Source: https://tlfllc.com/blog/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:25:14+00:00

Document:
The potential of legal journalism is here and future has arrived in the shape of LexBlog.com, according to Bob Ambrogi, its Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, fixing a standing room only crowd of about hundred and fifty in Chicago last Thursday evening.
Over 22,000 legal bloggers at the @LexBlog network. By far the largest newsroom on the history of legal journalism.
Ambrogi always wanted to become a journalist. The difficulty was that the year that he began journalism school was the exact identical season since Watergate — and Woodward and Bernstein. Everybody and his brother wanted to become a journalist. To his surprise, Ambrogi’s application letters into the New York Times and the Washington Post went unanswered.
Just like other industries though, the Internet presented new avenues for reporting.
You can see the pride within this veteran journalist when he informed the audience there were already 22,000 legal bloggers leading to LexBlog – with a profile page for the site, blogger and business for everyone of them.
Other alternatives such as Lexology and JD Supra demand terrorists and publishers (the attorneys ) to cover to conduct and circulate their coverage. Distasteful into a reporter in mind such as Ambrogi, and preventing legal reporting for attorneys who do not have the money to pay for flow.
Even though Ambrogi practiced law for a couple of decades, he followed his passion for journalism to launch the book, Lawyers Weekly.
However there was no where pulled all of this content from law sites together. No where to find the sites, the bloggers and these own organizations.
As powerful, profitable and broad reaching as such news publications were, such as papers, they have hit on difficult times. Less publications, fewer editors and colleagues and far less coverage, per Ambrogi.
Planning to go to journalism grad school, somebody told Ambrogi that will be waste. He needs to visit law schoool, since the legislation was part of what.
To think that I had some day be working alongside the guy running the book would have been pretty far fetched.
Perhaps more than the authorized bloggers and LexBlog, it’s Bob Ambrogi delivering us the potential of legal journalism. And why not.
Ambrogi’s that the dean of authorized journalism at an age where lawful tech and innovation, what he personally covers day to day, will be driving the future.
They sensed what Ed Walters, both the co-founder and CEO of Fastcase, reported firsthand – that the LexBlog network reflected the largest newsroom at the background of legal journalism.
The best and most compressive legal coverage is occurring on law blogs, per Ambrogi. Law blogs have been the leading source of legal advice, news and commentary on millions of topics. Search for legal information and data and you also find sites.
Ambrogi, and I’ll confess myself included, adored the desire of audience members, lots of whom were leading law academics, professors and practicing lawyers, to learn more.
LexisNexis owned Law360, giving sound legal reporting, leaves us on this screen, stated Ambrogi, everytime we click to achieve their stories from search or social networks. Legal information is behind a pay wall, as LexisNexis required with previously open donations on Law.com.
Speaking in the Chicago Legal Innovation and Tech meetup in Skadden, Ambrogi’s vision and passion were keenly on screen. When there were any doubters of the message, Ambrogi pushed them over the top along with his down to ground certainty in what he had been telling us – from his personal start in legal journalism during today.
Though in its infancy as a legal information and commentary site, Ambrogi sees LexBlog because time goes on. Aggregated and curated legal information and comment for shipping from law bloggers, globally.
Votes on simplicity show fine dispersion. In contrast, votes for worth show restricted dispersion together with options above the mid-way indicate. That all rated nicely indicates the list of options is a good one. A threat in voting when all of the options are good is this lack of dispersion. With more time, one could either iterate the vote to make dispersion or unite the vote using a driven value position.
The Voting Process. Voting was by show of hands on the audience of 100+ study + intelligence professionals. Kevin Klein, the Ark conference manager and that I eyeballed the series of hands and agreed on a score.
Another highlight was outsourcing. Yes, my day job is with LAC Group, which, among other solutions, provides managed services for law libraries. I work in which I think I can have impact so my views are actually held. I believe senior law company staff must add as much value as possible. For librarians, this usually means combining deep knowledge of their companies with market knowledge and research.
Outsourcing frees up time to concentrate on higher worth activity. And especially outsourcing the more routine aspects of research, or domain specific study, lets librarians concentrate on where they could add the most value. I had a lively debate on this stage with an audience member and we had to agree to admit.
A couple of weeks ago I introduced an interactive session on how law firm libraries can produce new value at the Ark seminar Best Practices & Management Plans for Law Business Library, Research & Information Services (aka Ark Library). In this informative article, I share my slides, some session highlights the voting results of the interactive portion, and a link to my live demonstration.
Two components of our discussion stood out to me. One was the difference between presenting research results as a collection of posts with minimal or no interpretation versus drawing insights and conclusions. I feel that customers of research want comprehension, not research dumps. Most audience members, however, appeared loath to do more than collect the information. I believes that will place librarians in a lousy position as time passes. As an example, in fourteen days prior to the seminar, I met two older friends who lead company management preparation for their big law firms. Both reported pity that the response to their complex research petition was a dump of articles. Both were unhappy with how much time they had to spend synthesizing insight and meaning.
Whether you agree with the nine options and also the voting outcomes, isn’t the main takeaway here. Instead, you should take from this the significance of systematic preparation and using a clear plan . Every library / research + intelligence center needs to have a clearly articulated strategy which aligns with the firm plan and that actively attempts to boost profits. Other approaches operate – exactly what I introduced is just one idea. Whatever approach you choose, though, a one-page result that you may easily and quickly introduce to management.
Prompt wisdom and research professionals to consider ways they could align with business strategy and boost firm profits.
Rank systematically those choices, specifically mapping them by relative value and ease.
Nine Ideas to Increase Contribution to Firm Profitability. I presented nine thoughts, enumerated below, for staff discussion and voting.
Rating Ideas on a 2×two Grid. For every idea, I realized the audience about two measurements: facilitate and worth . By laying out the thoughts on these rankings, one can quickly see which ideas would be most favorable using the 2×two grid below. As with 2×two grids, the scoring is designed to put the ideal choice in the upper right hemisphere and the lowest ones at the lower left.
Chief Justice John Roberts surprised some observers when he joined his four liberal colleagues to grant a stay of this decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in June Medical Services v. Gee. The law requiring physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals of Louisiana was blocked by the stay. The petitioners contended that the distinctions drawn by the allure court between both nations’ legislation were unpersuasive. By voting to stay exactly the Louisiana law, was signaling a retreat from his position there? Does he accept that the court’s abortion jurisprudence?
Perhaps, but there is a simpler and likelier explanation. Roberts cares a great deal about the Supreme Court. When a state court or reduced court defies or evades the precedents of the court, the court’s authority is challenged by it. Accordingly, it is easy to imagine that the chief prosecution believes Whole Woman’s Health along with also the cases it implemented — such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — should be overruled. However, he does not take to courts usurping his court’s prerogative of determining whether and when to overrule its own cases.
In case institutionalism better explains Roberts’ remain vote than does one change of heart to the merits, then the questions posed by this symposium — if the court grant certiorari and, in that case, how should it rule? — are debatable for citizens, lawyers and scholars who, like me, believe the court shouldn’t cut back on the constitutional abortion right.
To be slightly more precise, only the first question poses a problem. The next question is simple. As I claimed in an article to get a SCOTUSblog symposium on that situation, Casey did not displace that portion of the holding in Roe that prohibits the state from imposing obstacles to abortion simply by the pretense of promoting women’s health.
Additionally, Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion in Whole Woman’s Health helpfully clarified that which was already implicit in the idea of an undue weight — that whether a law regulating abortion is inherent is based on part on whether the burdens it imposes for women in fact promote well-being (or any other compelling government interest). It is unconstitutional — because an admitting-privileges requirement does not advance the state’s asserted health fascination in any way — at Louisiana or Texas.
If I could say with confidence that a majority of the existing Supreme Court would intentionally use its abortion jurisprudence, then I would recommend the court to grant the request for a writ of certiorari in June solely for the purpose of summarily reversing the 5th Circuit. I’m unsure what to advocate, because I lack that confidence.
Should the Supreme Court deny certiorari in June, its live order would dissolve by its terms. The end result would be to deny access to legal abortion into a terrific many women in Louisiana. But that’s not all. Allowing the Circuit ruling to go into effect will embolden that court to uphold other legislation from Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. It would send exactly the same signal to other federal judges around the nation — a team that becomes much more hostile to abortion rights almost from the day, thanks to the laser-like focus on changing the judiciary of both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Trump administration.
Yet awful because a cert denial would be for abortion rights, so a cert grant poses the threat of an outright overruling of Roe, Casey along with Whole Woman’s Health. More likely but perhaps equally dangerously, the Supreme Court could grant cert in June, put the case on its plenary docket, also, following briefing and argument, affirm the 5th Circuit’s judgment upholding the Louisiana law based on a unpersuasive distinction between the Texas and Louisiana legislation.
There is precedent for such a move. Although the court invoked some minor differences between the Nebraska and federal laws, the difference was at the court’s employees. In the meantime, Justice Samuel Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; flipping that the result was reversed by vote. As we have seen from Kavanaugh’s dissent in the stay order in June, he appears prepared to draw some rather nice distinctions to avoid invalidating the Louisiana diplomatic law.
That leaves Roberts as the one justice even potentially in play. By voting to grant the stay in June, he indicated that he does not believe the 5th Circuit persuasively celebrated the Texas and Louisiana legislation. Perhaps with more time he will discover some hitherto unknown distinction persuasive, but it’s also possible that he will vote to violate Whole Woman’s Health, dependent on reasoning like that in Alito’s dissent in that case, which Roberts combined. In Part III of the Whole Woman’s Health dissent, Alito claimed that the Texas law didn’t unduly burden the abortion because, among other items, dependent on one tendentious reading of this document, 95% of Texas women would need to travel”only” a distance of 150 kilometers or not to obtain an abortion provider.
It’s not easy to state whether abortion rights could be less secure if the Supreme Court at June were to feign to employ its pre-Whole Woman’s Health precedents while actually hollowing them out or were simply to overrule its abortion-rights precedents forthrightly. With the course, defenders of abortion rights could have a focus around which to rally from the governmental world.
Nevertheless, an individual should not spend much energy wondering if disingenuous program or blatant rejection of the abortion cases is worse. The Supreme Court under Roberts’ direction has tended to apply these moves in tandem, first weakening a legal doctrine or principle and discarding its empty husk.
Prior to the Court held the policy formula of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, it first supposed to duck the issue in Northwest Austin Municip. Dist. No. One particular Holder. Before the Roberts Court abandoned the Burger Court precedent upholding agency-shop arrangements against free speech challenges at Janus v. AFSCME, it contested but supposed to employ that Burger-era precedent at Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000. If, in June, the Roberts Court undercuts however, doesn’t officially depart the inherent right to abortion, and the decision ought to be known since the opening salvo in a longer competition.
On second consideration,”opening” is the wrong word. A Supreme Court ruling upholding the Louisiana legislation in June would be the near-culmination of a near-half-century effort. Through a mixture of luck, the Electoral College, and also what Professors Joseph Fishkin and David Pozen predict”asymmetrical constitutional hardball,” Republican presidents have termed 14 of 18 justices at the previous 50 years, despite losing the popular vote at the vast majority of presidential elections during this period. Given how fundamental overturning Roe is to the Republican coalition, it is hardly surprising that that the abortion right is precarious. The remarkable reality is that it stays on the books in any way.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.