Slaw Publishes Article On Re-Mixing Legal Content

In the case of personal branding and marketing, lawyers are constantly encouraged to leverage digital media as a means of developing a personal or firm brand and to spend whatever free time they can muster to deliver content through web channels and streams in an effort to boost their presence and attract clients. [Fn. 3] Not surprisingly, this perspective is vastly more appealing than the old-school marketing ploy of becoming a published author. Nowadays very few people like the idea of spending a couple of years writing a tome dedicated to some aspect of the law, particularly when it won?t be read by prospective clients. Thus, the odds of finding a lawyer dedicated enough to create such a title are getting worse for publishers every year. To be clear about that point, I readily acknowledge that the market for new acquisitions is still robust (e.g., the American Bar Association puts out 125 to 150 new titles a year), but those aren?t the kind of books that the large publishing houses built their reputations on over the last century (read: subscription-worthy titles).

In the case of how we interact with digital information, Shaffer informs us that the volume of data we can receive on any given day now exceeds the equivalent of 174 newspapers worth of information. With that much data to process, it?s no surprise that information curators are digital darlings (read: we need a filter) and we take a great deal of comfort in Twitter?s 140-character limitation (read: we can only process in small chunks). The effect is pervasive and is influencing the time young lawyers are willing to spend on understanding their research. Note, I did not say conducting research. The focus here is on the ability to understand the why behind the answer. And this is where I think it gets difficult for publishers of legal analytical content.

The Big 2 are carrying a many legacy titles right now, and as best as I can tell, they haven?t quite figured out what to do with many of them other than to raise prices commensurate with declining subscription rates or bundle them with other products and ship them as part of ?an existing subscription,? a practice that stung Lexis to the tune of $2 million and some change in Florida in 2009. These may seem like viable options if you think the problem is the economy stupid, but I think the problem is a lot larger than declining budgets. The titles, as they are currently configured and written, aren?t that useful to modern practitioners anymore.

From where I sit, the lack of utility with these titles lies in the fact that (1) as Shaffer pointed out, we?re overwhelmed with information, and (2) we no longer have time for contemplative study in our daily practices. As Shaffer noted, the practice of law has shifted from a focus on legal concepts and theories to facts. [Fn. 4] We want material that is on point, and we?d like it now please.

Let?s consider the Google generation for a second, the touchy-feely Gen-Yers. If I say, ?first page results only? or ?top 5 hits,? you know what I mean. This generation of researchers won?t look further, so you?ve got to hit upon the answer the first time, otherwise they will simply get locked into an iterative search process until something appears on page 1. I see this research perspective (the quick-and-on-point culture) informing publishers on how this generation of lawyers wants analytical material to be written and displayed: quick access, short sentences supported by the law, numbered and headed paragraphs (i.e., bread crumbs), citable (i.e., I can plagiarize it and be right), heavily cross-referenced, faceted, etc.

This shift in researching perspective is not a small thing because it reflects the pressure digital culture is having on print, and we aren?t even talking about eReaders. So many of the successful titles carried by the Big 2 publishers today were written at a time when lawyers could be more leisurely about their learning (i.e., clients would pay for the research time). This isn?t the case any longer. A book written for a different generation, even if up to date, is no better online than it is in print because the mode of communication is much the same. The stylistic framework for the title is mimicked and carried forward from edition to edition, so simply allowing it to be searched digitally won?t make you smarter about a subject faster (or if so, only incrementally). This limitation doesn?t make the product bad, it just means that it would be more useful (and possibly more successful) if it was modernized.

This is where remixing comes in.