Related Articles

Images

Petition Drive Launched To Save Law Libraries

Bridgeport, Hartford facilities among those set to close by July

By CHRISTIAN NOLAN

Judicial Branch officials announced official closing dates for six courthouse libraries last week. But some members of the legal community aren’t ready to give up.

The Southern New England Law Librarians Association (SNELLA) and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) are partnering with local bar associations to mount a petition drive to save five of the six courthouse law libraries slated for closure.

Late last year, the Judicial Branch announced that some court facilities and libraries will close because of unexpected cuts to the Judicial Branch budget. Last week, Chief Court Administrator Barbara Quinn released more details, including closing dates.

Libraries in Norwich, Willimantic and Milford courthouses will be shuttered by April 1, followed by libraries in Bridgeport, Hartford and Litchfield by July 1.

The law librarians group isn’t rallying on behalf of the Willimantic library, which already is without a staff and is in a courthouse that may well close. Judicial Branch officials said staffers at the other five law libraries would be reassigned and not laid off. Nine other courthouse libraries will remain open.

“We understand that these closings will be disruptive to you, the bar and to the public,” Quinn said in a letter to Judicial Branch employees. “However, we have determined that these closures must occur to address the significant budget shortfall that we face.”

Some observers have noted that big law firms already have their own libraries, and that much of the research that was once down in courthouse libraries is now done online. But Nancy Marcove, president of SNELLA, says the libraries are far from obsolete.

“The practice of law in Connecticut would certainly be hurt by the closing of these libraries,” said Marcove. “Why should the small or solo practitioner be put at a disadvantage in their access to information that would allow them to fairly represent their client? Why should the self-represented [litigants] be put at a disadvantage because only selective districts have reasonable access to a law library?”

Not On Lexis

Marcove said a study done at the New Haven courthouse library found that 80 percent of the material sought is not found on Lexis or Westlaw. Instead, visitors use secondary materials, such as historical or Connecticut specific sources, many of which are not on Lexis or Westlaw, she said.

Also, Marcove said pro se litigants and many small firm attorneys or solos cannot afford the high Lexis or Westlaw search fees. Thus, they rely more heavily on the law library resources. She said it’s also unfair to force them to drive greater distances to do their research.

In a letter dated Dec. 23, Marcove and AALL president Catherine Lemann urged Gov. M. Jodi Rell to reconsider her budget cuts to the state Judicial Branch. The letter said the courthouse libraries statewide have annually averaged 480,000 Web visits, 250,000 walk-in visits and staff members have answered 42,000 reference questions.

“There are those who believe that Google and others who now offer free online access to a limited number of legal resources in some way replace the valuable print and online collections available at law libraries,” Marcove and Lemann’s letter read. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The law librarians’ petitions are available online at www.aallnet.org/chapter/snella/. They will also be circulated at local bar associations.

“While our members are computer research savvy, they value the actual holding of a physical book in their hands when reviewing or investigating a law or issue,” Milford Bar Association President Tara J. Galbo wrote on the Milford law library petition. “To remove this option is to do more than modify research practices; it is to teach the new generation that the books are not useful or essential.”

Judicial Branch spokeswoman Rhonda Stearley-Hebert sympathizes with the petitioners. “If we had our druthers we would not be doing this, but unfortunately the budget crisis is forcing our hand and tough decisions have to be made,” said Stearley-Hebert.

Stearley-Hebert suggested the state library in the Supreme Court as an alternative to the courthouse library in Hartford. She also suggested the New Haven, Danbury or Stamford/Norwalk courthouse law libraries as alternatives to Bridgeport, depending on where lawyers’ offices are located.

Middlesex, New Britain, New London, Putnam, Tolland and Waterbury round out the courthouse libraries that will remain open. Officials said they would find about $1.5 million in funding for those libraries to obtain up-to-date materials even though the legislature provided no money for materials in the current budget.

“You can’t have a law library and go in to use research tools and not know if you’re looking at the most up-to-date information,” said Melissa Farley, the branch’s executive director of external affairs. “That doesn’t serve anyone well at all.”•