If secondary sources are like cheeseburgers, then Spindle Law is a half pound of medium-rare juiciness topped with Maytag Blue, heirloom tomatoes, caramelized onions, tender field greens, and house-made aioli. Read on to find out why. (more…)
When I entered law school in 2008, I was a pretty good googler. It had been several years since I’d conducted any academic research, and I’d never been exposed to the arcane magnificence of legal research. During my first semester, I was incredulous when librarians introduced us to LexisNexis and Westlaw. How could the databases be so clumsily assembled? Why were the interfaces so ugly? Could millions of lawyers actually pay money for hodge-podges of unsortable results?
My incredulity quickly turned to grudging acceptance, after I realized that the data in those databases often didn’t exist in any accessible way in the googlable parts of the World Wide Web. I learned the crooked syntax of terms-and-connectors searches, mastered fields, and slowly weaned myself off TP-ALL and ALLCASES searches. That is to say, I got the hang of perhaps the most backwards research methodology on the planet.
During the fall of my second year, Google changed my life. [Bias alert! My brother works for Google, even though he had nothing to do with this particular epiphany.] In November 2009, Google Scholar quietly added legal opinions and journals to its search. There was plenty of uncertainty at the time about the size and reliability of the database, the inability to limit searches by particular criteria, and the lack of a citator to check the subsequent history of a case (although the “How Cited” serves that purpose pretty well if you’re willing to read subsequent cases rather than rely on little colored stop-signs for this critical piece of the research process…).
I was (am) nuts about Google Scholar. Since November 2009, I begin nearly every legal research query there, heading over to Lexis or Westlaw only after I’ve identified the type and location of key sources that aren’t in the Google Scholar database. And I’ve found this method to be effective for conducting most of my research, because I grew up googling. (Well, really, Alta Vistaing, but who’s keeping track?) Keyword-driven searches work for people like me, when the tool is smarter than I am when it comes to spelling, and won’t ever need me to specify a root expander.
Two months after my infatuation with Google Scholar began, I had the chance to preview the really-sweet but really-expensive WestlawNext. Then I learned about Fastcase (four dimensional research visualization!) and poked around the Public Library of Law. Soon followed close encounters with LII’s Wex, RECAP, and the Law.gov movement, among other free and open legal resources just coming into their own online.
Finally I met Spindle Law. I was taken with the simple interface design. I like the straightforward-yet-functional personal SpinDoc. I thought the symbols were corny, but very easy to understand. The idea of a crowdsourced legal research tool kind of blew me away. Here were guys not afraid to ask lawyers to share their work, to build something that would benefit a greater community of professionals. Guys who encouraged my enthusiasm for useful, online legal research tools. I have recently contributed my first rule and authority to Spindle Law, and look forward to adding many more. I’m grateful for the chance to add to this important part of the growing new ecosystem of legal research.
All of this in less than three years of law school? I can’t wait to see what my first three years of practice will bring.
There are many ways to contribute to Spindle Law, whether you’d like to participate during brief breaks in your day, or use the site as a repository for the fruits of intense research. We’ve recently described how Spindle is useful tool for students and practitioners alike. In case you still harbor any hesitation in diving in to contribute, this post is for you.
Before you add branches, rules, and authorities, you may want to lurk a bit in the background. First steps in adding value to Spindle Law for others is vouching for or commenting on existing content. You can watch a short video explaining how to vouch, or read the Help section on commenting.
Joining the community of Spindle Law contributors doesn’t require a lot of time. In fact, our platform is built to require relatively little. Adding an authority can be very quick. Once you’re sure an authority supports a rule, it’s a matter of filling out a few citation fields, or selecting the case to add, if it’s already in the Spindle system. Adding a rule requires carefully crafting some language, but if that rule is a result of research you’ve already completed, it’s a matter of copying in a few lines of succinctly-stated text. Not sure where to start? Two suggestions:
When you’re ready to add more, to get your name out there as an ally in the fight for better legal research, and as an authoritative voice in your particular field, dig into our extended contributor’s guide, and contact us if you’d like to oversee an area by becoming a branch manager.
It’s that simple. As an attorney, law student, professor, or law librarian, you practice the skills you need to be a stellar contributor every day. You craft or adapt legal rules. You cite authorities for those rules. You think about how the rules fit into the context of the broader law. You look at an authority and quickly recognize it as supporting, rejecting, or refining a rule. Apply those tasks to Spindle Law and you’ll be helping yourself and a wider community of practitioners. Now’s a good time to share.
