Who will be the new CEO of LexisNexis Australia?

Image by Bettina Tizzy via Flickr

House Of Butter is reporting that Max Piper, CEO of LexisNexis Australia is departing - No indication as yet of the reason - probably "to pursue other interests", which as we know is corporate code for "he wasn't working out". As mentioned in the article, it will be interesting whether LN decides on someone from the region, with detailed knowledge of the Australian legal industry or if it will be another Andy Prozes lackey, brought in to enforce the big red deathstar mentality.

The effect of recession on blogging?

My first post of 2009 on this blog and it's about the lack of post on the blog! Why is this? Well i find myself spending most of my creative writing skills justifying my services, my 'product', why you need to take me over someone else, why you need to keep me and not the usurper! Well in the words of The Highlander, these days "there can be only one". Justification, USPs, savings, efficiencies are the name of the game ... but it's actually quite entertaining, it's actually a serious challenge, why am i the best, what do i really save you? Previously it was why should we take you, the answer being, 'because we're pretty good and can probably save you something or other'. Now it's prove to me why we should take you, the answer being ... well obviously i'm not going to tell you that in a free forum ... work it out for yourself whilst i become the "one and only".

Focus on Legal History Blog

Image by The Loopweaver via FlickrStarting from this month, I'm going to attempt to focus on a particular blog in the legal arena that I think deserves special mention.

First up this month is the Legal History Blog, a blog that highlights and comments on articles, books and ideas surrounding legal history. The contributers are Dan Ernst, of Georgeand Mary L. Dudziak the Judge Edward J. and Ruey L. Guirado Professor of Law, History and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law School (longest job title award goes to...). Both of whom are well respected legal historians.

I'm not exactly the most qualified in law (as in not at all), but many of the articles are fascinating from a purely historical point of view. An example being a recent post regarding an article on Basil Montague QC, apparently well reknowned in the insolvecy area. The article explains how Montague was friends with famous literary figures from the 19th Century (Wordsworth among others). The paper is by David Graham and John Paul Tribe of Kingston Law School (UK).

Some of the articles are a little dry from a non-legal experts point of view, but it's wonderful to see peoeple high-lighting this specialty knowledge, especially when it doesn't have a purely US focus.

Give it a read.

Depiction of British vs American Lawyers

Image via WikipediaVery nice article on the BBC regarding how the depictions in the media of British lawyers and their American counterparts differ. Not to spoil it too much it comes down to American glamour of Calaista Flockhart in Ally McBeal versus the eccentric Rumpole played by Leo McKearn.
Give me the wigs and robes over the powersuits anyday!
The article can be found here.

Engage Publishers in the big debates ... but don't mention pricing!

I was reading an objective and well written posting on SLAW about engaging the big Publishing Houses in open debate about the future of legal information provision that got me thinking of my experiences of such occasions.

The Death Stars of Thompson, Lexis and the like are full of "thought leaders" (don't you just hate that phrase) which in plain English means intelligent, strategic and astute business and technology leaders. Given the size and investment capabilities of the companies (and more importantly their parent companies of Thomson/Reuters and Reed Elsevier) these people have opportunities to innovate (or invest) on a scale us minnows can only dream of. They may not be Google or Microsoft but they are the next rung down on the ladder. Yet we've all been at forums and conferences, as the SLAW article alludes to, where we get very little or guarded publisher comment.

Why is this?

Number one and possibly the end of this article (depending on your experiences) ... questions around PRICE! Closely followed by (b) fear of giving away something competitive and (c) the post-New Labour obsession with 'managing the message'. That said my experiences are that it comes back to issues (price) that put the Publishers in fear that if that obvious question doesn't come from the panel it will come from the floor. Now pricing is one we all struggle with, especially when the press is telling us all the time how much money lawyers make. I think it gets harder in this day and age when there are so many forums/blogs/government working groups saying that law and content could be free ... but don't deliver this utopia and probably can't.

I think we should embrace our Publishers, show them a bit of love and recognise them as innovators in delivering content in the format to match their times (remember weekly case reporting and Halsbury's Laws in the early twentieth century, looseleafs in the 1980s, and then electronic and online). Given that we're all missing our loving venture capitalists in the current climate, it may well be the Death Star Publishers that have the resources to move thing forward in the next few years ... we need to get them talking so we can influence their investments.

So be nice (as you can) to your Publishers and get them talking openly and let's get influencing. Makes sure that we focus on getting them talking with the following guide:

(1) the forum is set up to encourage collaboration
(2) the subjects discussed are ones everyone can share learning of what they do and need.
(3) recognise the Publishers bring innovation, rich content and are a technological player you want to get onside.
(4) don't talk about pricing ...

Of course if you get the one of those MBA educated types who gives a carefully rehearsed, scripted messaged line or two and then falls to pieces on the first intelligent question from the floor then tear in!