Strategic Librarian

On Cleopatra, Gender Inequity, and Salary Stagnation

April 15, 2011 in Salaries

In a blog post today titled Cleopatra & Law Librarians, Mary Abraham suggested that (based on a recent biography), Cleopatra would not likely take on the job of a law librarian in today’s world because of the pay inequity in our profession which is largely female. She further asked why we do it given that our pay is generally less than our male counterparts (even those who are librarians). Three Geek’s Greg Lambert left a comment on that posting suggesting we do it for hearts and stars.

Given her situation, I don’t believe Cleopatra would ever agree to being a law librarian or any librarian for that matter. Hearts and stars may be seen as some form of compensation by some librarians but it does not make up for inequity in pay. So, why do we do it?

I think for most, it is because we love what we do. We love the intellectual challenge research brings, the atmosphere created by the very intelligent people we work with, the creativity that comes with solving problems and more.

I also think that we are partly to blame for the state of our salaries. Yes, gender inequity is partly the problem, but, I think that if we did a study we would find that most of us stay in positions longer than our male counterparts in any profession. I was once told (by a law firm HR director) that the wages for law librarians in Minnesota (where I live) is stagnant because we stayed in one job for long periods of time. I expect that is true in most cities. The HR director went on to say that a profession needs movement to see job increases that aren’t tied to annual cost of living or other influences in salary.

No movement, no risk, no increase in pay. Have you stayed too long in your position?

Cutting Costs of Online Research Services

March 29, 2011 in Cost Recovery, Financial Management, Research

It has been 11 years since I cancelled my first set of reporters. What followed was the cancellation of all print reporters in that firm. Like many of you reading this post also experienced, it wasn’t easy. That said, we can now say that most of the lawyers within firms (who cancelled reporters) have made the transition from print to electronic/online case law.

What’s next? Many firms are making decisions to go with a preferred provider – Westlaw or Lexis – to cut costs. The CIOs, CMOs, and CKOs who now oversee the library or research department see this as a way to reduce paying for duplication. Depending on what content your firm uses, this may or may not be the best way to proceed. Even so, while this may be necessary there may be strategies you can use to manage costs of online services.

Note: I realize that many firms have already taken some of these steps or have it planned for the future. I also understand that all of these suggestions may be or not be right for your firm depending on needs and culture.

If you have a flat rate contract or a special offer that includes case law, cancel your print reporters.
If your flat rate contract or special offer includes access to the online digests, start training your users on the use of these tools. Eventually, you will be able to cancel the digests.
If your firm is serious about recovering costs for online resources and you haven’t already implemented an ERM tool for client/matter validation, do so now. It will pay for itself and then some.
If your flat rate contract(s) exclude resources and/or you have access to other resources with the same content, use ERM tools to redirect your users to the right resource. It is a lot easier than training users to select the right resource.
If you haven’t already done so, cancel the print versions of the newsletters or journals you now get in electronic format.
If you have WK Intelliconnect, BNA libraries and electronic newsletters, or RIA CheckPoint, or other similar services cancel the print newsletters and looseleafs that provide the same content as those services and use ERM tools to block access to the databases with the same content on Westlaw and Lexis. Alternatively, you can use those same tools to redirect your users to the right resource.
If your firm attempts to recover costs for Westlaw and if you have Westlaw eLibraries that include caselaw where you don’t charge clients for the use, remove all case law from the eLibraries. If you don’t, you will very likely see eLibraries cannibalize the cost recovery of your Westlaw contract. I’ve done analysis of eLibrary use where the trend line in my spreadsheet showed the use of eLibraries went up at the same rate that the use of Westlaw went down, eventually meeting at a point that the lines crossed.
If you’ve worked with Lexis to set up custom user interfaces (CUI), it is very likely that the use of the interfaces are charged separately from your main contract. The issue that I’ve seen arise is that the use of these CUIs is generally low. This can be changed with the proper training and by redirecting the use of the resources using your ERM tool. Just make sure they get used or cancel them.
If your firm charges clients for online services and you are considering adding expert witness or briefs and pleadings to your contract, don’t. The use of these types of resources are so closely tied to litigation matters that clients are generally willing to pay for their use. They don’t represent the library resources that clients expect to be treated as overhead.
If your firm doesn’t require refresher training for online resources, recommend that they do so and that it become an ongoing program. A lot of the client push back of cost recovery is based on the high costs. Researchers that participate in cost-effective research training will research online more effectively, reducing those costs.
If you don’t have a research portal that provides personalized access to resources, implement one. It will reduce the time researchers spend looking for the right resource and reduce costs for the firm’s clients.

These are just a few ideas based on experience. I would love to hear other ideas for cost cutting, cancellations of duplicates, etc. I would also like to hear from you if you don’t agree with me.