Koops: Criminal Law and Cyberspace as a Challenge for Legal Research

Professor Dr. Bert-Jaap Koops of Tilburg University Institute of Law, Technology, and Society has published Criminal law and Cyberspace as a Challenge for Legal Research, SCRIPTed 9(3), article 254 (2012).

Here is the abstract:

The Internet transforms crime and crime-fighting, which has fundamental implications for the law and legal research. Since online and offline activities are seamlessly integrated, cybercrime is no longer a specialist field but affects the core of 21st-century criminal law. The transformation of crime exposes gaps in substantive and procedural criminal law, creating three types of challenges. First, regulatory challenges, e.g., how to deal with sovereignty and jurisdiction conflicts in borderless cyberspace. Second, normative challenges, such as value conflicts related to Internet content. Third, technological challenges, related to secure computing and value-sensitive design. The interplay of these challenges should lie at the heart of criminal-law research in the cyberspace age.

Classic legal research often addresses problems in a one-dimensional manner: the law is taken as a given and then applied to a societal issue, or a social development is used to argue why and how the law should change. However valuable such research can be, legal research needs to factor in the role that technology increasingly plays in law and society, as well as the process of the mutual shaping of regulation, technology, and society. This calls for multidisciplinary research aiming for prudent solutions to regulatory problems. If criminal law is to stay abreast of the 21st century challenges of crime permeated by cyberspace, dogmatic understanding of the criminal law system itself no longer suffices. Rather, researchers need to be well-versed in regulation theory, adopting concepts like the regulatory tool-box and multi-level governance, to meet the challenges of globally, digitally networked crime.

Siems and Mac Sithigh on Mapping Legal Research

Professor Dr. Mathias M. Siems of Durham University Law School and Dr. Daithi Mac Sithigh of University of Edinburgh School of Law have published Mapping Legal Research, Cambridge Law Journal, 71(3): 651-676 (2012).

Here is the abstract:

This article aims to map the position of academic legal research, using a distinction between “law as a practical discipline”, “law as humanities” and “law as social sciences” as a conceptual framework. Having explained this framework, we address both the “macro” and “micro” level of legal research in the UK. For this purpose, we have collected information on the position of all law schools within the structure of their respective universities. We also introduce “ternary plots” as a new way of explaining individual research preferences. Our general result is that all three categories play a role within the context of UK legal academia, though the relationship between the “macro” and the “micro” level is not always straight-forward. We also provide comparisons with the US and Germany and show that in all three countries law as an academic tradition has been constantly evolving, raising questions such as whether the UK could or should move further to a social science model already dominant in the US.

The Online Supplement for this paper is available at the following URL:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2097698

Bell on the Future of Legal Research

Professor Dr. John Bell of the University of Cambridge has published The Future of Legal Research, Legal Information Management, 12(4), 314-317 (2012).

Here is the abstract:

This article is based on a presentation given by John Bell at the annual conference of The Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) held in Bristol in September 2012. His talk reflects the immediate challenges facing law schools, academic lawyers and the legal publishing industry in the light of the recent Finch Report and the subsequent response by the Government whereby it has adopted an open access policy to publicly funded research.’

Jondet on Using Zotero for Legal Research and Writing

Dr. Nicolas Jondet of University of Strathclyde School of Law has posted slides of his presentation entitled Entrepôts institutionnels et respect des références internationales de citation numérique, given last week at Journées européennes d’informatique 2012 = European Legal e-Access Conference.

The presentation describes the use of the open source citation management software Zotero for legal research and writing.

For more on Zotero and legal citation, please see Professor Frank Bennett’s site CitationStylist and the posts about Zotero at Legal Informatics Blog.

HT @nicolasjondet

Slides from 2011 ITTIG-CNR Workshop: From Information to Knowledge: On Line Access to Legal Information

Slides have been posted for presentations at From Information to Knowledge: On Line Access to Legal Information, a workshop organised by ITTIG-CNR in conjunction with Festival d’Europa 2011, on 6 May 2011, in Florence, Italy.

Full text of revised versions of many of the papers has been published in: Maria Angela Biasiotti and Sebastiano Faro (Eds.), From Information to Knowledge – Online Access to Legal Information: Methodologies, Trends and Perspectives (IOS, 2011).

Here is a list of the papers presented, with links to slides, abstracts, and revised full text where available:

• Giovanni Sartor, European University Institute: Access to legislation in the semantic web (click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• Cedric Chailloux, Publications Office of the European Union – EUR-Lex Unit: The new EUR-Lex: improvement and redesign (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text, by Els Breedstraet);
• Carol Tullo, The National Archives – Information Policy and Services – UK: Online access to UK legislation: strategy and structure (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• Filippo Donati, University of Florence: Access to legal information in the European Union (Click here for abstract and revised full text);
• G. Boella, L. Humphreys, P. Rossi, and L. van der Torre: Eunomos, a legal document management system based on legislative XML and ontologies (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• K.E. Petersen: Experiences with “Lex Dania Live” (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• B. Bassi: Automatic classification of documents for the Library of the Italian Chamber of Deputies (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• Melih Karakullukçu: Proper treatment of gaps in legal data and in electronic legal research (Click here for abstract and revised full text);
• Marc van Opijnen: European Case-law identifier: a short history and the broad outlook (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• G. Damele, M. Dogliani., A. Mastropaolo, F. Pallante and D.P. Radicioni: On legal argumentation tecniques: towards a systematic approach (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text.);
• D. Bourcier and M. Fernández-Barrera: Challenges regarding legal metadata. IP licensing and management of different cognitive levels in the Web 2.0 (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• G. Peruginelli, D. Tiscornia, G. Greenleaf, A. Mowbray and P. Chung: A comprehensive free access legal information system for Europe (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text);
• R. Caso, P. Guarda and V. Moscon: Open Access to legal scholarship and Open Archives: towards a better future? (Click here for slides; click here for abstract and revised full text).

Cottin: La gestion de la documentation juridique

Stephane Cottin of Secrétariat général du Gouvernement and ADIJ has published La gestion de la documentation juridique (LGDJ 2011).

Here is the publisher’s description:

Trouver l’information juridique pertinente, de façon rapide et économique, est un gage de réussite pour tous les juristes, de l’universitaire, étudiant ou chercheur, au professionnel confirmé, mais aussi pour tous ceux qui, un jour, sont confrontés à un problème de droit. Savoir comment cette information est produite, diffusée et traitée par les différents acteurs de la chaîne de production documentaire (jurisprudence, norme, doctrine) est aussi un moyen de s’approprier les usages et les bonnes pratiques de recherche et d’écriture du droit. Voici les objectifs que ce manuel de gestion de la documentation juridique souhaite remplir, en présentant les méthodes les plus éprouvées ainsi que les plus innovantes de traitement et de recherche de l’information juridique.

HT @NicolasJondet.

New Shecter Project: Open Legal Research

Robb Shecter, creator of OregonLaws.org and WebLaws.org, has announced a new, innovative Q&A site: Open Legal Research.

Davidson on Understanding the Research Habits of Legal Scholars

Professor Stephanie Davidson of the University of Illinois College of Law has published Way Beyond Legal Research: Understanding the Research Process of Legal Scholars, Law Library Journal, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 561-579 (article no. 2010-32). Here is the abstract:

How do legal scholars seek, discover, and manage information while conducting scholarly research? While the methods of legal research have been well-covered in the literature, few studies have explored the habits and practices that legal scholars actually employ when doing scholarly research. For librarians who support scholarly work through collection development, instruction, and personalized services, understanding scholars’ research practices is vital. This article addresses gaps between models of legal research and actual research practices, and urges movement toward an empirically grounded understanding of the research habits of legal scholars in order to bridge some of those gaps.

Hoffmeister on Jurors in the Digital Age

Professor Thaddeus Hoffmeister of the University of Dayton School of Law has posted a paper entitled Jurors in the Digital Age. Here is the abstract:

Improper use of new technology by jurors inside and outside the courtroom has become so pervasive that commentators have coined new phrases to describe it: “Google Mistrials,” the “Twitter Effect,” and “Internet-Tainted Jurors.” Yet, despite the attention garnered, there has been little legal scholarship on this topic. The articles that have touched on the issue primarily focus on the benefits of technology and how it can be harnessed to aid in juror comprehension. This dearth of academic writing may be due in large part to the fact that the Digital Age is fairly new and still evolving and juror misconduct has historically been an under examined area of the law. This article attempts to fill that void by analyzing the detrimental impact of the Digital Age on sitting jurors and whether it can be lessened. While many of the issues examined in this article apply equally to civil cases, the primary focus of this article is on jurors deciding criminal cases.

The article begins, in Part I, by discussing the influence of the Digital Age on juror: (1) research; (2) communications; and (3) privacy. In Part II, the article analyzes possible ways in which to limit the negative impact of new technology on these three areas. While there is no panacea for these problems, this article focuses on several reform measures that could address and possibly reduce the detrimental effects of the Digital Age on jurors. The three proposed remedies are as follows: (1) improving juror instructions; (2) allowing jurors to ask questions; and (3) disclosing juror information to the opposing party. In Part III, the article goes on to examine what might occur if the aforementioned remedies are not implemented or prove ineffective. Specifically, the article suggests that the courts may, in the future, increase juror penalties and limit access to jurors.

As part of the research for this article, this author conducted the first-ever survey (“Jury Survey”) on jury service in the Digital Age. The Jury Survey Questions went to federal judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. The questions focused primarily on juror research but briefly touched upon juror communications and privacy. The purpose of the Jury Survey was twofold: (1) to discover from those who work with the legal system on a daily basis their views on the jury reform proposals suggested by this article; and (2) to learn about other possible reform measures. Of particular note, the Jury Survey Respondents, like this author, believe that improved and updated jury instructions are the best approach to combat online research and improper communications by jurors. In contrast, a significant number of Jury Survey Respondents doubted whether allowing jurors to ask questions would decrease the likelihood of juror research and communications to third parties. This article suggests the opposite and strongly encourages the use of juror questions.

HT @TheJuryExpert.

Justiss on A Survey of Electronic Research Alternatives to Lexis and Westlaw in Law Firms

Laura K. Justiss of Southern Methodist University School of Law Library has posted a working paper entitled A Survey of Electronic Research Alternatives to Lexis and Westlaw in Law Firms, on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Mrs. Justiss conducted a survey of law firm librarians in 2010 that identified electronic research database alternatives to Lexis and Westlaw and ranked them by subscription frequency. The survey included research databases for primary source alternatives; court docket and case information services; secondary sources for topical legal research and legal periodicals; financial, business and news sources; public records; and non-legal and legal-related sources, including intellectual property databases. The survey also generated information regarding suggested or mandated legal research policies in law firms for the use of alternatives to Lexis and Westlaw and examined their applicability to billable and non-billable research. Lastly, it examined the prevalence in firms of flat rate pricing agreements with Lexis, Westlaw or both.

HT Martha Sperry and @uMCLE.