Thing 19: Catch up week on integrating 'things'

Time to reflect...

I have to say, I think this catch up week couldn't have come at a better time. Trainee training has begun with a vengeance in the law library, and I have spent all of this past week chasing my tail between trying to get my presentations sorted, keep on top of our endless enquiries - oh and deal with being stranded at home on Thursday, courtesy of a cable theft on my train line. (Cheers for that, you copper-thieving w!!**!*!)

Got another training session with our new trainee lawyers on Wednesday, and then another one the following Wednesday, and then a few more later in the year. Our training programme runs quite differently to any others I have participated in at previous firms...I think it's good for the trainees, because they are not utterly bombarded with everything all at once...but for me as one of the main trainers, it feels like it's never-ending! But more about that in another post - I definitely want to blog about the trainee training but not now. Not now.

So - reflection on all of the Things we have covered in the last few weeks. I think one of the things (excuse the pun) that I have definitely got out of the program so far is thinking about networking. I actually attended a great training session on this a couple of weeks ago (another thing on the 'to blog' list...) and I doubt I would have even signed up for the session had we not given the concept consideration in this program. The important of being able to network in our comunity has never been more obvious to me. Making other contacts is good not only from a professional development point of view, eg. looking for a job, but also opens our eyes to other kinds of library work out there. And you never know when you might need to call in a favour! (And vice versa!) Networking is not something I have ever particularly enjoyed; to be honest, I think a lot of people find it tiresome/trying etc, but in this day and age, it's a very good skill to hone. I'm attending a few seminars over the next month or so (one run by CILIP, the other by CLIG) so maybe that will be a good chance to put what I hope are some new-found skills into practice!

The other major benefit I have felt from taking part in CPD23 is becoming aware of a whole range of technology/online tools and applications, of which I would never have otherwise been aware. Jing was a complete eye opener to me and is definitely one which I feel could be used in our law library, to save time on some of the little ad-hoc training sessions we run every time a new joiner comes to the firm - or, it could be used to create demos of particular resources, and then they could be made available on our Intranet. The possibilites are endless.

Another concept I had never explored before was Google Docs and Dropbox. I had no idea that these kind of applications existed. While we don't really have use for them in the law library, as in our law firm we have a very strict system of filing documents in a particular place, where they are either available to everyone/certain individuals/private etc, depending on the circumstances, they have still made my life a lot easier at home! Being able to share certain docs with Mr Law_Lib_Extraordinaire has definitely saved a lot of time and hassle! I think the example I gave before was of our wedding spreadsheet - no more arguing over whose turn it is to log on to my laptop and update it! I think these tools definitely could benefit many workplaces, but not a law firm - not in my experience anyway.

Mendeley has also proved very useful in terms of writing an article. All my sources are in one place, and I don't need to worry about trying to pull them all together at the end.

The other idea that really got me thinking was the importance of social networks. Again it's something of a dilemma for me, for on the one hand, I am uncomfortable with the fact that I can be found so easily on something like LinkedIn - but at the same time, I see the importance of embracing a tool like this, because from a professional point of view, there is no denying that more and more recruitment agencies are utilising it. So while I don't feel 100% happy with having my professional working life documented for the world to see, I am not about to take my profile down because I recognise the benefits. That particular Thing also led me to joining LIKE, a LinkedIn group for London information professionals. While I haven't made it along to any events yet, I would like to do so in the future. So it's definitely opened my eyes in that respect.

The one thing that hasn't changed over the course of the program thus far is my feelings on using Facebook an Twitter in a professional capacity. Partly because, as you know by now, all these websites are blocked in our firm, but also, because I just don't like to mix my personal life up with my professional life. I feel LinkedIn should be suffiicient - there are many people on there who are professional acquaintances only, and whom I would never 'add' on Facebook. However, I am aware that I am perhaps in the minority in this respect, and that's okay with me - I am happy to just take a slightly less active role in the social networking commuity. I feel LinkedIn is enough in this respect.

All in all, it's definitely been an eye opener for me over the last few months. I have been made aware of so many applications that I never even knew existed, and it has highlighted to me the importance of keeping at the forefront of these trends. Information professionals should definitely be on top of these things, and I think prior to CPD23, I thought I was pretty clued up - but now I see I had a lot to learn! Definitely looking forward to the remainder of the program.

And now, alas, back to the trainee training. Statute law here I come....

Image courtesy of Tom Curtis:
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=178

Thing 18 - Jing / screen capture / podcasts (making and following them)

Law library podcasts?

Wow - even including the postponed Thing 17, we don't have many 'Things' left! Can't believe how quickly time is passing...

I have to say, I am really intrigued by Jing - I had NO IDEA that making a visual demo of, say, a particular website, was something that could be done so easily. I don't have a microphone so I cannot do anything with audio, but if we were allowed to incorporate that into the law library, I strongly believe that it would give a lot of value to the fee-earners. There are so many databases that we have to give the same training on throughout the year. Sometimes lawyers just want a refresher - if they have used the resource before, then they just want a reminder of the functionality to ensure they are getting the best out of it. Then there are others who are completely unfamiliar with some resources, so we are starting from scratch. I really do think that there is a lot of scope for us creating demonstrations for at least one of those categories of users - perhaps the refresher training. It is something that the fee-earners could watch at their desk as well, which would be far easier than trying to pin them down to a time for us to come and see them. (You have no idea how good it would be to alleviate that side of things - I have been known to spend weeks hounding certain fee-earners to commit to a short training session!)

I think the only problem would be convincing IT of the merits of this software...


Podcasting
Yet again this is something I was woefully ignorant of. I did pretty much know what they were, but I have never investigated them, only heard people talking about them. Also my iPod is so old that I wasn't even sure it would be set up to handle podcasts!! From a personal point of view, I don't really see the appeal - I am a strictly music kind of girl when I am commuting to work/walking about, and I just don't like the idea of having to concentrate on what a person is saying. Call me lazy but...!

That having been said, the series of podcasts that Maria mentions by the Careers Group - University of London, does sound like it could be interesting from a professional development of view. I do see why it is like an easy way of keeping up with things, because you are definitely using your time on trains etc much better than someone like me who just listens to endless music!

With regard to using podcasts in our workplace, unlike the screencast videos, I am less convinced of the merits of podcasting in the law library. I really don't see any need for this - nor can I see any fee-earners ever taking to the concept. I don't think it would make sense for any of the training we do. Perhaps it would be good as a standard introduction to our department and all that we do - but we do that in a new person's first week at the firm anyway. I don't think a podcast would add more to what we do already in this case.


Conclusions
Definitely found this week's Thing very enjoyable and interesting. It's great to be introduced to more tools, particularly ones that I had no idea existed OR just hadn't bothered to ever explore. And while I am not convinced of the benefits of podcasting myself, I can see why some people find it a great way of taking in information on the move.

I am really excited about the discovery of Jing, and would definitely like to broach it with my managers, to see if they think there is capacity for using it. Watch this space...

The Future of Content Aggregation - 2011 Lexis Nexis White Paper

Is free information really all we need?

I obtained a copy of the above White Paper that explores the future of content aggregation in an age in which we have reams of 'free' information at our fingertips. I found this particularly interesting because this is something that we are constantly coming across in the law library. With so much information available on 'free' sites, there is always the danger that trainees and fee-earners will just rely on this, because sometimes they think it's easier to do a Google search, than a more tailored search on one of our subscription databases. While free information can be authoritative, there is still a huge amount that should not be relied on for legal research - so we often find we are valiantly trying to impart this to trainees as soon as they enter the firm, in the hope that it will mean they develop good habits from the outset.

The White Paper contains data collated via a Panel set up to represent the information profession, called 'The Voice of the Information Professional'.

'Content aggregation' is where publishers make their publications available via a paid-for database - the content is licensed to the provider, and the publishers are paid royalties. The other way that publishers make their content available is by putting it behind a paywall, so much like The Times newspaper did last year. Sometimes when this happens, it is removed from the content aggregators, but not always.


Free Information - how reliable is it?
The Panel were asked 'do you trust free information for work tasks?' 96% of respondents 'sometimes' trust free information for work tasks. I would say this is the view I woul have given as well. Obviously wherever possible, you want to be extracting information from an 'authoritative' source - so for example, I would rather refer a fee-earner to information from a journal article from Westlaw, or a note on PLC, than a random website that could have been written by a teenager! However, that having been said, it is a regular occurence that we get asked a number of weird and wonderful legal research/company information questions, and sometimes there just isn't any information on the more authoritative sources - so it's time like that where I will often have no choice but to use information from a more unknown source. I think so long as the fee-earner is aware of this, it is a reasonable option.

The White Paper also questioned the panel on what kind of 'free' information they would be more inclined to trust. It was generally agreed that content found on goverment-maintained websites, professional news firms such as Reuters or Bloomberg, and content on sites such as the BBC, can be considered 'highly' trustworthy.


The downside of 'free' information
One of the main problems surrounding free information is that it is not designed for the kind of research carried out by information professionals - it is far more focused on just providing an overview of what's going on in the world to the average member of the public sitting at his or her desk at lunchtime. The information is not stored in such a way that always makes finding it easy - therefore carrying out research on such websites can be time consuming and frustrating. This is often because the information is not indexed as well as it is on a content aggregation website. There's also the problem of inconsistency in terms of archiving: "Different websites have different approaches to archiving, and an article found online today may not be available tomorrow."


The benefits of using a content aggregator
The paper sums up the benefits for the user of a content aggregator, by breaking down the argument for why content aggregation is something worth paying for. They create a 'Value Chain' which charts the advantages of using this kind of provider, as opposed to trying to conduct your research over separate websites, all with separate access policies.

1. Save time
2. Save money
3. Increase search accuracy
4. Access an extensive archive
5. Have a single point of access

The Panel were also asked if they believe that a paid-for content aggregator saves times, and 77% said they believed that this does save time in terms of carrying out searches, and the set of results they receive back. Interestingly, the question was also asked whether or not they go to a content aggregator to look for a particular source, even if it may be on the web - and apparently 50% replied yes to this. Lexis Nexis claim that this highlights the value of content aggregation in today's environment - even when so much is apparently available 'free'.

Speaking from my own point of view, I would definitely say that I think the fact that the search interface on a content aggregation website is so good, means that I feel more confident that the searches I am running are going to bring back all of the results that are relevant. A particular publication might well be searchable online, and it might even be possible to obtain the full text of an item in this way. If I know exactly the item I am looking for, then I might well just get it from the 'free' source - particularly because on some of our content aggregation websites, we try and charge back any searches - and in this cost-conscious climate, the fee-earners are always happy if I can avoid doing so! But if I am just searching for articles on a particular topic, for example, I wouldn't be happy about just relying on Google, or Google News. I might well use it as a back up - so I often run searches firstly on the paid-for databases, and then supplement this with the free searches - but never the other way round.

Obviously it always depends on how much time you have, how in-depth your fee-earner wants you to go, and if there is a means of charging back any searches that incur costs. But speaking very generally, I can see where the opinion given in the White Paper is coming from.

Downside to content aggregation: vanishing publications
The Paper also discusses what many people believe is a big disadvantage to services offered by Lexis Nexis, Sweet and Maxwell etc - and that is that sometimes, titles that were once available on there suddenly disappear. Some argue that this is a clear reason why in the age of free information, content aggregation is obviously becoming less important. However, this Paper claims that the main reason for titles suddenly disappearing is simply that they stop being published, or the provider changes publisher and licenses the content to another content aggregator. Sometimes a publisher will also decide to license their own content directly. The argument is simply that new titles become available just as often as others go away, and therefore it is not an indication of the decline of content aggregators.


The future of content aggregation
Lexis Nexis maintain that information professionals can further the case for content aggregators within their organisations. They state that senior management need to understand that 'generic information' does not have the 'added value' that aggregated intelligence can provide. For example, a company report prepared by an authoritative commercial company information and intelligence provider adds so much more than simply giving a fee-earner a set of annual returns on that company, for example. It's time saving as a lot of the work has been done already, so it saves time AND costs, as the information professional doesn't have to spend so long piecing together a lot of information from different sources.

I think there is some truth in this, but at the same time, in our law library, we are always wary of some company information providers, simply because it isn't always clear how authoritative the sources of their information are - sometimes the info doesn't come from the primary source, eg. an annual return - so while yes, there's no denying these flashy, all singing and dancing company information reports can be very useful indeed, you always want to be sure that the sources are authoritative. So my point is, sometimes a set of annual returns being pieced together might well be more time-consuming - but at least you know you have taken your info from a known source.

Anyway, Lexis Nexis end the Paper by outlining the key areas that content aggregators need to focus on going forward:

- Continue to ensure that searching and indexing capabilities develop and keep meeting end user needs
- Retain supply of content through forging strong alliances with publishers
- Address the challenges of incorporating social and online media - there's a lot of information available via these channels
- Invest in their products in order to differentiate themselves from low-cost and free services.
- Build products and solutions that are specifically tailored to particular job functions

There is little doubt that this is a hugely topical issue for law librarians. Content aggregation vs free information, in a very cost-conscious climate, is something that poses a ongoing dilemma for the law librarian who is trying to ensure that they provide their fee-earners with authoritative information - but at the same time keeping costs at a minimum. Lexis Nexis appear to realise that providers like themselves are facing many challenges in order to ensure that customers continue to be able to justify paying for their services in today's environment.

Image courtesy of Graur Cordin: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=982

Thing 16: Advocacy, speaking up for the profession and getting published

Library advocacy: I am ashamed to say that until I read Lauren's post this week, I had never really considered if there was some way I could get involved. As she correctly points out, a lot of recent activities thanks to the public library closures are a bit more like activism than advocacy, and I think it is really helpful that she provided some definition on what advocacy actually means and how we could get involved.

The topic of advocacy can be applied both to my own profession, and to the wider library community. With respect to the public library campaigns, I cannot express enough how much I think these are important. I am sure this is something that a lot of us librarians say, to the point I feel a bit cliched saying it! - but I have been a regular user of the library all my life, and I would be gutted if our local one had been closed. As it is the opening hours have been slashed, but I still feel lucky to have it at all. At the risk of sounding like someone's grandmother, I genuinely believe that so many kids today miss out by not being taken to the library. When I was little, going every Saturday with my dad was one of the things I looked forward to most. And nowadays, even if a kid doesn't want to read, there are still so many other things offered in many libraries now - can't say that I am happy about internet access and so on, but if it gets people using the library, then so be it I guess. But it really does infuriate me when people say that libraries are superfluous in today's society because soon, we'll all have e-readers and with regard to obtaining information, 'everything is online'. AAAAGGGHHH!!!

It does make me pretty sad when I think about how my kids will probably never touch an encyclopaedia for a school project - will they even be taught how to use one at school?? 

That's one of the reasons that I found the Thing 16 post so interesting. I had never heard of the 'That's Not Online' project (although it does make me laugh that it is online!) - but in all seriousness, initiatives like that are exactly what is needed to drive the point home - that while the Internet is obviously another world away from what I had available to me when I was growing up, there is still a need for physical libraries; they still have a lot to offer.


Advocacy in the legal information world
It goes without saying that I have a strong interest in ensuring that law librarians continue to be regarded as a vital cog in the law firm machine. This is something that has been discussed over the years in the professional journals, and is the main reason why there is a constant pressure on us to ensure that we prove our worth to the fee-earners. The recession has led to many acquaintances being made redundant and it is frightening to realise that when it comes to looking for ways to cut costs, the library and its budget seem to be at the top many partners' lists. In my current firm I am fortunate to have a department director who is utterly committed to ensuring that our department exceeds any expectations placed upon us. But even so, we recently had to cope with the suggestion of our library space being reduced to make room for more desks...apparently because 'no one uses the books'.!!!!!! Well that's the view of one fee-earner; fortunately not the majority whose practice areas do actually necessitate the use of textbooks!

There is no doubt that advocating for libraries as a whole has never been more topical. The recession has had a huge impact on our profession, and it's heartening to read about the various initiatives out there which are trying to secure the future of the industry. One of the things I shall take from reading about this topic this week, is giving some thought to how I could promote the law library profession. It was interesting to hear about how people have been published, and I like the idea that even keeping this blog up to date with some of the things I am involved with within the profession is contributing to public awareness.

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=112

Jack of all trades, master of none? Should a law librarian specialise in one area of law?

Jack of all trades...?

It seems to me that law firms tend to take very different views of a law librarian becoming a practice area-specific information specialist. Some of the very large law firms seem to have this as a matter of course, along with one central information/resources department, while the smaller ones tend to only have the occasional practice area specialist.

Part of my original remit in my current role was to work closely with the intellectual property (IP) group, and seek to provide them with a very tailored current awareness and research service. This was without a doubt a daunting task - the firms I had worked at previously had only very small IP groups, and they were all pretty self sufficient, therefore I had almost no prior knowledge of this practice area at all! The only thing I knew was the key textbooks, simply because I had been in charge of acquisitions in London in my last role, so I was pretty clued up on the core texts for most of the common practice areas in a corporate law firm.

The first thing I did was speak to a close friend who works as an insurance litigation specialist in one of my previous firms, in a bid to try and understand how she had developed her expertise in this area. One of the most helpful tips she gave me was to try and get a handle on as quickly as possible of who their key clients are and what sort of work they're doing most frequently. This in turn would enable me to get a feel for what current awareness information would be most relevant to them.

My first few months in the role were quite literally a baptism of fire. There was a huge amount to take in - I had no technical knowledge of trade marks, copyright or any other facet of IP, so I took it upon myself to do a lot of background reading in my spare time. Fellow law librarians will agree that the best to place for this kind of easy to understand overview is PLC (Practical Law Company - subscription database). I felt that by acquiring an understanding of what, for example, a trade mark actually is, why you register them etc etc, would mean that I would at least know the terminology when all the enquiries started coming through.

There was quite a strong expectation that I should also be taking an active part in the IP team's weekly meeting; for example providing them with solutions to projects/research questions, and in doing so, basically promoting the work of the Information Centre (the law library) to the team. Yet again, this was in all honesty pretty horrendous for me to begin with! I had never had to attend another team's meetings, so to do so on my own was nerve racking. What also made it worse was that this team had traditionally been pretty self sufficient and were, shall we say, slightly sceptical that there could be anything I could assist them with. (You can imagine the sheer satisfaction I feel now, 18 months down the line, when I go on holiday and all hell breaks loose because they are actually now quite dependent on me!) However in the first instance, my efforts to try and develop a relationship with the team were met with a lot of resistance, and looking back, I think it was only through sheer dint of pretty much forcing myself upon them at every opportunity and promoting our services as much as possible, that got me to the stage where I am now.

In the time I have been doing my current job, I have actually developed a genuine passion for the work I do relating to the IP team. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways, and this is where I think the biggest law firms have the right idea when they have specific practice area information specialists - and that is what they are; their role is clear and they can put all their efforts into one practice area, and in providing those fee-earners with a high level service.

On the other hand, many law librarians are traditionally a 'jack of all trades, master of none' - and I don't mean that in a derogratory way, because there's still a big part of my role that necessitates that! But I am just trying to show the differences between the 2 types of law librarian. Working in the general Information Centre as I do, until I joined there wasn't really an official assigned analyst (what we call ourselves in the firm) to any practice area. It was well known that 2 of my managers are insurance and litigation supremos (and i am not kidding. there is NOTHING they don't know!), but they weren't officially in charge of any of the associated practice areas. As a rule, law libraries like the one I am in now require the law librarians to be flexible, and able to pick up any enquiry from any practice area and turn their hand to it. Very often this involves doing a bit of quick reading first, just to try and actually understand what they're asking about at a very basic level!

 I still do enough non-IP enquiries to ensure that I keep my hand in at other practice areas, but I think further down the line, I may need to decide how I want to move forward in my career, and if I would like to focus on IP more than anything else. As I said earlier - and sad as it may sound - I genuinely find this area of law interesting and I never thought that would happen! So it would seem a shame to have come so far with it, to just drop it in my next role (whatever that may be). However, there is the downside that perhaps I am limiting myself quite severely to IP-information specialist roles only - and I do wonder if that is the wisest thing to do, given the ongoing poor economic climate...

Nonetheless, I think the question of law librarians specialising in one field of law is a very interesting one, and I would definitely be keen to hear others' views on this...

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1665

Thing 14B - Mendeley

It looks like this week's Thing is going to be fairly brief for me, as I have ruled out Zotero owing to the Firefox restrictions, and having had a look at the 'citeulike' tour, I don't think it's quite for me - although I can see a lot of benefits with regard to writing collaboratively. I think the ability to share articles and references in such a way is great - it just doesn't really relate to anything I do, so while I am glad to have actually found out what it is, I am not going to go any further with it at this stage.

I decided to explore Mendeley instead, simply because I am in the early stages of writing an article for a journal, and consequently have what feels like about a zillion different articles that I'm in the process of reading through, or have decided could be useful in terms of extracting material from. So to find a tool that will help me to keep track of all this is fantastic. I completely agree with Isla - the last big piece of written work I did was my MSc dissertation, and the manual insertion of all the references was something that took me quite literally hours, as I was so worried about making a mistake that I ended up checking them through several times - and nearly losing my sanity in the process!

Mendeley is not only great because I have been able to upload all my PDF articles to one place, but it also will hopefully enable me to create my final bibliography with a lot more ease than the manual job I had at dissertation time. I also love this annotation functionality - I used to have to work from hard copies because I like to highlight/annotate as I read, which you can't normally do in an PDF onscreen. With Mendeley you are able to do this, and then you don't even lose your annotations when you print - brilliant!

While this tool definitely has a lot of potential use in terms of writing articles, or even keeping track of current awareness materials that are particularly interesting, it doesn't really have any relevance to me in my day to day job - nor is it really something that we would be promoting to the fee-earners; simply because this kind of tool is not something we actively use in the corporate law library. I could see great potential for people who work in academic/education libraries, but less so for corporate users. Nonetheless, I am really happy to have discovered this tool - I had no idea such applications even existed!

It's a bit like being a detective - those pesky requests for foreign company information...

If there is one thing that I get asked to do very regularly, it's to find out as much as I can about a particular company, or indeed group of companies. Simple enough, you might think? Ah, if only! The problem that we always encounter is where a company is not based in the UK: unless it's a pretty big operation, the chances of finding out anything authoritative can be very slim indeed. The main reason for this is that filing requirements differ drastically from one country to another - and just to complicate things even more, in the USA, the requirements vary from state to state.

Please note that this is by no means an authoritative guide to looking for company information - this is just to give you an idea of the kind of things we often do when we are asked for this kind of info. Every law library has its own methods/resources/preferences in terms of procedure.

One thing to bear in mind from the outset - whether it's the UK or USA, make sure you establish the correct company name. If you are looking at one little company that's part of a big group of other little companies, they can all have very similar names. Make sure you are looking at the correct entity, and not just a company with a name that's almost the same as the one you were given.

Anyone who does this kind of research regularly will know that in the UK, we are quite lucky when it comes to being able to obtain basic information on a company, because generally speaking, (and I am being VERY GENERAL here -  if it's a partnership for example, there will  be less available - but we won't go into that now!) we can pay for and download a number of documents from Companies House. So if the company has been alive long enough to have filed a set of accounts and an annual return, we can obtain these documents, which give us information like who the company directors and shareholders are, for example. If the company is only recently incorporated then there won't be any of these documents available, but there will be the set of incorporation documents, which will show the directors at the time of incorporation - which is a start at least!

If we're looking at non-UK companies from the outset, then we will often check and see if it is possible to obtain any information free or at cost from the company registry of that country/US state. We also have access to a number of subscription company information databases which we can go to and see if the company is on there. These databases pull their information from a number of sources - sometimes local registry filings, sometimes a wide range of other reports - we try not to rely on them wholly though, as you rarely can be 100% sure that the information is accurate. Where possible we would rather obtain a source document ourselves, but if this can't be done, then databases like this can be invaluable. If we do rely on them, we make it clear to the lawyer where the information has come from and warn him that it may not be 100% authoritative.

If the company is a very large (and if so, it's generally listed on a stock market) then always check the company website. If it is a publicly listed company, then they are required to publicly file annual reports and a plethora of other financial information. So for example, if it's a US public company, they are required to file at the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) - if you look for a form 10-K for that company on the SEC website itself, OR in most cases on the company website as well, then you will be able access a wealth of information, as the 10-K is an annual report. Along with this report and all the information about the business it does, the directors and so on, if you look at the list of Exhibits filed with it and go to Exhibit 21, you will find a list of that company's main subsidiaries - this can be invaluable for many reasons.

If we are looking into a non-UK, very tiny company, and we can't find anything at the local registry AND there isn't any information on any of our databases, then sometimes there is nothing else to do but general internet searching (ssshhh - obviously we don't encourage taking information from unauthoritative sources, but when all else fails, it's a good last resort!) Press searches are worth a shot too, as by this stage, you are often so desperate to just find anything to prove that the company does - or did - actually exist, that even just a random article mentioning them can make your day! Moreover, this kind of searching may not lead you to the company name you have been given by the fee-earner, but it might just lead you in the right direction somehow - you might find a company owned by the same group, for example, which might in turn provide you with another lead for the company you were looking at originally...

Sometimes after establishing who is behind the company, we then go onto find out information about them - if they are individual people we will try and find out what other companies they are associated with; and if it's another company that owns the company in question, we will try and find out more about it. Often you end up tracing the chain of people/companies involved back further and further until you either reach the top of the chain, or you find that you come across an entity that is registered in somewhere very remote like the British Virgin Islands - and suddenly you will find that your searching almost grinds to a halt!

Companies registered in places like the Cayman Islands/British Virgin Islands and so on, are generally filed there for a reason - the main reasons being that there are various tax benefits AND the filing requirements are minimal - so it's good for the company owner, not so good for us back in the UK trying to obtain authoritative information on them. These offshore types of registries do make it very difficult to obtain any information at all - the process is often extremely protracted and if you do manage to follow it through without losing your sanity in the process, then you often find that all you get at the end of it is little more than an incorporation date!

It's times like this where we can offer our lawyers the services of a specialist company information provider. Most law firm libraries tend to use one - the prices for obtaining information on non-UK entities can be pretty pricey, which does put a lot of our lawyers off using them, but if they are really desperate, there is often no other way. These providers often have links to agents in the very country in which you're interested, so they can obtain information a lot easier than we can back in good old Blighty....

Well - there you have it - a VERY general look at the problems and pitfalls of conducting research on non-UK companies. Sometimes it really does feel like being a detective, as one small piece of information from the most random place can lead you to the very information you need on a particular company.

 Now I wonder what jurisdiction I'll be looking into this week...anyone know the filing requirements in Albania....?!! :)

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=809

cpd23 - the challenge has begun!

Today is the day so many of us have been waiting for - the start of the cpd23 challenge!

I know I told you a little bit about myself in my very first blog post, but I'd just like to take that a bit further in light of getting started with 'Thing 1' - why I'm taking part in this course and what I hope to get out of it.

To recap, I work for a law firm in the City, in what we refer to as the Information Centre - which is also commonly known in its more traditional sense - the Library. However, although we're often referred to as the Library, we have quite a wide-ranging role, traditional library duties being merely a small part of that role. We handle a wide range of legal research enquiries, along with a great deal of business development work; that is, compiling reports and obtaining other intelligence on companies/individuals worldwide in order to assist fee-earners with pitches for new business.

I have worked in law firm libraries for about 5 and a half years now; my background prior to this was chiefly in the insurance industry. I obtained my MSc from City University in 2010 after studying part time over two years. I decided to take part in the cpd 23 project because I am now working towards my CILIP Chartership qualification, and I felt that this would be a really good way of trying out things that I would normally not even consider - a blog itself being one of those things! I am hoping that the programme will give me more opportunities to get involved in areas that I wouldn't otherwise, as well maybe even make some new contacts! Not only that, but the fact that reflection on professional development forms an important part of the Chartership process means that this blog gives me another forum in which to do so. I am hoping it will help me to get as much as I can out of all of the 'Things' in the programme, as well as anything else that I do outside of the programme.

I have already written a post about a couple of training sessions I attended recently on recruitment/interviewing skills, so I am hoping to write about such things in conjunction with my posts on the cpd 23 challenge.

In the meantime, I look forward to checking out some fellow participants' blogs!