What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian in the

Advent of Artificial Intelligence? / Que réserve l’avenir

pour le bibliothécaire de droit avec la venue de
l’intelligence artificielle?

Kailee Hilt

Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, Volume 41,

Number 3, September / septembre 2017, pp. 211-227 (Article)

Published by University of Toronto Press

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/686190

[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

 What Does the Future Que réserve l’avenir
Hold for the Law pour le bibliothécaire
Librarian in the de droit avec la venue
Advent of Artificial de l’intelligence
Intelligence? artificielle?

Kailee Hilt
Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario
khilt@uwo.ca
Abstract: Technology is transforming the work of information professionals as the
methods for retrieving information continue to evolve. Artificial intelligence (AI) is
being incorporated into many legal practices for the purpose of research, e-discovery,
analysis, and documentation. While the legal profession is in the early stages of
incorporating AI technology, it is uncertain whether an AI-enhanced application
will be able to conduct legal research intelligently, eliminating the need for lawyers
and law librarians to engage in research activities themselves.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence (AI), machine intelligence, cognitive computing,
intelligent agent, law librarian, information professionals, legal research, process
improvement, knowledge management, business intelligence.
Résumé : La technologie transforme le travail des professionnels de l’information,
les méthodes de repérage d’informations évoluant continuellement. L’intelligence
artificielle est de plus en plus intégrée dans de nombreuses pratiques juridiques
pour la recherche, l’e-discovery, l’analyse et la documentation. Alors que la profession
juridique est dans les premiers stades d’intégration de l’intelligence artificielle, une
incertitude demeure quant à la capacité des applications utilisant l’IA à exécuter une
recherche juridique intelligemment, éliminant la nécessité pour les avocats et les
bibliothécaires de droit de se livrer eux-mêmes à des activités de recherche.
Mots-clés : Intelligence artificielle (IA), intelligence machine, informatique
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

cognitive, agent intelligent, bibliothécaire de droit, professionnels de l’information,

recherche légale, amélioration des processus, gestion des connaissances, informatique
décisionnelle

Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a topic of heated debate for many pro-
fessions. The technology’s benefits are substantial as it has the ability to reach
reasoned conclusions, which can outpace the human mind’s ability, at a signifi-
cantly cheaper cost and with increased speed, accuracy, and consistency (Chang
2016). For decades, law librarians have been on the front lines of training law
firm associates in the art of legal research. From reference services to formal

8 2017 The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science

La Revue canadienne des sciences de l’information et de bibliothéconomie 41, no. 3 2017
212 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

training programs, firm librarians have been fundamental to bridging the gap
between law school courses and the realities of research in practice. The intro-
duction of AI software in many law firms worldwide questions the continued
relevance of the role of the law librarian. AI will impact legal research, practice,
and librarianship; however, it will not replace the expertise of the law firm
librarian who is skilled not only at research but also at working alongside the
changes to information structure and systems.
Recently, a group of University of Toronto students developed Ross Intelli-
gence, an ‘‘artificially intelligent attorney’’ that is built on top of IBM Watson, a
cognitive computer that competed and won the game of Jeopardy in 2011. Ross
has already been introduced in several large firms worldwide and seems to pro-
duce better results than traditional legal research platforms that require Boolean
searches for best results, despite a natural language option. It has the capability
of answering legal questions by ‘‘reading the entire body of law and returning
a cited answer and topical readings from legislation, case law, and secondary
sources’’ (Goodman 2016).
Like many AI systems, Ross Intelligence is marketed to appeal to those who
find research to be ‘‘mundane’’ and would prefer to spend more time with clients
while AI takes on the more ‘‘mechanical’’ aspects. This reasoning suggests that
Ross will not replace lawyers but, rather, only enhance their work since lawyers
will be able to spend more time on ‘‘the legal tasks that computers are lousy at
and that humans can perform well—communicating with clients, counselling
them, watching out for their interests, [and] advocating for them in the court-
room’’ (Kroh 2016). Although this rationale may safeguard lawyers, it fails to
consider the future of information professionals. To comprehend what the
impact of AI could mean for both the future of legal research and information
professionals, this analysis will first provide a brief introduction to AI. It will
then evaluate how AI has been adopted in legal research, practice, and librarian-
ship thus far from both the perspective of lawyers and librarians. Next it will
examine the possible consequences of implementing AI and will survey the qualities
and skills that might allow law librarians to continue working in firms despite
the evolving force of technology.

General introduction to AI
Before diving into the discussion, it is necessary to identify the concepts that
frequently describe AI in the literature. Often AI is described as cognitive com-
puting when it is in fact a subcomponent. To clarify, cognitive computing refers
to a set of comprehensive capabilities based on technologies that not only include
AI but also go far beyond it. By definition, cognitive computing contains ‘‘the
fields of machine learning, reasoning and decision making technologies, language,
speech and vision recognition and processing technologies, human interface
technologies, and high performance computing’’ (Rossi 2016, 2). It is designed to
foster new discoveries, solve a range of practical problems, and boost productivity.
According to the creators of IBM Watson, in an artificially intelligent system,
the system can tell a user what course of action to take based on its analysis;
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 213

whereas, in cognitive computing, a system provides information to help the user

decide what course of action to take. For example, the capabilities of cognitive
computing are highly beneficial when assisting doctors in identifying the correct
diagnosis for a patient. AI systems such as IBM Watson use a patients’ individual
health data—including genetic information—with the wealth of material available
in public databases, textbooks, and journals to help come up with more person-
alized treatments. Doctors can then use the recommendations to decide on how
they will pursue their patient’s treatment (Hernandez 2014).
While the field of AI is extremely broad when it comes to providing a con-
crete definition, many scholars describe AI as ‘‘everything from relatively simple
computer programs and conversational agents to sophisticated robots’’ (Talley
2016, 387). AI attempts to replace human intelligence with something synthetic.
However, IBM suggests that AI is best explained as ‘‘augmented intelligence,’’
meaning that these systems are built to enhance human expertise and skills rather
than replace them. Many companies have attempted to replicate patterns of
human thought, yet most of these systems seek only to provide outputs or
perform tasks drawing on human intelligence (Thompson 2015, 11). Essentially,
AI systems can be used as practical tools as opposed to autonomous systems that
engage in legal decision making on advanced or philosophical levels (Schafer
2007, 386).
In addition to ROSS Intelligence, there are many AI-based products with
legal applications. While the products are not yet widely adopted, they have
generated a lot of attention in the legal industry. Some of the companies that
currently specialize in AI-based products for the legal industry include Ravel
Law, Neota Logic, RAVN systems, Lex Machina, and NextLaw Labs (Gediman
2016, 36). The majority of these products are able to use AI technology to
prepare standard contracts, assist with trial preparation, and identify internal
experts. It is unclear whether these applications qualify as being truly intelligent;
however, by using algorithms, they are able to mimic certain human interpreta-
tive and judgment-related processes, which are then applied to the queries
and data. Users can enter natural language questions into the application, which
will then search the database for the answer that it determines to be a close
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

match to the question that was asked (37). It is the workhorse behind intelligent
technology—the ‘‘intelligent agent’’—that helps to predict the correct or best
results based on the variables that have been received and any prior knowledge
(Talley 2016, 387).
On a similar note, machine learning is an intrinsic aspect of AI that enables
algorithms to improve through self-learning from data without any human
intervention. Specifically, it is an advanced learning paradigm that ‘‘learns con-
tinuously, accumulates the knowledge learned in previous tasks, and uses it to
help future learning’’ (Chen and Liu 2016, 1). The more data that the system
is exposed to, the more it learns, and the more accurate it becomes over time.
Ultimately, the ‘‘neural network’’ becomes a complex set of decisions that the
computer can make to arrive at an answer (Gediman 2016, 38).
214 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

The adoption of AI in legal practice

With the possibility of embracing AI into legal practice, this next section will
explore both the perspectives of lawyers and librarians to understand how AI
has, and could be, adopted into legal research and practice.

A lawyer’s perspective
Richard Susskind is one of the legal industry’s leading prognosticators, whose
works have sparked much debate within the profession. In an era where machines
can out-perform human beings in many tasks, he questions the prospects for
employment and considers the tasks that should be reserved exclusively for people.
It is through his work that the industry has started to question whether the
adoption of AI in law firms will signal what Susskind calls ‘‘the end of lawyers.’’
He suggests that lawyers, among other professionals, face a future in which
‘‘increasingly capable machines, autonomously or with non-specialist users, will
take on many of the tasks that are currently the realm of the professions’’ (Susskind
and Susskind 2015, 231). However, as evolutionary beings, we are constantly
searching for ways to upscale our abilities, and AI is becoming a large aspect of
this modern reality.
The advantages of implementing AI are clear, with the main argument
being that they ‘‘could give the lawyer more time to devote to complex work
that requires judgment and expertise and will expand further into the heart of
the clients’ business’’ (Tearle 2008, 10). Other supportive arguments have been
that the software can be used for due diligence by sifting through large amounts
of data, short-list relevant facts, and enhance and augment human reasoning.
It can also navigate the complex web of regulatory law in seconds (Bundro
2016). As mentioned earlier, platforms such as ROSS Intelligence have a natural
language-processing capability that allows practitioners to ask questions in plain
language. For example, asking a question like: ‘‘can an automatic stay be lifted
if a plaintiff in another case requests it?’’ would retrieve a response that has
assessed legal precedents and has suggested readings (Cutler 2015; Taal et al.
2016, 361). It also attaches more information about the cases paired with the
citation and contains confidence ratings (Taal et al. 2016, 361).
Interestingly, many argue that these expert systems also have the potential
to help with access to justice, as the high cost of legal services is out of reach
for many (Brescia et al. 2014, 554). AI can perform tasks such as providing
information about legal issues, explanations about basic legal concepts, referral
to legal forms, and provide advice about when to hire a lawyer (570). However,
there is the conundrum when one considers whether or not these services are an
‘‘unauthorized practice of law’’ since they have the ability to provide legal advice
without consulting the assistance of a lawyer (579). For example, in the United
States, legal battles for and against the intelligent software LegalZoom have been
well documented in regard to whether this service constitutes the unauthorized
practice of law. Through the use of automated technology, LegalZoom helps
users create legal documents for personal and business purposes. The ‘‘consumer
services relate to wills, divorces, prenuptial agreements, personal bankruptcy,
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 215

immigration, disability benefits, personal injury and real estate documents’’ as

well as other small business related activities (Solomon and Moyse 2016, 1).
While the site may market itself as being a service that helps people create legal
documents, it also advertises itself as being a ‘‘personalized, affordable legal pro-
tection service’’ that has the capability of providing assistance on what informa-
tion should be on those forms (Brescia et al. 2014, 574).
In the case of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology
Inc., the court found that a computer program that tailored legal forms to indi-
viduals’ particular needs was considered an unauthorized practice of law.1 The
program created ‘‘an air of reliability . . . which increase[d] the likelihood that
an individual user w[ould] be misled into relying on them.’’1 As such, there is
the potential for intelligence software to go far beyond clerical services by pro-
viding personalized guidance that could be held to constitute the practice of law.
AI software should only provide patrons with possible resources that they could
consult for further information as well as an explanation on how to access these
resources (Talley 2016, 401).
Much of the literature jumps to the conclusion that computers are changing
the way law is practised; however, they do not prove the imminent and wide-
spread displacement of lawyers by computers alone. Such a rash conclusion
foregoes the opportunity for a more nuanced and careful analysis. AI is not
capable of the type of creative and independent thought that lawyers have
gained through years of practice, nor is the software capable of unaided bias.
Further, it cannot uphold the rule of law or dispense justice and is unable to
weigh the significance of evidence (Bundro 2016). Ultimately, to suggest that
human lawyers will become obsolete due to automation is, arguably, premature.

A librarian’s perspective
Librarians thrive on information, and, yet, they can also ‘‘choke on it,’’ so to
speak. Information overload is a problem that affects law librarians every workday.
It occurs when an individual receives so much data, making them unable to
engage in higher levels of processing (Hensiak 2003, 85). Today, law librarians
are taking on more tasks and responsibilities then ever before, which is likely
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

to result in information overload. For example, they are answering extensive

reference questions, creating and maintaining webpages and intranets for patron
use, using push technology for current awareness, and are engaging in knowl-
edge management initiatives (91). During the average workday, they are also
faced with many interruptions such as e-mail notifications, patron requests, last
minute meetings, and phone calls (92). Further, they are expected to be experts
in finding news and business information as well as statutory and administrative
law. It is no wonder why law librarians are feeling the constant pressure to
multi-task in an effort to meet the increased expectations of patrons. This, in
turn, leads to the influx of additional information in quantities too large to
digest (91).
A solution to information overload could be to incorporate AI software.
This could increase the amount of expertise and information that can be
216 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

brought to bear on the problem without increasing the burden of overload

on other individuals (Hensiak 2003, 95). For example, automation could help
answer basic reference questions, leaving more time for librarians to focus on
complex reference questions that require more of their expertise. If an intelligent
reference assistant was unable to adequately answer the question, the system
could refer the individual directly to a librarian for further assistance (Talley
2016, 395). By having the database keep the conversation logs between the AI
assistant and the patron, the logs would allow librarians to identify questions
that AI assistants failed to answer correctly. Not only would this allow a librarian
to follow up with the patron, necessary modifications could be made to the soft-
ware to better assist patrons in the future (Balleste 2007, 53). AI assistants could
also help to extend the hours of operation of the library so that additional service
is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week (54). In terms of library materials,
AI technology could be used to check in and out materials, assist with inter-library
loan requests, and recommend other materials that might be of interest. Essen-
tially, automating some of these functions would help free up time for librarians
to work on more labour-intensive projects (Talley 2016, 399). Some scholars have
suggested that, if AI software is capable of performing these ‘‘core librarian tasks,’’
one must question whether librarians will still be needed in organizations such
as law firms. This question will be explored later on in the discussion.

Drawbacks of AI software
There are many drawbacks of using AI software, which should be considered
before their implementation. Some of these issues include masking the inadequate
research skills of law students and young professionals, the costs of AI, and the
associated privacy concerns of machine learning.

Information literacy
A common refrain in the literature is that law students are graduating with a
lack of advanced legal research skills (Margolis and Murray 2012, 121). This is
surprising considering that legal research skills are considered a fundamental and
core skill for law students and budding lawyers. Examining research resources
and conducting quality analyses facilitates clarity of thinking and helps to achieve
demonstrated competence. The LexisNexis (2015, 4) ‘‘White Paper: Hiring
Partners Reveal New Attorney Readiness for Real World Practice’’ demonstrates
that ‘‘young lawyers often lack the ability to research more complex legal issues
in cases, statutes and regulations, [as well as] determining the strength of validity
in primary law, and legislative/administrative content.’’ Further, employers, partic-
ularly those with more years in practice, expect new lawyers to be research experts;
they have high expectations when it comes to their research skills as ‘‘they should
be able to adequately and effectively find everything that’s up to the minute’’
(Wawrose 2013, 532).
In a recent survey conducted by the American Association of Law Libraries,
law firm associates indicated that new lawyers spend more than 30% of their
time doing legal research. As a result, approximately 50% of associates think
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 217

legal research should be a larger part of the law school curriculum (Mart et al.
2013, 8). Today’s legal research curriculum tends to focus on writing and the
use of computer-assisted research, where students continue to conduct super-
ficial research and fail to consult standard sources and indexes (Osborne 2016,
404). Teaching writing and teaching research require different knowledge bases
and approaches. Even though many legal writing programs incorporate law librar-
ians into legal research instruction, this is not always the case (Bintliff 2009, 2).
There is an immense amount of pressure on faculty to bring new law students’
writing skills up to a professional level, and as a response to this pressure, greater
emphasis is placed on writing in their classes, causing research instruction to
receive less attention (1). This points to several areas of concern with the
research skills of recent graduates, including inefficiency, problems distinguish-
ing among sources, preference for easy access sources, and just doing ‘‘enough
research to get by’’ (Margolis and Murray 2012, 131).
Frequently, students are inclined to regard Google as their first, last, and
best research solution. Unfortunately, search engines like Google tend to neglect
one’s ability to go through the effort of defining one’s information need, as
many have given up on clearly articulating the reason for the query or gap in
information (Gallacher 2005, 27). By just typing a word or two into the search
box, the search engine is expected to disambiguate the query and provide an
answer. Often users will then scroll the first page of the results for the ‘‘right
site’’ and do not clearly know what they are searching for until they see it (28).
Nonetheless, the ability of law students to find information through Google
is not the issue; rather, the issue is students’ inability to ‘‘dig deep, to think
critically, to evaluate the information they are finding for fit, and to engage in
the legal analysis required for legal practice’’ (Osborne 2016, 407). The poten-
tial therefore exists for students to transfer their inferior research knowledge and
practice into the workplace.
Several scholars claim that AI could help to improve young lawyers research
skills by engaging them more fully in the process of finding legal research materials,
while others are not fully convinced that this is the case (Talley 2016, 396). The
performance of legal research is a skill, and like any other skill, it is learned
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

by doing and engaging in critical thinking as well as by problem solving. It is

questionable whether this could be achieved by relying on machine intelligence
to do the ‘‘heavy lifting.’’ While the usage of AI may be convenient, there are
many downfalls of AI that should be considered, as this technology does not
always guarantee a high-quality search. The software will not be able to deter-
mine if a question is too broad or too narrowly focused, nor will it be able
to consider what else might have been available had the question been phrased
differently (Badke 2015, 72). For instance, humans have the ability to make
assumptions and draw conclusions about common knowledge; however, AI
does not have the ability to deliver an answer that draws upon sound judgment
if it is not outlined in the question. Similarly, a searcher will still have to exam-
ine the search results to determine their quality, relevancy, and importance. It
will also be unable to explain the provenance of the information in terms of its
218 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

background, purpose, the reasons the resource exists, and the biases that shape
the information (Badke 2015, 72–73).
Arguably, these downfalls may not matter to those who value simplicity
over sophistication, as the common mentality is that this computer software is
‘‘good enough at research’’ (Brooks 2009, 295). After all, in many cases some
people tend to choose the simple, inferior solution that they can achieve at a
cheaper and faster pace, over a better solution that requires more time and
effort. Examining this issue from a librarian perspective highlights that informa-
tion literacy skills (that is, the ability to recognize when information is needed
and to find, evaluate, and use the information effectively) will continue to be
of the utmost importance for law students as future legal workers (American
Library Association 2000). Essentially, students need to understand the infor-
mation cycle, how to express clear research problems, and know how to evaluate
information (Badke 2015, 3). For example, effective legal research means being
able to organize and make sense of the information that has been located. By
applying evaluative criteria to judge the credibility and relevance of the retrieved
information, one should be able to ask oneself questions such as:
 is the information current;
 are there any gaps in the information;
 how well do the search results answer the original query;
 do the search results raise new queries all together; and
 how can this information be applied effectively to resolve a specific issue or need.
Asking these questions provides a knowledge base for users to understand what
they are looking at, whether the information adequately answers their questions,
and how they can effectively use their research findings in their work (Hutchinson
2014, 591).
It is evident that the literature is full of negative commentary about the skills
and abilities of the millennial generation, including the concern that they have
not learned ‘‘with sufficient rigor the skills necessary for complex and in-depth
research’’ (Margolis and Murray 2012, 131). Since the new generation of law
students are digital natives, incorporating information literacy into legal research
instruction will go a long way. Finding information is no longer an issue, as
there is no ‘‘right’’ process that all researchers should follow; rather, students
need less instruction on how to find the law and more instruction on assessing
and evaluating the sources that they find (156). Not only are librarians an asset
to the development of this knowledge within the legal research curriculum, they
are also vital to its continued practice in law firms. After all, employers recognize
that research is not just about finding results, they want associates to think strate-
gically about putting together the best combination of sources for the task by
considering: ‘‘what’s the problem I’m being asked, what’s the resolution being
required, what are my tools to get there?’’ (Wawrose 2013, 533). As such, librarians
are a fundamental resource to consult to help find answers to these questions. Thus,
regardless of the constant change to how research is being conducted, one aspect
of legal research will never change—that is, the ability to carefully read, interpret,
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 219

and analyse the information that has been found to provide a solid answer to the
original research question (553).

Costs
There has been a lot of discussion about the cost savings that AI can bring to
legal practice, but there has been little conversation about the resources needed
to implement the technology. Connie Brenton, senior director of legal operations
at NetApp, a data management company, cautioned against overlooking these
challenges at ‘‘Legalweek: The Experience 2017 Conference.’’ She noted that
while many are attracted to the novelty of AI, the technology requires a signifi-
cant amount of resources to get up and running, which should not be over-
looked (quoted in Dipshan 2017). In explaining the financial reality of AI, other
experts have suggested that lawyers have to account for the costs behind licensing
and purchasing. According to Jennifer McCarron, a technology program manger
at Cisco, implementing a virtual legal assistant such as ‘‘Riverview Law’s Kim,’’ is
estimated to start off at a fixed rate of $30,000 for 10 users. However, additional
upgrades add to this base price. For example, to add a single application such
as ‘‘templates for auto-generated documents’’ could cost between $22,000 and
$37,000 per enterprise. Furthermore, firms also need to factor in additional
costs for set-up as well as the training and maintenance of the software. Given
that AI technology has to actually ‘‘learn’’ the information, there will need to be
personnel devoted to helping the machine accumulate the specific legal knowledge
needed to perform its work (Dipshan 2017).
While Riverview Law’s Kim is basic AI software, it is difficult to generalize
these costs to include all types of legal AI software, especially those that are more
sophisticated. Nevertheless, when researching the types of companies that are
investing in their development, it is reasonable to believe that the cost will be
great. In an era of tight budgets, where research database subscriptions are being
slashed and every dollar is scrutinized, using this technology may be cost prohibi-
tive, especially in smaller firms (Talley 2016, 399).

Privacy concerns
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

Lastly, AI software may be useful, but there is no guarantee any information

collected from previous users will be kept private. AI systems feed on data and
learn from one task and apply it to another. As result, by collecting massive
amounts of data from different sources, it makes it difficult to properly have
informed consent and control for big data uses, when there is no guarantee
how the information will be used and what it will be combined with. As such,
these decision-making machines are an ‘‘all seeing, all remembering in-house
guest’’ that can manipulate the trust of the user to make the service more targeted
and efficient. Some scholars have raised the question of what could happen to
confidential client information that falls into the hands of these systems (Dickson
2017). For example, when personal information is combined with external data
sets, this could draw inferences about new facts about clients—facts that are
meant to stay private and that should not be disclosed to others (Mehmood et al.
220 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

2016, 1822). This is a concern because clients may not be informed that their
information is being stored and processed by the software. In addition, they
might also be unaware that their information could be circulated to other parties
for further use. It is unclear whether clients can be offered a way to opt out of
this form of data sharing (1825).
If firms are going to be using AI technology, necessary steps should be
taken to regulate information collection, sharing practices, and the disclosure of
user data. While many view the upside of AI as being so transformative, there
should not be a moral obligation to feed AI unlimited data because of the amazing
things it can do. Users should not have to ‘‘entertain the death of privacy’’ to gain
the benefits of AI. Furthermore, it is evident that there are several drawbacks that
should be considered before the implementation of AI software. First, information
literacy skills should not be neglected, as evaluating information will continue to
be a fundamental skill for legal practice. Likewise, AI technology is still young
and the market is evolving, while AI can modernize the legal industry, it is likely
to be tempered by the reality of getting up and running, which will come at a
cost (Dipshan 2017). Lastly, AI and machine learning feed on data. The bigger
these data sets are, the smarter the intelligence software will be since every query
is retained by the engine for analysis to uncover patterns in the mountains of
information that have been received. As a result, AI poses privacy challenges
since a users’ personal information can be represented in the data sets and recycled
for further use.

The future of law librarianship

In addition to the generic skills of managing information and services, the role
of the law librarian has always been, and always will be, complex. For instance,
law librarians need an understanding of how the law is made and amended. They need
to know the process whereby law is enacted. They need to know how courts make law.
They need to know the jurisdiction of the courts. They must know the appeal process.
They must know how to read a judgment. They must understand legal citation. They
must know how to determine the current state of the law on any issue and they must
know how to locate what the law was on that issue at any relevant time. They should
know the most authoritative sources for information on all areas of the law. In addition
they must be aware of how to access this information from both print and digital sources
and have an awareness of the strengths and limitations of particular sources. They must
have the ability to teach library clients how to use the materials in the library. (Johanson
and Brown 2009, 18–19)
While the primary role of the law librarian will continue to revolve around finding
specific information for their patrons, this role may take less time with increas-
ingly faster technology. As a result, this shift could mean that librarians will be
busier than ever before because they are taking on other tasks to increase their
value to the organizations that employ them. The expanding roles of today’s
legal information professionals tend to focus on knowledge management, trans-
formative client support, and business development work. Some specific examples
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 221

of law librarians’ evolving roles include process improvement, knowledge manage-

ment, and competitive intelligence. Of course, the role of law librarians is not
limited to these activities.

Process improvement
Legal Lean Sigma is becoming increasingly popular in law firms as a method
for improving a firm’s performance in delivering legal service. It combines tech-
niques from both Six Sigma and Lean Processing by focusing on improving
quality and efficiency by eliminating waste (Crosby 2017, 43). Specifically, Six
Sigma focuses on the measurement and reduction of errors, and Lean Processing
methodology focuses on creating efficiencies and value for the customer (43).
One of Lean Six Sigma’s core frameworks is the data-driven improvement cycle
DMAIC, which is an acronym that stands for define, measure, analyse, improve,
and control (Tjaden 2010, 5). Ultimately, the goal of this philosophy is to identify
and eliminate non-essential and non-value-added steps to streamline productivity,
improve quality, and gain client loyalty (Mazzeo 2016).
The most fundamental step to applying Lean Six Sigma in the legal setting
is to identify the waste that a firm encounters. Some examples of waste could
include giving a client legal advice without performing sufficient research; par-
taking in over-production by having too many lawyers on a single client matter;
or engaging in extra-processing by creating multiple document drafts and over-
researching issues (Mazzeo 2016). This identification is meant to uncover exactly
what tasks are happening/occurring in an organization and finding a more effec-
tive way to accomplish the same thing. This often entails interviewing people,
researching, and gathering data to capture a fuller picture of what is working
and what is not (Crosby 2017, 44). To provide an example of how a firm could
approach one of the issues above, a process map or flowchart could be a useful
visual in identifying the steps of a process and guarding against any errors that
could potentially occur. Process mapping is important to legal professionals as
it provides an opportunity to see a workflow from start to finish as well as the
connection to other players that could contribute to the process (that is, lawyers,
paralegals, and other professionals) (Mazzeo 2016). Ultimately, this helps to
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

label the various responsibilities of those involved and the many steps that
must be taken to achieve the desired outcome without duplication of efforts
and overuse of resources. Essentially, process improvement will help law firms
to look at the bigger picture and understand that any improvement needs to be
continuous. Whether it is in hiring, training, billing, or case handling, improve-
ments add value to clients in a market where competition is at an all-time high.
After all, if a client does not feel that they are being taken care of, there are
many other qualified firms out there that they could consult to fulfil their needs
(Mazzeo 2016).
So what role can information professionals play in making process improve-
ments? Law librarians consider process improvement in their normal workflow
already, leaving a huge opportunity for information professionals to lead the
way (Crosby 2017, 46). For example, process improvement is used in the library
222 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

field to maximize users’ satisfaction. Librarians tend to have a clear understand-

ing of their patrons’ needs and demands and are constantly thinking about how
they can be a better service to specific user groups (Al-Zubi and Basha 2010,
86). By using Lean Six Sigma principles and methodology, librarians can be
the ones to help their firm move forward on these fronts. Convincing lawyers
to examine their own work is a challenge as ‘‘it is very difficult for lawyers to see
what they do as a process and to think in terms of standardizing that process’’
(Crosby 2017, 43). Information professionals could take the lead role in capturing
and monitoring data on changing task flow by examining questions such as:
 how can processes be standardized;
 what could be done to reduce or eliminate repetition;
 how can communication be improved within the team and/or with clients; and
 could delegating tasks reduce costs?
It takes time to make improvements, but information professionals can help an
organization to establish best practices for any given process to facilitate trans-
formational change (Crosby 2013).
Interestingly, some law librarians are choosing to do formal training in Lean
Six Sigma since an employee with this unique skillset is viewed as a competitive
advantage. There are different levels of certification that can be acquired, such as
white, yellow, green, and black belt; each with their own specific tools and expe-
rience. In addition to formal training, there are also a variety of online courses
available through most community colleges.

Knowledge management
Knowledge management refers to the set of practices that facilitate the creation,
capture, organization, and dissemination of knowledge (Fraser-Arnott 2014, 1).
Similar to process improvement, the goal of knowledge management is to reduce
the amount of time spent repeating work or locating information that should be
easily accessible (Tjaden 2010, 2). There are many activities that law librarians
engage in to further knowledge management and move beyond traditional library
and research responsibilities. For instance, in an effort to capture explicit (that is,
documented knowledge) and tacit knowledge (that is, experiential knowledge that
is difficult to transcribe), librarians are using tools and methods such as content
management, document management, intranets, and taxonomies to organize
internal and external knowledge (Crosby 2012, 1–2). In some firms, librarians
are involved in practice groups, participate in meetings, and organize knowledge
artefacts such as minutes, notes, and audio recordings that come out of the
meetings (7). Other knowledge management responsibilities that librarians take
on include the creation and maintenance of blogs, wikis, and detailed directories
of expertise; developing and indexing case briefs for future reference; as well as
documentation of social networks, knowledge of intricacies of the law, client
matters, letters, factums, agreements, comments, and, ultimately, any informa-
tion that individuals are willing to share (2). Law librarians are transforming
themselves into value-adding knowledge professionals since they are able to use
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 223

their expertise to strengthen knowledge flow within their organizations. It is

through the implementation of knowledge management that firms will be able
to make better use of internally developed knowledge. This is accomplished by
information professionals’ ability to create, record, and store information effec-
tively (Lastres 2012, 3).

Competitive intelligence
Lastly, competitive intelligence also continues to grow as a major focus for law
librarians given their extensive research skills. Competitive intelligence entails
the process of gathering information about an organization, industry, or client to
capture highlights and summaries of significant facts from news, industry reports,
and specialty databases and resources (American Association of Law Libraries
2011, 5). The process not only enhances client relations but also assists with
strategic planning and helps to increase productivity and profitability (5).
Although many are able to find information through mainstream search engines,
such as Google, librarians are skilled at being able to locate the right information
in a timely and efficient manner. As a result, they are considered an invaluable
asset in a firm’s goal to identify, attract, and retain clients (11). For instance,
they can use their skills to investigate how clients view themselves, and they
can learn about the current projects clients are involved in and the status of their
work industries (Fisher and Bender 2006, 1). In addition, librarians can reconnect
the firm with inactive clients and contribute to target marketing campaigns (2).
Essentially, once a firm starts using competitive intelligence, there are many dif-
ferent ways it can be applied: finding clients, researching companies, developing
existing clients, market research, industry research, and current awareness
(American Association of Law Libraries 2011, 8). It is through this work that
librarians are considered information gatekeepers since they are able to determine
what content will get passed along and how (Cohen 2008, 2). Since partners and
firm management do not have the time to sift through multiple pages of print-
outs, librarians can read the information, synthesize it to establish connections,
and make the information more comprehensible (Cohen 2008, 1). Fundamen-
tally, librarians help to ‘‘connect the dots’’ in these many instances, turning raw
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

data into analysed information that can be helpful to both the firm and clients
(American Association of Law Libraries 2011, 8).
Interestingly, there are several online tools and AI systems that can be used
to map and synthesize competitive information. For example, these tools have
the ability to screen thousands of pages on a specific topic by extracting keywords
and concepts. The information can also be automatically summarized into an
easy-to-read format based on common results that were frequent in the search.
Despite these tools being able to extract information in less time, they are far
from perfect. According to the 2015 ‘‘Marketing Automation Performance
Report,’’ the top concerns for implementing competitive intelligence automa-
tion software included lack of budget, lack of in-house skills, lack of time,
uncertainty of results, poor integration with other systems, and uncertainty that
methods for data collection are sufficient (Marion 2015, 19). Ultimately, these
224 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

factors have a huge impact on the adoption of automated competitive intelli-

gence software since firms are not fully convinced that they are worth the time
and investment (5). This suggests that automation cannot replace the quality of
the highly detailed analyses conducted by research teams or information profes-
sionals, at least for the time being.

So what does this all mean?

While the rate of change in the legal industry seems to be accelerating, law
librarians will continue to be an instrumental asset to law firms. Despite the
trend toward self-service research through smart delivery systems, these systems
still need to be customized and maintained according to a firm’s legal practice
areas. In addition, legal professionals will need to be trained on how to use these
smart research tools, and librarians will be best situated to conduct such training.
Moreover, information professionals will continue to play a role in delivering
service through advanced research platforms, on-demand research, providing
alerts, and other services to support end-users (Lambert 2016). It is evident
that the research skills of librarians are increasingly being used within other areas
where their knowledge and familiarity with a wide range of resources is viewed
as a competitive advantage. They are highly influential retrieval and analysis
specialists that impact the vast knowledge base of a law firm, both internally
and externally, online, and in print. As such, the risk of law librarians being
replaced by intelligent research systems seems unlikely; librarians are adapting
to, and are embracing, change by taking on advanced roles and will continue
to do so as long as firms continue to have information and research needs.

Conclusion
The rise of AI software being incorporated into legal practice has elevated the
fear of job cuts in the sector, as the technology is able to perform tasks that are
currently performed by humans. Despite AI being in the early stages of imple-
mentation, it is here to stay. Since lawyers are embracing these technologies out
of belief that they can make their practices more efficient, librarians should do
the same. After all, law librarians have nothing to fear since their traditional
roles are, and will continue, to evolve to keep up with technology. As such, the
data-driven technology will assist human work rather than replace it. The work
that consumes both lawyers and information professionals involves strategy, crea-
tivity, judgment, and empathy, and these are efforts that cannot be automated,
at least, for the time being.

Note
1 Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v Parsons Technology Inc., WL 47235
(1999) at para. 6.

References
Al-Zubi, Ahmad Ali, and Imtiaz Basha. 2010. ‘‘Six Sigma in Libraries: A Management
Perspective.’’ Canadian Journal on Computing in Mathematics, Natural Sciences,
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 225

Engineering and Medicine 13 (3): 86–93. https://doi.org/10.13140/

2.1.3337.2801.
American Association of Law Libraries. 2011. ‘‘The Library as a Business Development,
Competitive Intelligence and Client Relations Asset for Law Firms.’’ https://
www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/products/Law-Librarians-Making-Information-
Work/pll-guide-7.pdf (accessed 26 June 2017).
American Library Association. 2000. ‘‘Information Literacy Competency Standards for
Higher Education.’’ http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/
standards/standards.pdf (accessed 26 June 2017).
Badke, William. 2015. ‘‘The Effect of Artificial Intelligence on the Future of Information
Literacy.’’ Online Searcher 39 (4): 71–74.
Balleste, Roy. 2007. ‘‘A Hypothetical Case Study: Creating AI Assistants in the Law
Library.’’ Legal Reference Services Quarterly 26 (1–2): 47–56. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J113v26n01_04.
Bintliff, Barbara. 2009. ‘‘Legal Research: MacCrate’s ‘Fundamental Lawyering Skill’
Missing in Action.’’ Legal Reference Services Quarterly 28 (1): 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02703190902961445.
Brescia, Raymond, Walter McCarthy, Ashley McDonald, Kellan Potts, and Cassandra
Rivais. 2014. ‘‘Embracing Disruption: How Technological Change in the Delivery of
Legal Services Can Improve Access to Justice.’’ Albany Law Review 78 (2): 587–
619.
Brooks, Jill. 2009. ‘‘Great Expectations: New Associates’ Research Skills from Law
School to Law Firm.’’ Legal Reference Services Quarterly 28 (3–4): 291–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02703190902961650.
Bundro, Aparna. (2016). ‘‘The AI Genie Is Out of the Bottle Is This the Tip of the Spear
for Law Firms?’’ Conventus Law. 1 May. http://www.conventuslaw.com/report/
the-ai-genie-is-out-of-the-bottle-is-this-the-tip/ (accessed 26 June 2017).
Chang, Wendy. 2016. ‘‘Time to Regulate AI in the Legal Profession?’’ Bloomberg Law,
12 July. https://biglawbusiness.com/time-to-regulate-ai-in-the-legal-profession-
perspective/ (accessed 26 June 2017).
Chen, Zhiyuan, and Bing Liu. 2016. Lifelong Machine Learning. Vol. 33. San Rafael,
CA: Morgan & Claypool.
Cohen, Alan. 2008. ‘‘Competitive Advantage: Business Intelligence—Finding, Analyzing,
and Leveraging It—Reshapes the Role of Law Librarians Incisive Media.’’ American
Lawyer 30 (8): 1–7.
Crosby, Connie. 2012. ‘‘Knowledge Management in the Legal Setting.’’ CALL/ACBC
New Law Librarians Institute, 1 June. http://www.crosbygroup.ca/blog/wp-
[196.64.51.190] Project MUSE (2024-06-11 16:13 GMT)

content/uploads/2012/06/knowledge-management-in-the-legal-setting.pdf
(accessed 26 June 2017).
——. 2013. ‘‘Bringing Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement Disciplines into Legal
Services: A CCCA Spring Conference Workshop.’’ Slaw, 22 April. http://
www.slaw.ca/2013/04/22/bringing-lean-six-sigma-process-improvement-
disciplines-into-legal-services-a-ccca-spring-conference-workshop/ (accessed
26 June 2017).
——. 2017. Lean: Six Sigma and the Law Librarian; the Benefits of Process Improvement
for Your Institution. Vol. 21. Chicago: American Association of Law Libraries.
Cutler, Kim-Mai. 2015. ‘‘YC’s Ross Intelligence Leverages IBM’s Watson to Make Sense
of Legal Knowledge.’’ TechCrunch, 27 July. https://techcrunch.com/2015/07/
27/ROSS-intelligence (accessed 26 June 2017).
Dickson, Ben. 2017. ‘‘4 Challenges Artificial Intelligence Must Address.’’ The Next
Web, 27 February. https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2017/02/27/
226 CJILS / RCSIB 41, no. 3 2017

4-challenges-artificial-intelligence-address/#.tnw_VGmUjL9k (accessed 26 June

2017).
Dipshan, Rhys. 2017. The Actual Cost of In-House Artificial Intelligence Adoption. Legal
Tech News, 16 February. https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/almID/
1202779340104/?slreturn=20171110192502 (accessed 26 June 2017).
Fisher, Donna M., and Brant Bender. 2006. ‘‘Capitalizing on Competitive Intelligence:
How Law Firm Librarians Can Benefit from the Added Responsibilities of Client
Development and Retention.’’ American Association of Law Libraries 11 (1): 26–28.
Fraser-Arnott, Melissa. 2014. ‘‘Moving from Librarian to Knowledge Manager.’’
Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 9 (2): 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v9i2.3134.
Gallacher, Ian. 2005. ‘‘Forty-two: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Teaching Legal Research to
the Google Generation.’’ Akron Law Review 39 (151): 1–51.
Gediman, Mark. 2016. ‘‘Artificial Intelligence: Not Just Sci-Fi Anymore; Why Incorporat-
ing an AI-Based System in Your Institution Is the Future of the Profession.’’ American
Association of Law Libraries 21 (1): 34–38.
Goodman, Joanna. 2016. ‘‘Meet the Robot Lawyers and Virtual Assistants.’’ Legal Inno-
vation, 29 June. https://www.lexisnexis-es.co.uk/assets/files/legal-innovation.pdf
(accessed 26 June 2017).
Hensiak, Kathryn. 2003. ‘‘Too Much of a Good Thing: Information Overload and Law
Librarians.’’ Legal Reference Services Quarterly 22 (2–3): 85–98. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J113v22n02_05.
Hernandez, Daniel. 2014. ‘‘Artificial Intelligence Is Now Telling Doctors How to Treat
You.’’ Kaiser Health News. 2 June. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/ai-
healthcare/ (accessed 26 June 2017).
Hutchinson, Terry. 2014. ‘‘Vale Bunny Watson? Law Librarians, and Legal Research in
the Post-Internet Era.’’ Law Library Journal 106 (4): 579–92.
Johanson, Graeme, and Fiona Brown. 2009. Setting a Precedent: The Evolution of the
Australian Law Librarians Association. Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Kroh, Eric. 2016. ‘‘Legal Technology: Robots the Latest Threat to Associates and the
Billable Hour Via Law360.’’ Lex Talk. 25 July. https://www.lextalk.com/b/
lextalk_blog/archive/2016/07/25/legal-technology-robots-the-latest-threat-to-
associates-and-the-billable-hour-via-law360.aspx (accessed 26 June 2017)
Lambert, G. 2016. ‘‘Evolution of Service Models in the New Law Library.’’ 3 Geeks and
a Law Blog. 16 November. http://www.geeklawblog.com/2016/11/evolution-of-
service-models-in-new-law.html (accessed 26 June 2017).
Lastres, Steve. 2012. ‘‘Knowledge Management: A Strategic Role Change for Legal
Information Professionals.’’ American Association of Law Libraries. https://
www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/products/aall-ilta-white-paper/knowledge-
management.pdf (accessed 26 June 2017).
LexisNexis. 2015. ‘‘White Paper: Hiring Partners Reveal New Attorney Readiness For
Real World Practice.’’ LexisNexis. http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/
20150325064926_large.pdf (accessed 26 June 2017).
Margolis, Ellie, and Kristen E. Murray. 2012. ‘‘Say Goodbye to the Books: Information
Literacy as the New Legal Research Paradigm.’’ University of Dayton Law Review
38 (1): 117–56.
Marion, Guy. 2015. ‘‘2015 Marketing Automation Performance: Where Companies
Are Investing, Winning, and Failing.’’ Autopilot. https://www.ama.org/resources/
White%20Papers/Pages/Marketing-Automation-Performance-Report.aspx
(accessed 26 June 2017).
 What Does the Future Hold for the Law Librarian 227

Mart, Susan Nevelow, Shawn Nevers, Toni Aiello, Sheri Lewis, Barbara Painter, Alison
Shea, Nancy Talley, Nolan Wright, and Jason Zarin. 2013. A Study of Attorneys’
Legal Research: Practices and Opinions of New Associates’ Research Skills.
Chicago: American Association of Law Libraries. http://www.aallnet.org/
sections/all/storage/committees/practicetf/final-report-07102013.pdf (accessed
26 June 2017).
Mazzeo, Jessica. 2016. ‘‘Why Your Law Firm Should Consider Lean Six Sigma.’’ The
Legal Intelligencer, 17 November. http://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/
almID/1202772684360/ (accessed 26 June 2017).
Mehmood, Abid, Iynkaran Natgunanathan, Yong Xiang, Guang Hua, and Song Guo.
2016. ‘‘Protection of Big Data Privacy.’’ IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open
Solutions 4: 1821–34. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2558446
(accessed 26 June 2017).
Osborne, Caroline L. 2016. ‘‘The State of Legal Research Education: A Survey of First-
Year Legal Research Programs, or ‘Why Johnny and Jane Cannot Research’.’’ Law
Library Journal 108 (3): 403–26.
Rossi, Francesca. 2016. ‘‘Artificial Intelligence: Potential Benefits and Ethical Considera-
tions.’’ European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/
BRIE/2016/571380/IPOL_BRI(2016)571380_EN.pdf (accessed 26 June 2017).
Schafer, B. 2007. ‘‘Can You Have Too Much of a Good Thing? A Comment on Bart
Vergeij’s Legal Argumentation Support Software.’’ Law Probability and Risk 6 (1-4):
209–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgm038.
Solomon, Aron, and Jason Moyse. 2016. ‘‘Let the Robots Help the Public.’’ Canadian
Lawyer Magazine, 5 September. http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/author/
sandra-shutt/let-the-robots-help-the-public-3371/ (accessed 26 June 2017).
Susskind, Richard E., and Daniel Susskind. 2015. The Future of the Professions: How
Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Taal, Amie, James A. Sherer, Kerri-Ann Bent, and Emily R. Fedeles. 2016. ‘‘Cognitive
Computing and Proposed Approaches to Conceptual Organization of Case Law
Knowledge Bases: A Proposed Model for Information Preparation, Indexing, and
Analysis.’’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (4): 347–70. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10506-016-9188-z.
Talley, Nancy B. 2016. ‘‘Imagining the Use of Intelligent Agents and Artificial Intelli-
gence in Academic Law Libraries.’’ Law Library Journal 108 (3): 383–400.
Tearle, Barbara. 2008. ‘‘Law Librarianship and Legal Information Provision in the 21st
Century.’’ Legal Information Management 8 (1): 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1472669608000029.
Thompson, Darin. 2015. ‘‘Creating New Pathways to Justice Using Simple Artificial
Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution.’’ Osgoode Legal Studies Research
Paper Series 152. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJODR/
235250102015002001002.
Tjaden, Ted. 2010. ‘‘The Evolution of Law Related Knowledge Management in North
America Opportunities for Law Librarians.’’ Paper presented at the CALL/ACBD/
MichALL Annual Conference: Gateway to Justice Session, 11 May. http://www.
legalresearchandwriting.ca/images/KM-quad.PDF (accessed 26 June 2017).
Wawrose, Susan C. 2013. ‘‘What Do Legal Employers Want to See in New Graduates?
Using Focus Groups to Find Out.’’ Ohio Northern University Law Review 39 (2):
505–53.