What Makes it Work

Volume 5 No. 10 July 2001

Law Library

Cooperation:Law Library

Cooperation:

An Interview

with Diane Klaiber

WhatMakes it

Work?Also:

• Could You Translate This Site for Me?

• SCCLL, Pronounced Skill

• Member’s Briefing—Trends in Legal Publishing

AALL Spectrum (ISSN: 1089–8689) is published monthly except January andAugust by the American Association of LawLibraries, 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite940, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone:312/939–4764, fax: 312/431–1097, e–mail: [email protected]. Periodicals postagepaid at Chicago, IL. POSTMASTER: Sendaddress changes to AALL Spectrum, 53 W.Jackson Blvd., Suite 940, Chicago, IL 60604

Writers wanted—contribute to yourAssociation’s magazine! For guidelines, visitwww.aallnet.org or contact the AALL Spectrum [email protected].

AALL Spectrum Deadlines

Articles are due on the following dates:2001 Issue DeadlineVol. 6, No. 1 September July 26

No. 2 October August 15No. 3 November September 6

Copy sent through a columnist or guest editorshould be submitted to him or her well inadvance of the monthly deadline.

AALLNET: http://www.aallnet.org

Advertising RepresentativesBenson, Coffee & Associates1411 Peterson AvenuePark Ridge, Illinois 60068Telephone: 847/692–4695fax: 847/692–3877e-mail: [email protected]

AALL Spectrum is a free benefit of membershipin the American Association of Law Libraries.$44 of each year’s dues is for one year ofAALL Spectrum. Nonmembers may subscribe to AALL Spectrum for $75 per year. Formembership and/or subscription information,please contact the American Association ofLaw Libraries at the address above.

The American Association of Law Librariesdoes not assume any responsibility for thestatements advanced by the contributors to, nor the advertisers in, the Association’spublication. Editorial views do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of theAssociation. All advertising copy is subject to editorial approval. ∞ AALL Spectrum isprinted on acid–free, recycled paper.

All contents copyright 2001 by the AmericanAssociation of Law Libraries, except where otherwiseexpressly indicated. Except as otherwise expresslyprovided, the author of each item in this issue hasgranted permission for copies of that item to be madefor classroom use or for any other educational purpose,provided that (1) copies are distributed at or belowcost, (2) author and AALL Spectrum are identified, and(3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy.For items in which it holds copyright, the AmericanAssociation of Law Libraries grants permission forcopies to be made for classroom use or for any othereducational purpose under the same conditions.

1

The Academic Law Libraries SpecialInterest Section presented the 2001 ALL SIS Frederick Charles Hicks Awardfor Outstanding Contributions toAcademic Law Librarianship to FrankG. Houdek, professor of law and law library director at Southern IllinoisUniversity in Carbondale, Ill.

The nomination criteria states thatnominees “should exhibit extended andsustained contributions in one or moreof ... [four] areas.” Houdek shines in all areas:

• “History of contributions to the field of law librarianship throughresearch, publications and other activities displaying an activeparticipation in the advancement of academic law librarianship.”Houdek, a.k.a. “Mr. Publications,” is a prolific contributor to law librarianship as well as legal literature, with a bibliography thatextends to six pages.

• “Achievement in a particular area of academic law librarianship.”Houdek has written on numerous relevant topics, most notably legalresearch, which has resulted in many game show presentations at AALL Annual Meetings.

• “Service to AALL.” To name a few: past AALL president; editor of LawLibrary Journal; past chair, Committee on Relations with InformationVendors; chair, Special Committee on Fair Business Practices; ExecutiveBoard Strategic Planning Committee; Executive Board Finance andBudget Committee; public relations coordinator; past chair, PublicationsCommittee; editor, AALL Annual Meetings: An Annotated Index to the Proceedings; “Mr. AALL History” through his compilations andpresentations and chairing of the Special Committee on the History of Law Librarianship; etc., etc., etc.

• “Service to the ALL SIS.” Member since 1985; past chair of ALL SIS;past Executive Board member; past member of Nominating Committee.

I think all will agree that Frank Houdek is the personification of the Hicksaward and will join me in congratulating him on his accomplishments. The award presentation will take place during the ALL SIS reception at theUniversity of Minnesota on Tuesday, July 17.

The Frederick Charles Hicks Award was named for the first great Americanlaw librarian and scholar and first academic law librarian to serve aspresident of AALL. Information about Hicks and his career can be found on the Hicks Awards page on the ALL SIS Web site, http://www.aallnet.org/sis/allsis/awards.html. The award was first presented in 2000 to PennyHazelton, professor of law and law librarian at the University of Washington.

A permanent plaque honoring all winners of the Hicks award resides at theAALL Headquarters office in Chicago.

Merle J. Slyhoff ([email protected]), document delivery and auxiliaryservices librarian at the University of Pennsylvania, is chair of the ALL SISAwards Committee.

Houdek Tapped for Frederick Charles Hicks Awardby Merle J. Slyhoff

Frank Houdek

[ F E A T U R E S ]Could You Translate This Site for Me? Rating the Usefulness of Software Translation Programs 4by Roy Balleste

SCCLL, Pronounced Skill 6by Joanne Beal

Law Library Cooperation: What Makes itWork? An Interview with Diane Klaiber 10by Carole L. Hinchcliff

Professional Development Committee SeriesWorking Behind the Scenes to Affect Legislation: A Case Study withUCITA, or UCITA: the Real Lesson 14by Gail Warren

New Realities, New Roles 10,000 Lakes, 1,000 Hands 21by Kathie J. Sullivan

CRIV NotesCCH Offers Follow-up to Reverse Site Visits 26by Betty Roeske

A Word or Two About Customer Satisfaction 27by Chris Graesser

Dot-com or Dot-law: Where was That Information? 30by David Whelan

Public Relations2001 SEAAL Meeting Presents Food for PR Thought 32by Martha Thomas

@your.law.library 34by Cheryl Gritton

Does Your PR Have Curb Appeal? 35by Frances Bertelli

[ M E M B E R S ’ B R I E F I N G ]Trends in Legal Publishing 17

[ C O L U M N S ]Washington Brief 12

Chapter News 16

Membership News 28

Memorial 28

[ A A L L A N N O U C E M E N T S ]Houdek Tapped for Frederick Charles Hicks Award 1

[ D E P A R T M E N T S ]Ad Index 9

Placement listings 22

Classifieds 24

Professional Development Calendar 27

2

Volume 5 Number 10 July 2001

4 AALL Spectrum July 2001

Rating the Usefulness of Translation Software Programs for Law Library Web sites

by Roy Balleste

Could You Translate This Site for Me?

Yes

When I think about the future ofinformation retrieval, I can’tavoid wondering about what

will it bring. Tom Clancy’s novel Net Forcecapture’s the idea of a future highlyinfluenced by the World Wide Web. It is aworld where access to the right informationbecomes a high commodity. In his novel,Clancy presented the classic struggle ofgood against evil, as the FBI’s elite NetForce unit protected citizens from theabuses of powerful individuals who usedthe Internet for illegal activities.

Against this background, we shouldwonder where will the library profession be50 years from now? The librarians’ elusivefuture is not necessarily uncertain. I am convinced that law librarians willcontinue to be at the forefront of legalresearch. In today’s legal environment,geographical boundaries have faded awayand the Internet has bridged the distance.The Internet future promises to make anyremaining barriers of communicationalmost, if not completely, nonexistent. Along with these considerations, we should remember that reference services,especially good customer service, are oneof the most important missions of any lawlibrary. Many libraries are venturing intoelectronic means of providing referenceservices, and patrons are using theseelectronic services more and more.

The information that law libraries provide in Web pages is accessed by many aroundthe world, but not all patrons are necessarilyproficient in the English language. The 21st century promises to be an age ofglobalization and those who are willing toexpand their horizons will receive the fruitsof an accessible market. What happens if alaw student from the University of Paris III (La Sorbbone-Nouvelle) decides to researcha Web site at one of our universities? What if the student happens to be fromUniversidad Central de Venezuela? Assumethat these students are not fluent in English.What if the librarians want to obtaininformation from a Web page written inPortuguese? In all these situations, lawlibrarians should consider the role of amachine-based translation software programto ease information retrieval efforts.

This article will be limitedto the do-it-yourself bi-directional translationservices. These services arean easy and cost-efficientway to allow Internet usersto translate Web pagesinto their nativelanguages and for alibrarian to translatesomebody else’s Webpage. It is important to me,for example, to be able to translate a Web sitemaintained in Chile. But it isjust as important that aChilean be able to translatemy Web site from the comfortof her home in Santiago.

Translation software programsare a great tool to enhance alibrary’s Web page. With a click of abutton, users can translate the main text of a site into their native languages. Technology giants, such as Altavista,Microsoft, America Online, CompuServeand Oracle, are already using translatorprograms to ease the Web surfing needs of their customers. Several companies offertranslation software programs, some withbetter results than others. Some are free of charge; others are expensive.

My research included what I consideredthe most relevant programs. I rated theseprograms on a scale of one to five stars,based on price and convenience to the users. But most of all, I rated thembased on quality of translation. All theseprograms work on the basis of languagepairs — for example, English to Spanish,English to French, etc. Contact the vendorto find out what pairs it offers. Webaddresses are provided for the programsdiscussed in this article. They are availablein the market and provide translation of themost common and widely used languages.As with all technology, the future promisesmore and better results. Before I discuss indetail what I considered the best program,I will briefly mention and rate four otherprograms. Because I am bilingual inEnglish and Spanish, I performed my tests using these two languages wheneverpossible.

My rating scheme follows:

*Poor**Fair***OK****Excellent*****Outstanding

During my analysis of the programs, I realized that none deserved a poor or fair rating because all the evaluatedprograms offered an acceptable degree of functionality.

Lernout & Hauspie™ ***Lernout & Hauspie provides the opportunityto test its product online by translatingWeb pages — after it obtains someinformation from the prospective user.Unfortunately, it does not provide anyfreeware. I was pleased with the onlinedemonstration. However, the products arenot free. Why pay $149 for its product ifa competitor’s is available as freeware?Furthermore, the software translationcapabilities are unidirectional: Theprogram allows one to translate Webpages onsite, but a visitor from across theglobe will not be able to translate someoneelse’s page. If a library wants its visitor tobe able to translate its site, that librarymust first translate its own pages using

© 2001 Roy Balleste

5AALL Spectrum July 2001

OuiSí

L&H’s software — creating multiple Web pages of its library site in differentlanguages — and then provide a link forits visitors to those translated pages. Thevisitor will not see an instantly translatedsite, but one that was previously translated.This is unnecessary extra work, given thefact that other programs provide moreoptions served on a silver platter. Well,almost as good. This company offersseveral products, but the one relevant tothis article is the Power Translator Pro 77.For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.lhsl.com/mt.

LanguageForce® ***The relevant product from Language Force is the Universal Translator 2000®, a program powered by LanguageForce’sown “omni-directional translation”technology. The software allows translationfrom one language to another language,without relying on English as theintermediate language. This is a great tool,but there is a price attached to thisamenity: $149. The company does notprovide a way to test the product online.And similar to Lernout & Hauspie’sprogram, the software translationcapabilities are unidirectional. For moreinformation, visit the LanguageForce Website at http://www.languageforce.com.

Translation Experts Ltd. ***Translation Experts offers InterTran™. TEallows a test drive of the product online.First, the user links free of charge to TE’ssite at http://www.tranexp.com/intertran/linking. After that, it is a matter of locatinga pull-down window on TE’s Web site andtyping in the address of the Web page tobe translated. TE promises “a much betterlevel of performance” to those who pay tosubscribe to its site for translation of theirWeb pages. The package cost is $10 forup to 50,000 words per month. A secondpackage allows unlimited access to theservice for $100 dollars a month. TE alsoallows those with their own Web pages theoption of running InterTran on their ownservers. This option costs $1,000 per year.Once the translation of a Web page iscompleted, TE offers a word-by-wordalternative translation. For example, thereare several possible translations for theEnglish word boat — e.g., barco,embarcacion, lancha. In this case, thesoftware allows the user to choose thedesired word. There is a problem with this: How does the user know which wordto pick? The purpose behind translation

software is for the program to choose thewords for users. Unless the user is versedin both languages, this feature is self-defeating. After testing the product, I foundthat the quality of the translation was nottoo bad. For more information, visit theTranslation Experts Ltd. Web site athttp://www.tranexp.com.

Transparent Language, Inc. ****We are getting closer to my prize winner,but first I must discuss my runner-up.Transparent Language, Inc. maintains aWeb page called FreeTranslation.com. Its technology is called TranscendRTMachine Translation, which powers itsEnterprise Translation Server, which in turnpowers FreeTranslation.com. First, note thatthe service is free! Second, the user cantest drive the product online. And third, thequality of the translation is excellent. Thecompany allows the addition of a link tothe library’s/Web operator’s site, so that its visitors may read the site in their ownlanguages. I was very pleased with thetranslation results. For more information,please visit TL’s two Web sites athttp://www.freetranslation.com andhttp://www.transparentlanguage.com.

Systran, S.A. *****Systran Internet Translation Technologies is considered the best by the experts.Without a doubt, this company providesan impressive software program. Afterreviewing the software, I agree with theexperts’ assessments: it is the best! It is not perfect, but it is the next-best thing. The quality of translation surpassed my expectations. Visit its site athttp://w4.systranlinks.com/config. As Systran explains in its site, “Systran’sexpertise comes with over 30 years ofbuilding translation software products for the U.S. Department of Defense, theCommission of European Communities and some of the largest commercialmultinational corporations.” Systranprovides machine translation solutions toclients such as Alta Vista, Lycos, Netscape,America Online, CompuServe andOracleMobile.com, Oracle’s subsidiary for wireless services.

Systran offers its customers everything theydesire in a translation program. First, itoffers Web site solutions. This productcomes in three levels. The basic freepackage isn’t disappointing. The next levelof service (silver version) is $999 per year.Still, the free version will prove quite useful.The company allows the Web site provider

to add a link to its own site, so that itsvisitors can read the site in their ownlanguages. Now about the other side ofthe story ... To translate somebody else’sWeb site, the situation changes. Systranoffers this service, depending on the user’srequirements, for as low as $30. Freewould be better, yes? Well, no need todespair. As I mentioned before, Systranhas partners all over the Internet, and oneof them, Altavista, allows free translation ofWeb pages. The best part is that Systranpowers Altavista’s machine translator,Babel Fish. So smile and take advantageof the services available. For moreinformation, visit Systran’s Web site athttp://northdelta.net/language.htm.

Now a final word of caution aboutmachine translation software programs:None of the programs in the market offers100 percent accuracy. I learned in myindexing class that computer softwareprograms designed to index a book do not compare with the work of a humanindexer. The same holds true for translationsoftware programs. They do a good job,but they cannot recognize some terms. InEnglish, one word can mean two or threedifferent things. In Spanish, there can bethree different words available to translateone English word. For example, when thesoftware programs encounter a word suchas view, the programs do not know howthe word is being used in the sentence.Does it mean view as in seeing or view asa point of view? The software programsalso have problems assigning theappropriate verbs. They sometimes confusea word used as a verb in Spanish andtranslate this word as a noun in English.Finally, these programs cannot recognizewords such as network or hyperlink. Ittranslates these words literally, making theSpanish translation confusing sometimes.That is not always the case. I will humblypoint out that, for any person who doesnot speak English, the software would bevery helpful. If I could not understandEnglish, the software would be an oasis in a world full of foreign sites. Since theseprograms are not perfect, I would suggestincluding a caveat in any library’s Webpages warning users of the programs’limitations. As a fluent speaker of Spanish,given the proper caveat, I would still beable to understand 85 percent to 90percent of the intended message.

Roy Balleste ([email protected]) is an electronic services librarian atNova Southeastern University ShepardBroad Law Center in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.


The best thing that can happen to an organization is to have a totally apt acronym formedfrom its official name. In absenceof such good fortune, the secondbest thing is to be able topronounce those letters as a word that appropriately describesthe group. With a little phoneticstretching, the State, Court and CountyLaw Library Special Interest Section ofAALL is able to do just that.

How could anyone deny that the membersof the Special Interest Section known asSCCLL are anything less than skilled? The multifaceted nature of their employers,their services and even their user groupcan attest to the fact that these individualsmust possess competencies and skills thatdiffer from those traditionally identifiedwith the term librarian.

These are the dedicated souls who areemployed by federal and state agencies,county and local governments and courts,and nonprofit associations comprised ofattorneys and ancillary members of a localor regional legal community. Stewards ofquasi-judicial and political organizations,these librarians have developedproficiencies that should be recognized.

Even the casual observer in a SCCLLlibrary notices the uncommon diversity inpatrons. Using a geometric illustration, thisuser group can be pictured as a triangle,with each side representing a differentfaction. The first side represents theemployees of the court or government withwhich the library is aligned. This might

include agency lawyers, judgesand their staffs, prosecutors orpublic defenders, as well aselected officials. Joint tenancyand politics often go hand-in-hand. In the pursuit of goodpublic relations, one might findthat the most important librarycustomer is in the office down

the hall, at least until the next election. In addition, the skill in manipulating thepolitical dynamic of resource and spacesharing in a government building oftenrequires the use of catlike instincts andbalance.

The second side of the triangle representsthe lay user, the pro se patron, or theinquiring John Q. Public. Distinctly differentfrom the other types of law libraries, a primary mission of some SCCLLinstitutions is to serve the legal researchneeds of the public. Equal access to justiceand the courts, including access to legalinformation, is a commonplace mandate of government at all levels and manySCCLL libraries aggressively seek to fulfillthis mission. Meeting the needs andservice requirements of lay users requiresnot only the honed skills of a referencelibrarian, but also that of one well awareof the threshold of unauthorized practice of law. In addition, a well-proportionedsense of compassion and empathy forpersonally troubled patrons is essential.The skilled librarian must possess theheart of a social worker as well as themind of a researcher in order to performvaluable services for patrons.

The two sides rest firmly on the base of the triangle that represents the practicingbar. The research needs of this group can be satisfied in the depth and breadthof a well-developed collection. Inaddressing the needs of the larger lawfirms, the SCCLL institution maintainssubscriptions that serve as an extensionand enhancement of privately heldcollections. The retention of costly andspecialized treatises by the law librarystrengthens its value in the legal communityby reducing the need for firms to subscribeto them. For smaller law firms, as well assolo practitioners, the SCCLL library servesas the basic collection of primary andsecondary sources that, along with aliberal circulation policy, obviates the needfor these researchers to overextend on suchpurchases. For both groups, the law libraryserves as a vital conduit for information,whether in a print or electronic format. The amount of private financial support forSCCLL libraries can be in direct proportionto the success of this endeavor and theskill with which it is executed.

Another three-sided image of the SCCLL librarian has to do with the skillsand acumen needed to serve such a varied user group. The three faces of this individual can be identified as skilled public administrator, skilledbusinessperson and skilled librarian.

The receipt of public monies for thepurpose of managing a law library clearlyrequires the director to engage in someform of public administration. In general,the librarian will be accountable to agovernmental agency for the accurate andefficient use of the funds. In addition, therecord keeping thereof is subject to formalexamination and, very often, reportingrequirements are a matter of statutory orregulatory provisions. The actual day-to-day governance of the law library may be subject to the vagaries of politics, withelected officials either serving on a boardor appointing others to serve.

An ancillary duty might be the continuedvigilance of the librarian over the activitiesof legislative bodies that have thecapability of amending the statutoryprovisions that affect the governance orfinancial resources of the SCCLL institution.The SCCLL librarian must be prepared to

Skill (skil), n 1. the ability,coming from one’s knowledge,practice, aptitude, etc. to dosomething well. 2. competentexcellence in performance;expertness, dexterity. — Syn. 1.proficiency, facility. 2. deftness,cleverness.

SCCLL, Pronounced Skillby Joanne Beal

➫

(continued on page 8)© 2001 Joanne Beal


offer testimony or respond to requests for information from legislative bodies, ad hoc committees and the media that may be questioning the justification of the institution’s very existence.

In other ways, the management of alibrary is not unlike that of a small- ormedium-sized business. Procuring items,cash flow and the dispensing of servicesall must be performed in a business-likemanner. To show that the SCCLL institutionis a cost-effective business, standardaccounting principles must be adhered to;clear and accurate banking records mustbe maintained; and honest and ethicalpractices are de rigueur. And becausemany membership libraries are nonprofitcorporations, they are subject to thestatutory provisions governing all nonprofitorganizations. The duties of registering thecorporation and bylaws with the secretaryof state, handling the election of trusteesand officers, as well as the recording andmaintaining of corporate minutes are dutiesthat often fall on the shoulders of thelibrarian and staff. Other duties may

include the completion and filing of InternalRevenue Service and state and local taxforms.

The most rewarding skill remains theperformance of duties as a trained anddedicated librarian. Though the politicaland business demands may at times seemto distort our three-sided figure, it is theclassical and academic precepts of libraryscience that keep it properly aligned.Collection development for the purpose of maintaining a well-rounded repository of legal research materials to serve theneeds of a varied user group remains a rewarding exercise of professionaljudgment. The discernment employed in organizing a library for optimum use by both educated and uneducated patronsparticularly illustrates the speculativeabilities of an information scientist. Further,the extremes of satisfying the in-depthresearch needs of lawyers as well as layusers typifies the mental dexterity of areader-services specialist. In days gone by, these duties were referred to asacquisitions, cataloging and reference.

Even dressed up in the contemporaryvernacular, the spirit of these tasks still stirs in the hearts of the true librarians.

When picturing these three-sided figures,do not visualize them as stationary images.Rather, imagine them as flexible, withadjustable lengths and angles. For this isthe premier skill of the SCCLL librarian:the ability to prioritize and accommodatethe various demands and expectations ofthe service levels required and to modifyshort-term and long-range plans in order to satisfy governmental and privateinterests.

In the growing ranks of the Special InterestSections of AALL, let SCCLL be known as one whose primary purpose is that offostering the fervent service ethic instilledwithin its assemblage of highly prized andhighly skilled librarians.

Joanne Beal ([email protected]) is a law librarian at the Dayton LawLibrary Association in Dayton, Ohio.

As an aid to SCCLL employers, thefollowing checklist contains questions to consider when recruiting a skilledlibrarian.

Administration andManagementWhat standing in the overall institutiondoes the library occupy?

Is it a separate and autonomousdepartment?

Are human resources and personnelissues handled within the library or by an outside office?

Is there a formal classification orcategorization of employee types?

Does the library fall under the oversightof another department or an electedofficial?

What is the level of fiscal accountabilityof the librarian?

What is the level of decision-making ofthe librarian for purchases, employees,activities and projects?

With whom will regular communicationbe expected? Judges? Elected officials?

Department heads? Attorneys?

Do statutory provisions for financialoversight and reporting apply to thislibrary?

Do statutory provisions for thegovernance and operation of a not-for-profit corporation apply to this library?

Professional DutiesAs a reference assistance, will thelibrarian serve primarily judges, electedofficials, attorneys, paralegals, lawstudents or members of the generalpublic?

Is the selection and maintenance ofelectronic sources of information withinthe purview of the librarian?

Is the creation and maintenance of a descriptive catalog of materials within the purview of the librarian?

Does the opportunity for professionalactivities, continuing education andpublishing exist?

Background and CredentialsWhat level of education and back-ground does the job classification or description of duties require?

Generally speaking, at the director’slevel, a postgraduate degree in law,library science or public administrationis preferred, if not required. Dependentupon the breadth of other positionswithin the organization, an SCCLLemployee may elect to chose from other options, such as:

• a bachelor’s degree;

• an associate’s degree in librarytechnology, paralegal studies,business or criminal justice;

• completion of college-levelcourses in library services,business or publicadministration; or

• employment experience inlibraries, government or criminal justice.

A foremost need to maintain a qualitySCCLL facility is the availability ofcontinuing education, as well as the motivation for attendance by thedirector and staff.

Employment Checklist

SCCLL continued from page 6


choice point

pick up june

Ad indexButterworths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36ChoicePoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Court Express. . . . . inside back coverGlobal Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23LexisNexis . . . . . . 3, 29, back coverMedical Library Center of New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Mergent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Practising Law Institute. . . . . . . . 31Rhode Island Law Press . . . . . . . . 9West. . . . . . inside front cover, 7, 33


“Diane has brought a lot of energy toNELLCO, and we are enthusiastic aboutmoving forward with a new executivedirector to continue the implementation ofour strategic plan.” — S. Blair Kaufman,president, NELLCO Executive Board

At the end of June, Diane Klaiber retiredas executive director of The New EnglandLaw Libraries Consortium, a position shehad held since 1995. Established in 1983,NELLCO is a unique law library consortiumcurrently comprising 20 academic lawlibraries, one private nonprofit library andfour state libraries from Pennsylvania toMaine, (http://www.nellco.org). In light of the emphasis on library cooperationoutlined in AALL’s strategic plan,(http://www.aallnet.org/about/strategic_plan.asp), and the AALL Research Agenda(http://www.aallnet.org/committee/research/agenda.asp), I decided to find out what we can learn about law-librarycooperation from NELLCO, presently the most active law-library consortium. For more perspectives on law-librarycooperation, look for the forthcoming issuedevoted to this topic in 20 Legal ReferenceServices Quarterly, issue 3.

Hinchcliff: NELLCO members are diversein type and size of law library. Whatmotivated such a diverse group of lawlibraries to cooperate?

Klaiber: While our members are diverse,they have common needs and goals, evenmore than those of a large research orundergraduate institution. NELLCO’s initialgoal in incorporating in 1983 was toshare resources. That goal is still validtoday, along with other goals. Our

strategic plan includes, among other items,networking, training, career developmentand shared interlibrary loan programs. In fact, last year we surveyed all NELLCOdirectors asking what their top five issueswill be in the next three years. The resultwas the same for academic, state orprivate institutions: technology, staffing,change management, training andcollections. I bet that if you surveyed 100 institutions, they would have the same issues. I believe that if libraries focuson these common goals, sharing andcooperation are mucheasier.

Hinchcliff: Whichcooperative efforts ofNELLCO have been themost successful?

Klaiber: Certainlythese include ourefforts aroundelectronic-resource licensing,interlibrary loan,and the Blackwellacquisitionscontract formonographsand standing-order titles. Bothour licensingarrangements and the Blackwellcontract havesavedNELLCOmembers asubstantial amount of moneyand have also allowed us to leverage theconsortium in getting publishers to sponsortraining, change the language in licenses,and improve how we access publishers’information. For instance, MassachusettsLawyers Weekly stopped producing ficheof its product, which was a real concernfor the academic institutions. I met with theCEO, who agreed to produce a separateWeb site where the academic institutionswould get free access to the publication.

I am also proud of our training programs,such as our recent joint workshop with theAmerican Association of Research Libraries

on advanced licensing. In the “ProductNegotiation and Business Models” session,Angee Baker from SOLINET discussed how law libraries can negotiate withpublishers if they understand the publisher’sviewpoint. Librarians with a knowledge ofbusiness models can be more successful innegotiations with publishers.

The forms we developed to avoidduplication of efforts by our referencelibrarians and our vendors when weinvestigate the purchase of an electronicresource for our members are very helpful;they are available

at the NELLCOWeb site. The

criteria worksheetallows vendors to give us an

overview of theirproduct during the trialperiod, and the

evaluatingelectronicdatabase form allows

referencelibrarians tocritique aproduct. I alsothink that many

of the memberswould say thenetworking thatgoes on atmeetings and

training programs specific to law librarians is invaluable.

Hinchcliff: What advice do yougive law librarians in negotiating

with electronic-resource vendors?

Klaiber: This is an area where it helps tohave participated in business, learning thedynamics of business relationships andcustomer service. I treat every vendor asmy customer. By that, I try to understandtheir concerns, needs and outcomes. Idon’t treat them — at least on the phone— as an adversary but as a colleague. I also try to get the publisher to understanda NELLCO member’s position. In otherwords, I use all the principles you haveread in Getting to Yes. I believe too many

Law-Library Cooperation:

What Makes it Work?

An Interview withDiane Klaiber by Carole L. Hinchcliff

© 2001 Carole L. Hinchcliff


librarians start their negotiations with thefeeling that publishers are out to get them.That is the wrong approach because it puts everyone on edge. The relationship I develop is all about compromise andknowing what battles you are willing topush and which ones you can let go thistime around. Patience is a virtue innegotiations — a lesson that didn’t comeeasily for me. Lastly, I always try in anyrelationship to begin on a human level,move into the business level and alwaysend back on the human level. I believe this shows respect for the person you aredealing with.

Hinchcliff: You have proposed that lawlibraries form a national consortium foracquiring access to electronic resources.Why do you think this is necessary?

Klaiber: Yes, I definitely believe that.However, I have proposed the idea notonly for licensing but also for jointcooperation in many areas — jobrotations, virtual reference desks, distancelearning, training and the list goes on.There is a host of items that law librariesare duplicating across the country, and notenough time to do justice to all. Certainlythe leverage of a national consortium maybring prices on electronic resources down,but I think law libraries need to be moreconcerned about archiving issues; usagestatistics; cross-linking programs, such as SFX; and authentication. These issuesare perhaps more critical than price. A national consortium would be able toleverage the market with a common voicetalking with the CEOs of law publishersinstead of members of their sales forces.(Interviewer’s note: SFX is context-sensitivelinking software that facilitates the seamlesslinking of all Web-based information in a library’s electronic collection, whetherthe resources are hosted by the library or external information provider.)

Hinchcliff: Tell me about theaccomplishments of NELLCO of which you are proudest.

Klaiber: The first one is that NELLCOmembers are proud of their consortium,and rightfully so. While NELLCO has been around for 18 years, it really hasblossomed in the last five years, and Ibelieve it can only get stronger as a modelfor other law libraries. For two years in arow, NELLCO has won the AALL marketingaward for use of technology, which is veryrewarding.

The second area is my work with lawpublishers. For example, NELLCO worked

very closely with Loislaw.com to get it tounderstand the need to offer its servicesfree to academic libraries. It took awhile,but it did happen. We have put pressureon Oceana regarding its restrictive license,and while it is not perfect, Oceana didmake some changes, and we continue towork with it. BNA is another publisher thatI have worked very closely regarding itstransition to the Web.

Hinchcliff: Academic law libraries havetraditionally worked to maintain theirautonomy. Has this been a factor inNELLCO’s cooperative efforts?

Klaiber: As a whole, I would say nobecause we have focused on duplicativeefforts that have been agreed to by allmembers in our strategic plan. However,two areas that always seem to generatediscussion are the reciprocal programallowing customers of NELLCO libraries to use each other’s facilities and ourinterlibrary loan policies. There is a fearby some of the private institutions that theywill be inundated with another school’sstudents or attorneys. That has nothappened, but the perception is that itwill. Second, similar perceptions come upin regards to interlibrary loan, but again,members are respectful of each other andtry to make sure they don’t abuse ouragreements with one another. Of course,as you grow there is always that stagewhere members have to get to know eachother and feel comfortable with the newplaying field.

Hinchcliff: Which cooperative effortshave been the most challenging todevelop and why?

Klaiber: It has been easy to get folks on board with new initiatives that don’tinterfere with previous set processes, such as licensing, as everyone is relativelynew at this. However, in areas that mightrequire members to change vendors or usea different process for interlibrary loan orbinding, there is resistance. Some membershave a strong allegiance to a certainvendor, whether they are getting the bestdeal or not. Further, some do not have thestaff to make changes, or the staff is tooresistant to change or can’t deal withtechnology. Needless to say, there is a host of reasons not to change even ifsaving money in the long run is evident.Perhaps the one effort that has nevergotten off the ground is cooperativecollection development. NELLCO haslooked at this issue several times but could not come to common ground where

members would feel comfortable allowinganother institution to specialize in a certain area of law so they didn’t need topurchase expensive materials to supportthat area. Of course, the last five years has been relatively lush with money forlaw-school libraries, so there hasn’t been a real need to do something about jointcollections. That may change in the future.Recently, a member who lacks shelving

space proposed that we share supersededvolumes. I think this type of collectionsharing makes good sense and issomething NELLCO can facilitate.

Hinchcliff: Which areas of law-librarycooperation do you expect to expand inthe next five years?

Klaiber: This is probably a question forthe executive board and the new executivedirector, but from my perspective I thinkNELLCO needs to focus more on thepeople issues of cooperation. For instance,our strategic plan addresses the idea ofdoing job rotations, cross-training betweenacademic and the public institutions, andtraining of staff for the future, especially as

(continued on page 13)

Selected Resources forNegotiating Licenses withElectronic Publishers

LIBLICENSE-L Mailing Listhttp://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/mailing-list.shtmlAn Internet discussion list coveringelectronic content licensing foracademic and research libraries.

LIBLICENSE — Licensing DigitalInformation: A Resource for Librarians http://library.yale.edu/~llicense/index.shtml

Licensingmodels.com — ModelStandard Licenses for Use byPublishers, Librarians and SubscriptionAgents for Electronic Resources http://www.licensing models.com

International Coalition of LibraryConsortia http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/

Association of Research LibrariesWorkshops http://www.arl.org/workshops.html


May 7, 2001Call Today — Co-SponsorsNeeded for E-Government ActAs promised, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., unveiled the E-Government Act of 2001 (S. 803) on May 1, to a packedroom of librarians, including a handful ofAALL members who were visiting theirelected representatives in Washington,D.C. during the American LibraryAssociation’s Legislative Day. The billcreates a Federal chief information officerfor the executive branch and a new Officeof Information Policy at the Office ofManagement and Budget that will heightenvisibility and provide a coordinated policyframework for the dissemination ofelectronic government information byexecutive branch agencies.

The Washington Affairs Office has workedclosely with the senator’s staff in developingkey provisions on “Accessibility, Usability,and Preservation of GovernmentInformation” that provide for:

• the development of interoperablecataloging and indexing standardsfor agency Web resources (Sec.215);

• a 30-month study to developpermanent public-access standards(Sec. 215);

• a public domain directory of federal agency Web sites (Sec. 216);

• and the development of standardsfor agency Web sites (Sec. 217).

Additionally, Sec. 205 includes two keyprovisions regarding the federal courts thatare especially important to the law-librarycommunity:

• first, to improve public access tojudicial information by mandatingthat federal courts develop andmaintain comprehensive Web sites;and

• second, to repeal current statutorylanguage to make the judiciary’selectronic PACER system availableto the public at no cost.

The Washington Affairs Office issued a press release for the May 1 event insupport of the legislation. It describes otherkey provisions of S. 803 and includes a list of the 11 original co-sponsors,

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/pr05012001.html.

However, we need your help in gettingmore co-sponsors for the E-Government bill!Before you contact your senators’ offices,be sure to check to see whether they arealready co-sponsors at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN00803:@@@P. Then please follow the suggestionsin the Action Alert on S. 803 at theWashington Affairs Office Web site foradditional information resources about thelegislation, http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/aa05072001.html. It isvery important that you thank yoursenator(s) for their support of S. 803 if they are already co-sponsors, and ifthey’re not, then urge them to cosponsorthe bill. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.,chairman of the Governmental AffairsCommittee, has promised hearings, but it’scritically important that we have a long listof co-sponsors. Thank you!

Two New GAO Reports of Interest Information Management: ElectronicDissemination of Government Publications,GAO-01-428, March 30, 2001, wasmandated in the conference committeereport on the Legislative Appropriations Actof 2001 to study the impact of providingdocuments to the public solely in electronicformat and to assess the feasibility oftransferring the Federal Depository LibraryProgram to the Library of Congress. Whilenoting that the electronic dissemination of government documents offers theopportunity to reduce the costs ofdissemination and make governmentinformation more usable and accessible,the report outlines a number of keychallenges of the electronic environment —including authenticity and permanentpublic access and preservation — but failsto analyze them adequately. It also pointsout that a move to an all-electronic FDLPshifts printing costs to libraries and users.

The report also provides an overview ofthe advantages and disadvantagesassociated with moving the FDLP to theLibrary of Congress. It includes lettersraising numerous issues about the reportfrom Librarian of Congress Dr. JamesBillington and Public Printer MichaelDiMario. In his letter, Billington questionswhether the Government Accounting Officesufficiently analyzed the complex issuesinvolved and notes that, were the FDLP to

be moved to LC, “Congress might notachieve the desired results, cost efficienciesmight not be realized, and seriousunintended consequences would likelyoccur.” DiMario’s comments questionwhether a move to LC would benefit public users of government information and suggested that there would be seriousdisadvantages to such a transfer. Rep.Robert Ney, R-Ohio, the new chairman of the House Administration Committee,promised comments on the report at a later date.

Information Management: Progress inImplementing the 1996 Electronic Freedomof Information Act Amendments, GAO-01-378, March 16, 2001, was based on asurvey of 25 major federal departmentsand agencies that account for 97 percentof all FOIA requests. The report finds thatmost federal agencies have begun to openelectronic reading rooms and to expeditehandling of the public’s requests forgovernment documents, but several lag behind in implementing the 1996Electronic Freedom of Information Actintended to speed the processing of FOIArequests and to provide electronic versionsof documents to the public.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., original sponsorof E-FOIA, requested the study that wasissued on March 16, FOIA’s 35thanniversary. In a press release timed tocoincide with the publication of the report,Leahy noted that “FOIA gives eachAmerican the power to ask — and thegovernment the obligation to answer —questions about official actions or inaction.We can count on a government agency totell us when it does something right, but weneed FOIA to help tell us when it doessomething wrong. Of all the laws that fillour law libraries, none better than FOIAbreathes life into the first words in ourConstitution, ‘We the people of the UnitedStates’ and into our First Amendment rightsto petition our government. This is a law to celebrate, to use, and to defend.”

Note: GAO reports are available in PDFformat at http://www.gao.gov.

Mary Alice Baish, acting Washington affairsrepresentative, Edward B. Williams Law Library, 111 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-1417 • 202/662-9200 • fax: 202/662-9202 • e-mail: [email protected] • Internet:http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash

by Mary Alice BaishWashington Brief


1/2 pageMed. Lib Center

pick up june

Law Library Cooperation continued from page 11

we use technology more and more. Iwould love to see NELLCO establish avirtual reference desk for all our membersto use, set up distance-learning programsas we grow geographically, host morepublisher/librarian forums, and considercentralizing cataloging. NELLCO can domuch more than presently reflected on ourWeb site in regards to sharing teachingmaterials, Webographies, etc., so thatmembers are not reinventing the wheel.How many ways can you teach someoneto use Index to Legal Periodicals andBooks?

Hinchcliff: Are there cooperative effortsin other types of libraries that could beadopted by law libraries?

Klaiber: Yes, especially when it comes to cooperative collection development in areas of subject concentration, such as intellectual property, tax, etc. TheInternational Coalition of Consortia Website listed in the sidebar has examples of

white papers on technical requirementsand statistical usage reports that could beused by law libraries. Delivery programs,binding and shared cataloging are a few examples of cooperative efforts. TheICOLC meets twice a year and over 100consortia across the globe gather to talkabout library cooperation.

Hinchcliff: What are the elements ofsuccessful cooperative efforts betweenlibraries? What makes cooperation work?

Klaiber: The driving factor in anycooperative effort is that it either has tosave money or time for the members sinceany NELLCO project is in addition to eachstaff member’s normal working day. That iswhy an agreed-upon strategic plan by allparticipants is really critical to moving anyorganization forward. Even then, I won’tsay that it is easy. If libraries are justgetting started, I would start something thatis easy and will impact all participants sowhen it happens there is some positive

impact and enthusiasm for it. If memberssee the positive impact, that will help tomotivate the next set of volunteers. It alsohelps to get to know those members whoare leaders and those who are followers. I also believe in celebrations and rewardsafter a project has been completed. A public announcement or letter to asupervisor is another nice way to thankthose who have helped an organization.Celebrate those successes!

Hinchcliff: Do you have a favorite quoteabout library cooperation?

Klaiber: My favorite quote about librarycooperation is from Benjamin Franklin:“We must all hang together, or assuredlywe shall all hang separately.”

Carole L. Hinchcliff ([email protected]) is associate director at The Ohio StateUniversity Moritz Law Library in Columbus.

SProfessional Perspectives — Tools and Techniques of the Trade. The Professional Development Committee encourages members to continue toexplore topics after presentations at the local, regional and national levels. We welcome your comments and article suggestions. Please contactSusan Siebers at 312/902-5675 or [email protected].

AALL recognizes major support from BNA, Inc. for the Professional Development Program.

Sitting in House Hearing Room D of theVirginia General Assembly Building onJan. 9, I only half-hear the speaker’scomments outlining the 2001 legislativerecommendations. After six months ofstudy, four public hearings and two ratherintense negotiation sessions betweenrepresentatives of the library communityand the information industry, I amexhausted as the Joint Commission on Technology and Science is poised to adopt a range of amendments toVirginia’s version of the Uniform ComputerInformation Transactions Act. The motion toaccept the amendments to UCITA passes.The amendments will be adopted only sixmonths prior to an effective date that hasloomed like a black cloud over Virginia’slibraries since April 2000. Indeed, it is abittersweet moment.

An analysis of UCITA and its effect on contracts between publishers andlibraries, access to electronic informationand library services, such as interlibraryloan, has been covered by law librarycolleagues who are experts in intellectualproperty, which I am not. Despite myfamiliarity with the legislative process andmore than a decade of working to affectpublic law library legislation in Virginia,this experience truly was my initiation to the political process in Virginia.

Some BackgroundIn June 2000, I received a letter notifyingme of my appointment to TechnicalAdvisory Committee Five of the JointCommission on Technology and Science, a legislative entity. The committee wascharged with examining “the UniformComputer Information Transactions Act’simpact on Virginia’s businesses,consumers and libraries, and to considerpossible changes to the Act.” During the 2000 legislative session, the GeneralAssembly had adopted UCITA with theproviso that a special advisory committeewould be created to study the impact ofUCITA as written. My appointment wasnot entirely a surprise since I addressedVirginia’s passage of UCITA and thepossible implications for our law library

in my annual presentation to the SupremeCourt of Virginia. As a result, the courtrequested representation on the advisorycommittee. The committee’s initialmeeting in June was organizational innature, including brief introductions,discussion of the study format andprocedure, and scheduling tentative datesand locations for public meetings. Iintroduced myself to the other librarian onthe committee, as well as to individualswho had participated in the initial UCITAstudy conducted during the 2000 session.Although I felt rather confident about mylibrary and my knowledge of specificways UCITA might impact my library, Iwas extremely nervous about the prospectof debating copyright and intellectualproperty issues with the seasonedattorneys on the committee.

A simple headcount of the proponents andopponents of UCITA represented on theadvisory committee of 27 confirmed thatthe members with grave concerns aboutUCITA were outnumbered. We wouldhave to work very hard to convince theothers on the committee that any libraryamendments and the reasons for themwere worth supporting. It actually seemedpossible if we could rally enoughlibrarians to speak on behalf of ourposition at each of the public meetings.After all, what would be more effectivethan a vocal constituency with validconcerns? In addition, we had the supportand expertise of the AALL WashingtonAffairs Office and the American LibraryAssociation Washington Office.

What Happened?The two librarians on the committee met in Washington, D.C., in early August.Mary Alice Baish, AALL’s actingWashington affairs representative, andMiriam Nisbet, ALA’s legislative counsel,joined us. As veterans of the federallegislative process, they providedinvaluable background information andideas for a legislative strategy. A secondstrategy meeting of librarians and otherUCITA opponents was held in Richmond,Va. We understood several procedures

that would affect our strategies. Theofficial press advisory from the jointcommission noted that “[p]ersonsproposing amendments must be presentat the meeting and provide the exactnature of the proposed amendments, thereasons for the proposed amendment andthe proposed amendment’s impacts.” Thiscertainly sounded fair, yet the studyprocedures provided that the advisorycommittee would hear amendments andvote on whether the amendment shouldbe discussed further at the committee’sfinal meeting. If amendments wererejected, they would not be considered at later committee meetings; thus, eachamendment would have one chance forreview and adoption. We also decided notto introduce a “blanket” exclusion becausethat language had failed during the termof the first advisory committee.

We decided not to present any libraryamendments at the first meeting in Norfolk,Va., on Aug. 23, 2000, but rather to waituntil we had a better sense of the committeeprocess. Although the meeting in Norfolkbegan at 1 p.m., the committee membershad considered only nine amendments by 5 p.m. There was no agenda for the meeting,and a disproportionate amount of the timeat what was characterized as a “publicmeeting” was spent discussing amendmentssubmitted by committee members and notmembers of the public. While we weresuccessful in gathering a room full oflibrarians in Norfolk, many prepared tospeak, the meeting was adjourned onlyminutes after a single librarian wasprovided the opportunity to speak.

At the second meeting, held in Lynchburg,Va., on Sept. 12, 2000, we introduced ourtwo library amendments. Despite the fact that we again filled the room withlibrarians, several eloquently addressingthe library communities’ concerns, thecommittee rejected the primary libraryamendment on a narrow margin of 12-11.Our second amendment, regarding mixedtransactions, failed on a vote of 9-14. Evenmore disheartening were the comments of a representative of an internationally

A Case Study with UCITA, or UCITA: the Real Lesson

© 2001 Gail Warren

Working Behind the Scenes to Affect Legislation:

AALL Spectrum July 200114

A D e s k t o p L e a r n i n g O p p o r t u n i t y

known legal publisher. He used his time at the podium to share the concern that the amendments sought by librarianswould permit libraries to buy one copy of everything and then “give it away” to millions of users around the world.Despite the official committee procedure,we were told our amendments might bereconsidered if we completely edited thelanguage and “tightened up” the scope of the amendments. We went to workimmediately on redrafting our language.On the bright side, an agenda had beendistributed.

The meeting at George Mason Universityin Fairfax, Va., on Oct. 17, 2000, was trulya marathon. During the course of sixhours, committee members considered 32 amendments and deferred nineamendments to the final meeting inNovember. After the Fairfax hearing,negotiations with representatives ofAALL, ALA, the Virginia LibraryAssociation, National Conference ofCommissioners on Uniform State Lawand the publishing industry disintegratedas we haggled over for profit vs. non-profit libraries, tangible copy, on thepremises and the implications ofcopyright law, including fair use. Ourfinal revised amendment was presented atthe meeting in Richmond on Nov. 9, 2000— and failed on a tie vote. We took solacein the fact that several of the technologycouncil members on the advisorycommittee not only voted in favor of our amendment but also spoke in supportof it. Of 71 amendments submitted bycommittee members and the publicduring the four public meetings, only 23 were adopted at the final meeting for recommendation to the full JointCommission on Technology and Science.

Although the term of AdvisoryCommittee Five officially ended at the last meeting held Nov. 9, 2000, a subgroupof the initial committee continued tonegotiate a compromise amendmentbetween the VLA and the informationvendors. In December 2000, this sub-group met in Washington, D.C., to workon a negotiated compromise. This groupincluded me — not representing lawlibraries — the VLA representative to theadvisory committee, the VLA lobbyist, anintellectual property attorney who had

served as an adviser to ALA,representatives of various publishingindustries, America Online and the author of the original UCITA draft. Whilethis resulted in a very narrow libraryamendment, the negotiation was handledwithin the context that UCITA had beenenacted in Virginia and would be effectivein a matter of months.

By January 2001, VLA accepted theproffered amendment, stating:

“Given that UCITA has already beensigned into law in Virginia, the VLAbelieves the proposed amendment is areasonable compromise for Virginialibraries and librarians. Both sides to the negotiation agree that thiscompromise is not entered into as aproposed national solution to libraryconcerns with UCITA and that, exceptfor preserving any fundamentalpublic policy, preemption, and uncon-scionability defenses which may exist,the issue of online access to contentwas one that could not be resolvedduring the Virginia negotiations.”

After considering a range of issues, theVirginia Association of Law Librariescould not support the final negotiatedamendment. For more information aboutthe Virginia library amendment and linksto the official joint commission documentsfor each of the above meetings, visit theVALL Web site at http://law.richmond.edu/vall/LegAwareness.htm

What I LearnedPresent your arguments aspersuasively as possible, but don’tbe too naive about success. Good,logical reasons for statutory change thatserve to benefit the public at large don’toutweigh private economic concerns.

At each hearing, librarians described theirmission to serve and provide access toinformation, no matter what the format.They were passionate about the citizenswe serve and the importance of publicaccess to information in a democraticsociety, yet all the flag waving andrecognition of libraries’ special services toour communities made no difference tomost members of the advisory committeeor those legislators present. Surprisingly,citing current federal copyright law

proved to be of little benefit, as we werecontinually reminded that this was a statelegislative amendment.

Develop and nurture alliances withcolleagues from other types of librariesand other professions who are affectedby proposed legislation.

As librarians from a variety of librariesand library organizations answered thecall to attend meetings or speak insupport of our amendments, wedeveloped an “esprit de corps” — a teamfighting the “battle” against UCITA. Themix of media specialists, universitylibrarians, law librarians, virtual librariansand others provided a strong unitedmessage. There was an overwhelmingvolume of information, paper and peopleto digest. This was manageable, in part,because there were humorous moments as well. I won’t soon forget war storiesshared over lunches with my fellowlibrarian on the committee (and newfriend) or the dinner crammed in a boothwith some folks from the insuranceindustry. We learned a lot from theirexperiences and willingness to sharelessons of success and failure.

Understand the realities of yoursituation. The “right” side doesn’talways win.

When a state’s primary elected officialshave decided that legislation, such asUCITA, will attract and promote economicopportunities for the growing softwareand information industries, nothing willconvince them to change their initialcourse. Our state elected officials areconvinced that it’s not only important fora state to attract new technology in thisglobal economy, but it must retain existingcorporate citizens, such as AmericaOnline.

Organize your presentations andwitnesses well.

Naively, I thought an organized group of librarians representing a variety oflibraries in Virginia, each presenting thesame logical, well-established principles— with the support of existing copyrightlaw — would be able to turn the vote.Perhaps I should have heeded the words of

by Gail Warren


AALL Spectrum July 2001 15


LLOPS Holds Spring WorkshopThe Law Librarians of Puget Sound’sProfessional Development Committee hosted its annual Spring Workshop onWednesday, March 28 at the University of Washington Waterfront Activities Centerin Seattle. About 40 people attended“Conquering Knowledge Management.”The speakers were: Keith Lipman,knowledge management consultant fromAtvantec, Miss.; Martha Leredu, knowledgemanager at the accounting firm of MossAdams in Seattle; and Margaret MaesAxtmann, immediate past-president of AALL and associate director for informationservices at the University of St. Thomas LawLibrary in Minneapolis. Lipman provided an overview of knowledge managementtheory and practice. Leredu discussed real-world implementation issues regardingKM. Axtmann covered the knotty conceptsof licensing external content for use in theKM environment.

LLOPS PDC members responsible forplanning and executing the programconsisted of Barbara Holt, library directorfor Perkins Coie Law Library; JonathanFranklin, assistant librarian for libraryservices at the University of WashingtonMarion Gould Gallagher Law Library; and Brenna Louzin, law library managerfor Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe’snorthwest offices.

CoALL Hosts Board MemberThe Colorado Association of Law Librarieswelcomed AALL Executive board memberSally Holterhoff for a Chapter visit on April19 and 20. On April 19, Holterhoff touredthree law libraries in Denver: the ColoradoSupreme Court Library, the 10th CircuitLibrary and the U.S. Attorney’s OfficeLibrary. Her tour continued at BallardSpahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, where she joined CoALL’s Executive Committeemeeting and then addressed a generalmeeting of the CoALL membership. Sheimpressed the group with the knowledgeshe had of the Chapter — she definitelydid her homework before her visit!Holterhoff also spoke about a variety ofissues, including relationships among the chapters and with AALL; the directionCoALL and AALL will be moving in the next few years and the importance ofpreserving Chapter institutional memory;strategic planning for the Chapter; Chapteroutreach programs; communication amongChapter members; and Chapter finances

and tax status. The evening ended withdinner at a nearby restaurant, whereHolterhoff was an honored guest duringCoALL’s annual “appreciation dinner” for the Executive Committee Members and active chairs. On April 20, Holterhoffconcluded her Chapter visit by traveling to Boulder, Co., to tour the University ofColorado Law Library and the NationalIndian Law Library.

NOCALL Honors MemberShirley Hart David was chosen to receivethe NOCALL Professional AchievementAward for her outstanding contribution tothe Northern California Association of LawLibraries and the profession over the years.David received this prestigious award atthe NOCALL May business meeting at theCalifornia Court of Appeal in San Jose,Calif. Presiding Justice Christopher C.Cottle spoke on issues facing today’sjurists. New officers were installed and areception followed the business meeting.

LLAW Leads in EducationThe Law Librarians Association ofWisconsin held its first-ever springconference on April 27 at the State Bar of Wisconsin’s headquarters in Madison,Wis. The conference consisted ofeducational seminars and a generalbusiness meeting — not to mention ping-pong! Genie Tyburski, Web manager ofthe Virtual Chase, presented the keynoteaddress on “How to Be Successful withWeb Research.” Educational sessionscovered such topics as UCITA, Wisconsincourt public records on the Web, adultlearning theory and change management.

Members of LLAW also presented twosessions on “How to do Free LegalResearch on the Internet” at the State Barof Wisconsin’s Annual Convention in LakeGeneva, Wis., on May 2. Tony Chan and Kellee Selden-Huston presented acontinuing legal education seminar onbasic Internet legal research and ConnieVon Der Heide and Mary Koshollekpresented a CLE seminar on advancedInternet legal research.

LLNE Holds Spring Meeting, Elects VPOn March 30, Boston’s New EnglandSchool of Law Library hosted the LawLibrarians of New England’s Spring 2001Conference. The theme was “Women andthe Law.” Attendees were able to listen

and pose questions to professors,practicing attorneys and judges on thepast, present and future of women in thelegal profession. Topics included: AnHistorical Overview of Women and theLaw; Current Legal Issues: Legislative, CaseLaw and International; A Panel Discussionof Women in the Law; The History ofWomen in Legal Education, whichhighlighted oral histories of female studentsof Portia Law School; Women, Law andManuscripts, a review of the Manuscriptsin Radcliffe’s Schlesinger Library’scollection and its current digitizationproject; A Presentation of the Portia LawSchool Archives; and Portia in Celluloid:Images of Lawyers, Judges and Librarians.

Michael Hughes, associate director of theQuinnipiac University School of LawLibrary, was elected vice president/president-elect and assumed his duties as vice president immediately.

Joint LLNE and SNELLAWorkshop, Annual Meeting LuncheonThe Law Librarians of New England andthe Southern New England Law Librarians’Association sponsored a workshop onInternet search engines. The speakers wereDeanna Barmakian of Harvard Law SchoolLibrary and Candy Schwartz, professor at Simmons College Graduate School ofLibrary and Information Science. SuffolkUniversity Law School hosted this programat the CALI Conference on June 21, 2001

LLNE and SNELLA will sponsor a luncheonat the AALL Annual Meeting andConference. Registration forms areavailable on the LLNE Web site at http://www.aallnet.org/chapter/llne/events.htmand will also be mailed out to memberswith the annual dues invoice.

CALL Elects 2001–2002 Board,Holds Continuing EducationProgram The Chicago Association for Law Librarieshas elected the following people to the2001–2002 CALL board: Vice President/President-Elect Christina Wagner, SecretaryNaomi Goodman and Director PegeenBassett. They took office following the Maybusiness meeting.

The following board members will continueon in 2001–2002: President John Klaus,Treasurer Scott Burgh, Director JeanWenger and Past President Frank Drake.

by Marilyn K. HarhaiChapter News



Chapter News continued from page 16

On March 21, the CALL ContinuingEducation Committee presented a programtitled “Managing Your Library Staff: BasicHR Do’s and Don’ts,” featuring speakerPaul C. Gibson, director of humanresources at CCH INCORPORATED. The program was similar to the excellentprogram he participated in at last year’sAALL Annual Meeting in Philadelphia.

VALL Elects New OfficersThe Virginia Association of Law Librarieselected new officers April 28: PresidentJudith A. (Jill) Burr of Virginia Beach LawLibrary; Vice President/President-ElectCharles Oates of Regent University LawLibrary; Past President Donna Bausch ofNorfolk Law Library; Secretary Cynthia L.Smith of McKandlish Kaine; Treasurer Lyn

Warmath of Hirschler Fleischer; DirectorBarbie Selby of the University of VirginiaLaw Library; Director Alyssa Altshuler ofHunton & Williams; and ex officio memberJames Wirrell of the University of Richmond.

Compiled and edited by Marilyn K. Harhai,University of Orlando School of Law, Euliano LawLibrary, 6441 E. Colonial Drive, Orlando, FL 32807-3673 • 407/275-2100 • fax: 407/275-3654 •[email protected]

The last 10 years have been a blur tomany of us. We’ve taken on more andmore responsibilities, leading to changedroles within our institutions. We’ve becomemore vocal to policy makers. We’vewatched the legal publishing industrybecome nearly unrecognizable. And we continue to struggle with describingand defining our profession.

When AALL President Bob Oakley and I met for the first time to discuss plans for the 2001 AALL Annual Meeting inMinneapolis, we were sure of two things:Our profession was changing faster thananyone could imagine. And we did notwant to use the word millennium in ourplanning process.

AALL was in Minneapolis in 1990;meeting statistics will provide one of the bookends for the last decade ofprogramming:

• In 1990, 44 Special InterestSection meetings, one Chaptermeeting/function, 37 committeemeetings, 56 programs, aConference of Newer LawLibrarians and two preconferenceworkshops.

• In 2001, 111 SIS meetings, 20Chapter meetings/functions, 57committee meetings, 76 programs,four preconference workshops,Teaching Research in Court andAgency Law Libraries Conferenceand CONELL.

The last time AALL was in Minneapolis,programs included the first AnnualLegislative Update, the Changing Structure

of the Publishing Industry, CD-ROM in LawLibraries and Beyond CONELL. In 2001we are moving ahead in our investigationof our profession and the concerns wedeal with every day. The five tracks for the2001 meeting tell the story of our “NewRealities, New Roles,” the theme of thisyear’s Annual Meeting. Each track washighlighted in issues of AALL Spectrum:agents of change (February), globalization(March), partnership (April), practitioner’stoolkit and reinventing law librarianship(June). This year, we’ve moved from CD-ROM to e-books. From beyondCONELL to getting the salary you want — two sides of the same coin?

As an association, we have seen theconcepts embedded in these programtracks expanded in recent board initiatives,strategic plans, Washington Affairs events,and moderated listservs and discussions.Membership categories have beenbroadened. Our professional publicationshave continued to develop and evolve.And we have continued to explorestrategic partnerships. Our WashingtonAffairs office speaks for our members oncopyright, preservation and access issues.Our members speak to both local andnational legislators to influence pendinglegislation and incorporate librarianopinions on the record. The ProfessionalDevelopment Committee responds tomember needs by developing andproducing programming in diversegeographic areas.

What does all this rhetoric mean to you,the individual member attending your first or your 10th Annual Meeting?

All of these Association and memberactivities influence the content of theprograms at the Annual Meeting.Members’ concerns are noted via surveys,messages to leaders, conversations atboard visits to Chapters and the SISsystem. Programs are proposed byindividual members, committees, taskforces, SISs and Chapters. Truepartnerships among our member groupsare reflected in the 76 programs offered in July. Program coordinators, moderators,speakers, Annual Meeting ProgramCommittee liaisons, local arrangementsand headquarters staff — at least 500individuals — have worked together formore than 18 months to produce a set ofprograms that will help AALL members seewhere we’re going in the next few years, if not the next 10 years. The owners ofthese 1,000 hands did a great job andeach deserves a pat on the back. If ameeting is successful, it is due to the hardwork, vision and cooperation of hundredsof people.

It is impossible to ignore what was writtenin 1990 as we look ahead. “This is animportant time for AALL, one in which therole of professional associations is changingmuch as our own roles are changing in theplaces where we work,” said Dick Danner,AALL president at the 1990 AALL AnnualMeeting in Minneapolis, in the June 18,1990, issue of the Northwoods News. I’llsecond that thought.

Kathie Sullivan ([email protected]),reference librarian at Downs Rachlin &Martin, PLLC, in Burlington, Vt., is chair ofthe Annual Meeting Program Committee.

NewRoles by Kathie J. Sullivan

NewRealities

10,000 Lakes, 1,000 Hands

© 2001 Kathie J. Sullivan


The listings here are edited for space andare provided to keep readers informed ofwhat sorts of jobs have been recentlyavailable. Many jobs listed here will havebeen filled by the time the issue is printed.Full listings of all current placement ads areavailable on the World Wide Web atAALLNET, http://www.aallnet.org. Toplace an ad, call Membership CoordinatorRachel Shaevel at 312/939-4764,extension 10.

ArizonaReference Librarian, Ross-Blakley LawLibrary, Arizona State University, Tempe.Provides reference services; participates indevelopment and maintenance of libraryWeb site; provides training in use ofelectronic research tools; contributes toinstruction in legal bibliography andresearch; and prepares bibliographies,research guides and brochures. RequiresM.L.S. and J.D. #54224

CaliforniaCataloger, University of California,Berkeley. Performs original cataloging ofnew law materials for Anglo-American andforeign law collections. Requires M.L.S.,one year cataloging experience. Readingknowledge of Chinese or Japanese highly desirable. For full description seehttp://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/positions/cataloger.html. #54218

Associate Reference Librarian,Hastings College of the Law Library, San Francisco. Provides legal referenceservices; participates in faculty liaison andcollection-development programs. RequiresM.L.S., library experience, familiarity withtraditional and electronic library resourcesand excellent legal-research skills. Forcomplete description go to http://www.uchastings.edu/library. #54225

Information Resources Manager,Latham & Watkins, Menlo Park. Supervisesstaff, budgeting and training; providesreference service using electronic andtraditional resources. Requires M.L.S., five years’ law-library experience andsupervisory experience. #54230

Assistant Librarian, AlschulerGrossman Stein & Kahan LLP, Los Angeles.Provides legal and business referenceservices; provides training in the use of library resources; and assists withcollection development, ordering materials,resolving problems with vendors andinterlibrary loan. Requires M.L.S./M.L.I.S.or significant law-library experience.Salary range $40,000–45,000. #54231

Head of Public Services, University ofSan Francisco Law Library, San Francisco.Manages all functions and staff relating toinformation services, reference, circulation,collection development, stack maintenanceand library-research instruction. RequiresM.L.S., J.D., collection-development andsupervisory experience, and knowledge oflegal materials. Salary range $59,000–66,000. Full job description at http://www.usfca.edu/law_library/staffempl.htm.#54232

District of ColumbiaElectronic Services Librarian,UDC David A. Clarke School of LawLibrary. Assists in analyzing and evaluatingtechnology needs of law library and lawschool; trains faculty and students inelectronic services; and participates inreference-desk rotation. Requires J.D. orM.I.S./M.L.S. and one year of experiencein legal environment. Minimum salary$48,818. #54220

Librarian, ACS, Metro Area. Will supporta potential client in litigation arena.Requires two years’ library-administrationexperience and M.L.S. Cataloging,acquisitions, reference, research and onlinesearching a plus. #54223

Acquisitions and Serials Librarian,Covington & Burling. Responsible for alllibrary acquisitions and serials functions;supervision and training of staff assistants;and management of serials andacquisitions modules of integrated librarysystem. Requires M.L.S. and two years’library acquisitions and supervisoryexperience. #54228

GeorgiaLibrarian, McGuireWoods LLP, Atlanta.Requires familiarity with legal and nonlegalresearch, collection development andmaintenance, and budgeting and accountspayable. Preferred qualifications includeM.L.S., law-library experience andknowledge of WESTLAW, Lexis, and otherdatabases and research products. #54217

IllinoisHead Reference Librarian, SkaddenArps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Chicago.Provides research services; participates incollection development; develops andsupports training programs; and contributesinformation and articles to intranet. RequiresM.L.S., five years’ research experience,expertise in searching corporate financeand knowledge of legal research andfederal tax resources. #54226

IndianaElectronic Services and ReferenceLibrarian, Indiana University Law Library,Bloomington. Provides training and supportin the use of electronic resources; maintainsWWW Virtual Library-Law; makesacquisitions recommendations; and teachesin first-year legal-research program.Requires M.L.S., J.D., and knowledge ofWESTLAW, Lexis, legal CD-ROM productsand Internet resources. #54227

Human Rights Librarian, Notre Dame Law School Library, Notre Dame.Organizes and maintains human rightscollection; works with serials librarian inacquiring appropriate materials; andperforms cataloging duties in cooperationwith cataloging librarian. Requires M.L.S. and cataloging and acquisitionsexperience. #54233

MassachusettsLaw Library Assistant, Kirkpatrick &Lockhart LLP, Boston. Processes librarymaterials; maintains library subscriptionrecords; performs quick reference andresearch; and oversees interlibrary loan.Requires knowledge of Microsoft Word,Excel, Outlook and Access; familiarity withMassachusetts legal materials; and two tofive years’ law-library experience. #54219

NebraskaCatalog/Reference Librarian,Creighton University Law Library, Omaha.Oversees cataloging functions and providesreference service. Requires M.L.S., one totwo years’ library experience. For fulldescription go to http://culaw2.creighton.edu/job.html. #54229

New YorkCollection Development/ReferenceLibrarian, Cornell University Law Library,Ithaca. Oversees review and selection ofelectronic and print resources; providesreference and research services; createsonline and print research guides; andcollaborates in Web activities. RequiresM.L.S., J.D., proficiency in onlinesearching and experience with currentinformation technologies. #54221

North CarolinaReference Librarian, Duke University LawSchool, Durham. Provides reference andresearch services; teaches legal research;participates in collection development andauthoring research guides and Web pages.Requires familiarity with current informationtechnologies and publishing formats,database and Internet searching proficiency,M.L.S. and J.D. #54222

Placement Listings


Sir Robert Peel in a letter to Lord Radnor in1946, “Great public measures cannot becarried by the influence of mere reason.”

Know the limitations on your time andresources, and don’t underestimate thetime and resources of your opposition.

My library colleague and I were “volunteers”on the committee, actively participating, yetresponsible on a daily basis for the operationof our libraries. Conference calls, e-mails, and face-to-face meetings were squeezed inbetween working shifts at the reference desk,handling library correspondence and trainingnew library staff. A majority of thoserepresenting the technology groups andpublishers were performing a service paidfor by a client; these individuals had theluxury of ample time to review and analyzeeach proposed amendment in-depth. Therewas no time to craft an appropriate responsewhen one committee member distributed afive-page legal memorandum addressing the“constitutional infirmities” and “practicalproblems” of the library amendments.

Do your homework before negotiations begin.

After months of working on the committee,it was quite clear the position of America

Online would be crucial in any negotiatedagreement. A flurry of e-mails andtelephone calls analyzing every word in the draft prepared by Professor RaymondNimmer of the University of Houston Law Center preceded the meeting inWashington, D.C. Grateful I had taken thetime to read Nimmer’s 1992 article aboutinformation, I was, by this point, in a betterposition to defend our language and gaugehis likely response. Attendance at one ofAALL’s preconference Legislative AdvocacyWorkshops would have strengthened mynegotiating skills even more.

Frustrating But ValuableMy experience as a member of theadvisory committee, although frustratingat times, was valuable. I learned moreabout the legislative process and will bebetter able to contribute in the future onlibrary and information issues facingVirginia. But, I believe that the otherlibrarian on the advisory committee and I accomplished something more. We educated some advisory committeemembers and some Virginia electedofficials about library and informationissues. We taught them that librarians

were not looking at ways to “give away”publisher information, but rather we areconcerned about access to information forall citizens. Our objections to this specificlaw, UCITA, dealt with what we believe is the negative impact on informationdissemination and access. We alsoconvinced some members that librariansare partners in this process, not just anothergroup whose objections must be overcome.

My final advice: If you have the chance,get involved in the UCITA debate if itcomes to your state. You’ll learn not onlyabout UCITA and its impact, but you’lllearn how to become a better advocate for libraries and information access.

Gail Warren ([email protected]) isthe state law librarian at the Virginia StateLaw Library in Richmond.

1/2 pageGlobal Securities

new-shoot

Working Behind the Scenes continued from page 15

Want to learn more about UCITA andthe continuing debate in some states?Attend Program G-5, “Coming Soonto Your State? The Uniform ComputerInformation Transactions Act: A NewReality for Librarians,” on Tuesday,July 17 at the Annual Meeting.


Classified Advertising

CATALOGING FOR LAW LIBRARIES:Outsource all your cataloging andconversion needs with FASTCAT: our professional librarians provideoriginal/copy and conversion services forALL materials in ALL formats. Contact us at:Library Associates, 8845 W. Olympic Blvd.Suite 100, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.310/289-1067. FAX: 310/289-9635. E-mail: [email protected]. URL:http://www.libraryassociates.com.

SAVE MONEY ON CATALOGING: It’seasy to use MarciveWeb SELECT to searchour database and receive customizedcataloging. MARC records for $0.27/title,catalog cards $0.09, book label sets $0.08,smart barcode labels $0.05, authorityrecords $0.11. No license fee, profiling fee,

or per-search fee. Other services: U.S.depository cataloging, authorities processing,migration and retro. Contact us [email protected] or 800/531-7678.MARCIVE, Inc. POB 47508, San Antonio,Texas 78265. http://www.marcive.com.

COPYRIGHT NEWS FOR LIBRARIANS:The Copyright & New Media LawNewsletter: For Librarians & InformationSpecialists, now in its 3rd year ofpublication, keeps you abreast of importantcopyright issues, news and practicalsolutions to everyday activities. Bysubscribing to this print newsletter (16 pagesper issue, three times a year), you areentitled to free E-MAIL ALERTS to ensurenotice of timely news, court cases, legislationand seminars. Visit http://copyrightlaws.com,

e-mail [email protected], call orfax 202/478-0478.

INMAGIC SOFTWARE AND SERVICESfor law libraries: OPACs, serialsmanagement, acquisitions control, and loans for desktops, local area networks,Intranets and the Web from Legal InformationManagement—terrific library automationsoftware, training, data conversion andconsulting since 1985. Contact Ann DiLoreto(M.L.S., AALL Certified Law Librarian 1984) at [email protected], 800/898-6468,800/txt-mgmt or www.txt-mgmt.com.

1/2 pageMergent

pick up June


The following represents a list of the concerns raisedby the library participants during the reverse site visitsby CCH and responses from CCH and the libraries.

Issues raised by D’Angelo Law Library on October30, 2000

Issue 1: How can the library obtain replacements forold transfer binders from the 1960s?

CCH: Generally, this type of request represents a specialorder and requires special attention at CCH. Therequest can be made through Customer Service. CCHprovided new transfer binders to D’Angelo Law Library.

Issue 2: How does the library get purchase ordernumbers added to invoices and renewal certificates?

CCH: To have a purchase order number appear oninvoices, the customer must provide this number atthe time of placing the order. If it is a requirement,the account will be eliminated from our Order BasedRenewal process and be issued Renewal Certificatesthat must be signed and returned with the POinformation. The PO information will be keyed atorder entry and will appear on the invoice coveringthe order. If the PO numbers are issued after theorder has been renewed and invoiced, the customershould call Customer Service at 800/449-6439 andgive the customer-service representative the POinformation. We will then issue a revised invoicewith the PO number appearing.

Issue 3: Could CCH improve the “marketing” of newor improved customer services to law librarians?

CCH: We are now in the process of launching initiativesin this area. We will be enhancing our Customer ServiceWeb site, which will help us communicate our services tolaw librarians more effectively. We will also be reissuingthe Doing Business with CCH booklet at the AALL AnnualMeeting, where new services will be featured. At theannual conference, we will have customer-service staffat our booth and in the Tech Center to talk about ournew and improved services.

Issues raised by Katten Muchin Zavis on November 2, 2000

Issue 4: Can CCH’s Web site claiming/ordering bestreamlined to reduce typing — e.g., use drop-down menus instead?

CCH: This is on our list of enhancements and part ofour current site improvements project, but it willlikely not happen in the short term.

Issue 5: Can CCH send separate NILS releases inenvelopes?

CCH: This issue has been addressed as part of thetransition of NILS Customer Service to CCH Chicago.

Issue 6: Can CCH improve Interactive Voice Responseprompts to reflect all available options?

CCH: We are considering improvements here tomake the system more comprehensive withoutproviding users with unnecessary information, whichwould have the effect of slowing the process down.

Issue 7: Labor case volumes were slow to beproduced.

CCH: The solution to this problem was already underway in the editorial group when it was reported byKMZ to the CCH site visitors. They are now beingproduced in a more timely fashion so currentvolumes are no longer too full.

Issue 8: Labels for Standard Federal Tax Reporterwould not stick.

CCH/Library: CCH is using a new adhesive. KMZbelieves this problem has been resolved.

Issue 9: There was difficulty in determining the lastrelease for the Standard Federal Tax Reporter.

CCH: We are working to include this as anenhancement to our Customer-Service site later thisyear, where we hope to post a Current Mail calendarand address this issue.

Issues raised by Allstate Insurance personnel onNovember 6, 2000

Issue 10: Prices for customers who purchase bothInternet and print subscriptions should be morereasonable.

CCH: Pricing issues are outside of the purview ofCustomer Service, which conducted the site visits.Customers with specific questions in this area shouldcontact their sales representatives.

Issue 11: The library needs bound volumes tocomplete the printed set and also needs the printedsummary sheets to route.

Library: The printed summary sheets are not availablefor all products. Business and finance reports areavailable only on the Internet. As to bound volumes,the library is able to keep Employment PracticesDecisions, Labor Cases and NLRB Decisions updated bypurchasing bound volumes at a cost of approximately$17 each. Allstate personnel feel that this is areasonable charge for each volume even if the boundvolumes are free with the print subscription.

Issue 12: Can CCH make more titles availablethrough standing order?

CCH: Not all titles are made available throughstanding orders.

Issue 12: CCH needs to send additional bindersautomatically.

Library: The library transferred most of oursubscriptions to the Internet, so binders are nolonger a problem.

Issue 13: Can CCH’s tax identification number beclearly printed on each invoice and the sales tax beclearly identified for each title?

CCH: The tax ID number appears on the face of eachinvoice (at the top — under remittance address).The number is identified as Federal ID #13-3504158.

Each invoice that covers taxable materials indicatestax amounts for each line of the invoice. In somelocations different media types — print vs.electronic vs. software — have different taxstatuses or rates. Each invoice a particular customerreceives will show taxes as appropriate for theproduct and the shipping location.

Issue 14: NILS sends invoices out with its product,while CCH sends out invoices separately. Sales tax isnow being applied.

CCH: CCH will send an annual bill for insurance lawupdates, which will save the time and expense ofmatching packing slips to invoices and cuttingseparate checks. Some NILS customers will note thatsales tax has been applied to their orders. As aresult of the integration of NILS into the CCHbusiness, the number of jurisdictions in which CCH isrequired to assess sales tax has increased.

Issue 15: CCH is planning Web page enhancementsfor claiming and ordering.

Library: The library personnel have started to use theCCH Web page for ordering missing reports andmissing pages. The e-mail response feature is popular.

It has been difficult obtaining missing NILS pagesduring the transition. It is hoped that requestingmissing pages will not be a problem in the future.

CCH: You will be able to order missing NILS pagesand reports on the CCH Web site.

Additional questions and answers from CCH’s sitevisit can be found at http://www.aallnet.org/committee/criv/news/sitevisit/index.htm.

Betty Roeske ([email protected]) istechnical services librarian at Katten Muchin Zavis in Chicago.

CCH Offers Follow-up to Reverse Site Visitsby Betty Roeske

© 2001 Betty Roeske

CRIV Notes

The University of Michigan recently announced asurvey of customer satisfaction among the retailindustry, http://www.bus.umich.edu/research/nqrc.The survey links consumer spending with customersatisfaction and argues that successful companiessuch as clothing retailer Nordstrom and grocerPublix can attribute much of their profits tocustomer service.

Coming back to legal publishing, it is safe to say thatcustomer service is crucial to a company’s relationshipwith its customer base. Yet I have seen time andagain that some publishers fail to fully appreciate thescope of impact that positive and negative customersatisfaction can have on a company’s bottom line. The amount of time spent by a publisher to rectify aproblem depends entirely on the effectiveness of itscustomer service and, of course, time is money. Even if the publisher feels it has a captive market, the cumulative effect of negative experiences for thecustomer can result in a permanent reservoir of illwill. These customers come to expect the worst andwill be much harder to please.

Customer satisfaction goes well beyond providing an800 number. A company’s automation system has a major impact on how well a customer-servicedepartment can deliver services to its customers. More often than not, when the Committee onRelations with Information Vendors has investigatedcomplaints concerning accounts, billing and evenunsolicited shipments, the Committee found thatalmost all such problems can be traced to a systemproblem. Publishers need to take their systemrequirements seriously and listen to their customerswhen they are considering a systems change. Systemsdemand a huge investment of time, staff and money,which should not be wasted on something that will notmake customers reasonably happy.

Some of you may have seen a commercial for IBM in which the chief executive officer gathers hislieutenants to announce an impending merger. Askedif they are prepared, all the beancounters dutifullyanswer “check.” Meanwhile one woman becomesincreasingly alarmed and suddenly blurts out thatthe company’s system is inadequate to handle all thenew business. Then the punchline: “That’s when yourealize, you’re SO ready for IBM.” Whether or notIBM is the answer, it has been apparent to lawlibrarians that when many legal publishers wentthrough their metamorphoses in the ‘90s, they wereSO NOT ready to provide adequate customer service.Mergers and acquisitions can have a disastrous effecton systems compatibility and, in turn, on customersatisfaction. If customer service was a top priority forthese companies, we did not see it.

Some companies did learn from the mistakes oftheir fellow publishers and did plan their transitionscarefully, consulting AALL and individual librariansalong the way. The merger phenomenon is nolonger new, so publishers really do not have anexcuse for shoddy transition planning. AALL,particularly the CRIV, welcomes the opportunity topartner with publishers in planning transitions whennew companies are brought into the fold. We do notpresume to tell publishers how to conduct theirbusinesses, and we do not have all the answers, butan ongoing dialogue can go a long way towardsreducing problems or avoiding them altogether.

What the CRIV hears time and again is the difficultyin keeping good personnel and recruiting newpeople. There is no mystery here; customer serviceis traditionally the low rung on the corporate totempole. The staff in this area have to deal withunhappy people all day long, and unlike salesrepresentatives, can’t take customers out to lunch to

make them feel better. Effective employees arerewarded by promotion out of customer service.Perhaps companies should consider creating a careerladder within customer service so that particularlygood employees are rewarded within thedepartment. Some companies have created senioraccount managers to handle particular libraries,which seems to be a successful model.

Please, companies, spend more time training yourcustomer-service people! If I had a dollar for everytime I heard a complaint about a customer-servicerepresentative who was rude or didn’t have the rightanswer, well, I would not be sitting at this desk rightnow — I’d be sipping a cold one on the beach inCabo San Lucas. And for cryin’ out loud, pay ‘emmore than entry level — they have as much to dowith retaining business as the sales representatives.We hear over and over how customer satisfaction isthe top concern of legal publishers. We have seenadmirable improvements in some companies andalarming declines in others. To the second group I say, put your money where your mouth is.

And Now, Some Thanks

This will be my last article as CRIV chair, so I want tothank all the CRIV members I have had the privilegeto work with over the last four years. Working with the CRIV has been one of the most rewardingexperiences of my professional life and my fellowCommittee members were the best part of it. Keepup the good work.

Chris Graesser ([email protected]) is a librarian at Brown Rudnick Freed & Gesmer inHartford, Conn.

A Word or Two About Customer Satisfactionby Chris Graesser

Regional Programs• September 10, 2001: Applying Copyright Law in Libraries.

Presented by James Heller, St. Petersburg, Fla.• September 21, 22 and 23, 2001: Basic Law Cataloging, Chicago.• November 2 and 3, 2001: New Perspectives on Law Library

Acquisitions and Collection Development, Washington, D.C.

Listserv DiscussionsState and Federal Research: Fall 2001 Valuable Internet Resources: Fall 2001

Desktop Learning Series (AALL Spectrum)• “Working Behind the Scenes to Affect Legislation:

A Case Study with UCITA,” by Gail Warren, July 2001• “The Management Challenge in the Federal Judiciary’s Library

Systems,” by Janet Wishinsky, September 2001• “Compiling a Federal Legislative History From Older Records,”

by Richard J. McKinney, October 2001.

Professional Development Calendar

For more information on Professional Development activities, seehttp://www.aallnet.org/prodev or contact Mary Jawgiel, AALL educationmanager at 312/939-4764 extension 24, or [email protected].

AALL Spectrum July 2001 27

AALL recognizes major support from BNA, Inc. for the Professional Development Program.

© 2001 Chris Graesser


New LibrariansJennifer Bryan is the new documentslibrarian at the Indiana University LawLibrary in Bloomington, Ind. Bryanreceived her M.L.S. from IndianaUniversity. Prior to accepting this position,she was the library’s head of circulationand patron services.

Stacey Gordon is the new reference/acquisitions librarian at the University ofMontana Law Library in Missoula. Gordonreceived her J.D. from the University ofMontana and her M.L.S. from theUniversity of Washington.

New Places and ResponsibilitiesMargaret Maes Axtmann is the newassociate director for information resourcesat the University of St. Thomas Law Libraryin Minneapolis. Axtmann had been theassistant director for collections andtechnical services at the University of Minnesota Law Library, also inMinneapolis.

Melanie Dunshee has been promotedfrom reference and education servicescoordinator to head of information servicesat the Duke University Law Library inDurham, N.C.

Janet Sinder left her position as head ofinformation services at the Duke UniversityLaw Library in Durham, N.C., to move to Dublin, Ireland, where she is theinformation specialist at the GSMAssociation, an international tradeassociation for companies using the GSMstandard for wireless communications.

Professional ActivitiesAnna Cherry, reference librarian atWilliam Mitchell College of Law Library in St. Paul, Minn., published “UsingElectronic Research to Detect Sources of

Plagiarized Materials” in 9 Perspectives:Teaching Legal Research and Writing 133(Spring 2001).

James Duggan, director of informationtechnology at Southern Illinois UniversityLaw Library in Carbondale, Ill., has beenelected to a three-year term on the FacultySenate of Southern Illinois University.

Joan Howland, director of the Universityof Minnesota Law Library in Minneapolis,has two books forthcoming: Retention and Promotion of Minorities in America’sLibraries (with Teresa Neely) andLeadership Roles for Librarians (edited withHerb Cihak). Her new and forthcomingarticles are: “Technological Access andEquality in Indian Country” in LibraryJournal (forthcoming 2001); “Challenges of Working in a Multicultural Environment”in Journal of Library Administration(forthcoming 2001); and “TransformingLaw Libraries to Meet the Challenges of the21st Century,” 11 Trends in Law LibraryManagement and Technology 1 (2000).

Mindy Klasky, manager of referenceservices at Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin &Kahn in Washington, D.C., published hersecond novel, The Glasswrights’ Progress.This is a sequel to her novel TheGlasswrights’ Apprentice, which recentlywon Barnes and Noble’s Maiden Voyagesaward for best first speculative fiction novelof 2000.

Jeannine Lee, senior librarian in theEighth Judicial District Library in Buffalo,N.Y., was one of eight women honored atthe Women in the Law Luncheon by theWomen in the Court Committee of theNew York State Court System’s EighthJudicial District.

Mary Rumsey, foreign and internationallaw librarian at the University of MinnesotaLaw Library in Minneapolis, published

“The Essential Internet Tour for BusinessLawyers” in Emerging Technical Issues inthe Business Law Practice (MCLE, 2001)and “Foreign and International LawResearch on the Web” in InternationalBusiness Law Institute (MCLE, 2001).

Susan Ryan, reference/educationservices librarian at Georgetown UniversityLaw Library in Washington, D.C.,published “Cost Inflation by PageReductions: A Discrete Example of NewPrice Increases in Legal Serials” in TheBottom Line: Managing Library Financesvol 14, no 1, pp 6–11 (2001).

April Schwartz, business law referencelibrarian at the University of MinnesotaLaw Library in Minneapolis, published “Is There a Futurist in the (Library) House?”in Trends in Law Library Management and Technology, Volume 11, No. 4,(November/December 2000) and UnitedStates Tribal Courts Directory (with Mary JoBrooks Hunter; forthcoming 2001).

Fritz Snyder, law librarian and associatedean in the University of Montana Schoolof Law in Missoula, Mont., co-authored TheMontana State Constitution: A ReferenceGuide (Greenwood Press, 2000).

Suzanne Thorpe, assistant director forfaculty and public services at the Universityof Minnesota Law Library in Minneapolis,published “Family Law on the Web:Helpful Sites for Practitioners,” in 21stAnnual Family Law Institute (2000) and“Online Legal Information in Denmark,Norway, and Sweden,” 29 Int’l.J.LegalInfo.51 (2001).

Compiled and edited by Beth Smith, assistantdirector & head of public services, Ross-Blakley LawLibrary, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-7806 • phone: 480/965-4871 • fax: 480/965-4283• [email protected]

by Beth SmithMembership News

Memorial

AALL Spectrum has been advised of the death of:

Harry Bitner in May. Among his notable accomplishments,Bitner was not only president of AALL in 1963–64, but he also co-authored the 1953 book Effective Legal Research with MilesPrice, AALL president in 1945–46.

AALL Spectrum carries brief announcements of members’ deaths in the “Memorials” column. Traditional memorials should besubmitted to Frank Houdek, Editor, Law Library Journal, SouthernIllinois University Law Library, Mail Code 6803, Lesar LawBuilding, Carbondale, IL 62901.


Domain names are part of our lives.We use domain names in Web site and e-mail addresses to get

at the information we need — loc.gov,aallnet.org or westlaw.com — as more and more information becomes availableon the Internet. Most, if not all, of ourorganizations will have Web sites endingwith one of these suffixes: com, org, gov and edu. (Internet syntax requires the use of a period, called a “dot” in Net terminology, before these suffixes in a full site name or e-mail address. Thisarticle distinguishes domain names andother fragments of Internet addresses byusing italics.) These suffixes are top-leveldomain names. The top-level domainsystem describes the types of Internet sitesusing a particular suffix. For example,commercial sites will normally use the com top-level domain. For a briefexplanation of top-level domain names,visit http://whatis.techtarget.com andsearch on “gTLD.”

Two recent developments have made thedomain name system more complicated.The first came last November, when theInternet Corporation for Assigned Namesand Numbers decided to create seven new top-level domains. Then, in March a for-profit company decided to create an alternate domain name system withadditional top-level domains. This newsystem, not sanctioned by ICANN, isaccessible only through certain InternetService Providers or when using a specialWeb browser plug-in. These domain namescan be viewed in a normal browser byadding new.net to the end of the UniformResource Locator, or site name. Forexample, if the URL was http://www.library.law, you would type “http://www.library.law.new.net” to reach the samesite; the name is registered but does notpoint to any site. It is notable in that the newsystem includes a law top-level domain.

Seven New Top-Level Domains ApprovedICANN is the quasi-nongovernmentalbody overseeing the domain namesystem. The system currently has morethan 200 top-level domains; most of thoseare country-code top-level domains(ccTLDs) — e.g., us; jp, for Japan; and ukfor the United Kingdom. The generic top-level domain (gTLD) name group includescom, org and net. Some of the gTLDs arerestricted to domain-name holders thatmeet certain criteria: mil for military sitesand edu for educational sites — primarilyuniversities. More than 60 percent ofdomain names use the com gTLD,according to Domainstats, http://www.domainstats.com.

ICANN approved seven new top-leveldomain names in November 2000 inresponse to an apparent dearth of “good”domain names. An April 24, 2000, WallStreet Journal article, “‘Dot.coms’ FurnishEnglish Language with German Twist,”estimated that more than 98 percent of thewords in Webster’s English Dictionary havebeen registered. The congestion in the comTLD has been cited as one of the causes for cybersquatting. The new gTLDs willprovide a new outlet for domain nameowners frustrated by the lack of choice inthe com space. Two of the new names — biz and info — will provide a new poolfrom which commercial domain nameregistrants can draw. The complete list ofseven approved gTLDs are: biz, info, pro,museum, aero, coop and name. RegistryPro is planning a second-level domain, law.pro,specifically for legal professionals. Thedefinition of the “professional” who mayparticipate has not been created.

When these new top-level domainsbecome active in late 2001, it will beimportant to know that your search tools

are indexing these new areas or your“invisible Web” may grow. (The “invisibleWeb” is that information on the Web thatis not normally indexed. For example,until recently, most Adobe PortableDocument Format documents, pdf, werenot indexed and were not included insearch results. Google, http://www.google.com, added this capability in early2001). Additionally, the ability to createregional or otherwise logical searchsegmentation, already made difficult bythe popularity of com, will become morecomplicated as these new, cross-borderdomains become available. (See “HowMajor Search Engines Regionalize” at the web site Searchenginewatch.com,http://searchenginewatch.internet.com/facts/regional/regionalize.html, for morediscussion.) This may be offset by newsubject-focused domain areas like law.pro,but this will depend largely on how thedomain advisory boards define those whomay participate in the domain. Too-broad adefinition and the usefulness of the restricteddomain will be dramatically reduced.

Alternative Domain Name Systems Enter the PictureFar more complex is the March 2001announcement by New.net that it wascreating an alternate domain name systemand offering 20 new “top-level domains,”none of which were approved by ICANN.These are not true top-level domains,although they purport to have the sameaffect. Instead, they are “third-leveldomains” that appear to the user as top-level domains if your browser has a plug-in or you are using one of a number ofInternet Service Providers that havepartnered with New.net. New.net isoffering law, one of the top-level domainsICANN did not select in the recentselection process.

Dot-com or Dot-law:

Where was ThatInformation?by David Whelan

© 2001 David Whelan


A third-level domain name is mostcommonly the www in a Web address,although it can be much more descriptive.For example, in the American BarAssociation’s Web site, www.abanet.org,abanet is the second-level domain nameand org is the top-level domain name. Asmentioned above, the New.net “top-leveldomains” are inserted before the new.netdomain name. The new.net domain nameitself is invisible when using the plug-inor a partner ISP.

Alternate domain name systems are not new. The Pacificroot Network hasoperated separately from the ICANNsystem, and one of its customers haschallenged the ICANN selection of biz.Atlantic Root Network indicates it hasbeen offering biz domain names since 1995and wants ICANN registrars to honorthose registrants. ICANN has attemptedto avoid conflicts with other domain namesystems, but there is no guarantee that aregistration in one system will be honoredby another should the latter create anidentical top-level domain. The PacificrootNetwork also offers law as a true top-leveldomain. Each of the alternate domainname systems offers explanations on howto configure a computer to work with

their servers. For example, to use thePacificroot system, visit its configurationpage at http://www.pacificroot.com/updatedns.shtml. Other alternate rootsystems include the Open Root ServerConfederation at http://www.open-rsc.org and the International Root ServerConfederation at http://www.irsc.ah.net.Once configured, the root-specific top-level domains as well as those inICANN’s root can be seen.

New.net has an opportunity to usurpICANN’s role if it can generate enoughinterest for its offering and gain enoughmomentum. Ordinarily this might notwork, but some of the ISPs have largecustomer bases, which may be enough tomake the top-level domain a fixture.

This alternative domain-name system,particularly with a law top-level domain,raises again the importance of knowingwhere we are searching when we are onthe Internet. The days of searching solelythe ICANN-approved top-level domainnames may be vanishing.

Enter the Savvy LibrarianLibrarians are not typical Internetsearchers. Savvy and sophisticated,

librarians can get around this nonsense.Relying on good search tools and knowingwhat their scope is will largely avoid anyproblems raised by the new domainnames. Indeed, one argument raised is theimportance of the new domain names inlight of the reality that most Web sites arefound using search engines, not typing inthe direct Web site address.

The proliferation of new top-leveldomains should be kept in mind,however. Whether librarians areconducting research or responsible fortheir organization’s Web presence, newtop-level domains can change how theygo about business and how the clients getaccess to the information resources theyprovide. If the walls between the alternatedomain-name systems are, as someobservers anticipate, breaking down, thescope of our search tools will need toreach further than they do right now.Staying informed and being prepared forthese changes will benefit librarians andtheir clients.

David Whelan ([email protected]) is director of the Legal TechnologyResource Center of the American BarAssociation in Chicago.

1/2 pagePractising Law

new-shoot


Marketing seems to be big these days.Generally we think of expensivecampaigns, glossy brochures and flashingslogans. In fact, a service organizationmarkets itself every day by the simplestactions. As law librarians, we strive tomarket ourselves by providing services in aprofessional manner. The question “Is thatenough?” has long been on the minds oflibrarians. The answer, we have found, is a resounding “NO.” Issues commonlysurrounding law librarianship in both theacademic and private environments aresalary, respect and staffing.

At this year’s annual meeting of theSoutheastern Chapter of AALL, we discussedhow marketing approaches, primarilyfocused on the firm, can serve as guidelinesfor law librarians in any organization.

Marketing, in the traditional sense, can bevery time-consuming and costly, giving it anegative connotation as a necessary evil— an effort for which we just do not havetime. We, as a profession, can beginwithin our organizations, taking simplesteps to make the library staff more visibleand valuable. These measures are simple,but librarians must make a conscious effort to market the library staff internally.Several suggestions can help librarians tochange their position and role within thelaw school, firm or corporation.

Increasing the Value of the LibrarySalary was a dominant topic during aninformal roundtable discussion. Severalways to raise the value of the library staffwere mentioned. The bottom line is that wehave to educate the firm’s administrationabout hiring and salary trends and createways to record our worth to the firm —which commonly translates to billablehours. First and foremost, we, as aprofession, should complete the AALLSalary Survey. This can be used as acomparison for specific firm sizes andgeographic areas. In recent years, thesurvey was incomplete because there werenot enough responses from members invarious states or regions. The informationcan be invaluable to us as a profession. It is worth the extra effort to respond.

“Billable hours” is a commonissue for law-firm librarians.Several librarians mentionedthat they bill all their time, butmost participants noted thatthey perform a large amount of non-billable work. Gettingpractice-specific firm numberswould allow library staffmembers to track who they areworking for. Even if our hoursare non-billable, those hoursfree the time of others forbillable work. Another non-billable, yet important, area of work is practicedevelopment. Attorneys are underincreasing pressure to bring in new clients.Librarians can contribute much toward thatcause; tracking those efforts can greatlyenhance their staff’s value. If the firm doesnot have such administrative or non-billablenumbers, push to obtain practice-specificand client development-matter numbers.

A closely related issue is time-keeping. Do we shortchange ourselves by writing offor limiting the amount of time billed? Onlya few participants logged 100 percent oftheir day on a billing program, such asElite. The majority logged time only whenbillable. However, including all our workallows our non-billable time to be traced.Also we should not reduce the amount oftime that we actually work on a project. Letthe attorney write off that time if necessary.Noting the correct time paints an accuratepicture of the staff’s efforts for the attorneysand administration.

Reporting back to practice group leadersor firm administrators is a good method of enhancing our value within theorganization. Keeping statistics from billingor otherwise is helpful. Firm librarians also play a role in client contact. Severalparticipants noted that they deal directlywith clients. All mentioned that this contactwas generally through attorneys, but attimes a client will approach the library staff directly. Informing attorneys and firmadministrators that you are dealing withclients is important. This can be doneduring administrative meetings or theevaluation process.

Optimizing Relationships with Technology StaffA program on “Developing andMaintaining the Optimal Relationship with Technology Professionals” addressedthe frequently mentioned issue of therelationship between the library andtechnology. The panel of four library staff members represented differentorganizational structures in academic and firm environments. Don Adamick,director of library services at WombleCarlyle Sandridge and Rice, spoke from the vantage point of a large firm with a merged library and technologyorganization. I presented the perspective of a large firm with two distinct library andtechnology departments. Shaun Esposito,head of public services at the law library ofthe University of Arizona James E. RogersCollege of Law, reviewed the structure ofhis academic institution and discussedaspects of the relationship, which involvesseparate departments. Sally Irvin, associatedirector of educational technology at WakeForest University School of Law, discussedher law-school experience with a newlymerged library and technology department.

All panelists reviewed their relationshipsbased upon their own workingenvironments. All agreed that it is essentialto keep lines of communication open.Being viewed as a valuable resource for the computer professionals in yourorganization is one way to market thelibrary staff within the organization. The library and computer staff can betterachieve their common goal of providingoptimal services to all users by working

Public Relations

2001 SEAALL Annual Meeting Presents Food for PR Thought

by Martha Thomas

(continued on page 36)© 2001 Martha Thomas

@

law.

your.


After announcing its “@your.law.library” contest in November, based on the American LibraryAssociation’s “@ your library” campaign, thePublic Relations Committee received severalcreative entries. The committee created the contest to encourage librarians to use the [email protected] to advertise and promote theirspecific libraries. The winning entry will be chosenand prominently displayed at the AALL AnnualMeeting in July in Minneapolis. Below are theentries the committee received.

Stephanie Tripp, Lex [email protected]@[email protected]’[email protected]@your.law.library

Carole Bruce, Seton Hall [email protected]

Stephen Good, Pepperdine Law [email protected]@your.law.librarybeat.the.rap@your.law.librarythe.one.with.the.best.research.wins@[email protected]@your.law.library

Nancy Strohmeyer, Loyola University Law Library

[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]&[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]

Matthew Mahaffie, Silverstein & [email protected]

Huguette Streuli, Morgan Lewis & [email protected]

Michael Timpani, Department of Energy LawLibraryPick.your.librarians.brain.legally@your.law.librarygotta.catch.it.all@your.law.libraryfor.all.the.legal.and.not.so.legal.information.

[email protected]

Donna Bausch, Norfolk Law Library [email protected]@your.law.library

Barbara Zaruba, San Joaquin County Law Library

[email protected]

June MacLeod, Gray Cary Ware and [email protected]@[email protected]

Paul Donovan, Vermont Department of [email protected]@[email protected]

Dan Campbell, Rutgers University Law [email protected]@your.law.librarylink.with.the.law@your.law.librarylegal.connections@your.law.librarymaking.legal.connections@[email protected]

Claudia Jalowka, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library

[email protected]

Cindy Ammons, Jones [email protected]

David Bryant, Dominican Universityshare the wealth of information-the.riches.

[email protected]

Sue Burch, University of Kentuckymake.a.federal.case.of.it@your.law.libraryget.your.briefs@your.law.libraryform.your.argument@your.law.librarymake.it.into.the.bar@your.law.libraryTorts.and.sweets@your.law.libraryform.a.corporation@your.law.libraryform.your.arguments@[email protected]’[email protected]

Jane Harrison, Hunton and [email protected]@your.law.libraryknowledge.managed@your.law.librarynet.knowledge.management@your.law.libraryworld.wide.connections@your.law.libraryworld.wide.resources@[email protected]

Frances Bertelli, Aetna [email protected]

Suzan Odewahn, Greenebaum Doll and McDonald

the.key.to.all.legal.knowledge@[email protected]

Kelly Browne, University of Connecticut School of Law Library

your.law.library.is.where.its.@

Abigail Ellsworth, Wilkes [email protected](submitted with a picture of legal scales, with words superimposed over the scales)

Byron Hill, Bowditch and [email protected]

Bill Magee, Regent University Law Librarylegal.access.in.dynamic.and.diverse.formats@

your.law.librarylegal.access.in.a.dynamic.&.diverse.universe

@your.law.librarylegal.access.in.dynamic.formats@your.law.librarylegal.acess.in.diverse.formats@your.law.librarystewards.of.legal.knowledge@your.law.librarystewardship.of.legal.knowledge@your.law.libraryalways.answering.law.librarians@your.law.libraryalways.answering.law.libraries@your.law.libraryalways.accessing.legal.literature@your.law.libraryalways.accessing.legal.liberi@your.law.libraryaccess, answers, library, [email protected], answers, literature, [email protected]

Sally Wambold, University of Richmond School of Law Library

[email protected]@[email protected]@your.law.libraryTest.drive.LEXIS@your.law.libraryvisit.a.Commerce.Clearinghouse@[email protected]@your.law.libraryMake.friends.with.your.law.librarian

@your.law.libraryfind.a.treatise@your.law.libraryget.to.know.reporters@your.law.librarywhere.theres.a.will.there’s.a.law.librarian

@your.law.libraryconsult.the.legal.eagles@your.law.libraryfind.a.star@your.law.libraryfind.a.walking.database@your.law.librarylaw.librarian.expertise@your.law.librarywisdom.and.knowledge.are@your.law.librarymiracle.workers.work@[email protected]@[email protected]@your.law.library

Dawn Kendrick, Washington State Law [email protected]@your.law.librarygive.librarians.a.chance@your.law.librarylaw.librarians.to.order@your.law.librarylaw.librarians.to.order.order.up@your.law.libraryquestion.reference.direction@[email protected]

Mike Miller, Maryland State Law [email protected]@[email protected]

John Pickett, Johnson County Law [email protected]

by Cheryl Gritton

Public Relations @your.law.library

© 2001 Cheryl Gritton

library


The term “curb appeal” is well known inthe real estate world. Real estate agentshired to sell homes are very familiar with“curb appeal.” Though it is intangible and subjective, it can really sell a home!Curb appeal essentially means how ahome affects the eye of the beholder. Does the home create interest to potentialbuyers or do they drive or walk right by?The concept of curb appeal can beapplied to public-relations materials. Youcan make a world of difference in howyour library is perceived by making sureyour PR materials have curb appeal!

As a member of AALL’s Public RelationsCommittee, I served on the Committee’sthree-member panel charged withreviewing and evaluating all entries forAALL’s 2001 AALL/West Legal DirectoryExcellence in Marketing Awards. When I took my first look at the entries in each of the five categories — newsletters,brochures, toolkits, best use of technology,best PR campaign — I realized I wasinstantly attracted to some entries morethan others; I wanted to stop and read theentire brochure or newsletter or explore the

Web site or toolkit. Theseentries just had more sizzlebecause of a combinationof things — layout, color,graphics, text, font styleand size, paper quality,etc. In other words, theyhad curb appeal!

Do YOUR PR materials havecurb appeal? Do they make a strongstatement to users or potential users, ordo they need a Martha Stewart makeover?Do your important information-packedbrochures and newsletters, Web sites andtoolkits look dull and lifeless? Do they needa face-lift? Are they plain vanilla or arethey chocolate chip mocha fudge? You canbreath new life into your PR materials withsome additional effort. You’ve alreadyinvested time and energy in the material.Now go the extra step and give it plenty ofcurb appeal! You don’t have to revamp allyour PR materials at once; you can beginwith one brochure or newsletter. Startlooking for “winning” ideas by checkingout the current and past winners of theExcellence in Marketing awards. After

revamping yourbrochure or newsletter, put together a focusgroup to evaluate the materials and giveyou honest feedback. Use the feedback to revise and improve until you have a“winner.”

And don’t forget to enter your new and/orimproved PR materials in next year’sExcellence in Marketing Awards contest!

Frances Bertelli ([email protected])is head law librarian and acting archivistat Aetna Inc., Law and Regulatory Affairs,in Hartford, Conn.

Does Your PR Have Curb Appeal?by Frances Bertelli

[email protected]@[email protected]@your.law.librarystop.by.and.say.hi@your.law.libraryinform.yourself@[email protected]’s.legal.what’[email protected]@your.law.libraryis.it.or.isn’[email protected]@your.law.libraryour.laws.and.you@[email protected]

Ellen Bowman, Davis Wright Tremaineinformation.problem-solvers@your.law.libraryfindit.getit.useit@your.law.libraryinformation.needs.met@your.law.libraryinformation.professionals@your.law.library21st.century.information.guidance@your.law.library

get.cost-effective.strategies@your.law.libraryget.cost-effective.solutions@your.law.librarysave.time/money/aggravation@[email protected].

lib21stCentury.information.expertise@your.law.librarysolve.information.problems@ your.law.librarysolve.information.problems.cost-effectively@your.

law.lib

Lisa Mecklenberg Jackson, State Law Library of Montana

[email protected] (made a bulletin board with underwear briefs on it)

[email protected] (covered a scales of justice with a fish net and fish withthe Web site on them)

Brenna Louzin, Heller [email protected]@[email protected]@your.law.library

John Winner, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton

[email protected]

Submitters [email protected]@your.law.library

Cheryl Gritton ([email protected]) isbranch librarian at the U.S. Court Library in Des Moines, Iowa.

Public Relations

© 2001 Frances Bertelli


together. This, of course, is easier in anorganization with combined departmentsand more difficult where there are distinctdepartments under different leadership.Irvin, Esposito and I encouraged efforts tobridge that gap. Regular meetings are onetactic, Adamick suggested. Adamick and I added that another good way to create a better working relationship is to holdmeetings outside the work environment,such as retreats or joint lunches.

Both Wake Forest Professional CenterLibrary and the University of Arizona havestaff members who act as liaisons betweenthe library and technology group. Irvin andEsposito recommended this as a successfulway to communicate with knowledge and authority, thus enhancing the library’scredibility in technical issues. This fosterscommunications and the workingrelationship in the many areas where thelibrary staff relies upon the technology staffto get things up and running — now mostcommon in creating an Internet or intranetpage. Both Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice and Wake Forest not only havelibrary staff that provide input on contentbut also code it as well. This practice gives

the library more freedom and generallymeans the Web site can be updated faster.

Results of a survey I posted on the AALL and SEAALL listservs indicated a need foreducating new computer staff membersabout library or research applications. An overwhelming number of entry-leveltechnology staff are hired with less than a year of legal experience. Entry-levelpositions include support analysts and help-desk staff. Law librarians should play a role in educating newly hired staff in thetechnology department. Being aware of newstaff, their experience levels and their dutiescan greatly help librarians in taking theinitiative to become valuable resources forthe computer group rather than just anotherdemand on their time. Educating newlyhired computer professionals can take manyforms — e.g., orienting new hires, providingdocuments with descriptions and trouble-shooting tips for library and researchapplications, and offering training for allcomputer professionals on new services.Efforts to make the computer staff’s jobseasier will go a long way to creating aneffective working relationship between thetwo groups.

Marketing Comes From WithinThe first step to marketing the library andits staff is within the organization. Althoughour time is limited, it is well worth the timeand effort to look at our daily operationsand see how developing and maintainingnew relationships within the organizationcan greatly enhance how others perceiveour value. Logging our work loads,reporting our efforts to key firmadministration, looking for ways to get outof the typical “librarian” working patternsand finding ways to become valuable tothe organization as a whole are greatsteps for changing perceptions and movingtoward a better working environment.

Discussions and presentations at thisspring’s SEAALL meeting provided goodinsights into alternative ways to boostourselves within the organization. We hopeit will generate discussion to further ourability not only to change our role but alsoto change the perceptions of others.

Martha Thomas ([email protected]) is a law librarian at KilpatrickStockton LLP in Winston-Salem, N.C.

2001 SEAALL Annual Meeting continued from page 32

1/2 pageButterworthnew-shoot

This month’s “Members’ Briefing” is the last in a series of articlesabout trends in the profession.

The concept for these briefings camefrom AALL’s current Strategic Plan:“Leadership for the 21st Century: NewRealities, Changing Roles.” In order tohelp librarians position themselves betterwithin their parent organizations, the plan calls for AALL to keep its membersinformed about the trends and issuesfacing those larger organizations. Earlierarticles in this series included one ontrends in state courts, published in theOctober 2000 issue of AALL Spectrum; oneon trends in the practice of law, publishedin March 2001; and one on trends in legaleducation, published in April 2001.

When I started thinking about how to roundout the series, the answer seemed obvious.Almost everything we do, it seems, isaffected by the changes that are occurringin the legal publishing industry. That’snatural, given the close relationship thathas always existed between librarians andpublishers, but it seems even more truenow as many publishers shift from a whollyprint paradigm to electronic methods forthe distribution of their information. Nolonger are our only online subscriptions for Lexis and WESTLAW. Many law librariesnow subscribe to other Web-based sources, such as Hein Online, CIS Universe,BNA publications or Matthew Benderpublications. Some even subscribe to arange of online material that goes beyondthe strictly legal material, such as J-stor orProject Muse. The percentage of librarybudgets now going into such electronicproducts is significantly higher than it was a decade ago.

So what are the trends in legalpublishing? What can we expect in thenext decade? How will the advent ofwireless computing affect legal publishingand law libraries? Where will e-books fitin, or will they always be just a toy? Withthese kinds of question in mind, I invitedthree legal publishers to each contributeshort think pieces about the trends inlegal publishing from their vantage points.

I hope that you find this briefing, andindeed the whole series, to be interestingand useful. Taken altogether, they identifyand discuss many of the themes and issuesthat we and our organizations are dealingwith as we move forward into the future.

Robert L. OakleyAALL President 2000–2001

West Group’s Perspective

Trends in LegalPublishingMembers’ Briefing

American Association of Law Libraries AALL Spectrum, July 2001

by Mike Wilens

“We don’t like their sound, and guitar musicis on the way out.” — Decca Recording Co.,on rejecting the Beatles in 1962

As Decca and plenty of others haveproved, the business of predicting the“next big thing” can be, to put it mildly, a dicey proposition. But as Alan Kay,technology guru and the architect of themodern Windows computer interface,once said, “The best way to predict thefuture is to invent it.” This may besomewhat safer ground to offer someinsights into the future of legal researchand technology and what it means for lawlibrarians and other legal professionals.

Actually, this isn’t a bad time to offer a view of the future, at least from West Group’s perspective. After seeingdramatic, if not transformational,technology shifts over the past severalyears, not to mention the implosion of the dot-com capital market in the springof 2000, we can offer a vision based onpretty solid assumptions. First, the Web’spresence is irrefutable and will loom evenlarger in our professional and personallives. It will serve as the access point tovast repositories of content — free, firm-proprietary and paid. Second, intranet andwireless technologies will take the Webeven further, supercharging its ability todeliver powerful new tools and servicesthat are more portable, more secure andfully integrated into the informationprofessionals’ workflow, enabling them todo more and extract more value from theinformation they access.

The New Web: Content and Context Consider content. Today, while we havebetter access to a broader array of contentsources, navigating from source to sourcecan still involve multiple steps. Butadvances in search functionality, plus the application of intranet and extranettechnologies, will give firms seamless, Web-enabled access to a universe of contentfrom Web sites like FindLaw, a firm’s ownproprietary documents and briefs, and fromadded-value services like WESTLAW.

Some of this is here already, throughenterprise portal/intranet technologiesand multidatabase search functionality.Firms like Greenberg Traurig, whichcreated a special intranet site for its Northand South America firms, are at thecutting edge of this trend. According toLinda Will, director of research for thefirm, Greenberg Traurig now has easyaccess to briefs and other proprietarymaterials — even PowerPointpresentations — from its offices in Northand South America. From this site,researchers also can grab informationfrom any site on the Web.

As the body of content grows, so does theneed (read: opportunity) for librarians toorganize information in a context thatdelivers the right answers. From here, one can see how the librarian functions in an increasingly important role as the “knowledge hub,” positioned toproactively provide both information andanswers to clients. For West Group, muchof our focus is on further developing thetools to support this role.

Where “one-size-fits-all” once ruled, the focus is now on customization andpersonalization. The new westlaw.cominterface — where the user selectscustomized tabs to focus search efforts bytopic, jurisdiction and court — is just thebeginning. In the future, smart interfaceswill draw from a universe of information— from the Web, news and business sites, a firm’s proprietary information,research services and others — enablingresearchers to seamlessly build acomprehensive information asset bank.

Drawing on this asset bank, new researchfeatures like KeySearch can draw on thebreadth and power of the Key NumberSystem to simplify the research processand refine results. Tools such as MicrosoftSmart Tags can add a rich, new dimensionto the content, creating an environmentwhere the relationships betweeninformation assets is clear, and navigationintuitive almost transparent. In the future,tech tools will be able to sense the kind of information being gathered andrecommend related cases, American Law

continued on page 20

18 Members’ Briefing—AALL Spectrum, July 2001American Association of Law Libraries

by Kyle D. Parker

When I began this article, I thought, “Whata piece of cake.” Loislaw.com has alwaysbeen the on the cutting edge of technology— the first comprehensive legal databaseon CD-ROM in 1989; the first true 32-bitlegal search engine in 1993; and the first to post all of our legal information on theInternet for sale under a subscriptionmodel, www.loislaw.com, in 1996. But ithas not been easy to look forward fiveyears. First we must understand what we have to offer today and the “corefoundation” of that offering. When I say“core foundation,” I am not talking aboutthe content but the condition of the data— the data structure, the bits and bytesthat store and access information. Is theinformation in a condition to embrace the new technology? Sadly, not today.

Technology is changing so rapidly that newproducts will capture only a fraction ofexisting capabilities. Publishers that claimto be on the cutting edge will not be ableto take advantage of today’s technology,much less 2006’s, until they set their corefoundations in a standardized format:SGML, the parent of HTML and XML.

The good news is that libraries can get most of what they want from three publishers following a wave ofconsolidation. The bad news is with everyacquisition, the big three mostly inheritdata structures that are, at best, 10 yearsbehind, making it difficult to gain theleverage to truly integrate the very offeringsthat made the acquisitions attractive.

Some companies embraced the technologyexplosion way back in 1984. Loislaw.comconverted all its data into SGML from theoutset and has been able to embrace alltechnology distribution systems withoutchanging its information’s core foundation.That’s why Loislaw.com can claim all those firsts: not brighter people but asimple result of choosing the right corefoundation.

The big three are beginning to converttheir core foundations into today’stechnology — at a cost of hundreds ofmillions of dollars over three to five years. Legal publishers will then quicklyembrace the new technologies, tocustomer’s great benefit.

The problem is finding relevant information.Today’s technology can deliver informationby observing a user’s keyboard activity.

Technology exists to multitask several jobs— whether the user is thinking about it or not. Take the example of a search ofprimary law for a divorce trial regardingdistribution of a pension plan. In the past,the attorney would look at a digest indexfor “divorce,” “division of property,”“pension plans” and “vesting.” Cites inhand, the attorney would pull out thebooks, read the cases for the right one, getthe citation materials and make sure theyincluded the most “current” case directly onpoint — still about 45 to 90 days behind.

Today, the attorney logs on towww.loislaw.com, searches the databases,finds the statute and case on point, andruns GlobalCite to make sure all is currenttoday. Then the options are to: print thecite, have the secretary photocopy from thebook, print the document(s) directly, copythe document(s) into a word processor to complete the trial brief or save thedocument for later editing — much moreefficient but still very inefficient. There’sstill a lot to do: bill the client for time,create copies for the court and opposingcounsel, create the legal pleadings, andschedule an appointment with the clientabout whether to settle or go on to court.

What if the computer had watched, then completed the rest of the work: itknew who the client was, created a billautomatically, saved the searching logic and search results into the client’s personal work folder, created thepleadings, allowed the attorney to e-mailthe pleadings and documents to the courtor opposing counsel, and scheduled the appointment (with approval)? That’s efficient. The technology exists.

In the last few years, “Application ServiceProviders” became a Wall Street buzzword;B2C, B2B and ASP were the end-alls thattook the NASDAQ to unprecedentedheights. Then the truth hit: There wasnothing magical about ASPs. Most simplyused the Internet’s backbone to deliverwhat used to be put on a floppy or CD-ROM. Sure, the software can beaccessed over the Internet. Somepublishing companies even said they wereembracing the Internet when they justused it as a gateway. Publishers savedmillions, but customers didn’t save onedime, much less increase their efficiency.

The kind of integrated intelligence Ireferred to requires a vertical solutionprovider. With VSPs, all applications —

time and billing; calendaring; documentmanagement; secure e-mail; datarepositories of both primary and secondarylaw — are aware of each other and managethemselves according to the customer’sdemands. The intelligent VSP will suggestsecondary information, accessible at thepress of a button, as the customersearches a primary law database. If thecore foundation of the data structure ispart of the VSP, that information can bedelivered by the sentence, the paragraph,the chapter or the volume. VSPs candeliver an “on-demand” service, with thecustomer paying only when using theservice.

Historically, publishers have simplybundled their offerings, making thecustomer pay for unneeded products/services. VSP customers will have theadvantage of an entire law library and back office yet pay only for the serviceused. To date, there are no true VSPs. West Publishing’s ASP WestWorksintegrates the Microsoft Outlook Calendarfeature but is a far cry from a true VSP.Again, this all comes down to the corefoundation of the data structure.

Technology will also continue to expand onthe personal side. With Internet Protocolauthentication, a large-firm customerneeds only one password yet still hasindividual preferences on the start page.Intranets allow a law firm to be the onlycustomer on a server, even if that server is hosted remotely. This technology isavailable today if publishers have the corefoundation of the data structure. Thistechnology ensures total privacy for the law firm and removes any chance ofdisseminating confidential information.

Costs to obtain primary information willcontinue to drop as more legal informationis delivered electronically to publishers.Though this does not help obtain archivedlaw, the cost of keeping the informationup-to-date continues to decline and thecustomer should enjoy price cuts foraccess to primary law.

Value-enhanced, secondary-sourceinformation does not seem to offer costreductions. Experts must write it. With the constant increase in primary law,experts spend more time studyinginformation to add concise analyticalimpact and practical result-reasoning. As VSP solutions prevail, customers willpurchase secondary sources only when

The Next Five Years in Legal Publishing


Members’ Briefing—AALL Spectrum, July 2001 19American Association of Law Libraries

by Holley Thompson

Improvements, enhancements and changesare constant in the world of information.The librarian’s role continues to expand asmore content and delivery options becomeavailable. In the future, librarians will playan even stronger role in deciding whichservices best meet the needs of theirconstituents and in implementing theseservices. A thorough comprehension of legal researchers’ needs plus anunderstanding of available new technologyare essential to the librarian. Legalpublishers must work with librarians tohelp them acclimate to the ever-changinglegal world.

Increased Use of the Internet A survey of legal practitioners by the LegalTechnology Institute of the University ofFlorida Fredric G. Levin College of Law,http://www.law.ufl.edu/lti/research/asp/index.htm, indicates that almost 90 percentof those in the legal profession now usethe Internet at work. Almost two-thirdshave an Internet Web site, up from one-third in 1997. The technologicalsophistication of attorneys and librarianshas increased dramatically and continuesto rise. Every day new software and tools are being specifically designed forlibrarians and other legal professionals to better find, organize and maintainincreasingly voluminous legal informationand research. Awareness of technologicaldevelopments and the ability to implementthe new technologies will be imperative to a successful law practice.

The Global Future of LawThe practice of law is global.Multidisciplinary practices are becomingrealities. Law firms will no longer competejust with other law firms; they will competewith national and international law firmsthat have partnered with establishedaccounting firms and other businesses.International business mergers anddevelopment deals mean internationalclients and information seekers. Contentproviders have begun to develop offeringsthat meet the needs of users worldwide. To keep up with the law’s global future,librarians must keep up with technologicaladvancements that use the Internet’sglobal technology.

Application Service Providers: A newtechnological trend is the development ofASPs. Akin to renting software over the

Internet, ASPs deliver software directly to the user’s desktop. According to theUniversity of Florida study, 9 percent of thelegal field currently uses ASPs, with legalresearch, time, billing and invoicing as thepredominant functions.

ASP services will be an importantalternative for all law firms to outsourcespecialized applications that would be too expensive to maintain internally.

Intranets: Another trend is expanding useof intranets, an internal communicationssystem that stores information on thecompany’s Web site for use by anyone inthe company working on related topics.

Intranets facilitate employee groups workingfrom multiple locations, making them ripefor use within the fast-paced global economy.An intranet is normally a collaborative effortbetween technology and content experts.Librarians can play a leadership role incontent development. Intranets will beintegral to management of informationwithin the organization, combininginformation from inside and outside sources.

Extranets: The development of a strongintranet will lead to the development of an extranet, Web pages to which onlyauthorized users have access. Extranets will become indispensable resources tocommunicate with outside librarians,faculty, other legal professionals and clients.

Extranets will also allow organizations to exchange large volumes of data,collaborate with outside legal professionalson joint development efforts, jointlydevelop and use training programs withother companies, and exclusively sharenews of common interest.

Portals: Portals will let an organizationcombine all the unique resources itsemployees need to perform their jobs most efficiently. Typical applications willinclude e-mail, scheduling, time and billinginformation, litigation support documents,research, and working documents. Portalswill combine information from Internet andintranet sources and company applicationsfor quick access to relevant, specificinformation. They will accelerate anorganization’s decision-making andcommunication abilities and decelerate the stifling stagnancy of bureaucracy.

Corporate portals are expected toeventually become the new desktop,replacing a variety of common applications.

One reason for the predicted popularity ofcorporate portals is the opportunity forcustomization. Users can mix and matchseveral different features to handcraft an interface specially for their uniqueoperations — from stock tickers to more complex features such as strategiccorporate information.

Customization: Today’s legal professionalsand law librarians are under unprece-dented time pressure to access andassimilate an often overwhelming volumeof information. Law practices are becomingmore specialized, with “boutique” firmsever more popular. Constant increases inthe volume and complexity of litigationand decreases in budgets are forcing legalpublishers to help law librarians and otherlegal professionals find ways to operatemore efficiently to maintain margins andprofitability. To ensure maximum efficiency,content providers must begin developingpractice management and legal researchingtools that are custom-built and preciselytailored to their specialized needs.

Wireless: In the past, the demand was for instant access to information. In thefuture, the legal community will not simplydemand instantaneous information, it will demand instantaneous information,anywhere, anytime: access through cellphones; personal digital assistants; and mobilized, miniature PCs. As legalpractices merge and expand nationally and internationally, legal professionals will become even more mobile. They canno longer be limited to their desktops.Content providers must recognize this andbegin developing different ways to allowusers to access information from whereverthey may be.

Structure: While the Internet has becomethe most efficient tool for informationgathering, its limitless boundaries cansometimes be a disadvantage in managingand searching for specific information. It will become an absolute necessity forcontent providers to streamline informationand customize its delivery to helpcustomers keep up with the increasinglydemanding pace of a legal practice.

Convergence: Multidisciplinary practices,law-firm mergers and expansions,international practices and firmsspecializing in mergers, acquisitions,securities or other corporate issues will need access to many different types of information. Access to one type of

The LexisNexis™ Perspective


20 Members’ Briefing—AALL Spectrum, July 2001American Association of Law Libraries

Reports summaries or other analyticalmaterials that can give the researcher amore complete picture of the legal issue at hand.

From such an asset bank, it isn’t a stretchto see how a single research query candeliver not only the results but also openthe door to a universe of new services, suchas those that enable the instant creation ofdossiers, profiles, briefing papers and otherknowledge work products that draw fromthe same information. This becomes thepoint where the technology and intellectualvalue truly powers the content, delivering a research experience that provides morecontext and analysis of information andincreased value to the client.

The ConduitUntil recently, the development of rawcomputing technology focused on localcapacity, speed and power. But the Internet has changed these assumptions.In addition to power and speed, there’s

greater emphasis on reliability, mobilityand customization.

As powerful as the Web is, we are justrealizing its true potential.

Consider a firm’s intranet. The space that once housed a collection of forms,documents, contact information and thefirm newsletter is quickly being reborn as the center for research, work-flowmanagement and online collaboration.

Many firms have invested in building theirown intranets, but there also are a numberof high-end, off-the-shelf, enterprise portalsolutions on the market. Whether built orbought, these offerings provide traditionalintranet connectivity, integrated with thefirm’s document management, work-flowand calendaring systems, and portal-delivery modules that enable customizationof a broad set of features, functionality and content, specific to each researcher.

The increased power, sophistication andportability of hardware devices — matedwith new software applications — opensup new possibilities. Already, Palmtop

devices offer extensive researchfunctionality from any location and tabletpersonal computers are just around the corner. As the usability of wirelessimproves, the coming year will see broadmarket acceptance and expanded use ofthe devices. A study by Jupiter Researchindicates that there will be more than 128 million wireless Internet subscribersby year-end.

Before we get too carried away, it’simportant to consider the human factor. In the end, the convergence of content and technology tools, coupled with thelibrarian’s unique expertise, will yield new information solutions that can bettersupport the firm and the clients it serves.As Linda Will notes, “Librarianship is sointuitive. Sometimes you go down a pathbecause you know it’s right. It’s a sixthsensibility — knowing that your research isgoing to take you where you need to go.”

Mike Wilens ([email protected]) is president of West Group in Eagan, Minn.

West Group’s Perspectivecontinued from page 17

information — such as legal informationin the form of cases, statutes andlegislation — is no longer sufficient.Content providers will need to develop methods to bring a variety ofinformational areas together — such asbusiness and corporate as well as peopleand asset locators — into one easilysearchable database.

Pay per Read: In the never-ending questfor online information, the flat, annual feesubscription may still retain popularitywith larger firms and business. However,for smaller entities that cannot affordsubscription fees, a new vehicle is being

developed that avoids subscriptions andprovides alternative ways to purchaseresearch online. Customers will be able topurchase items by the document. Similartechnology will be developed for purchaseof legal research by the hour, day or week.

Preference: Despite increased focus onthe Internet, information will still come in varied formats. Print and CD-ROMinformation resources will continue. Lawbooks, a staple of practice for centuries,will remain a dominant force in theforeseeable future.

Content Is Still KingDevelopment and improved delivery ofhigh-quality, current and accurate data isthe future of legal publishing. Information

delivery will focus on convenience, order,remote access, customization and value.Wider and deeper access to informationwill allow the legal professional to becomebetter informed of relevant issues and toprovide better analysis. It will no longer be enough for legal content providers torespond to customer demands, they mustanticipate them. Only by being on theforefront of future technology will contentproviders truly benefit the rapidly evolvinglegal world.

Holley Thompson ([email protected]) is vice president of AssociationMarkets and Professional Relations atLexisNexis™ in Miamisburg, Ohio.

LexisNexis Perspectivecontinued from page 19

needed — viewing more secondary sourceinformation on-demand while spending aboutthe same amount — for greater efficiency inrepresenting clients.

The good news is that customers arebeginning to receive real value from

technology. Over the next five years, wewill probably see another distributionmedium emerge that totally linkseverything into a common integratedsystem. The bad news is that mostpublishers’ legacy systems and their datastructures’ core foundation are in dire needof an upgrade. That will take time and lotsof money. When the core foundationembraces the technology, customers will

finally get to pick and choose what theywant, when they want it, at a fraction ofwhat they pay today.

Kyle Parker ([email protected]) is a memberof the senior staff at Aspen Publishers, now ownerof Loislaw.com. He founded and was chairman/CEO/president of Loislaw.com in Van Buren, Ark.

The Next Five Yearscontinued from page 18

Documents

What Makes it Work