By: Scott P. Stolley, Esq.

“A lawyer without books
would be like a workman
without tools.”
—Thomas Jefferson

I have this dream—a nightmare really—like one of those dreams where you’re trapped in an embarrassing or compromising position. In this dream, I walk into my law firm’s library, and the shelves and books are gone. Instead, I see rows of keyboards and gleaming cathode ray tubes. The computers have staged a coup d’etat.

The Genesis

The young associates in my firm provide the genesis for this dream. They arrive from law school, factory-fresh, eager to work, and we immediately assign them research projects,because new lawyers (understandably) aren’t qualified to do much else. Inevitably, the first thing they want to know is how to access our computer system. Forget the books.

Keyboarding— like snowboarding—is the thing to do among the younger generation. Keyboarding is so prevalent that our library is nearly always empty. When I am researching in the library, I feel as lonely as the Maytag repairman. It’s as though our library has become a sort of chapel—a reverential place for dust to gather. The real action is on some motherboard deep in the bowels of the firm. To combat this keyboarding epidemic, I have learned to detour new associates away from the keyboard and to the bookshelves. On my projects, I usually ask that they go to the books first and to the computer only secondarily. Unfortunately, I often find that this detour doesn’t produce the desired result. You see, I have found that our computer educated law graduates generally lack basic research skills. In their computer dependence, many of them are curiously unable to find law that I know is in the books. They have been seduced into a computer mindset, without learning either basic legal research skills or the limitations of computerized legal research. An example is a recent incident in which I expressed my surprise to an associate who told me that she had not found a case supporting a legal proposition that I wanted to assert. In response to my surprise, she said that she would broaden” her search. This told me all that I needed to know—she had relied solely on the computer.

Research Modes

I graduated from law school in 1981, when computerized legal research was in its infancy. Consequently, I learned traditional research skills, which I honed and polished through various clerkships and the early years of my law practice. Now, as a full-time appellate specialist, I have come to appreciate that the law library is the sun around which my practice revolves. When it comes to legal research, the gravitational pull of the library dominates. But there are different ways to be dependent on the law library. Bryan Garner has described that brief-writers tend to follow one of two modes—what he calls the research mode and the intuitive mode. See Garner, The Winning Brief 25 (1999). Most lawyers use the research mode, where you research first and write later. As Garner describes it, the intuitive mode works in reverse: Some excellent brief-writers, though, work in the intuitive mode. They’ve worked in law for many years, typically, and know its contours pretty well. They are capable of organizing and even drafting a brief without any prior research, confident that there are cases in the books to support what they’re

saying. If you work in this mode, you’ll conceptualize the brief and then write it, andyou’ll find the cases later—often tweaking what you’ve said about the law dependingon what you find in the cases. Id.; see also Posner, “How I Write,” 4 Scribes J. ofLegal Writing 45, 46–47 (1993) (describing the author’s method for writing judicial opinions, which largely follows the intuitive mode).

I tend to combine the two modes. I use the research mode to find the broad outlines if the topic is unfamiliar to me and the intuitive mode to fill in the details or the subsidiary arguments. If, however, I am familiar with the topic, I work more in the intuitive mode. Either way, a first draft of one of my briefs will always lack some of the citations that I need. Often, I’ll ask an associate to find cases to support those legal propositions that lack citations in my draft brief. In every instance, I’m confident that a case is out there, or else I wouldn’t have included the proposition in my draft. Having read thousands of pages of cases, headnotes, digests, annotations, treatises, hornbooks, legal encyclopedias, legal dictionaries, law-review articles, and CLE papers in nearly 22 years of law practice, I know the “contours” of the law, as Garner would say. Robert T. Sloan put it even more pointedly: “I have learned from experience that no matter how strange and fantastic is my own notion of the law, it is safe to assume that somewhere in the reports there will be a decision that will support it.” See Shapiro, The Oxford Dictionary of American Legal Quotations, at 288 (1993).

A Reminder

Several years ago, I allowed an exception to my general policy against computer research, and I was rewarded with a reminder about why I have that general policy. I had asked a new associate to find cases to support two propositions that I was asserting in a draft brief. The first proposition had to do with late filed summary judgment evidence. At the summary judgment hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel had objected to some evidence that my colleague had filed the day before, and the trial judge ruled that he would disregard all late-filed evidence. Yet on appeal, plaintiffs’ counsel cited to some evidence that he had filed after the hearing. I wanted a case stating that plaintiffs’ counsel could not get our late-filed evidence stricken and then blithely assume that his late filed evidence was part of the summary judgment record.

My computer-dependent associate reported that she could not find a case. It seemed obvious to me that some case would support my argument that the plaintiffs’ lawyer could not succeed with his tactic. So I went to the books, and found a suitable case in about 30 minutes. Specifically, I found a case stating that a “party cannot complain on appeal of action which he induced or allowed.” Dallas County v. Sweitzer, 881 S.W.2d 757, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994). The point is that plaintiffs’ counsel could not induce a ruling that the trial court would disregard all late-filed evidence, and then act as if he is exempt from the ruling he induced. When I showed the case to my associate, she expressed shock: “How did you find that? That’s crazy—to find that one sentence in the

sea of cases.” You would have thought that I was a sorcerer.

The second proposition that I asked my associate to research had to do with nondelegable duties. In this appeal, the plaintiffs complained that our client—a hospital—did not obtain proper informed consent for surgery. But Texas courts have held that the duty to obtain informed consent is the doctor’s nondelegable duty. I wanted a case stating that our hospital could not be liable, because only the party owing the nondelegable duty can be liable for breach of that duty. Again, my associate reported that she could find nothing. I went to the library, pulled a treatise off of the shelf, and in about 20 minutes found something close to what I wanted. Citing the case I found, I revised my brief to say: “When a duty is nondelegable, the party owing the duty cannot pass the liability to another.” MBank El Paso, N.A. v. Sanchez, 836 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex. 1992).

The Shortcomings

I know that it is politically incorrect to criticize high technology, but the experience described above demonstrates at least two shortcomings of computerized legal research. First, the computer is ill-suited for finding concepts. It is great for finding discrete words or specific cases, but that’s just data collection. The computer simply looks for certain combinations of zeros and ones. The law, however, is not “a series of calculating machines where definitions and answers come tumbling out when the right levers are pushed.” William O. Douglas, quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of Legal Quotations, at 240. Law is concept-oriented, and concepts are best found in sources that are categorized by concept, such as digests. As Learned Hand said, “Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition.” NLRB v. Federbush Co., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (2d Cir. 1941). By that, I think he meant, in part, that word choice is paramount in communicating concepts. But when you ask the computer to find a certain combination of zeros and ones, it will often produce words in alien juxtaposition—that is, words that don’t express the concept you are seeking. In law, concept is the whole ball game, but the computer can’t tell a concept from a megabyte. The second shortcoming is that computers can’t think in analogies. I have found that if what I originally wanted to say isn’t said exactly that way in any case, I can usually find an analogous concept that fits my need. In its search for zeros and ones, the computer won’t uncover the link between analogous concepts. It takes a thinking lawyer to do that. As Frederick Wiener said: “The use of apt analogies…is the mark of a really good lawyer. Any clerk [or computer] can look up cases… but it takes an active, a trained, and above all a resourceful legal mind to search for and find persuasive analogies.” Briefing and Arguing Federal Appeals, at 149 (1961).

Finding Haystacks

In their computer dependence, our new law graduates have difficulty with concepts and analogies. Unfortunately, they are often tied to the literalness of computer-produced research. And this trait is not peculiar to the associate in my story. I have had other computer-dependent associates tell me that they can’t find a case that says something I know is out there. Some of my partners have had the same experience, and Cleveland lawyer Mark Herrmann has even written about it. He advises new associates that if they begin their research on the computer and report that they can’t find anything, he will catch them by finding a case through traditional methods. See Mark Herrmann, “From the Partner,” Litigation, at 8, 64 (Fall 1998) (“Most new lawyers begin their legal research by turning on a computer. This is almost inevitably wrong.”). Herrmann also aptly pinpoints why computerized legal research is a hindrance to new lawyers. It’s because “you cannot find the needle without first finding the haystack.” Id. To find the right haystack, you have to go to the books, and to learn proper use of the books, you must read lots of them. You have to read enough to learn the contours of the law. You won’t get that kind of experience—you won’t develop the necessary base of knowledge—sitting at a computer screen. If you learn only what your computer searches reveal, you will be overwhelmed by the number of haystacks. And traditional researchers will seem like magicians when they find law that you never dreamed existed.

The Seduction

I find fewer and fewer young lawyers who have any training in book research—let alone adequate training. So how did our new lawyers become so ill-advisedly computer dependent? It obviously starts in law school, where Westlaw, LEXIS, and other vendors give them free computer time. They are seduced, much like our children are seduced by cereal and toy commercials during Saturday morning cartoons. They’re told that it’s easier and faster to use the computer. Being innocent babes, they don’t know any better. And what they’re told is validated by the ubiquitous assumption that high technology is our savior. It’s further validated when they attend CLE courses, all of which now seem to have an obligatory presentation on technology. Law schools, law librarians (both at law schools and in law firms), and law firm administrators also promote the seduction. It reduces book-purchase budgets and saves valuable shelf space—and hence cost—if they can shift information to the computer. It’s also easier to teach computerized methods than traditional research methods. Even better, Westlaw and other vendors will send representatives to do the teaching. At my firm, these vendors come once a week to offer instruction and free computer time. So law students become subtly addicted to computerized legal research. It’s only human nature to seek the easy way out, and that’s what the computer purports to offer. But easier doesn’t necessarily mean more effective. Moreover, that supposed ease comes at a price. Most computer services are quite pricey, and clients sometimes balk at the cost. At my firm, we have written off a lot of computer charges over the years.

Textbook Heresy

Textbooks promote the seduction too. One textbook claims that “[c]omputer assisted legal research is not so different from traditional research.” Kunz, The Process of Legal Research, at 207 (1986). At best, this statement is only half correct. Like traditional research methods, computerized legal research requires you to engage in “anticipatory” thinking. See Wren & Wren, The Legal Research Manual, at 135 & n.50 (2d ed. 1986). Using traditional methods, you must anticipate the classifications that digesters have selected for certain concepts. While using the computer, you must anticipate the words that judges have selected to express those same concepts. See id.; Kunz, The Process of Legal Research, at 207–08. Beyond that, there is little similarity between computer research and traditional research. Another textbook claims that computers make legal research faster. As the Wrens state: “The computer simply speeds up the process,” and “the computer can’t make you smarter, just faster.” The Legal Research Manual, at 133, 135. That statement, too, is only partially true. The computer is faster for some tasks—like when you need to Shepardize or update case law, or when you have a discrete search for a certain word or phrase, or when you want to find opinions written by a particular judge. But for finding cases expressing the right concept— especially subtle concepts that don’t lend themselves to easy word searches—book research is faster. That, at least, has been my experience. I’ve sometimes thought about holding a contest—sort of a jurisprudential scavenger hunt—to see who can most quickly find a case standing for a given proposition. Will it be me through traditional book research, or a new associate through the computer? I think about the old adage that mature cunning will overcome youthful energy.

A Caution

Even when the computer finds the right case, a prudent lawyer must exercise caution—for several reasons. First, unless you use Westlaw’s .pdf option for printing cases, computer-printed opinions are much harder to read than opinion printed in a West reporter. Although the computer services have improved their typography, the bound reporters remain more reader friendly. More annoying, a computer-printed case is never paginated the same as in the reporter, requiring a frustrating hunt through the computer printout for the actual page number. The reporters are also clearer about disclosing when the court is quoting from another source. Computer-printed cases often lack the proper quotation marks or indentations that set quotations apart from the text. Even worse, the computer services sometimes do not print the italics that appear in reported opinions. Also, the computer services have never developed the knack for putting footnotes in a readable format. In short, except for .pdf-formatted cases, computer-printed cases don’t track the reported opinions. This can be more than a little aggravating to a lawyer who is intent on accuracy. Regarding accuracy, I am reminded of a story attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. As a young lawyer, he handed an upstate New York judge a case out of the advance sheets. The judge handed it back in disgust, saying “I don’t take no law from no magazines.” Shapiro, The Oxford Dictionary of Legal Quotations, at 288. When an associate brings me a computer-printed case, I’m tempted to say, “I don’t take no law from no computer.” It seems to me that the reporters should remain the most authoritative source for caselaw.

The Wrong Focus

By this point, I may have left the impression that I’m a Luddite. But I’m not opposed to technology. I’m just concerned that the educational focus on technology is eroding lawyers’ research skills. Our computer-dependent young lawyers aren’t learning to find cases through the concepts inherent in the key number system. They’re not learning how to find the ALR annotation or the law review article that shortcuts their research. They’re not learning how to mine Words and Phrases for helpful caselaw. They don’t find the nuggets buried in encyclopedias like C.J.S. or Am. Jur. or in dictionaries like Black’s. They don’t think to look at annotations to statutes and rules. They don’t find the insights available in fine treatises like Wright & Miller on federal practice. They give up too easily if the computer doesn’t spit out an immediate answer. They also don’t experience the lively banter of lawyers who are hunkered down in the library, quizzing each other as they tease the law out of the books. Perhaps worst of all, they miss the musty smell of history wafting from a 100-year-old West Reporter. Staring at a sterile

computer screen, they don’t get a sense of the law’s development—the sense that the law “stands as a monument slowly raised, like a coral reef, from the minute accretions of past individuals, of whom each built upon the relics which his predecessors left.” Learned Hand, quoted in Frost-Knappman & Shrager, The Quotable Lawyer, at 55 (rev. ed. 1998). Instead, when I walk past associate offices, they appear to be in a trance as they stare at their computer screens. Perhaps my fears are overblown—born out of my lack of technical training. But I do know this: Anglo-American law has a long, deep tradition that is worth preserving. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. remarked: “The law, wherein, as in a magic mirror, we see reflected, not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been! When I think on this majestic theme, my eyes dazzle.” Shapiro, The Oxford Dictionary of Legal Quotations, at 243. In the rush to embrace technology, our society is shedding tradition. Although there is no avoiding that some traditions will die as technology changes how we practice law, I have doubts about whether all of the changes will be for the better.

Corruption Completed

So, will my nightmare come true? When this new century ends, will we still have law books? Will we be like Thomas Jefferson’s hypothetical lawyer—bereft of the tools of our trade? Will there be any lawyers who can still write in the intuitive mode? Or will lawyers be shackled to computers—dependent on what the computers find for them rather than what they know from years of book learning? If it comes to that, the corruption will be complete, and the law—I fear—will be impoverished.

Scott P. Stolley focuses his practice on the representation of appellants and appellees in state and federal appellate courts, including evaluation of appeals, drafting briefs, and arguing to appellate courts. In addition, he consults and assists on dispositive, significant, and post-trial motions in trial courts, and provides trial support on appellate-related issues such as preservation of error and preparing and objecting to the jury charge. Mr. Stolley’s practice also includes evaluating insurance-coverage issues for policyholders.

Mr. Stolley is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization since 1995.

Ask legal professionals to define legal research. Up pops several different answers with statute and case law being the most frequently listed responses. We may be about to add to the list.

Legal Research encompasses finding information to further a legal case or argument. The information found usually falls into two categories; primary or secondary sources.

Primary sources include applicable statutes and case law, along with the review of legislative notes, rules and ethics to provide additional information regarding these statutes and cases.

Secondary sources, however, are often the key to the ultimate success of the case since these types of sources often help persuade the Court that the primary sources relied on are applicable to the issues at hand. Used together, primary and secondary information provides the legal professional a very convincing and complete case presentation. For example, without knowing the specifics of safety devices available for Lawn Mowers and available preventive measures, all the legal theories and precedent in a lawn mower injury case will not be sufficient to actually win the case. We submit good lawyers would first ascertain the safety standards governing the agricultural products, thereby properly promote the theory of product liability.

THE INTERNET WILL EVENTUALLY REPLACE BOOKS AND CHANGE ON-LINE SERVICES (AS WE KNOW THEM NOW)

Bet that got your attention! Note, we added the statement, “As we know them now.” No, Lexis-Nexis and the West Group are not going out of business! They will simply offer additional services brought on in part by additional competition and aided with ever expanding technology. Competition assures legal professionals of a continuum of cutting edge technological products and services at more competitive rates. The choices for the actual services and products fitting the practitioner’s budget and requirements also broaden.

Let us offer a brief explanation why sites offer free information when maintenance of these sites obviously requires time, effort, and expense. Sometimes, it’s because the providers are nice people, like Katsuey! Actually, we enjoy providing Katsuey’s Legal Gateway as a service, but the exposure and compliments we receive provide a marvelous by-product.

Face it, we are suckers for attention! The Katsuey’s Legal Gateway site provides substantive content for legal professionals and consumers. Great content, organized well and kept fresh translates into more visitors and many repeat visitors. Many Internet sites provide free services for the same reasons television stations provide free viewing. They derive their revenue from selling advertisement, sponsorship and/or promotion of other revenue generating activities. At first blush, it might appear that USA Today’s site competes against itself since USA Today sells newspapers but offers free on-line news content, however, advertisers pay for both mediums. Other reasons for the “benevolence” of those offering free on-line content, include protecting turf and providing information to present and future clients less expensively.

Books & CD’s still pay important roles in legal research today. However, the role of these research medias are contracting rather than expanding. Many Internet research sites do not currently go back more than a few years, certainly not to the 1800′s. In addition, the Internet has yet to offer a standardized system for citation, though the issue is being addressed and there are some draft proposals for citing Internet site material. Most search engines do not offer annotations or expand on key words as of yet. For example, a search for “drunk driving” in even the best of Internet search engines today, does not retrieve the statute for “driving under the influence.” In the last few years, on-line providers have begun solving these issues.

So what are the pitfalls? Most importantly, reliability, always a pressing issue with case law, statutes and codes found on the Internet. Many sites are frequently not updated on a very regular basis and do not have the quality control of such services as West Group and Lexis-Nexis. Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw often offer more comprehensive case law and statutory research with cites and case notes to secondary information. Today, only the absolute novice, ready to experience a huge embarrassment and very large increases in their firm’s malpractice premiums would stop with Internet research. Yet, the Internet provides the perfect place for the savvy novice who wants to learn their subject matter, narrow their searches, discover related cases in the news and have an idea what their competition might be finding. All of this can greatly reduce their pay service on-line time.

Small firms, sole practitioners and some corporate legal departments cannot always justify the expense of a West Group or Lexis-Nexis account. Alternative no frill services available, such as Lois Law and Versus Law, allow these legal information seekers to access essential services for verifying case and statutory data at affordable prices. Over the last four year, both Lois Law and Versus Law services and databases have vastly improved, making them viable alternatives.

Having stated the cautions, we now point out some sites can be utilized with confidence IF one understands the site’s limitations and updating procedures. Most sites now list their sources, their updating frequency, and disclaimers. If the site does not list this information, ask.

Government sites include the Government Printing Office (GPO). GPO.gov contains daily updated U.S. Code & Federal Register Internet. The Library of Congress in on-line. The U.S. House of Representatives Office of Law Revision Counsel has a U.S. Code site. The EDGAR database of corporate information provides SEC information. State researchers looking for information on specific states, including registered agents can visit the Secretary of State’s sites. Visit Katsuey’s Legal Gateway Government Category for a long list of high quality government sites, then drop by the States Category to feast on the number of state, city and county governments now on-line.

What does the future hold? We see books and on-line services in the form we use them today disappearing over time. Why would anyone use bulky, single-user books, when for less cost, the future handheld computer’s 100 WBB (WholeBunchaBytes) storage unit will contain all the legal information, now housed in books? Our future vision of the Internet includes Boolean searches evolving into natural language queries, accurate and automatically looking for annotations and cites; comparative information available in any requested format; on-line searching and immediate updates a mere keystroke away. Before you view these visions as too futuristic, we remind you that only a few months ago, reliable cellular communications and pluggable terabyte storage chips were futuristic.

Old ways of doing business change. Martindale-Hubbell, in our opinion, realizes that their lawyer locator service is an easily replaceable dinosaur. Their solution? Meet the challenge by scrambling to find other ways to replace a previous revenue generator.

Still not convinced of the Internet’s promise? Ask your ten-year-old if she would rather look for information on the Internet or in a book. She already knows which is the fastest option and which provides the most descriptive and ancillary links. Books don’t hyperlink well. The new generation technology makes legal books passé, just as the typewriter of yesteryear fell to the computer. Oh, typewriters are still around and have some uses, but not everyone needs or uses one these days.

WHY THE INTERNET IS AN ESSENTIAL SUPPLEMENT TO BOOKS AND ON-LINE SERVICES

The law changes daily, just as the resources used to find the law change. The effective legal researcher learns proficiency, utilizing all the tools available or faces being out-maneuvered on the case or in the courtroom.

In our specific example, we use a hypothetical legal practitioner handling his first (and he hopes not his last) Fen-Phen case. Our new practitioner, savvy enough not to reinvent the wheel by starting his own research from scratch, comes up to speed on Fen-Phen from major resource material available on-line through a law firm willing to share their research hours. Prior to finding case precedent, our now dry behind the ears practitioner reads the Mayo Clinic study which first openly revealed Valvular heart disease was associated with fenfluramine-phentermine.

Next, we guide our learning attorney to an article on the effect of Fen-Phen when taken alone compared with when taken with food and the effects of body weight, (example link no longer active) assisting Mr. Hypothetical in determining how these issues relate to his client. Mr. H quickly shares his knowledge with the firm’s newbie associates, telling them where to find medical information. On June 26, 1997, the National Library of Medicine announced that its Medline database of more than 8.8 million references to articles published in 3,800 biomedical journals may be accessed free of charge on the World Wide Web. Two Web-based products, Internet Grateful Med and PubMed, provide this access. HealthGate (not an active link) provides the ability to search Medline, the world’s largest biomedical database, six other databases, and display results – free.

GENERAL EXAMPLES OF WHERE THE INTERNET IS SUPERIOR TO BOOKS AND ON-LINE SERVICES

Internet advantages include more rapidly accessible information, more current information, general information sources, more contributors, and access from any location with virtually any equipment.

RAPIDLY ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION

Listservs contribute significantly to finding information. We are still amazed when we see a rapid response on listservs to an off-the-wall question or request for assistance. Clever legal professionals dramatically shorten searches by polling other listserv experts. While finding information, many times a practitioner fosters a mutually beneficial relationship which could not have come about from a one on one with a book.

CURRENT INFORMATION SITES

containing information on “hot legal topics” such as environment, tobacco, and sports have numerous sites updated almost instantaneously. Advertisers sometimes help fund these sites’ growth, allowing them to compete with larger commercial sites. Free Legal New sites abound and now allow for free media streaming directly to the practitioner’s desktop.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Numerous examples appeared in recent news stories demonstrating resourceful legal professionals finding information on the Internet which made their case and finished their opponent’s case. Actual examples include challenging a company’s claim to be a mom-and-pop by finding multiple branch locations on the Internet and settling a company name infringement case by doing a search on the company name and uncovering many similar companies. Internet searches disqualified jurors when the search revealed conflicting affiliations, interests, and statements. Try typing your name into dogpile.com or some of the individual search engines. You might be surprised at what comes up. We were. Better yet, your opponent might be surprised the next time you use it.

Discussion groups are available on every subject imaginable. Expert witnesses, government forms and information for tax returns, inheritance tax return forms from various states, corporate information, and the price of stocks can be located. Addresses and phone numbers of clerks of court and register of deeds in various counties and states can be retrieved. Many Secretaries of State now make their Databases available for searching on-line. Some Court dockets and pleadings are accessible through the Internet. Paralegals locate transfer agent names for a particular stock, their addresses, instructions and phone numbers, all through the Internet. Obituaries, blue book values for automobiles, current value of savings bonds purchased many years ago, instructions for contacting the Federal Reserve Bank and forwarding bonds, literature sources, and locations of people are still more types of information available. Financial information on a company, all sorts of government regulation reference materials, IRS forms, background information, statistics on verdicts and settlements are a search away.

Secondary sources abound, including periodicals, personal sites, humor, DejaNews, and listservs, such as TechnoLawyer, NetLawyers, and hundreds of lists through the ABA. DejaNews contains approximately a decade of archived searchable newsgroup messages. Also fueling the growth are law firms. Law firms discovered increased client base by providing quality information. Content-rich sites demonstrate firms’ expertise and concern for the public. Immigration, estate, and personal injury firms now scramble to provide high quality information. Everyone benefits.

Probate legal professionals pricing bonds for a decedent’s estate either write a letter to the Federal Reserve Bank and then begin the terminal wait, peppered with follow up letters, or, directly price bonds on line at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (no longer available).

THE INTERNET’S RAPID PROGRESS

The Internet is making great strides. Boolean and citation search capability are becoming more widespread. A typical example is North Carolina’s general state statutes now available and searchable using Folio Infobase Query Syntax. Findlaw hosts U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 1893 and Fourth Circuit decisions back to January 1995, searchable by full text, party name, and docket number. International research is available from many sources.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH USING A SAMPLE RESEARCH SITE

Oh, but you say finding all this information on the Internet is time-consuming and simply not as practical as using the well organized and categorized Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis. In the past, the faint at heart or those in touch with the cost of time, found research on the Internet impractically. Then came practitioners committed to utilizing the wealth of the Internet when it proved practical. Sites such as Findlaw, HierosGamos and Katsuey’s Legal Gateway sprung up, providing vast links organized by categories of law.

In summary, Internet legal research has progressed at impressive rates. Through time and the pioneer spirit, developing technology with a better grasp of the Internet’s immense capability legal researchers looking for the edge propel Internet usage forward. Competition between traditional research vendors and upstart Internet companies and sites speed the process. Don’t throw away the books, but do start planning their storage location.

Peggie Brown is a former Paralegal who currently is Internet Services Director of KatsueyDesignWorks, a full service custom web site development company, owner and operator of Katsuey’s Legal Gateway. Peggie also provides legal research and other paralegal services on a contract basis for local law firms and does educational presentations, seminars and training.

Law Library On-Line Resources:
The following are some of my favorite law library sites and have come in handy finding many legal authorities such as cases and statutes, administrative rules, legal news, and many secondary sources.

• The Public Library of Law- http://www.plol.org/Pages/Search.aspx

• Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute- http://www.lawcornell.edu

• Emory Law Library Electronic Reference Desk- http://www.law.emory.edu/erd/index.html

• The Indiana University School of Law Law Library- http://www.law.indiana.edu/lawlibrary/index.shtml

• Washburn University School of Law- http://www.washlaw.edu

Federal Government On-line Resources:
Many government web sites offer a significant amount of legislative history to research. The following are some great sites when researching legislative history.

• FedWorld- http://www. fedworld.gov
A site were you can access a plethora of federal government information.

• First Gov- http://www.firstgov.gov
Offers a huge variety of government resources.

• GPO Access- http://www.gpoaccess.gov
Here you will find Congressional bills, hearings, reports, the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register and the United States Code. You can also read weekly Presidential documents on this site.

• Library of Congress- http://www.loc.gov
The entire on-line catalog of the Library of Congress. Filled with legal information.

• Thomas- http://Thomas.loc.gov
Committee reports, Congressional records, and abundance of legislative information compiled by the Library of Congress.

• United States House of Representatives- http://www.house.gov
Home to the House of Representatives.

• United States Senate- http://www.senate.gov
Home to the United States Senate.

• United States Supreme Court -http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Home to the United State Supreme Court.

• The White House- http://www.whitehouse.gov
Home to the White House.

Free On-Line Legal Resources
Here are some great on-line legal resources free of charge, with no subscription required.

• All Law- http://www.alllaw.com

• American Bar Association’s Lawlink Legal Research- http://www.abanet.org/lawlink/home.html

• American Law Sources On-Line- http://www.law source.com

• CataLaw- http://www.catalaw.com

• FindLaw- http://www.findlaw.com

• Heiros Gamos- http://www.hg.org

• LawGuru- http://www.lawguru.com

• LLRX.com- http://www.llrx.com

• Rominger Legal- http://www.romingerlegal.com

On-Line Legal Resource Requiring a Membership or Fee:
These are fee based services, but they are well worth the investment if you can afford them.

• Loislaw- http://loislaw.com

• LexisNexis- http://lexis.com

• VersusLaw- http://www.versuslaw.com

• Westlaw- http://www.westlaw.com

Specialized Legal Search Engines
Use these great specialized search engines in your quest for finding legal web sites on the Internet.

• Google Scholar- http://www.scholar.google.com

• Law Bot- http://www.megalaw.com

• LawCrawler- http://www.lawcrawler.com

• MetaCrawlwer- http://www.Metacrawler.com

However, as the metabolism of the Internet is at least 3 times faster than that of the average person, we see more happening faster, and more content available. Without restriction, this WWW machine is receiving content by the giga-truckloads 24/7. Good, bad, and useful for Investigators.

The trouble is that as quickly as this content rolls in it overwrites the current material. That can make things difficult for the historical researcher who is looking for yesterday’s news, a copy of the website from last year, or material that has since been erased from the screen. Investigators can utilize historical information for locating

- A photo that was once present, but since removed.
- Content, views, writings and opinions which may have been rescinded by a particular author or group.
- Products being sold illegally, pulled when they realized they were being watched.
- Old job ads, company statements, company affiliations, or product lines

Solutions are found in at least two services, free and easy to use…

Google.com as always comes through with some sort of solution. From the results of your standard search in Google.com you will see cache results. The cache is a snapshot of the site, when Google.com indexed it for their servers. Unfortunately, no dates are given so you are never sure of when that site was scanned and indexed. Using Google.com and its cache option are perfect when you are not sure of where your answer will appear. You are not familiar with the web address, or starting point. If you have your address though, you can narrow your google.com cache search by limiting to the site: function. Hence site: anyaddress.com + term. You have to add a term, use something common such as contact if you aren’t sure of anything specific, however names work very well.

If you know the website you are examining, waste no time in visiting the WayBack Machine located at http://www.archive.org

You will see on Archive.org a simple to use plug and play search box where you enter the address and click go. After the http:// enter the address you wish to view older pages on. We tried enron.com to see what was available. Visiting the Enron.com website today you will see content involving the Chapter 11 filings for the company, and post investigations and fallout documents. It’s current, it’s relevant, yet the information today does not tell me what happened 3 years ago, as told through their website. I would prefer to see Internet press releases, photos of executives shaking hands with vendors, and the “about us” section offering the biographies of their top employees prior to the collapse of their empire.

After typing in www.enron.com we see the results are as early as December 10, 1997. Clicking on the link brings you to the actual site from that date in time. The links will work! So if you were trying to find press releases, department heads, affiliations, and any sort of detail you would locate on a current site, but with the older data.

With a company as large as Enron, you can most likely find information in other sources as well. But when investigating a small firm, a one man operation with a website and not a good deal of national press, the WayBack Machine really offers some incredible leads.
.
For example, we checked out La Strada Ristorante, a Chicago based restaurant at random. In particular, we looked at their Wedding Package offers. The web site address is http://www.lastradaristorante.com/weddingpackages.html. Today you can order the Prime Rib dinner for $89.25. After running this address through the WayBack Machine we see the price in 2000 was $67.50 (including horseradish sauce). We also noticed in 2000 it was Surf and Turf $78.95. Now it’s marketed as Filet Mignon and Lobster Tail at $108.00.

We expect to see price and products increase with business, yet we note the jazzier style of the presentation, the careful wording of the menu items, and a measurable increase in prices, which will help us to predict future pricing in the next 2 years. In other words, the WayBack Machine is helpful as a looking glass to the future, or competitive intelligence tool.

Some technical notes into the advanced features…

The asterisks we see next to some of the dates will tell us when WayBack noticed changes from one version of the site to another. This way you do not have to view each and every page looking for change. There is a comparison tool. After you run the initial search you can click on “Compare Archive Pages” at the top of the screen. Then you can choose two dates to compare against each other. What you see are strike outs right on the page, of the older text.
.
If you click on Advanced Features, you can narrow your search by year, convert your results into PDF files (which is helpful for reports and printing results), also a large assortment of check boxes for restraining or enhancing your search options.

WayBack Machine also offers a toolbar utility which is handy if you are visiting a website, you click on your toolbar and the Archive results screen pops up. So you can go from the actual site you are researching to its historical views in one click. Toolbar option is found at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php.

WayBack Machine is not only archiving the big companies and fortune 500 types. According to the site there are “30 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago.” What about searching for specific data from archived pages? Read our article on the Recall Machine! Combining the WayBack Machine with Google.com cache should give Investigators a descent start on archival research into Web sites.

Cynthia Hetherington
Author of Business Background Investigations (2007) and The Manual to Online Public Records (2008).
http://www.hetheringtongroup.com

Last Thursday Craigslist owners pledged to law enforcement across forty states to crack down and clean up ads for prostitution on its Web site. Craigslist owners have entered into an agreement with Attorneys General around the country. The agreement states that anyone who posts an “erotic services” ad will now be required to provide a working phone number and pay a fee with a valid credit card and Craigslist will provide this information to law enforcement if ever subpoenaed.

In a recent article written by Lexis-Nexis, Jim Buckmaster, Craigslist’s CEO, said the agreement made will now allow those legitimate escort services to continue advertising, but it also provides a deterrent to those escort services conducting business illegally. “We don’t view it as a penalty, we view it as raising the accountability,” he said. “A legitimate business should have no problem with that. They should have no problem providing a phone number or credit card credentials.”

It has been reported that Craigslist owners have filed several lawsuits this week against 14 software and internet companies that assist people posting erotic service ads.

Craigslist has also pledged to implement new search technologies in an effort to assist law enforcement and other authorities to find missing children and victims of human trafficking. This is really a great thing that Craigslist has pledged to clean up, as law enforcement across the country have been arresting people for using such web sites like Craigslist that advertise sexual services of women and children.

The agreement made by Craigslist and the Attorneys General was also joined by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The states of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Washington, D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam also joined and signed the agreement.

The FBI just posted a press release regarding the shut down of a huge motion picture counterfeiting operation. Five defendants in Fresno California have been charged with crimes related to operating a major internet-based counterfeit movie distribution business. United States Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced that a grand jury sitting in Fresno returned a multi-count indictment against STEVEN WALTER BUTTS, 61; KAREN JEAN FREYLING, 46; STEVEN ALAN LOBUE, 48; RAYMOND PAUL MOTT, 46; and EARL EDWARD (aka JOHN) RIEDEL, 46; all of Turlock, California.

The five defendants have been charged with using the Internet in a criminal conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and criminal infringement of a copyright. The indictment also charges some of the defendants with trademark violations, smuggling goods into the United States, theft of government money, and making false statements.

This case is the result of an extensive investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and private investigators with the the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

According to Assistant United States Attorney David Gappa, who is prosecuting the case, the indictment alleges that from 2005 through October 2008, the defendants conspired to distribute throughout the United States thousands of copyright-protected movies in DVD format. The DVDs were imported in violation of United States law from various sources, including the Philippines, and sold through the following Web sites: www.familydvdwholesale.com, www.dvds2gowholesale.com, and www.movieareus.com. The defendants claimed that the movies were “new” and “not copied, burned, or used.” Many of the movie titles were distributed before the copyright holders had released them for distribution to the public and while the movies were still being shown only in theaters. According to court documents, the business produced approximately $30,000 per month in revenue. Numerous complaints about the business and its counterfeit DVDs were filed with the Better Business Bureau, MPAA, and Ripoff Report. On October 8, 2008, numerous search warrants were executed, several bank accounts and vehicles were seized, and all of the defendants were arrested.

The indictment also alleges that from approximately 1991 through October 2008 defendants FREYLING and BUTTS unlawfully obtained Supplemental Security Income benefits in excess of $130,000 by failing to report true facts affecting FREYLING’s eligibility for the benefits. FREYLING is also charged with making false statements to an FBI agent.

For the most serious offenses, the defendants could face a potential prison sentence of 20 years and a fine of up to $2,000,000.

While WHOIS Information is not made available directly through ICANN, a “shared database” is available through many different registrars who choose to make WHOIS information available through their websites. The problem here though is that sometimes registrars will only share that a domain name is registered through their service within this shared database and you will have to visit their website directly to query their WHOIS database.

My favorite WHOIS search provider is another meta-search provider which basically queries all of the different registrars for information, as well as offering several other different web tools, and returns more than just a simple WHOIS search result. This search is available through http://whois.domaintools.com/.

As an example of the information returned when conducting a WHOIS search here is the information returned when searching on my private investigation agency website domain name, compasspointpi.com:

Registrant:
CompassPoint Investigations
6706 N. 9th Avenue, Suite D-13
Pensacola, Florida 32504
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: COMPASSPOINTPI.COM
Created on: 05-Dec-99
Expires on: 01-Oct-11
Last Updated on: 05-Sep-08

Administrative Contact:
Harrell, L Scott lscottharrell@aol.com
CompassPoint Investigations
6706 N. 9th Avenue, Suite D-13
Pensacola, Florida 32504
United States
8509326466 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS285.HOSTGATOR.COM
NS286.HOSTGATOR.COM

While WHOIS information is essential in investigating a website’s ownership, it should also be noted that there are service providers available who register names on behalf of domain name owners in an effort to help keep ownership information private. These domain registration proxy service providers will not release registration information without a court order and have rebuffed my numerous attempts at pretexting registration information from them in the past. They have the whole anonymity thing down pat and I wouldn’t hesitate to use such a service should I ever want to keep my domain name ownership confidential.

Archive.org provides a service called the “Wayback Machine” which is a HUGE archive of millions of websites and what they have looked like in the past. It can be used to visit websites that are no longer available on the Internet or what a current website might have looked like several years ago. An archive of my website goes all the way back to October of 2000 until June of 2007 with over 46 individual snapshots in between.

When profiling a website, or trying to determine the ownership of an anonymously registered URL, I like to check Archive.org to see if I can find additional information about the owners or the company. I often find information which was once posted but has since been taken down. I can’t recall whether or not the “Wayback Machine” has ever led me to a missing person (probably not) but I know that the thoroughness of my work product has always impressed clients when I am able to “magically” dig up old information even though it may not have added any intrinsic value to the investigation.

This article is a small excerpt from The Art of Skip Tracing and Missing Persons Investigations, an online skip tracing course for private investigators.