WHAT ARE YOU READING?

“Lawyers Face Technology Overload: Survey” by John Flynn Rooney, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, volume 154, no. 58, March 24, 2008, 3/24/08 CHIDLB 1.
This article gives a brief review of the new LexisNexis funded Workplace Productivity Survey, which determined that 80 percent of legal professionals feel overloaded by too much information. Additional problems for firms include incoming law clerks and new attorneys insufficiently trained to use commercial databases efficiently as well as clients who object to paying for this type of research (since, to the clients, the internet is just as good and is “free”). The 2008 Workplace Productivity Survey can be downloaded at http://www.lexisnexis.com/literature/pdfs/
LexisNexis_Workplace_Productivity_Survey_2_20_08.pdf

“‘Copyfraud’ and Public Domain Works” by Carol Ebbinghouse, Searcher, January 1, 2008. 1/1/08 SEARCHER 40.
Although the practice is illegal, many information providers are charging copyright fees to materials that are in the public domain. Often the user simply pays the fee because, although s/he suspects the item is in the public domain, it’s too difficult to double-check. This practice has been labeled “copyfraud” by law professor Jason Mazzone in a New York University Law Review article. Although such claims may be accompanied by threats of litigation or cease and desist letters by the putative ‘owner’, this article supplies instructions and an extensive list of sources that an information professional can consult to determine whether a work is truly in the public domain.

“In Series of Videos, Supreme Court Justices Make Their Case” by Tony Mauro, Legal Times, March 11, 2008. Found at http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1205322370871
Legal writing guru, Bryan Garner, managed to interview eight of the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court about their often-conflicting likes and dislikes in the briefs they are called upon to read. In this article, Mauro gives a brief synopsis of the high points of the interviews, for example, that while Justice Scalia hates having a summary of argument at the beginning of a brief, Justice Thomas loves it. Judging these interviews to be a rich source of material for their classes, Legal Research and Writing instructors are busily adapting the interviews and awaiting transcripts from Garner.

“Writers Blocked” by Jens B. Koepke, Los Angeles Daily Journal, vol. 121, no.53, March 20, 2008, p.7.
Law students taking legal writing better pay attention in class! This short article warns that both the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the California appellate courts appear to be losing patience with sloppy briefs that violate court rules. According to the author, recent cases from both courts show that they are trying to actively enforce their rules by “striking briefs, dismissing appeals, refusing to consider arguments and sanctioning attorneys and parties.” The article cites the language used by the courts in striking these briefs including, “virtually no legal arguments,” “opening brief fails to support his assertion by citation to argument or authority” and “brief is a textbook example of what an appellate brief should not be.” Of course, the courts do tend to be more lenient toward submissions from pro se appellants.

The newsletter, “Law Librarians in the New Millennium” by ThomsonWest will no longer be published in print, but will be strictly electronic. To see the current issue, archived issues or to subscribe to the newsletter, go to their website: http://west.thomson.com/newsletters/llnm/