Finding the laws that govern us
googleblog.blogspot.com
googleblog.blogspot.com
If it's actually comprehensive, this is a very big deal. I don't know how LexisNexis Westlaw are going survive now that Google is giving away a huge chunk of their services.
(Of course, this stuff has always been technically in the public domain; and much has even been online in disparate and badly organized sources.)
1 - Lexis/West both allow lawyers to search based on jurisidiction. If I am a lawyer in Florida, then I want to see results from Florida front and center. A decision from a state court in Arkansas is not directly relevant. It might be interesting, but I don't have time to sort through 50 state courts just to find the one Florida case that affects my client.
2 - Lexis/West both have access to the "official" versions of opinions. Many courts release opinions subject to a lot of technical revisions (fixing typos, changing citations, etc). The opinion is considered final only after all the technical revisions are complete. Many online sources do not reflect the technical revisions. I don't know where Google is getting its data, but lawyers (who value certainty and hate risk) would be willing to pay $5 to Lexis/West to make sure they have the absolute most final version of a case.
3 - Lexis/West have PDF versions that show the proper pagination/column-ation of the cases as they appear in print. This seems silly, but when you are in court talking about a case to a judge, you need to make sure that you can say "I win because of what the case says about halfway down the right column on page 451" and have the judge open his copy of the book and find the statement in the right column of page 451. Eventually, judges will move to line-numbered books and this will be irrelevant. But in the meantime, lawyers want to have the identical version as the judge.
4 - Both Lexis and Westlaw employ people who summarize and categorize the cases. Keyword search doesn't work if the court does not use your keyword. If a case is about landlord/tenant law, the Lexis/West will categorize it and tag it as "landlord/tenant" (as well as a LOT of other things) even if the words "landord" and "tenant" never appear (maybe the opinion calls them "renter" and "rentee").
I don't think they will. I interviewed with them and there was a general atmosphere of desperation, suggestions of needing to work weekends and hollidays. I mentioned Google to them and how Google will eventually want to get access to _public_ court records, and it seems like that question made them really uncomfortable.
Well, they enjoyed their (virtual?) monopoly for so many years, now Google gets to enjoy theirs.
Mead-Data (Lexis) came in during the 1970s with its Wang-style dedicated workstations and its newly formed databases and had a huge disruptive effect by offering the first system of electronically retrievable legal authorities ever. The system was very clunky when I used it in law school in the 1976-78 era but has since been highly refined and is highly useful for those willing and able to pay the high price associated with the service.
Lexis eventually undercut the West monopoly and sent West scrambling for a competitive response (hence, Westlaw).
The competition between Lexis and Westlaw did lead to far better pricing for some users, from the old "x dollars per minute" model to flat-rate pricing for users in specific categories (e.g., small firms), but this still involved hundreds of dollars per month at minimum (anything beyond the specific categories remained x dollar per minute).
Of late, other services have cropped up (LawNet) that have made a lot of the case law available at much cheaper fixed pricing (e.g., under $100/mo) but their offerings were incomplete.
The trend is unmistakable. For Lexis and Westlaw to compete, they will eventually have to lower their pricing considerably. Even then, there is a serious question whether their resultant margins will leave them with a viable business model. Only time will tell on this.
By the way, the downward trend for Lexis/Westlaw is tied to the vast disruption that has occurred with Big Law, which, in its heyday, was a massive user of such services that paid little attention to the cost aspect (costs were simply passed on to clients). In our cost-conscious era, Big Law is reeling in the short term, as are Lexis and Westlaw.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_hol...
West certainly provided added value in the beginning, but that kind of service needs relentless quality control of a kind that West hasn't served up for a long time.
For example, I had clerked for a federal judge in the Northern District of California in the 1979-80 era. I tried searching for published opinions by that judge and could not get any to come up. I also worked on a large securities class action while at a large firm thereafter and this resulted in a major opinion by another judge in that matter - couldn't get that one to come up either.
Don't know if it is me fumbling around with inept searching techniques, or if it is the search algorithm, but I do know that I can easily retrieve these items through the major legal search services.
Thus, my initial impression is that this Google service is full of great potential but is still at too early a stage to be of use as a systematic legal search service. As one who supports the idea of law being made broadly available to average people, and as one who pays a lot of money for the Lexis/Westlaw type of services, I look forward to the further development and refinement of this service. For the moment, though, it appears to be still too immature to be of real help yet, at least when one is looking for specific things.
I don't know what exactly you do, but do you think you could do it without keycite?
I was not saying in my above comment that Google will replace Lexis/Westlaw. What I am suggesting is that they will change how lawyers perform legal research. What this does is separate case search from case hosting. And case search is the really expensive part. Basically, as I see it, lawyers will start their searches on Google, and eventually migrate to Lexis/Westlaw when they've narrowed their focus, or run into a dead end. And if that happens, all those searches that migrated to Google, are searches that are no longer run on Lexis or Westlaw (and for which they can no longer charge a fee).
You're remarkably sanguine about it! Too bad, as I do like yyour site and think you did an excellent job (and the direct NL/Westlaw link doesn't hurt).
I agree we're seeing a major shift in ho law firms employ IT. Mrs Browl works at an electronic discovery firm and it's a very competitive space now. they wound down most of their paper copy/printing operations a few months ago because demand for hard copy has gone through the floor, exacerbated by the recession. The old cinema cliche of digging through boxes of documents or dusty law libraries in the dead of night is being replaced with browser-hosted searches at Starbucks.
IANAL and just enjoy reading legal opinions for fun, but I too am very impressed at the consistency and accessibility of Google's offering.
That said, Using West's Digest and their case histories is a neccessary step in legal research for me. I can see this for general searches on a topic, but for the real nitty gritty you need to get into West/Lexis. To summarize, I think West will do just fine. It might mean one less leather portfolio for law librarians every year.
However you look at this, this is a big blow to Lexis/Westlaw and their monopoly position has taken quite a hit. I agree that they add a ton of value and will still be around, but its hard to overstate how big of a deal this is.
Its especially big for non-profit legal clinics and independent lawyers practicing on their own, which had difficulty doing any sort of legal research without coming to an agreement with one of these duopoly actors.
Link for those interested in that case.
Google needs to do this with the entire United States Tax code, Federal Statutes, and work with States and Counties to get their legal texts online and into their index.
Google has a really optimistic definition of the "average citizen". :)
In all seriousness, this seems like a pretty cool development for legal folks, but if I'm looking for info on a particular case or general legal topic, why wouldn't I just use Wikipedia?
>If< it can be done what a wonderful result for the betterment of the practice of law.
Seriously, I can see some great possibilities for integrating this with the Google visualization APIs for statistical purposes, or for business intelligence (eg try searching for cases to which Google is a party).
You have to know a lot, just to know which decisions could possibly apply to you.