Dear list-served,
Due to reader demand (two of them), I'm pleased to present a summary
of the responses I received by my request for information and documents
for implementing a policy to let nonlawyers borrow from the law library.
First, look to your legislative mandate. Randy Mafit of the Lane
County (OR) Law Library says state law permits it to extend borrowing
privileges only to lawyers and bona fide litigants. It is not automatic
but is granted case-by-case. Lawyers must present their bar card and
litigants must show proof of curent litigation in propria persona.
Materials, which circulate for three days, may be charged out only by a
staff member and not during attorneys' after-hours use. Mafit says there
is no fine system, but borrowers agree to compensate for lost or damaged
materials.
Side one of the LCLL charge card: "I acknowledge receipt of the
above material and agree to abide by the conditions for circulation as
stipulated on the reverse. I understand that failure to comply may
result in withdrawal of borrowing privileges and possible legal action."
Borrower name, firm, mailing address if litigant, telephone, and date
follow. Doubter that I am, I would add an acknowledgment that the
borrower received the materials in good condition, but for any
exceptions noted. The reverse explains the limit of the library's
mandate and consequent restrictions on circulation policy. It states the
need for proof of status and identity, the requirement that a staff
member check materials out, and which materials do not circulate (e.g.,
those so marked, looseleafs--from Amy Osborne, University of Kentucky
Law Library: bound journals, parts of multi-volume sets, reporters (or,
I guess, whatever is appropriate to local circumstances). A statement
follows that the borrower is responsible for all materials borrowed and
will be charged costs associated with damage or loss. Finally, it states
how long the materials circulate and when they are due back.
Jan Ryan Novak, Director of the Cleveland Law Library Association,
said her library once used deposit accounts for Westlaw use but replaced
it with a credit care pre-authorization to charge unpaid bills to a
member's card. Plastic is wonderful, isn't it?
Judy Flader of the Washington City (MN) Law Library said the
library's board of trustees voted in 1994 to extend borrowing privileges
to the general public pursuant to state law. She said the law library
lost a few books but not as many as she feared, and she is very happy
with the situation. Her library is strict about getting current and
valid identification--a sound policy--and sent along the patron
registration form. The form states its compliance with the Minnesota
Government Data Practices (privacy) Act, and contains an agreement: "I
agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the Washington County Law
Library. I understand that failure to do so may result in suspension or
revocation of any or all of my law library privileges. I understand as
well that I will need to renew my membership on an annual basis."
As to annual memberships, Jason T. Schulz of the San Diego County
Public Law Library says that membership ($45 for attorneys, $10 for
plain folk) has dwindled recently, because, in his opinion, more
information is now available on the Internet. My predecessor, Andrea
Surfleet, continues to marshall legal resources from around the nation
on our website, www.pacific.net/~lawlib, and it takes a great burden off
our limited resources. Take a look if you've a mind to. The SDCPLL
deposits go into a trust account, and it charges fines against the
deposit. My recollection of SDCPLL fines was a dollar a day per book.
Members have to replenish their deposits when they fall below a stated
amount if they want to keep borrowing. The library refunds the deposit
balance when a borrower closes the account. I also recall that the
library occasionally took errant borrowers to small claims court for
runaway big fines.
All I can add is that my inclination has been for deposits
substantial enough to cover loss of very expensive materials. My Board
of Trustees, intrinsically more generous and public spirited, feels the
deposit should not prohibit less affluent members of the public from
having access to the materials. We haven't thrashed that one out yet,
but I notice that SDCPLL's fees are consonant with my board's position.
Well, gang, we've come to the end of another episode of BPFN and
hasn't it been fun? I am genuinely grateful for all the help you have
provided. If anyone else has something to add, don't be bashful. Best to
all.
Tom Anderson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:33:32 PST