Last week Google tweeted about Google Scholar mentioning that you can now find and read full legal opinions by searching over at scholar.google.com. Recently one of my favorite law blogs, Above the Law, mentioned Google Scholar and asked for opinions on how it compares to paid legal research services like Lexis and Westlaw. This is what I think.
Price of Legal Research Service
Google = free. Lexis and Westlaw = lots of $$$$$.
Google wins hands down on this one, but since we’re already on the topic, I’ll take a moment to rant. While I’ve been using Lexis and Westlaw as a student, I know I don’t get charged for clicks, printing, saving and downloading cases, etc. However, I’ve heard that these services charge some practices by the click. Really!?!? What do they call that on their bill? A usage fee? Honestly, a searchable database service that charges by the click is ridiculous. That’s a payment model that was outdated in the 90s, and lawyers–and clients who the cost is forwarded on to–shouldn’t stand for it.
Ease of Use
Frankly, the Google service is easier to use. I’ll give just a couple of examples.
Early in the semester I wanted to search for some popular decisions just for kicks. So I opened up Westlaw and typed in “roe v. wade.” It puked back some garbage about limiting the search or picking a database. Lexis gets you the same results. You actually have to click on separate links to search for a case by party. Also, to search by citation you typically have to put it into a field crafted specifically for the purpose of searching by citation. By contrast, Google allows you to search by party or by citation in the simple, user-friendly search field every one is already used to. A search for “roe v. wade” in Google Scholar gives you just that.
Natural Language Search
Beyond being easier to find specific cases, it’s actually easier to find pertinent cases by a topic as well. Recently in my legal research/law skills class, we’ve had to write a legal memo about a slip and fall incident. We discussed how typing in “slip and fall” to Lexis or Westlaw in your jurisdiction may not give you the best case law out there. And its true. The only way I got relevant cases was by looking in the Virginia torts case finder. Obviously Lexis and Westlaw can eventually help you find what you’re looking for, but the search tools they offer are unwieldy and definitely not user friendly. To make a long story short, I successfully found all the case law I needed for my memo, but not due to excellent and easy search results via Lexis or Westlaw.
Google on the other hand was surprisingly simple. It’s true that when I typed in “slip and fall” in Google Scholar’s advanced search, limiting my decisions to VA, many of the cases I used for my memo showed up in the first 10 results. One of the cases my legal research professor repeatedly called a landmark VA decision in slip and fall cases came up as the second result on Google Scholar. Searching “slip and fall” using the same parameters on Westlaw was disappointing. This landmark case wasn’t even in the top 20.
Shepardize and Keycite vs. No Help At All From Google
Google’s searchability is by far and away superior to Lexis and Westlaw. But Lexis and Westlaw win because of the extra bells and whistles. Lexis and Westlaw provide commentary on the law. It’s the head notes and the ability to quickly check and see if a holding in a case is still good law. Shepardize and Keycite are the prime examples of why these paid services are going to keep staying around for a long time.
As Lexis advertisements are fond of touting, “they call it shepardizing for a reason.” From what I understand, shepardizing, or the process of checking a holding to see if it’s still good law, is done manually by Lexis. Keycite, the Westlaw version of checking for good law, is partially automated by computers. But the headnote commentary, the extra insight on points of law, the outlining of subsequent history is supposedly what makes Lexis and Westlaw superior. And it’s what makes these services expensive.
I’ve been reading the commentary about Google Scholar on the web, and I have to admit that for the fine tune aspects of legal research, Shepardize and Keycite are still needed. However, Google Scholar is not as far behind as many lawyers tend to think. From what I’ve read it seems like many attorneys and researchers are dismissing it because it’s Google and it’s not done by lawyers. Google doesn’t have Shepardize or Keycite, but they do have a “How Cited” feature that I think is very handy. Essentially, it’s the subsequent history of a case. While Google doesn’t yet tell you out right if a case is “good law,” it will at least point you in the direction of its subsequent history and show you how it is cited. I can figure out on my own if a certain issue of law is still good law.
So that’s what I think. Google Scholar doesn’t completely replace Lexis and Westlaw, but it’s closer than what most of the legal community realizes. On the other hand, I’m a bit of a progressive on these kinds of issues. I think law, and the knowledge of it, should be free and accessible to all. Kudos to Google for taking this kind of initiative.
Related Articles
What the Google blog has to say about it
