How widespread is WestlawNext?

A student asked me this question.  Since I live and work in the beautiful bubble known as Stanford University,and have no idea how things work in the Real World, I turned to outside help to answer the student’s question.

I first asked our Westlaw representative, who provided this interesting and useful piece of information:

Based on a recent article about Thomson Reuters revenue, “The WestlawNext legal database has been sold to more than 18,500 customers since its launch in February 2010, representing 34 percent of Westlaw’s revenue base.”

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE73R2OI20110428

 

But I knew that our students would want to know more specific information, so I sent out a quick request on the Northern California Association of Law Libraries (NOCALL) listserv.  I received 21 replies — 6 from Biglaw law firms, 8 from small/midsize firms, 2 from county law libraries, 4 from the courts (U.S. District, United States Court of Appeals and California Appellate), and 1 from a state agency.  Of the 6 Biglaw law firms, 4 have WestlawNext (although one, at present, is only making it available to firm librarians — see comments below) and 2 do not.

Of the 8 small/midsize firms, 5 have WestlawNext and 3 do not.

None of the public sector law libraries have WestlawNext.  The state agency reports that it might be added this summer.  I did find it a little ironic that the court libraries do not have WestlawNext — didn’t West get started by wooing the judiciary and treating judges extra special nice?

The comments I received were also very useful and I read many of them to my students, since they contain some great research tips and insights.

Here are a few of the comments:

I know that when firm librarians first saw the marketing materials, we were worried that the quality of search results would go down due to the one-box searching, but if anything the opposite has happened.  The result ranking is much better than it was previously, and you can see a lot more information before clicking into a document, which is great.

Our firm has a flat rate contract, so even though there is a cost for the original search ($50), the amount billed back to the client is significantly lower.  They shouldn’t be scared to use the resource due to the cost (at our firm anyway).  It’s in line with Lexis and the old version of Westlaw.  But of course, books are still cheaper.
Of course, they should still use good search practices so we’re not charging the client needlessly – searching broadly and then narrowing the focus, thinking before clicking into documents, checking before getting material from outside our pricing plan.  You can refer back to materials saved to a folder for a year, for free.  I’m saving a ton of material to folders.
The “price triggers” that incur costs: initial search, opening a document, clicking on the keycite materials. 
Our firm’s flat-rate contract doesn’t cover the PDF images of reporters – that’s the only place where you’re not warned before getting material outside of our contract.
We did a firm survey last year, and honestly, most of our attorneys start their research process on Google because it’s free.  Once they have useful information (like a case name or a statute or a law review article), they’ll go online and find all the related documents and secondary sources.  WestlawNext does a really good job of that, and the new format for KeyCite makes it easy to trace between material types. 
 
One more caveat: Keycite and Shepards both may say a case is good law when underlying statutes or cases have been invalidated (not always, but sometimes).  They don’t always catch it when a case has been invalidated by new legislation, as well.  Knowing how far to trust citator services is important.

 ————————-

 

Only librarians have been given permission to use WLN.  We will be offering mandatory class(es) on the product before attorneys are given passwords to access it.  We are aware that the law school students have been exposed to WLN & will likely expect to use it upon entering into the firm environment, so our window to get up-to-speed is fast approaching.Caveats:  Not everything has been loaded into WLN, so it could be frustrating to attorneys when prompted to transition in the middle of their research  to go to Westlaw. We’re also not sure if the costs will increase since clicking on any results keeps adding up the total.  I know we librarians have had conference call discussions about some of the quirky searching & results . . . .  Do I like it?  I had a trial ID & have not used it much since our contract went into effect in January.  I’m still “on the fence” about it, but realize it is the wave of the future in this Googlish society.

 

————————-

 

The federal courts do not have WestlawNext at this time, and my understanding is that while the Administrative Office in D.C. has discussed it with Thomson-Reuters, there is no plan to purchase it for the federal judiciary in the near future.

 

———————–

 

We are using it.  The attorneys really like it.  One thing I’ve learned about it is that you should never choose the hourly setting on WestlawNext.  Always use it in transactional mode since the nature of it promotes lots of browsing time.  Most law firms are turning off the hourly feature and forcing transactional mode, but if not it can wreak havoc with your flat-rate contract client allocation.

 

————————

 

My advice for students:  Know how much the search costs are before you do it.  And always call the research attorneys — they know their tool better than any of us ever will.

 

————————-

 

We aren’t using it in the [state] Judicial Branch.  It’s way too expensive and we can’t afford it!  And if Westlaw itself becomes too expensive for us we may be forced to use just one service.  Since Lexis has the official reporting contract, we must have access to them.

 

————————

 

We do not have WestlawNext.  We did a trial of it and it has potential, but we are not willing to pay extra for it.

 

———————-

I see other problems besides cost for WestlawNext in law firms.  To oversimplify: Google on new steroids represents WestlawNext’s research model. That model shows remarkable detachment from application to real-life research problems in law firms.  The stock examples used in WestlawNext’s demos fit TR’s marketing well enough, but I could not translate them into everyday, online research done in law firms. I also see evidence of algorithmic anomalies – possibly widespread – that have only begun to be explored.

 

———————–

We have been using WLN for the past year.  We hopped on the band wagon pretty early due to a demo seen here by our litigation partners.  The litigation attorneys like it a lot.  Power users of regular Westlaw have a big learning curve so do not like it quite as much.  It is great, however, for researching an area you may be unfamiliar with since it will give you the most relevant cases up front.  Our attys like this feature.  The attys also like the cost..they can figure out how much their research will cost them before going in since a search runs about $65
and then you can open as many docs as you want until you hit your research budget ($15/doc. or so).  It relieves some the pressure they feel when going in.  I think it is here to stay.  Even [after] I have cancelled Lexis access here, cut my print budget and staffing, the WLN contract was added without blinking an eye. . . .

 

———————–

 

We require everyone to be trained first on regular Westlaw. We will then train them on WestlawNext.  There a cost pitfalls with both.  Searching is cheaper and broader with WestlawNext, but if you want to look at lots of documents, you will run up the costs. Initial searching Westlaw is probably narrower (have to select a database), but then the documents don’t cost additional to view.

 

———————–

 

I would recommend that students avoid WestlawNext like the plague until they have a solid grasp on doing research on their own.  You do not want to be dependant on an algorithm created by a corporation to be able to do an essential part of your job.
 
I think Next can be a valuable tool and time-saver for attorneys who understand what the algorithm is doing and what the resources are it is returning in the results, but I worry if students start learning how to research using Next, they will not be able to do any research when they leave school unless they are using, and paying a steep price for, Next.

 

———————–

 

The two main reasons [we don’t have it] is that Westlaw would require us to have a separate contract for WestlawNext (we see this as paying for Westlaw twice), and WestlawNext does not have all of Westlaw’s content. . . .

 

————————-

 

Though honestly we haven’t embraced it completely and probably won’t until West tells us they are pulling the plug on classic.  I think it is a good product.  I like the $60.00 search and the left-hand screen that guides you to your hits.  The biggest issue is the pricing per document.  Those clicks just add up.  I am planning on asking our summer assoc. class if they are using Classic or NEXT, then based on the response, the rep. will concentrate on one or the other for the orientation. It will be interesting to see where the product stands with this first summer class who have potentially been using it at school.

 

———————–

 

We at the California Appellate Courts are not.  We have Westlaw and Lexis . . . [and] should be rolling out LMO [Lexis for Microsoft Office] soon, but that is as fancy as we are getting.

 

 

 

 

 

Law Librarians: “No more sacred cows”

Law Librarians: “No more sacred cows”

By Alan Cohen
The American Lawyer
September 3, 2009

“Doing more with less” has long been a goal, even a mandate, for law librarians, but now it’s “do much more with far less.” Money is part of the story according to The American Lawyer’s 14th annual survey of law firm library directors. And “Nothing is a sacred cow anymore.”

Learning one CALR system only

In addition to our LexisNexis versus Westlaw survey, written about here and here, Erika and I have a little article in the Members’ Briefing section of the July issue of AALL Spectrum, an article inspired by one of our students who made the conscious decision to only learn one computer-assisted legal research system while in law school, perhaps smartly budgeting her time.  The article, “The $ 50,000 (or so) Question:  Lexis and Westlaw, Lexis or Westlaw, Lexis but not Westlaw, or Westlaw but not Lexis,” can be found here (please see p. 3).

Lexis v. Westlaw for research — better, different, or same and the qwerty effect?

Today I received SmartCILP June 27, 2008, which included notice of this article:

Cavicchi, Jon R., “Lexis v. Westlaw for research–better, different, or same and the qwerty effect?,” 47 IDEA 363-406 (2007).

The author presents his own poll of LexisNexis versus Westlaw preferences.  The author sent email to the IPPROFS listerv, third year law students at Pierce Law Center, and graduate students in his school’s Master of Intellectual Property, Commerce and Technology (M.I.P.) and Master of Laws in Intellectual Property, Commerce and Technology (LL.M.) programs asking which service they prefer and why. He received comments from nineteen IP law professors and ten students.

The article concludes:

This article could easily be double in size to cover all the bases. As I was concluding this article, an IDEA editor came to my office to check some footnotes. I told her that this article was coming to a close, and she immediately said, “So, what’s your conclusion; which is better for IP research?” Alas, we end where we start. There is no one answer. Only you can define which service best meets your information needs. I hope this article has informed you on some content and features to consider in helping you define your needs. I use Lexis and Westlaw liberally, which gives me the advantage to compare and contrast on an ongoing basis. We also return to the ongoing themes of this series. Lexis and Westlaw are doing battle with a host of no cost and low cost information providers. The smart IP researcher faced with having to pay for Wexis access will craft a package that includes those features and databases that may be beyond cost effective alternatives.

LexisNexis Versus Westlaw Survey Results

Below are summary findings from the LexisNexis versus Westlaw survey that we conducted between April 25, 2008 and May 5, 2008.  The complete survey results are available as part of our Legal Research Paper Series.

The first question asked participants to identify where they work by library type.  Forty-eight percent of respondents were from law firm libraries, thirty-one percent were from academic law libraries, and court, county and other libraries were represented by much smaller numbers.  The full breakdown for this question is seen in Figure 1. 

For all respondents that worked in law firm libraries, the survey instrument then prompted these respondents to describe the size of their firm (see Figure 2).  Over seventy-five percent of the respondents work in large law firms with over 100 lawyers.  And, almost a quarter of the respondents work in offices with over 700 attorneys.

Question three for the law firm respondents asked if their library/firm provided access to both Westlaw and LexisNexis (see figure 3).  Eighty-four percent of the respondents said that their library/firm does provide access to both systems.  The comments provided by respondents to that question included statements such as: “my library canceled Lexis in 2006” or “we are a Westlaw shop.”  The full text of the comments provided appears at Appendix C.

The next question asked the law firm librarian respondents: If a law school could only subscribe to and train law students on one CALR system, which one would you prefer?  Seventy-three percent of the respondents answered that Westlaw was the preference (see figure 4).

Question five asked if law schools were to only provide access to LexisNexis, would the lack of training on KeyCite be a problem.  Question six asked the similar question: if law schools were to only provide access to Westlaw, would the lack of training on online Shepard’s be a problem.  And, for both question five and six, over two-thirds of the law firm library respondents felt that it would not be a problem (see figures 5 and 6).  For question five, thirty-one percent of the law firm library respondents felt that the lack of KeyCite training would be a problem, and for question six, twenty-seven percent of the law firm library respondents felt that the lack of online Shepard’s training would be a problem.  The comments provided by law firm library respondents to questions five and six appear in Appendix D and E, respectively.

In question seven, respondents were asked which other online databases that they would like to have taught in law school.  For the law firm library respondents, eighty percent wanted training provided on PACER, and fifty-eight percent wanted training provided on BNA and CCH (see figure 7).  Free resources, such as Justia and LexisOne were also chosen by the law firm respondents.  Seventy-three respondents supplied names of other online databases that they would like to see taught in law school.  The list of these other responses appears in Appendix F.

Question three for the academic law school library respondents asked if their library provided access to both Westlaw and LexisNexis (see figure 8).  All but one of the respondents said that their library does provide access to both systems.  The comments provided by respondents to that question included statements such as: “Though we, too, are starting to think about cancel [sic] one of these systems” and “we provide access to both”.  The full text of the comments provided appears at Appendix G.

The next question asked the law school library respondents: If a law school could only subscribe to and train law students on one CALR system, which one would you prefer?  While seventy-three percent of the law firm respondents answered that Westlaw was the preference (see figure 4), fully eighty-nine percent of the law school library respondents replied that Westlaw was their preference (see figure 9).

Question five asked if law schools were to only provide access to LexisNexis, would the lack of training on KeyCite be a problem.  Question six asked the similar question: if law schools were to only provide access to Westlaw, would the lack of training on online Shepard’s be a problem.  And, for both question five and six, over forty percent of the law school library respondents felt that it would be a problem (see figures 10 and 11).  For question five, while sixty-nine percent of the law firm library respondents felt that the lack of KeyCite training would not be a problem (figure 5), forty-one percent of the law school library respondents replied that it would be a problem (figure 10).  And, for question six, forty-seven percent of the law school library respondents felt that the lack of online Shepard’s training would be a problem (figure 11).  The comments provided by law school library respondents to questions five and six appear in Appendix H and I, respectively.

In question seven, respondents were asked which other online databases that they would like to have taught in law school.  For the law school library respondents, seventy-three percent wanted training provided on PACER, and seventy percent wanted training provided on BNA (see figure 12).  While thirty percent of the law firm library respondents wanted LoisLaw taught in law school (see figure 7), over fifty percent of the law school library respondents wanted LoisLaw taught.  Twenty-two percent of the law school library respondents supplied names of other online databases that they would like to see taught in law school.  The list of these other responses, including HeinOnline and CaseMaker, appears in Appendix J. 

Question three asked respondents if their library provided access to both Westlaw and LexisNexis.  For the group of State/County/Federal Court and Government library respondents; corporate library respondents; academic non-law respondents and other library respondents (collectively referred to as “all other library respondents” going forward), sixty-nine percent provide access to both Westlaw and LexisNexis (see figure 13).  Also, all federal court and government library respondents provide access to both Westlaw and Lexis, while a quarter of the state court and government library respondents do not provide access to both systems.  The full text of the comments provided by all other library respondents appears at Appendix K.

The next question asked all other library respondents: If a law school could only subscribe to and train law students on one CALR system, which one would you prefer?  Seventy percent of the group of all other library respondents answered that Westlaw was the preference (see figure 14).  And, within this group, eighty-one percent of the federal court and government library respondents preferred Westlaw and sixty-five percent of the state/county court and government library respondents preferred Westlaw.

Question five asked if law schools were to only provide access to LexisNexis, would the lack of training on KeyCite be a problem.  Question six asked the similar question: if law schools were to only provide access to Westlaw, would the lack of training on online Shepard’s be a problem.  And, for question five, seventy-five percent of the group of all other library respondents felt that the lack of training on KeyCite would not be a problem (see figures 15).  For question six, sixty-five percent of the group of all other library respondents felt that the lack of online Shepard’s training would not be a problem (figure 16).  The comments provided by law school library respondents to questions five and six appear in Appendix L and M, respectively.

In question seven, respondents were asked which other online databases that they would like to have taught in law school.  For the group of all other library respondents, seventy-four percent wanted training provided on PACER, and twenty-eight percent wanted training provided on FastCase (see figure 17).  Twenty-four percent of the group of all other law library respondents supplied names of other online databases that they would like to see taught in law school.  The list of these other responses appears in Appendix N. 

The last four survey questions asked all respondents about overall preferences and comments about both LexisNexis and Westlaw.  Question 8 asked all respondents: “Do you have a personal preference for one system, Westlaw or LexisNexis, over the other?”  And, sixty-five percent of the respondents had a personal preference (see Figure 18). 

Question 9 then asked the respondents which system they preferred, if they had a preference. Thirty-two percent of all respondents said that LexisNexis was their personal preference, and sixty-eight percent provided that Westlaw was their preference (see Figure 19).  Of the respondents who preferred LexisNexis, sixty-four percent of this group was comprised of law firm library respondents and twenty-one percent was made up of law school library respondents.  And, for the group that preferred Westlaw, forty-four percent of this group was from law firm library respondents and thirty-nine percent was from law school library respondents. 

The law school library respondents preferred Westlaw at a rate of nearly four-to-one, and seventy-eight percent of the federal court/government respondents preferred Westlaw.  And, sixty percent of the law firm respondents preferred Westlaw over LexisNexis.  Of the library communities of respondents, no single group preferred LexisNexis over Westlaw. 

Question ten asked respondents to state why they had a preference between Westlaw and LexisNexis.  These responses appear at Appendix O.  Question 11 asked respondents to supply “any additional comments or practical tips that you would like to share with regard to LexisNexis vs. Westlaw.”  The comments generated by Question 11 appear in Appendix P.

We would like to encourage all to read the comments found in the 94-page survey results compilation; there is truly some fascinating information there.

If you have any questions about the survey or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact either one of us. 

Paul Lomio, plomio@stanford.edu

Erika Wayne, evwayne@stanford.edu

The Catalog Rules

Every spring, we survey our students on all sorts of library stuff.

In a question dealing with online services, we asked students which databases and search products they used for research. We included Socrates, our OPAC, since we want to emphasize the catalog and its importance at every opportunity. The drop down choices that we provided for answers included Westlaw, LexisNexis, Google, BNA, RIA, HeinOnline, MOML and more. We also gave students an opportunity to fill in the blank for other databases not listed in the question.

Most interesting and gratifying, Socrates, our online catalog, gets great use, even more use than LexisNexis!

<!–[if gte vml 1]&gt; &lt;![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>