Maybe I am wrong but it seems the message going out from many of our
members is that we can solve this problem of using outside businesses
to run a law library by just not Interlibrary Loaning items to the
"contractor" of Baker & McKenzie. Excuse me but that supposes two
things:
1. Law librarians are only good for interlibrary loans -- I mean if
you can cause total caos in the firm only by not interlibrary loaning
than that is what we are only good for.
2. The contractors will be able to handle all other needs of the law
firm library in a competent and professional way.
I am NOT condoning what Baker & McKenzie did but two wrongs do not
make a right. We should continue to hold the professional image of
law librarians by working with any and all patrons, including library
contractors. How many of you out there who normally ILL to law firm
libraries that use contractors (because of their size, etc) have now
decided to make an exception for Baker & McKenzie?
Also, how many of you out there are actually afraid that if you do
send ILL items as requested the contractors will handle the rest of
the job as well as or, gasp, even better than the previous
librarians? I don't know the previous librarians and I am sick at
how they were just thrown out by the law firm, but from discussions
on this listserv it sounds like they were very, very good librarians
and that they will not be very easily replaced in terms of legal
research, personal assistance to those who show up in the library
(associates and partners), extra time spent on the job above and
beyond a normal day, etc.
Why give the contractors and/or the deciding partners a really good
excuse as to why it the decision didn't work by our refusing to ILL
to the contractors? Instead, let them either fall flat on their
faces by their inability to give the same quality and quantity of
service as the librarians who were dismissed (even with normal aid
from the rest of us), or let them shine and maybe we need to look at
what we are doing wrong because we can't compete and win honestly
against them (both in service and in fiscal responsibility)! To be
truthful, I have seen and actually worked with outside contractors.
In the long run those "temporary" people can't compete against really
good librarians who are working full-time with a personal work
commitment to law firm and associates/partners. It may take their
hard-earned time and money but Baker & McKenzie may come to the same
hard conclusion.
AALL and each member should begin to ask themselves why we are in
this profession and why we are in truth so valuable to the legal
profession. Hopefully it isn't because we are good at ILL.
Katherine E. Malmquist katherin@zipmouse.csuohio.edu
The above opinions are my own personal opinions and are not in any
way to be assumed as any one else's opinions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST