2007

You are currently browsing the yearly archive for 2007.

Susskind 2.0 digested (4)

16 November 2007 in Future of law

Richard Susskind takes a while to get to his point in the latest extract from his forthcoming book The End of Lawyers?:

The major firms may feel they are beyond the scope of commoditisation and systematisation and that, on bet-the-ranch deals and disputes the legal fees represent but pocket change in the grand scheme. But this is not the attitude I find amongst the general counsel of some of the world’s largest organisations.

These managers are under pressure to reduce their legal budget. And these clients’ loyalty to conventional firms will be limited if new legal businesses emerge that offer quicker, more convenient, lower cost alternatives to low- and high-value work that seem to be more geared to the interests of clients and are more business-like in their constitution.

It’s clear that Web 2.0 offers ways to produce value and to conduct business more efficiently that were lacking in Web 1.0 which was used to automate the repetitive but not much more. When looking at the prospects for high-end work, “commoditisation” and even “systematisation” are probably not the key words on which to focus: law is a knowledge business, so instead think “collaboration” and “collective intelligence” to see where some of the new efficiencies will lie.

Another point I take away from the debate on the Times pages is that a number of commentators blithely ignore the telling question mark at the end of the title The End of Lawyers? Even the Times itself is guilty, asking “Will lawyers still exist in 100 years?” If lawyers are those who do legal work, then the answer is “Of course they will”. But that is not the question and misses the point; the question is rather “What shape will lawyers be in?” Reliance on the fact that there will always be lawyers will not help those lawyers who fail to adapt to the changing landscape.

All Susskind 2.0 extracts digested.

Jumping ship? Sound the last post

13 November 2007 in Blogging

Scott Vine, the Informationoverlord, has a smart new WordPress blog. He uses a stylish theme and a rather fetching graphic for his RSS feed. Although the blog remains at the same address, the feed has a new URL.

What Scott did right is that he posted a final “moving on” item on his old Blogger blog so that subscribers to his feed would be alerted to the move. Any blogger who moves or stops posting should do this: it’s good manners, not to say common sense.

What’s a “legal” search?

8 November 2007 in Search | 1 comment

A couple of big players have recently come out with new “legal” search engines (for the US market).

There is Westlaw’s WebPlus which, “through a combination, it seems, of editorial selection of sites or domains and an algorithm the engine offers to fetch you from the web a better selection of legally interesting results than a simple Google search might do” (per Slaw) and Law.com’s Quest which “draws results from Law.com sites and ALM publications. The broader search includes legal sites and blogs selected by Law.com staff” (per Robert Ambrogi).

To give them a whirl I tried various “mid-stream” searches, for example:

Westlaw WebPlus search for recorded music copyright
Law.com Quest search for recorded music copyright

WebPlus certainly has a nicer, more familiar-feeling interface. There are plenty of results that come from non-legal news etc sites. One assumes though that, by some deft algorithm, the legal sites are ranked higher all other things being equal. Quest seems to limit itself to “legal” sites, some of which are subscription only; the interface I find tacky. More thorough, in-depth study would be needed for a proper review. If any readers have used these search engines, let’s have your comments.

I concur with Bob Ambrogi that the drawback with these (and any other such custom search engine) is that, unless you know which sites and blogs they index, you are left uncertain of how to interpret the results. We’ve become used to Google etc searching everything, and to how it ranks results, so when someone says “Here’s a legal search engine that gives you more relevant results”, you go “Whoa! I really want to know what you are searching (and what you are not searching) and how you are ranking the results before I’ll swallow your line.”

Incidentally, I plugged recorded music copyright into my Google CSE, Blawgle, which was literally knocked up in minutes (plus a few more minutes from time to time to supplement the list of sites). What is it searching? All UK blawgs. How is it ranking results? Unadulterated Google. Strikes me that despite (or maybe because of) its limited scope it may be more immediately useful than WebPlus or Quest.

WebPlus also very prudishly told me it had no results for sex.

Holmes way bigger than Charon

7 November 2007 in Fun | 5 comments

Bigger even than Jupiter.

Comet Holmes is exploding and its coma, a cloud of gas and dust illuminated by the sun, has grown to be bigger than the planet Jupiter.

Meanwhile Pluto’s moon Charon is a mere 1,210 kilometers across.

Susskind 2.0 digested (3)

5 November 2007 in Future of law

Extracted from the third Times Online extract from The End of Lawyers?

Lawyers, like the rest of humanity, face the threat of “disintermediation” (broadly, being cut out of some supply chain) by smart systems; and, as in other sectors, if they want to survive, their focus should be on re-intermediating – that is, on finding news ways of invaluably inserting themselves in supply chains. This will lead, I believe, to the emergence of what I call “legal hybrids”: individuals of multi-disciplinary background, whose training in law will have evolved and dovetail with a formal education in one or more other disciplines. …

If lawyers want to re-invent themselves and carve out new multi-disciplinary roles that allow them to deliver new value, then their commitment to these neighbouring areas of expertise must be deep and our law schools should be gearing up accordingly. In this way, we will also formally be equipping lawyers of the future with the tools and knowledge to solve business problems and not just legal problems.

I am not suggesting that there will be no call for the traditional legal expert. I am saying there will be less call for these individuals, because new ways of satisfying legal demand will evolve and old inefficiencies will be eliminated.

All Susskind 2.0 extracts digested.

Web 2.0 for lawyers

5 November 2007 in Articles, Law 2.0

A much-extended version of this article was published September 2007 in the Legal Web e-book on Legal Information and Web 2.0. This version published November 2007 in the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

What is Web 2.0?

The phrase “Web 2.0” was coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2003 and refers to the way software developers are now using the web as a platform for delivering applications to end users and the consequent transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality. It is often referred to as the “participatory web” or the “read/write” web which exploits the many-to-many potential of the internet, connecting individuals to each other. This contrasts with Web 1.0, the “read-only” web of information sources and transactional sites that streamline one-to-many services between producers and consumers.

For a service to be perceived as Web 2.0, the key attribute is that it should enable user participation: both contribution by users and sharing, collaboration or networking between users. Consequently these services are also referred to as being “social” – as in the terms “social software”, “social networks” and so on.

Following are some of the dominant services generally regarded as epitomising Web 2.0.

Blogs are online journals published in a particular format: the home page presenting most recent items (called “posts”) and archive pages presenting collections of past posts, typically by month and category. User contributions are enabled via comments to individual posts.

Wikis are collaborative websites whose pages can be created and edited directly on the web by anyone with access to the wiki. The best known is Wikipedia, with 2 million articles in English currently published. But wikis can be used for the collaborative development of any type of publication – from encyclopedic projects, through dictionaries, text books and other reference works, to individual documents such as draft contracts and policy documents, agendas and so on.

Social networking services focus on the building and verifying of online networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. They provide a collection of ways for users to interact, such as chat, messaging, email, video, voice chat, file sharing, blogging and discussion groups.

Social bookmarking is a way for internet users to store, classify, share and search internet bookmarks. The best known service is del.icio.us.

File sharing has been a feature of the internet for many years, pre-dating Web 2.0, initially used for the “sharing” of recorded music and software programs. Now photo sharing services such as Flickr offer a convenient platform for storing archives of digital photographs, for sharing these with friends and showcasing work, and video sharing services such as YouTube host video clips and primarily provide entertainment.

Virtual worlds are computer-based simulated environments in which users interact via “avatars”, ie two- or three-dimensional graphical representations of humanoids. Initially most commonly used for so-called massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) such as World of Warcraft, virtual worlds are now increasingly used to mirror real-life interactions. Popular examples are Club Penguin and Second Life.

The web as a platform

The participation and collaboration on Web 2.0 sites is made possible because the web is used as a “platform” – ie programs run, and databases are stored, on servers on the internet; anyone can access them from anywhere, and connect and interact with anyone else on the same network, using just a web browser.

In addition to the classic Web 2.0 services indicated above, there are many other services which seek to replace and improve on the commonly-used, single-user or locally-networked office applications. Although they currently lack some of the functionality of their desktop counterparts, these services are attractive as they are available from anywhere and accommodate collaboration and sharing. For example, Google’s Docs & Spreadsheets is a web-based word processor and spreadsheet application which allows users to create and edit online while collaborating in real-time with other users.

Closely related is the term “software as a service” (SaaS) – the model whereby a software vendor hosts and operates an application for use by its business customers using the web as a platform. Customers pay not for owning the software itself but for using it. SaaS is typically seen as a low-cost way for businesses to obtain the benefits of commercially-licensed, internally-operated software without the associated complexity and high capital costs. It is, if you like, the closed, “business end” of Web 2.0. Typical examples of SaaS applications are customer relationship management, video conferencing, human resources, accounting and email.

Tools and techniques

There are many different tools, techniques and technologies that contribute to the functionality of Web 2.0 sites. Here are some of the key ones that are used in many applications and are most responsible for the rapid development of new services.

RSS (Really Simple Syndication / Remote Site Syndication) is a family of standard XML data formats used to publish “feeds” of latest information from news sites, blogs and other databases. A feed contains headlines and links to latest items and either excerpts or the full text of the items. RSS makes it possible for users to keep abreast of developments in an automated manner using a feed reader or aggregator. RSS feeds can also be readily incorporated into others’ web pages, enabling third party sites to publish live information syndicated from the publisher’s site.

Tags are simply keywords or terms associated with or assigned to pieces of information or items. Tags are used in most Web 2.0 services to categorise items and are usually chosen informally and personally by the author, creator or consumer of the item.

Folksonomies are user-generated taxonomies created from tags. Folksonomies are intended to make a body of information increasingly easy to search, discover and navigate over time.

AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a technique used for creating interactive web applications which avoids the need for entire web pages to reload each time users request a change.

APIs (application programming interfaces) are interfaces that enable programs to use facilities provided by other programs.

Mashups are web applications that combine data from more than one source into an integrated experience. The most common implementations are those built using Microsoft, Google, eBay, Amazon, Flickr and Yahoo APIs. For example, OnOnemap overlays details of properties for sale and other local amenities onto Google Maps.

Trackback is a method by which web authors can request notification when somebody links to one of their documents. Trackbacks are used primarily to facilitate communication between blogs.

What’s in it for lawyers?

Inevitably, Web 2.0 has spawned numerous industry-specific buzzwords: “Gov 2.0” is Web 2.0 in the context of government, “Library 2.0” is Web 2.0 as it relates to librarianship, and of course “Law 2.0” is Web 2.0 for lawyers.

What relevance does Web 2.0 have for lawyers and the provision of legal information? In short, it enables lawyers, as much as others, to collaborate effectively, learn from each other, network, serve themselves and cut out the middle man.

Web 2.0 and its offshoots as represented on Dion Hinchcliffe’s Web 2.0 Blog

Collaboration

Most lawyers do now use technology to work together on documents, projects and cases, and they increasingly use the internet to share documents, videoconference and so on.

The benefits of collaboration have become clearer to lawyers as the use of free and low-cost Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis and the many other online office applications has proliferated. At the same time, their clients are using technology to collaborate and expect them to follow; in some areas (IT/IP in particular), they may even be expected to lead.

Knowledge acquisition and sharing

Law is a knowledge business. Web 2.0 tools such as RSS feeds, social bookmarks, blogs and wikis provide extremely efficient and effective means to gather information and harness and distribute collective knowledge.

Social and business networking

Web 2.0 effortlessly connects users to users – the many to the many. Social networks such as Facebook and Linkedin and the networked communities that evolve through blogging provide effective ways to keep in touch with those of like interests and to expand business networks.

Marketing

To give just some examples, blogs provide an effective, low-cost way to establish individual lawyers as thought leaders in their fields and to promote the expertise of firms and chambers; video sharing on YouTube or podcasting can spread recorded marketing messages virally at no cost once the recording is made; and a presence in a virtual world such as Second Life can operate as an effective complement to a real life shop front.

Outsourcing

Many in-house office functions can be outsourced via the web using “software as a service”, replacing high capital and maintenance costs with low monthly fees for everything from email hosting to human resources management.

Legal information services

Web 2.0 is rapidly changing the playing field in most spheres of publishing, and law publishing is no exception. For example:

  • Blogs enable individual lawyers or small groups easily to publish news and comment and showcase their expertise. Many bloggers are establishing themselves as leaders in their fields and winning attention previously focused on commentators in the traditional media.
  • RSS feeds deliver constantly-updated latest information from government, blogs and news sites, in many cases, in aggregate, reducing the appeal of conventional current awareness services.
  • Wikis are effective collaborative publishing tools with many advantages over more conventional publishing systems.

And of course there is now a vast corpus of free public sector information to tap into.

Web 2.0 has the potential for individuals and small players in concert to upset the law publishing status quo. At present LexisNexis, Westlaw and other specialist law publishers win and retain business not just because they provide comprehensive access to up-to-date law, but because of their valuable added commentary and other features. The freeing up of legal information will begin to have significant impact when Web 2.0’s potential for leveraging and adding value to that information is better understood. How best to marry the increasing amount of independent commentary from the web with newsfeeds and comprehensive and up-to-date public access source materials is the challenge of “Law Publishing 2.0”.

Dear Publisher – we want RSS now!

2 November 2007 in Feeds, Law publishing | 9 comments

Following is an open letter to all UK law publishers asking for RSS feeds to be provided for new title information. Publishers please respond! Librarians etc please give your support via comments and links to this post. Follow later developments via the Feeds category or on lo-fi librarian’s Facebook group.

Dear Publisher

You may be aware that there is a gathering campaign amongst law librarians and other interested parties for the provision of RSS feeds for new title information from the UK law publishers. This is now increasingly common practice from our friends across the pond and elsewhere.

Law librarians and booksellers rely on your new book/release information for the efficient conduct of their business. Yet this information is currently provided by you most inefficiently and ineffectively – at best monthly, and usually via email alerts attaching spreadsheets, PDFs and the like. It should not need pointing out that RSS now provides a much more efficient and effective alternative to this 20th century modus operandi.

Setting up RSS feeds for your new title information is not difficult, nor costly. It requires some know how, but more importantly it requires an imperative. The imperative is this: by providing your new title information via RSS you will make the jobs of law librarians and booksellers much easier and more productive; your information will come to their attention earlier and more reliably; you will earn their gratitude and loyalty; and you will sell more product more easily.

The information required is held by you in your publications catalogue; all that is needed is for you to extract the appropriate selection by date, sort it in date order and format it according to one of the RSS standards. Designing this process is no more difficult than was designing the process used for displaying the titles by category lists which you provide on your website. Help is available!

An example of the type of feed we’re looking for is provided on the infolaw site.

Below are the types of information we would find most valuable:

Forthcoming publications
Latest publications
Latest looseleaf releases
Latest journal issues

We urge you to take this on board, respond and implement RSS.

Yours sincerely

Nick Holmes – publishing consultant (and trade reseller)
lo-fi librarian – law librarian
UK Law Librarians for RSS
and all those who have signified their support in the comments below

50 plus?

31 October 2007 in Social networking

As we approach the closing hours of the month, I feel I should post something that is worthy of heading my October 2007 archive. It is this:

There are only 227,220 men and women between 35 and 60 on Facebook in the UK.

SagaZone to the rescue!

Blogs v websites (with RSS)

30 October 2007 in Blogging, Feeds

Banging on about the benefits of blogs is not the sole preserve of Binary Law. Kevin O’Keefe, leading US champion of blogs for lawyers, does it constantly and persuasively. Today he succinctly summarises why large law firm blogs beat law firm websites with RSS feeds.

Campaign for law publishers’ RSS feeds

30 October 2007 in Feeds

Steve Matthews of Stem shows “how useful RSS can be outside the personal reader” with LegalPubs.ca, “a one stop showcase of the products offered by Canadian legal publishers”.

Using RSS technology, I have mixed the 10 latest items for each of the publishers … Each entry is passed along unmodified from the publisher’s original feed, and simply sorted by date to produce a “dynamic watchable list” of the latest products available. The main page of the site also includes the linked headlines for each feed as an individual source.

What Steve demonstrates is close to the heart of anyone convinced of the power of “free” information. By “free” here I don’t mean (necessarily) free to air, but free in the sense that it is published in open standards (or as web services) to suit the needs of those requesting it.

Understandably, most publishers are currently vexed by the question how best to exploit their proprietary information: how much to give away and how much to lock up behind subscription paywalls. But where there are no proprietorial issues, there is no sense in being proprietorial. New book information is promotional information the publishers want to circulate as widely as possible. So long as such information is not free, ie remains locked up in the publishers’ own formats (their own web pages, spreadsheets, pdfs etc), as is the case with all UK law publishers, it is of very limited value. Unlock it by publishing it as RSS feeds like the good folks in Canada and people like Steve and me will pick up the ball and run with it, developing innovative services that do more for the publisher than the publisher could ever do themselves.

Update: To add your voice to a Campaign for UK Law Publishers’ RSS Feeds, post a comment on the subsequent Dear Publisher post and join lo-fi’s Facebook group.

« Older entries § Newer entries »