The guide was published three years ago
when electronic legal research was not as widespread as it is today.
Not exact matches
And if students react to seemingly irrelevant print lessons by failing to internalize foundational concepts, then they will likely revert to old
research habits
when they inevitably gravitate back to
electronic sources to do their actual
research.88 In other words, if the process doesn't carry over to the media they're actually willing to use, then they are far less likely to actually learn the fundamental, foundational concepts that are so critical to good
legal research.89 Instead, they may achieve mere «inert» knowledge: «the inability to apply skills and concepts in situations other than those in which they were originally learned.»
Of course, there was a time (long ago)
when electronic research truly was at odds with traditional views of how
legal research should be conducted.
In a conversation the other day we touched on the differences between how (or if)
electronic legal research was taught
when I was in law school, and then a few years later
when I first instructed
legal research and writing.
And rightfully so, as this «technology competency» requirement (now adopted by the majority of states, including Illinois as of January 1, 2016) means lawyers may not bury their head in the sand
when it comes to eDiscovery or using
electronic resources for
legal research or even having and maintaining an understanding of technology in general.
When respondents were asked for their perspectives on AI and its effect on the
legal industry, 71 % predicted it would have the biggest impact on
electronic discovery in the areas of case assessment and predictive coding (TAR), coming in next at 41 % was document automation, followed by
legal research (40 %), contract analysis / automation (34 %), and case / outcome prediction (24 %).
From the library side of
legal work, some theoretical MWP examples: extra
research to confirm a trusted person's work, legislative
research that goes back too far in time, looking for every case rather than the best cases that clarify an issue, filing a looseleaf service that hasn't been consulted in several years, pulling and copying print case reporters
when you already have an
electronic copy.