Recently I helped someone with a research question involving spoliation of evidence.  When I initially entered my search terms into Westlaw, I typed spoilation instead of spoliation.  Interestingly, this is such a common mistake that a search of all state and federal cases on Westlaw returns 1,047 results for the term spoilation — a significant number, when compared with the 9,317 results for spoliation. 

Legal terms of art can be tricky, and there are certain terms that seem to invite misspelling.  At a glance, the error in ”parole evidence” may be skimmed over, as parole is a word.  However, if you enter this term in a search on Westlaw, you will see a bright yellow message displayed at the top of your result list: Did you mean “parol evidence”?  And if you try to search for “parole evidence” using the plain language search of WestlawNext, you’ll find that most of your results discuss “parol evidence.”

I asked some Reference Attorney colleagues to share other easy-to-misspell words they’ve run across, and put together a short list that is more suggestive than comprehensive:

• Harassment is often spelled with varying numbers of r’s and s’s. 
• Extrinsic, judgment, laches, and frivolous can be surprisingly easy to misspell (e.g. extrinisic, judgement, latches, frivilous).
• Adviser/advisor is a particular pet peeve of one colleague — although on Westlaw and WestlawNext, these are automatically treated as alternative terms, unless you deliberately force the system to search only for one or the other.  Thus, a search in federal securities cases on Westlaw will return the same 7,950 cases for either advisor or adviser, regardless of the spelling used.
• Principal/principle are not alternative terms on Westlaw, which makes sense as each has a distinct meaning.  However, since both are terms commonly used in the law, accidentally exchanging one for the other in a search may still produce search results — just not the desired results.
• Voir dire, prima facie, certiorari, and other linguistic imports are also prime candidates for misspelling, where spellcheck is unlikely to be helpful.

Even misspellings can return results, as courts sometimes make spelling errors too.  For example, if I want to find cases involving taxation and the Philippines, a Westlaw search in all cases using the terms tax! /p Phillippines (misspelled with two l’s) will deliver 7 results, while correcting the spelling produces another 384.

For this reason, if you are running a search and getting surprisingly few results, it is always a good idea to double-check that you have spelled your terms correctly.   Black’s Law Dictionary is available electronically on both Westlaw and WestlawNext to check the spelling of legal terms.

The Reference Attorneys continue to receive a healthy number of calls focusing on financial reform, and, specifically, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank).  The paramaters of Dodd-Frank continue to evolve.  Check out the Fox Rothschild Alert , a JD Supra document.  To review the proposed rule referenced in this alert, see  75 FR 70152-01.  Track its progress by setting up a WestClip in the FR database for RIN 3038-AC96.  For more information on RINs, see our earlier posting, Anatomy of a RIN.

Earlier posts addressing the financial crisis highlighted Westlaw’s “Financial Crisis” tab and the “Finance and Banking” folder. The “Dodd-Frank Wall St. Reform” tab is another excellent option. The tab contains the latest federal agency updates, links to key provisions, and a broad selection of primary and secondary sources.  Here are a few notable resources:

First, we found the citation referenced above by selecting the CFTC Federal Register database and running a simple key terms query:

See also, the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PLIREF-DEFREF):  an excellent overview of the Act, including specific chapters on the “Volcker Rule” and the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

Wall Street Reform-USCCAN (WALLST-USCCAN) is a great option for Dodd-Frank legislative history.

On WestlawNext, you’ll find the Dodd-Frank treatise and other excellent resources from the Finance & Banking content page.

I recently returned from the annual Expo of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) held in Orlando. One of the important issues discussed in several class seminars was the new Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).  While the amusement industry strives to put smiles on people’s faces and to appeal to the broadest spectrum of the population as possible, safety of all guests is a prominent concern to the industry.  Operators are constantly striving to have a good working knowledge of the A.D.A. requirements and how they impact operations.  Such knowledge becomes extremely complex when you look at the wide variety of goods and services offered at an amusement facility or traveling show.  The facility or show not only provides amusement rides, but it also provides water attractions, go-karts, miniature golf, indoor theaters, restaurants, games, shopping, camping facilities and restrooms.  Each of these areas has its own nuances and requirements under the ADAAGs.

On September 15th of this year, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice promulgated a final rule amending its ADA Title III regulation, which covers nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities.  The final rule can be found on Westlaw at 75 FR 56164. For earlier versions of the rule, you can use the Regulation Identification Number (RIN), 1190-AA46, as your search term in the FR database.  (A very common research question is, ‘I have the notice of proposed rule making, has the agency adopted the final rule?’ Most agencies, but not all, use RINs.  If you’ve got one, run it as your search term to find related proposed, amended and final rules.)

The final rule adopts the 2004 ADAAG and makes them operable six (6) months after publication or on March 15, 2011; while the 2010 Standards (ADAAG) will become enforceable eighteen (18) months after publication or March 15, 2012.  With the promulgation of 2010 Standards, amusement operators will be looking at ways to better accommodate hearing-impaired and sight-impaired guests.  Keep your eyes open for future discussions on this topic.

//

[Editor's Note:  This is first in a brief series of posts relating to pre-trial research including an interview with West author Jay Grenig on eDiscovery.] 

Meeting deadlines is stressful enough.  Determining what those deadlines might be shouldn’t add greys.  In May, Cher Estrin of the Organization of Legal Professionals noted:  

Most common sources of stress for legal professionals are undefined deadlines, lack of control over time, difficult clients, escalating intensity, no margin for error – are outside of a paralegal’s personal control.   

On the list of Reference Attorney FAQ’s is, ‘How many days do I have to file this?”  I can’t promise to improve your  mental health but I can recommend one of the most popular Reference Attorneys tools, least known to researchers.   KeyRules distills timing, formatting, and other general pleading and discovery requirements into a single document.  Here’s a simple example of how to use the tool.  Let’s say you’re working pro hac vice in New York.  Your client has been sued in New York County, but you have never litigated there and do not know where, when, and how to file your answer. First, access the KEYRULES-NY database.  The default search method here is the Template.  Select New York Supreme Court (New York County) and Search Pleadings as your Document Type.  You are then given further options based on your Document Type:  We’re looking for rules regarding filing an answer.  So, select Answer, then click Search Westlaw.  You get one result (NY KR Supreme 4), a document created by West editors that summarizes and links to state and local rules relevant to answers.  KeyRules documents are typically organized into the following sections:  The document outlines the relevant deadlines and links you to rules regarding the computation of time.  Also note that at the top of the Timing section, a link to Westlaw Legal Calendaring. Very briefly, Westlaw Legal Calendaring calculates litigation deadlines for you based on state and local court rules.  You can then export the deadlines to your Microsoft Outlook Calendar and use its features to keep track of them. In addition to pleading rules, KeyRules has outlines for state and federal discovery, bankruptcy, and intellectual property. A free KeyRules user guide is available on the Thomson Reuters website. 

The single most frequent question we get about patent research is how to determine if an individual patent has been involved in litigation.  While you might search for the patent number in the  dockets database (DOCK-FED-ALL), this search only pulls those dockets in which the actual title of a docket entry includes the patent number—something that rarely occurs.  Also, a search in the filings database (FED-FILING-ALL) allows for full-text searching; but the database is not intended to provide comprehensive coverage of all federal filings.

So, how do you determine whether you patent has been litigated?  Answer: KeyCite the patent.  KeyCite’s Full History includes data from the Patent Docket Summaries and Derwent LitAlert databases.

You might also search these databases independently:

Patent Docket Summaries (PAT-DOCK-SUM) pulls dockets by patent number.  The database includes a template that allows you to enter the patent number. Running a search will delivers docket summaries that involve that patent.  It will also provide a link to the full docket on Westlaw.  Coverage begins 2003.

Another resource is the LitAlerts from Derwent (LITALERT).  This database allows you to search by docket number and pull index information about any suits that have been filed involving your patent.  Coverage for Derwent LitAlerts is extensive, beginning 1973.

Availability of these databases gives researches some interesting flexibility.  For example,  how often have business method patents have been litigated since 2003?  To find out, enter 705 in the template for results.  Generally, however, the easiest way to determine whether a specific patent has been litigated is simply to KeyCite the patent.

Last week the New York Times featured an article about one of the greatest inventions in modern travel history: the wheeled suitcase, or “rolling luggage.” The article documents the story behind the creation of and subsequent history to this astounding American invention, patented at US Patent No. 3,653,474.

The article also represents an important tip in patent and legal research: the value of news sources. Often the Reference Attorneys are asked to retrieve “everything” involving a particular case or other legal document. And while KeyCite Citing References retrieves most resources on Westlaw—including cases, administrative materials, litigation documents, and secondary sources—it currently does not retrieve news articles. Thus, if you only KeyCite a case or patent you may be missing a helpful article on your topic. This is particularly apropos in patent research, since patents are so easy to search for: just search for the patent number in the same sentence as the word “patent.”

For example, let’s take a look at the citing references for the wheeled suitcase patent: US PAT 3653474. According to KeyCite there are 19 documents currently on Westlaw that cite to this document (mostly other patents that cite to the patent as a reference). Our New York Times article is nowhere to be found!

If, however, we do a search in the ALLNEWS database for 3653474 /s patent we can see that there are two news articles that also cite to this patent, including our helpful one from the New York Times.

Remember, if you ever need more information on a particular case or patent and don’t see many resources listed in citing references, try running a search in ALLNEWS as well. You may end up finding something helpful.

The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog yesterday had a story regarding a federal inmate and frequent frivolous litigant Jonathan Lee Riches.  It seems that the United States District Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky has attempted to obtain an injunction preventing Mr. Riches from filing documents in any court unless a  federal judge determines that they have a basis in law and fact.

Mr. Riche’s history of filing lawsuits that are later dismissed as frivolous is quite long.  His filings are often hard to understand, and his list of parties are also sometimes confusing.  A search of:

AT(LEE-RICHES) & PRO-SE INMATE-MAIL CORRECTIONAL-INSTITUTION

Returns over 2,000 results in DOCK-ALL, although in fairness they may not all be Mr. Lees cases, they are simply anything with Lee Riches in the attorney field with pro se, inmate mail, or correctional institution elsewhere in the document.  One docket in particular stands out (and has a new motion filed as of July 30th 2010) as having a very strange mix of parties, some of the extremely numerous names:

We start out with the usual individuals:

GEORGE W. BUSH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RICHARD B. CHENEY VICE PRESIDENT

CONDOLEEZA RICE SECRETARY OF STATE

No real surprises there for a case filed in 2006.  However the list of parties also contains foreign governments and celebrities:

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL

THE VATICAN

JERRY WEST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE LOS ANGELES LAKERS

TONY DANZA

ANNA NICHOLE SMITH

BRAD PITT AND HIS ADOPTED SON MADDOX PITT/JOLIE

SADDAM HUSSEIN

But more strangely included are a large list of inanimate objects, geographical places, long dead historical figures, wholly fictional product spokespeople and sometimes ephemeral concepts that have no physical existence.  Some examples:

VIENNA CONVENTION

MAGNA CARTA

TSUNAMI VICTIMS

FRUIT OF A-LOOM [sic.]

PLATO

MEIN KAMPF

NORDIC GODS

THE DA VINCI CODE

MT. RUSHMORE

GREEN BAY’S LAMBEAU FIELD

MING DYNASTY

GANGS IN HONG KONG

THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL

THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES

BETTY CROCKER

LIBERTY BELL

This is a very small sampling of the parties.  You can find the entire list by clicking the link above.

Most people know that we have many forms databases available on Westlaw.  Here are a couple of other useful resources you may not be aware of that can be helpful alternatives whenever you’re looking for a sample form: 

MODELDOC-ALL: The MODELDOC databases contain many sample agreements, contracts, and other transactional documents.  These are actual documents that were filed as exhibits with the S.E.C. (i.e. attached to an 8-K filing); our editors have made them helpfully available by giving them their own database for easy searching.  These agreements can encompass Bankruptcy, Business, Employment, Intellectual Property, and Real Property issues.  For example, if you’re looking for a sample merger agreement and can’t find one you like the forms database, MODELDOC-M&A may be the place for you.

EXHIBITS-ALL: EXHIBITS-ALL is a new database released at the end of last year that contains selected exhibits that were attached to pleadings or motions filed in both federal and state court actions.  Both textual and graphical exhibits are available.  This can be another good resource to search in when you’re looking for a document that might have been attached to a complaint, like a letter.

For example, let’s say you’re looking to write a “cease communication” letter to a credit agency pursuant to 15 USC 1692c (the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act).  You’ve tried a couple searches in FORMFINDER for “fair debt collection practices act” f.d.c.p.a. & ceas! but can’t seem to find anything on point.

Try running that search again in EXHIBITS-ALL.  You should now get several sample cease-and-desist letters to assist you.  Check out, for example, the second result, titled “Cease and Desist.”

I had a phone call recently with a WestlawNext subscriber who was having difficulty with her research project. She was in court at the time and did not have access to a computer. During the course of using WestlawNext, I mentioned our mobile platform. We have previously mentioned our new mobile platform for WestlawNext here, but haven’t gone in-depth on some of the features included in our mobile version. This week the West Reference Attorneys will feature a series of posts demonstrating some of the tools you may find most helpful on this mobile platform. The tools highlighted this week are samples from customer requests and ones the West Reference Attorneys have found most helpful.

WestlawNext mobile is accessible on any smart phone with internet/data capabilities. You can find specifications and requirements on our website here. The WestlawNext platform is, by far, the most complete offering to date. Many of the features you enjoy on WestlawNext are included in the mobile version as well.

By entering http://next.westlaw.com on your mobile device (I used my Blackberry Bold), WestlawNext will automatically detect your phone and adjust accordingly.

Once you are signed in, you will notice access to the familiar search functions of WestlawNext, your folders, and our extensive library of content.

The customer I was speaking with was searching for hearsay rule in Texas to exclude testimony. Running a WestSearch on that phrase yields 505 cases, but WestlawNext recognizes the rule and offers it up in a nice, easy-to-click blue box.

When we clicked on the rule, we saw the full text of the rule as well the Commentary, Related Research, and Notes of Decisions.

Within just a few seconds we had not only been able to find the appropriate rule, but also case law to support her argument in court.  Access is included in your WestlawNext subscription and you can bill for the research time and retreive your searches and documents when you return to WestlawNext on your regular computer.

Tomorrow will feature how to empty all your file boxes for trial into your handheld device. Also, please let us know if you find the mobile version to be particularly helpful in your practice or in court. We’d love to hear your stories and share them (with your permission of course).

As of yesterday, we have a new member to the WestlawNext family, the iPad app. This new app allows you access the power of WestSearch from the familiar ease of the iPad. Even before the official release of WestlawNext, the Reference Attorneys have been preparing for these new features because, yes, we support these too.

Whether you are using the Kindle, your iPhone, your Blackberry, your Android phone, your internet browser, and now your iPad… there is a West Reference Attorney for that. We have reference attorneys familiar with these new enhancements to assist you with any navigation or research questions that may arise. This can be particularly helpful when you are mobile and in need of additional research assistance that is not available from your office.

For those of you who are not familiar with our WestlawNext platform, we have a foldering feature that allows you to store any snippets or documents you feel are important for your research project in one place. While this is nice to help organize your research, the power of the foldering system is evident in this new application. No matter which portal you use to access WestlawNext, you can access the same folders and information. I wish I had this new app just for court. I could have folders for evidentiary challenges or objections filled with specific cases to back up my position. Most importantly, I could reduce the number of file boxes for major cases to a small tablet.

However, by far my favorite part of the iPad application are the notes and highlighting.

As you review cases, you can still highlight and leave notes in your case. These notes can be shared among your colleagues and remind you where the case is more important for your needs. I can only imagine that in the near future you will see more attorneys dumping their searches into the WestlawNext folders reviewing cases on their commute to and from work highlighting snippets and leaving notes. If you thought people walking and texting or e-mailing on a Blackberry was annoying, just wait for this evolution.

HOW TO CHANGE JURISDICTION FOR YOUR DIGEST SEARCH

One librarian commented that you cannot change jurisdiction while running a digest search.  Actually, this isn’t true.  (Maybe not as intuitive as it ought to be?  Let us know.)  Here’s how it’s done:

Currently, when running a digest search using a Key Number, the jurisdiction selected is the jurisdiction of the case you were viewing plus federal.  So if you selected a Key Number from a California case, a search would automatically run in California state and federal headnotes.  To change jurisdiction, simply tap the Jurisdiction Selector in the upper-right hand portion of the screen:

Change your jurisdiction:

Clicking “Done” takes you back to the original results. So, click the search box AND HIT RETURN:

Your Key Number digest search will now run in the new jurisdiction selected:

//