Skip to main content

The Free Legal Web - who for?

The current Big Idea in the legal / library blog world is the Free Legal Web (FLW). Originally mooted by Nick Holmes, the idea is to pull all of the content currently floating about the ether (legal professionals blog posts, Government information etc) into one portal. That in itself is a big enough task, but what doesn't seem to be clear yet is...who is this Free Legal Web for?

The people involved so far seem to be legal professionals and IT specialists. The legal professionals will be working out some way of getting the useful materials together, and persuading other legal professionals that giving up their valuable time and work (such as blog postings) for this enterprise will be a worthwhile investment, and will reap them rewards in the end. The IT professionals job will be to write the scripts and programmes that will get everything together in the one place, and working well with all the other bits and pieces.

That's all lovely (although it's hard to tell what's actually being done, as the discussions are going on behind an invite-only Google Group, which to me, kind of defeats the purpose of harnessing the collective intelligence of the legal and information professionals), but when this all singing, all dancing portal is up and running, who's going to be using it? I would have thought this was a core question, to be settled right at the start, yet it doesn't seem to have been discussed at any point.

If you're designing a portal to work alongside the subscription legal databases like Westlaw and LexisNexis, then I assume it's being aimed at people already working in the law, and therefore able to understand and interpret the information being presented to them there. The content will be academic / in depth, and of relevance to other members of the legal profession. Certain assumptions can be made about the level of knowledge and understanding of the user, and their grasp of the content. It also means it's unlikely to be being used by members of the general public. Since legal professionals are likely to be persuaded into contributing to the FLW by the prospect of it eventually increasing their business through building of a reputation, this is not a good start.

If it's designed for the general public, to allow them access to the elusive laws they're meant to keep within, then good interpretation of the law is needed, not just access. People working in the law can forget just how difficult it is to find out what legislation means for people without access to subscription databases, information professionals to check for currency and further discussions of legal points...and even the language of legislation, while precise and succinct, can be incredibly confusing for someone with no experience of reading it, confronted with it for the first time. Content for this FLW would need a different focus - explaining the law and its impact on the general public, with references to the original case law rather than references to law reports inaccessible to the general public. Guides equivalent to first year law students introductions to the various aspects of the law would be needed. Clear signalling of whether legislation applies to all of the UK, or only the devolved areas would be essential. In other words, it would be a very different beast then the FLW designed for legal professionals.

So...is it a Professional Free Legal Web, or a Public Free Legal Web?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm far from convinced it needs to be one or the other. A well designed system could accept valuable contributions from both and reach different audiences simultaneously. Granted that often doesn't work too well but it can.

I think the FLB has significant practical difficulties but an audience doesn't seem to be the main one.
Scott said…
A good post, and a valid point re: the invite-only Google Group (although I think the idea of this was more to pull together the ideas from the barcamp, before letting it out into the open, when there would be some concrete ideas to debate / comment on). The question of who it was for was certainly discussed, and as a wise previous commentor said their was certainly a desire to target both audiences. If going to attempt something difficult, why not really go for bust!
Nick Holmes said…
Jennie - Thanks for the contribution to the discussion.

It is remiss of me not to have posted more over the past week on the Free Legal Web blog. This is simply due to being pulled in several directions. Will remedy that asap.

The Google Group was set up to give those interested in actively contributing a better discussion platform than a blog. It is invite only simply to deter spam artists and time wasters. Anyone genuinely interested in participating can simply request an invite and will be added to the group.

As Geeklawyer says, the audience does not have to be lawyer OR general public; it can - through design - satisfy both. It has to work for lawyers else it will not get off the starting blocks, but it should be relevant and useful to the layman from Day 1. Interestingly, OPSI research reveals that those amongst the "laity" who would most immediately find such a service of benefit are public sector employees; they're already relying heavily on free law but are completely at sea; so there's a third category if you like.

Whatever ... there's no doubt we can do hugely better than the mess we have at the moment.
Unknown said…
Jennie - bit late on this one but thanks for posting about it. Unfortunately I missed the Barcamp but have now read the report and it looks like there was a lot of discussion. As Nick says if you want to be involved with the project then you can request and invite, the more the merrier is what I say.

I also believe it has to be available to all and aimed at all although if your searching for legal content, you're usually doing so for a specific reason. If I didn't work in a law firm I doubt I start trawling the web for legal content, unless I'd been a bit naughty ;-)

Popular posts from this blog

What's in a name?

In the case of this blog, it's a name that had no particular thought or planning behind it - I had no idea whether I would actually want to keep it going, what I would blog about, or that anyone would ever read it. Well, it's almost 4 years later (17th June 2007 is blog birthday, if we're counting), and the blog's still here, so I think we can now safely assume that it's probably going to be sticking around. And the name's been getting on my nerves a bit...you have no idea the amount of people who have found this blog looking for ladies called Jennie Law or Jenny Law. Personally, I'm not actually called Jennie Law, so I'm no help to these poor searchers, although for the right fee I could maybe consider pretending to be... I also don't blog a huge amount about law: I'm not a lawyer, I just have the job of finding stuff for lawyers. Sometimes that process amuses me, sometimes it annoys me, and I blog about it. Sometimes I write about library is

The mysteries of cataloguing

Cataloguing: an arcane art, where each piece of punctuation is significant, and commas and semi colons are all-powerful. Well, they are in "proper" libraries, where in-depth research of esoteric points goes on, and the precise spelling of Christian names, and information such as when a person lived and died can be crucial in pinpointing obscure facts. Here, we have our own catalogue system. It doesn't have a name, but if it did, it would probably be something along the lines of "I need this book NOW, no I don't care about the precise spelling of the authors middle name, or their date of birth." I know, I know, it's not snappy, but it's accurate. Cataloguing demands are different in a commercial law firm: we don't care about much more than what it's about, who wrote, when, and what jurisdiction it covers. And what we really, really care about is "where the hell is it". Law books are amazing: they have the power to move themselves f

Where are the UK Librarian blogs?

In response to various posts wondering about the strange lack of UK library / librarian blogs, I thought I’d have a look for myself to see where they’re all hiding. I did a search on Google Blogs, just using the words “ uk ” and “librarian”, and looked for posts published ‘anytime’, which gave me 24 pages of blog listings. This included spam blogs, duplicate postings, and various sites including ‘ uk ’ in the text of a link they’d posted. I learned a few things in the process. Lots of blogs post occasionally about librarians, without necessarily being written by librarians. If a blogger doesn't fill out their location information, it can be quite hard to work out where they're based without having to read a few posts and look for cultural references. “ UK ” also means "University of Kentucky ” ( See? ). There are quite a few interesting English language library bloggers, but they're not on this list 'cos they ain't in the UK. There really doesn’t