Thanks! But what you didn’t include was the wealth of information, ideas, and foresight that unpublished opinions provide for lawyers. Judges telecast their views with abandon in unpublished opinions, you can see opposing counsel’s prior positions, and get a sense of where the law is going.

Glad to know that you enjoyed the article….I write a monthly column in the Cal. Bar Journal and have for 5 years (on anything from Gandhi to surfing the internet)…. Something new will be coming in the GPSolo on inadvertent facsimiles…
Very Best
Diane Karpman

Thanks! But what you didn’t include was the wealth of information, ideas, and foresight that unpublished opinions provide for lawyers. Judges telecast their views with abandon in unpublished opinions, you can see opposing counsel’s prior positions, and get a sense of where the law is going.

Glad to know that you enjoyed the article….I write a monthly column in the Cal. Bar Journal and have for 5 years (on anything from Gandhi to surfing the internet)…. Something new will be coming in the GPSolo on inadvertent facsimiles…
Very Best
Diane Karpman

Thank you for the cite, Priscilla.  Any chance the article is online?

Thank you for the cite, Priscilla.  Any chance the article is online?

Perhaps of interest in terms of the Rule 11 aspect – law review article concerning Rule 11 sanctions for failure to conduct competent legal research:

Marguerite L. Butler, Rule 11 – Sanctions and a Lawyer’s Failure to Conduct Competent Legal Research, 29 CAP. U. L. REV. 681 (2002).

Perhaps of interest in terms of the Rule 11 aspect – law review article concerning Rule 11 sanctions for failure to conduct competent legal research:

Marguerite L. Butler, Rule 11 – Sanctions and a Lawyer’s Failure to Conduct Competent Legal Research, 29 CAP. U. L. REV. 681 (2002).

I agree, David. I think the point is that it’s important for lawyers to take advantage of the fact that computer-assisted research may provide them with recent, up-to-date information not available via a manual search. As computer-obsessed as I am, I usually start my research projects in the library, and finish up in front of the PC, in order to get the latest information. But let’s extend the argument a bit. Let’s say that an opposing party has a dirty little secret, or there’s information out there that would give your client an advantage in a particular lawsuit. Say that information is readily available online, for free (or cheap). “Should a lawyer’s obligation go that far?”

I agree, David. I think the point is that it’s important for lawyers to take advantage of the fact that computer-assisted research may provide them with recent, up-to-date information not available via a manual search. As computer-obsessed as I am, I usually start my research projects in the library, and finish up in front of the PC, in order to get the latest information. But let’s extend the argument a bit. Let’s say that an opposing party has a dirty little secret, or there’s information out there that would give your client an advantage in a particular lawsuit. Say that information is readily available online, for free (or cheap). “Should a lawyer’s obligation go that far?”

All good points, Carolyn.  Those of us lucky enough to be on the cusp between “manual” and computerized legal research are in an enviable position, because we can indeed pick and choose the best mix — using judgment well is, of course, the sign of a good lawyer.  I think Karpman’s points make the most sense in the context of keeping up to date on the very latest developments in law and fact (e.g., an appellate attorney who does not keep updated via computer technology is asking for trouble).   For new areas, I have often found that gaining a quick overview in a book/treatise and then turning to computerized sources works well.

All good points, Carolyn.  Those of us lucky enough to be on the cusp between “manual” and computerized legal research are in an enviable position, because we can indeed pick and choose the best mix — using judgment well is, of course, the sign of a good lawyer.  I think Karpman’s points make the most sense in the context of keeping up to date on the very latest developments in law and fact (e.g., an appellate attorney who does not keep updated via computer technology is asking for trouble).   For new areas, I have often found that gaining a quick overview in a book/treatise and then turning to computerized sources works well.

Was Karpman’s article some kind of joke? The problem these days is that lawyers do not know how to perform manual research, even in situations where it would prove more efficient. For example, I find it much simpler and quicker to page through the annotations in a written USC than to go through the cumbersome process of scrolling down LEXIS or typing in key words (and missing something). And if you work completely online, you may miss treatises or manuals which can give a good overview of the state of the law. In addition, many times, in embarking on a new topic, it’s more efficient to start with a treatise and then research rather than running endless searches on LEXIS.
Carolyn Elefant
elefant@myshingle.com

Was Karpman’s article some kind of joke? The problem these days is that lawyers do not know how to perform manual research, even in situations where it would prove more efficient. For example, I find it much simpler and quicker to page through the annotations in a written USC than to go through the cumbersome process of scrolling down LEXIS or typing in key words (and missing something). And if you work completely online, you may miss treatises or manuals which can give a good overview of the state of the law. In addition, many times, in embarking on a new topic, it’s more efficient to start with a treatise and then research rather than running endless searches on LEXIS.
Carolyn Elefant
elefant@myshingle.com