***********************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Publisher Arthur H. Rosenfeld called for equal access to the law
at a press conference today asking "Does the West Publishing Company
Corporation Exercise Monopoly Powers over Legal Publishing?".
Rosenfeld was the first of four speakers to call for the end to
monopoly control over legal publishing, "We can no longer tolerate
one company control", said Rosenfeld. "We must go forward. And, we
must do so unfettered by the past. We must have a means of assuring
everyone equal access to the law. We must have a reference system
freely available to all. All publishers must have unrestricted
access to all court opinions."
Rosenfeld is currently president of the Civic Research
Institute. He is past president of Prentice-Hall Tax and
Professional Reference Publishing, Chairman and Founder of Rosenfeld
Emanuel publishers, President of International Thomson Professional
Publishing Division, President of Warren Gorham and Lamont, and
General Counsel for The Ronald Press Company, now part of John Wiley
& Sons. He has served at various times as a member on the board of
six of the world's major legal publishers.
His complete statement is attached.
****************************************************************************
Statement of Arthur H. Rosenfeld
What's the problem? Why all the noise? The noise is
unfortunate, but, the problem is real.
The problem is that we now have one private company which
effectively controls the publication of court opinions that are
essential to the functioning of our legal system.
I am a publisher. I publish legal materials for lawyers, but, I
can't include many, if not most court opinions - opinions issued by
public courts - without the permission and without being subject to
the conditions imposed by another publisher. Furthermore, I can't
even refer to or cite the inside pages of most court opinions without
such permission and without being subject to such control.
There are usually two reactions to what I've just said. The
first, disbelief, the second, "So what?"
It is hard to believe but it is true. I can't publish most
court opinions without the permission of another publisher. And,
they claim that I can't even cite the inside pages of those opinions.
How did this happen? It just grew that way. It happened for
historical reasons. This one company grew with our country. They
reported court opinions when no one else seemed to want to or was
able to. Their reporting was "unofficial", but, since they were the
only widely available source for years and years, most lawyers got to
using only them and most judges got to using only them. By custom
and usage we've got so that there is no other readily available
widely used source for most court opinions. Essentially, it was and
is, theirs or nothing.
By the way, they were not villains and are not villains. Quite
the contrary. They were true pioneers. They played a major role in
the development of our country's law for which we all should be
grateful. I am. In many respects, they are an admirable company.
But, times have changed. We can't go on this way. Which
brings us to the "So what?" So what if they are the only source? So
what if they have sole control? It's a good system and it works.
Well, it just isn't good enough! It's not near as good as it
could be and it's too dangerous. We can't place the fate and control
over the sources of the law in any single company's hands. It's far
too dangerous. And, it seriously restricts the functioning of our
legal system.
Our great and wonderful common law system depends on access to
the law. The law is found in statues, the regulations and rulings
issued under statutes, and in the opinions of our courts. The law
can be found only when these sources are made public, when they are
published.
The strength and health of our system depends on access to the
sources of the law being easy, not hard. It depends on there being
more legal publishing, not less. Everyone must be able to have
access. Everyone must have the right to publish - not just those
whom a single company chooses to let publish. We can't have a system
controlled by who gets there first.
As a lawyer for almost forty years and as a publisher of
materials for almost 35 years, I have seen great changes in the
workings of our legal system. When I was admitted to the bar in 1955
a lawyer in a remote rural area was often at a considerable
disadvantage simply because he didn't have access to many books, he
didn't have access to much that was published. Similarly, a lawyer
in a big city who could only afford a modest library could be
disadvantaged as a result. In both cases, their clients suffered.
Today, through the wonders of technology, any lawyer, practicing
anywhere, could have instant access to almost all existing legal
publications. We could take an enormous leap towards equal access -
and thereby, take a giant step closer to achieving our ideal of equal
justice for all.
We can no longer tolerate one company control. We must go
forward. And, we must do so unfettered by the past. We must have a
means of assuring everyone equal access to the law. We must have a
reference system freely available to all. All publishers must have
unrestricted access to all court opinions.
There is much talk in the new Congress about opening up the
processes of government. Our new Speaker, has, admirably, sought to
open up the legislative process. He has, rightfully, called for
publication of what happens every step of the way. He has,
rightfully, called for instant equal access.
We must do as much for the sources of the law. We are truly
experiencing an information revolution and we must seize this
opportunity to take a giant step forward. We must devise a system
that everyone has the right to use. And, we must make readily
available to all, all the sources of the law. We must seize this
chance to move much much closer to achieving equal justice for all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST