skip navigation


by Sarah Glassmeyer

I don’t think I even knew what the Internet was 25 years ago.

I definitely didn’t know about the different types of law and legal information.

And I couldn’t have even imagined that up on the other end of the Appalachian Mountains in Ithaca, New York, two men would be embarking on a project that would eventually change my entire professional life.

Twenty-five years ago, I was a 16 year old kid on a farm in rural southern Ohio. When I wanted to know about something even slightly esoteric, I had to make note of it and then wait until the weekend when one of my parents could drive me the hour to the Cincinnati Public Library.  In addition to books and magazines and microfilm, they had what to me seemed like magic – the LexisNexis CD-ROM set of news and periodicals.   I felt like I was living in Disney World’s Tomorrowland when I could put a holographic disc into a machine and read about whatever was my obsession at the time.

Time passed and, perhaps unsurprisingly, I grew up to be a law librarian.  By this time I figured out what the Internet was and I had the various types of legal information sorted, but I didn’t really see the connection between the two.  After all, that’s why we had Westlaw and Lexis.

Then I had what could be called my “free law awakening.”

The awakening

A confluence of events happened around 2008 that completely changed my professional trajectory and opened my eyes to the inequalities that happen around legal information.

  1. I was working in a law library in Kentucky and interacted more than I ever had with members of the public and small/solo legal practitioners.  For many of them, the pay resources of the Lexis/Westlaw world were out of reach and they depended on our collection of print materials and our public access Westlaw machines.  
  2. The great recession hit our library budget pretty hard and we were unable to continue to maintain our print collections of codes and caselaw.  In order to maintain public access to local materials at least, we felt that we had to use the almost prohibitively expensive public access Westlaw machines.  These were problematic in three ways: They limited the number of people that could simultaneously use a terminal, had a limited collection, and only provided leased ownership to the materials that would go *poof* should we ever stop paying.
  3. The Web 2.0 revolution was in full swing and it became easier than ever to put content on the web.  You didn’t need to be a computer genius or “techie” any more to put material online.  And there was an audience for it too!   According to Pew Research ( by 2008 almost 75% of all adults were online.

Because of all of the above, I began to wonder why more state governments didn’t put their legal materials online for people to use and reuse.  After all, there were no copyright restrictions, since it was primary law.  And if I could put content up on the web, surely a state government could too.  It seemed so easy.  Take a case or statute or regulation.  Put it into HTML (or, heck, even a PDF would do).  Post it on the web and give everyone free access.  Done.  

However, as I showed in 2016 ( , states are failing in this goal.  As they did during the print era, states often have decided to outsource their electronic legal publishing to commercial vendors.  These vendors in turn place usage restrictions – and sometimes even copyright! – on these laws, which admittedly does still allow for the regular public to access them, assuming that they’re not put off by the click through agreements.  However, they prevent the content of the law being republished by someone that would wish to build upon the primary law and make more useful secondary legal materials.  One of the less talked about benefits of free legal information is that when you give people access to the raw material of law, they can make some really cool things out of it.

Back to 2008.  It was around this time that I “met” Tom Bruce via Twitter.  Initially I liked him because I thought he was funny and interesting, but soon he began to challenge my librarian perceptions of what really matters in publishing Free Law.  No, the LII isn’t “official” or “authentic.”  However, its openness allows for accuracy checks to occur.  They also have the infrastructure to support the heavy web traffic that can send the U.S. Supreme Court website crashing on important release days.

I also learned from Tom and the LII crew that publishing law isn’t as easy as I originally thought.  That doesn’t mean that they do it poorly or even less ably than commercial vendors. In fact, their site has some very beneficial add-ons and usability tricks that add tremendous value to the law and make it easier for the general public to understand.  Through their groundbreaking work and ingenuity, the LII has become the gold standard for what free legal publishing can be.

I have seen too many librarians let perfect be the enemy of good and not let themselves fully support free and open access to law, even though Pay Law is slowly killing their institutions.  Common complaints include no citators for case law, lack of authentication or officialness and little to no preservation. It doesn’t seem to matter that the current commercial sites are not authentic, official or preserved.  Or that government supported Terms of Service agreements are currently preventing open access to law practitioners from making tools like citators.  Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that things given away for free by “volunteers” do not have the same worth as something that costs ever more exorbitant rates.

Why does it matter?

Many people in the Free Law and Open Government space seem to come at the issue from the angle of transparency. The reasoning being that if people are to be governed by a democratic government, they need to have access to the workings of that government in order to be full participants in it.  I believe that, but I also have a slightly different tack to it.

Access to information is access to justice.  That’s always been the case, but now more than ever.  People often conflate access to legal services with access to justice, but access to justice is much larger than just access to legal services.  That being said, we have an access to justice crisis in the United States most often measured by access to legal services.  At present, eighty percent of the people who need legal representation must do without, often because they cannot afford the services of an attorney.

If a person must rely upon their own wits in order to get government benefits, stay in their housing, litigate a divorce, navigate their business through government regulations or any of the other common access to justice needs of individuals, it is essential that they have easy access to correct and up to date legal information.  Unlike me at age 16, many of these people cannot take the time to go to a physical library.  Indeed, even if they could, they would be offered a dwindling print collection or maybe a sparse public access database.  

The public needs to be able to access legal information on the open 24/7 Internet in an easy to navigate, mobile friendly way, since most people – especially lower income individuals – access the web via mobile devices. ( Primary law needs to be published without usage restrictions so that individuals and organizations can create useful adaptations and tools like encyclopedias and citators to assist self-represented individuals in their endeavors.

Twenty-five years ago Tom Bruce and Peter Martin started a revolution in legal publishing with the founding of the Legal Information Institute.  It is my hope that twenty-five years from now, with the seeds planted by Tom and Peter, a hundred (or more!) free legal information sites will bloom and new ways of looking at and using legal information will be developed and people will have great access and understanding of the law that governs them.

Sarah Glassmeyer is the Project Director for the American Bar Association Center for Innovation.  She is a former Research Fellow at the Harvard Library Innovation Lab, and affiliate of the Berkman-Klein Center for the Internet and Society; she also served as the Director of Community Development for the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction.  She is an unrepentant law librarian, and a very funny person to watch a movie with.

by Carl Malamud

When Peter Martin and Tom Bruce decided 25 years ago to serve the law on the Internet, they were joining a grand tradition of promulgation dating back 25 centuries. The pronouncements and edicts of our governments comprise the operating system of our societies, and it is only when that code is repeatedly copied that it may take effect.

Only by promulgating the law can we have rule of law. Only by copying and annotating the law can we understand what it says and inform our fellow citizens. Only by repeating and disputing the law can we refine the principles to make the wheels of our system of justice roll down the road of righteousness.

The law does not occur in a vacuum. The law must be transmitted to others to take effect. If an edict is uttered in the forest but nobody is there to listen, it cannot be considered a law. For a people governed by the rule of law, the laws must be written prospectively, be of general applicability, and be fully promulgated. Only then do we bring justice out from the arbitrary whims of capricious individuals in star chambers into a world of law made for the people and by the people.

This tradition of promulgation dates back to the beginnings of our societies. The plebes of Rome demanded that the laws by which they were to be governed be carved into stone and wood. Copies of those Twelve Tables were displayed in every marketplace. Every student and scholar was taught to recite them from memory to their peers, to their teachers, and when they pled their causes in a court of law.

In India, the great emperor Ashoka carved his edicts on pillars and placed them throughout the empire, expressing his desire that there be “uniformity in law and uniformity in sentencing,” codifying a system of appeals, declaring amnesties, and protecting natural resources and wildlife.

Later, as the West began to emerge from the dark ages, it was priests copying the canon law for each other that began creating a more regular and predictable system of justice. This legal renaissance, in turn, encouraged the recording and transmittal of civil law and led the Four Doctors to revive the codification and glosses of Justinian to create a law school for teaching civil law.

In England, Justice Edward Coke read and wrote the law in his Institutes, a restatement (and reinterpretation) of the law that continues to resonate today. A century later Blackstone repeated the process, in an affordable and understandable restatement of the law that was used throughout rural America by up-and-coming students in log cabins to teach themselves the law.

Peter Martin and Tom Bruce were not the first to decide to use computers and the Internet as a tool for promulgating the law, but they were the first to do so for the people. The earlier JURIS system, created by the Air Force with the Department of Justice, had a great trove of case law, statutes, and constitutions, but the government did not open it to the people. Indeed that database was soon destroyed by the Department of Justice in a misguided attempt to curry favor with corporate interests who were worried the JURIS law would co-mingle with the West law and pollute the purity of the West bloodline.

Those corporate interests, companies such as West and Lexis, had been creating mighty databases of primary legal materials for many years, but did so for the primary purpose of their own personal gain. The law to them was a property, indeed they assumed de facto ownership over huge swathes of American jurisprudence, asserting copyright, establishing monopolies, and charging extortionate rents.

Both West and Lexis provided adequate services for their times, but they were services for the rich, not for the people, and the primary pecuniary motivation of their enterprises can be readily seen today by one quick glance at their terms of service and antiquated sites. Do not doubt for a minute, this is all about the money for them.

Peter Martin and Tom Bruce set out to change that situation, a testament to their dedication to public service. They put Supreme Court decisions and the U.S. Code on the Internet, available for use without restriction, presented in a standards-compliant way that worked in modern browsers. High school classes were suddenly able to teach the seminal decisions that shaped our country. Citizens could read topical and historical cases and navigate the provisions of the U.S. Code. Lawyers and government employees flocked to the new service as well, since it surpassed what their employers provided in so many ways.

An informed citizenry is the key to our democracy. Many lawyers have felt that it is their sole and exclusive job to interpret the law, a private domain available only to them by virtue of their license to practice. This attitude has become much rarer among the other learned professions.

Doctors now understand (albeit perhaps grudgingly) that their patients are eager to learn about their medical conditions and that this practice leads to better medicine. The sciences have long been practiced by many, from highly trained professionals to eager amateurs. Many of those amateurs have made fundamental contributions to the state of human knowledge. MBAs at Goldman Sachs share the SEC EDGAR database with senior citizen day traders and college students.

Yet, despite 25 years of effort, the law in America is not widely available. In many cases, citizens are granted drastically limited access to the law, allowed to read regulations only by agreeing to onerous terms of use, and subjecting themselves to web sites with digital rights management and other technical shackles that deliberately make the law harder to read and impossible to copy.

You are allowed to see the law, but only within the confines of the walled garden, and you are continually reminded you are a guest in this private facility which you visit only at the forbearance of the purported landlords.

Even when the web sites presenting the law are adequate, all too often they are the vigorously defended monopoly of one well-heeled and well-connected concessionaire. Copies in bulk are prohibited contractually (and arbitrarily) through thickets of clickthrough boilerplate and enforced technically. These prohibitions apply to any and all, from for-profit competitors to—as Lexis puts it in its terms of use—all “non-profit or public purposes.”

When the law stagnates behind walls, the law becomes static. The law must flow freely, it must get continually re-expressed using the new technologies and sensibilities of our day. The innovation that springs from random corners cannot happen when the law is frozen in means of expression only suitable for a prior age.

This is why we must celebrate the vision and accomplishment of the Legal Information Institute. The founders have shown a unique sense of public purpose when they made their new system available for all to use without reservation or registration.

Peter Martin has a 50-year record of public service. He was one of the only law school deans who understood that the mechanics of the law—the infrastructure of our system of justice—is just as important as the substance. In addition to his work at LII, he has been a pioneer in the mechanics of legal citation and has been a voice of clarity to the states in teaching them about vendor-neutral citation.

Tom Bruce and his contributions must equally be applauded. When he co-founded LII in 1992, the web was a different place. In addition to placing legal materials online, Tom understood that people needed to read those materials, and in those days, that software didn’t exist. When you move to the wilderness, sometimes you have to build a house before you can start farming. So he wrote Cello, the first Windows-based browser.

Tom Bruce, like me, is not a lawyer but has spent an inordinate amount of time inside the mechanics of our legal system. Before Tom joined Cornell he worked as a stage manager on major productions for groups such as the American Repertory Theater and the Lyric Opera of Chicago. Big league jobs, and highly technical. Tom discovered the Internet early, and rather than take his formidable skills to Silicon Valley to make his fortune, he has devoted the last 25 years to public service.

Copying the law—transforming the law to make it more useful, promulgating the law to lawyers and also to muggles like us who have not been raised to the bar—is an activity that one would think would get universal acclaim. But, it is more than a few greedy vendors who have objected to these activities. The bar itself has been notably reluctant to embrace the Internet and its potential.

The idea that the law can be owned by a private vendor, or that one private party might require a license from another private party before speaking the law, is an idea that (oddly enough) still has great cachet among some lawyers. Go to any meeting of intellectual property sections of bar associations, and you will find a hardened cadre of alt-© absolutists that maintain that only lawyers need to read the law and that expensive access to legal materials is a fact of life.

To these misguided souls, the law is a revenue opportunity, not the underpinnings of our democracy. They view rhetoric about the rule of law as a marketing slogan—no different than being in favor of world peace—not as the very foundation of our temple of justice. They view public property as yet another opportunity to build private fences and charge admission, not as our common heritage to be shared equally and non-consumptively by all.

I speak with some experience on this matter, having participated in the American Bar Association policy process two years in a row. Last year, I watched dumbfounded as the ABA endorsed the idea that the law should be subjected to Digital Rights Management in a misguided attempt to protect private revenue streams while providing the public with a dumbed-down version of federal regulations.

While even that modest step forward from the present situation was vigorously opposed by the standards organizations—and I will grant you that this resolution had the best of intentions by the original drafters of taking one small step forward—the resolution put the ABA firmly in favor of deliberately restricting access to the law through the use of misguided (and ultimately ineffective) technical limitations. How can you tell citizens how they may or may not read and use the law?

It was gobsmacking to me that the idea of subjecting federal regulations to Digital Rights Management was co-sponsored by the ABA Section on Civil Rights. I attempted numerous times to brief the section (of which I am a member) on the issues, but they refused to allow me to participate. After the resolution passed, I approached the Civil Rights representative to the ABA House of Delegates and asked why they wouldn’t discuss the issues with me. She responded “Because you’re not a lawyer. That’s how we do things here.” I was stunned.

This “you’re not a lawyer” attitude is all too common at the bar. I have found it in private practice, in the judiciary, and in law schools. What I have also found, however, is that the smarter the lawyer and the more senior the position, the less likely it is suffer from this kind of insularity. In the American Bar Association, for example, I found leaders such as General Jack L. Rives (the executive director) and Linda A. Klein (the past president) to be encouraging, respectful, and welcoming, to non-lawyers.

I still have hope for the bar, but I we have clearly failed to convince them of the importance of the raw materials of our democracy for them as practicing lawyers and for as citizens who own our government. We must try harder.

I came late to the game of making legal materials available. I started Public Resource in 2007, 15 years after Tom and Peter started their work at LII. But, my work in the 1990s was in a similar vein, making large government databases such as Patent and SEC available. I ran across a similar attitude of insularity and privilege in those days.

Financial professionals felt there was simply no need for the general public, even the investing public, to have access to primary SEC filings. In the patent bar, there was an even more strident view that patents were only of interest to patent lawyers. I set out to change that.

I learned two truths putting those databases online. First, when you make an important database like this available, the number of people who will take the time to read the materials will astound you. Millions of people started reading patents. Millions of people read SEC filings. Millions of people read the LII.These are not trivial databases. I get far more hits than most government web sites and I know LII’s traffic overshadows most of the organizations they mirror.

The other thing I learned is that there is always somebody smarter than me out there. When I made databases available in bulk with no restrictions on use, others came along and started working on them, making the data more useful in ways that I could not have conceived and certainly could not carry out. When we restrict access to public materials, we prevent innovation.

The same is true with the law, and my birthday message today is that we must not simply celebrate 25 years of pioneering leadership by LII, we must ask ourselves as a country what we can do to bring this forward, to take the next steps along that road.

There is some hope. For decades, the only reasonable way to read the U.S. Code has been LII, but now the Congress has made substantial progress. Their system is not nearly as good as LII, but the Congress is trying to get there and deserve credit for the level of effort and, most of all, for shipping code.

The U.S. Code is just one instantiation of our primary legal materials. Even at the federal level, the state of our laws is abysmal. The only reasonable version of the Code of Federal Regulations is the one that the LII runs. The government has shown no interest in moving this database forward, despite the fact that federal regulations are some of the laws that most directly impact our citizens.

I speak from personal experience on this point as well. I was gratified to play a very small part in the transformation of the Federal Register at the beginning of President Obama’s first term, but I spent the next 8 years trying to get somebody, anybody, to take on the CFR. I personally proselytized the vision of a better CFR to the Office of the Federal Register, the National Archives, numerous members of Congress, numerous White House officials, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Justice.

My efforts at evangelism yielded many converts and no action and the CFR remains mired in a swamp. It is the swath of federal law that most directly effects people. I depend on LII to be able to put permalinks to the CFR in my writings, but find it incredible that there is not an official, stable, secure source from the regulators themselves.

Looking across the rest of our federal government, we see a Supreme Court that built a new web site, but still does not provide access to historical materials, such as the briefs submitted in cases, let alone the records of the lower courts decisions leading up to pinnacle of the marble palace.

Let us not even speak of oral arguments, proceedings that would be invaluable to our law schools as a teaching tool. There is no better device to teach the mechanics of rhetoric and argumentation than posting video of the best lawyers in the land arguing the most important issues before us to highest court. A few lucky law students from elite schools occasionally get a brief glimpse of the proceedings, but videos of oral arguments should be available to every law student, every lawyer, and every citizen.

In our lower courts, we see a PACER system that is absurdly expensive and so technically flawed—despite a huge recent investment of time and money in code whose most visible attribute is the obvious insularity of the programmers who wrote it—that the mere mention of the word “PACER” to a technical audience has become a laugh line. Try it. “Take my PACER. Please!” See?

Congress, despite some progress in areas such as the U.S. Code, still has low-quality streaming video for the House and a meager presence on the Internet for the Senate, an insult to the rich history of that august body. Across government as a whole, key archives, such as the full run of the Statutes at Large and the Federal Register, are sadly incomplete. The problems are even more dire at the state and municipal levels.

Let me be very clear about the tremendous progress that has been made in some quarters, particularly in the last 8 years. Our government has become much more aware of how to use computer technology. The White House had a stellar group of technologists guiding the President, and the creation of digital services in departments such as Veterans Affairs and Defense have made a huge difference. Good people work for government, and the only thing stopping them from doing better work is the willful cluelessness of their leaders.

What is equally clear is that the specific issue at hand—the availability of the primary legal materials of the United States of America—has not received the attention it needs from those charged with creating, transmitting, and administering our edicts of government. That is of course our fault for not clearly stating the importance of this mechanical issue of legal plumbing and pipes. It is clear we have not made a lasting impression, we must speak louder and more often.

One could lay all blame at the feet of the government for the sorry state of our primary legal materials, but I believe the problem is deeper, and must be faced by the bar itself. Before we adjourn to the bar, however, I would like to spend a few words on the topic of money.

Since Tom and I both run legal nonprofits, I can tell you that when we talk one of our most consistent topics is the abysmal state of funding for organizations such as ours and the many other worthy non-profit ventures and research ventures that promulgate and work with the law.

I have spent decades in search of sustainability and the elusive magic business model. I know Tom has been on a similar quest for this holy grail. A Silicon Valley executive once told me that I needed a better business model than charity, but I put it to you that far too many enterprises that try to get into the legal “business” focus on the money and that focus has led us to where we are today. So many startups have been created only to beat a door towards the first exit.

Let me be clear, that even the most well-meaning .com startup today could not possible succeed as long as the insurmountably high wall surrounding our primary legal materials remains in place. I give you a simple example.

In our suit over promulgation of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, we include a sworn declaration from Ed Walters, the CEO of Fastcase. Fastcase, the official provider of case law to the State Bar of Georgia, attempted to license a copy of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and was told by the state and their vendor that they could not have a copy of the official law of Georgia “at any price.”

Fastcase has also received numerous takedowns for making the official regulations of Georgia available, and I am in court over publication of state-mandated public safety codes, such as the electrical and building codes. If you think you could a better job disseminating the law to the people you of Georgia, you will do so, as the Official Code says, “at your peril.”

As for legal nonprofits and our continual focus on money, or the lack thereof, and our failed quests for a business model. The only business model I need to see, and I believe I can speak for Tom on this matter as well, is for government to rise to the occasion, after which I can assure you I will happily close my doors and pursue other interests.

Why is money for such a service so hard to find? If you run one of these boots-on-the-ground, ops-oriented legal non profits, when you go talk to foundations, and present your millions of users and shiny public purpose, the foundations want to know why the legal profession is not more supportive, why the bar is not funding our operations.

The foundations want to know why governments are not doing the tasks that we are doing. The foundations are always happy to fund hackathons, prototypes, and symposia, but infrastructure is a very, very tough sell. They don’t see it as their job. They would rather fund what they see as innovation than what they see as infrastructure.

This is an issue that will never be fixed unless the bar faces the fundamental fact that the legal profession has not risen to the task. We can blame government for not providing our primary legal materials in an adequate form, but government will never do so until the bar demands change. The bar has not done so.

Let me be clear, there are some amazing and well-meaning lawyers out there, I do not wish to castigate the entire bar. Nine law firms defend my efforts to clear title on public goods on a pro bono basis, booking millions of dollars in free legal help. There are many lawyers in private practice that make a point of making contributions to LII every year.

There are lawyers in the legal information business, such as Ed Walters of Fastcase and Tim Stanley of Justia that have been stalwart supporters of both Tom and myself, donating generously of their time and their money. It has been a true joy to have spent a decade working with legal rebels such as them.

Those good and noble lawyers, unfortunately, are the exception, not the rule. The American legal profession as a whole has shown little interest in making our primary legal materials more readily available for themselves, let alone the public. Law as a commodity to be sold instead of a public good to be shared is an attitude one finds all too often not just in organizations such as the American Bar Association, but also in institutions such as the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The lack of interest in public access is coupled with a lack of interest in technology, a lack of interest all too apparent when you look at technical rules adopted by the courts. I’ll give you a simple example. If you file a brief in court, you must double-space your brief. I’ve worked professionally as a public printer for many years, and when I think of double space, I think of a precise concept defined in terms of leading.

The courts don’t do that: they insist that “double space” is a setting in Microsoft Word and it turns out that Microsoft’s definition of what is double spacing changes over time, is not public, and is not accurate. What is amazing is that concepts such as “double space” and “number of words” are practically the only technical standards in place for our courts.

If a court is willing to define length limits based on some proprietary, secret algorithm in a software package, it is no surprise that they are not able (or willing) to define technical standards that make any sense. Technical specs for the format of a PDF file (let alone filing an HTML file!), meaningful rules and systems for the protection of privacy, facilities for bulk access, unique IDs for documents, digital signatures, and meaningful notification of updates to court dockets and their contents are all sorely lacking or non-existent. A very nice article has been recently published on this topic by Colarusso and Rickard (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/AWBDX) and is worth a read.

Tom Bruce and Peter Martin stepped up 25 years ago and did what government should have been doing: the dissemination of primary legal materials on the Internet. I will grant you that 25 years ago, this was not something most governments viewed as their job, though I will note that DOJ had the JURIS system already working and could have easily made it available to the public. The job Tom and Peter took upon themselves was pioneering and visionary.

For that brave and early jump from the safety of their ivory towers into the infinite sea of the Internet, Tom and Peter and their amazing LII staff deserves our profound thanks. They deserve more than our thanks, though. They deserve our deeds.

It took 25 years for Congress to start doing a decent job on the public face of the U.S. Code. Nobody in Washington has even started looking at the Code of Federal Regulations in a serious way. We need to continue to support LII, to remind our government that they are not yet doing their job, and to make sure that LII can continue to operate.

We must also tell the bar—repeatedly and in great detail until their eyes cease to glaze over and they begin to see the light—that promulgation is the key to the law. We must convince them that their apathy is bad for the legal profession, bad for America, and bad for democracy. The fact that the bar does not “get it” is our fault as much as theirs. We must redouble our efforts at persuasion. We must try much harder.

As a people, we must all read the same regulations, the same court decisions, the same ordinances and statutes, so we lay down a common baseline from which to govern ourselves. From that common understanding, we can dispute the law, we can improve it, we can understand our rights and obligations under our system of jurisprudence.

The Legal Information Institute plays a crucial role in this fundamental aspect of our legal system. We should all strive to do what they do. If you want justice, it is up to you to help make justice possible. Only if the law rolls like the waters can justice flow like a mighty stream. We must all speak the law we wish to hear.

Carl Malamud is the president and founder of Public.Resource.Org. He has been enjoined by judges from speaking the National Electrical Code, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and the European safety standard for baby pacifiers.

by Adam Ziegler

If I could snap my fingers and make it so, the Web would offer free and open access to every statute, regulation and court ruling ever issued. Unfortunately, finger-snapping doesn’t seem to work.

What does work is … work. Committed, painstaking, imperfect, incremental work over a long period of time, by people like Tom Bruce, Peter Martin, Sara Frug and their colleagues at LII. This series fittingly celebrates their extraordinary 25-year mission to ensure that “everyone [is] able to read and understand the laws that govern them, without cost.” No organization has had a more positive impact on access to law in the internet era.

Unfortunately, despite LII’s remarkable effort and impact, we remain a long way from fully realizing LII’s vision. One area that still requires substantial work is caselaw – the official rulings, decisions and opinions issued by our state and federal courts. Our official caselaw, for the most part, is locked inside print volumes and proprietary databases that offer limited access to the privileged few.

An Early, Profound Commitment to Access

For centuries our courts fulfilled their obligation to ensure public access to law by publishing and disseminating their written decisions in books, called “reporters.” The work by courts, judges, reporters of decisions, publishers, libraries and others to produce and preserve these books over many years has been monumental.

If you study the prefaces and introductory notes of early case reporters, as I have, you gain a profound appreciation for what it took to publish the law during this “book-only” legal publishing period. This was hard work, driven by a commitment to the idea that maximizing access was good for the legal profession and the public:

It has long been a subject of complaint, in this state, that we had no reports of the decisions of our courts of judicature. The importance of having authentic reports of cases. argued and determined in the Supreme Judicial Court, the only court in the state whose decisions are considered as authorities, must be obvious to all who have any pretensions to information on the subject.” (Ephraim Williams, Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1805, published in Vol. 1 of the Massachusetts Reports)

I need not here enlarge upon the great utility, to the profession, especially, of books of Reports, nor on the necessity that exists in all countries, where the law is the rule of action, that it should be certain and known. The legislature may enact laws, but it is the courts that expound them, and if their expositions remain unpublished, much mischief and litigation must be the consequence. (Sidney Breese, 1831, published in Vol. 1 of the Illinois Reports)

The Federal Reporter is devoted exclusively to the prompt and complete publication of the judicial opinions delivered in each of the United State circuit and district courts. It publishes both oral and written opinions, and such charges to juries as are deemed of general importance…It is believed that by this means many able and learned opinions will be rescued from a most undeserved oblivion, while greater uniformity in the interpretation of the federal statutes and the practice of the various federal courts will at the same time be secured. In would seem, therefore, that such an undertaking is not only possessed of great intrinsic merit, but, now that it has been fairly inaugurated, it actually appears to present itself in the light of a public necessity. (West Publishing Company, 1880, published in Vol. 1 of the Federal Reporter)

This commitment to access shines through in so many of the early reporter volumes we’ve digitized as part of the Caselaw Access Project I lead at Harvard Law School. My favorite example is the Reporter’s Note in Volume 32 of the Georgia Reports, which tells the amazing personal story of George Lester’s efforts to publish the law during and after the Civil War, despite being wounded as a Confederate soldier, the burning of his house and papers, and finding himself “poor and destitute” at the close of the war. It’s hard to imagine someone more dedicated to access to law.

Is the Commitment to Access Fading?

Today, books are not the only or the best way for courts to deliver on their longstanding commitment to access. The “book-only” publishing model is long gone, thankfully. Yet a “book-first” publishing model still prevails for most courts and in most jurisdictions. In this model, courts send commercial publishers their decisions, and the “official” versions of those decisions are collected into bound volumes sold by the publishers to libraries. The publishers also get unique access to the final, digital versions of the decisions, which they use to populate expensive, subscription-only databases they alone control. Meanwhile the inferior, unofficial versions of decisions are sometimes made available, often temporarily, through court websites.

The unfortunate result is that today everyone has to pay to access and read the law. Even if you pay, your access is severely limited. And this takes place in an age in which it’s all too easy for anyone to post anything online for everyone to read, for free. What would Ephraim Williams, Sidney Breese, George Lester and their contemporaries say if they knew that it was possible for courts to make every ruling immediately, freely accessible to the entire world, yet many were not doing so? They might think the commitment to access had faded.

I don’t believe the courts’ commitment to access has faded. It remains every bit as profound and intense as it was centuries ago. Every conversation I have with judges or court officials reinforces this. The access problem today does not reflect a lack of commitment. It reflects, instead, the fundamental difficulty of changing behavior inside institutions designed, for good reason, to make change hard.

This attitude toward change is evident in the slow pace with which courts adopt new technology, which Chief Justice Roberts celebrated in his 2014 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. According to Roberts, “[c]ourts are simply different in important respects when it comes to adopting technology, including information technology,” and this tendency toward caution is an institutional virtue. Technology experts scoff at this claim, because many court technology systems – PACER, for one – are fundamentally defective and unjustifiably difficult to use, and have been for a long time. Far from protecting courts from bad technology, courts’ resistance to change often prolongs their exposure to bad technology.

Nevertheless, those of us who want change in the way courts publish their decisions must respect this dynamic. We must work hard to appreciate the concerns and reservations courts have, to increase awareness and understanding of technological solutions, and to demonstrate paths forward that allow courts to fulfill their commitment to access without compromising other important values.

Access in a Modern World: Digital-First Publishing

Going forward, ensuring public access means publishing and distributing court decisions online as free and open data. That is unquestionably what every court in every jurisdiction should be moving toward.

Courts should focus their digital-publishing efforts forward. They should not worry about providing access to their historical decisions. The Free Law Project, led by Mike Lissner, has already amassed and made accessible a huge, growing collection of historical decisions and other legal materials, including federal trial court opinions from PACER. Our Library Innovation Lab, in partnership with Ravel Law, will provide public access to the Harvard Law Library’s full collection of historical court decisions extracted from roughly 40,000 bound reporter volumes. While bulk access to this data will be restricted temporarily, those restrictions cease once a state or federal court transitions to digital-first publishing. Thus, by making the transition prospectively, courts can also ensure free public access to all of their historical caselaw.

Because each court system has different challenges, constraints and opportunities, we should expect to see different approaches to the transition from book-first to digital-first publishing. We should not expect a one-size-fits-all solution. But we can try to identify a common, achievable standard.

To that end, described below is a set of proposed guidelines for any state making this transition to digital-first publishing. These guidelines recognize the need for flexibility. They outline an achievable standard but do not dictate particular means or methods. For states able to administer their own digital-first publishing systems, these guidelines can inform that system’s priorities and design. For states that will continue relying on the software and/or services of a partner, these guidelines can help define an RFP and inform negotiations and contracting.

Essential characteristics: To fulfill the court’s basic commitment to access, a digital-first publishing system should possess at least these characteristics:

  1. Online – Court decisions should be issued and available online via the Web.
  1. Free and Open – Court decisions should be accessible without charge and without any technical or contractual restrictions on access or usage.
  1. Comprehensive – All decisions should be made available digitally in the same fashion, using the same system. If a state distinguishes between precedential and non-precedential decisions, that distinction should not affect access.
  1. Official – The digital version of a decision should be the official version.
  1. Citable – The digital version of a decision should be citable in and by the courts of the relevant state, using a vendor neutral citation format.
  1. Machine Readable – The decisions should be made available in machine readable formats, meaning at least digitally created PDFs.

Desirable characteristics: To maximize access and to provide a greater public benefit, a court’s digital-first publishing system should possess these additional characteristics:

  1. Digitally Signed – Decisions should be digitally signed by the issuing court to permit authentication.
  1. Versioned – Decisions should be issued using a version control system that makes corrections easy for the courts and transparent to those relying on the decisions.
  1. Structured Data – Decisions should be issued with accompanying metadata that describes, according to a publicly disclosed standard, key attributes of the decisions, such as case name, citation, court name, attorneys, participating judges and authoring judge.
  1. Medium-Neutral – Decisions should include paragraph-numbering and avoid page-dependency.
  1. Archived – Decisions should be preserved, and the archived decisions should be made available online.
  1. Searchable – Decisions should be searchable using keywords and metadata fields.
  1. Bulk Downloadable – Decisions should be downloadable in bulk.
  1. API – Decisions should be accessible to any programmer via a public, documented Application Programming Interface.

My hope is that each court system, in furtherance of its longstanding commitment to access, will work to understand these guidelines and to adopt these as priorities. As LII has shown over 25 years, however, the hard work of ensuring access to law is not the government’s obligation alone. We all – libraries, law schools, lawyers, entrepreneurs – should find ways to advocate for and actively participate in creating the world envisioned by LII, in which “everyone [is] able to read and understand the laws that govern them, without cost.” We have a long way to go to realize this vision, especially for caselaw, but we all are fortunate to have LII’s example to follow.


Adam Ziegler is the Managing Director of the Library Innovation Lab at Harvard Law School Library, where he leads several legal technology and information projects, including the Caselaw Access Project, an effort to digitize and make publicly available Harvard’s full collection of historical court decisions. Before joining Harvard in 2014, he founded a small legal startup and represented clients in court for over 10 years.

Ginevra Peruginelli (Institute of Theory and Techniques of Legal Information of the National Research Council of Italy)

[Ed. note:  This instalment of our 25-for-25 looks, at first, like a bit of a departure for us — it talks about different methods of evaluating legal scholarship.  But with a little reading-between-the-lines, it’s not hard to see how well it ties in with questions that are very present for American legal experts.   The problem of evaluating the quality of legal expertise expressed, consumed, and commented upon in different online environments — blogs such as this one, online commentary, and nontraditional channels of all kinds — is a stubborn one that is gaining increased attention.   How do you measure the quality of scholarship, or its impact? Other disciplines have struggled with this, as reliance on particular publication vehicles becomes obsolete in the face of new methods of dissemination, community discussion, and response.  It is high time that we looked at legal scholarship as well.  Of late, law librarians interested in so-called “alt-metrics” have begun to.]

The evaluation of the quality of legal publications is now at the center of the debate in the legal academia in Europe (among others Flückiger and Tanquerel 2015). Nowadays, in principle, peer review remains the preferred method for assessing the quality of legal scholarship: this is partly due to the failure of a purely metrics-based system in this area. In legal sciences, where research output is usually produced in long written texts, research performance is hard to assess using quantitative indicators: bibliometric methods are not sufficiently capable of measuring research performance in legal scholarship and are not considered trustable by the legal community.

In 1992 Edward L. Rubin, professor of law at the Vanderbilt University Law School (Rubin 1992) argued that there is no theory of evaluation for legal sciences. He stated that what actually leads legal academics to assess a work is based on an undefined concept of quality of judgments. This creates a number of conceptual and practical difficulties that produce confusion and unease in the area. It is a matter of fact that many of the most heated discussions on legal scholarship concern the evaluation process and a relevant number of these are repetitive and non-productive for the total absence of an evaluation theory. Rubin directly tackles the question of what the foundation for evaluation should be and recommends an epistemological approach for formulating an evaluation theory. Some interesting issues are raised in his writings: the need for using criteria such as clarity, persuasiveness, significance, the consideration by evaluators of their own uncertainty, especially in case of topics somehow far from their discipline.

A strong debate is still going on over criteria and even about the possibility of objective reliable evaluation in the law domain; major critical issues are still in place and no innovative solutions have been brought forward yet.

According to one  part of the literature  (van Gestel and Vranken 2011; van Gestel 2015; Gutwirth 2009; Epstein and King 2002; Siems 2008), it is possible to identify some critical issues at the core of the debate on legal research assessment at European level. These are reported below in the form of questions and comments based on the current debate.

(a) Following the research assessment exercise of various European countries, content-based criteria such as originality, significance, societal impact are adopted. Is there general consensus on the value and interpretation of such criteria?

Depending on the type of research, on the literary genres and on the areas of law, the above content-based quality criteria can be critically different. Legal scholarship dedicated to interpret recent case law or a legal provision meets some difficulties in fulfilling the standard of originality as compared to theoretical research on general concepts, problems and principles of the law (Siems 2008). Similar difficulties arise in evaluating criteria such as internationalization and societal impact, particularly in some fields of law, which are not part of the international arena, in terms of relevance, competitiveness and approval by the scientific community, including the explicit collaboration of researchers and research teams from other countries.

(b) Is it possible to assess legal research on the basis of bibliometric evaluation techniques more or less widely accepted in other scientific disciplines?

Of course such alternatives should be thoroughly analyzed, taking into account a methodological justification in legal research. Although the best way to assess legal research and scientific publication is peer review, its time consuming process, the scarce availability of reviewers with expertise in this domain and the increasing request of research outputs evaluation limit the peer review method in legal science. Moreover, background figures that can be used to support the allocation of funds are being requested more and more by governments and policymakers (Gutwirth 2009). This situation has actually created the need for quantitative measurements of scientific output as support tools for peer review. Performance indicators used in the assessment of exact sciences are now a strong part of the debate concerning how to evaluate non-bibliometric areas such as law. However, adopting the criteria, evaluation processes and methods that are used in other sciences is not a good solution. It would be appropriate to create transnational standards for legal research quality assessment, taking into account the actual internationalization of research in this area and the increasing mobility of students and development of international law schools. The establishment of harmonized standards or of generally accepted quality indicators is a challenge to be met, despite the differences between national assessment methods, various publishing cultures and different academic traditions.

(c) How reliable is peer review?

Finding highly qualified peer reviewers is a difficult task when a pre-selection is to be performed, and usually it is not always clear how reviewers are recruited and selected (Lamont 2009). Besides that, subjectivity, unconscious biases and prejudices are impossible to eliminate. Honesty, accountability, openness and integrity are vital qualities for all reviewers who should be able to pursue their work in an atmosphere free from prejudice. In addition, if we focus on the problem from the point of view of legal journals and their publishing practices, it is important to reach clarity and consensus within editorial boards about the way criteria are used and the decisions are taken. Editorial boards should follow a well-documented procedure and make it clear to the audience (van Gestel and Vranken 2011). It is also up to the editorial boards to check that the submitted papers include a clear explanation of the research question and the research design. Quite important, submissions dealing with comparative law issues should contain an explanation of jurisdictions that are taken into account and employed methods of the analysis. In several European countries there is no common policy framework of articles submitted to national law journals: every journal/publisher follows its own practice to assess the quality of legal research outputs.

(d) Which are the advantages and disadvantages of law journals rankings?

Over the past few years, legal academics and their institutions have become obsessive about the starratings of the journals in which they publish. On one side ranking of journals gives university management a convenient method of assessing research performance, on the other hand, research evidence suggests that journal ranking is not a good proxy for the value and impact of an article. Moreover, when journal rankings are based on journal citation scores, the number of citations that a journal receives in other periodicals is a very indirect indicator of the quality of an article in that same periodical.

In particular, the law journal ranking system is encouraging the situation where academics become more interested in publishing in specific journals of high impact than in doing research that is of real value. Moreover, high qualified researchers are forced to publish in impacted journals abroad and there is no surprise that the national periodicals suffer for lack of the highest level submissions. In a longer period, this could have a negative effect on the existence of local scientific legal periodicals itself.

The idea of a European ranking of law journals represents a great challenge because it would require a cross-border classification of journals. A multilingual law journal database would be an important achievement, reflecting differences of legal cultures and jurisdictions (van Gestel 2015).

(e) Is the relation between legal science and legal practice important for research assessment?

Nowadays a close connection exists between legal science and legal practice, given that both rely on similar instruments for analysis, practical argumentation and reasoning. Legal science is both the science of law and one of the authoritative and influencing sources of that law. This is why there is a strict correlation between legal science and legal practice. As a result, legal science has to pass two “exams”: a quality test within legal academia, which first evaluates its robustness as scientific research, and secondly assesses the pertinence and relevance to legal practice. These overlapping dimensions produce legally relevant knowledge, which should both be considered in the process of evaluating legal science (Gutwirth 2009).

(f) Is the harmonization of legal research assessment exercises at European level desirable in years to come?

Legal research could take advantage of the delay it has experienced in comparison to evaluation procedures developed and carried out for the other social sciences, by initiating a scientific debate on the benefits and disadvantages of the various quality evaluation systems. The goal would be to eventually promote uniformity in the definition of indicators and standards (van Gestel and Vranken 2011).

These are some of the key questions that are most likely to form a framework for future debate, not only because they can promote lively discussions, but because they are also capable of involving countries that have only recently addressed the question of legal research assessment. Legal scholars within each country are the main actors of this discussion. In particular, quality indicators should not be imposed upon legal scholars from a top down perspective, and transparency as well as accountability are to be valued in the legal evaluation process so to build a strong evaluation culture.


Epstein L. and King G. (2002). The Rules of Inference, 69 Chicago Law Review: 1–209.

Flückiger A. and Tanquerel T. (2015). L’évaluation de la recherche en droit / Assessing research in law Enjeux et méthodes / Stakes and methods. Bruxelles, Bruylant.

van Gestel R. (2015). Sense and non-sense of a European ranking of law schools and law journals. Legal Studies, 35: 165–185. doi: 10.1111/lest.12050.

van Gestel R. and Vranken J. (2011). Assessing Legal Research: Sense and Nonsense of Peer Review versus Bibliometrics and the Need for a European Approach, German Law Journal, Vol. 12, no. 3 p. 901-929.

Gutwirth S. (2009). The evaluation of legal science. The Vl.I.R.-model for integral quality assessment of research in law: what next ? Brussels, It takes two to do science. The puzzling interactions between science and society, Available at:

Lamont M. (2009). How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgment, Harvard University Press, 336 pp.

Rubin E.L. (1992). On Beyond Truth: A Theory for Evaluating Legal Scholarship, 80 California Law Review vol. 80 n. 4 pp. 889-963 (Reprinted in Readings in Race and Law: A Guide to Critical Race Theory, Alex Johnson, ed., West, 2002).

Siems M.M. (2008). Legal Originality, 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 174.


Ginevra Peruginelli is Researcher at ITTIG-CNR. She has a degree in Law and a Ph.D in Telematics and Information Society at the University of Florence. She has also received her Master’s degree in Computer Science at the University of Northumbria, Newcastle. Since 2003 she is entitled to practice as a lawyer.
She has been involved in several projects at European and national level such as the NiR (Norme in Rete – Legislation on the Net) portal, MINERVA (Ministerial Network for Valorising Activities in Digitisation), DALOS (Drafting Legislation with Ontology-based Support), CARE (Citizens Consular Assistance Regulation in Europe) and e-Codex (e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange). She has also worked in a research project promoted by the Publications Office of the EU concerning interoperability issues between the Eurovoc thesaurus and other European thesauri. In 2004 and in 2006 she won two CNR research fellowships as visiting scientist at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies of the University of London and the Centre de recherche en droit public at the Faculty of Law of the University of Montréal.
Ginevra is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Open Access to Law, a joint effort of ITTIG, the Autonomous University of Barcelona’s Center for Law and Technology, and the Legal Information Institute.

by David Curle

In order to agree to write about something that is 25 years old, you almost have to admit to being old enough to have something to say about it. So I might as well get my old codger bona fides out of the way.  I came of age at the very cusp of the digital revolution in legal information.  A month before my college graduation ceremony in June 1981, IBM launched its first PC.  I thus belong to the last generation of students who produced their term papers on a typewriter.  

The Former Next Great Thing

When I later entered law school the PCs were pretty well established (we used WordPerfect to write our briefs, of course), and the cutting edge of technology shifted to new legal research tools. Between trips to the library stacks to track down digests or to tediously Shepardize cases manually, we learned of Lexis and Westlaw, which in my first year were accessed via an acoustic-coupled modem and an IBM 3101 dumb terminal, squirreled away in a tiny lab-like room next to the reference desk in the library.  One terminal to serve an entire law school. Sign up to use it via a schedule on the door. Intrigued by this new world of digital information, I took a job in the law library, eventually teaching other students how to search on Lexis and Westlaw between shifts at the reference desk.  

By my second or third year, the 3101 was replaced by Lexis’ and Westlaw’s UBIQ and WALT dedicated terminals. My boss Tom Woxland, Reference Librarian and Head of Public Services at the University of Minnesota Law School, wrote an amusing article in Legal Reference Services Quarterly about a conflict between WALT and the library staff’s refrigerator that will give you a good sense of the level of technology sophistication we dealt with on a daily basis in those days.  

It was just a few years after this refrigerator incident that Tom Bruce and Peter Martin started up LII.  It’s hard to underestimate the imagination and vision that this must have taken, because the digital legal world was still in its infancy.  But they could see the way the world was headed in 1992, and not only that, they did something about it in starting LII.  

UBIQ and WALT, locked away in that room in the library, awakened an interest that turned into a career in legal information systems. I gradually lost interest in legal practice as a career as my interest in electronic information systems of all kinds grew.  By the time I first met Tom Bruce, it was in my capacity as a token representative of the commercial side of the legal information world; I was an analyst at the research firm Outsell, Inc., which tracks various information markets, and I covered Thomson Reuters, Reed Elsevier (RELX), Wolters Kluwer, and all of the smaller players nipping at their heels in the legal information hierarchies of the time. Tom called on me to help explain this commercial world to his community of people working in the more open and non-commercial part of the legal information landscape.  

I don’t intend this piece to be a tribute to LII, nor was I asked to provide one. Rather, Tom Bruce asked me to say a few words about the relationship between free and fee-based legal materials and how they relate to each other. In one big sense, that relationship has evolved in the face of new technologies, and that evolution is the focus of this essay. A fundamental shift in the way the legal market approaches legal information is underway: We no longer think of legal information simply as sets of documents; we are starting to see legal information as data.  

To go back to the chronicle of my digital awakening, there were several things about the new legal information systems that excited me even way back in the 1980s:

  • New entry points. Free-text searching in Westlaw and Lexis freed us from having to use finding tools such as digests, legal encyclopedia, and secondary analytical legal literature in order to find relevant cases. Suddenly any aspect of a case was open to search, not just those that legal indexers or secondary legal materials might have chosen to highlight. Dan Dabney, the former Senior Director, Classification Services at Thomson Reuters, wrote a thoughtful piece about the relationship between searching the natural language of the law, on the one hand, and the artificial languages like the Key Number System that we use to describe the law. He identified the advantages and disadvantages of both, but it was clear that free-text search was a leap forward. His article has held up well and is worth a read: The Universe of Thinkable Thoughts: Literary Warrant and West’s Key Number System
  • Universal availability.  Another aspect of the new legal databases that seemed obvious to me pretty early on was that comprehensive databases of electronic legal materials would be available anywhere, anytime. This had implications for the role of libraries, and for the workflow of lawyers.  It also had access to justice implications, because while most law libraries were open to the public and free (if inconvenient to use), online databases were, at the time, mostly commercial operations with paywalls. If theoretically available anytime and anywhere, legal materials were nonetheless limited to those who could invest the money to subscribe and the time to master their still-complex search syntax.
  • Hyperlinking. While the full hyperlinking possibilities of the World Wide Web were a decade off, I could see that online access to legal materials would shorten the steps between legal arguments and supporting sources.  Where before one might jot down a series of case citations in a text and then go to the stacks one by one to evaluate their relevancy, online you could do this all in one sitting. The editorial cross-referencing that already went in annotations, footnotes, and in-line cites in cases was about to become an orgy of cross-linking (across all kinds of content, not just legal content) that could be carried out at the click of a mouse.  

But as revolutionary as these new approaches were, electronic legal research systems still operated primarily as finding tools. The process of legal research was still oriented toward a single goal: leading the researcher to the documents that contained the answers to legal questions. The onus was still on lawyers to extract meaning from those documents and embed that meaning in their work product.  

A New Mindset: Data not Documents

In recent years, however, a shift in mindset has occurred. Some lawyers, with the help of data scientists, are now starting to think of legal information sources not as collections of individual documents that need to stand on their own in order to have meaning, but as data sets from which new kinds of meaning can be extracted.  

Some of those new applications for “law as data” are:

  • Lawyer and court analytics.  Lex Machina and Ravel Law, recently acquired by LexisNexis, are poster boys for this phenomenon, but others are joining the fray. Lex Machina takes court docket information and analyzes them not for their legal content but for performance data – how fast does this court handle a certain kind of motion, how well has that firm performed. The goal is to identify trends and make predictions based on objective performance data, which is quite a different inquiry than looking at a case based on the merits alone.  
  • Citation analysis and visualization  The value of it is open to discussion, but some commercial players are bringing new techniques to citation analysis, and quite often the result is some form of visualization.  Ravel Law and Fastcase have various kinds of visualizations that take sets of case law data and turn them into visual representations that are intended to illuminate and reveal relationships that traditional, more linear citation analysis might not find.
  • Usage analysis. The content of documents is valuable, but so are the trails of crumbs that users leave as they move from one document to another. Finding meaning in those patterns of usage is just as useful for lawyers as it is for consumers in the Amazon age of “people who bought this also bought that.” Knowing where other researchers have been is valuable data, and systems like Westlaw are able to track relationships between documents and leverage them as information that can be as valuable as any editorial classification scheme.  
  • Entity extraction. Legal documents are full of named entities: people, companies, product names, places, other organizations. Computers are getting better at finding and extracting those entity names from documents.  This has a number of utilities, beyond just helping to standardize the nomenclature used within a data source.  Open standards for entity names mean legal data can more easily be integrated with other types of data sources.  One such open standard identifier is Thomson Reuters’ PermID.
  • Statutes and regulations as inputs to smart contracts. It’s only a matter of time before large classes of contracts become automated and self-executing smart contracts supported by distributed ledgers and blockchains.  A classic example of such a smart contract is a shipping contract, where one party is obligated to pay another when goods arrive in a harbor, and GPS data on the location of a ship can be the signal that triggers such payment. But electronically stored statutes and regulations, especially to the extent that they govern quantitative measures such as time frames, currencies, or interest rates, can also become inputs to smart contracts, dynamically changing contract terms or triggering actions or obligations without human (i.e. lawyerly) intervention.



In all of these applications, we are moving quite a bit away from seeing legal documents for their “face value,” the intrinsic legal principles(s) that each document stands for. Rather, documents and interrelated sets of documents are sources of data points that can be leveraged in different ways in order to speed up and/or improve legal and business decisions. The data embedded in sets of legal documents becomes more than simply the sum of their content in substantive legal meaning; other meanings with strategic or commercial value can be surfaced.  

The Future: Better Data, Not Just Open Data

If there is one thing that the application of a lot of data science to the law has revealed, it’s that the law is a mess. Certain jurisdictions are better than others, of course, but in the US the raw data that we call the law is delivered to the public in an unholy variety of formats, with inconsistent frequency, various levels of comprehensiveness, and with self-imposed limitations on access.  On the state level alone, Sarah Glassmeyer, in her State Legal Information Census, identified 14 different barriers to access ranging from lack of search capability to lack of authoritativeness to restrictions on access for re-use.  Add to that the problematic publishing practices at the federal level (Pacer, anyone?) and the free-for-all at the county and municipal levels, and it’s nothing less than an untamed data jungle.

It is notoriously difficult to acquire and analyze what has been called the operating system of democracy, the law. When Lex Machina was acquired by LexisNexis, one of the primary motivations it gave was the high cost of acquiring, and then normalizing, the imperfect legal data that comes out of the federal courts. LexisNexis had already made the significant investment in building that data set; Lex Machina wanted to focus on what it was good at rather than on than spending its time acquiring and cleaning up the government’s data.  

When a large collection of US case law was made available to the public via Google Scholar in 2009, many saw this as the beginning of the end.  Finally, they thought, access to the law would no longer be a problem.  Since then, more and more legal sources – judicial, legislative, and administrative – have been brought to the public domain. But is that kind of access the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning? Or the beginning of a new mission?

In a thoughtful 2014 essay about Google Scholar’s addition of case law, Tom Bruce reminded us not to get too self-congratulatory about simple access to legal documents.  Wider and freer availability of legal documents does solve one set of problems, especially for one set of users: lawyers. For the public at large, however, even free and open legal information is as impenetrable as if it had been locked up behind the most expensive paywalls. The reason for this is that most legal information is written and delivered as if only lawyers need it. In his essay, he sees the “what’s next” for the Open Access movement as opening legal information to the people who despite not being lawyers, are nonetheless affected by the law every minute of their lives.  

Yes, that “what next” does include pushing to make more primary legal documents freely available in the public domain. Yes, it does mean that organizations like LII can continue to help make law and regulations easier for non-lawyers to find, understand, and apply in their lives, jobs, and industries.  But Tom Bruce provided a few hints at what is now clearly an equally important imperative. Among his prescriptions for the future: “We need to increase the density of connections between documents by making connections easier for machines (rather than human authors) to create.”

Operating in a “law as data” mindset, lawyers, legal tech companies, and data-savvy players of all kind will be looking for cleaner, more well-structured, more machine-readable, and more consistently-formatted legal data. I think this might be a good role for the LIIs of the world in the future. Not instead of, but in addition to, the core mission now of making raw legal content more available to everyone. In a 2015 article, I lamented the fact that so much legal technology expertise is wasted on simply making sense of the unstructured mess found in legal documents. Someday, all the effort used to make sense of messy data might stimulate a movement to make the data less messy in the first place.  I cited Paul Lippe on this, in his discussion of the long-term effects of artificial intelligence in the legal system: “Watson will force a much more rigorous conversation about the actual structure of legal knowledge. Statutes, regulations, how-to-guides, policies, contracts and of course case law don’t work together especially well, making it challenging for systems like Watson to interpret them. This Tower of Babel says as much about the complex way we create law as it does about the limitations of Watson.”

LII and the Free Access to Law Movement have spent 25 years bringing the legal Tower of Babel into the sunlight. A worthy goal for the next 25 years would be to help guide that “rigourous conversation about the structure of legal knowledge.”  

David Curle is the director of Market Intelligence at Thomson Reuters Legal, providing research and thought leadership around the competitive environment and the changing legal services industry.





















Twenty-five years ago the LII at Cornell showed the world that access to the law via the Internet for all is possible.  It is not only possible, but can be cheap, even free.  And that “free” can be sustained.  It was and continues to be illuminating, even in the remotest places in Africa. The importance of the pioneering work of the LII, as it translates in Africa, is best understood against the background of complete absence of law reports and updated legislation in many African countries.  

Before free access to law touched down in South Africa in 1995, legal information was primarily distributed via the duopoly of the commercial legal publishers. Court reporters– usually advocates practicing in the region of the Court, would act as correspondents for the legal publishers. Cases would take months to be printed in the law reports and, due to constraints of the paper medium, heavy filtering could prevent the publication of really interesting cases from courts lower in the judicial hierarchy. Sometimes judgments marked by the presiding judge as reportable would be omitted from publication too. Space in the reports came at a premium – few got in.

This frustrated users of legal information (and most judges, who could not showcase their work and missed out on promotions!). It meant that additional resources were spent on using informal networks for gathering much needed legal information.  It also usually meant that only the handful of rich law firms, residing in the major urban areas of the country, had access to court judgments, that gave them advantage in preparing for litigation. Hunting for judgments from fellow colleagues, court registries and court libraries was common-place, as candidate attorneys were sent to the court’s archives to look for precedent.  It was not efficient, but often proved effective for those who could afford this kind of information-gathering.  Magistrates, judges and government lawyers could not dream of having this kind of information at their disposal. Citizens rarely had a chance to read a full judgment for themselves.

Imagine (remember?) that time!  Well, this would still be the situation in South Africa, and most definitely in many other African countries today, if it were not for SAFLII, AfricanLII, and 15 other LII projects across our continent that make the law available to all for free.  SAFLII started at the University of the Witwatersrand when the then Head of the Law Library – Ruth Ward, inspired by what Cornell had been doing for the past 3 years, enlisted the help of a law student with an unusual interest in computers to develop a website to host the judgments of the newly created South African Constitutional Court (there was yuuge demand for this material locally and regionally).  The Law School later partnered with AustLII to upgrade the software infrastructure, and SAFLII was born, a new member of the Free Access to Law Movement.  

In one of a few firsts in the FAL movement, almost exclusively academic until then, SAFLII was acquired and moved to the Constitutional Court of South Africa.  I remember some expressed apprehension — what would happen to an independent academic project under government? — but this turned out to be the best move.  SAFLII flourished with the backing of the Constitutional Court judges and expanded its content through a partnership with the Southern African Chief Justices Forum.  Unprecedented amount of African legal content slowly made its way to the web. LexUM and CanLII helped us a lot with advice on editorial practices and processing content, while Andrew and Philip of AustLII would fly in once or twice a year to work on site to fine-tune the software.  

We dreamt of systems the magnitude of AustLII and CanLII, and the sophistication of the LII.  But our reality was different.  When we were not busy digitizing paper-based content, we were engaged in training our users in electronic legal research. Yet users continued to demand the convenience of digested cases and consolidated legislation. Capacity was hard to come by.  Our friends at Kenya Law Reports right about then decided to open access to their (government funded) material.  This raised the bar higher – every judge in our network wanted their own Kenya Law.

To some extent, this became one of the core reasons for setting up the AfricanLII operation – as a programme that would contextualize the experience our team gathered with developing SAFLII, to help build locally-responsive LII operations.  The justice sector in most of our countries of operation was starving for proper legal information – in the vast majority of places there is no regular law reporting or law consolidation, and that affected their work and impacted society and individuals rights sometimes in most adverse ways. Both law revision and law reporting are expensive undertakings, especially when one has to start from scratch. But building a massive materials collection would not be useful if our users could not or would not make use of it. So we had to adapt and with our meager resources – devolve a centralised model (SAFLII) into local operations that allowed for better contextualization of the LIIs.

The proper development of the legal infrastructure, which is what LIIs mostly do in many African countries,  means moving at a pace and alongside the overhaul of vital areas of substantive law – human rights, environment, business and commercial law, ICTs and media, all areas developing at a considerable pace in the region. How do we adapt our LIIs to assist this development and remain relevant?

In this sense, I remember during a sustainability workshop discussion with LexUM, the LII and others, back in 2009, Tom Bruce made the point about being strategic in the choices informing our LII development plans.  Of course he raised it in his inimitable style – the fable involved something about throwing bottles in an ocean of bottles and the effects of that – but the advice was right on point.  When faced with a complete vacuum, as we were with the lack of digital legal information in Africa, the easiest thing to propose and attempt to do is to throw all your available resources at digitizing all information, to serve all potential users out there.

African LIIs, operating with scarce funding and in difficult economic times, are now more than ever orienting towards capitalizing on and further developing the value of the few collections, competencies and advantages that would derive maximum value for their users.  Having built a solid base of legal material, we are now looking at arranging it and communicating it in a way that is responsive to the needs of the justice sector.  For most LIIs, that would mean digesting (or sourcing interpretative material)  legal information and pushing through social media channels with the aim to educate citizens.  Or editorializing legal information to serve commercial audiences – and derive income for the LIIs. Or package our LIIs and ship them for off-line use by magistrates working in remote, unconnected areas of Africa.  All of this has meant that we’d had to strike a balance and pull resources out of digitization (the ocean of content) and invest in services (new kinds of bottles) that have the potential to sustain our African LIIs into the future.   

The LII at Cornell was a pioneer 25 years ago, but Tom, Sara and crew continue to push the envelope – innovating not only technology but also the business of free law.  I guess their flexibility and adaptability are some of the reasons why the LII is still going strong and growing 25 years into its existence.  And this has been the ultimate lesson for me as I continue to work together with a touch-group of committed individuals across the African continent, forging ahead and cementing their African LIIs into the future of their countries.  Our collective hats off to the LII @ Cornell for helping us figure things out along the way!

Mariya Badeva-Bright is the co-founder of the African Legal Information Institute. From 2006 to 2010, she was the head of Legal Informatics and Policy for the Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII).  She has taught undergraduate courses in Legal Information Literacy and coordinated the postgraduate program in Cyberlaw at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.  She holds a Magister Iuris in law from the Plovdivski universitet “Paisii Hilendarski” in Bulgaria, and an LLM in legal informatics from Stockholm University.



This year, I was lucky enough to be able to attend the annual LVI conference, held this year at Limmasol, Cyprus.  A truly beautiful place where Laris Vrahimis from CyLaw and the Cyprus Bar went out of their way to make a memorable event.  It was also an ongoing affirmation that the Free Access to Law Movement is alive and working.  But there was also a note of frustration and pessimism in the air.  The note of frustration was summed up in the question “where do we go from here?”  After 25 years of LIIs, this is a fair question.

It’s a very important question.  The LIIs across the world have been working on making primary source law available to their fellow citizens, and have gotten pretty good at it.  There are still far too few LIIs, but the ones that are around have the basics down pretty well.  But most are stuck at that basic level.  This is a problem with several levels.  The first is that the basics themselves are not all that easy.  It’s a lot of work to gather, process, and publish the law on the shoestring budgets that we all have.  And it is of crucial importance that the basic primary source law stay available.  This basic level must be maintained.

But what about everything else that ought to be done?  Here are three things to do.  There are places, like Cornell, that are doing some already, but there is room for every LII to think about and work on these steps.  

Access to Justice

The first item is assisting users with interpretive materials and guidance.  Fortunately, the Cornell LII, the Center for Computer Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI), and Justia have been doing things along these lines already.  For years now, Cornell LII has been developing WEX (, a free legal encyclopedia and dictionary.  They also have the Supreme Court Bulletin (  Justia has similar services in the form of the Justia blog and the Justia Verdict legal commentary site (, as well as its crowdsourced court decision annotations.  In the case of the LII, the labor and expertise is supplied mostly through the students of Cornell Law School, under the supervision of Cornell LII editors.  In the case of Justia, it is lawyers and academics who wish to be published, and who are getting advantages from the Justia service in return for their efforts.  

CALI does not have decision commentary, but has developed their A2J guided interview software system (  A2J allows law clinics to develop online interviews that guide clients through all the information needed to address a selected legal issue, and provide needed information or even print court or other documents ready for filing.

Translating these kinds of services to other LII’s might be harder or easier depending on their individual circumstances.  Some LII’s may be in a position to recruit volunteer labor, in which case, generation of commentary and guidance for popular benefit could be a practical path.  As to the CALI A2J system, it is available to anyone.  However, its use requires a great deal of initial dedication and labor to produce an interview, and any interview produced will require maintenance.


Maybe the least interesting thing that we can be involved with. It is certainly not going to generate interest (or donations) from the public.  However, it is of great importance.  How easy is it for 25 years of vital legal information to be wiped out in a small and terrible flash.  Even more insidious, is a slow bleed from bit rot. It’s the kind of problem that we won’t be aware of until it’s already upon us.  

Now it goes without saying that we all back up.  And we all back up carefully and regularly.  But as we move forward, and look to the long term, we know that real disasters will come upon us at some point.  We can assure ourselves that it won’t happen anytime soon, or on our watch.  But of course, that is exactly the sort of thinking that the librarians in Alexandria engaged in.  It did work for a long time, but not indefinitely.  The only real solution to data longevity is the old solution that the print world has been using since the development of the printing press: replication and distribution.  Many copies, distributed as widely as possible.

To the computer scientist, this seems horribly inefficient.  It is.  But they must overcome their horror, and understand that efficiency is not an end in itself.  Longevity is far more important.  And to live indefinitely, data must be immune from institutional failure.  The only way to guarantee that is not to rely on single institutions.  

A more serious barrier to widespread replication of data is distrust, both within institutions and nationally.  On the institutional level, there are understandable fears concerning reputation, prestige and funding.  If an LII allows other institutions to have a copy of the material they work so hard to develop, they will no longer get the credit they deserve.  In the long run, this will lead to a lack of support for the LII.  On the national level, some LIIs fear that sharing their data with institutions outside of their country will damage their standing with the governmental bodies they rely on for their data and for support.

Both of these are real problems that cannot be dismissed lightly.  However, as with the computer scientists, these hesitancies should not stand in the way of long term viability of the data that LIIs work so hard to develop.  To the extent we can do so, we need to distribute our data.  If this is just to places willing to act as repositories (with an agreement not to republish), that would be enough to insure the survival of the data.  For others, acknowledgement of their efforts through branding, etc. may be enough.  But in the end something like this needs to happen.  As a librarian, I can see that if every law library (law library defined as any institution that collects law) in the world had an electronic copy of all the world’s law, it would be very difficult to lose anyone’s law.  That would be quite something.  

A U.S. Problem: Administrative Decisions

I was very interested and encouraged to read  Pierre-Paul Lemyre’s February 22 post, “A Short Case Study of Administrative Decision Publishing” where Washington state’s PERC decisions are being made public.  For me, this is the next frontier of legal publishing that is badly in need of attention.  In the U.S., all 50 states and the federal government have elaborate administrative law structures that include administrative tribunals.  These tribunals are not a part of the regular judiciary, but are attached to the executive branch of government, usually the department with subject-matter jurisdiction.  In the past, the most important of these tribunals had their decisions published in print, usually by the GPO.  Of course, sending information to the GPO is not something agencies do very much any more, and from the way many government agency websites are organized, many either do not publish their ALJ decisions are hide them deep within their websites.  In the best of cases, they are not well searchable, and there is certainly no easy way to compare one department’s decisions with any other.

The result of the above situation is that only the ALJs and expert practitioners are even aware of the existence of ALJ decisions in any particular field.  Even among those practitioners, there is little or no knowledge of how other agencies adjudicate identical issues.  On the state level this situation is often worse (except in places like New Jersey, where there is a central Office of Administrative Law which hears all administrative cases and diligently publishes their decisions. See:  

Imagine, however, the possibilities raised by gathering and publishing federal ALJ decisions in an integrated collection.  In New Jersey, where these decisions are published, there is a large body of administrative common law which lends the consistency of stare decisis to their decisions.  This applies not only to decisions within each agency, but on similar issues between agencies as well.  The unified cadre of ALJs certainly makes this possible, but even without that, the existence of a full set of decisions which can easily be browsed and compared gives great impetus towards uniformity and predictability in decision making.  It is a great aid to the agencies, the bar and the public.

Unfortunately, I despair of ever convincing the federal government to embrace this sort of arrangement.  However, this is exactly the sort of project that an LII can excel at.  The gathering will be difficult, but doing this will greatly improve the state of American law.

John P. Joergensen is the Senior Associate Dean for Information Services, a Professor of Law and an award-winning Director of the Law Library that serves Rutgers Law Schools in both Newark and Camden . 

Professor Joergensen organized the New Jersey Courtweb Project, which provides free Internet access to the full text of the decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court and appellate courts, Tax Court, administrative law decisions, U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey decisions, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Ethics Committee opinions. His work also included digitizing U.S. congressional documents, the deliberations of state Constitutional Conventions, and other historical records. In 2007 he received the Public Access to Government Information Award from the American Association of Law Libraries and in 2011 was named to the Fastcase 50 as one of the country’s “most interesting and provocative leaders in the combined fields of law, scholarship and technology.


by G. Burgess Allison



The pioneer is a curious thing.  In the Old Days, pioneers were pretty easy to understand: There’s a mountain way over there that nobody’s crossed before—why don’t we cross it and see what’s on the other side?  But as we tamed our various geographical wilderni, pioneers had to tell much more difficult stories: No seriously, we’re gonna use electricity to talk to each other.  But of course we’ll have to hook up Really Long Wires between every building in the country.  (Well, until we switch to fiber.)

Cornell’s Legal Information Institute stands as one of those pioneers—one that was faced with telling a difficult story to a generally skeptical and plainly technophobic audience:  

No seriously, there’s this thing called the Internet.  (And—we’re off to a rocky start already.)  It’ll give us the opportunity to radically transform access to information of significance to the entire legal profession.  

Really?  Like Lexis and Westlaw?  Because we have that already.  

No, no, think broader than that.  And access will be free.  

Free?  Who’s gonna do headnotes and Key Numbers for “all information” … for free?  

Oh man, you just don’t get it.  The whole world is gonna change.

No I don’t.  Call me when the world has changed.

Here’s the thing about pioneers.  First and most importantly, after exploring the wilderness, after falling into traps and digging themselves out again, after making mistakes and learning lessons the hard way, they come back to the rest of us and tell everything!  Pioneers suffer all the personal pains of trailblazing, then return with the stories and findings, and with just a little bit of nurturing tell you exactly how to avoid all the difficulties.  With a tiny amount of encouragement, they’ll even offer to go out again and guide you along the way.

25 years ago, that’s exactly what we needed.  Tom Bruce and Peter Martin had the vision to see transformative change over the horizon, then set up shop to provide a home for experiments and new opportunities.  The LII was built to explore and try things out.  Some of those things would succeed, some would fail—but as we watched and followed the LII we learned that each effort was rolled out with a genuine enthusiasm and an open mind for the possibilities.  Don’t get me wrong, the Internet is not a judgment-free zone where every player wins a trophy.  This is an ENTJ wilderness with an embarrassingly-high score in Judging.  Technologies that don’t make it get pushed aside in a heartbeat.  Of course this is difficult for a laboratory like the LII.  Intellectually, you want to give each new technology time—time to show what it can do, time to make mistakes and attempt corrections, time to mature.  But realistically, tempus fugits faster on the Internet than anywhere else—the Internet does not embrace patience.  Any more than the legal profession embraces change.

Speaking of which … while the profession has well earned its reputation for resisting change (cf. IBM mag card typewriters), that does not mean the entire profession stuck its head in the technological sand.  Indeed, as an occasional speaker at the American Bar Association’s annual TECHSHOW conference, I was stunned at the audiences we drew on Internet-related topics: we filled the hallways when they put us in a smaller room; and we still went SRO when they put us in a bigger room.  So high was the enthusiasm (and so compelling was the pioneer spirit to share what people had discovered) that some already-robust panel discussions turned quickly into even-more-robust audience discussions as discoveries and new web sites were shouted from the audience.  The topic became lightning in a bottle.  One of the most popular programs at TECHSHOW became Sixty Sites in Sixty Minutes.  The excitement was palpable.

Certainly I was excited about what was happening as well.  In my own case, I was fortunate enough to have an outlet in the column I wrote for the ABA’s Section of Law Practice, Technology Update.  I tried, ever so hard, to explain to my readership just how big a change was coming.  The responses I got showed an intense level of interest, but a continued lack of information.  That in turn led to writing The Lawyers Guide to the Internet—which included Erik Heel’s groundbreaking list of online legal resources, The Legal List, and Lyonette Louis-Jacques’ list of law-related discussion groups, Lawlists.  While Lawyers Guide barely scratched the surface of Internet basics, it became the best-selling title in the ABA’s book publishing program.  Interest was high.

Two quick notes about Lawyers Guide:  First, it speaks volumes about how far we’ve come that Erik’s Legal List could actually contain every law-related web site and online resource.  Second, the first drafts of Lawyers Guide didn’t include this “new” technology called web sites—they hadn’t been invented yet.  They were added during the review of proof pages—not normally the time you would make such a significant change (with sincere gratitude to the ABA book program).  The only screen shot of a web page in the book came from the first and most prominent hypertext-enabled law-related web site.  At

The LII was site #1 in what I called Burge’s Bookmarks.  And it was featured so many times in the Sixty Sites programs that we eventually retired it to Hall of Fame status—to make room for sites and capabilities that were newer and less well-known.

The LII was, and remains, the best of the wilderness.  A place where pioneers are welcomed, to experiment and try things out.  A place where the Rest Of Us can come and see what the pioneers are up to.  And a place where the pioneers are so excited about what they’re doing that they just can’t help but share what they’ve learned.

Thank you LII, thank you Tom and Peter … now back to work, there’s so much more to be done!

I love technology. 🙂

G. Burgess Allison is a Fellow in the College of Law Practice Management and is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Management Section (LPMS). He wrote the “Technology Update” column in Law Practice Management magazine for 18 years, and authored “The Lawyer’s Guide to the Internet.”, the best-selling publication in the history of the ABA’s book-publishing program. He has served on the Council for LPMS, and as Publisher and Technical Editor for LPM magazine. Burgess has a J.D. from the University of Michigan and a B.A. from the University of Delaware.  Prior to his retirement,  he was the IT Director for MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD).

While open and free access to American judicial opinions has progressed substantially over the last few years, very little attention has been given to the state of access to administrative legal information.  Maybe Tom Bruce did not ask kindly enough in 2013 when he wrote “Dear Federal Agencies … put your goddamned ALJ Opinions Up” in this post. In any case, three years later, the situation is still more or less the same: administrative decisions rendered by both ALJs and agencies are not systematically available online, and when they are it can be extremely difficult for third parties to automatically agglomerate them for reuse.  This situation prevails at both the federal and state levels.

This context explains my enthusiasm for the new decision search engine recently deployed by the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission (Washington PERC) with the help of Decisia by Lexum.  The Washington PERC is the Washington State agency with jurisdiction over public sector labor relations and collective bargaining in Washington.  Like many agencies it renders several types of decisions, which were previously scattered over different sections of its website – some with search capabilities and some without – making them difficult to discover.  Understanding that providing useful access to its decisions is part of its mandate, and that online access is the only thing that really counts today, the Washington PERC decided to invest some resources (a very reasonable amount in fact) in enhancing the usability of its online decisions.

The new Washington PERC decisions website complies with many of the best practices recognized for decision publishing:

  • Self-publishing of full text decisions

The staff at the Washington PERC has full control over the content of its decisions website via a web-based interface. Publishing is not relinquished to any third-party commercial publisher that could require some kind of exclusivity in exchange for its input.  It enables online publishing of the most authoritative version of the full text of decisions.

  • Timeliness

Since the agency is in complete control of the publishing process, it can make its decisions available to its stakeholders as soon as they are rendered.  Any error in the body of a decision can be fixed in a matter of minutes by the registry clerks.

  • Comprehensiveness

The Washington PERC has invested effort in making sure that all of the decisions it has rendered since the mid-‘70s are available on its website, turning it into an historical repository.  Thus, serious legal research can be undertaken from the new website without any fear of missing part of the material.

  • Accessibility

The technology used for the Washington PERC decisions website is designed to facilitate access for individuals with disabilities by being compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA of the World Wide Web organization.

  • Provision of both HTML and PDF versions

Decisions are provided in both HTML and PDF formats.  The HTML version enables the provision of advanced search functionalities and highlighting of search hits in the body of decisions.  The PDF version preserves the appearance of the original file (a scan copy of the signed version is provided whenever available) and facilitates printing.

  • Navigability

The Washington PERC decisions website can be browsed (or crawled) by decision date or decision title and its URL structure is SEO-friendly.  This makes the content “discoverable” by both human researchers and web robots operated by third parties interested in reusing the data.  On top of that Decisia also features a RSS feed of recently published material and an API providing a machine readable version of all content.

  • Full-text searchable

A powerful search engine supporting Boolean queries, proximity operators and wildcards enables users to undertake advanced searches in the complete body of all decisions.  Users also benefit from an auto-completion feature providing quick access links to exact matches and a spell-checker that proposes alternative queries in case of typos or errors.

  • Multi-criteria search tools

Advanced database search is also facilitated by the availability of eight additional fields that can be queried individually or in conjunction (decision number, date, parties, decision-maker, case type, appeal status, statute and collection).

  • Citation availability

Finally, each decision is provided with a unique medium neutral citation by the agency itself, for example “Decision 12563-A (PECB, 2016)”.  This type of citation enables the identification of individual decisions without referring to any specific publisher.

In the end, all of this should provide positive outcomes on two distinct fronts:

  • Enhanced access for those directly affected by Washington PERC decisions

Washington State union members, employers and their representatives will undoubtedly be the first to benefit from this enhanced access to decisions on public sector labor relations and collective bargaining.  Without a doubt, making it easier to find how previous conflicts were resolved significantly contributes to Washington PERC’s mandate of assisting parties in resolving labor-management disputes.

  • Consolidation of the field of law under the jurisdiction of the Washington PERC

Whether Washington PERC decisions are considered to be precedential or not, the fact remains that they are the only sources of information about past conflicts resolved in this niche area of law.  By making sure this information is available in a format useable by all, the Agency is contributing to the development of the legal field in which it operates while at the same time promoting its competence as a decision-making body.  As a consequence, the authoritative status of its decisions is bound to be enhanced over time.

Considering the overall state of online access to administrative decisions, one can only hope that this example will inspire other agencies and ALJs to follow suite and implement adequate decisions websites.  The Washington PERC is only one agency within one state, but its latest initiative at least has the merit of demonstrating how easy it can be to publish administrative decisions the right way.

Pierre-Paul Lemyre is the Director of Business Development for Lexum, Inc., a legal informatics company in Montreal.   Lexum provides the technology and publishing infrastructure for CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute.


[ This post was contributed by Daniel Poulin, the founding director of CanLII, the first open-access publisher of law outside the United States, and a good friend of ours for many years ].

The Origins

In the eighties and nineties, the nascent Internet was closely connected with a culture of sharing. In those times, sharing did not meant “sharing economy” in today’s sense (Airbnb, Uber, etc), but making something available for free on the Internet. The dream was that over time even more things would be available for free and that everybody would benefit from it. It is the context in which I personally became interested in making Canadian law accessible for free on the Internet.

My first models were FTP sites accepting anonymous connections. I vaguely remember one at Stanford giving access to computer fonts and executable programs. I thought that the same approach could serve legal purposes and I was not alone thinking so. Indeed, at the beginning of the nineties, several American university professors, researchers and technology specialists started to use the Gopher technology to publish legal documents, generally case law collections. These offerings were not necessarily up-to-date or coherent, to say nothing about being complete. We were nevertheless in awe to discover that legal information could be made freely accessible as simply as that. I decided to do the same at the Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP) of the University of Montreal and I set up a Gopher server.

I was started, yet the real epiphany for me was a presentation by Peter W. Martin and Thomas R. Bruce about the Legal Information Institute in fall 1992 in Montreal. Even better than a Gopher site, they were developing a World Wide Web site and they were ambitious. This was exactly what I wanted to do. I briefly met with them after their talk. I remember that my worries about converting decisions in HTML were brushed off by Tom in the offhand manner he always had with perceived technical difficulties. I was not alone in being impressed the LII work. As a matter of fact, in the following years, Internet publishing started adding up in American law schools (see Fig. 1).


Fig 1: Screen shot of the CRDP Gopher server circa 1993 listing legal Gopher sites

However the general enthusiasm for legal publishing did not last long. By the end of the nineties, most of these initiatives had been abandoned, although the model set by Peter W. Martin, Thomas R. Bruce and their small team at Cornell remained, and had also found followers abroad, in Canada and Australia and, few years later, in the UK.

A web server was launched by Lexum at the U. of Montreal in summer 1994 to publish the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1995, the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) was set up in Sydney and they soon joined in with a web server as well. In retrospect, it seems that these three initial teams, which are still active today, LII, Lexum and AustLII were all characterized by a mix of research activities, technical developments and publishing. The pure play publishers in law schools probably never found a way to obtain the institutional and financial support required to keep going.

At the turn of the century there were a handful of groups in academia who were actively exploring the potential of the Internet to serve the law and were maintaining free access to law resources. This was the nucleus which was to grow and become the Free Access to Law Movement. Soon BaiLII, PacLII, HKLII and CyLAW and several others were to follow the LII model and start publishing.

The Evolution of LIIs

The approach initially developed by the LIIs, continued and further developed by several other academic groups, was apparently taking off. It was already successful in several common law countries. Colleagues in various European countries were starting to pay attention to the LII model. The older and better-established LIIs were involved in empowerment projects aiming at establishing free access in developing countries. We started to envision a constellation of LIIs covering the world. At the Law via the Internet Conference in 2002, a founding document was drafted (the Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law) and an informal organization of legal information institutes, the Free Access to Law Movement, was established to further develop the LII model and to reach out to all those interested in maximizing access to public legal information.

More than twenty years later, taking stock of progress made, we can only note spectacular changes in many countries. In Canada, the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) now constitutes the first source of legal information for legal professionals. CanLII will soon have 2 million decisions published, frequently in both French and English. All statutes and regulations enacted over the last 15 years from all fourteen Canadian jurisdictions are also available. According to a survey of legal professionals prepared for CanLII in 2012, 56% of respondents start their legal research on CanLII. Four years later, CanLII’s usage statistics doubled again.

Beyond CanLII, to understand the strength of the Canadian free access to law system today, one must consider the favorable policies adopted by the Canadian Judicial Council and subsequently implemented by all Canadian courts. First to be noted there is the adoption of a neutral citation system. The existence of an authoritative way to cite judgments outside the privately-owned sphere of commerce now constitutes a central element of the legal information system in Canada. Courts add a citation they own and control to all their distributed decisions (something like “2017 QCCA 16”). This identifying element pertains to the decision and must follow it. Furthermore, decisions distributed by courts are final. There are no rules precluding the citation of a court decision in a counsel’s authorities beyond the principles of Stare Decisis as they apply in Canada. As a result, all court decisions, taken from a court’s own website, from CanLII or of course from a law report can be cited in court when relevant. Since decisions’ paragraphs are numbered, pin-point references are available. Today, counsels mix references to law reports and to CanLII in the authorities they submit to a court, and judges do the same in preparing their reasons for judgment (See Fig. 2).

Fig 2: Use of citations to CanLII (based on neutral citation) in a decision from the Ontario of Court of Appeal, 2015 ONCA 495 (CanLII)

The outlook is similar for Australia. Today, clearly, AustLII is the main outlet for case law in Australia. It must be recognized that the principals at AustLII were the first to establish almost country-wide comprehensive free access in 1997. It took four more years to reach that stage in Canada. Cornell’s LII demonstrated how the law can be published for free, but it is AustLII’s team that showed how this model can be expanded to its full-scale.

Several other legal information institutes are now well-established and would call for a more complete description. Unfortunately, such a description goes far beyond what is possible to do in a short blog post. SafLII and AfricanLII are superb achievements in improving access to legal information in Africa, and both are developing the legal information institute approach in conditions difficult to imagine for a Canadian living in Montreal. PacLII is doing similar work to serve the needs of some twenty developing countries in the South Pacific. BaiLII, the British and Irish Legal Information Institute, would also merit being more fully described here, for its very small team is maintaining a good offering with very limited resources. CyLAW, established in collaboration with the Cyprus Bar Association is illustration of competence and institutional viability in a smaller state. Other extremely valuable initiatives can be found on the Free Access to Law Movement web site.

To sum up, the pioneer work done at Cornell 25 years ago led to the establishment of viable, efficient free access to law resources in several countries, especially countries belonging to the common law tradition. However, the full–fledged internationale of LIIs has never materialized. Many factors can contribute to explaining that. First, in countries of the continental law tradition, case law plays a less central role as a source of law, the publication of legislative material is often taken in charge by the legislative authority (which is not a bad thing), and doctrinal comments and treaties play a much larger role. Altogether these differences have made the development of a LII more challenging. Second, most of the LIIs which reached sustainability started in universities; many are still attached to academia. One must admit that such academic ventures are more valued (or face less prejudice) in North America and Australia than, let’s say, in France. Third, Martin and Bruce were — and still are — “entrepreneurs”. They were doing whatever was needed to finance their LII (consulting for government bodies or the industry was not out of question), they were taking risks and they were persevering. The principals at AustLII, SafLII and Lexum were venturers too (even swashbucklers for some). Some deans could have been less understanding in accepting the activism required to maintain an LII. A related and final ingredient required for survival and growth was the capacity to obtain the required financial support. In this regard, all of us in developed countries were privileged. In the developing world, international development organizations supported some LIIs for a limited time but the end of their funding brought many free legal information concerns to shut down their servers.

The Future

The next question is to try to figure where all this is going: the LII at Cornell, the other LIIs, the Free Access to Law Movement. Divination is not my specialty, but I will try to single out some of the results of the last 25 years that appear to be more durable and mix them with observable trends today which may contribute to determining the future of the free access to law idea.

The very first thing to say is that governments and courts are much more present and active than before. For instance, in all Canadian jurisdictions, statutes and regulations are freely accessible on the web and most courts and tribunals publish their decisions on their web site. Commercial legal publishing has gone through a major transformation over the last twenty years: most publishers specializing in case law reports have disappeared or been acquired by bigger competitors. The survivors linked to major global publishing groups are bundling all they have, such as jurisprudence and various doctrinal writings, case law and legislation, and they offer integrated information products by practice domain. This kind of offering finds takers and business seem to be good. Finally, free access to law seems to have found its footing. CanLII’s funding is provided by the legal professions which obtain through CanLII a national common legal library serving their missions to ensure the competence of their members and to serve the public.

To conclude, let’s say that free access to law is possible and sustainable. Capture and control of official legal information by private interests is avoidable. The well-established nation-wide systems in Canada and Australia, to name only these two jurisdictions, demonstrate that trustworthy, efficient publishing of law is compatible with public domain status and that public legal information can be made accessible for free.

Technical standards are key. The adoption of neutral citation and related policies by the courts played a significant role in ensuring that country-wide free access to law publishers, such as CanLII and AustLII, achieved their potential. More standardization would help deliver even more benefits.

Funding and benefits can be linked. Canada with its communist public health system is sometimes perceived as a middle-of-the-road society; not squarely socialist like those small countries in Northern Europe, but not entirely liberal either. Then, go figure, CanLII is privately funded by the legal professions and operated under contract by a for-profit company, Lexum. The reason private interests can serve a social mission is that those who pay are those who get the most out of the benefits. The business of the for-profit company is to help make the law accessible, not only as a service provider to CanLII, but also through all the other products it sells.

– 0 –

Since inception, Cornell’s LII has favored quality over quantity. LII’s siblings, Lexum (then CanLII), AustLII and BaiLII, and later on PacLII and SafLII, have gone for volume, to make a difference in access to law in their respective countries. This is not to minimize the practical significance of Cornell’s LII: it has made a difference too, but not the same way. Instead of trying to offer comprehensive access to USA law, which would have been an overwhelming objective, the principals at the LII decided to put their talent into achieving excellence within the more defined boundaries of specific collections, such as the US Supreme Court decisions, the US Code and now the Code of Federal Regulations. These are not tiny corpuses. All are significant bodies of law heavily used not only in the US but abroad as well. Even though other legal information initiatives produced innovations, none aside from Cornell’s LII put knowledge development as the central product of their activities. Even 25 years after starting, LII is still on the edge, figuring how to accelerate the development of a legal semantic web. Beyond the fact that they were the first LII, this constant contribution to knowledge may be the real reason for the ongoing influence and prestige of the institute established 25 years ago by Peter and Tom.  

Twenty years later, the model initiated at Cornell has flourished. Members of the LII family have found their own ways. Looking at the global picture, one can only be pleased to see how an idea born in academia, and in large part at Cornell Law School, has influenced many legal information systems for the better. Even more surprising, it seems that we have not yet seen the end of it. The Cornell LII remains, after all these years, a hotbed of innovation with friends all around the world.

Bon anniversaire et amitiés au LII de la part de nous tous chez Lexum,

Daniel Poulin is the founding director of CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute.  He is widely known for innovation in both legal publishing and in the business apparatus needed to sustain open-access efforts over the long term. He is now Emeritus Professor of the Law Faculty of the University of Montreal, and President of Lexum Information Juridique, a legal-information technology company spun off from his original research group at the University of Montreal.