Jones Day, the global law firm, to provide high quality legal research, news and market information.  Jones Day is ranked among the world’s most respected law firms and perennially rated among the best in client service. The firm represents approximately half of the Fortune Global 500. 
Jones Day’s firm-wide adoption of Bloomberg Law will provide the firm’s approximately 1,800 U.S.-based lawyers with unlimited desktop and mobile access to any of the information in the Bloomberg Law system – from Bloomberg BNA’s legal coverage to Bloomberg’s proprietary news to dockets to primary legal research – as often as they want and whenever they want.   Bloomberg Law integrates legal research with the Bloomberg industry and financial information relied upon by corporations and investment institutions throughout the world to provide lawyers with a competitive edge in understanding their clients’ businesses.  Jones Day, which has more U.S. lawyers than any other firm, joins the growing roster of law firms that are using Bloomberg Law to meet their firm-wide legal research requirements.
“We are delighted that Jones Day, one of the largest and most respected law firms in the world, has chosen Bloomberg Law to meet its legal research needs,” said Larry Thompson, CEO of Bloomberg Law.  “Bloomberg Law has modernized the legal research industry with a truly integrated platform that, combined with our transparent and predictable pricing, provides law firms with the resources to conduct comprehensive research while managing costs.”
About Bloomberg Law
Bloomberg Law is the real-time legal research system that integrates innovative search technology, comprehensive legal content, company and market information, and proprietary news all in one place. This collaborative workspace also includes a suite of new tools for more effective legal analysis and more productive client development. For more information, visit
About Bloomberg
Bloomberg, the global business and financial information and news leader, gives influential decision makers a critical edge by connecting them to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas. The company’s strength – delivering data, news and analytics through innovative technology, quickly and accurately – is at the core of the Bloomberg Professional service, which provides real time financial information to more than 310,000 subscribers globally. Bloomberg’s enterprise solutions build on the company’s core strength, leveraging technology to allow customers to access, integrate, distribute and manage data and information across organizations more efficiently and effectively. Through Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Bloomberg BNA, the company provides data, news and analytics to decision makers in industries beyond finance. And Bloomberg News, delivered through the Bloomberg Professional service, television, radio, mobile, the Internet and two magazines, Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets,  covers the world with more than 2,300 news and multimedia professionals at 146 bureaus in 72 countries. Headquartered in New York, Bloomberg employs more than 15,000 people in 192 locations around the world.