If you work in the legal field, there is no doubt you have experienced working with PACER; it’s the interface that enables users to access and file federal court documents. DkT (available here) is a brand new app that puts an easily-navigable, streamlined mobile user interface on top of PACER, enabling users to access documents via their mobile devices. PACER does have its own mobile interface, but DkT has design features that clearly separate it as a better option for users, including: Continue Reading App Review: DkT

Last week, business technology and market research firm InsideLegal put together a graphical chart detailing what various sized law firms spent their tech budgets on in 2013 (available here). The data is coming from ILTA/InsideLegal’s Technology Purchasing Software Survey, a wonderful, free, and highly informative resource both organizations collaborate on and release annually (the latest edition, released in August of 2013, is available here). The data, notably, is organized by the number of responding firms, and not the overarching dollar figures of money spent by the particular firms; it gives insight into how various technological purchasing trends affect different sized firms. The data illustrates many situations where new hardware or software is vigorously embraced by firms of a particular-size but not by other firms of a different size. For example, smaller-sized firms are much more likely to purchase tablet computers. Why would this be? Continue Reading InsideLegal Lessons: Examining Technology Purchasing Trends by Firm-Size

Lexis has created two apps that do the exact same thing: the Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com apps allow user access to the same, giant directory of attorneys. Lexis, though, clearly has different audiences in mind for the two apps, having tailored Martindale-Hubbell to attorneys and Lawyers.com for the public.

The Martindale-Hubbell app is intended to be used by attorneys. More legal language is employed in the template searches that drive the app: users can search for “area of practice” or “law school” for example. The copy from the app description in the iTunes store indicates attorneys are the prime audience for this app as well. The copy, accessible here, reads: “Need to refer a case to an attorney outside your jurisdiction?” and “Ever wished you could look-up opposing counsel’s background and expertise on the fly?”.

Lawyers.com, on the other hand, is directed towards members of the public who need an attorney. The app delivers the contact information of the lawyer closest to the user’s current location, gives contact information for the searched-for attorneys, and even displays directions on how to reach their office. And iTunes store copy, accessible here, states: “Need to find a lawyer fast?” “Looking for ratings and reviews on lawyers in your area?”, and even goes on to state the content underlying the app is coming from the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer directory.

It’s a little reductive, but generally true, to say that apps typically are user interfaces thrown on top of databases. More often than not, apps are just a mode for users to access, interface with, and sometimes contribute content to some underlying, large database. Observing Lexis’s creation of two different interfaces intended for two different audiences to settle on top of the same content gives us an interesting insight into the actions and perspectives of one of the really big fish of the legal research world. Re-organizing the same information is something that continually occurs in the world of apps, though usually it’s different app producers creating different interfaces, not the same producer creating multiple apps that do the same thing. But, Lexis’s actions are clever–the public and attorneys are different enough audiences, with different enough research goals, who will emphasize different enough search criteria, that deploying different interfaces for them seems to be an effective solution.

Lastly, though downloading and using the apps is free, I’m sure you’ll have to pay for whatever attorney you find.

Of the many apps in the West/Thomson Reuters oeuvre, there exists the CFLR DissoMaster. What does this app do? Co-produced by CFLR and the Rutter Group, this app’s sole purpose is to calculate child support in California. Yes, child support strictly in California.

Child support calculation in California follows a statewide, uniform equation that starts at Family Code section 4050. The equation, of course, is extremely complex and contains a slew of criteria; programming software to automate this is reasonable enough. And notably, the iPad-based CFLR DissoMaster isn’t the only software designed to satisfy this niche. There are more robust, desktop-centered products. CFLR features its own desktop-based DissoMaster Suite ($540) to face off against the competition’s Xspouse ($299).

Again, the CFLR DissoMaster is iPad-based, and is not available on the iPhone. Users are led through a questionnaire, where they divulge income-related data on a line-by-line basis; robust help, including statute-info, caselaw, and Rutter edited content is available for each line. The completed report can be e-mailed or printed.

Presumably divorce/Family Law is big business in California—how big is a little hard to say. The National Center for Health Statistics compiles and reports on state divorce rates; though, since 2009, California is one of a handful of nonreporting states. The state had 232,719 divorces in 2008, 237,059 divorces in 2007, and 238,011 divorces in 2006.  Judging by the existence of this app, business must be good.

Recently released, the ILTA Technology Survey offers information professionals great insight into how lawyers are interacting with technology at their firms. The organization, made up primarily of firm IT and KM professionals, produces an annual technology survey, and, thankfully, releases it for free (the AmLaw Tech Survey and the ABA’s Legal Technology Survey Report will run you a few dollars).

Notably, among the many topics it covers, the survey focuses on attorneys’ use of tablet pcs and apps.

The results for the question “to the best of your knowledge, which non-native tablet/iPad apps are most used at your firm for business purposes (choose up to five apps)” are as follow, with a brief/not-all-encompassing description from me on what these apps do:

1. Citrix Receiver – enables access to Citrix environments from mobile devices

2. LinkedIn – social media platform for business professionals

3. Dropbox – cloud-computing storage service

4. Adobe Acrobat – .pdf viewer and editor

5. Skype – remote video and voice or instant messaging platform

6. FaceBook – social media platform

7. Documents to Go – enables users to view Microsoft Office and Adobe files in the iOS environment.

8. Evernote – enables users to take electronic notes

9. GoodReader – annotate and read .pdfs

10. Mimecast – enables access of Mimecast email environment

Interesting results:

14. TrialPad – presentation tool tailored to attorneys

15. Westlaw Next – legal research system

27. iTimeKeep – time tracking utility

39. iJuror – jury selection app

Westlaw Next’s inclusion is notable, in that it signifies tablets are being used for legal research, but its location on the list shows the strong popularity of the more well-known productivity-oriented apps (dropbox, evernote, documents to go, etc.). The answer to the overarching question how much traction is there for tablets and mobile devices to be used for legal research is still a little nebulous. Will user behavior change to where tablets and mobile devices are commonly used to conduct legal research? It’s hard to say. Is there a legal research platform that could really exploit the unique characteristics of tablets or mobile devices, to the point where the mobile-version would offer something valuable that would distinguish it from the desktop version?

Also notable is that attorneys themselves are typically not the respondents to the survey questions–rather, it’s the membership of ILTA who are queried. And, it is important to point out, once again, that those queried were to only chose 5 apps, and not every app they have observed/encountered their attorneys using.

In re-researching case management apps for an upcoming presentation, I again stumbled across RLTC: Evidence. Its web-site, accessible here, lists all the wonderful features of this particular case management app: many file formats are supported, users can add annotations to existing files, the app can project onto a tv or monitor via Apple’s SVGA cord, etc. I was interested in what appeared to be a very useful app, but in trying to conduct further research, I was met with peculiarities and roadblocks:

  • The app didn’t appear on the Apple app store
  • The home web-site had broken links for the app’s help file and Apple app store
  • The reviews about the app seemed to stop in 2011

Interestingly, there isn’t a database of deceased apps, an app doesn’t receive an obituary–there is no real definite way to determine if an app is no longer with us. And, moreover, the grander question of “why did this app fail?” is never answered. Was this app too expensive? Did one of its competitors do a better job (Exhibit A, TrialPad and Client File come to mind) of filling this particular niche? What was the reception of this app from the legal community?

Even out of the chaos of the internet arises a peculiar rule: heaven isn’t the ultimate destination for deceased apps, it’s more the stasis of a digital purgatory.

On Thursday, November 14th, Google Inc. won a major court battle regarding its Google Books project. The federal district court in New York City ruled the Google Book project falls under the protection of fair use. Google, through collaborations with research libraries across the country, has digitized over twenty million books, making large portions of the books electronically and freely accessible.

  • U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York Judge Denny Chin’s decision is available from this case here.
  • The American Library Association lauds the decision here.
  • And the reaction of the Authors Guild can be found here.
  • Cheryl Beise of Wolters Kluwer’s Intellectual Property Law Daily (November 14, 2013) examines the four fair use factors of the decision here.

Included among those twenty million digitized titles, of course, are books with legal subjects: rare and ancient legal treatises, aged legislative materials, and superseded volumes are all available. Obscure titles covering differing technical subjects can be found as well, making, for example, a full-text search for an expert’s publications possible. Clearly, this will benefit law librarians, though accessibility of older, obscure legal materials have been available via commercial vendors for quite some time, and in a more organized manner.

LLMC-Digital (Law Library Microform Consortium) began its conversion from fiche-based materials to digital back in 2003. They now offer, in a categorically-organized fashion, a wealth of ancient federal and state-level legislative, executive and judicial materials. HeinOnline, too, begin its digitization efforts in the late 1990s, when the internet was in its infancy; HeinOnline now boasts libraries of various categorical content sets including a wealth of federal legislative materials as well as a robust collection of law journals.

The greatest difference between Google Books and similar commercial vendors concerns organization of content. Google Books’ content set, again, contains 20 million books, the organization of this material is clearly a problem. The commercial vendors are dealing with content sets that are smaller, more manageable, and contain like materials; they are able to organize through various classification systems; by state, by type (executive, legislative, judicial), by category, by date, etc. The user can search among smaller, categorically-defined content sets; the user can explore content via categorical browsing. Google Books has available categories on its landing page, but given the massive scope of its content set, the subjects have to remain very general; Google Books is essentially only navigable by full-text searching, which introduces a host of user-query-construction problems. Google’s approach to index and not catalog the internet proved to be correct, but Google Book’s sea of print materials may need a more commercial-vendor-honed organizational approach. Now that the legality of Google Books has been upheld, hopefully instituting clearer methods of organizing their vast content set will become prioritized.

Everybody’s favorite U.S. Supreme Court blog, SCOTUSblog, recently released an accompanying iOS app. At this point, the app’s main feature is to display the blog entries from the SCOTUSblog site, enabling on-the-go attorneys an easy method of staying abreast of the latest happenings at our nation’s court of last resort. Users have the ability to turn on iPhone push notifications, so, whenever a new blog entry is posted to SCOTUSblog, app users will be instantaneously alerted. The app also enables users to sort and view SCOTUSblog entries into the following categories: featured, round-up, breaking news, and editor’s notes. Lastly, users can use the app as a middleman to jump into SCOTUSblog’s twitter feed. To be clear, this app doesn’t contain content beyond what can be found on the SCOTUSblog site; rather, the point of the app is to quickly connect SCOTUSblog fans to the content of the blog via their mobile devices. With that said, Andrew Hamm of SCOTUSblog has stated new improvements and features will be regularly rolled out to the app, so it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on.

OverDrive appears to have established the format of how to distribute eBooks in a public library environment. To oversimplify their business model, OverDrive is essentially the digital middle man between publishers and libraries. Think of them as the library iTunes of the eBook world; libraries who use OverDrive can offer their patrons access to an enormous library of eBook titles. OverDrive takes care of all the content management and collection development issues, and grants portal access to libraries who contract with them. On the other side of the fence, publishers upload their content directly into OverDrive, which enables a library to purchase the publisher’s titles.

LexisNexis Digital Library is a pairing between Lexis’s treatises and OverDrive’s electronic library management system. Essentially, LexisNexis supplies the content, and OverDrive manages the method of distribution. The patron, then, has access to a number of Lexis-published eBook titles that can be accessed via popular eReaders (Kindle, iOS, Sony Reader, Nook), various operating systems (Windows PC, Mac), and differing mobile device operating systems (Android, iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Phone). The library, notably, purchases licenses for the eBooks. One license means only one copy of the eBook is accessible; once a patron has checked out that one copy, no other patron can access the eBook until it is returned. A library can purchase multiple eBook licenses, if they believe a particular title will be popular enough to have concurrent users. After a due date has elapsed, the eBook is automatically returned, and becomes available to the next patron.

Again, to emphasize, the LexisNexis Digital Library treats eBooks like physical books, availability of titles is limited by licenses: “In addition to simultaneous access to many titles for multiple users, users may also check out multiple copies of the same eBook depending on how many copies the library purchases” (from LexisNexis’s April 12, 2012 press release). OverDrive’s license-limiting model has been successful in public libraries, an environment of multiple publishers and huge patron bases, but does this arrangement successfully work in law libraries? Does firm size/patron-base affect the success of implementing LexisNexis Digital Library? How do patrons respond to eBook availability?

We’re still in the era of observing how the big vendors are wrestling with distributing eBooks. LexisNexis’s pairing with OverDrive offers a particularly unique approach to this issue.

Different distribution models are being pursued in the eBook app market. Oyster, a brand new eBook app, is using a subscription-based model similar to Netflix or Spotify; the Oyster user pays a monthly subscription ($10 per month), which enables the user to download and read as many eBooks as they desire. Exploration and discovery are emphasized in the app: the app’s home page enables users to easily browse, every book has a “related” tab that shows users similar titles, there are a number of curated and edited booklists, and there’s a social media/Oyster community component enabling users to see what titles their friends like. Content is one of the big questions, though, among the big publishers, HarperCollins’s books are available on Oyster.

OverDrive Media Console’s distribution model is to offer eBooks to patrons for free, but limits how many users can simultaneously access a particular title. In OverDrive’s model, a user’s local public library determines what content is available by purchasing licenses to individual eBook titles. How many licenses the library purchases determines how many copies of the eBook are available to patrons. Just like their physical counterparts, if a patron discovers the eBook they are interested in is currently checked out, they will not be able to access it immediately; the user can place a hold on it for future access. The app isn’t as attuned to exploration and discovery as the Oyster app; there are new book and curated book lists, but the app is more centered on catalog searching.

The classic model of eBook distribution is the reader pays for the eBook they wish to read on a book-by-book basis, and uses the eBook app tied to the marketplace they used to make the purchase. Books purchased on Amazon are read on the Kindle app, Barnes & Noble purchases are read on the Nook app, and iTunes Store purchases are read on the iBooks app.

These distribution models, of course, are centered on the consumer eBook industry, but what type of format will be the most successful in the legal eBook industry? How much carryover will there be? OverDrive is already instituted with Lexis eBooks—which we’ll cover on Thursday, but would an Oyster-like subscription-model be successful? How could a law library fit in to the more direct-to-consumer models, like Amazon’s, Barnes & Noble’s, and iTunes’s?

Update: Scribd has just announced the release of their own Oyster-like eBook subscription model. More can be read on this here and here.