Tag Archives: LexisNexis

Legal Intelligencer Releases “Best of” Survey; Jenkins Law Library Takes Second for “Online Research Provider”

2015-10-28_JenkinsTrophy

The Legal Intelligencer’s annual “Best of” survey was released today; as usual, the latest edition shines a light on what legal resources attorneys in the Keystone State are using. The survey’s respondents are readers of The Legal Intelligencer, the Philadelphia-based daily law journal that has been operating for more than 150 years.

A big kudos goes out to Jenkins Law Library for taking silver in the “Online Research Provider” category. Attorneys apparently view Jenkins as an “online research provider”; this is emblematic of law librarianship’s shift-to-digital, as well as proof that Jenkins has done an excellent job of adapting to the new, digital norm. Most strikingly, this shows Jenkins has succeeded in changing public perception to view a law library not as just a physical building but as a provider of online researching. Jenkins Law Library took silver to Lexis Advance and Westlaw Next who tied for gold. Bloomberg Law finished third in this category.

Notably, Lexis Nexis took home the gold in a number of categories, including E-Discovery, Online Research Provider, Legal iPad app, Case Management, Time and Billing, and Docketing; clearly, Philadelphia, and Pennsylvania as a whole, is a strong market for Lexis Nexis.

From a macro level, the survey shows the digital transitioning the legal field is strongly experiencing by having so many categories dedicated strictly to software and interfaces. Yet, it also shows that the big publishers have really striven to corner the market on specific, digital offerings (again, see how many categories Lexis Nexis took first in, above). With that said, the results are dotted with smaller companies who specialize in one area of the legal practice (Needles to case management, for example), which at least suggests there is still room for legal tech startups.

What can we glean from the results of the Legal iPad Apps category, where Lexis’s Lexis Advanced HD took gold, WestlawNext for iPad took silver, and Black’s Law Dictionary took bronze? Black’s has great name recognition, but the app is basically an e-book. Is this a sign that iPad use has not gained much traction in the legal profession, given that survey respondents may have just selected a name they knew (over, say, a more robust iPad offering like fastcase), or is this a sign that non-Westlaw and Lexis apps have been unable to penetrate if not the market, then at least public consciousness? Or, on the other hand, is Black’s a perfect iPad app deployment in that it eliminates the need to haul a big book around, and that it costs significantly less ($54.95 for the app, $81.95 for the book) than its hardbound brethren? Again, we seem to still be on the sidelines, waiting to see how legal apps shake out in the marketplace.

New Survey States Associates Lack Advanced Research Skills

LexisWhitePaper

Back from an admittedly ongoing baby detail, I was greeted by a press release in my inbox decrying the state of new attorney readiness. LexisNexis’s Legal & Professional conducted a survey entitled Hiring Partners Reveal New Attorney Readiness for Real World Practice, which found 95 percent of “hiring partners and associates believe law school graduates lack practical skills related to legal research, litigation and transactional practice”. Beyond practical skills, the survey respondents stated young associates especially lacked advanced research skills.

My immediate, knee-jerk reaction to all of this news is: great!

The role of the law firm librarian, of course, is to cover this exact gap. We conduct multiple orientations with new associates, including when they are first introduced to the firm as summer associates and when they eventually get hired. And, during these orientations, it is our explicit goal to show how legal researching is done differently in a law firm environment. But beyond orientations, we are continually answering research questions and advising new associates on the proper directions to take with their research queries. The survey defines advanced researching as “researching more complex legal issues in cases, statutes and regulations, determining strength of validity of primary law, and legislative/administrative intent”–all topics we commonly help our new attorneys research. But, beyond researching, we have to acclimate new associates to the cost structures of conducting research at a firm, cost recovery, subscription versus transactional services, and other hard cost aspects of researching. This survey defines the importance of librarianship in the law firm setting.

The survey posits possible solutions to the problem of unprepared new associates: expand the curriculum of law schools, offer certification programs, and offer workshops, among others. Again, the role of the librarian is central to successfully transition associates from law school to their first professional roles. The survey found new associates spend a mean of 43% of their time conducting legal research, and a robust mean of 12.1 hours using paid online resources. This equates to a significant cost to firms. In fact, the survey states attorneys estimate it costs $19,000 a year to train new associates. The silver lining is: educating new associates on proper researching is big business in law firms, and an area that crucially underscores the librarian’s value to a firm.

Ex-citing News – MLex joins RELX Group

LexisNexis Announces Major Acquisition

BbKeL3yr_400x400MLex, an independent media organization providing exclusive market insight, analysis and commentary on regulatory risk, has found a new home. That’s right, it is soon to be independent no more. According to a new press release, LexisNexis has agreed to acquire this indispensible darling of the regulatory practice. Continue reading

How Legal Apps Rank: Part 1, the Big Publishers

As we have experienced, the large law publishers have certainly devoted time and resources to developing legal apps. But, the big question for us law librarians is do attorneys actually download these apps? Using statistics available via the website App Annie, we can find the categorical rankings of apps, including those designed specifically for attorneys and the practice of law. What do the trends in these statistics tell us about the adoption of large publishers’ legal apps?

App Annie is a site that offers App Store statistics. On App Annie, category rankings charts about apps are available for free to users who register with the site. On a side note, the site has more robust usage analytics that quantify how often an app is actually used (rather than downloaded), however a paid subscription is required to access this information. Lastly, App Annie is worth paying attention to as Sarah Perez of techcrunch recently reported the service recently raised $55 million from investors.

To step back and explain a little methodology: first, I examined just the Apple App store rankings. The information for Google Play, Amazon, and other stores is available on App Annie, but I had to draw the digital line somewhere, and chose to focus specifically on Apple due to its reported more than $10 billion revenue in 2014, which still outduels the lofty revenue numbers reached by Google Play this year (though this is predicted to change by 2018).

And, more detail: the Apple App store categorizes the numerous apps it has—Candy Crush Saga, for example, is in the “Games” category. Importantly, for our purposes, App Annie provides the historical Apple App store categorical rankings of apps–for example, a user can find how often Candy Crush Saga was ranked in the top 5 of the “Games” category. The categorical rankings of these apps are determined by an internal Apple algorithm, though some enterprising bloggers have tried to crack  or game the code. We can presume the store ranks apps higher that have high levels of current downloads–there appears to be an emphasis not only on downloads but on currency as well.

So, how do the statistics for the big publishers’ legal apps look?

WestlawNext

Here is the chart for the WestlawNext app, published by Thomson Reuters:

WestlawNext_better

As can be seen from this “Download Ranks” chart, WestlawNext has consistently performed well in the “Reference” category, even peaking at #9 on Saturday, August 28, 2010, which is near the initial release date of July 12, 2010. However, we can see a recent obvious downward trend, as it is typically ranking in the 100s to 300s in 2015. Also of note, downloads appear to cyclically peak in August and February/March. Here is a graph with closer Y values to emphasize those peaks:

AugustMarch_Peaks_WestlawNext

lexis advance

Here is the chart for the Lexis Advance app, published by LexisNexis:

LexisAdvance_Better

Lexis Advance is categorized under the “Business” category, so unfortunately, we cannot do a categorical head-to-head against WestlawNext. Lexis Advance’s peak ranking is at #151 on December 11, 2011, and it, too, is showing a slight downward trend. Lexis Advance also shows cyclical peaks around August and February/March.

WHAT DO THE RANKINGS MEAN

First, let’s discuss the slight downward trends for both WestlawNext and Lexis Advance. Both Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis were early adopters and developers of these apps: the App Store first opened for business on July 10, 2008, the WestlawNext app was launched July 12, 2010, and the Lexis Advance app was launched Dec. 23, 2010. Both apps ranked relatively high in their respective categories before experiencing a more recent downward trend. So, does the downward trend actually signify waning interest or some other macro variable? One variable to consider is the App Store is much more saturated with competing apps; as of July 2014, there were 1.2 million apps in the App Store, in July of 2010, a date near both the release dates of WestlawNext and Lexis Advance apps, there were 200,000 apps in the store. There could be waning interest, but there are also 6x the competitors in the marketplace now, as well.

Second, what about these cyclical bumps in interest in August and February/March? August and February/March signify the beginning of Fall and Spring semesters for Law School students. This piece of data is really telling: these legal apps are presumably being downloaded by law students; attorneys-to-be clearly have an interest in these technologies. What we can conclude from this is, in private law, librarians can assume newer and summer associates are most likely familiar with or at least cognizant of legal apps. And, academic librarians have a further incentive to remain abreast of these technologies. On the topic of law student adoption of apps, check out the graph on Black’s Law Dictionary–its quite obvious peaks occur every August, again, the beginning of the fall semester:

Blacks_PeaksAugustComing soon, we will examine the legal apps developed by other companies.

iBraryguy Releases “60 Sites in 60 Minutes” List from SLA2014! Who made the cut?

60SitesCapture

It was another big year for “60 Sites in 60 Minutes” at the 2014 Special Libraries Association Annual Conference & INFO-EXPO. Hosted by the Legal Division of SLA and generously sponsored by LexisNexis, the panel once again shared their top picks with a full house. From search sites to news, travel, and even a bit of irreverent fun, there was something for everyone! What sites made the cut? You can find out here. Continue reading

Et tu, ALM? Another Provider Up for Sale.

alm_logo

When the news broke a few days ago that ALM, formerly American Lawyer Media, was going to put up for sale, reaction from legal information professionals seemed subdued at best.  Yet we cannot help but wonder what this means for an industry that is still struggling to find its footing in the wake of one of the worst global economic downturns we have seen in recent generations.  Has the independent legal news and analysis been the biggest victim of the ongoing recession? Continue reading

Small Firms & the Cloud

Lexis’s new research shows small firms trending towards increasingly adopting cloud technology. Lexis surveyed firms of 1-20 attorneys, finding 39.4% of respondents are using cloud services for legal-related work today, with 72.4% of respondents believing law firms will be more likely to consider a could service in 2014. Lexis put together a handy infographic detailing the highlights of the survey here, and the whole survey is available here. Continue reading

Same Content, Different Apps: Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com

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.

The OverDrive Model: How Lexis Approaches eBooks

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.