Louis reported earlier this month on the story of a US federal jury which awarded $2.5-million in punitive damages and $90,000 in actual damages to each of two law professors who said that Thomson West had put their names on an annual supplement to a leading Pennsylvania practitioners’ text, even though they had refused to update the supplement when their pay was unilaterally halved.

Surprise to no-one – Thomson West will be back in court next month seeking an injunction to restrain what they say is prejudicial publicity – and we suspect, saying that the punitives are excessive.

We . . . [more]

Okay a seasonal quiz question – in which work of art do a law library and a complex question of estate litigation feature prominently?

Okay – a big hint. It’s opera. . . . [more]

This continues the comments on The Language of Law Reports. I couldn’t figure out how to put images in a comment.

The following croppings are from Chadwyck-Healey’s Early English Books Online, via ProQuest. First is the title page of the 1604 edition of volume 4 of Coke’s Reports:

Next is the top of page 91a, giving part of the record in Latin:

Next is the top of page 92b, the beginning of the report in French:

It’s still “en bank le Roy.” . . . [more]

Slaw readers might be interested in a recent judgement from the US District Court, in which two law professors, editors of a looseleaf service, sued the publisher for issuing a release under their names when they were not involved in its production. The release consisted of just 3 new case references and subscribers were charged $50 for it. Brief but briliant expert testimony on the nature of pocket parts was provided by a local law librarian to enlightened jurors, who awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. The verdict was reported in the Philadelphia Enquirer yesterday (Dec. 21) and has . . . [more]

As readers know, SLAW has regularly posted on the good work of the people at the Canadian Legal Information Institute and the free access to law movement.

I see they are now advertising for the position of CanLII President. If you are interested in applying, or know of someone who you think would be interested, contact information for applications is providing on the page at the foregoing link. . . . [more]

The ABA Journal had a news link today titled, “Do Judges Read Online Briefs Differently? Brief Writers May Need to Be Briefer“. The post discussed a Texas Lawyer article on e-filing and what that might mean to legal writing. Interesting stuff. The idea of fewer words to convey a point may be necessary if reading moves primarily to a screen.

A colleague once asserted that there was a bunch of literature showing that reading on screen was slower than reading from paper, and he was right. Here are some examples of studies that support this premise:

• Dillon, A.,

And now a post from snowbound London.

During the bail hearing of Julian Assange, the presiding magistrate, District Judge Howard Riddle, gave permission for journalists in attendance to use live blogging technology in reporting proceedings. In doing so, in the interests of practicality, he waltzed past provisions in the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibited the use of recording media in court. It spurred a debate in England about the appropriate limits.

This spurred the senior judge in England – the wonderfully named Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge – to issue formal guidance to the . . . [more]

Why don’t law librarians, legal IT folk and legal publishers all just get along? Do we need a Festivus airing of grievances?

This is the suggestion from Sarah Glassmeyer, Faculty Services and Outreach Librarian at the Valparaiso University School of Law in Valparaiso, Indiana, in her controversial guest blog post The Loris in the Library at the prominent VoxPopuLII blog at the Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.

She says:

I wish I could say, “Librarians . . . computer scientists . . . legal publishers . . . let’s all hold hands now and sing kum-bay-yah!” However,

Dear Friends, Colleagues, Readers,

I’m writing a paper for a CLE conference that’ll be held in Vancouver next June. I’m trying to gather anecdotal information as to whether the SCC decision in Resurfice v Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 and the “material contribution” doctrine mentioned in the case are helping plaintiffs get before-trial settlements — by using the Resurfice“material contribution” notion to get them past difficulties in proving factual causation using the “but-for” test — which are settlements that they might not have been able to get before Resurfice. I’m not after settlement details, just a yes or . . . [more]

Have a look at the Research Buzz post today on Google Special Syntax: The Around Operator. Evidently, Google has had a proximity operator available for the last couple of months.

The operator is a capitalized AROUND followed immediately by a number within parentheses, representing the number of words within which you’d like the second term to occur from the first search term. For example, [cameras AROUND(5) courtroom] will find, of course, “cameras in the courtroom”, but also “cameras debated for sniper courtroom” and, interestingly, “Judge closes courtroom in Nodine trial to cameras.” These latter are results that would have . . . [more]

Section 12 of the Copyright Act gives the Crown copyright in any work “prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department…” This broad sweep is considered, by the federal and provincial governments at least, to include court and tribunal judgments and legislation. The issue of whether this is appropriate or not has been somewhat finessed (albeit in a question-begging way) so far as federal legal material goes by the 1998 Reproduction of Federal Law Order SI/97-5 providing that:

Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of

The Parliamentary Information and Research Service has published a brief report entitled “The Stuxnet Worm: Just Another Computer Attack or a Game Changer?” [PDF, HTML] by Holly Porteous. As most Slaw readers may know, this malicious software, spreading throughout the world, is aimed at disrupting or controlling certain industrial processes that are regulated by computers. The sophistication of the worm and the speculation that it was targeted at Iran’s nuclear facilities have raised concern and commentary about malware to a new level.

This report is a valuable overview, addressing briefly the manner in which Stuxnet was launched . . . [more]