Informationoverlord

All the talk in the legal information world over the past couple of days has been around an unfortunate marketing email from West (Westlaw to us in the UK) advertising the usefulness of desktop access to their legal research products. The email asked the question:

“ARE YOU ON A FIRST NAME BASIS WITH THE LIBRARIAN?”

I guess that means that they will then go on to say how this is a good thing; as this Librarian or Information Officer will be able help this lawyer get the best out of his or her legal research and help them identify the best products and resources to answer any legal research questions they might have?

No, wait, that’s not it. It goes on.

“If so, chances are, you’re spending too much time in the library.”

Oh … ok. The key to getting the best legal research, at your finger tips, is to make sure you avoid finding out the librarians first name at all costs, and even if you do find out , don’t EVER use it. Just call them, MR, MRS or Ms Librarian – they’ll like that. If you must, you’d probably be safe using their surname, but you know how one thing can lead to another and once you start down that slippery slope, next thing you know you’ll be having an affair and naming your illegitimate offspring Chitty.

Anyway, what should you do if you are spending too much time in the Library?

“What you need is fast, reliable research you can access right in your office. And all it takes is West”

Phew, thank West for that.

Anne Ellis, Senior Director, Librarian Relations at Thomson Reuters (owners of West) responded calling the email ‘unfortunate’. adding “It’s important that you understand that this does not reflect in any way how West feels about and values librarians….I’ve talked to the people behind the e-mail and can assure you that they meant no harm. They now understand that the marketing piece was in poor taste and I have been assured that this will not happen again.”

To be fair to West, this response was a good one, and was also relatively quick. However, it did raise the question as to who at West actually signs off on such marketing emails.
And this is where the problems begin. Most of the big legal information providers, West, Lexis, PLC etc have people working for them that like, understand and value the role and the importance Librarians and information workers play in ensuring that lawyers get the best use of their products. Indeed they regularly reach out to get our feedback and input on new products and services or revamps to current products and services. However, there are a small number who have less understanding of the wider scheme of things and who just want to sell as much ‘product’ as possible.

That’s what sales people do. That’s what you pay them to do and incentivise them to do. The problem can be that sometimes when those selling the products or services just see the sale and don’t see or understand the thing they’re selling. Some might argue that they don’t need to, the bottom line is if they sell it or not.

The current economic climate has meant that most firms have looked to tighten their belts and make cuts in resources – both in headcount and in subscriptions to legal resources. West, Lexis etc know this. This is why products will now often be pitched directly to lawyers and in a way that implies that the cost of whatever product or services will be a saving because it might mean you don’t need, or no longer need a Librarian, a Professional Support Lawyer, a Paralegal, etc.

This email is an example of that. West say it was “in poor taste” and “will not happen again.” Time will tell whether or not actions match the words.

West and others should realise that antagonising and insulting a body of people who are usually the ones that know your services and products best, and who are – in these times – actually the ones who will be fighting to justify continuing subscribing to your products and services when managing partners – who may just see the bottom line cost - are looking for cuts in spending, and looking for reasons why something shouldn’t be cancelled. Yes, it is us that know the value of your services and who can guarantee that lawyers are aware of that value. Ignore or insult us at your peril.

Some other comments from the Blogs:
http://www.librarystuff.net/2009/08/24/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-lexis-thomson-reuterswest-desperation/
http://outofthejungle.blogspot.com/2009/08/thomson-west-epic-pr-fail.html
http://jennielaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-insult-your-users.html
http://listproc.ucdavis.edu/archives/law-lib/law-lib.log0908/0199.html
http://theliskid.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/apparently-the-library-wastes-time/

Greg Lambert at the 3 Geeks and a Law Blog has a short review of a lawfirm publications aggregator called myCorporateResource.com. About a year ago I wrote a comparison article of three other aggregators: Lexology, Mondaq and Linex Legal for Internet Newsletter for Lawyers & Law 2.0 entitled Mining the Value of Law Firm Publications [Note to self: Add to link my articles tab]. I must confess I would not have thought there was a need or indeed room in the market for another similar site, but at first look, myCorporateResource.com looks like a useful and welcome addition to the club.

All law firms write client memoranda and articles. These publications are primarily written for the benefit of in-house counsel/lawyers in organisations, and function – when done properly – as an excellent source of free know-how that can be used as excellent primer material on a given topic, especially if a firm has been brave to enough to actually take a position on a particular subject, rather than just sit on the fence (still the usual approach).

Companies such as Lexology, Mondaq and Linex Legal now do the hard job of aggregating the content for you: allowing you to search by firm, legal topic/sector, jurisdiction and keyword, and saving you the trouble of monitoring each firms’ website individually to find new material.

My Corporate Resource can now be added to these three as an additional source of aggregating and disseminating these useful publications and updates.

The site splits itself into nine main areas:

Corporate Team: This is an interesting idea. The site tries to identify which updates would best appeal/be of most use to different people within a Corporate Team : Directors, Senior Executives, Legal team, Finance Team, Accounting Team, HR Team, Compliance Team, Company Secretaries. Each of their groups get their own separate “portal” on this site with the latest in legal alerts, regulatory press releases, rules announcements and industry insider blogs
Client Memoranda: Browse and search by Industry, Corporate Role, Area of Law & Geography.
RSS Feeds: The site offers 70 feeds broke down by Industry, Professional Role, Area of law, and Geography
24 (Memo)rable Hours: An overview of the latest updates
Lex Pop: The most read/popular content on the site
Hot Topics: Exactly what it sounds like, articles and updates covering the latest ‘big’ thing.
The SEC: A page dedicated to the SEC and covering their press releases, a calendar, blogs, and rules releases
Standout Material: This doesn’t seem to link anywhere yet, but offers a brief reason behind their review process.
Memo of the Week: What the editors of the site think is the most interesting memo of the week.

………………………………..

Source Material

Like Linex Legal, the approach they have taken is to link out to the source material as hosted in the individual law firms’ sites, rather than hosting copies of the material themselves – the approach taken by Lexology, and Mondaq. Law firms tend to like this approach, as it feels less like someone is trying to take their content to build a business.

Reviews

What they do, which make them unique is that they review a selection of the updates that come through, offering commentary on the commentary. I quite like this, although as there is no information on the site about just who the people are that are doing this ‘reviewing’ , it is hard to place any weight on these reviews.

Coverage

Whilst it does have some non US content, the coverage is distinctly American, which is where it falls down when compared to the wider international coverage of the three other services, and which will make it a less useful research tool for lawyers, PSLs, and Library and Information staff in UK/EU law firms. It would be nice to see the international side of things developed a bit more, and maybe the addition of some non US blogs too.

Connected to this content issue, the site lacks information on how many firms (and who they are) it covers, outside of a general ref to covering the AM Top 100.

Other issues

There is also some inconsistency on the site:

Labelling of Articles: when covering items written by Freshfields, sometimes the site refers to the shortened name and sometime to the full Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
Use of Descriptors: Whilst using the term ‘Corporate Role’ in its Client Memoranda pages, it then uses ‘Professional role’ to describe the same subset on its RSS page.

Conclusion

I think there is a lot of potential for this site, especially if you’re a US based lawyer or legal information worker. If you’re in Europe and /or rest of the world, then you are still going to be better served by Lexology (my current number one choice), Mondaq and Linex Legal.

Also part of the service offered by these three is around selling Law Firms data on the number of hits their articles get via the site, emails and rss; who is reading them, where they are from; who they work for, and other statistics. So far I cannot see evidence of my Corporate Resource doing this.

What I will say is that if my Corporate Resource decide to take the rest of the world and publications / updates from smaller firms more seriously, then all three will need to watch out. This is already a good resource and one you should certainly add to your list of sites for finding and accessing law firm content.

I discovered last week that a lawyer in CMT (then MCC) Group here at CC Towers - way back when - has a nice little Commercial/TMT blog. Andrew, who is a Partner at Charles Russell is behind, CRITique - an “unofficial blog from the Commercial Team at the law firm of Charles Russell LLP”

Good stuff Andrew. Wish we were doing that here.

Andrew also has a Twitter feed too [You need to tweet a bit more though Andrew!]

I was alerted, by James Mullan , to a post on social software adoption in law firms on Michael Idinopulos’s blog.

Michael’s view is that most law firms take exactly the wrong approach to social software rollout. “They try to “chip away” at social software implementation by starting with “easy” use cases like know-how. In my experience, however, firms are most successful when they introduce social software right into the heart of their business: Client-specific collaboration.”

First off, I’m not sure I would call the know-how use case ‘easy’, as in practice it tends not to be. Secondly, there really isn’t as much client collaboration as people outside of law firms tend to think there is, which is why client extranets and deal room platforms have tended to be regarded as being unsuccessful over the years. . I will admit that these expensive platforms can now be created cheaply, and for lawyers and their clients working on a draft of an agreement, there seems little reason why this could not be done via a wiki, with the document formatting done at the end of the process.

This adoption is likely to be client lead though, with specific clients asking the law firm to work this way, rather than the other way around. Indeed,what is perhaps more interesting is that clients are now wanting more access to their law firms knowledge - with many wanting some form of access to a firm’s know-how. This makes finding ways to make that know-how more accessible, structured, and current more, not less important.

I also think the post makes the mistake of equating success of law firm social software adoption with lawyer adoption. Around half (or more) of most law firm staff are non lawyers/support staff/business services staff. The use of social software can greatly enhance the way many of those staff do their jobs within the firm, which in turn will provide benefits to the firm as a whole. For example, even something as simple as using a wiki page for online meeting agendas and subsequent meeting minutes writing up, can cut down on email traffic and save time.

I would, however, agree with the point Michael makes about self interest. Indeed I would go as far as the say that this is the key to social software adoption, full stop. The way most people see the value of things such as tagging, social bookmarking etc is when they can see the value to them - not the value to the firm or anyone else: if they can see the added value to the way they work and operate they will then adopt something and the by-product of that is the wider benefits that can be derived from that self interest. Encouraging people to care about personal information management can help bring about a social software revolution.

It has been one of those weeks, this week [actually, for me it has been one of those weeks in more ways than I would have liked, but that’s another story].

The new trainees arrived, or in my case the latest three third and forth seat trainees joined my group. This is a blessing from a training point of view as by this stage trainees know their way around the firm’s systems and usually are happy using LNB, Companies House, and the like.

Even so, the main Corporate Finance department take them through it all once again just to make sure. This means, by the time they get to me, all I need to do is introduce them to what additional resources the CMT group has; what kind of current awareness we have; who I am; and what I am here for.

This is usually quite fun, informal, and more often than not lead by my getting an idea of what their experiences have been in other departments and what their expectations are of an Information office/practice area library.

What I also do, to help break the ice and put some fun into things is to give away some tat. Now, I will have to admit I stole this idea wholesale from the wonderful Phil Bradley, but I hand out some post-it-notes, pens, notepads - whatever: but all with some personal branding on.

How much does this cost? Well, it can cost as much as ‘the postage’ from places such as vistaprint. Or you can spend a few quid, as I have also done on one off occassions.

I have found, by doing this for the last 4 sets of trainees now, that it always gets a smile - although some think I’m a little mad - and that they get a gentle reminder that I am here and that I am here to help.

From LIS

I read this morning (thanks Outlaw.com) that US lawfirm Jones Day have launched, what can only be described as, a stupid lawsuit against BlockShopper.com for publishing a link to a Jones Day lawyer profile on their site.

Blockshopper describes itself as “a local news and market data service for current and aspiring homeowners, home buyers and home sellers. In short, we’re one part community newspaper, one part ultimate hyper-local real estate research tool.” In essence it provides details about house sales, detailing what was bought, by whom, and for how much etc. It compiles the information from public sources and where the buyer has a publicly-accessible profile online, it links to that.

It seems Jones Day did not take kindly to this. When the site reported that a couple of its associates had purchased property and published the photographs that appeared on Jones Day’s site and linked to their lawyer profiles there, Jones day got mad, and filed a lawsuit in a Chicago district court, stating: “Use of the Jones Day Marks, the links to the Jones Day web site and the use of proprietary information from the Jones Day web site creates the false impression that Jones Day is affiliated with and/or approves, sponsors or endorses the business conducted by Defendants.”

Now, I can see a case for arguing that the use of the photographs may be a copyright issue (if JD own the copyright the photos), but reporting facts, using Jones Day’s trademark (i.e. stated that the associates worked for Jones Day) and providing a link to profiles that Jones Day have put on their site to allow people to identify who these lawyers are? As Ricky Gervais’ character would says on Extra’s, are they having a laugh.

Quite unbelievably Blockshopper’s motion to have the case dismissed was rejected by US District Court Judge John W Darrah. Judge Darrah wrote that BlockShopper’s argument that dilution is impossible on the facts “present legal and factual issues not appropriate for resolution at this motion to dismiss stage.” He did however throw out Jones Day’s case against the two men who created and run Blockshopper.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), whose attempt to file a amicus brief in the case was also rejected by Judge Darrah, say the case contains some of the most preposterous trademark claims they’ve ever seen. I’m inclined to agree.

I really do hope the Jones Day rethinks this one and drops this case. It is case they must lose, as if they won, it would essentailly allow any trademark holder to decide what sites could print their name and link to their websites. Oh what fun that would be.

Disclaimer: Under no cirumstances should you get the impression that Jones Day is affiliated with and/or approves, sponsors or endorses my blog. [Because, I know that’s what you were thinking, and I felt the need to make it crystal clear. And I obviously I apologise for using their trademarked words to identify them in this post too, but I believe some people find this a useful way of indentifying people and organisations. I’m not so sure, but you never know, it might catch on.]

I was thinking about podcasts last week. In particular law firm/chambers ones. Do any law firms actually do podcasts covering legal updates?

I realised I only knew of a few firms that did them, but felt they merited being shared with a wider audience anyway. If you know of any others, leave a comment.

UK

Pinsent Masons - outlaw radio is a legal podcast with news, views and interviews.

Maclay, Murray and Spens LLP - These guys actually have a selection of podcasts.: Charities and Third Sector; Commercial Litigation and Advocacy; Corporate; and Employment, Pensions & Benefits;

Erskine Chambers have a company law podcast

Fisher Jones Greenwood Solicitors LLP have a regular podcast covering a variety of subjects.

Ibrahim Hasan, solicitor, has a Freedom of Information law podcast.

Burness were the first Scottish firm to offer podcast legal updates - ‘the brief‘
Clarion Solicitors LLP offer a podcast covering general legal issues.

Canada

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP have a regular
Occupational Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation Podcast

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP have regular series of ‘Audio Reports‘ (podcasts) on a variety of subjects.

US
Weiss Berzowski Brady LLP have podcasts covering business law; employment law; employee benefits; estate planning; litigation; real estate law; and tax law.

Pepper Hamilton LLP are another firm with regular podcasts covering a umber of subjects.

Stark & Stark, who run the very good New Jersey Law Blog have an accompanying podcast

Leonard, Street and Deinard do a podcast called the Leonard Legal Buzz

Ricci Leopold have a Podcast covering interesting new legal developments and consumer protection issues.

Hellmuth & Johnson have a podcast covering a variety of legal and business subjects.

A sad day at CC today as Dhana Doobay leave the CMT Group after 16 years with the firm. Dhana is currently Director of International Telecoms Projects at CC, and has been a leading lawyer in doing telecoms deals in developing markets for the firm for some years. After a brief break she is off to Ashursts to become a partner in their Communications Group. A good catch for Ashursts.

I wish her all the best, both because she is a great person, and also because she has been to source of many of my more interesting and challenging pieces of research over the past 9 years.

Best of luck Dhana.

I just got a 2 question survey from Lexis:

1. How likely are you to recommend LexisNexis News & Business* (Inc Nexis, LexisNexis Professional, LexisNexis Executive, KYC) to a friend or colleague? ( to be answered on a number scale).
2. What is the single most important thing that we could do to make you more likely to recommend us? (and a box for comments).

Seriously, where do you start to point out what is wrong here? Surely the answer to question one will depend on a number of variables that Lexis has decided do not exist, or has just ignored.

Would/Could I recommend Lexis? Of course, but it would depend very much on what the information requirements were of the person asking me, their budget, and a host of other things. It would be the same for recommending Westlaw or any other legal database (although outside of Thomson and Lexis finding ones they don’t own is a challenge).

Cost will obviously big a big consideration is deciding to recommed or not ( a close friend in a Arts related business had to say no when the cost offered was too prohibative). There are now many excellent free sources of legislation and case law out there (Bailli, Statutory Law Database, Precydent etc) that mean - for a lot of people and organisations - you do not need to have Lexis and Westlaw. Yes, Lexis and Westlaw do add value, but is that value worth the additional cost? (and I realise that there is a ‘cost’ in the time it takes finding information on free services/databases, that can sometimes make the most cost effective solution the ‘pay’ option).

I use Lexis, but not as much as I did. I use their news search even less - hard to believe but I miss having Factiva, which gave better results. Of course, as a result of a deal between Lexis and Factiva a few years back Law Firms suddenly found out they could no longer subscribe to Factiva directly. Progress? Competition?

I do applaud Lexis for wanting to ask questions and improve their services - I’ve meet many nice people from lexis over the years - but maybe they should make things more interactive and do a wiki or something similar. We know from their Company Law Forum experiment that they can be forward thinking, so why not a Lexis Services Forum site??

This week’s issue of the Lawyer doesn’t make great reading if you’re an IP or TMT associate. Or at least that is what you might think from the headline ‘IP and TMT associates left behind in a promotion round to forget’.  Closer reading of the article itself, which is almost 100% focused on IP lawyers in its examples and quotes, finds the Lawyer concluding that the credit crunch has meant firms have been restricting access to partnership for those in IP/TMT practice areas. As I work for a bunch of TMT (we call it CMT) lawyers, this article caught my eye, but, in the end the headline was more interesting than the piece itself. Added to which, it includes a table of IP/TMT partner promotions by firm, over the last three years. According to the table we (Clifford Chance) haven’t promoted/made up any TMT associate(s) to partner in those years. This may come as a shock to André Duminy, who became a partner in the CMT Group of CC in 2007.