Last week, I found myself over at the law library, for the first time in more than a year.  That wouldn’t have been true back in the mid-90’s when I started my firm. Back then, LEXIS cost 600 bucks a month for a dozen searches, and the law library with its digests and bound CCH reporters and (eventually) a free Westlaw Kiosk, was a lifeline for my fledgling practice. Today, my legal research bills run about $250/month between various subscription services (Lexis included) for most of what I need on a daily basis.

Still, every so often as was true last week, I face a coverage gap that necessitated a trip to the library. And my has it changed. The free Westlaw kiosk is no longer – with the transition to Westlaw Next, it’s become too costly to offer Westlaw gratis, explained the librarian. Meanwhile, the library no longer subscribes to hard copies of various reporters, or updates treatises because it’s presumed that these resources can be had online. And yes that’s true – but at what cost?

In an era where we’re supposedly seeing “advancements” in legal research, premium research services any more accessible or affordable than it was a decade ago. In fact, if my experience is any indication, these services have become proportionally more expensive while basic research services for locating state and federal case law have come down. Yet, how many tools do lawyers really need to research case law? Today, we have Fastcase and Google Scholar as leaders of free legal research, plus newcomers like Ravel Law that generate results in a different way to Casetext, which crowdsources legal commentary.   

But all of that is low-hanging fruit. With today’s tech tools, it’s not that difficult to spider and collect court decisions and toss them into a data base. What is more difficult is culling all of the attachments from court filings – briefs and the treasure trove of information the exhibits often contain. And what’s costly is providing the value-adds in the form of expert commentary or treatises and checklists.

Many lawyers don’t need a dozen free and cheap databases for case research. Rather, we need expert commentary and guides and access to underlying documents and data. Big law can easily pay for these resources, and it would be nice to see some competition injected on that playing field. Moreover, even as more expensive tools are developed, it would be nice to have some available in law libraries for more widespread consumption.

We’ve reached a world where information – at least basic case law is free. But that’s still not enough to level the playing field where large firms have access to increasingly sophisticated research tools that solos and smalls can’t afford. And whereas once, law libraries helped level the playing field, as my experience suggests, that’s no longer the case. As the Future of Legal Services Commission debates access to justice initiatives, it should consider whether we really narrow the gap when we use technology to achieve “good enough” – when others will have “best available.”