On behalf of trees everywhere I have made an initial inquiry with the powers that be asking why the weekly paper part of the Ontario Reports is not distributed only in digital format.
Although this issue may of less interest to those outside of Ontario, it does raise questions that are regularly discussed on SLAW.
Background: Members of the Law Society of Upper Canada receive a weekly paper part of the Ontario Reports as part of their membership fees. It contains (in this order): a Table of Contents with brief details of typically 5 to 7 cases per weekly edition; advertisements for new publications, seminars and announcements; job ads for lawyers, law clerks and assistants; and finally, the typically 5 to 7 important recent Ontario cases, with headnotes. For the larger firms in Ontario, this means receiving sometimes 300 or more weekly paper parts. Most firms pay a separate fee (I believe $285 per bound volume that I believe has the equivalent of 10 paper parts) to get bound versions of just the cases that get shelved in the library (the bound versions do not contain the ads). I assume most lawyers discard their weekly paper parts (I do, although I also tear out cases of interest or ads for new book titles).
What is unknown to me is whether this is a revenue generator for the Law Society (the publication is actually published on contract with Butterworths). I assume it is. I had heard the cost of a one page ad is quite expensive (at least in my mind).
Although the print weekly part is convenient and has its advantages, I wonder if the time has come for the Law Society to advance beyond the Gutenberg technology of the mid 1400's by going digital.
Here are some advantages of going digital:
1) Saving trees/paper.
2) Reducing costs to LSUC (and to LSUC members) and (potentially) lessening reliance on third-party publishers.
3) Making it more interactive for LSUC members (e.g., notices of new court rules could link to the applicable court rule).
4) There is a delivery mechanism in place (via "blast" emails to LSUC members)
5) The online version could still contain advertisements through a clickable table of contents or menu, a feature many members would likely enjoy reviewing online as they do in print
6) Links to cases: I am assuming every decision in the current Ontario Reports is also available on CanLII and an online version could simply link to the CanLII version of a case. I realize the headnote would be missing – this could be offset by also providing a link to the LexisNexis Quicklaw version, if desired, which would contain their headnote (assuming there was still a contract with that publisher; the link could just as easily be given to the WestlaweCARSWELL version).
Rise up members of the Law Society! Save the trees!
Prediction: print case law reporters will cease to exist by 2012, if not earlier.
Yay Ted! Excellent ideas, all, and I support them whole-heartedly. What kind of response did you get when you approached the Powers?
No response yet but I just initiated my inquiry the other day.
Thank you for your initiative, Ted. The OR paper parts are time-consuming to deal with and a total waste of paper; we would be much better off in many ways if they were published electronically. I'm sure you have support from law library folks across the country, as many of us still subscribe to the ORs.
Great idea. As you said, print media is sooooo 1400's.
what a pain to read a case more than three or four pages long on screen, though, especially if you want to go back and check what it said earlier.
I suspect the Law Society could figure out a way to sent around the headnotes (done by the OR team) with the electronic version, so members could read the headnotes before deciding if they want to go to CanLii for the full text. I tend to skim all the headnotes but certainly do not read all the cases.
If it's just a matter of outsourcing the printing, I suppose that readers will print only the cases they want to read, so that's a saving of trees (though printing to 8.5×11 pages will take more paper per case than the ORs' 5×8 two-sided format.)
I doubt that advertisers will pay as much for the chance that someone may click to them. Will the Law Society trust that members will find the Law Society's own advice to members too, online? I suppose they could be sent by blast to all.
I certainly agree that having hundreds of copies per firm is wasteful. I have one copy coming to my house though there are two members of the LSUC in residence. And I rely on my employer for the bound volume (and CanLii for the text at my desk, generally…)
I won't bet against your timeline, Ted, but the economics for the LSUC are not as clearcut as you suggest.
I am always surprised at the perceived need to eliminate print formats.
The Law Society was a pioneer in offering the Ontario Reports in a digital format through Quicklaw and LexisNexis. Other online publishers were given the opportunity to make the Ontario Reports available online but chose not to do so because they offered the same decisions with headnotes in their own databases.
My understanding is that the decision to continue to offer the Ontario Reports in print is in response to feedback received directly from members of the legal profession who see the Ontario Reports as a mechanism for creating a sense of community among members of the legal profession as well as the primary means whereby the Law Society communicates with the profession. Focus groups of lawyers of all age groups have confirmed this to be the case.
Digital access may be sufficient for some, but not for everyone. Simple economics will determine when the print life of the Ontario Reports is over. That time has not yet come.
Why not just make the digital form an option so that those who prefer to receive say a PDF have that choice? Or is this already an option (other than through paid services such as QL or LexisNexis)?
I would think that at least the option would make most everyone happy, no?
@John G: "I doubt that advertisers will pay as much for the chance that someone may click to them."
I guess that depends on the revenue model. I would have thought that ad charges would continue to be based on circulation, whether electronic or print, so if there is circulation of PDFs and hardcopies they would be treated the same as far as ad charges go. I would also think that there could be the possibility of additional revenue – for example, if there are links in a PDF file that allow someone to click on an ad and find out more about an advertiser, sign up for a mailing list, etc. that would seem to be additional value to advertisers, in addition to the fact that simply clicking on an ad will in and of itself provide valuable information to advertisers.
@Gary P. Rodrigues: "My understanding is that the decision to continue to offer the Ontario Reports in print is in response to feedback received directly from members of the legal profession who see the Ontario Reports as a mechanism for creating a sense of community among members of the legal profession as well as the primary means whereby the Law Society communicates with the profession. Focus groups of lawyers of all age groups have confirmed this to be the case."
Why would an electronic form derogate from a sense of community? In fact, if anything, I would have thought it would enhance it, just as blogs like this, by enabling comment, dialog and interaction, enhance the sense of community within the legal profession.
Thanks everyone for your comments so far. The Law Times has picked up the post. I have also had a number of direct emails in which the authors have strongly agreed for an option for electronic
Two additional comments from me since my original post:
1) The obvious point of at least giving members an option for a PDF attachment or HTML version and continuing print for those who want (sort of like the Toronto-area grocery stores – bring your own bags or pay 5 cents per bag if you want [and I invariably forget to bring my own . . . .]).
2) The larger question of why the Law Society of Upper Canada is even in this business. Correct me if I am wrong but I cannot think of too many other law societies that publish case law. Given that the private legal publishers have numerous current awareness products (and given that many court and legislative websites have free RSS feeds) the bigger question may be that the Ontario Reports are not even needed.
Don't get me going on why the Law Society of Upper Canada does not join the other law societies by calling itself the Law Society of Ontario . . . .