The convenience of the major commercial legal databases has made them so popular that many law students rely on them almost exclusively for legal research. This session will highlight free tools available via Internet that are increasingly important for lawyers who need to do cost-effective research in the current economic environment. In some cases, these resources are as good as (or better than) anything provided by commercial publishers. We’ll consider resources for both primary and secondary legal sources, including: federal and state government web sites, Google Scholar (and tips for using Google), blogs and other current awareness tools, and more.

The class page is HERE.

Free Legal Research
April 8, 10 & 12 | 1 p.m. (Room 334)
David Bachman, instructor; dbachman@bu.edu

Need to find a brief?  Need to see if that motion to dismiss was granted?  As court documents become available electronically more and more attorneys find that they need to find these documents.  And who has to find them?  You!  Come learn what court documents are, how the system works and how to find these documents.

Monday, March 25th at 1pm in Rm 1570

Wednesday, March 27th and Friday, March 29th at 1pm in Rm 334

Instructor: Stefanie Weigmann

Late on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate confirmed the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. The vote on the confirmation was 58-41. With all Senate Democrats on record supporting the nomination–and Democrats in the majority–the nomination was not in doubt, once it came to an up-or-down vote. The key vote was the one to invoke cloture, or end the filibuster of Hagel’s nomination. There, the vote was 71-27.

A comparison of the roll-call votes in the Senate (numbers 23 and 24 of the 113th session) reveals who made the difference.  Altogether, there were 15 Republicans who split their votes. While ultimately voting to oppose Hagel’s confirmation, these Senators allowed the nomination to go forward: Alexander (TN), Ayotte (NH), Blunt (MO), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK),  Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Flake (AZ), Graham (SC), Hatch (UT),  McCain (AZ), Murkowski (AK), Sessions (AL) and Thune (ND). Just four Republican Senators were pro-Hagel in both votes: Cochran (MS), Johanns (NE), Paul (KY) and Shelby (AL).

For ordinary citizens, this kind of analysis used to be difficult because roll-call vote information could be hard to locate. The more obscure the issue, the more difficult it was to find the voting records. The New York Times provided tables to show how members voted, but only on selected, major votes. The Congressional Record was a source for those who could visit a library that had CR in print. Beyond those, interested citizens may have had to consult  Congressional Quarterly (CQ) publications, Roll Call (the Capitol Hill newspaper), or possibly political, business or labor organizations that had a stake in the issue. In some cases, it may have been necessary for a constituent to contact the office of the Congressman or Senator directly.

Now, with Congressional and other government web sites providing House and Senate voting information, anyone with Internet access can learn how members of Congress voted on issues that matter to them–provided they know where to look.

Think of it as fantasy football for the Supreme Court. Can you guess which petitions will end up being granted cert. by the Supreme Court in March 2013? Can you guess which parties in the merits cases will prevail?  Enter the Scotus Competition sponsored by the Scotus Blog. You and your team can win $5,000 if you beat the Scotus experts and $3,500 if you beat the other student teams. You must register by Feb. 28 and submit your picks by March 14.

If you are conducting research a treaty to which the United States is (or may be) a party, free Internet resources provide some of the most useful tools available. Some tips on using these free sources follow.

One example of a treaty that was recently considered by the Senate is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“the Convention”). Late in 2012, there was much news coverage of the Senate’s failure to ratify the Convention. To check on recent treaty actions in the Senate, a good first stop is Thomas, the Congressional web site. In Thomas’ Treaties section, a simple search (“disabilties”) in the 112th Congress leads to information about the Convention, identified as Treaty no. 112-7; Senate Executive Report 112-6, which accompanies the treaty; and the Senate vote on December 4, 2012. However, Thomas does not link out to these reference documents or more details.

For the text of the treaty documents, go to the Government Printing Office web site, FDSys, which provides access to Congressional Documents; that includes Senate Treaty Documents for each recent Congress, including the 112th. Treaty Document 112-7 is available in PDF there. Likewise, Executive Report 112-6 is available; to find it, run a search (e.g., “senate executive report 112-6″) on the FDSys main page. The Senate’s web site provides information on roll-call votes, including the December 4 vote on the Convention. (Because the 61-38 vote fell 6 votes short of a two-thirds majority, ratification was rejected.) Continue Reading »

There are more than 600,000 opinions dating back to 2004 are available on FDsys, the Government Printing Office website. This was a pilot program of the Judicial Conference and opinions from the pilot are already one of the most heavily used collections on FDsys, with millions of retrievals each month.  But these are limited to 29 circuits and district courts.  The Judicial Conference has now approved posting on FDsys of all federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts should the courts opt opt to participate in the program.

Back in October, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered an amendment to Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(b).  Before this amendment, the rule “preferred” fee agreements to be in writing, just like MRPC 1.5(b) that many of you studied for the MPRE.  Under the amendment, a fee agreement must be in writing unless the fee is for a single session legal consultation, the expected fee is less than $500, or there is an indigent representation fee imposed by a Massachusetts court (and therefore there is no fee agreement between the lawyer and the client).  This change is effective starting January 1, 2013.

You know Westlaw, Lexis, and Bloomberg have laws for the various states, but what do you do when you need more specialized research, like state legislative history?  The availability of this kind of information varies from state to state, so it’s important to understand the situation in your particular state.  You can find out this information by looking at a state legal research handbook.  The library has research guides for many states, including Massachusetts, in the reading room.  Search for: [your state] legal research in the catalog to find the call number.  See below for an example search for a handbook on Vermont legal research.

It’s almost election day.  Although it’s been impossible to avoid Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren ads, you may be less familiar with the ballot questions that will be posed to Massachusetts voters in November.  There was a mailing sent out by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, but in case you missed it, your roommate threw it out, etc., you can find the text of the questions, summaries of the laws, and arguments for and against the enactment of these laws here.  The questions this year are about availability of motor vehicle information, prescribing medication to end life (physician assisted suicide), and medical use of marijuana.  Don’t forget that you may be required to provide identification with your name and address at which you’re registered to vote.  Acceptable forms of identification are listed here.

We know and love THOMAS as our free source for federal bills and bill tracking. Those awesome features are now included on Congress.gov.  In addition to legislation going back to 2001, this site includes information on the current members of Congress, the calendars of both houses, and a review of the legislative process.  It also provides helpful links to the Congressional Record, FDsys, and information on congressional hearings and reports.  Be sure to check it out next time you’re looking for legislative information!