Rutgers Universitytefkos.comminfo.rutgers.edu/Courses/e553/Examples... · Web viewThe top...

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Library 1

Cyberlaw: Building a Better Digital Law Library

Helen Busness

Digital Libraries-e553

November 29, 2015


Abstract

Law libraries have been slow to make the shift from print to digital resources, but it is

undeniable that reliance on digital legal research is growing and here to stay. As law firms, law

schools, lawyers, and researchers are fast discovering, subscribing to the two leading fee-based

digital law libraries, Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis (collectively referred to as Wexis), is not always

ideal from a usability or economic perspective.1 Other digital law libraries have evolved to meet

user needs, but are these digital law libraries a good alternative? Do they provide the authority,

accuracy, currency, coverage and usability required for a digital law library? (Jootaek, 2011-

2012, p. 228) Are they efficiently and effectively providing the information that legal

constituencies need? This paper will endeavor to answer these questions by examining the shift

from print to digital in the law library context with a special emphasis on Wexis. Next, the paper

will explore how best to evaluate a digital law library, and then evaluate a number of no cost

digital law libraries based on the criteria selected. The paper will conclude by recommending

best practices for a better digital law library to meet the legal needs of a diverse user community.

The best answer for digital law libraries might reside in collaborative efforts that maximize ever-

decreasing financial and staff resources and spread the increasing costs of collection

development.

1 An evaluation of Wexis is beyond the scope of the paper, but the Appendix does include a brief overview of Westlaw Next which is available at many state and law school libraries. Also included is a price chart of charges that may occur outside of contract for use of Westlaw Next in private practice.


Introduction to the law library and its foray into the digital world

Print vs. Digital

Law libraries have been among the slowest libraries to embrace the move from print to

digital resources. While there are undoubtedly those who still prefer to conduct legal research in

print, “the reality is that there is no longer a high demand for these items, requiring library

administration to think about collection analysis and development in an entirely different way.”

(Chase & Barnes, 2014, p. 196) Despite this growing preference for digital legal research,

certain resources such as monographs, treatises, and legal dictionaries do and probably always

will have a place on the library shelves. (Chase & Barnes, 2014). As with other libraries,

however, preferences for print over digital, or digital over print, vary greatly from user to user.

With this relatively new preference for digital legal research, as Danner, Kauffman, and

Palfry (2009) suggest, comes a “growing role for the academic law librarian” (p.146) rather than

a diminished one. Kaufman, a law librarian at Yale, advocates for “assertive reference” where

librarians think “strategically about where we can intervene and get those teachable moments to

show students that in reality doing legal research is more complicated today than it’s ever been

before.” (p. 146). Many students, including law students, overestimate their ability to conduct

digital legal research and think they can “find it all by going on to Google”. (p. 146). Law

librarians of today need to bridge the gap between technology and the user, and a large part of

this new role will be to understand, evaluate and assist users with navigating digital law libraries.

Westlaw and Lexis Nexis—fee-based digital law library

Digital law libraries have long been dominated by Wexis. When I graduated from law


school in 1994, we were taught how to conduct legal research through both print searches and

digital searches on Wexis. At the start of my career, I utilized Wexis as my first research tool to

identify case law applicable to my client’s situation. I remember vividly the sticker shock when

I first saw how much my non-school supported research on Wexis cost my firm, or to be more

exact, what the firm passed along to the client.2 The practice of teaching digital research on

Wexis and no other digital law libraries caused many “law students [to] fall off a cliff the

moment they graduate[d], without adequate preparation for their future work and without access

to expensive proprietary systems on which they have come to rely.” (Palfrey, 2010, p. 184).

Both Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis have complex fee structures. There are flat rate contracts

available where the user purchases access to certain portions of the legal database. There are

also options outside of the contract where the user is billed hourly or by transaction. If you are

being billed by transaction, it is especially important to be precise (i.e. you have a citation for the

document you want) to avoid large, often unexpected charges. (Aycock, 2013). Both Westlaw

and LexisNexis offer reduced, flat fees for law schools with no hourly or transactional fees, so

new attorneys are often totally unaware of the fee structure for using these databases. Many new

attorneys (me included) developed poor research habits with the free Wexis that can translate

into costly mistakes in private practice.

LexisNexis has been around since 1973, when it was used to index judicial opinions of

the Ohio Supreme Court, but by 1980, it was expanded to include all U.S. federal and state

jurisdictions. West Publishing wanted to get in on the digital legal revolution, and thus

established Westlaw in 1975 to compete directly with LexisNexis. A bitter and profitable rivalry

ensued, whereby “The Big Two” battled for supremacy. (Aycock, 2013). Westlaw sued

LexisNexis in 1986 for copyright infringement and won. A decade later, however, Westlaw’s 2 This is an uncomfortable conversation to have with one’s boss.


pagination system and structure were deemed too basic and simplistic to invoke copyright

protection. (Aycock, 2013).

The “new” players—government (state and federal), law schools, etc.

Although still the biggest players in the digital law library arena, Westlaw and

Lexis/Nexis are now facing considerable competition; digital law libraries exist in abundance.

There are federal and state law libraries (see for example Library of Congress Law Library and

the State of Iowa Law Library ) , digital law libraries for each law school in the United States (see

for example Seton Hall University Rodino Law Library and University of Iowa Law Library),

many law firms have their own digital law libraries, and there are some “free” digital law

libraries geared toward legal practitioners and some geared toward the public (see for example

Findlaw for professionals and Findlaw for the public. )

Evaluation—Literature Review

Why Evaluate?

Evaluating digital libraries, or any library system, is critical to keeping it current; despite

the importance of evaluation, there exists a paucity of data on how best to accomplish such a

feat. Establishing the criteria on which a digital library will be evaluated is an important first

step. “Criteria are then used to develop measures.” (Saracevic, 2004, p. 5). It is important to

keep in mind when evaluating any digital library that the user’s perspective can vary greatly

from the design perspective; “in use, more often than not, DL users and digital libraries are in an

adversarial position.” (Saracevic, 2004, p. 9).

http://www.findlaw.com/

http://lp.findlaw.com/

http://library.law.uiowa.edu/

http://law.shu.edu/library/

http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/collections/law-library

http://www.loc.gov/law/


What to Evaluate--Criteria

Although no specific criteria have been agreed upon for a digital law library, there are

some general agreed upon goals of digital library evaluation. Saracevic (2000) suggests that

providing standards and criteria for digital holdings over the internet establishes “trust, validity,

and authority…thus promoting access with user confidence, a highly important thing on the

otherwise value-neutral Internet.” (p. 357) Zhang (2010) posits that digital library stakeholders

are concerned about “being able to access high-quality content and service.” (p.104) Xie (2008)

offers that “an evaluation is a judgment of worth. The objective of DL evaluation is to assess to

what extent a digital library meets its objects and offer suggestions for improvements.” (p. 1348).

Finally, Palfrey (2010) believes “it is not enough merely to make information available in the

public domain; it needs to be accessible, in a timely and understandable fashion, to those who

need it.” (p. 184).

More specifically, Saracevic (2000) presents seven levels of evaluation, four of which are

user-based and three are system-based. The four user-centered levels are social, institutional,

individual, and interface. The three system-based levels are engineering, processing, and

content. Xie (2008) presents five types of criteria: interface usability, collection quality, service

quality, system performance and user satisfaction. Each criteria has a set of variables upon

which to test or evaluate its success. (p. 1357).


Xie’s criteria are illustrated in the chart below:

Interface Usability Collection Quality Service Quality System performance

User Satisfaction

Search and Browse Function

Scope Mission Efficiency and Effectiveness

User Feedback

Navigation Authority Targeted User Community

Relevance Contact Information

Help Features Accuracy Traditional library service

Precision and recall

View and output options

Completeness Unique Services

Accessibility Currency Usefulness

Zhang (2010) elaborates on Saracevic’s evaluation levels and provides a “holistic DL evaluation

model.” (p. 90). She mentions six levels of evaluation found in LIS literature: content,

technology, interface, service, user and context. (p.88) Zhang’s model presents 19 core and 18

group-based criteria on which to evaluate a DL. The below table represents the core criteria

within the six levels of evaluation. In red are criteria identified as important to librarians

(administrators, developers, and librarians) that seem key to digital law library evaluation.

Holistic DL Evaluation Model

Content Technology Interface Service User Context

Accuracy Reliability Ease of use Integrity Efficiency Sustainability

Accessibility Ease of Use Effectiveness Reliability Successfulness Managerial Support

Usefulness Security Consistency Responsiveness Satisfaction Collaboration

Appropriateness Effectiveness Interaction support Accessibility Acceptance Copyright

Ease of Understanding

Interoperability Appropriateness Usefulness Use/Reuse


There is a dearth of literature specifically on evaluation of digital law libraries. Jootaek

Lee (2011-2012) focuses specifically on digital law libraries, and he has suggested the following

criteria to assess legal information services available on the internet: authority, accuracy,

currency, coverage, and usability.

How to Evaluate?

Once criteria have been identified, the question then becomes how to use these criteria to

assess the digital library. What are the key benchmarks or measurements to employ to judge

overall success or determine what constitutes a “good” digital law library? These questions do

not have universally agreed upon answers, but this is an area ripe for further exploration and

research. It is crystal clear, however, that these questions need to be addressed in order to build a

better digital law library.

Analysis

Selection of Evaluative Criteria for Digital Law Libraries

Below is a chart of the criteria selected to evaluate some of the more prominent digital

law libraries in the United States for purposes of this paper. Please note, not all criteria will be

discussed for each library evaluation but all were considered in providing the overall rating.

Usability Interface ContentSearch and browse function Relevance ScopeNavigation Effectiveness AuthorityHelp features Consistency Accuracy

Efficiency Ease of Use CompletenessUse/Reuse Currency


These were selected based upon the evaluative criteria put forth by Saracevic, Xie, Yang

and Lee. Further research in this area would involve vetting and perhaps expanding these criteria

with law librarians and other legal and technology experts to establish what criteria and

measurements are most suited to the digital law library.

Findlaw

According to their Facebook page, Findlaw for Legal Professionals’ mission is “to

provide attorneys and other legal professionals with up-to-date news and information that affects

the legal profession uniquely, including legal technology news, practice tips and firm

management information.” Findlaw, owned by Thomson Reuters (also the owner of Westlaw),

was started in 1996, and claims to be the “world’s leading provider of online legal information.

(Bowers, 2011, p.2) Based upon review of usability and content criteria, as well as adherence to

its mission and goals, this digital legal library would rate a “C”. Findlaw would benefit from a

reduction in scope so that it can be effectively maintained to ensure current information and

working links. Also, the advertising element of Findlaw, although no doubt an economic

necessity to maintain free access, does detract from its effectiveness as a digital law library.

Findlaw effectively provides networking opportunities for legal professionals. By taking out the

library function (offering current legal research resources), Findlaw may find a more reasonable

and effective and manageable niche market as a legal marketing and networking site.

http://lp.findlaw.com/


Usability and Interface

Response times were slow to access information and several times “timed out” prior to

reaching the content, perhaps because the webpages contain a considerable amount of scrolling

content and advertising. Find an Expert and FindLaw Career Center were two areas that “timed

out” on my laptop. The advertising also visually confuses the user and impedes visual

identification of content. Having too much content and distractions negatively impact usability

as a whole. Given that a lawyer’s time is billable, efficiency is critically important to keep prices

low. If, for instance, Westlaw or LexisNexis can get a user the information he needs faster, it

may be worth the money to invest in these fee-based digital libraries rather than “wasting time”

on a less efficient, yet free, digital law library. A customer satisfaction survey “pops up”

repeatedly on the Findlaw professional site. Although a link to a survey might be less obtrusive,

the idea of including an option for feedback is an excellent idea to foster continuous evaluation

and improvement of the digital library. There are no help features to guide users, which might

improve functionality. There is a general search function, as well as an advanced search option

available both from the home page and the Cases & Code page. The advanced search uses a


Boolean search with “operators AND, OR, and NOT and the proximity locator NEAR, which

searches for terms within fifty words of one another.” (Bowers, 2011, p. 1). Boolean searches

are familiar to attorneys since they are taught in law school and an integral part of Westlaw and

Lexis/Nexis searching. In addition to searching, there is also considerable browsing that can be

accomplished on Findlaw by jurisdiction and subject.

Content

Perhaps the most prominent content issue of Findlaw is its vast scope which is too large

to ensure the site’s accuracy is maintained. Findlaw’s main navigation bar has six tabs: Cases &

Codes, Practice Management, Jobs & Careers, Legal News, Blogs, and Service Providers.

Secondary navigation provides “Quick Links” to Forms, Law Technology, Lawyer Marketing,

Corporate Counsel, Law Students, JusticeMail, and Newsletters. There is also a general and

advanced search of FindLaw. Next, one sees the scrolling list of featured blog posts, which is a

nice feature to highlight Findlaw’s legal blog. Moving down the page, one finds “Research the

Law” both by search and browse, find an expert, legal forms both for purchase and for free, and

news headlines with two tabs: FindLaw Answers and Legal News. Under legal experts, I

selected ADR professionals in Ohio. I was surprised to find “Arlington Kung Fu & Tai Chi”


listed.

Another content issue involves the Findlaw Answers section. The questions I reviewed did not

properly belong on a professional practice site since they were client questions. The advice

offered was not consistently provided by a legal professional, which calls into question the

authenticity, authority and overall completeness of the response. Providing legal advice though a

digital library seems unwise because these criteria cannot be met. The home page does link to a

Facebook page geared toward professional networking.

Although a nice inclusion, the law student section of Findlaw would perhaps be better served by

a more narrow scope to ensure accuracy and currency of the information presented. For


example, on the Academic Law Journals and Law Review page (image above), many of the

journal links were not current, which brings into question currency, accuracy, completeness, and

authority.

Law School Digital Law Libraries

Legal Information Institute at Cornell Universit y

Legal Information Institute’s (LII) mission in simple terms is to provide open access to

law. More specifically, LII is “a not-for-profit group that believes everyone should be able to

read and understand the laws that govern them, without cost.” Bowers (2011) calls LII “one of

the best sites” with a home page that is “clutter-free and easy to navigate due to its simplicity.”

(p.2) As with Findlaw, economics are clearly at issue, and LII has a unique funding model for a

university-sponsored digital law library. Twenty percent of its funding comes from private

donations and 65% from advertising, sponsorships, and projects like the lawyer’s directory

where a fee is charged for appearing in the directory. When first logging on to the site, a pop up

window appears asking for a donation. It states that “last year, 94 cancer research hospitals

relied on us for free legal information. We think that is important. Your support makes it

possible. Please give generously today.” There is also a link to a donation page, which should

be enough to encourage donations without the interruption of the pop up window. The site does

have a considerable amount of advertising, as well as space dedicated to funding. The help out

section gives a list of six funding options that allow the library to provide information at no cost

to the user.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/


Based upon a review of content and interface, as well as fulfilling its mission and vision, LII

receives a rating of “A”.


Although the interface is not fancy, it works well and is easy to navigate. It is uncluttered

and effective. Visually, the banner listing LII and Cornell was cut off by the pop up donation

box, even when this was minimized. It seems like a simple fix, and would go a long way to

improving the appearance and minimizing the disruption for the user. Although the donation

requests and advertising are somewhat distracting, it is an economic necessity which is well

explained on the site. The internal links could be improved upon, as well as ensuring that one

can easily toggle between links. There is no advanced search option, and no indication on how

to use the search feature of the site to maximize relevant results. Bowers (2011) points out that

“when searching within LII, use the operators AND, OR, and NOT. If an operator is not

indicated, the default is AND. The asterisk (*) acts as the truncation symbol and finds multiple

roots of the search term.” (p.3). This search type is familiar to attorneys, yet other users may be

more familiar with keyword searching so a user guide would be helpful. There is an LII


reference desk, but it requires a user name and password, so it would not be available to the

general user.

Content

The rich content of LII is truly what earns its place on the A list of digital law libraries.

The scope of LII is large but not so large that the quality of the site is compromised. 90% of the

legal content is found in the “get the law” tab on the navigation bar and in legal resources. LII’s

U.S. Supreme Court Bulletin and Supreme Court resources are exceptional. They are

authoritative, accurate and complete. The LII bulletin staff are students of Cornell Law School,

so the bulletin functions in much the same way as a law review. The information on Supreme

Court decisions is well maintained and current; the screenshot was pulled on November 25th,

2015, and the November 9th, 2015 decision from Mullinex v. Luna already appeared.

Another impressive feature of LII is “Wex”. Wex is a free legal dictionary and

encyclopedia with a wealth of information on the law and legal practice. It is community-based

and legal experts contribute, but unlike FindLaw, the experts contributing are vetted by LII’s


editorial staff, as are their contributions. The material and resource provided, therefore, are

authoritative and correct.

Washlaw: Legal Research on the Web--Washburn University School of Law

WashLaw’s mission is to provide “users with links to law-related materials on the

Internet.” The site does a very good job fulfilling this mission, maintaining currency and

presenting links to relevant, authoritative information, so receives and overall rating of “B+”. It

does not receive an “A” only because there is little original content of the digital law library and

no help or resource guides to help navigate the site content.


Washlaw staff do an excellent job maintaining the large number of links on this site; with

the exception of one link, all the ones tested were active, relevant to the subject and current. The

main navigation is simple yet effectively broken down into ten categories: add your site, contact

us, about, U.S. law, states, international, subject index, resources for lawyers, law school, law

firms. The law firm link was not active, so content should either be added or it should be

removed from the navigation to avoid confusion. The map feature and links to content are

http://www.washlaw.edu/


innovative and clever, and each link I tried worked well. I clicked on Iowa and went directly to

the state law and government page with a tremendous number of relevant state links that were

well organized and labeled. From the Iowa page, a navigation menu is provided to other states,

as well as to the resources on the Iowa page. This navigation is especially conducive to

browsing. The search feature is simple yet effective, and it appears on each page.

Content

Although not content rich in original resources like LII, Washlaw does a tremendous job

of identifying, summarizing and presenting the enormous number of legal resources on the web.

Although beyond the scope of this analysis, WashLaw covers both national and international

law. Washlaw also hosts 50 some odd list serves to assist legal professionals in networking and

“keeping up,” which is an important feature in an ever-changing profession.

The resources for librarians page is outstanding, and I would suggest including this in any digital

law library site.


State and Federal Law Libraries

State of Iowa Law Library

The State of Iowa Law Library is part of the State of Iowa digital library system. The

digital library, as a whole, is excellent. Compared to the grandeur of the physical law library

space, however, the digital presence falls short. I would recommend either a heightened presence

on the State Library site, or perhaps a stand-alone web presence more prominently linked to the

main site. The mission and goals of a law library in digital or physical form are significantly

different from the State library as a whole, and the law library is buried within an otherwise

strong digital library. The State of Iowa digital law library receives a rating of “C”.


The State Library of Iowa site is divided into three categories: For Libraries, For Iowans,

For Data Center. The major issue for the State Law Library is lack of visibility and accessibility

from the main page. The State Law Library site is accessible only through a link on the bottom

of the page under “contact us”. Once the law library is selected, the user is taken to the contact

http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/collections/law-library


information, which then has a link to the law library website. Entering the term “law library”

from the main page does not bring up the law library site itself, but instead brings up a

photography exhibition at the library. When that link is accessed, one still is not brought nor

referred to the law library site. Navigation, use/reuse and ease of use are all an issue simply to

get to the digital library itself. Once there, the library fares a bit better, but the usability and

interface issues continue. There is a library chat feature which definitely aids in usability, and

unlike many digital law libraries discusses above, the State of Iowa Law Library has a staffed

physical presence (albeit seemingly a librarian staff of one). The primary navigation appears on

the left hand column of the home page and includes the following 15 categories: ask a law

librarian, policy: photography and special events, Iowa Legislature’s digital archive,

constitutional debates of the state of Iowa, #IowaConstitution, executive orders of Iowa

governors, federal law and regulation, Iowa law and regulation, Iowa courts, state and federal tax

forms, state legislative websites, A.J. Small special collections, help finding an attorney, help

resolving disputes without going to court, Westlaw Next available at the law library. The order

and organization of the navigation topics could be reworked for improved usability and ease of

use. Broader categories such as Library Services, to include Westlaw Next, Research Help, etc.

may improve the overall organizational structure. The actual digital collections of the library

could also be grouped together to better highlight the impressive content. For example, the

digitized Constitutional Debates collection could be highlighted more prominently since it is a

truly impressive and important part of the library’s collection. The library could also consider

breaking down this collection into smaller chunks since the files take a very long time to load

and search.

Content


The mission of the State of Iowa Law Library, as mentioned on their website, is to provide

Iowa lawmakers, government employees, the Iowa legal community and the general public with a highly specialized legal collection of treatises and both state and federal statutory, regulatory and case law. The collection also contains the abstracts and arguments of the Iowa Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, legal periodicals, and materials produced by the Iowa legislature. Research assistance is available.

The digital library, however, does not have any goals or vision beyond those of the physical

space, which are quite different in scope and nature. The collection of constitutional debate

materials is a treasure trove of historical information on the development of Iowa and its

government. The digitization is good, and the user feels as if they were accessing the original

resource. Similarly, the collaboration to digitize the Iowa Legislature’s history is worthy of

greater attention and focus on the law library site itself. This impressive collection of historical

(dating back to 1839) and current legislative material was accomplished through a partnership

with Law Library Microform Consortium (LLMC) and Google Books. The A.J. Small collection

would benefit greatly from further explanation as to the actual content of the collection, and

perhaps could be digitized to add to the collection of the digital law library. As it stands now, its

inclusion in the digital collection is somewhat confusing. The inclusion of tax forms,

information on finding an attorney, and alternative dispute resolution, although helpful, may not

fit in with the overall goals of this digital law library. This content seems more aptly placed in

the “For Iowans” section of the State Library.


Law Library of Congress

The Rolls Royce of digital law libraries is the Law Library of Congress (LLOC). The

simple navigation structure belies the exceptionally rich content and quick, clear interface. One

can tell that this site was planned very well, and evaluated/updated regularly. LLOC has a

discreet yet obvious feedback form that links to a short survey so that users can provide

comments and concerns with the digital library. As far as evaluative information, LLOC seeks

input content, design, ease of use and overall (usability), which are directly in line with the

criteria selected for this paper.

http://www.loc.gov/law/


Due to its clear organization, exceptional maintenance and rich content that fits its mission (not

too much and not too little), this library gets the highest score of “A+”.


From the Library of Congress homepage, the LLOC is easily accessible from the right

hand navigation, under services. While a more prominent location would be ideal, the Library of

Congress seems to have made very intentional selections as to prominence. With so much

content, choices have to be made and the link to LLOC was relatively easy to find if not

prominent. The top navigation bar has three links: ask a librarian, digital collections, and library

catalogs. Although these are not limited to legal resources or collections, it is nice to have access

to the general Library of Congress resources from the LLOC. There is also a search box for the

Library of Congress as a whole on the top navigation. The next horizontal level contains law

library highlights in a non-scrolling format which alleviates some of the distraction seen in other

digital law libraries evaluated in this paper. On the left navigation bar, there is an LLOC search,

as well as eight broad categories for the site: law library home, about the law library, research &

reports, find legal resources, education & research opportunities, visiting the law library, news &

events, contact. All the main navigation categories appear on one screen without scrolling,

which improves ease of use. The main navigation both to the Library of Congress as a whole,

and LLOC, appear on each page, which supports browsing and makes toggling between pages

efficient.

The share/save feature allows the user to share the page on social media, e-mail the page,

or save it to favorites; unfortunately the pop-up box would not close unless the page itself was

closed, but this would be an easy fix. One more minor usability/interface issue that if remedied

might improve overall quality would be to make sure the order of the navigation bars on interior


pages mimics the order of content on the page. Below is an example from the “Find

Legal Resources” page.

Content

This evaluation will only scratch the surface of what is available on the LLOC site, but I

hope to highlight the features other digital law libraries may wish to emulate. I will focus on the

“Find Legal Resources” link. The first link on this page is for collections, which includes a

description as well as information on finding the approximately 2.9 million volumes in the

LLOC collection. Of special interest is the LLOC’s efforts in digitization, which to date include:

full-text access to laws, bills and resolutions of the first 43 Congresses; full-text access to

Congressional hearings; an archive of over 100 legal blawgs (please note the clever renaming of

blog); and an impressive digitized book collection that includes rare books on Abraham Lincoln,

John Adams and piracy trials. Below is an example from Lincoln the Lawyer, one of the digital


books in the very impressive an important LLOC digital collection.

The legal blawg archive is another unique and important contribution of the LLOC. The

LLOC explains the collection as a “selective collection of authoritative sites (associated with

American Bar Association approved law schools, research institutes, think tanks, and other

expertise-based organizations) that contain unique, born digital content.” The LLOC staff,

through their careful selection process, ensure authority and accuracy. If users utilize the very

thorough web archiving FAQ provided, the richness of the web archive content becomes readily

available. For those interested in web archiving, the information presented in the FAQ (which is

really more of an instructional guide and tutorial on web archiving combined) is invaluable.

Under the “Research & Reports” section, I would like to highlight two sections: the

“Guide to Law Online” and “Legal Research Guides”. For those searching for additional legal

information, these two areas offer a wealth of resources and information. The Guide to Law

Online, according to the website, “is an annotated guide to sources of information on government

and law available online. It includes selected links to useful and reliable sites for legal

information.” The Library of Congress staff has reviewed, vetted and approved the links for

inclusion in the guide, which provides users with the authority they need in legal content. The


guide’s scope includes state, federal and international resources, and it has achieved a

completeness unparalleled by other digital law libraries. The Legal Research Guides are also an

excellent resource for those new to legal research, or for those of us that are perhaps long out of

practice. These “how to” guides help the user navigate the library with ease, but also go much

further into explaining the resources and how they fit together to, for example, piece together

legislative history.

Best Practices

Use of Social Media

Many of the digital law libraries examined while researching this paper contain some

usage of social media “to engage their patrons” (ALL-SIS Task Force, 2013, p. 532). These can

include YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, RSS feeds, etc. Although not used as

one of the evaluation criteria, effective use of social media is an integral part of a digital law

library’s overall mission to reach, inform and engage the user. In order to fulfill the user’s

information needs, the digital law library must make its presence known to users and potential

users. Steele & Greenlee (2011) from the University of Pennsylvania Biddle Law Library,

describe the use of social media as one way law librarians can “demonstrate their mastery of an

increasingly complicated universe of information.” (p.113). Social media provides an “informal,

less-institutionalized face for both the library and its parent organization” that allows a library to

“share information quickly, express opinions, get user feedback, and discuss common themes

among diffuse groups.” (Steele & Greenlee, 2011, p. 115).

In order to be effective, social media must compliment the digital law library’s mission

and goals. Social media content must be updated regularly, but not too frequently. Posts should


“be short, be concise, be witty, and be fun. Listen a lot, market a little, and don’t be too serious.”

((Hofschire & Wanucha, 2014, p. 9). Posts should also provide “substantive and thoughtful

commentary…and not merely link to external information.” (ALL-SIS Task Force, 2013, p. 534)

To be considered successful, a digital library’s social media presence must be followed, accessed

and utilized. Google Analytics is one way to measure access and determine usage. Another way

is to solicit user feedback through a survey or focus group. (Steele & Greenlee, 2011). Like the

digital law library in general, social media plans should be evaluated and adjusted regularly to

ensure they are meeting the library’s overall mission and goals.

Collaboration

One area not evaluated above yet mentioned by Yang in her Holistic DL Model is

collaboration. The most successful and complete digital law libraries are those where costs,

expertise and technology is shared among groups with a common or complimentary mission and

goals. Limiting the number of digital law libraries and enhancing their scope and quality through

effective collaboration would be an excellent area to focus additional research attention and

funding. Palfrey (2010) notes that “there is no end in sight to the shrinking of budgets, staff, and

space in libraries.” (p. 174). Even where budgets remain stable, prices for materials, both print

and digital, continue to rise. “Law Librarians have no choice but to collaborate…[they] need to

work together to envision what we want the information ecosystem in law to look like over

time.” (Palfrey, 2010, p. 174). LII is an excellent model for innovative collaboration that can

defray expenses without compromising quality. Collaboration can be with corporate sponsors,

law firm libraries, other law schools, government entities, etc.—we are limited only by our own

vision and creativity as far as building better, more efficient, more effective and more

comprehensive digital law libraries. By reducing the number of digital law libraries and


improving their quality, a better ecosystem could be fostered that fits the needs of all users; the

grant application and funding process might be a good opportunity to coordinate efforts and

foster collaboration among like-minded institutions.

Conclusion

The American Association of Law Libraries Ethical Principles states that Law Libraries

should strive “to provide open and effective access to legal and related information.” AAAL

Ethical Principles (1999). Palfrey (2010) adds that “our aim should be to ensure that we take

advantage of the potential of the digital era to improve access to legal information for legal

scholars and practitioners, as well as scholars in other disciplines…and the general public.” (p.

177). 3 Great strides have been made, and continue to be made, in digitizing, organizing, and

making available the hugely diverse universe of “legal and related information” to those that need

it. What has transpired, however, is the emergence of a large number of duplicative digital law

libraries with similar information resources. The quality of these libraries varies greatly. Lack of

resources, both staff and financial, are no doubt a large part of the problem. Another contributing

factor to less than stellar quality among digital law libraries is that lawyers are not technology

experts, and vice versa. These struggles illustrate just how critical collaboration, both financial

and resource collaboration, are to making a better digital law library. It takes a village to raise a

child and to build a successful digital law library. As with children, until digital law libraries

mature, maintenance and care must continue regularly to help them develop and grow. Evaluation

3 Palfrey’s (2010) Six Cornerstones for digital law libraries are: 1) Alignment with the goals of the institutions we are part of, whether schools, firms, or agencies; 2) Establish a system for understanding the changing ways in which users are learning—accessing information, performing research, creating new information, and remixing old information; 3) Coordinate the digitization of legal materials; 4) Put collection policies in writing and share; 5) Making our own systems more efficient using back-office technology improvements; and 6) Developing human resources. Pp. 185-187.


criteria and measures can provide the tools to foster this growth and cannot be overlooked in the

digital law library process, especially as quickly as technology and the law develop.


References

Aycock, A. (2013). Chapter 5: The Big Two: Westlaw and LexisNexis. In The Accidental Law

Librarian. Medford, NJ: Information Today, pp. 89-109.

ALL-SIS Task Force on Library Marketing and Outreach (2013). Marketing and outreach in

Law Libraries: A White Paper. Law Library Journal, 4(105), pp. 525-538.

Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search

interface. Retrieved from https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html.

Bowers, S.L. (2011). Free and low-cost online legal resources. Colorado Lawyer, 103(40), pp.

1-5.

Breakstone, E.R. (2010). Now how much of your print collection is really online? An analysis of

the overlap of print and digital holdings at the University of Oregon Law Library. Legal

Reference Service Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 255-275.

Chase, K.A. & Barnes, E.C. (2014). The road oft traveled: collection analysis and development

in a modern academic law library, Collection Management 39(2-3), pp. 196-210.

Danner, R.A., Kauffman, S.B., & Palfrey, J.G. (2009). The twenty-first century law library, Law

Library Journal 101(2), pp. 143-156.

Hofschire, L. & Wanucha, M. (2014). Public library websites and social media. Computers in

Libraries, 34 (8), pp. 4-9.

Jootaek, L. (2011-2012). Gatekeepers of Legal Information: Evaluating and Integrating Free

Internet Legal Resources into the Classroom, Barry Law Review 17(2), and pp. 221 –

242.

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html


Palfrey, J. (2010). Cornerstones of Law Libraries for an Era of Digital-Plus. Law Library

Journal, 102(2), pp. 171-189.

Saracevic, T. (2004). Evaluation of digital libraries: An overview. Presented at the DELOS

workshop on the Evaluation of Digital Libraries. Retrieved November 4, 2015 from

http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/DL_evaluation_Delos.pdf

Saracevic, T. (2000). Digital library evaluation: Toward evolution of concepts. Library Trends,

49(2), pp. 350-369.

Steele, J. & Greenlee, G. (2011). Thinking, Writing, Sharing, Blogging: Lessons Learned from

Implementing a Law Library Blog. Law Library Journal 103(1), pp. 113-123.

Wu, M. (2011). Building a collaborative digital collection: a necessary evolution in libraries.

Law Library Journal 103(4), pp. 528-551.

Xie, H.I. (2008). Users’ evaluation of digital libraries (DLs): their uses, their criteria, and their

assessment. Information Processing and Management 44, pp. 1346-1373.

Zhang, Y. (2010). Developing a holistic model for digital library evaluation. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), pp. 88-110.

http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/DL_evaluation_Delos.pdf


Appendix

WeslawNext is West Publishing’s product for law schools. Below is a brief sample of a search using this digital law library for those who may be unfamiliar with it.

Home page

Cases page with cases scope information pop-up box, which also functions as a disclaimer to accuracy and authority-two critical evaluative content criteria for digital law libraries.

Search on State, New Jersey, New Jersey Law Reviews & Journals, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, Schinagl pulls up an article I wrote in law school.


The search results show that the article was cited twice, and this is a helpful and convenient feature that fits well with human information behavior research. Citation chasing is an information seeking tool preferred by many. Bates (1989) refers to this as “Citation searching (or "forward chaining"). One begins with a citation, finds out who cites it by looking it up in a citation index, and thus leaps forward.”

It is important to note, however, that a general search in Westlaw under “Schinagl” did not bring up any results. Nor did a narrowed search under states. Once I narrowed the search to New Jersey, however, the article did come up.

Although certain features of WestlawNext are extremely valuable to the legal researcher, I am not sure that it is always worth its high cost given the ever-improving non-fee based digital libraries.


Ancillary Charges to View Documents on WestlawNext (out of contract) Retrieved from http://www.geeklawblog.com/2010/03/westlawnext-pricing-up-to-3400-per-hour.html on 11/28/2015 Content Category

Content Examples

Per Minute

Per Hour Transactional Document Line

Cases state and federal cases $13.33 $799.80 $13.00 $16.50 $.05

Statutes and Court Rules–State

state statutory compilations $18.33 $1,099.80 $16.00 $16.50 $.05

Statutes and Court Rules–Federal

USCA® $20.00 $1,200.00 $25.00 $16.50 $.05

Regulations–State

state administrative compilations

$15.00 $900.00 $16.00 $16.50 $.05

Regulations–Federal

Code of Federal Regulations $20.00 $1,200.00 $25.00 $16.50 $.05

Administrative Decisions and Guidance–State

state attorney general opinions, state workers’ compensation decisions

$15.00 $900.00 $20.00 $16.50 $.05

Administrative Decisions and Guidance–Federal

decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Affairs,N.L.R.B., and E.E.O.C.

$18.33 $1,099.80 $25.00 $16.50 $.05

Administrative Decisions and Guidance–RIA

RIA’s State and Local Taxes $41.67 $2,500.20 $46.00 $16.50 $.05

Briefs appellate court briefs $55.00 $3,300.00 $85.00 $30.25 $.05

Secondary Sources–Journals and Law Reviews, Practice Guides, andJury Instructions

Law reviews, state jury instructions, practice guides

$33.33 $1,999.80 $30.00 $16.50 $.05

Secondary Sources–Premium State and Specialty

Rutter Group publications, Florida Jurisprudence 2d,

$38.33 $2,299.80 $42.00 $16.50 $.05

http://www.geeklawblog.com/2010/03/westlawnext-pricing-up-to-3400-per-hour.html


Titles Business Transactions Solution

Secondary Sources–Premium National Titles

ALR®, C.J.S.®, American Jurisprudence 2d

$41.67 $2,500.20 $46.00 $16.50 $.05

Secondary Sources–Surveys 50-State Surveys $ 56.67 $3,400.20 $250.00 $30.25 $.05

Jury Verdicts and Settlements

summaries of jury verdicts and settlements

$ 38.33 $2,299.80 $35.00 $16.50 $.05

Pleadings, Motions, and Memoranda

trial court filings $53.33 $3,199.80 $75.00 $16.50 $.05

Trial Court Orders

court orders issued by state trial courts

$53.33 $3,199.80 $75.00 $16.50 $.05

Proposed and Pending Legislation

state session laws, text of current bills $15.00 $900.00 $16.00 $16.50 $.05

Proposed and Pending Regulations

Federal Register, state administrative registers,text of pending regulations

$15.00 $900.00 $16.00 $16.50 $.05

News Sources–Basic

abstracts, archived publications $11.67 $700.20 $10.00 $16.50 $.05

News Sources–General and Specialty Publications

newswires, regional newspapers, trade journals

$26.67 $1,600.20 $32.00 $16.50 $.05

News Sources–Premium

New York Times, Guardian, Euromoney

$30.00 $1,800.00 $36.00 $16.50 $.0

Rutgers Universitytefkos.comminfo.rutgers.edu/Courses/e553/Examples... · Web viewThe top...

Documents

Transcript of Rutgers Universitytefkos.comminfo.rutgers.edu/Courses/e553/Examples... · Web viewThe top...