VSB wants to offer free Web-based legal research

By Dara McLeod

CHARLOTTESVILLE — The Virginia State Bar is exploring plans to offer Virginia's lawyers free access to an online legal research database through its Web site, a service already offered in more than 20 other states — but not everyone is happy about the plan.

"We would like to provide online legal research at no cost to every member of the state bar," VSB President David P. Bobzien told the VSB Council at its Oct. 15th meeting at the Boar's Head Inn.

But leaders of some voluntary bar groups argue that such a service would not be a benefit that all lawyers in the state want or need, and they are taking issue with the characterization that the service would be "free."

The VSB will be issuing a request for proposals seeking vendors as early as Nov. 1, and hopes to receive several vendor proposals for review by early December, according to VSB Executive Director Thomas A. Edmonds. Proponents of the plan hope to have a contract they can present to the VSB Council for approval at its next meeting in February. The time frame in which the service might be available would depend on several factors, including who the provider is and the terms of the agreement.

The plan is part of the bar's renewed effort, encouraged by Virginia Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr., to do more for the state's lawyers. Bobzien said that the provision of a Web-based legal research tool fits squarely within the bar's three-fold mission, which he says includes not only regulating the profession, but also advancing the availability and quality of legal services in Virginia, and improving the state's legal and judicial system. He also said the plan appears to have strong support from lawyers across the state, or at least among those who have been told about it.

But not everyone agrees that the VSB should be offering this type of service to its members. For example, H. Duncan Garnett Jr., president of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, appeared at the council meeting to tell council members they should be wary of the VSB's getting involved with outside commercial enterprises to offer these types of services.

"Certainly at first glance this program appears to be something that would benefit all," Garnett said. "But this is the mandatory bar, to which we must all pay dues whether we like it or not."

He later elaborated on his comments, adding that "the furnishing of commercial services has long been the domain of the voluntary state bar."

Garnett points out the VSB's principal obligation is to regulate the profession, and that several statewide voluntary bar organizations already exist for the purpose of offering these types of services. He also cautioned the council that very few things in life are indeed "free," suggesting that the plan may at some point require a bar dues increase to cover its cost, even if such a dues increase is not foreseen in the immediate future. He concluded his remarks by urging council members to give the plan serious consideration before taking any action.

According to information presented to the council by Bobzien, currently bar groups in at least 22 states, among them North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut and Massachusetts, offer a free online legal research tool to their members. Casemaker, a free online research tool created in 1998 by Lawriter and the Ohio State Bar Association, is the provider of a customized research tool in 20 of those states. Two other state bar groups have entered agreements with LexisNexis to provide their members with a customized free legal research tool, with supplemental fee-based services also available. There are also other players in the market, and the VSB expects several companies to bid for the project.

Edmonds said the VSB does not intend to charge fees for access to the service or raise bar dues to cover its costs. Edmonds, Bobzien and other proponents of the plan say it will help to even the playing field for lawyers at small firms and for solo practitioners, some of whom may have limited library resources and may not be able to afford fee-based computerized research tools.

They say a free legal research tool would not only benefit the state's lawyers, but also would benefit the public by improving the quality of legal services in Virginia and reducing research costs. That in turn, they say, would make legal services more accessible to all and allows lawyers to pass their savings on to clients. Proponents say the plan will benefit attorneys with larger firms as well by allowing them to reduce their legal research costs and pass that savings on to clients, perhaps by initiating research through the free service and expanding upon it with their existing fee-based services.

But not everyone agrees with the view that the plan will benefit all of the state's lawyers. James V. Meath, president-elect of the Virginia Bar Association, points out that many of the state's lawyers, particularly those with larger law firms, already have access to online legal research databases and may not need or want a research service provided by the bar. That is one of several reasons, he argues, that such a program should not be funded by mandatory VSB dues. Meath also argues that the provision of commercial services by the state bar may be outside the agency's mandate.

"The issue is that they would be undertaking a commercial service and funding it with mandatory dues," he said.

E. Tazewell Ellett, president of the VBA, said expenditures of money brought in through VSB license fees should be carefully scrutinized, and the question should be whether the lawyers who pay those license fees want the service on which the money would be spent. He said attorneys to whom he has spoken at many large firms indicate that they would not use a free service provided by the bar because they do not believe it would augment their existing legal research tools.

Although Ellett said he believes there are some lawyers that would benefit from this type of service, he said careful consideration should be given to what organization is in the best position to provide it and how it should be done.

VBA Executive Vice President C.B. Arrington, Jr. also concedes that Casemaker or some other research program may be an attractive service for some members of the VSB, and possibly to some members of the VBA and other voluntary bar groups. But he said the issue should be addressed in a "collaborative" way, and that it is preferable to have commercial services undertaken by the state's voluntary bar groups. Like the VTLA's Garnett, he takes issue with the characterization that the VSB research tool would be "free."

"If there is money available for a new program, that raises the question of whether [VSB] dues are at the appropriate level," he said. "To say [the VSB] is going to do something that is free - that is simply not accurate."

VSB leaders contacted the VBA and the VTLA about their plans in late September or early October, and leaders of those groups met shortly thereafter. Those who participated have said the meeting was both productive and cordial. But what lies under the surface is a larger concern among the voluntary bar groups that their viability may be at risk if the VSB begins teaming up with commercial enterprises to offer more services to its members.

Currently, the VTLA and the VBA offer their members special rates for subscription access to LexisNexis. Neither organization provides members with access to an online research tool on a non-subscription or non-fee basis. Ellett said he does not believe that any voluntary state bar groups in Virginia offer their members free access to an online research tool.

"I don't think that any voluntary bar in the state could do that," Ellett said.

Arrington said the VBA met with representatives of Casemaker several years ago to explore the possibility of providing members with an online research tool, but ultimately did not enter into a contract because at the time the service was both expensive and "unproven."