1. The first essay, “Computerized Legal Databases: An International Survey,” was prepared for the 3d International Conference on Juridical Informatics in Rome, Italy, May, 1983. It was published by the Conference and also reprinted at 11 International Journal of Legal Information 115 (1983). The original paper was updated through June 1984 and published under the title “World Progress Toward the Electronic Law Library: A Survey and Assessment,” in Kenneth Robert Redden, ed., Modern Legal Systems Cyclopedia 9:989–1005 (Buffalo, N.Y.: William S. Hein & Co., 1985). The first two studies were co-authored with Igor I. Kavass.Google Scholar

2. See for example. D.W. Hessler, “The CD-I Standard: A New and More Comprehensive Specification for Information Storage and Retrieval on Compact Optical Discs,” Library High Tech News, No. 26 (April 1986), 14. Sony and Philips have agreed to a standard for disks and players “which permits text, data, and computer programs to be linked together … and be integrated with audio or video information also contained on the [Compact Disc - Interactive] disc.”Google Scholar

3. Lloyd, Michael, Legal Databases in Europe: User Attitudes and Supplier Strategies (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1986), 7-8, 168. This study is Report No. EUR 10439 of the Commission of the European Communities. Directorate-General, Information Market and Innovation, Luxembourg. It was completed in 1985 under contract with the E.E.C. Commission of the European Communities. For comments on limited use of information retrieval in British law firms, see Raper, Diane, “Information Technology in Law Firms,” 17 Law Librarian 26 (April 1986). See also “The Failures of Legal Databases in Europe: A Case Study in Bad Marketing,” Information Market No. 41 (Oct.-Nov. 1985), 8.Google Scholar

4. Worlock, David, “Legal online services: time for a polity shift?” Computers and Law, No. 46 (December 1985), 21.Google Scholar

5. Ibid.Google Scholar

6. Lloyd, Legal Databases in Europe, 5, 7–8.Google Scholar

7. For an interesting and informative account of the rise of legal research in the United States, by someone who was associated with the creation of LEXIS, see William G. Harrington, “A Brief History of Computer-Assisted Legal Research,” 77 Law Library Journal 543 (1984-85).Google Scholar

8. For a detailed review of the problems of and current literature on full-text searching, see Robert C. Herring. “Full-Text Databases and Legal Research: Bac king into the Future,” 1 High Technology Law Journal 27 (1986).Google Scholar

9. Some of the following remarks arc based on telephone conversations between the author and Clare Smith Long, Mead Data Central, and William H. Lindberg, West Publishing Co.Google Scholar

10. West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 616 F. Supp. 1571 (D.C. Minn. 1985), aff'd 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986). cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 962, 93 L.Ed. 1010 (1987).Google Scholar

11. Blair, David and Maron, M.E., “An Evaluation of Retrieval Effectiveness for a Full-Text Document-Retrieval System,” 28 Communications of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) 289 (1985).Google Scholar

12. Coco, Al, “Full-Text vs. Full-Text Plus Editorial Additions: Comparative Retrieval Effectiveness of the LEXIS and WESTLAW Systems,” 4 Legal Reference Services Quarterly 27 (Summer 1984); Daniel P. Dabney, “The Curse of Thamus: An Analysis of Full-Text Legal Document Retrieval,” 78 Law Library Journal 5 (1986); Jo McDermott, “Another Analysis of Full-Text Legal Document Retrieval,” 78 Law Library Journal 337 (1986); Craig E. Runde and William H. Lundberg, “The Curse of Thamus: A Response,” 78 Law Library Journal 345 (1986); Daniel P. Dabney, “A Reply to West Publishing Company and Mead Data Central on ‘The Curse of Thamus,’ “ 78 Law Library Journal 349 (1986); Jon Bing, “Performance of Legal Text Retrieval Systems: The Curse of Boole,” 79 Law Library Journal 187 (1987).Google Scholar

13. 4 Information Today 44 (March 1987).Google Scholar

14. “CD-ROM Leads the Way at ALA,” VII Library Systems No. 2 (Feb. 1987), 9. Not all of the raw capacity can be allocated to data, however. Some space must be used for the commands which make retrieval possible.Google Scholar

15. “DIALOG On Disk ERIC - Information for Everyone,” 15 Chronolog No. 2 (Feb. 1987), 87: 25; 18 AALL Newsletter No. 6 (Feb. 1987). 168; 18 AALL Newsletter No. 7 (March 1987), 215; Library Hi Tech News, No. 25 (March 1986), 4; “Saztec to Computerize British Library Catalogue,” 4 Information Today 20 (March 1987); “WLN Develops Optical Disk Database,” VI Library Systems No. 8 (Aug. 1986), 62.Google Scholar

16. Library High Tech News No. 26 (April 1986), 2; No. 32 (Nov. 1986), 2,4.Google Scholar

17. 18 AALL Newsletter No. 7 (March 1987), 214.Google Scholar

18. Irving, Ginny, “The Use of Optical Disk in Law Libraries,” 6 Legal Reference Services Quarterly 33(1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Rauffman, S. Blair, “Laser Disks' Future in the Law Library,” National Law Journal (Feb. 9, 1987). 15, at 20. Also see “Computers Dominate Forecast of Future Law Librarians,” 15 Syllabus (ABA) 4 (Sept. 1984).Google Scholar

20. Rogers, Michael, “DAT: The Newest Sonic Boon?” Newsweek 66 (Sept. 1, 1986); Barbara Buell, “And You Thought Nothing Could Top Compact Disks,” Business Week 67 (Aug. 11, 1986).Google Scholar

21. American Bar Association, Standards for Approval of Law Schools and Interpretations… (Indianapolis, IN: Office of the Consultant on Legal Education to the American Bar Association, September, 1986). The relevant changes were a new interpretation to Standard 405(b) and revisions of Standards 602 and 603.Google Scholar

22. Morse, Anita L., “Proposed Amendments to the ABA Standards for the Approval of Law Schools,” 78 Law Library Journal 481 (1986).Google Scholar

23. Id., 482, 486.Google Scholar

24. Id., 486-87.Google Scholar

25. Id., 487, 498.Google Scholar

26. Supra note 1.Google Scholar

27. The indexes are produced by Information Access Corporation. See discussion, supra, at ?????????? insert correct page number when paginating ???????????Google Scholar

28. E.g., Chemical Regulation Reporter (BNA), Environmental Reporter (BNA).Google Scholar

29. “OCLC” stands for Online Computer Library Center (Dublin, Ohio). RUN is the electronic database of the Research Libraries Group, Stanford, California.Google Scholar

30. University-wide electronic library systems can threaten the substantial law library autonomy mandated by American Bar Association accreditation standards. “The law school library shall have sufficient administrative autonomy to direct its growth, development and utilization to afford the best possible service to the law school.” “The dean, law librarian, and faculty of the law school shall be responsible for determining library policy, including the selection and retention of personnel, the selection of acquisitions, arrangement of materials and provision of reader services.” See also other sections and Interpretations of Standard 601, American Bar Association Standards for Approval of Law Schools and Interpretations … (September, 1986). See also, Oscar M. Trelles, II, and James F. Bailey, III, “Autonomy, Librarian Status, and Librarian Tenure in Law School Libraries: The State of the Art, 1984,” 78 Law Library Journal 605 (1986). This article is based on answers to a questionnaire which asked, inter alia, “Please comment on any problems or situations which have arisen between the law library and the university library because of any type of automation.” Id., 675. Law libraries may find that they are the servants of a computerized system which, as administered, is not flexible enough to accommodate itself to their practices, and which demands conformity with policies of the arts and science library. Although this is not inevitable, a university library computerized system may give the university library administration the information and leverage needed to impose its will on the previously semi-autonomous law library.Google Scholar

31. For some comments on the changing role of the law librarian, see Robert C. Beiring, “The ‘Stereotypical’ Librarian: A Person Who Exists No More,” National Law Journal 18 (July 14, 1986); John C. Metaxas, “Firm Librarians No Longer Mere Keepers of the Books,” National Law Journal 1 (July 14, 1986); Deborah Panella, “Why Lawyers Shouldn't Conduct Database Searches,” National Law Journal 47 (July 14, 1986).Google Scholar