I know that Seth Ben-Ezra recently posed this question to the list, and I
found his summary to be helpful, but now I find that I am in need of input
from academic law librarians on the issue of Ken Svengalis' suggestion of
refusing supplementation of secondary sources and purchasing a replacement
set every few years.
We are a small legal collection within the campus library and are used
primarily for the purpose of instructing undergraduates in basic legal
research. Our collection of secondary source materials was obtained as part
of a package deal prior to my appearance on the scene. I am of the opinion
that using formbooks for basic legal research techniques is an invitation
for disaster, and using secondary sources such as treatises is good to get
an overview of the state of the law in a particular field, but even using a
currently supplemented secondary source will require primary source
searching. I am advocating adopting the Svengalis suggestion, but other
interests in the school want me to justify the option by referencing other
institutions that follow this approach.
Thus, if you are in an academic law library and follow, in whole or in part
the Ken Svengalis suggestion as to supplementation of secondary source
materials, please advise me of your experiences and limitations that you
have encountered.
Chas. Gaunce
cgaunce@libr.utep.edu
Law Librarian
University of Texas at El Paso
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:36:32 PST