More thoughts about WestlawNext (UPDATED)

Here is some information for people who care about computer legal research:

• First, on pricing, a post titled “My WestlawNext Upgrade Negotiations: Proof that West Isn’t Interested in the Solo Market,” which quotes the emails back and forth between solo practitioner / blogger Lisa Solomon and various Westlaw salespeople. Among the various upshots are: 1) Westlaw has swapped around databases and features in a way that seems to make it difficult to create your current set of databases without buying more, at least if you like ResultsPlus; 2) Contrary to what Westlaw said in the announcements, it doesn’t appear to be a modest price increase. I’m understanding this post to suggest that Solomon’s price would more than double to duplicate what she had, in the process selling her access to databases she did not want. That’s on one careful read of her complicated post. I’d love to hear more about this issue.

• Second, a couple of posts on what the new features are.  The first explains pretty clearly that WestlawNext will use the key number system and headnotes to show most significant results higher up in your list of resullts. WestlawNext will apparently look at what documents users found interesting enough to print on a topic and use a database of that information to offer up results– essentially, say “Oh, people who wanted this also wanted that, so lets show him that.The other is a post by either a legal writing instructor or law librarian (can’t tell which) that covers some of the same ground, slightly less clearly.. One odd thing– no searches in quotes, at least yet. That’s truly annoying.  Beyond that, it accepts either Boolean or natural language searches. The post explains that it uses the key number system and head notes in a way that the post does not entirely make clear (for lack of information, I think).

• A post in top-ten list form notes that synonyms and variations on search terms are used to produce results, so your search term does not need to appear in the hit to be listed.  Also, you are going to be able to store searches and documents in online folders and share results with others.

• Another post has a couple of thoughts after the presentation.  About the first, I though:  Please don’t let this be the design premise going forward:  “Attorneys do not look at documents on Westlaw beyond the first 5 to 10 results. I suspect it’s the same for Lexis, and pretty much any search site nowadays”\

• Finally, the founder of LawMoose in Minnesota writes:

My initial thoughts:Four criteria against which to evaluate this:

1. Better usability

2. Lower cost

3. Broader range of “all the world’s legal knowledge”

4. Better conceptualization of the underlying domain

WestlawNext sounds successful on criteria one. One might say usability is what people should expect all along in a premium service?

2, 3, and 4 are not mentioned.

2 is actually higher cost for a service many lawyers in the real world can’t afford already.

Apparently 3 and 4 are unchanged.

But what do I know, except what I’ve read about it.

And while on the subject of computers, how did Anderson hold out so long on getting a laptop?!

UPDATE:

Here’s another post from 3 Geeks and a Law Blog, starting with the observation that Westlaw’s plan to release this to law schools this fall is a plan to have law students trained to use a tool law firms may not be buying, plus explanations for the price increase.  The last explanation–That Westlaw will not eventually cease supporting WestlawNext– is foreboding.

Here’s my prior post on WestlawNext.