1. 2010 Law Firm Legal Research E-Questionnaire Law Firm Results by Firm Size and in Total

2. Survey Methodology 17 question e-survey (see handout) crafted in conjunction with law firm librarians Questions divided into these areas:  What resources are available  Format of resources  What resources must new hires know how to use and in what format(s)  Most important research tasks  Questions about online research and pricing plans Sent to law firm librarians via the Private Law Library Special Interest Section (PLL-SIS) list (AALL special interest section)

3. Survey Methodology: E-Mail Introduction I would like to ask members of the PLL-SIS list to take about 15 minutes to complete this 2010 edition of my law firm legal research survey at [URL]. Results will be summarized and answers will be used to train our law students how best to serve the legal community. In addition, an article will be written that will compare and contrast these results with results from prior administrations of this survey, and will serve as a follow-up to the recent Law Library Journal article that summarized the 2004 and 2007 editions of this survey ….

4. Survey Methodology: E-Mail Introduction This is your chance to tell academia how we should teach legal research and it's our chance to use the results to help educate our administration as to the importance of legal research.

5. The Respondents: (n = 165) Firm Size# of Responses 1-259 26-5023 51-10046 101-20047 Over 20040 TOTAL165

6. Databases Available/Must Know: By Percentage (n = 165) N ote that the nine responses for the 1-25 attorney group were included in the total column. Firm Size. Database 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=47) 101-200 (n=46) >200 (n=40) Total Westlaw87/8797.8/93.585.1/84.494.9/92.390.2/89.4 LexisNexis73.9/69.680.4/76.191.5/84.497.4/84.685.9/78.9 Pacer100/39.189.1/19.683/35.679.5/25.690.2/28.6 CourtLink30.4/4.354.3/4.366/15.664.1/17.958.3/10.6 LivEdgar21.7/8.728.3/2.257.4/15.664.1/10.342.9/8.7 CheckPoint34.8/17.465.2/6.578.7/2082.1/20.565.6/14.9 Dun & Brad.4.3/08.7/2.219.1/025.6/014.9/.6 LoisLaw13/4.310.9/2.214.9/8.912.8/7.712.3/5.6 ChoicePoint13/06.5/017/2.225.6/014.7/.6

7. Print Sources Available/Must Know: By Percentage (n = 165) Note that the nine responses for the 1-25 attorney group were included in the total column. Firm Size. Resource 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=47) 101-200 (n=46) >200 (n=40) Total State’s Legis Code 90.9/57.195.7/70.5100/80.594.7/7192.5/70.1 State’s Sec Sources 68.2/57.184/8/61.493.5/7892.1/67.785.1/66 Fed Secondary 72.7/76.289.1/68.289.1/75.678.9/67.781.4/68.8 Fed Leg Codes 77.3/57.782.6/65.987/63.486.8/67.780.7/62.5 State’s Admin Code 59.1/38.156.5/5082.6/68.389.5/58.170.2/54.9 State’s Digest 63.6/38.171.7/5071.7/46.365.8/58.165.8/47.2 Fed Admin Code 54.5/38.165.2/54.569.6/46.373.7/58.164.6/49.3

8. Print Sources Available/Must Know: By Percentage (n = 165) Note that the nine responses for the 1-25 attorney group were included in the total column. Firm Size. Resource 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=47) 101-200 (n=46) >200 (n=40) Total State’s Rptrs68.2/52.467.4/38.671.7/3965.8/54.864.6/43.1 Fed Digests45.5/28.656.5/38.660.9/3955.3/48.454/38.2 Fed Rptrs45.5/57.147.8/38.650/3950/51.647.2/43.8 State’s Admin Decisions 9.1/14.317.4/15.934.8/19.534.2/2924.2/19.4 Fed Admin Decisions 13.6/14.310.9/11.423.9/9.823.7/22.618/14.6 Regional Reporters 9.1/1919.6/18.210.9/7.321.1/32.314.9/17.4

9. Print Sources Available By Survey Year (by percent): Resource2010 Survey 2007 Survey 2004 Survey State’s Legis Code92.58785.3 State’s Sec Sources85.189.592.6 Federal Secondary81.490.189.7 Federal Leg Codes80.788.382.4 State’s Admin Code70.27970.6 State’s Digest65.8--- Federal Admin Code64.675.361.8 State’s Rptrs64.67189.7 Federal Digests54--- Federal Reporters47.259.377.9

10. Print Sources Available By Survey Year (by percent):.Resource2010 Survey 2007 Survey 2004 Survey State’s Admin Decisions24.236.433.8 Fed Admin Decisions1826.519.1 Regional Reporters14.919.839.7

11. Cancellations Past Three Years (n=28).Resource# RespResource# Resp Nothing2USCS1 All Reporters8All State Codes2 Federal Reporters 8All state codes except our state 1 Reporters2UCC Rptg Svc1 Bankruptcy Reporter 3Fletcher’s Cyclopedia 1 All Reg Rptrs4CFR1 Indiv Reg Rptr2Federal Practice & Procedure 1 Indiv State Rptr2Cong. Record1 Our state Rptrs1Shepard’s1 ALRs1All Digests3 Many treatises10Digests1

12. Cancellations Past Three Years Reporters = 30 Multiple treatise sets = 10  Multiple duplicate sets  40+ sets  At least 50 – 100 titles, if not significantly more  3 to 6 major Cal treatise sets  10-15 CCH sets  10-12 WG&L sets  Many IP sets  Numerous West, Aspen & MB sets

13. Firm Size. Research Task 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=46) 101-200 (n=47) >200 (n=40) Total Case law95.78793.583.889.4 Cost Effective82.691.38791.986.9 Secondary Sources69.676.180.489.278.8 Citator Services82.671.778.383.878.1 Legis Codes73.9 58.759.565 Most Important Research Tasks By Percentage (n = 165) Note that the nine responses for the 1-25 attorney group were included in the total column.

14. Firm Size. Research Task 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=46) 101-200 (n=47) >200 (n=40) Total Pull Doc by Cite69.660.95056.858.1 Admin Codes47.8 45.748.646.3 Digests34.852.232.651.441.3 Legislative History43.523.917.421.623.8 Most Important Research Tasks By Percentage (n = 165) Note that the nine responses for the 1-25 attorney group were included in the total column.

15. Best Done in Books/Online By Percentage (n = 165) Note that the nine responses for the 1-25 attorney group were included in the total column. Firm Size. Resource 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=47) 101-200 (n=46) >200 (n=40) Total Secondary Sources 63.6/17.480/10.978/6.586.1/7.976.7/10 Legis Codes22.7/34.842.2/17.431.7/19.638.9/26.336/21.9 Legis History50/21.742.2/17.434.1/8.725/23.735.3/17.5 Admin Codes13.6/21.724.4/32.67.3/21.725/23.718.7/25 Case Law9.1/82.62.2/84.82.4/76.15.6/76.34.7/79.4 Digests50/1346.7/28.336.6/21.738.9/31.641.3/24.4 Citator Svcs0/82.60/91.30/93.52.8/92.1.7/90.6 Doc Retrieval0/73.96.7/82.62.4/71.78.3/81.66.7/76.3

16. Best Done in Books: Comparison Between 2010/2007 Surveys *2007 survey combined case law and digests Firm Size. Resource 26-50 (n=23) 51-100 (n=47) 101-200 (n=46) >200 (n=40) Total Secondary Sources 63.6/81.880/83.778/97.386.1/81.476.7/85.8 Legis Codes22.7/5042.2/62.831.7/64.938.9/51.236/58.1 Legis History50/40.942.2/39.534.1/43.225/55.835.3/45.9 Admin Codes13.6/22.724.4/39.57.3/43.225/55.818.7/45.9 Case Law9.1/13.6*2.2/25.6*2.4/10.8*5.6/16.3*4.7/16.9* Digests50/*46.7/*36.6/*38.9/*41.3/*

17. Westlaw/LexisNexis Plans By Percentage Westlaw Firm Size Flat Rate Totally Unlimited No Flat Rate Plan Transact’l Plan Hourly Plan Do Not Have WL 26-5060.902530.417.4 50-10082.22.39.117.811.12.2 101-20071.19.8 2017.84.4 >20068.45.315.823.726.30 Total71.14.615.22218.26.3

18. Westlaw/LexisNexis Plans By Percentage LexisNexis Firm Size Flat Rate Totally Unlimited No Flat Rate Plan Transact’l Plan Hourly Plan Do Not Have LN 26-5056.5011.130.48.717.4 50-10062.24.828.631.111.18.9 101-20065.29.320.932.615.26.5 >20068.45.315.828.926.35.3 Total63.85.422.13015.610

19. Cost Effective Research Is Usually Accomplished By … ANSWER# Always or nearly always through online research4 Always or nearly always through print research1 With a relatively even combination of online & print research 24 By a combination of both, but mostly online7 By a combination of both, but mostly in print2

20. Reasons for High Online Charges Reading online while using Hourly Ignoring dollar signs in LexisNexis Unaware that some info is online for free Engaging in fishing expeditions Free law school searching Not limiting “citing references” in KeyCite Start with case law research Not planning before going online Not using Focus/Locate or Segments/Fields

21. Reasons for High Online Charges Lack of understanding of digest headnotes; key numbers; indices; no knowledge of primary sources and how they are organized Poorly constructed searches repeatedly run in a transactional database Not understanding types of and confines of pricing plans They think everything is free! They treat the online research databases like Google.

22. Reasons for High Online Charges They think everything is free! They treat the online research databases like Google Forget to log out of the hourly plan; select the largest database (ALLFEDS, state cases) for citation look up; go outside the contract without checking other sources where we may have the material

23. Comments/Concerns Legal research should be more of a priority in Law School. Make legal research worth more credits, so students take it seriously; make students take advanced legal research; get the faculty on board with both ideas. New associates need to make better use of print and/or online resources for which we have annual subscriptions (no charges to clients).

24. Comments/Concerns Main concern: young lawyers are coming out of school with very little knowledge of research and sources; a shocking tendency to want to "Google" everything; a reflexive desire to jump right online for every research issue; simply not realizing how useful a book can be, to introduce you to a topic and to find answers without reinventing the wheel

25. Comments/Concerns New researchers assume "everything of value" is online. They trust free online sources as much as trusted legal vendors - perhaps more. Student have no idea of the cost of their research or how to be cost effective. Most summers and first years arrive at law firm woefully unprepared.

26. Comments/Concerns Law students must understand that all online research has costs, even if a firm has a flat rate unlimited plan in place. In addition, in the current environment, clients are increasingly refusing to allow firms to charge back for online research which means that much of it is written off. I realize that the law schools have staffing constraints but I really think the sales vendors should NOT be teaching online research.

27. Comments/Concerns When they discover what value the Digest systems have they are flabbergasted that they never learned about this in school. The research becomes much easier after that. Almost every new associate comes to the firm wanted to look for cases. But half the time cases aren't the answer and … the best way to start is usually in a treatise or article. Google is not the answer!

28. Improvements to Methodology?