Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly • Hacker News Board

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#51

Post by mothballed » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 12:46 AM UTC

singleshot_ wrote: post #49

rockskon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't Nevada update its own laws on its own website?

The answer is probaly embedded within the concept of codification of acts. Legislatures pass acts, which are kind of like diffs for statutory law. But there is no base document, just a series of diffs from the beginning. Somewhere along the way, someone did a lot of work to “codify” the law, and when you go look up 18 USC 1001, and then click “next,” you are taking advantage of the codification process. But the perso…

I would argue it does matter because the public has to know all the law as ignorance of the law is no excuse. If Westlaw is limited or an unreasonable monetary burden on the populace (or possibly, depending on your argument, costs anything at all) then the argument kind of evaporates of how you can prosecute someone, because an essential part of law is that the party under criminal penalty must be put under clear notice of what is illegal.

IMO, this should also extend to opinions -- if there is precedent that guides what the law is, it needs to be publicly published free of charge so that the public is put under notice what the law is. (someone might mention something like PACER is free in small quantities, I would counter it would cost you a gazillion dollars to be fully informed of all the precedent that forms the full common law meaning of the laws.) This is especially important in mala prohibita crimes since there's no way to even guess through moral/ethical deduction.

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#52

Post by Terr_ » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 12:49 AM UTC

I wonder if anything would happen from a law stating that government (judges, clerks, legislators, etc.) may not pay less for access than the public.

Could it align incentives for future reform, or would it just blow to the bottom line of these companies?

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#53

Post by sjy » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 1:01 AM UTC

esbranson wrote: post #29

If you're trying to fix anything relating to public policy, politics, &c., without fixing this you are wasting your time. You will make a bigger difference adopting a local stretch of highway and picking up litter. It is maddening to see generation after generation learn this the hard way. FLP's CourtListener RECAP hits hard, but it has no counterparts either worldwide or within the US. If it goes offline, democracy…

No counterparts worldwide? Here in Australia, all significant case law has been published on AustLII, which is freely accessible and searchable, since about 2000. I think CanLII and NZLII are equally comprehensive. Government law publishers provide free and authoritative access to all statutes. Lexis and Westlaw still make money by publishing commentary and summaries, but paywalled primary sources are an American problem.

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#54

Post by thayne » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 1:07 AM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #20

chaps wrote: post #8

I do a lot of IL criminal courts research and it's really, really fucking bad out there. Transcripts: Multiple dollars per pages. Want that expedited? Multiply that amount by four. Don't know the court date? Can't get your transcript. Clerks put in the wrong date? Tough luck. Payment for those transcripts? Over Zelle because the court reporters themselves are contractors and get paid independently. FOIA: IL Judicial…

> Transcripts: Multiple dollars per pages. Want that expedited? Multiply that amount by four. Don't know the court date? Can't get your transcript. Clerks put in the wrong date? Tough luck. Payment for those transcripts? Over Zelle because the court reporters themselves are contractors and get paid independently. Is this because a person has to literally transcribe the stenographer's notes into plain English? Is it e…

I don't know much about stenography, but that seems like something that would be trivial for a computer to do.

And certainly something that would only have to be done once...

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#55

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 1:13 AM UTC

chaps wrote: post #8

I do a lot of IL criminal courts research and it's really, really fucking bad out there. Transcripts: Multiple dollars per pages. Want that expedited? Multiply that amount by four. Don't know the court date? Can't get your transcript. Clerks put in the wrong date? Tough luck. Payment for those transcripts? Over Zelle because the court reporters themselves are contractors and get paid independently. FOIA: IL Judicial…

Meth labs of democracy

I've been frustrated by this stuff for many years, and come to the sad conclusion that corruption in American public life is simply endemic. Lawmakers could and should prioritize the public availability of public legislative and judicial proceedings, but habitually choose not to, preferring obfuscation over clarity.

I buy into Plato's concept (sometimes attributed to Tactitus) that 'the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.'

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#56

Post by troad » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 1:17 AM UTC

sjy wrote: post #53

esbranson wrote: post #29

If you're trying to fix anything relating to public policy, politics, &c., without fixing this you are wasting your time. You will make a bigger difference adopting a local stretch of highway and picking up litter. It is maddening to see generation after generation learn this the hard way. FLP's CourtListener RECAP hits hard, but it has no counterparts either worldwide or within the US. If it goes offline, democracy…

No counterparts worldwide? Here in Australia, all significant case law has been published on AustLII, which is freely accessible and searchable, since about 2000. I think CanLII and NZLII are equally comprehensive. Government law publishers provide free and authoritative access to all statutes. Lexis and Westlaw still make money by publishing commentary and summaries, but paywalled primary sources are an American pro…

AustLII, CanLII and NZLII are all clones of the original Legal Information Institute (LII) from Cornell University. [0]

Most Australian courts require or prefer that case law be cited using exact page numbers from the 'authorised reports', i.e. the ones published by Westlaw or LexisNexis.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#57

Post by chaps » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 1:17 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #50

chaps wrote: post #8

I do a lot of IL criminal courts research and it's really, really fucking bad out there. Transcripts: Multiple dollars per pages. Want that expedited? Multiply that amount by four. Don't know the court date? Can't get your transcript. Clerks put in the wrong date? Tough luck. Payment for those transcripts? Over Zelle because the court reporters themselves are contractors and get paid independently. FOIA: IL Judicial…

I assume there's some reason you can't, but it'd be nice if one could simply declare that the civil forfeiture case is invalid when no criminal case exists, and place the burden of proof back where it belongs.

Friend, I highly highly recommend you do some court watching. The courts.. really, really, really do not work that way.

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#58

Post by chaps » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 1:25 AM UTC

thayne wrote: post #54

jandrese wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Transcripts: Multiple dollars per pages. Want that expedited? Multiply that amount by four. Don't know the court date? Can't get your transcript. Clerks put in the wrong date? Tough luck. Payment for those transcripts? Over Zelle because the court reporters themselves are contractors and get paid independently. Is this because a person has to literally transcribe the stenographer's notes into plain English? Is it e…

I don't know much about stenography, but that seems like something that would be trivial for a computer to do. And certainly something that would only have to be done once...

The human should be left in the loop, full stop. Language is hard and court rooms can be chaotic places and you want the transcript to be clean.

(disability accomodations is a different conversation altogether)

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#59

Post by gmueckl » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

singleshot_ wrote: post #49

rockskon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't Nevada update its own laws on its own website?

The answer is probaly embedded within the concept of codification of acts. Legislatures pass acts, which are kind of like diffs for statutory law. But there is no base document, just a series of diffs from the beginning. Somewhere along the way, someone did a lot of work to “codify” the law, and when you go look up 18 USC 1001, and then click “next,” you are taking advantage of the codification process. But the perso…

The codification needs to become part of the process of passing acts. The government should be required to publish the updated code themselves along with any act that changed it. The whole concept that a commercial entity can have rights to the fully assembled text is terribly broken.

If anybody is worried about the jobs those businesses created, then tell them to pivot into publishing commented editions of the codes (add cross-references, references to relevant court decisions, etc.).

Re: Gatekeepers of Law: Inside the Westlaw and LexisNexis Duopoly

#60

Post by Terr_ » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 2:23 AM UTC

chaps wrote: post #57

Terr_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume there's some reason you can't, but it'd be nice if one could simply declare that the civil forfeiture case is invalid when no criminal case exists, and place the burden of proof back where it belongs.

Friend, I highly highly recommend you do some court watching. The courts.. really, really, really do not work that way.

Pal, I think the immediate disclaimer at the very beginning is enough to show that I'm being wistful.