In the old days, we had books. Then along came Westlaw with its CDs. Then Lexis with its online search. This was revolutionary, but uncomfortable. First, it meant that we had a room full of very expensive law books that were soon to be worthless. Second, it meant that we had to trust search via a computer rather than leaf through the piles of books that kept us warm at night.
As everyone knows, Lexis and Westlaw are the way lawyers research today. A rather expensive way, I might add, and still rather unwieldy in their search mechanics, largely dependent on judges’ use of the language we’re looking for. More imaginative judges make life miserable,as they use odd phrases that are hard to find. For newer lawyers, the comfort level is much greater than it is for old timers. For old timers, we’ve never really trusted them, even though we sign the checks every month.
This may change any moment now, as Google Scholar will be posting court decisions.
As everyone knows, Lexis and Westlaw are the way lawyers research today. A rather expensive way, I might add, and still rather unwieldy in their search mechanics, largely dependent on judges’ use of the language we’re looking for. More imaginative judges make life miserable,as they use odd phrases that are hard to find. For newer lawyers, the comfort level is much greater than it is for old timers. For old timers, we’ve never really trusted them, even though we sign the checks every month.
This may change any moment now, as Google Scholar will be posting court decisions.
Starting today, we’re enabling people everywhere to find and read full text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts using Google Scholar. You can find these opinions by searching for cases (like Planned Parenthood v. Casey), or by topics (like desegregation) or other queries that you are interested in. For example, go to Google Scholar, click on the “Legal opinions and journals” radio button, and try the query separate but equal. Your search results will include links to cases familiar to many of us in the U.S. such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, which explore the acceptability of “separate but equal” facilities for citizens at two different points in the history of the U.S. But your results will also include opinions from cases that you might be less familiar with, but which have played an important role.
I don’t know that I will be any more comfortable doing research on Google Scholar than I was on Lexis (I refused to use Westlaw after I was embarrassed to learn that some of their text was inaccurate), but at least it won’t cost me to be uncomfortable. I similarly won’t know until extensive experience whether it actually works, at least for criminal law, or whether it’s sufficiently comprehensive. There are a ton of questions about its reliability. Until lawyers can be assured of its reliability, it cannot be relied upon. We can’t afford to miss cases.
That’s not to say Google Scholar isn’t trying. It appears that Google will even include it’s kinda/sorta version of Shepard’s.
But if it works, it could be huge. And if it doesn’t work, at least well enough to serve as a viable means of legal research, Google Scholar might be just the one to keep on top of it until it does. I’ve never really accepted the premise that we have to pay to access decisions issued by our courts, a branch of government. We pay them to sit and pay them to decide already. Why must we pay an outside company to read their decisions? Yes, I realize that someone has to amass them and provide a means of access, but it still grinds my gears that the cost is so ridiculous high.
I’m rooting for Google Scholar. I’m rooting for this new development to be great, thorough, reliable and accurate. If I never had to use Lexis again, or pay for the privilege, I would be good with that.
H/T Radley “Mr. Duopoly” Balko
That’s not to say Google Scholar isn’t trying. It appears that Google will even include it’s kinda/sorta version of Shepard’s.
We think this addition to Google Scholar will empower the average citizen by helping everyone learn more about the laws that govern us all. To understand how an opinion has influenced other decisions, you can explore citing and related cases using the Cited by and Related articles links on search result pages. As you read an opinion, you can follow citations to the opinions to which it refers. You can also see how individual cases have been quoted or discussed in other opinions and in articles from law journals. Browse these by clicking on the “How Cited” link next to the case title.I doubt that reading caselaw is going to help the average citizen to better understand the law. Many lawyers read the decisions and don’t get it. Same with judges. It’s not just reading the words that provides comprehension. Most of us have enjoyed clients who do research to “help us out,” and are well aware that time in the law library isn’t a substitute for a deeper understanding of the law and how to craft a viable argument. Still, no harm in giving everyone a shot at knowing a little law, provided they don’t do anything dangerous with it.
But if it works, it could be huge. And if it doesn’t work, at least well enough to serve as a viable means of legal research, Google Scholar might be just the one to keep on top of it until it does. I’ve never really accepted the premise that we have to pay to access decisions issued by our courts, a branch of government. We pay them to sit and pay them to decide already. Why must we pay an outside company to read their decisions? Yes, I realize that someone has to amass them and provide a means of access, but it still grinds my gears that the cost is so ridiculous high.
I’m rooting for Google Scholar. I’m rooting for this new development to be great, thorough, reliable and accurate. If I never had to use Lexis again, or pay for the privilege, I would be good with that.
H/T Radley “Mr. Duopoly” Balko
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The competition aspect of this may well be good. If google scholar offers for free, a large part of what you pay for with lexis or westlaw, then westlaw and lexis will have to offer something more, e.g., better search tools, better links to useful materials, etc, to get you to keep paying. Supposedly there’s a bloomberg (for pay) competitor on its way out soon as well.
Guess I’m weird but I can’t stop laughing at a bloomberg (for pay). Must be a NYC thing.