Below are the responses that both Joan Loftus and I received as a
result of our separate inquiries on Law Lib regarding the Courtlink
database. Several librarians asked us to summarize for the list.
June Mac Leod
Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich
San Diego, Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Satterlund <sattl@foster.com>
To: SOCAL.SD2(JMACLEOD)
Date: Friday, March 29, 1996 1:15 pm
Subject: Courtlink -Reply
Go for it!!!!
We have had Courtlink since it started. The reports are tons easier
to read than what comes out of PACER, you have access to all the
available courts, the bills are itemized monthly instead of
quarterly, and
(Best of all) you can stack searches and can search multiple courts.
Just this morning I ran a search in both Western & Eastern
Washington. I only had to enter the search once (fewer possibilities
for typos), and I could work on something else while it ran.
Lisa Satterlund / sattl@foster.com
Foster Pepper & Shefelman
Seattle, WA
206-447-2871
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Lisa Satterlund <sattl@foster.com>
To: SOCAL.SD2(JMACLEOD)
Date: Friday, March 29, 1996 2:32 pm
Subject: Courtlink -Reply -Reply -Reply
I think we pay $75 per hour. The thing is, it saves me so much time
that it saves the client money because the client isn't being charged
for my time and the online time as they were under the old system.
Lisa / sattl@foster.com
FP&S
___________________________________________________________________
From: Amy Eaton <eatona@wln.com>
To: June Mac Leod <JMACLEOD@gcwf.com>
Date: Friday, March 29, 1996 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: Courtlink
June:
We use Courtlink and it is essentially a good product. My major
complaints are personal (I don't like the sales or support staff
here) or realted to printing. The print problem is this: Courtlink
does allow you to print a record without veiwing all the sections
first. For example, yesterday I had to pull up all the records for
a specific plantiff and print them. I ran the search and retireved
9 records. I could not then print all 9 in one easy step. Instead,
I had to go into each docket and view each component, then send all
open components to the printer. You have to complete the print
command before you go onto the next docket item or start all over
opening and viewing. To those of us use to Lexis and WL it is very
tedious and time consuming. I believe the whole thing took me 20
mintues for a very straight-forward search.
Fell to call if you want to discuss this further.
Amy Eaton (206)623-7580
Preston Gates & Ellis eatona@wln.com
5000 Columbia Center
701 Fifth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
_________________________________________________________________---
From: <srb-lib@wln.com>
To: June Mac Leod <JMACLEOD@gcwf.com>
Date: Friday, March 29, 1996 4:45 pm
Subject: Re: Courtlink
June - We have been using courtlink in our office primarily for
superior court searching and it beats the court-sponsored
alternative, SCOMIS. The PACER access is new and I haven't used it
enough to speak authoritatively about use for the District Courts,
but the company has been great to work with and for superior court
access its been reliable and more flexible than anything we've seen
previously. Not quite your question, but for what it is worth...
Regards. sz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Zimmerman
Stoel Rives
(206) 386-7502 srb-lib@wln.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brenna Louzin <hewmse-l@wln.com>
To: SOCAL.SD2(JMACLEOD)
Date: Sunday, March 31, 1996 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: Courtlink
We have Courtlink in our library, although we have not given up
access to
Pacer.
I find that our paralegals and secretaries are most excited about
this service. It is good, but not excellent. It seems to me that it
could be more intuitive in terms of searching.
The things that work well are retrieving a docket, downloading and
printing a docket...pretty basic. But, if you have to play around
with a case name or number, it seems to me that one wastes a lot of
time changing screens.
I do not have the time to go into more details here, but give me a
call at
206-389-6226
Brenna Louzin
Law Librarian
Heller Ehrman
701 5th Ave. Suite 6100
Seattle, WA 98104
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Reed McClure Lib <reedmlaw@wln.com>
To: June Mac Leod <JMACLEOD@gcwf.com>
Date: Monday, April 1, 1996 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: Courtlink
June: Courtlink is great and our attorneys prefer it over Pacer. We
have both, but I think I'm the only one that uses Pacer.
Katie Drake
Librarian
Reed McClure
Seattle, WA 98104
_____________________________________________________________________
From: Reed McClure Lib <reedmlaw@wln.com>
To: June Mac Leod <JMACLEOD@gcwf.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 1996 10:03 am
Subject: Re: Courtlink -Reply
June: The print-out is easier to read and the Windows software makes
it easier to navigate around. Also, you don't have to register to
subscribe to out of state courts. It's easier. It's also more
expensive, but our lawyers were having so many difficulties with
Pacer, that a lot of money was wasted there.
Katie
On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, June Mac Leod wrote:
> Katie:
> > Thanks for your response. Can you tell me why you prefer it
over
> Pacer? Ease, fastness?
> > June
__________________________________________________________________
From: Joan Loftus <loftus@netcom.com>
To: SOCAL.SD2(jmacleod)
Date: Monday, April 22, 1996 8:48 am
Subject: CourtLink Responses
********************
We've just signed up with Courtlink. I was very impressed with the
demo and am anxious to see how our "live" test goes. Please let me
know what you learn from others. My fear is that Data West, which is
a very small start-up operation, is going to be overwhelmed with
interest and not be able cope with what's coming. We shall see.
Sandra S. Gold
Director of Library Services
Lord, Bissell & Brook
************************
Ditto. I just reviewed the product for my firm and am recommending
it highly. I would be interested in a summary for the list. When I
called to ask technical questions that I had - they were very
formative. In this technological era, great technical support is a
PLUS to me and I was sold after a thirty minute discussion with
their tech support person. Of course, we are not using it yet
though.
Melinda Elder
Winstead Sechrest and Minick P.C.
************************
Hi, Joan. I too have just started using Courtlink. I had
sent this message to the librarians in our offices just
before I saw your posting. Here is what I wrote:
After using Courtlink today I thought I'd share the
following:
1. The search of all federal courts does take 80 minutes.
2. When you get a message asking you if you want to print
the list of courts that it was UNABLE to access, always
answer "NO". Otherwise it freezes any information it did
retrieve. They are aware of this bug.
3. If you loose your connection to Courtlink in the middle
of a long search, when you reconnect, you are NOT able to
restart your search. It is best to call them and find out
which courts it had not successfully connected to yet. And
begin a new search on those courts.
4. It really pays to truncate your name search, i.e. I
searched "Volt Info" in order to retrieve all the cases for
"Volt Information Sciences".
P.S. The people at the 800 number are nice.
Julie Schlobohm
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:13 PST