It's not just summer associates. It's the same story with the Calif.
Law Review article I assisted with yesterday. Law librarians can be
blinded to the obvious by technology, too. "Lateral thinking" isn't,
or shouldn't be, all that revolutionary a discovery.
I am still trying to resolve the question of when one must, or ought
to, refer to the authoritative version of a norm -- usually the
official gazette -- in drawing conclusions of what is the law. (1) is
that a common-law bias? (2) what if the judges and ministries of a
country do not themselves place much stock in the official gazette? (I
can give examples where the sole reliable source for a law is the
Ministry of Justice computer, or where revisions have been so frequent
and extensive that the risk of error is great in using the OG. (I have
found typos in the Larcier version of Belgian statutes. But do they
matter if the orthographic error is obvious? How many times do lawyers
insert "[sic]" into their quotes of opposing counsel submission mainly
to score points and for no substantive purpose?)
Andy Grossman
Université catholique de Louvain
--- Genie Tyburski <tyburski@virtualchase.com> wrote:
> I really don't think this is the case. I don't
> think he thought in
> terms of cost -- just what's easy and fast to him.
> It's part of why I
> shared the story. It's getting harder and harder to
> think like they do.
> :-)
>
> Genie
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:50:07 PST