Deskbooks are a Go. Right now the only type of publication I see as ready for the eBook distribution model are the annual, statutory code books that we commonly refer to as deskbooks. These are perfect candidates. They are meant to portable and “personalizable.” Since I work in a firm with over 1,000 lawyers, the prospect of eliminating the annual processing and distribution of thousands of volumes of deskbooks makes me do a “happy dance.”
Law Firms Need A Different Model – Law Books and Lawyers are Different
- Law firms are not public libraries. We are purchasing corporate access to content, we need a model that permits the unfettered access to appropriate units of content on an “as needed” basis.
- Treatises are not monographs – they are complex organisms that change over time.
- Lawyers need information not “volumes.”
- Lawyers require updating by “push ” not “pull ” (We learned this lesson with electronic newsletters, lawyers didn’t go a website to get the current issue of an electronic newsletter – it had to be delivered! Yet right now legal publishers seem to believe that lawyer behavior has changed. They appear to believe that lawyers want to engage in unnecessary administrative tasks which interrupt their billable time.The current proposed models also suggest that librarians want to chase down lawyers and their Ipads when it it time to update a treatise or that lawyers will willingly spend time reloading treatise updates to their Ipads. Didn’t we cross the automatic update bridge decades ago? Why regress to a less efficient workflow now?)
- Chapter 28 Trademarks and Trademark Infringement
When cd-roms were introduced in the early 1990’s, I will never forget a meeting that Ron Friedmann and I had with a representative of CCH.
When they created the digital version of the Standard Federal Tax Reporter, instead of integrating the updates into the primary search database, they segregated the updates into an “electronic pocket part.” Instead of introducing a smarter product that would always deliver up-to-date results, they kept the “new” information segregated and required lawyers to engage in a two step research process.They missed the opportunity to use technology to improve lawyer efficiency. I don’t recall if we laughed or gasped, but we were both appalled. When we asked why they wouldn’t just integrate the updates into the main search, the response was – “our customers wanted it that way.” Well sometimes your customers are wrong!