Review of a Literature:
The Information Needs and Information Usage Habits of Lawyers
Jamie Wilson
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps it is not always classified as such, but the law is fundamentally
an information profession (Wilkinson, 2001).
While it is true, of course, that arguing cases in court, preparing
briefs, and writing opinions are important, specific aspects of a lawyer’s
job; essentially, her work consists of interpreting and disseminating
information on behalf of her clients (Wilkinson).
So it follows that the information use and seeking habits of lawyers is
fairly well documented. What may
not be expected though, is that an analysis of this literature reveals a
profession that is hardly comfortable with information and has yet to develop
universal standards for information seeking, use, delivery, or storage in
practice or training (Wilkinson; Cohen,
1969; Jacob, 1972; Eisenschitz
& Walsh, 1995; Scarlett, 1997; Goldblatt,
1986; Schwabach, 1997; Kuhlthau
& Tama, 2001).
This review examines some the research that has been done on the information use of lawyers and focuses specifically on the various types of information they require, the characteristics of the sources they draw upon, and the pros and cons of the two primary formal methods in which attorneys access information: digitally and in print (Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Jacob identified two general types of information
needs for lawyers. There is the
need for information regarding the particulars of the case at hand, as well as
the need for information regarding the applicable rules of law in each case.
This latter type of need, which usually calls for an attorney to engage
in formal legal research to find the information he requires, has been the
traditional focus of LIS studies regarding lawyers (Wilkinson,
2001). However, Wilkinson
identified an important additional need: the need for information regarding the
day-to-day operation and administration of a law firm.
In her writing, Wilkinson contends that this is
the most pressing and frequently required type of information for the legal
professional.
Whichever type of information an attorney may require in a given circumstance, the sources she might consult can typically be described as being formal or informal as well as internal or external (Wilkinson, 2001). Formal sources of legal information include textbooks, journals, and digital tools, such as the LEXIS and WESTLAW databases, as well as other published materials, while informal sources of information might include the knowledge of colleagues, friends, and family (Wilkinson). Likewise, internal information sources are those formal or informal sources that are accessible from within an attorney’s firm or practice: a private library collection, a trusted colleague down the hall, as well as the Internet or other digital tools that a professional may access from her PC, for example. External sources, on the other hand, are those sources which lawyer would have to visit an outside library or professional resource center to access (Wilkinson). The literature indicates that lawyers, like other information seekers, prefer to consult informal, internal sources for information whenever possible (Wilkinson; Jacob, 1972; Eisenschitz & Walsh, 1995; Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001).
Despite being a preferred source, specific research on the use of
informal sources of information by lawyers is scant.
Perhaps this is due to the subjective, fluid nature of person-to-person
information exchange. The use of formal sources of information in the legal
profession is well documented, however, and these formal sources are typically
accessed in one of two ways: digitally or in print (Kuhlthau
& Tama, 2001). Each of
these access methods has been characterized positively as well as negatively in
the literature. In this review, the
negative aspects of each will be explored first.
Print resources are the mainstay of legal research, even though the
dynamic and human nature of the law makes them particularly ill suited for use
in the profession (Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001; Jacob,
1972; Cohen, 1969).
Jacob noted that the law is an enormous, constantly
changing entity. In the United
Kingdom, in a given year, he found that on average nearly 36.8% of the laws
adopted by Parliament would be changed or abridged before the end of that same
year. This left the lawyer, his
assistant, or a law librarian with the difficult and time-consuming task of
updating records manually, often by attaching notes on self-adhesive paper next
to the law in question. Monthly and
quarterly updates are available but synthesizing this information from various
sources is extraordinarily difficult and time consuming (Jacob,
1972; Cohen, 1969).
Jacob wrote that many lawyers find that the simplest
way to get clarification on a given law is to simply pick up the phone and call
the applicable government agency and ask! Writing
twenty-nine years later, Wilkinson found that
surprisingly little has changed and that most lawyers will still opt for a
personal, informal source of information over a printed resource.
Goldblatt reported that a possible cause for the
low use of print resources was the lack of interest they receive by law
students, who subsequently enter the workforce ill-equipped to utilize them
effectively. In his study, Goldblatt
found that only 62.2% of the periodicals and journals at the Washington
University Freund Law Library were consulted over a one-year period.
So it might be reasonable to expect that an attorney’s fairly negative
view of print resources would foster a more positive approach to digital
information, but in fact, that is not the case.
Scarlett, writing in 1997, found that many
lawyers and law librarians were reluctant to fully embrace digital resources,
particularly the Internet. Even so
late in the technological/communications revolution of the 1990s, many
respondents in Scarlett’s study expressed discomfort
with the technology itself and a hesitancy to adopt changes, although they might
ultimately make their work easier and more effective.
This finding may not simply be a case of technophobia, however. Writing in 1972, Jacob predicted that
computerization could make an attorney’s research more, not less, difficult,
due primarily to the tremendous volume of case law and the potential for too
much recall. Jacob
suspected that perhaps omitting the vast majority of obsolete and presumably
irrelevant case law would be a good thing, and recent user studies seem to add
credence to his suspicion. Kuhlthau
and Tama report that lawyers find that database searching is too
restrictive, yields too many unnecessary results, and requires the searcher to
be overly specific in his search language.
This finding, of course, begs questions as to the quality of the
lawyer’s training in digital searching.
Not surprisingly, the literature does indeed suggest that law schools
currently produce graduates who lack effective digital searching skills (Craig,
1991; Schwabach, 1997). The prohibitive cost of accessing many digital databases is
the primary reason that so few law students receive adequate training in digital
searching techniques. Craig
reported, that at the time of his study, academic law librarians were hesitant
to instruct students in digital searching because they were concerned that
students would grow accustomed to the wealth of digital information and run-up
excessive access fees. Many
academic law librarians also felt that graduates should learn this skill on the
job, when employers would finance their learning (Craig). For many graduates though, employment with a large,
well-funded firm is not realistic and these lawyers will be unprepared to serve
their clients through the utilization of digital information resources (Craig).
In a later study, Schwabach concluded that
students who do have unlimited, free access to WESTLAW, as well as receive
WESTLAW vendor training, are still unprepared to effectively search digital
sources. Schwabach
urges greater integration of electronic research techniques into the law
curriculum.
Schwabach’s study did, however, point out the
enormous popularity of digital resources. Students
were willing to spend hours searching digitally, rather than use print
resources, even though they may simply be “floundering,” and failing to
retrieve adequate information (Schwabach, 1997). Other, less formal, sources of digital information,
such as email and news lists, are also exceedingly popular among attorneys (Scarlett,
1997; Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001).
What is apparent in the literature is that despite the many pitfalls and
disadvantages of digital information sources they remain popular, especially
among younger lawyers, and a great deal of hopefulness is reserved for their
improved functionality and efficacy in the near future (Kuhlthau
& Tama). Until these
digital tools are able to meet the needs of attorneys, though, Kuhlthau
and Tama contend that print will remain the resource of choice for
experienced professionals working on complex issues.
The greatest advantage of print resources is the possibility for
accidental discoveries, what one respondent in Kuhlthau and
Tama’s study referred to as, “finding Kevin while looking for George.”
This issue of context seems to be the core advantage of print over
digital information sources for lawyers. Many
find that the specificity required in keyword searching is simply too
restrictive to be effective in legal research and that print searching is
usually quicker and easier (Kuhlthau & Tama).
This is particularly true for lawyers working on the most complex cases,
where a greater degree of creativity is required (Kuhlthau
& Tama). Simple matters,
requiring only the verification of a few known cases can easily be handled with
an electronic resource, but a tough case, one in which an attorney may not even
know where to begin his search, is perhaps best handled by pouring over all the
applicable case law in print, cross referencing, and hoping that a previously
unknown connection or unseen pattern emerges (Kuhlthau &
Tama).
This debate that circulates throughout the LIS literature on lawyers between print and digital resources runs a bit foul of the core issues though, according to Wilkinson. Her study, likely the most sophisticated and original of the writings examined here, contends that legal research itself is fairly unimportant in an overall analysis of the information needs of lawyers. Legal research, searching case law and precedent, while indeed a part of a lawyer’s activities is less an expression of an information need than simply the professional exercise of verifying facts and information on behalf of a client. A lawyer’s professional information needs, Wilkinson contends, tend to be more administrative in nature. How does one handle the day-to-day inner-workings of a law firm? When should one hire new a paralegal? How does one handle a dispute between partners? These are the most pressing and frequently encountered information needs of attorneys (Wilkinson, 2001). There are, of course, both print and digital resources that could answer these questions adequately, but more often than not, lawyers experiencing such an information need will turn to the informal, internal sources of information that are almost always preferred (Wilkinson).
CONCLUSION
In terms of legal research, the law, as a profession, has yet to meet its own information needs (Cohen, 1969; Jacob, 1972; Eisenschitz & Walsh, 1995; Schwabach, 1997; Wilkinson, 2001; Kuhlthau & Tama, 2001; Goldblatt, 1986; Craig, 1991). Laws are unwieldy, constantly changing and not particularly well suited to print documentation (Jacob). However, current standards of training and technology make digital information sources even more problematic (Scarlett; Craig; Schwabach). Perhaps in the future, digital sources that allow for greater flexibility and less specificity, without sacrificing speed or ease of use will be developed to meet the needs of both lawyers and law students exploring the most complex legal issues (Craig; Kuhlthau & Tama). This is an area that is prime for further study and the precise nature of a lawyer’s needs and the exact level of specificity she might be comfortable with must be discovered and applied to system design.
In terms of professional information needs, however, the law is very well adapted (Wilkinson). Law is a professional with a long history of cooperation and collaboration in which professionals have learned to depend on one another as well as work through various professional associations to solve their day-to-day problems and meet those more mundane but certainly more numerous administrative information needs (Jacob; Wilkinson).
An understanding of the information needs of lawyers requires knowledge of these two distinct types of requirements and the ability to view the profession holistically, as a field that requires a practitioner to concurrently satisfy information needs of several types for multiple purposes. At a given time, a lawyer may be an information professional working for a client, a searcher hoping to unlock a complex matter, or part of an administrative team in a business setting, and to grasp her information needs the LIS researcher must be in tune with these various roles and their characteristics.
REFERENCES
Jacob,
R. (1972). Information problems and
the law. Information Scientist,
6, 3-13.
Cohen,
M. (1969). Research habits of
lawyers. Jurimetrics Journal, 9,
183-194.
Goldblatt,
M. (1986). Current legal
Periodicals: a use study. Law
Library Journal, 78, 56-72.