The question I posed about using LEXIS and WESTLAW to answer five
reference hypotheticals elicited nineteen responses from around the
country. Many thanks to all who responded. I apologize for the delay
in posting a summary; however, the responses were so varied that any
sort of logical summary was extremely difficult. Here is my
attempt...
The variety of responses ran the gamut from all queries are
beyond the scope of the educational contract to all queries could be
answered using online sources. Responses also ranged from
philosophical discussions to specific suggestions for answering the
hypotheticals in manual sources and/or recommendations for referral.
Many agreed that when to use CALR is an individual choice that
depends on several factors. Among the factors cited were:
1. The availability of access to LEXIS and WESTLAW in other
settings, such as an undergraduate library or local bar library.
2. The availability of the material in the law library, for example,
if it was not on the shelf or unavailable in the collection.
3. The availability of the material in another nearby library.
4. A distinction being drawn between educational and commercial use
(the non-profit vs. profit motive).
5. A distinction between whether the institution is public or
private.
6. An evaluation of time saved by the librarian.
7. The type of patron requesting the information non-law faculty,
student, etc.).
Little consensus was reached on the appropriate use of CALR for
ready reference beyond cite verification and confirmation that
something exists. One response mentioned doing a "quickie Shepard's"
if the library had canceled the needed bound volumes. Several
remarked on the difference between providing a citation and providing
the actual text.
Some libraries allow patrons with their own LEXIS/WESTLAW
passwords to use library equipment to conduct searches. Also
mentioned was the need to alert the patron to the fact that an
exception had been made if in fact CALR was used for a reference
query. No one wanted to create expectations from patrons that could
evolve into repeat business.
The hypothetical that drew the majority of "no" votes was the
attorney's request. The general consensus was that he had access
elsewhere and could bill back to his client. The majority of
responses also vetoed the request for bill status information. The
hypothetical generating the most mixed responses involved the pro se
patron and the unpublished opinion.
Thank you again to everyone who responded.
Sue Trask
Reference Librarian
Marshall-Wythe Law Library
College of William and Mary
South Henry Street
Williamsburg, VA 23185
(804) 221-6351
(804) 221-3175 fax)
sltras@mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST