Sunday, December 31, 2017

Searches, Resolutions, & Tables

headphone and microphone

Digital Detectives: “Privacy vs. Protection: Warrantless Phone Searches at the Border”

Hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek talk to Sophia Cope, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, about the increasing number of searches of travelers’ phones and other electronic devices by border agents. They discuss the challenge made by the EFF and ACLU against the government’s warrantless searches of cell phones at the border. They also talk about what the Fourth Amendment allows and whether you can refuse to unlock your device.

Kennedy-Mighell Report: “2018 Goals and Tech Resolutions”

Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell ring in the new year with new resolutions, whether they kept last year’s resolutions, and how you can keep your resolutions throughout the new year. They also discuss their technology goals for 2018. Dennis also makes an announcement about his retirement from Mastercard.

New Solo: Word Up 2—Creating Tables of Authority with Ease


For this episode of New Solo, host Adriana Linares is joined by Legal Office Guru Deborah Savadra. Deborah explains how to create tables of authority in Microsoft Word and to overcome the intimidation factor that can come from using Word’s table of authority tool. They review dialog boxes, styles, pagination, and more. They also talk about the easiest way for lawyers to save time and prevent mistakes when using Word’s table of authorities feature.

Searches, Resolutions, & Tables was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/searches-resolutions-and-tables/

Friday, December 29, 2017

How Lawyers Work: Mariam Morshedi, Legal Educator & Tomboy

In this week’s edition of How Lawyers Work, we hear from Mariam Morshedi. Mariam is the Founder, President, and CEO of Subscript Law. Subscript Law is a non-profit dedicated to making legal resources and text accessible and comprehensive for the American public. 

You can follow Mariam on LinkedIn

What’s your elevator pitch?

I run a nonprofit website that delivers legal news through graphics.

What apps or tools are essential to your daily workflow?

I use Squarespace, Adobe Illustrator, Google apps (Docs, Spreadsheets & Calendar), a sketch pad and a very fine-tipped pen.

What does your workspace look like?

After a trial period of using the formal home office, I have landed at the dining room table because the bench seat is very comfortable.

How do you keep track of your calendars and deadlines?

I primarily use Google calendar, email reminders, and checklists (I recommend Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto!).

What is your coffee service setup?

I have my DeLonghi Super-Automatic espresso machine.

What is one thing that you listen to, read, or watch that everyone should?

I compare recipes a lot and advocate for others to do it because you learn the essential steps and ingredients and can determine which ones you can alter. It gives those of us who don’t like to follow rules some reasonable boundaries.

What is your favorite local place to network or work solo?

Crazy Mocha in Montclair, New Jersey is my favorite.

What are three things you do without fail every day?

Click to view slideshow.

1.) Exercise; 2.) Return all the spices back to the spice rack after my 16-month-old pulls them out; 3.) G-chat with my husband (workdays).

Who else would you like to see answer these questions?

Jacob Press (HUD), Dara Smith (AARP Litigation)

How Lawyers Work: Mariam Morshedi, Legal Educator & Tomboy was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/how-lawyers-work-mariam-morshedi/

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Dissolving a Law Firm Checklist

When you need to dissolve your law firm, there are a lot of administrative and financial details to tackle, such as canceling your business insurance, closing your credit card merchant accounts, and returning unearned trust funds. Make sure you keep track of all the details and close your law firm down properly with this checklist.

There are a lot of other considerations as well. For more information, read our post on dissolving your law firm.

This checklist should be helpful to you no matter where you are in the process of shutting your law firm down as it may prompt you to think about some things you hadn’t yet considered.

Dissolving a Law Firm Checklist was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/product/dissolving-law-firm-checklist/

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Podcast #152: Divorce with Benefits, with Erin Levine

microphone with caption "lawyerist/legal talk network" below


In this episode Erin Levine explains how her experience as a divorce lawyer led her to build Hello Divorce, a web-based DIY divorce portal that earned Erin a nomination for the ABA’s Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access. You can download a Hello Divorce Self-Care Worksheet here.

Get it now.

Erin Levine

Erin Levine is a Certified Family Law Specialist, and owner of Oakland’s Levine Family Law Group. In 2016 she launched Hello Divorce, a “Modern Breakup Service” that empowers users to manage the complicated divorce process online with easy to follow, step by step guidance and affordable, fixed fee access to top notch lawyers.

You can follow Erin on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Thanks to Ruby Receptionists and Clio for sponsoring this episode!

Listen & Subscribe

To listen to the podcast, just scroll up and hit the play button (or click the link to this post if you are reading this by email).

To make sure you don’t miss an episode of The Lawyerist Podcast, subscribe now in iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast player. Or find out about new episodes by subscribing to our email newsletter.

Transcript

This transcript was prepared by Rev.com.

Speaker 1: Welcome to the Lawyerist Podcast with Sam Glover and Aaron Street. Each week Lawyerist brings you advice and interviews to help you build a more successful law practice in today’s challenging and constantly changing legal market. And now, here are Sam and Aaron.

Sam Glover: Hi, I’m Sam Glover and this is episode 152 of the Lawyerist Podcast, part of the Legal Talk Network. Today we’re talking with Erin Levine about how she is trying to deliver better divorces through an online portal, Hello Divorce, which earned her a nomination for the American Bar Association’s Louis M. Brown award for legal access.

Today’s podcast is sponsored by Clio Legal Practice Management software. Clio makes running your law firm easier. Try it for free today at Clio.com.

Today’s podcast is also sponsored by Ruby Receptionist’s and it’s smart, charming receptionists who are perfect for small firms. Visit callruby.com/lawyerist to get a risk free trial from Ruby.

You’ll notice my normal podcasting partner Aaron Street is not with me today, and I have a bit of a sore throat. So we are just gonna dive right into the interview with Erin. Here it is.

Erin Levine: Hi, I’m Erin Levine, Certified Family Law Specialist, and mother of two girls. I’m also the owner of Levine Family Law Group, a law practice in Oakland, California. And in 2016 I launched Hello Divorce, which is a modern breakup service that empowers users to manage the complicated divorce process with online, easy to follow guidance, and affordable, fixed fee access to lawyers.

Sam Glover: I like online breakup service. Has anybody ever called anything a breakup service before?

Erin Levine: I don’t think so.

Sam Glover: That’s pretty awesome. Erin, first you were practicing as a family lawyer, right? That came first?

Erin Levine: Yes, that’s correct.

Sam Glover: How long were you doing that before you started thinking through Hello Divorce, and building that?

Erin Levine: A long time, or what feels like a long time. I started practicing law and immediately jumped into family law in 2005. Then in 2009 I opened Levine Family Law Group, and then it wasn’t until 2015 that I started thinking about Hello Divorce, and then launched at the start of 2017.

Sam Glover: What was the problem that you were trying to solve with Hello Divorce? Tell me about how it came into your mind and what you thought you were gonna do with it, and what problems you were trying to solve with it.

Erin Levine: Sure. A couple things led me to want to start what is now become Hello Divorce. The first was that me and my firm, we spend a lot of time volunteering in local family law courts, and I learned that 90% of divorces in the United States have at least one self-represented party for at least one portion of the divorce, and 85% of people can’t afford full representation. Or if they do have full representation they’re leveraging some asset, or going into more debt. So A, I saw a huge problem in terms of access to justice, people being able to afford and access good, high quality legal help.

And then the second reason that I started Hello Divorce was that I was finding that within my own practice, clients and especially millennial clients, were really pushing us to offer more options. They wanted to be a lot more involved with the process. They were a lot less motivated by some of the motivations that we had seen in the past, like wanting to be vindicated through the court process, or wanting to gain revenge, or the things that hold us back from resolving actions. Instead, they wanted to find a more reasonable, quicker, more streamlined solution. So I thought, if in my little niche practice I’m getting hundreds of people that are looking for more options, then that certainly must be the case, at least across the state of California, and I wanted to see how I could address that.

Sam Glover: So you weren’t just seeing people unhappy with your pricing, it was actually different needs than just dollars.

Erin Levine: Right. If they were coming to my practice then generally they did have the resources to hire a lawyer, or they felt that within the action they’d be able to recover fees from their spouse. So it was less about price for me, in the moment, and more about wanting to come up with some new options so that people could be more involved in the divorce process themselves, which would in one way take down the cost, but and too, provide a more empowered experience.

Sam Glover: How did you decide how you wanted to meet that need?

Erin Levine: I did a ton of research on what’s out there.

Sam Glover: I feel like the fact that you developed a technology product, I imagine that’s not the process that you went through. So when you went looking, were you looking at business models, or firms, or technology? Or what did you have in your mind?

Erin Levine: All of the above. I was looking at firms and lawyers that were thinking outside the box, that were providing more user centric services, and I found a lot of really incredible firms in Australia that were doing that. I was looking at online divorce services that already existed, and trying to determine what don’t I want to recreate, because it’s working, and where are things failing. I was looking at innovative lawyers. And I did a lot of user research.

In the scheme of things, this is not a big survey, but I took about 300 people, who were either entering the divorce process, who were thinking about divorce, or who had actually been through the process, and I started asking them questions.

Sam Glover: Oh really? What kinds of questions?

Erin Levine: Like what was the most important thing to them? If they could have help from an online service, what would be most important. And what I thought I was going to end up with is everybody telling me that what they wanted was automated forms. That they wanted to enter in a bunch of information and have their forms pop out. And that was the least important thing to them. Of course, now they want it. They like the convenience once they’re involved. But it was certainly not the most important thing to them at all.

Sam Glover: How did you know, by the way, to approach it in this way? I feel like lawyers give people what they need, not what they want. And so asking a bunch of people what they want is kind of not the way lawyers tend to go about things. That’s how designers work, and so I’m wondering how you learned to do that approach? Or how you knew to do that?

Erin Levine: I did a sprint with a design firm. I had saved up some money through earnings with the Levine Law Group, my law firm, and decided that I probably didn’t have enough funds to hire them to design the whole site, but that I did think it was important enough to work with them on determining what people are looking for, what they needed and what colors were interesting to them, what was triggering to them. A whole plethora of different questions for them. In fact one of the designers, I just saw the other day that she did a blog on the actual process.

Sam Glover: oh, really?

Erin Levine: I’ll need to send you that link because it was super interesting for me, and to look back on it. But yeah, it was just, I’ve always enjoyed practicing law but not nearly as much as I’ve enjoyed the running of the business, and so it felt really natural to be looking at the problem from this perspective.

Sam Glover: I totally interrupted you while you were talking about what you were learning from those user interviews and stuff, and it sounds like what came out of that was definitely not what you expected, not the automated forms.

Erin Levine: Yeah, it certainly wasn’t. It was the first time that I took a step back from tech, although I knew that it was going to be a very important part of the process and to bring everything together to make it work efficiently, but it was the first time that I realized that while tech is important, there’s so much more. Especially for people who are going through divorce. And I was thinking about growing this business in many different directions too. I was thinking about, there’s so much more that goes into divorce, and bankruptcy, and breakups, and landlord/tenant disputes. These are all things that don’t happen in a vacuum. They are not single events. They are a journey. It is a long and lonely, and scary process. There’s cultural stigma attached to it. I really wanted to address the client at where they’re at. Not necessarily just what we could provide, that we’re good lawyers and we could coach them well through the process and the system.

You know, that is exactly what came out of it, is people said, “I want to know that there’s a human connection if I need it. I want to know that you care. I want to know that you understand. I want it convenient.” And this is just one segment of a giant population, but a lot of them wanted to know why they were answering a question on a form the way that they were. Not just having the form, be prepared for them. Because if, God forbid, the divorce became litigated or messy, they wanted to know that they would be in a position of power, that they would have leverage, and not just have a bunch of forms that they don’t understand.

Sam Glover: I totally understand. Okay, so we’ve talked about how you scoped out what you wanted to do with Hello Divorce, but what is the actual thing that Hello Divorce is now?

Erin Levine: Okay. What Hello Divorce is, if somebody is going through or thinking about going through a divorce, then they sign up for a free membership. From there, they get access to a whole host of real, curated articles about divorce and about some of the issues, both legal and personal issues, that they’re going to experience throughout the divorce, and real, practical advice for dealing with those issues. Then they also get a whole host of tools accessible to them, like a divorce worksheet, and access to our webinars, and a glossary of legalese made into plain English, that kind of thing.

Sam Glover: It sounds like you’re really trying to empower them to feel like they are in control of their situation?

Erin Levine: Yeah. Instead of offering teasers on the law, maybe like in a blog that I might do for my law firm, instead I am handing them real information that they can use. So that when and if they do pay us, they’re paying us for things that they expect lawyers to be paid for. Like problem solving, and strategizing, as opposed to, do I check this box or, what’s the basic law around community versus separate property.

Sam Glover: Is this free stuff in Hello Divorce, on Hellodivorce.com?

Erin Levine: Yes.

Sam Glover: Okay.

Erin Levine: You have to sign up for the free membership, so I get the email address.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Erin Levine: Then they have access to all of that. When they’re ready to begin the actual divorce process, they use what’s called our Divorce Navigator. The Divorce Navigator is accessible to everybody, including people that are not signed up. However, to access things like our instructional videos and our downloadable templates, or any of our flat fee services, you do need to have a membership.

Sam Glover: That’s still a free membership though, huh?

Erin Levine: The free membership includes the tools that I discussed, as well as the curated articles and resources. The first level of paid membership is $99 a month, and that includes all of the instructional videos and templates.

Sam Glover: There are different levels of, essentially, coaching? Is that accurate?

Erin Levine: That first paid level, there’s no coaching at all. I’m not involved at all. So there’s no attorney/client relationship, if they are at that Do It Yourself Plus membership level. Because they’re using the Divorce Navigator, and they’re using the instructional templates and the videos, but they’re not necessarily connecting with me or one of my attorneys.

Sam Glover: And then they can get higher levels.

Erin Levine: Correct. The next two levels, one is a Paralegal Assisted Divorce. And then the Divorce With Benefits is a flat fee paid over time, that includes access to a lawyer for coaching and document preparation, strategizing, and all of that good stuff.

Sam Glover: I like divorce with benefits, it sounds like friends with benefits.

Erin Levine: Yeah. At any time, if somebody has a membership that is either the free membership or a lower level membership, they can still access flat fee services. And if they get stuck at a certain step in the divorce they can click a box and be rerouted to a lawyer, if one’s available, and if not then they can be routed to a calendar where they schedule time to speak with a lawyer.

Sam Glover: They can pick the level of service they want basically.

Erin Levine: Yes.

Sam Glover: We need to take a quick break to hear from our sponsors, and when we come back I want to talk about how you measure the success of that and whether it’s been successful. We’ll be back in a minute.

Commercial: Imagine what you could do with an extra eight hours per week? You could invest in marketing your firm, you could spend more time helping clients in need, or you could catch your daughter’s soccer game. That’s how much time legal professionals save with Clio, the world’s leading practice management software. With Clio tracking time, billing, and matter management are fast and easy, giving you more time to focus on what really matters. And Clio is a complete practice management platform with plenty of tools and over 50 integrations to help you automate daily tasks, such as document generation and court calendaring. See how the right software can make it easier to manage your practice, try Clio for free today at Clio.com.

Aaron Street: This podcast is supported by Ruby Receptionists. As a matter of fact, Ruby answers our phones at Lawyerist, and my firm was a paying Ruby customer before that. Here’s what I love about Ruby. When I’m in the middle of something, I hate to be interrupted. So when the phone rings it annoys me and that often carries over into the conversation I have after I pick up the phone, which is why I’m better off not answering my own phone. Instead, Ruby answers the phone and if the person on the other end asks for me, a friendly, cheerful receptionist from Ruby calls me and asks if I want them to put the call through. It’s a buffer that gives me a minute to let go of my annoyance and be a better human being during the call.

If you want to be a better human being on the phone, give Ruby a try. Go to CallRuby.com/Lawyerist to sign up and Ruby will waive the $95 set up fee. If you aren’t happy with Ruby for any reason, you can get your money back during your first three weeks. I’m pretty sure you’ll stick around. But since there is no risk, you might as well try.

Sam Glover: Okay, and we’re back. So Erin, now that we know what it is and how you built it, I’m curious, how do you decide whether or not it has been successful as an experiment? And do you think this is the future of your practice, or is it just an add-on to it? I just asked you two big questions together but …

Erin Levine: I definitely hope that this is the future of my practice. This is definitely the way I want to go. I want to expand the services that we offer, and if possible, expand beyond California. So I’m in it for the long term. It’s only been a year and I have to remind myself of that. There’s obviously financial pressures, and so if I’m not making some really solid money within about another year, then I might have to think about a redesign, or back to the law firm full time.

Sam Glover: Okay, I love though that you just said you might have to think about a redesign because, you believe the core is sound and so you just have to figure out the right way to do this rather than just, “Eh, I tried it and I’m giving up”, which may be the right outcome, but …

Erin Levine: The reason why I think that’s so important is because the first wave of people who have used Hello Divorce have successfully navigated divorce, have come out happy, are willing to do testimonials, are really pleased with how it worked for them. So that’s one way I define success, whether the clients are happy, whether it’s worked for them at the different levels of membership.

I immediately saw that the membership levels that we initially had were not working, and we’ve recently changed them. Although they are not yet reflected on the site, they will be in a couple weeks.

Sam Glover: Is that lower pricing, or what?

Erin Levine: No. I had a couple membership levels that offered unlimited email access to lawyers, to try to cut down on cost. And really what people wanted, or at least the people that came to my site wanted, was access to speak with lawyers as well, and they wanted to know the full cost from start to finish, not just month to month.

Sam Glover: Will the whole thing be built around package pricing then? So like, do your divorce for a thousand bucks instead of $99, until it’s done?

Erin Levine: Right. So now we have, for the new levels, and I’m just quoting them on a one by one basis and haven’t had anyone say, “No, I won’t do that”, so that’s a good sign. The new levels are, there’s a flat fee for a paralegal assisted divorce, and a flat fee for a lawyer assisted divorce. However, it’s paid over monthly installments, because most people can’t come up with three, $4,000 at a time.

Sam Glover: Wow, that’s interesting. Are you sharing yet?

Erin Levine: Sure.

Sam Glover: Because I’m curious, what do you expect it to actually cost?

Erin Levine: $2500 for a paralegal assisted divorce and 5,000 for a lawyer assisted divorce. But I had to work very closely with Megan [Davila 00: 18: 29], who I know is a friend and colleague of yours, and an ethics malpractice attorney, to ensure that we were complying with various ethics laws and that our terms and conditions, aka, our retainer agreements, are clear enough for people to understand what we cover versus what we don’t. So those prices cover an uncontested or moderately contested divorce. Meaning not a divorce that’s in court.

Sam Glover: I like that you’re going about this carefully rather than just throwing it out there and seeing if it works.

Erin Levine: Oh my gosh, it’s been such a challenge. Almost everything I’ve wanted to do, Megan said, “Slow down, hold on. There’s a rule against that. We have to find a work-around.”

Sam Glover: Well I mean, Megan, she wants to empower you to do it, but yeah, you’re wise to do it that way, I think.

Erin Levine: It’s been really challenging. And many other more traditional lawyers have really challenged me and tried to figure out a hole as to how I’m doing this incorrectly or unethically. So I’ve had to [crosstalk 00: 19: 28].

Sam Glover: Yeah. Has anybody reported you to the Ethics Board yet?

Erin Levine: Not yet that I know of. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened soon.

Sam Glover: Keep at it, eventually somebody will do it, I’m sure.

Erin Levine: Yeah.

Sam Glover: If you become successful enough, somebody will. You talked about, it’s successful because people are getting their divorce done through it, what about financially?

Erin Levine: Yeah, for financially, if you take out the money that I had to spend to get the site up and running and to make the changes, and to get some guidance on PR and marketing, and legal ethics, then the site is a financial success.

Sam Glover: Oh.

Erin Levine: But right now I’ve had all of those other costs that I don’t expect to go away for at least six to nine months. Primarily because it’s really important for me to become more visible and to convince the community at large that they can do this, that this is a viable option that actually works. And to do that I need help. I cannot do everything, especially as a mom of two girls, and I’m still managing the firm and doing the actual, practical, everyday work of Hello Divorce. So it’s really yet to be seen. It’s more about volume at this point, and if I can bring the volume in, then my projections are amazing.

In California alone, about two hundred thousand petitions for divorce were filed last year. So that’s four hundred thousand people that were thrown into the legal system right there, and that doesn’t account for all the people that filed for divorce the year before and weren’t able to complete the actual divorce, so they’re still within the system. So even if we got 2% of those people at even $99 a month, that’s a lot of money.

Sam Glover: Yeah, and it doesn’t cost you any more to serve those clients, the system’s already built. Maybe at some point you’ll need another paralegal to handle the volume.

Erin Levine: Right.

Sam Glover: Something you said a minute ago made me reflect on something else I wanted to ask you about it, which is that it’s not all geared toward just the mechanics of getting a divorce, you’ve included a wellness component. Tell us more about that.

Erin Levine: This is probably the most exciting part of Hello Divorce for me, and it is a moving target. Something that I mentioned earlier is that divorce itself is a journey. You don’t wake up one day and say, “I want a divorce”, and walk into a courthouse and get one, in the same way that you can get married. It’s a long process. It’s scary, and it’s lonely, and it’s heartbreaking. Even when both parties are in agreement and both parties believe this is the right step to take, it is still a really challenging process. There’s so much transition in someone’s life, and so I wanted to figure out a way that we could honor that, address it, help with it.

It initially started out as just another topic on our site, a lifestyle topic, where we include articles and videos from top wellness professionals, and divorce therapists and coaches. But people that were using it said they want more. So one easy way to expand on that was for me to offer now, webinars and articles on the wellness component of divorce, which I was able to do and I have done. Because that, again, has been so widely received, one of my most popular articles was on self care, that I’ve now decided to expand the wellness component even farther. I’m working with this woman, Allie Stark, in Oakland who is absolutely amazing, and we’re developing what we’re going to call the Hello Divorce, Divorce. Which, with each step of the legal process we’ll be offering a wellness portion as well.

So as an example, in divorce, oftentimes what it means is that either you have to move out of the residence that you’re currently in, or you have to figure out, because of financial constraints or because you want to put your kids first, you have to figure out how to navigate living at home with a partner that you’re no longer with. Or, your partner moves out and now you have a home that once was yours together, and now you have to navigate what the experience is going to be like, on your own.

That’s a really profound thing to grapple with. And so, one module, or one component, of this wellness program will be addressing that, finding safety and feeling good and taken care of and well in your own home, or whatever space that you end up being in.

Sam Glover: Very cool. I know that you have offered your self care worksheet, which we’re gonna include in our show material. So if people are curious as to a little bit of a window into what that looks like at Hello Divorce, you can download that if you’re a Lawyerist insider. So check that out, because I think you’ll find it interesting.

One last comment and question for you, Erin. How does it feel to be nominated for the Louis M. Brown award for legal access by the American Bar Association?

Erin Levine: I am so excited about it. I think that when I first started tossing around the idea of Hello Divorce, I got a lot of really funny looks. It wasn’t until I went to TBD Law, that was the first time that people actually looked at me, other lawyers, and said, “Wow, this is awesome. This is a great idea, I think it can help a lot of people.” Before that, I was operating in a world where people thought I was insane.

So on one side this feels really legitimizing, I’m super excited about it. But another part of me is just so thrilled to be surrounded by such innovative, amazing thinkers, and lawyers, and leaders. Access to justice is a core issue to me. I got into this business because when I was a teen I was a witness in a criminal action, and a plaintiff in a civil action and it was awful, and it was disempowering, and it was scary, and I never wanted anyone to have that experience again. I wanted to be more of a tour guide type person with the law.

To be able to now live out that dream through Hello Divorce, and have it be recognized, and be surrounded by such amazing people is super exciting. So just the nomination, in and of itself, and the people that I’m meeting because of it. And I hope to be able to continue to offer this to my community and beyond.

Sam Glover: Very cool. Well Erin, thank you so much for being with us today and talking more about Hello Divorce.

Erin Levine: Thank you so much. You know I’m a huge fan of you Sam, and Aaron as well. I’m not your Facebook friend, but I’m his.

Sam Glover: Well we’ll fix that right away.

Erin Levine: Good, good. If his life is even a quarter of as cool and as fun as it looks on Facebook, then I want to be Aaron when I grow up. I guess I am Erin. I want to be the boy Aaron.

Sam Glover: Thank you so much Erin.

Erin Levine: Sure, thank you.

Aaron Street: Make sure to catch next week’s episode of the Lawyerist Podcast by subscribing to the show in your favorite podcast app. And please leave a rating to help other people find our show. You can find the notes for today’s episode on Lawyerist.com/podcast.

Sam Glover: The views expressed by the participants are their own and are not endorsed by Legal Talk Network. Nothing said in this podcast is legal advice for you.

Podcast #152: Divorce with Benefits, with Erin Levine was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/podcast-152-erin-levine/

Hello Divorce’s Self-Care Worksheet, by Erin Levine

This download complements our podcast with Erin Levine about how her experience as a divorce lawyer led her to build Hello Divorce, a web-based DIY divorce portal that earned Erin a nomination for the ABA’s Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access.

Hello Divorce’s Self-Care Worksheet, by Erin Levine was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/product/hello-divorces-self-care-worksheet-erin-levine/

Friday, December 22, 2017

How Lawyers Work: John C. Hardie, Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawyer and Woods Wanderer

In this week’s edition of How Lawyers Work, we hear from John C. Hardie, co-founder of Bharti Hardie, PLLC in Seattle, WA. John primarily practices in the areas of personal injury, complex injury cases, and wrongful death. 

What’s your elevator pitch?

Our clients are individuals and families who are victims of personal injury and wrongful death, and we are their advocates and guides through the process of holding responsible parties accountable.

What apps or tools are essential to your daily workflow?

I had no idea I would be operating my own law practice shortly after law school, but thankfully my partner and I have been collecting research and trial practice resources since early in our law school tenure. We have a formidable collection for such an early stage in our practice. We also have an extensive number of form documents and pleadings that we have either developed or collected from generous mentors.

We use Office 365 tools for email, word processing, cloud storage, etc. We use OneNote for case files and to store research, though we are excited to start using Filevine as our new case management system. It has great features for personal injury lawyers, along with integrations for Outlook and Slack. Our experimenting has just begun, but we are very exciting to start a more robust system of task flows, document generation, and data collection and reporting.

Also, I have been using multiple monitors for a while now, and if I had to go back to just one I would have a miserable time adjusting.

What does your workspace look like?

Click to view slideshow.

My law partner and I share an office in a suite, and I spend considerable time working from a home office. Although it adds to our overhead, the downtown office is nice because we have space for conferences, depositions, mediations, and arbitrations. As a former insurance company headquarters, the building is Seattle’s first art-deco style tower and a historic landmark. We are lucky to have this great office share environment alongside seasoned lawyers in offices next to us to bother, ask questions, and sometimes collaborate. Our former law professor and mentor is just down the hall!

How do you keep track of your calendars and deadlines?

As a two-lawyer firm, we keep all deadlines on each of our calendars because we work together on cases. We use Outlook calendar, and we are now implementing calendar and task features in Filevine.

What is your coffee service setup?

The office suite coffee setup is not as good as my home brew. I grind beans at home and use a French press. And you can throw a stone in just about any direction and hit a coffee shop. At the office, I like to make tea, so I will get some loose-leaf tea from a local, family-owned tea shop in Seattle’s International District.

What is one thing that you listen to, read, or watch that everyone should?

Nothing beats the simplicity of a good checklist system. That is why I like The Checklist Manifesto, by Atul Gawande. The checklist is such a simple tool, yet Dr. Gawande makes a compelling case for a disciplined and systematic use of checklists to ensure quality control in a variety of professional fields.

What is your favorite local place to network or work solo?

I save the work for the office or at home, but I meet people at a variety of places. Seattle is loaded with coffee shops, so I try to go to several different ones to meet people. I have favorites, but I also like to try new ones. There is usually a good happy hour to catch for networking.

Also, there is a restaurant in Seattle called FareStart, and it is part of a bigger organization and group of restaurants that provides job training in the food-service industry. It is a great place to eat and network, because the mission is to help people overcome poverty and homelessness.

What are three things you do without fail every day?

  1. Acknowledge how lucky I am to live and work in a place of abundant natural beauty.
  2. Play/walk with my dog
  3. Exercise or stretch

Who else would you like to see answer these questions?

John Varga, Nikhil Bavariya, Erin Lecocq, Cameron Buhl

How Lawyers Work: John C. Hardie, Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawyer and Woods Wanderer was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/how-lawyers-work-john-c-hardie/

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Low-Cost SEO Tips, by Jeff Skrysak

This is a companion to Jeff Skrysak‘s guest appearance on our podcast to talk about low-cost law-firm SEO tips.

This download has more detailed information about each of Jeff’s tips:

  1. Give each page a good, relevant title (HTML tag).
  2. Write good content for each page, and give each a good meta description.
  3. If you use WordPress, install the Yoast SEO plugin.
  4. Create a directory structure for your pages that is descriptive and makes sense.
  5. Get listed on Google Maps for better local search.
  6. Ask your clients to leave a review on your Google listing (need a Google+ account).
  7. Match your Google+ account to your website.
  8. Create content around topics that are rarely discussed on other websites about your practice area.
  9. Create Facebook and LinkedIn pages for your law firm, and update them regularly, including with links back to your website.
  10. Write blog posts.
  11. Link to other websites.
  12. Use photos on every page and post.
  13. Do not make your law firm website all about you.
  14. Use headings in your pages and posts!

Low-Cost SEO Tips, by Jeff Skrysak was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/product/low-cost-seo-tips-jeff-skrysak/

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Podcast #151: How Westlaw Lost its Copyright, with Alan Sugarman

microphone with caption "lawyerist/legal talk network" below

In this episode we’re joined by Alan Sugarman to talk about the landmark case that opened up access to law and ultimately resulted in more options for online legal research today.

Alan Sugarman

Alan Sugarman founded HyperLaw in 1991 to publish electronic law treatises linked to case law. A graduate electrical engineer from Tufts University with a law degree from the University of Chicago, Sugarman has been a litigator and corporate lawyer at law firms, corporate law departments and governmental agencies. In the 1990s, HyperLaw was a disrupter of the legal publishing industry. HyperLaw successfully challenged Westlaw’s copyright claims to the text and citations of court opinions.

You can follow Alan on LinkedIn.

Thanks to Ruby Receptionists and Clio for sponsoring this episode!

Listen & Subscribe

To listen to the podcast, just scroll up and hit the play button (or click the link to this post if you are reading this by email).

To make sure you don’t miss an episode of The Lawyerist Podcast, subscribe now in iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast player. Or find out about new episodes by subscribing to our email newsletter.

Transcript

This transcript was prepared by Rev.com.

Speaker 1: Welcome to the Lawyerist Podcast with Sam Glover and Aaron Street. Each week, Lawyerist brings you advice and interviews to help you build a more successful law practice in today’s challenging and constantly changing legal market. And now, here are Sam and Aaron.

Sam Glover: Hi, I’m Sam Glover.

Aaron Street: And I’m Aaron Street. And this is episode 151 of The Lawyerist Podcast, part of the Legal Talk Network. Today we’re talking with Alan Sugarman, whose HyperLaw service in the early 1990s paved the way for modern research services like Google Scholar and Fastcase.

Sam Glover: Today’s podcast is sponsored by Ruby Receptionist, and its smart, charming receptionists who are perfect for small firms. Visit callruby.com/lawyerist to get a free trial with Ruby.

Aaron Street: Today’s podcast is also sponsored by Clio Legal Practice Management Software. Clio makes running your law firm easier. Try it for free today at clio.com.

So, I guess today’s episode with Alan Sugarman is kind of one in our ongoing series on how we got to this place where open access to law is a conversation. We’ve had a number of these interviews with Tim Stanley, and Ed Walters, and Sarah Glassmeyer. I think this’ll be an interesting story as piece of that.

Sam Glover: Yeah, I kind of geek out on the nuts and bolts of how we get to where we are today, and one of the reasons why I’m interested in open access to law is that law is kind of the oil, Ed Walters would say, on which innovation in a lot of legal tech works, right? Like, if you wanna build AI, you have to have a dataset to train it on and a lot of that comes from open access to law. You can’t have it unless it’s open. So that’s why I’ve been doing some of these interviews, because I think it’s fascinating.

But I think what you will also hear as an undercurrent in some of these interviews … It was there with Tim Stanley, and with Carl Malamud, and it’s here in my interview with Alan Sugarman, is that some of today’s competitive landscape is due to a series of incidents that have resulted in grudges, that weren’t always pretty. And I think you’ll hear that today, I think you’ve probably heard that in some of the previous ones.

But the lawsuit over HyperLaw and the history of it and background and what happened is pretty interesting, so here’s my interview with Alan. Just another note, my audio, again, isn’t great for the first two minutes this week, but then it clears up and please be reassured that I’ve upgraded my recording gear at home so snow days won’t muck up my interviews so much anymore.

Aaron Street: Oh, good.

Sam Glover: Here we go.

Alan Sugarman: Hello, I’m Alan Sugarman. I am an attorney in New York City, I’ve been practicing since 1971, and I’m the founder of HyperLaw, which in modern day terms was the disrupter of the legal publishing industry. And we took on the monopolist West Publishing and we beat them and that was in 1997 and 1998.

Sam Glover: Awesome. Thanks for being with us today, Alan. Maybe before we dive into the litigation, which I really wanna talk about, what was the lay of the land before HyperLaw came along in 1991? What did legal research look like back then?

Alan Sugarman: Well, legal research back then was still largely paper-based, and people used books and people used the key numbering system to do their research. Lexis had been founded in the 70s, and West Publishing Company, which people call today West Law, created its online service a few years later. It was the federal government that it really initiated legal research online or … digital legal research was done by the Air Force, Flight.

Flight was an effort by the US Air Force to digitize US Supreme Court decisions. And it was made available to lawyers in the US government. And then that evolved into something called Jurist, which the department of justice worked on, and they were digitizing legal opinions, federal opinions, starting in the 80s. And then they got West Publishing Company to help them do the digitizing, and gave West an exclusive contract and made it clear that those cases weren’t subject to FOIA requests.

So there was litigation where people were trying to get their hands on Jurist, and then the big thing that happened was in the mid-80s, Lexis decided it was going to start using the so-called star-pagination that West had developed. The site to the page, the volume and page number of the cases. So, West jumped on them, and following something they did for almost 10 years after that, they of course sued them in Minnesota, in the federal courts where they’d been cultivating judges for years, and where the cases would be reviewed in the eighth circuit where they’d been cultivating judges. So West jumped on Lexis, which was owned by Mead … And by the way, Lexis was originally a product of the Ohio State Bar … And West was able to get an injunction against Mead, claiming they had copyrights and the text, the enhanced text, and the citations, and won in the eighth circuit which wasn’t a surprise, given some of the things that had gone on, including the debit award which was basically paying off federal judges with awards and trips to resorts.

Sam Glover: I mean that sounds pretty cutthroat! We don’t normally think of legal research as a cutthroat industry, but …

Alan Sugarman: Oh no, West was incredibly litigious. They were suing people right and left and at this point in time, the cost of converting paper opinions to text was pretty expensive. Now this was way before Optical Character Recognition, and even in the 90s, “OCR” as we call it, was not so robust and so the way they had to do it was have it keyed in and even the facilities to do keying in, basically in India, were not as developed as they are today. So it was a big expense just to get a court case converted digitally, and of course at that time, even if there were some word processors around, judges were … I would say 95% of all opinions were being typed on electric typewriters or handwritten. So there was no way of getting digital versions from the court. And if they were digital versions, they were in specialized publishing printing software.

Sam Glover: I mean that kinda puts it in perspective, ’cause when I talked to Ed Walters, I’m appalled by how much effort they put in to maintain legal decisions coming into Fastcase’s database, but by contrast, the amount of effort that you had to put in to do that back in the 80s and 90s sounds like it was just crazy higher effort.

Alan Sugarman: Well, [inaudible 00: 07: 21] worse than that, I think West didn’t even bother even once decisions were available in Word Processing. It wasn’t worth the time to try to convert the digital Word Processing files. There were so many different programs, ways that people did it. And formatting and everything else. It was just, at the end of the day, easier for them to send it to India or somewhere else and get it double-keyed and bring it back to the US.

Or, so they just ignored that. In a minute I’ll get to what we did.

Sam Glover: Well yeah I wanna hear about that too.

Alan Sugarman: Okay so West [inaudible 00: 08: 04] basically gave a monopoly to West over the content and the citation to the content of judicial opinions. And so our involvement was that I’ve been very involved with computers in the law for years, in fact in the early 80s I’d even taught a course in computer literacy for lawyers in 1982. My original computer had 4k of memory. If people know what that means.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: So I was pretty involved with this. When I came off my big case in 1990 I finished up a real estate book and decided that I wanted to do an electronic version. I reserved the rights with my publisher John Wiley who didn’t know what I meant when I said I wanted to do an electronic version. And I wanted to link into the cases. So my question is, where do I find the cases? This was all going to be on floppy disk, if you can believe it.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: And then CD-ROM. So I wrote a letter to West saying, “Look I know the only place I can find the decisions is from you. From my litigation experience I spent far too much time wandering around court clerks offices and dusting boxes trying to find old files.”

So I wrote them and they said, “No.” And they basically said, quote said, “Proceed at your own risk.” And I knew they’d been after other people and they were starting to take the position that if you did a brief with links to cases that you had to get their permission. If you went to a law library and wanted to photocopy a case they wouldn’t do it unless basically they paid a fee to West.

Sam Glover: Wow really?

Alan Sugarman: Oh yeah.

Sam Glover: That’s crazy.

Alan Sugarman: Absolutely true. Absolutely. So West wanted to control everything. Now this was 1991 before the internet, but I had realized that digital linking to briefs for example or treatises would be the way of the future of development of law. It wasn’t so much legal research but it was the ability to present the case to the reader without having to go do legal research. And I realized this with [inaudible 00: 10: 26] the whole development of law, I was offended by it. And I’d read an article about hyper-linking by Vannevar Bush, which he predicted this back in the 40s.

So I created HyperLaw to do my book. And then I decided that maybe the first thing to do to test West and also to perhaps create a future product would be to start publishing the texts of the US Supreme Court. Now at that time they had a very elaborate funky system for making cases available to newspapers and publishers. And you had to sign up and go through all of this security stuff and there were maybe 10 to 20 publishers in the country who did this. But we managed to sign up by thousands of dollars of secure hardware. I mean we were just accepting a down lope I think in their mind. If we get a download from them we can mess up their system.

So we got the decisions, we got them all formatted, cleaned up, found a search engine that would fit on a floppy disk in a CD-ROM, released it. And the idea I had was perhaps to do reviews of Supreme Court cases or something like that, and so you could buy every year, I never did this, but buy every year a review of the Supreme Court cases for the year and you can link in to all the cases. So that was the idea.

Sam Glover: It sounds like HyperLaw was basically like Microsoft Encarta. Where both the software and all the data is on the CD that you would buy.

Alan Sugarman: That was the idea.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: So we then released the CD at Legal Tech in New York in 1992, we were the only company with any CD product. We were told the CD was a dead technology. But I would tell you the West people went hovering around my booth. We didn’t sell very many. It was not a commercial success. I then discovered that some of the Court of Appeals were starting to release the Federal Court of Appeals opinions on their bulletin boards. And so I decided I would download as many as I could and put those on a CD. And that turned into an elaborate product.

I had two or three interns from Columbia Law School, one who was a good programmer, and I did my own programming. And it was a huge problem of downloading cases, figuring out if you had duplicates, cleaning them up, each one was a different format. But we put together a pretty nice case which had meta-data in it. We used pretty intelligent searching to create the meta-data. And we had a real product. And then we went to the American Association of Law Libraries Convention in 1993 in Boston, which is really big, it’s a big event in legal publishing. And West again came hovering around my booth and I mentioned that, “Well we don’t have all the cases.” And they said, “Well you better not use our cases.” Well, I took that as a threat.

Then what happened in 1994, Matthew Bender, which was an independent company then was trying to publish treatises of New York case law, and they needed the cases. They wanted to do the same thing I had in mind. I’m not claiming to be original in any way. Because it was obvious that was the way, what people wanted to have.

They were running into problems, but they wanted to use the citations to the cases. The volume and page number.

Sam Glover: Whereas you were just using the cases themselves.

Alan Sugarman: Well we were downloading the cases which had nothing to do with West. But what we wanted to do was fill in the gaps with the cases that weren’t being downloaded. Because the courts weren’t so complete.

Anyway Matthew Bender sued West in New York City, where we’re located in the Southern District of New York where I was admitted to practice law, and had practiced. And sued them for declaratory judgment. And when I saw that, this was early in 94, I said, “Oh no. We’re gonna have another fix where two big companies sue each other and after they beat each other and the lawyers collect their legal fees enter into a private settlement and everyone else will be screwed.”

So four weeks later we intervened. And I have a very long detailed complaint that we filed. And my friends Paul Ruskin and Carl Hartman agreed to basically be pro bono lawyers with the hope of getting legal fees at the end. And they put an awful lot of work into it. And we were allowed to intervene. And we pursued the case and I won’t go into all the details but-

Sam Glover: Was the core of it though, was it a fight over the citation system then, or?

Alan Sugarman: In the beginning Matthew Bender seemed to be interested in both. But I always was interested in the text part.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: In fact, in 19, I left this out of my story, but after West v. Mead the Supreme Court came down with the Fice case which totally undermined the theories in the West v. Mead case. And then Mead and [inaudible 00: 15: 49] got Barney Frank to introduce some legislation in 1992 in Congress. H.R. 5522. And to make the citations not copyrightable.

And we went down to Washington and we filed our brief where we said, “Well that’s fine but we also wanna make the text not copyrightable.” ‘Cause West would claim if it corrected parallel citations, corrected typos, added the attorneys names, that they were entitled to copyright protection for that. And if you picked up a West case you didn’t know what they were asserting copyright for or not. It was very interesting then, that no one else in the legal publishing industry would support our position on text. Okay. So when we got into the Matthew Bender case, Matthew Bender I think initially was going to fight for both text and the citation system, and then they were acquired by Mead Data.

And Mead had so much money invested in his own conversion to text that they did not want us to take that position. In fact they even fought us at the end when we got before the Supreme Court. You know, they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn our win.

Sam Glover: I mean effectively what you have happening is two people with essentially identical reporters are saying that they each have different copyrights in their own version of it.

Alan Sugarman: Well yeah. They didn’t want people going on Lexis and downloading the text of cases and saying, “You can’t copyright it.” And they didn’t wanna depend upon a contract, you know contract with Lexis to keep you from copying it.

Sam Glover: Right.

Alan Sugarman: Okay. So we both won the citation case and then Matthew Bender sort of disappeared. And we alone won the text case. And as far as I’m concerned the text case was much more important than the citation.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: And we won at the 2nd Circuit. Cert was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. We came back to get legal fees, the judge said we were David and Goliath. And won the case. Awarded us fees. The 2nd Circuit said, “No. You’re not substantial.” They would say, “There was a substantial issue.” Which is really ridiculous. ‘Cause no one ever supported the Mead case. There you are. So we were sitting there in 1997, 98, the last legal fees decision was 2001. So that’s what happened in that case.

But basically our case made Google Scholar. Google Law possible.

Sam Glover: Right ’cause the outcome is now you can, obviously you can publish the text of cases and you can use the citation system right? Or is the citation system still in doubt.

Alan Sugarman: No there’s no doubt on the citation system. And initially, oddly Google did not include the citations. And I would write them, I never really talked to anyone senior there. But I would say, “Why aren’t you putting the citation in?” And now they have the citation in there. The pagination for the published opinions.

Sam Glover: So we need to take a quick break to hear from our sponsors and when we come back I wanna talk about what happened to HyperLaw after that and maybe spend a little time talking about the impact of that decision, that ordeal, that litigation today. And what maybe still needs to happen to keep the law free. So we’ll be back in a moment.

This podcast is supported by Ruby Receptionist. As a matter of fact, Ruby answers our phones at Lawyerist, and my firm was a paying Ruby customer before that. Here’s what I love about Ruby. When I’m in the middle of something I hate to be interrupted. So when the phone rings, it annoys me, and that often carries over into the conversation I have after I pick up the phone. Which is why I’m better off not answering my own phone, instead Ruby answers the phone and if the person on the other end asks for me, a friendly cheerful receptionist from Ruby calls me and asks if I want them to put the call through. It’s a buffer that gives me a minute to let go of my annoyance and be a better human being during the call.

If you wanna be a better human being on the phone, give Ruby a try. Go to callruby.com/lawyerist to sign up and Ruby will waive the $95 set-up fee. If you aren’t happy with Ruby for any reason, you can get your money back during your first three weeks. I’m pretty sure you’ll stick around, but since there’s no risk, you might as well try.

Aaron Street: Imagine what you could do with an extra eight hours per week. You could invest in marketing your firm. You could spend more time helping clients in need. Or you could catch your daughter’s soccer game. That’s how much time legal professionals save with Cleo, the world’s leading practice management software. With Cleo, tracking time, billing, and matter management are fast and easy. Giving you more time to focus on what really matters. And Cleo is a complete practice management platform with plenty of tools and over fifty integrations to help you automate daily tasks such as document generation and court calendaring. See how the right software can make it easier to manage your practice. Try Cleo for free today at cleo.com

Sam Glover: So Alan after the decision what happened to HyperLaw? It’s not on the market today as far as I know so were you able to take that and run with it or what happened?

Alan Sugarman: In 94, 5, and 6, we were litigating against the largest law firms in the country. We actually went through three law firms that West had. And in the end they had to have Arthur Miller from Harvard Law School come down and argue for them in the 2nd Circuit. I was, just doing the case was overwhelming me, and by the time 1998 came around I had run through all my money. So I had to go back into the real world and make a living.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: So HyperLaw still exists. I comment on things from time to time. Do some litigation support. But we at least in the 2nd Circuit, we have this absolute right, there’s no way West can touch us in the 2nd Circuit. They can’t play that game.

During this whole period of time there were other fights going on involving the vendor-neutral citation, Pacer, we were very active in testifying before the ABA committees on this, and there’s the judicial conference. We work with the American Association of Law Libraries, and I want to give a real heads up to Jamie Love for the taxpayer assets project, who was extremely supportive. That’s a [inaudible 00: 22: 15] group. He got involved in 95 and he was, we work with him a lot. We were all over the country. And one of the big issues had to do with the vendor-neutral citation. Which, even today I don’t understand what’s going on. But let me explain something about the vendor-neutral citation.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: Our position was that vendor-neutral citation had to be one that could be immediately citable. The day the opinion came out you could cite to that opinion and use that citation forever and ever. And how do you do that? You have the name of the court, the date, and the docket number. And there you are. You have a permanent cite.

The other people involved with this got all involved with this idea where the courts have to control what you can publish and not publish, and you should have a sequence number, etc., etc., etc.

Sam Glover: Well and the citation thing is, even though you can use West’s or Lexis’ citations, they still control the citation. What you’re effectively waiting for is them to put it in a book and give it a page number, which is, I’m not even sure if that’s even a real thing anymore. I’m sure they still publish books but they’re not super relevant to anyone. But you’re still waiting on them to decide what the citation is which is hard especially since nobody actually cares if it’s in a book anymore.

Alan Sugarman: Absolutely Sam, and I think first of all you’re talking just about the published opinions. There are also unpublished-

Sam Glover: Right.

Alan Sugarman: … opinions. And most people actively use unpublished opinions and there’s a lot of courts say you can’t cite a case that’s not been published in a book, but that’s evaporating day by day.

Sam Glover: Well it’s also really torturing the meaning of published when everything is being published. It’s just a technicality.

Alan Sugarman: It is. Although I always say judges did not want their bad decisions or embarrassing decisions to be published. And West controlled what was published.

Sam Glover: Right.

Alan Sugarman: West did not publish our victories in a text case. There’s a full written decision and they didn’t put it in the federal supplement. I wonder why. But let me go back to what you were saying since you’ve really practiced law. Have you ever gotten a Lexis cite to a case that was never published and then, but you only use Westlaw.

Sam Glover: Right.

Alan Sugarman: And then you go try to find it in Westlaw and you can’t find it because there’s a lot of discretion in how you name a case.

Sam Glover: Yep.

Alan Sugarman: And you spend hours trying to find it. That’s just extraordinary that, that can happen today. I believe today that all cites to all court opinions should have the docket number of the case in it. And for unpublished opinions a lot of courts are disseminating them and they’re available on all the various services. If you had the docket number and someone cites a Lexis cite and includes the docket number, you wouldn’t have to go and pay money to West or Lexis to go find the case.

Sam Glover: Right.

Alan Sugarman: I can tell you just three weeks ago I got a brief in a case and he cites three different Lexis cases from the New York lower court. And even with the name of the case and going to the court system I couldn’t find the cases. Even though they’re somewhere in their electronic system. And there’s another reason to use the docket number. And that is the docket number allows you to link the lower court opinion to the appellate opinion. All appellate opinions should list the docket number of the case below. If you go into Google Scholar now they have a problem of linking an unpublished lower court, district court opinion to an appellate court opinion. The Federal Appellate Court.

Sam Glover: Right but that should be a piece of cake.

Alan Sugarman: If they included the docket number in both. But all these groups including the American Association of Law Libraries, GPO, Recap, Google Scholar, and Legal Information Institute Citation System, none of them require the docket number in the citation even of an unpublished decision. I have been very explicit with them about this and it just doesn’t happen. Tim Stanley at Jurist goes better, he includes the docket number, and he also includes the more specific cite which is the docket entry number on the docket sheet for the federal opinions that he publishes. That is a beautiful cite. I’m just waiting for them to wake up for this. I’ve been fighting this for 10 years, people look at me like I don’t know what I’m talking about. And eventually we’ll get there.

Sam Glover: Yeah. I mean the HyperLaw decision, the litigation really paved the way for what we have today which is, you really do have a choice. In at least some surveys, services like Fast Case are neck and neck with Westlaw and LexisNexis, which is kind of amazing at this point. And you’ve got all kinds of other secondary services. Bloomberg, you know is charging hard to catch up with everyone. And so is, I think it’s Case Maker, and there’s a bunch of them out there now. And I think none of this would have existed if Bender and then you hadn’t dived into this litigation.

Alan Sugarman: Well Google Scholar is the beautiful-

Sam Glover: And Google yes of course.

Alan Sugarman: Okay. I frankly even when I was using Lexis, which I stopped using, but I would always start my research in Google Scholar.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: It’s faster, quicker, more informative, and also reaches outside of the case network to find more information. I give them really great credit for what they’ve done and they’ve pushed the whole field far, everybody else that’s doing this kind of stuff is basically trailing behind in their footprints.

I mean at the same time that certain people were paying allegedly $600,000 to digitize the Federal Reporter, Google was doing it at the same time.

Sam Glover: Yeah.

Alan Sugarman: Of course I’m not from California so there’s almost a mafia out there. Not really sure what goes on out there. But I had always assumed that Google was paying for this. But I don’t know. I don’t know the whole thing. People claim they paid for it. And then when they were finished, they said, “We now have all federal court opinions available for nothing.” And I said to them, “That’s not true.” I said, “90% of the federal appellate court opinions are unpublished opinions. You don’t have any of those.”

Sam Glover: Yeah. So what can the average lawyer do to support the move towards neutral citations?

Alan Sugarman: Well the first thing they oughta do, when they write briefs is to start adding the docket number of cases that only have, certainly that only have Westlaw or Lexis cites, or that are unpublished. They should put that in every single cite so that judges who, by the way, today a lot of judges are pretty sophisticated in this. But, just to get people used to seeing that.

Sam Glover: I mean I feel like a small active rebellion would be for all of us to use vendor-neutral citations first and then put the Westlaw or Lexis citations in a footnote or something.

Alan Sugarman: I would not include the Lexis or Westlaw cite. In fact I don’t. I put in the docket number because if you have the docket number and the name of the court you can find the opinion in Lexis or Westlaw quickly. Because docket numbers is one of their meta-data fields. You can search them.

Sam Glover: Well and in many courts you can link directly to the court in the docket anyway. So.

Alan Sugarman: Right.

Sam Glover: Well Alan thank you for your work and for telling us about it. Thanks for being the one to stand up and do this because it has at least opened the door to a much more robust market for legal research options.

Alan Sugarman: I’m glad that it has come to fruition. And again I thank Google Scholar for what they have done, which has taken full use of what we accomplished in 1997.

Sam Glover: Well maybe in another 20 years we can get back together and see if vendor-neutral citation has finally come around.

Alan Sugarman: I hope so.

Sam Glover: I’ll see ya then.

Alan Sugarman: Anyway Sam, nice talking to you.

Sam Glover: You too.

Alan Sugarman: Bye-bye.

Podcast #151: How Westlaw Lost its Copyright, with Alan Sugarman was originally published on Lawyerist.com.



source https://lawyerist.com/podcast-151-alan-sugarman/