Read it here.
Justice Scalia in dissent: “To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving. I respectfully dissent.“
By utilizing many of the same techniques the (Oakland) Athletics did, lawyers from small firms and even solo practices can get similar results as their big-budget rivals at a fraction of the cost.
(Victor Li, ABAJournal.com 3/28/14)
Read more here.
Jason Wilson dissects it all here in his open letter to TR Legal head Susan Taylor Martin. It is, of course, written with sincere concern for the well-being of a competitor and all of the noblesse oblige befitting the legal publishing/lawyer-machine/software solution industry.
I do wonder though: Are the traditional “answers” (the treatises to which Wilson refers?) relevant to the practitioner of 2014? How can they be re-styled so as to remain relevant?
All right, it doesn’t really portend the death of BigLaw exactly. Anyways, you can read about it here. Roland Vogl of Stanford’s CodeX comments on one of the latest developments in legal industry disruption.
The website for the new service is here.