ILNews

Legal briefs raise copyright questions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Indiana attorneys are used to submitting briefs to the courts and having access to pleadings filed by other lawyers.

Public access is a given, most appellate lawyers agree, and neither that practice nor the policy of sending those briefs to legal publishers for publication is at issue in Indiana.

chris brown Brown

But that could change. A federal lawsuit in New York is challenging the practice by legal publishers, such as WestLaw and LexisNexis, to digitally collect and sell legal briefs and memoranda on the grounds that it’s a violation of federal copyright law.

Those in the intellectual property world say it’s an intriguing issue and one that might give lawyers here reason to pause and think about whether their work might be open to copyright protection.

“This is an interesting issue, and the outcome of this case could be persuasive and even controlling throughout the nation,” said Chris Brown, a partner with Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry in Indianapolis. “Yes, it’s an academic question, but it’s something we’ve discussed in the office about who would own the copyright to our briefs and pleadings. We may find out the answer to that in this lawsuit.”

In the putative class action filed Feb. 22 in the Southern District of New York, two lawyers – Edward L. White, of Oklahoma, and Kenneth Elan, of New York – are seeking damages, disgorgement of profits and a declaratory judgment against West Publishing and LexisNexis for engaging in what they call “the unabashed wholesale copying of thousands of copyright-protected works created by and owned by the attorney and law firms.”

White, an IP attorney, said in the complaint and exhibits that he obtained copyright registration for 22 legal documents he’s written as far back as March 2007. His plaintiff status represents those lawyers who may have obtained copyright protection for their work; the second possible subclass is attorneys who haven’t obtained that registration. Elan is a commercial litigator who claims the defendants had no right to include his documents in their electronic databases. He did not copyright his work.

No court hearings in the suit had been scheduled by IL deadline.

The case will likely turn on the issue of whether publishing the content produced by the attorneys constitutes fair use, a legal question that includes an analysis of whether the companies provide valuable services for researchers and educators or whether the commercial use transforms the work into a for-profit market. Legal experts say this case appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S., but it’s been on the horizon for years.

mark mckenna McKenna

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California received a complaint by attorney Edmond Conner about the court’s sending of lawyers’ legal briefs to the legal publishers. He asked that court to change its rule of sending two of the four copies to Lexis and Westlaw in order to prevent those briefs from being sold for profit. Conner submitted a 143-page brief on an indigent client’s employment discrimination case and was shocked to learn that the brief and the hundreds of hours of work was being marketed by legal publishers and sold to other lawyers.

As an alternate to automatic transmission to WestLaw and Lexis, Connor proposed a system that would allow lawyers to control whether their briefs would be sent to the publishing companies and would enable the lawyers to share in earnings for those distributed materials. Connor wrote in a letter to the court that he had no problem with all briefs going online because it wouldn’t involve commercial sales by the legal publishers.

That line between profit and public access is one that Notre Dame Law School professor Mark McKenna sees as important in the federal case against the legal publishers.

“These briefs are filed with courts and people have an interest in public accessibility to these documents,” McKenna said. “You’re supposed to have access to these, and this is an extension of that effort to make the legal system more visible. But there’s a question of fair use and the commercial use, and that’s a non-trivial question.”

The question, he asks, is what these lawyers think they might get out of this suit as far as damages.

“My own view is that the fair use arguments are strong for the legal publisher, and that the (lawyers) here are probably poking the legal research companies that have traditionally sued (other firms and companies) and strategically used copyright laws to protect themselves from competitors. It’s ironic that a party that’s been an aggressive copyright claimant in the past now has to defend the public use of a brief,” McKenna said.

schantz Brown

Many courts do send briefs to Westlaw and/or LexisNexis along with other documents under bulk data agreements, but so far the New York suit is the only legal challenge to the practice.

In Indiana, Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith said his office has an arrangement with Westlaw to give the publisher a copy of each brief submitted. In exchange, Westlaw allows appellate judges to receive free access to those electronic briefs. The policy began in April 2005.

“In fact, Westlaw adds value to the briefs that would be extremely time-intensive for us to add, if we could at all, such as indexing and hyperlinks to the precedent and other material that the briefs cite as authority,” Smith said.

To Indianapolis IP attorney Matt Schantz, the lawsuit raises questions about legal publishers’ practices of receiving briefs from courts throughout the country and selling those at a price for legal research.

“I don’t think the components of the fair use analysis weigh favorably for publications like WestLaw in this situation, because the purpose is a commercial one and they’re making money off these briefs,” Schantz said. “In the clerk’s situation, that sounds more like educational and public access. But I don’t see publishers having the same kind of basis in what they’re doing with these briefs.”

Greenfield IP attorney Paul Overhauser sees a solid argument for copyright infringement. He’s observed this issue come up on multiple IP list servers.

“You see copying a lot from other lawyers, and this can be a way to curb that. But this is about legal publishers making money and not sharing a penny with those who put blood, sweat and tears into writing them. That’s not right,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT