Dear Katherine,
I was not in any way implying that law librarians are "only good for
interlibrary loans", but not lending to a firm that has fired its entire
library staff is one small way to protest the actions of that firm. We
cannot undo what has happened, but we certainly don't have to condone
this behavior by continuing to lend books that our firms have bought
to a firm with a replacement library staff. An AALL Task Force may be
nice, but it will have little, if any, impact if the lawyers at B&K
continue to receive a modicum of service that meets their needs.
Karol Sokol
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
cgsh@netcom.comOn Thu, 6
Apr 1995, Katherine Malmquist wrote:
> 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