The core of the Freelance Lawyering Success Packages is the Freelance Freedom recording. In this 2.5-hr. video, I answer these important questions:

• What is the most powerful way to market your services as a freelance lawyer?
• How much should you charge, and how can you make sure you get paid?
• What ethical issues arise in the freelance lawyering relationship, and how are those resolved?
• Should you obtain your own malpractice insurance?
• If you want to concentrate on legal research and writing, do you need your own Lexis or Westlaw/WestlawNext subscription? How can you get the best deal from these companies? What alternatives are available?
• How can you compete with foreign LPOs?
• What impact will the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission’s revised initial proposal concerning changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct have on freelance attorneys and the lawyers who hire them?
• Why is a shaky economy good news for freelance lawyers?

This recording is chock-full of information for all types of contract lawyers—whether you want to handle depositions for other lawyers, assist with discovery or trial prep, cover court appearances, or offer legal research and writing services.

All of the Success Packages also include the Freelance Freedom Companion Guide. This unique e-book contains a comprehensive collection of ethics opinions from across the country that are relevant to freelance lawyers and the attorneys who hire them. As a bonus, you also get a sample services agreement (in MS Word format)—the same agreement I use in my own successful practice as a freelance lawyer.

Visit the LRWP products page for more information about the Silver, Gold, Platinum and Platinum Plus Freelance Lawyering Success Packages.

The New York County Lawyers Association is one of those forward-thinking bar associations. On Thursday, November 10, NYCLA will be hosting my live presentation of an updated Freelance Freedom: How to Get Started as an Independent Contract Lawyer at its headquarters in downtown Manhattan.

Here’s the complete program description:

Outsourcing is the wave of the future. But it’s not just for big firms and the staffing agencies that serve those firms. Freelance attorneys are a growing cadre of solo practitioners who, enabled by technology, work on a project-by-project basis for other lawyers. More and more lawyers—from newly-admitted attorneys who are tired of sitting on the sidelines of the legal job market to experienced attorneys who want an intellectually fulfilling legal career and work/life balance—are entering this practice area.

This program will address these important questions:

• What is the most powerful way to market your services as a contract lawyer?
• How much should you charge, and how can you make sure you get paid? What ethical issues arise in the freelance lawyering relationship, and how are those resolved?
• Should you obtain your own malpractice insurance?
• If you want to concentrate on legal research and writing, do you need your own Lexis or Westlaw/WestlawNext subscription? How can you get the best deal from these companies? What alternatives are available?
• How can you compete with foreign LPOs?
• What impact will the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission’s proposed changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct have on freelance attorneys and the lawyers who hire them?
• Why is a shaky economy good news for freelance lawyers?

This 2.5-credit CLE program will be held on Thursday, November 10 from 6:25 to 8:30 p.m, following a brief networking reception that starts at 6:00. To register, click here.

Dahn has “responded” to the first issue raised in my post in a follow-up post at rethinc.k:

To understand actual pricing differences, it’s necessary to examine the totality of transactions rather than individual transactions, and the cost of out-of-contract charges will be especially important . . . . Lisa says that it’s much more expensive to retrieve an ALR article in WestlawNext than in Westlaw Classic, but it depends how you retrieve it. When we look at our server logs, it is extremely rare for researchers to type in a citation to retrieve an ALR—much more likely that they’ll search for one. If ALR is outside of your subscription plan and you’re paying retail, the cost of an ALR citation retrieval for something specific, like an ALR on sex-plus discrimination claims, will be almost twice in WestlawNext what it costs in Westlaw Classic—however, the more common scenario of searching for an ALR on sex-plus discrimination would cost a firm three times more in Westlaw Classic than it would in WestlawNext.

With that example, am I claiming that WestlawNext is three times less expensive than Westlaw Classic? No, of course not. It’s not very useful to look at individual transactions in isolation. I could easily list a dozen research scenarios where the retail pricing is dramatically less in WestlawNext and another dozen where the retail pricing is dramatically more. For customers who care about retail pricing differences at all (only matters when going outside your subscription plan or when using our retail pricing structure as a basis for determining costs for client charges—in other words, not relevant to most Westlaw users most of the time), I’d encourage them to look at the totality of hourly and/or transactional charges within and across research sessions.

We’ve recently had the managing partner of an Am Law 200 firm tell us that, since subscribing to WestlawNext, they’re now turning research projects around in one tenth the time. Undoubtedly, if you were to take selected pieces of that firm’s WestlawNext research sessions and compare them with selected pieces of their prior research sessions in Westlaw Classic, you could find instances where the retail charges were higher in WestlawNext, but it’s the totality of the transactions that matter more. We now have 52% of Am Law 100 firms subscribing to WestlawNext, and the way they have tended to analyze these issues prior to subscribing is by running a trial with a subset of attorneys and then asking two questions: (1) are our out-of-contract costs up or down significantly when comparing this group’s usage to previous projects or control groups? And (2) are the in-contract price allocations for client cost recovery up or down significantly when comparing this group’s usage to previous projects or control groups using historical discount rates?

The first question is the more important one. . . .using a trial group of attorneys and looking at the totality of costs and charges over many research sessions is the right way to approach this, as opposed to homing in on specific transaction cost differences and then guessing how it will play out.

Dahn’s response falls short in a number of respects.

First, Dahn simply ignored the fact that the content that is part of the ResultsPlus Westlaw plan subscription is simply unavailable in a comparable plan on WestlawNext.

Second, I did not say that it’s more expensive to “retrieve an ALR article in WestlawNext than in Westlaw Classic.” This makes it sound like my criticism applies only to a specific type of secondary source. In fact, I noted that it costs 75% more to retrieve any “Premium State and Speciality” secondary source document, and 91% more to retrieve any “Premium National” secondary source document, by citation on WestlawNext than on Westlaw.

Third, Dahn’s response actually contradicts the position he espoused in the original rethinc.k interviews. There, Dahn said:

Since WestlawNext aggregates multiple content sets under a single low search price, researchers should be more likely to browse content beyond cases and statutes—which is exactly what we see in our usage logs. In WestlawNext, secondary source usage as a percentage of total usage is up 50% over the ratios we see in Westlaw Classic. We think that’s a very good thing for researchers.

As a librarian, I always encouraged both students and associates to leverage secondary sources in their research—the right secondary source can literally save hours of time, and that time savings is a cost savings to clients. When I first came to West, I tried to promote the use of secondary sources within Westlaw, and our first project to accomplish that in a big way was ResultsPlus. With it, we saw a significant boost in secondary source usage, but WestlawNext takes it to a whole new level, making sure that relevant secondary sources are not just suggested on the side, but made an integral part of the main search result.

Now, however, Dahn contends that “[w]hen we look at our server logs, it is extremely rare for researchers to type in a citation to retrieve an ALR—much more likely that they’ll search for one.” Notice that Dahn did not say that it’s rare for a researcher to retrieve a secondary source by linking to it from the WestlawNext search results. Indeed, we can assume that it’s common to retrieve a secondary source by linking to it from the WestlawNext search results because secondary source usage is much higher in WestlawNext than in Westlaw.

If a secondary source is not within a user’s subscription plan, when the user retrieves a section from that source by linking to it from a WestlawNext search result, the user is charged a per-document fee, which (as noted above) is significantly higher for many of the secondary sources that are most valuable to practitioners. As I noted in my last post, while it makes sense for Thomson Reuters to achieve its goal of recouping its R&D costs to develop WestSearch (the WestlawNext search algorithm) by increasing the cost of subscription plans, it makes no sense to increase the cost of retrieving a document by citation.

Dahn’s response to that point shows where Thomson Reuters’ real sympathies lie. He says: “For customers who care about retail pricing differences at all (only matters when going outside your subscription plan. . . .—in other words, not relevant to most Westlaw users most of the time).” He also references the fact that 52% of Am Law 100 firms now subscribe to WestlawNext. Of course, it makes sense that large firms—the only customers who really matter to Thomson Reuters—would generally have broad subscription plans that include many secondary sources. But for solos and small firms—in other words, the vast majority of lawyers in this country*—who (I strongly suspect) generally have much more limited subscription plans, retail pricing does matter. ResultsPlus (in which the first click on any materials outside a user’s subscription plan that display to the right of the regular search results is “free”) helped even the playing field for Westlaw subscribers, but it’s not available in WestlawNext. WestlawNext’s pricing structure for document retrieval by citation is as regressive a burden on those firms as Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is on the poor.

*As of 2000 (the most recent year for which the ABA has published statistics), 70% of private practitioners were either in solo practice or employed in firms of 10 attorneys or fewer.

I’ve always conceded that, for the most part, WestlawNext is superior to Westlaw. However, I’ve been outspoken in my criticism of WestlawNext’s pricing (does that make me a “hater”?). One of Dahn’s comments in this new interview has led me to revisit this issue.

Dahn says:

As a librarian, I always encouraged both students and associates to leverage secondary sources in their research – the right secondary source can literally save hours of time, and that time savings is a cost savings to clients. When I first came to West, I tried to promote the use of secondary sources within Westlaw, and our first project to accomplish that in a big way was ResultsPlus. With it, we saw a significant boost in secondary source usage, but WestlawNext takes it to a whole new level, making sure that relevant secondary sources are not just suggested on the side, but made an integral part of the main search result.

In addition, if you want to browse content like ALR or jury verdicts in Westlaw Classic, and they’re not included in your subscription plan, you must pay an out-of-plan cost to search them before you can browse anything—and you’ll have to try this with database after database. In WestlawNext, ALL searching is included within subscription plans (even if the underlying content is not), and we show more of a document preview in WestlawNext than we do in Westlaw Classic, so customers can browse previews of content outside their subscription plan all day long without incurring extra charges. This not only encourages browsing, but it tends to reduce out-of-plan costs . . . . [W]ith WestlawNext you can search repeatedly and browse content previews all you want, and you only pay for the out-of-plan document you click on. This will almost always cost much less than what it would have cost to search and browse in Westlaw Classic. And in WestlawNext, any search that turns up nothing costs you nothing (in terms of incremental charges), but in Westlaw Classic, if your search results in no relevant documents, you still pay an out-of-contract cost for the search.

These comments fail to address two critical aspects of the Westlaw Classic v. WestlawNext analysis: (1) the true cost of using out-of-plan secondary sources on WestlawNext; and (2) pricing for the valuable content that is included in ResultsPlus.

The true cost of accessing out-of-plan secondary sources on WestlawNext

To be fair, I omitted from the above quote Dahn’s statement that “I heard from a large law firm librarian the other day who said her out-of-plan costs were down 67% in WestlawNext compared with Westlaw Classic.” However, a comment from one large-firm librarian is not an accurate reflection of the true costs of accessing out-of-plan resources (including secondary sources) on WestlawNext. Because, after all, while it’s great to be able to browse document previews, we all know that—just as you would never cite a case after reading a headnote instead of the case itself—the important thing is the document, not the document preview. In this regard,

[o]f course, WN search results may alert legal researchers to issues they would otherwise overlook. But they need not start with a WN search to remedy this deficiency. Secondary sources in a law library appear more likely than WN searches to save legal researchers time, and their clients unnecessary search costs, as long as researchers have ready access to a law library, and know how to effectively use the sources or receive instruction. At “retail,” transactional rates, a WN search costs $60, and then $42 to view a section of a “premium state [or] speciality title.” (TR Legal, WestlawNext Pricing Guide for Commercial Plans (Feb. 2010)) WN search results may include a larger collection of relevant secondary sources. But you may incur unnecessary cost to run even one search on WN, and view several documents, at least if you can gain the needed context from a treatise or legal encyclopedia in your institution’s law library. Moreover, it will cost almost twice as much in WN than in WC to view “speciality title” sections. (TR Legal, Westlaw Pricing Guide For Private Price Plans (Apr. 2010)).

* * *

Suppose you are a California attorney. Anticipating criminal law as the likely context, you could start with Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000). Using WN or WC, you could browse the table of contents to find the relevant discussion:

Chapter XIV. Criminal Trial – X. RIGHT TO AND SELECTION OF JURY – A. Right to Jury Trial – 4. Waiver of Right. – h. [§ 459] Effect of Waiver on Retrial.

WN users can still access the table of contents of Cal. Criminal Law and other secondary sources. But it will cost them more to do so. Under a private plan’s “retail,” transactional rate, it costs $24 to retrieve Cal. Criminal Law § 459 from WC; however, it costs $42, or almost twice as much, to retrieve this section from WN. This difference in cost has significant consequences for charges to clients and cost recovery, because the difference will have iterations every time WN users rely on WN’s print-based features. Thus Cal. Criminal Law § 459 cites to People v Solis, 66 Cal.App.4th 62, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 570 (1998). The case would lead you to another helpful secondary source:

Although there are no published opinions in California specifically addressing whether a jury trial waiver remains in effect for a subsequent retrial of the same case, the contention has been considered and rejected in many other state and federal courts. (United States v. Groth (6th Cir.1982) 682 F.2d 578; United States v. Lee, supra, 539 F.2d 606, 610; People v. Mixon (1994) 271, 111. App.3d 999, 208 Ill.Dec. 385, 387, 649 N.E.2d 441, 443; People v. Hamm (1980) 100 Mich. App. 429, 298 N.W.2d 896, 898; State v. Di Frisco (1990) 118 N.J. 253, 571 A.2d 914, 930; see also Annot., Waiver of Right to Trial by Jury as Affecting Right to Trial by Jury on 573-573 Subsequent Trial of Same Case in Federal Court (1984) 66 A.L.R.Fed 859, 869, § 7 and cases cited.)” (77 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 572-73).

(Links omitted)

It costs $24 to retrieve the ALR document from WC, but $46 to retrieve it from WN. And if the ALR led to other secondary sources, the cost difference repeats itself.

The WestSearch Straitjacket For Legal Research—Thinking Beyond The Keyword: Part I. Although Dahn criticizes the fact that the author of this post is anonymous, the facts contained in the paragraphs quoted above are undeniable.

While I continue to believe that Thomson Reuters should have absorbed the cost of developing WestSearch (the WestlawNext algorithm) as part of its R&D budget, since the company is as intent on cost-recovery as it urges its customers to be, it makes sense to reflect those costs in increased rates for subscription plans (which encourage searching within one’s plan). However, WestSearch has no impact on what it takes to retrieve a document by citation. Why, then, does it cost 75% more to retrieve a “Premium State and Speciality” secondary source document, and 91% more to retrieve a “Premium National” secondary source document, by citation on WestlawNext than on Westlaw?

There is also plenty of anecdotal information to counter Dahn’s single positive anecdote about out-of-plan savings with WestlawNext. For example, from WestlawNext: Pros and Cons and General Comments from Law Librarians (summary of comments posted to the American Association of Law Librarians listserv):

• Way too expensive.
   
  * * *

• When we research an issue, it isn’t unusual for an attorney to scan 40 or 50 cases at a time to get the total picture – the WLN pricing structure penalizes this kind of exhaustive research by charging for each result viewed, while the WL Classic model supports it.
   
  * * *

• Dislike. It is very expensive and our ability to bill back suffered as an overall percentage of recovery because with two systems, usage stayed the same but the bill got bigger.

From How widespread is WestlawNext? (summarizing comments about WestlawNext posted on Northern California Association of Law Libraries (NOCALL) listserv):

Though honestly we haven’t embraced it completely and probably won’t until West tells us they are pulling the plug on classic. I think it is a good product. I like the $60.00 search and the left-hand screen that guides you to your hits. The biggest issue is the pricing per document. Those clicks just add up.

The Non-Availability of Subscripton Pricing for ResultsPlus Content

Since I find ResultsPlus to be an important part of my Westlaw subscription, my previous posts about WestlawNext included painstaking analysis of the availability of a comparable plan on WestlawNext. To cut to the chase, there isn’t one that even comes close. (Rather than re-post my earlier analyses, I refer you to My WestlawNext Upgrade Negotiations: Proof that West Isn’t Interested in the Solo Market and Westlaw Reps Don’t Know their A$$es From their Elbows When it Comes to WestlawNext Packages and Pricing.)

Combining my analysis with Dahn’s recent comments reveals is that, while WestlawNext may have achieved the (laudatory) goal of increasing the use of secondary sources, it is also achieving the (laudatory only from the perspective of TR and its shareholders) goal of increasing out-of-plan charges for the use of those sources.

One final point: Mike notes that there has been a lot of “positive Twitter commentary” about WestlawNext. I suspect that the vast majority of that commentary is from law students—in other words, people who (1) have little or no real-world research experience with Westlaw or WestlawNext; and (2) do not pay to use WestlawNext, and therefore have no idea of the charges they would incur for their research in the real world.

In a follow-up post on her blog, The 6Ps of the Big 3, Amanda identified the following points as highlights of the chat:

• Business: Freelance lawyers are business owners who set their own hours and decide what work they want to do (i.e., substantive leglankal research and writing).
• Malpractice insurance: Freelance lawyers need their own malpractice insurance and you can read why in Lisa’s guide to contract lawyering.
• Ethical considerations: All states allow freelance lawyering. ABA Formal Op 08-451 is the main ethics opinion regarding freelance lawyering, and you can read Lisa’s analysis of the opinion here.
• Resources: Resources/organizations supporting freelance lawyers include: (1) National Association of Freelance Legal Professionals; (2) Freelance Law; (3) Legal Research & Writing Pro; and (4) list of technology Lisa uses in her freelance practice.
• Law Students: Law students can even freelance through Law Clerk Connection.
• Getting Started: Go where the clients are–for example, litigation section of your bar association. Talk to small firm lawyers and solos and offer to take some work off their hands.

You can read the full chat transcript here.

Thanks to Amanda and Melissa for inviting me to co-host #LawJobChat. For information about future #LawJobChats, follow @LawJobChat on Twitter or subscribe to Amanda’s blog.

This, of course, was an invitation I couldn’t resist. Along with Melody Kramer and Amanda Mineer of the National Association of Freelance Legal Professionals, I submitted the following comment urging the Commission to take into account the impact that its study will have on both the solos and small firms that outsource legal work and the U.S.-based freelance lawyers who serve them:

Response to ABA Ethics 20/20 Call for Comments About Domestic and International Legal Process Outsourcing

Please share your views on this subject in the comments below. And, if you’re reading this on Friday, May 7, you still have a chance to share them with the ABA, too.

Legal bloggers have generally given WestlawNext’s improved search algorithm and user interface high marks. However, they’ve been critical of West’s lack of transparency about pricing and the complexity of its pricing model. To help level the playing field in negotiations between West and its customers, I’ve shared the progress of my upgrade negotiations in a series of posts over the past two months (WestlawNext Preview: Product and Pricing My WestlawNext Upgrade Negotiations: Proof that West Isn’t Interested in the Solo Market, WestlawNext Pricing Information and Reaction from Firm Law Librarians and Westlaw Reps Don’t Know their A$$es From their Elbows When it Comes to WestlawNext Packages and Pricing). Until today, though, I didn’t know what the bottom line would be.

The Bottom Line Analysis

Here’s what my Westlaw plan looked like as of early February (this month, a scheduled price increase brought the total cost up to $514):

Here is the pricing breakdown for three proposals my Westlaw rep set to me on February 8 (all monthly prices have been adjusted to reflect the 45% discount I would get for being willing to sign a new 3-year contract at this time):

The above proposals don’t include ResultsPlus because West is not offering ResultsPlus in WestlawNext. Furthermore, while the All Analytical and National Secondary Sources – Premium databases contain some useful secondary sources, the vast majority of sources included in ResultsPlus are not included in either All Analytical or National Secondary Sources – Premium.

Comparing my current plan to the WestlawNext proposals revealed that West would be charging an 11% premium for the power to search with the WestlawNext algorithm in the same database (All Cases & Statutes NY Gold with Regs Plus Database). While I believe that West shouldn’t charge its current subscribers anything to “upgrade” to WestlawNext, an 11% increase is in line with the pre-launch prediction offered by Jason Eiseman, Tom Boone, Greg Lambert and Jason Wilson.

On February 11, my rep’s sales manager told me that my rep had “failed to mention” that the pricing in the preceding chart was “introductory pricing” that was valid only until February 28th. So I asked the obvious question: what would the prices for each plan component be as of March 1?

It took more than a month (and quite a few strongly-worded e-mails to both my sales rep and his manager) to get a straight answer to my question. But now that I know, I can’t really blame my rep and his manager for hemming and hawing. Here are the current proposals (again, monthly prices have been adjusted to reflect the 45% 3-year contract discount):

	Proposal #1	Proposal #2	Proposal #3
Total	$804.18	$1,102.14	$758.56
All Cases & Statutes NY Gold w/Regs Plus	$507.00	$507.00
All Analytical Library	$297.18		$297.58*
National Secondary Sources - Premium		$595.14
All Cases & Statutes			$334.62
NY Analytical			$126.36

*As in original

Yes, that’s right: West believes that the WestlawNext algorithm is so valuable that its customers will be willing to pay a 68% premium to use it. While I think it generally pays to be an early adopter, this is one price I’m not willing to pay. Are you?

The Background

Before you read further, if you’re not familiar with my previous posts about WestlawNext pricing—My WestlawNext Upgrade Negotiations: Proof that West Isn’t Interested in the Solo Market and WestlawNext Pricing Information and Reaction from Firm Law Librarians—I encourage you to read them now. In case you don’t have time, here’s the abridged version:

Here’s what my Westlaw plan looked like as of early February (this month, a scheduled price increase brought the total cost up to $514):

Here is the pricing breakdown for three proposals my Westlaw rep set to me on February 8 (all monthly prices have been adjusted to reflect the 45% discount I would get for being willing to sign a new 3-year contract at this time):

After some back-and-forth discussion with my sales rep, I moved up the Thomson Reuters food chain to my sales rep’s manager. On February 11, the sales manager discovered that my rep had “failed to mention” that the pricing in the preceding chart was “introductory pricing” that was valid only until February 28th. He also asked me to keep the negotiations confidential. On February 13, I asked the sales manager what the prices would be as of March 1. On February 22, the sales manager told me that the post-February 28 prices for all of the WestlawNext plan components included in the second chart above had not yet been released.

The Update

As soon as March 1 rolled around, I once again asked for the pricing for all of the WestlawNext plan components included in the second chart above. On March 5, my sales rep responded with prices that were not broken down by plan component.

I responded with an e-mail reminding him that I had requested the pricing for all of the WestlawNext plan components included in the second chart above. And I waited. And I waited.

Last week, I spoke to him on the phone and requested the same information. And I waited. And I waited.

On Monday, I e-mailed the sales manager, asking for the same information. The good news is that I got a quick response. The bad news is, here’s the response I got:

We can’t break out pricing by component. Pricing is derived based on the totality of the package and those prices are provided to you below [i.e., in my rep's previous e-mail].

Oh, really? I shot back:

With all due respect, [my rep] previously broke out the pricing by component. Therefore, I know you can do it.

When I sat down to draft this post Monday night, realized that my sale’s rep’s March 5 e-mail gave a price for a package (which I’ll call 3b) that wasn’t included in the first round of proposals.

As mentioned above, West refused to provide updated prices for plan components in the updated packages; I calculated the figures in the chart above using the ratio of the prices of the plan components as stated in the first round of proposals to the total plan prices in that round. Additionally, to facilitate comparison and analysis, in this post, I changed the numbering of the packages from the numbering my rep used in his second round of proposals—which doesn’t correspond to the numbering used in the first round of proposals.

As I explained to the sales manager:

There are a number of discrepancies between the content included in the three Proposals included in [my rep's] February 8 e-mail to me and the content included in [his] March 5 e-mail to me . . . .

* * *

. . . [B]ased on my conversations and correspondence with [my rep], it was my understanding that WestlawNext would not include either Results Plus or Law Reviews & Journals as separately available plans. Please clarify whether: (1) West has changed its mind, and has decided to offer Results Plus and Law Reviews & Journals in WestlawNext; or (2) [my rep] mistakenly included these items in Package [3b] in his March 5 e-mail.

Third, the disparity in prices between Packages [1] and [2] ([in the] March 5) e-mail doesn’t make sense. [My rep] previously explained to me that National Secondary Sources—Premium includes more content than the All Analytical Library. That is backed up by the fact that, in his February 8 proposals, All Analytical was priced at $209.55 while National Secondary Sources—Premium was priced at $419.65. Yet, in the current crop of “Packages,” the package that includes National Secondary Sources—Premium (Package #[2]) is more expensive than the one that includes All Analytical (Package #[1]) (the two packages are otherwise identical).

Finally, as mentioned in my previous e-mail, are the “package” prices quoted in [my rep's] March 5 e-mail the prices before application of the 45% 3-year contract discount or after application of that discount?

Here’s the sales manager’s response:

You are correct that there were some discrepancies in pricing and content in the multiple communications we’ve had. I apologize for these discrepancies, which were errors on our part. I’m sorry for the confusion.

It appears that the loss of ResultsPlus is the biggest issue for you. ResultsPlus is not available on WestlawNext and there is not an exact equivalent product or functionality. If ResultsPlus is a significant factor in your research process today and if the proposed alternative content in combination with the overall WestlawNext benefits are not a good alternative, I would suggest that you keep your current Westlaw plan.

I realize that you asked for more detail on the discrepancies you noted, but e-mail communication does not lend itself to a consultative and efficient conversation about your preferences, and frankly hasn’t worked out well for you so far. I believe an in-person conversation would provide a better forum to address pricing details and how the benefits of WestlawNext can provide you with a superior research experience.

If you have an interest in WestlawNext in the future, please feel free to call me directly.

And my reply:

Are you refusing to discuss this via e-mail? All I asked for in early March were updated prices for the proposals that [my rep] presented me with in early February. Results Plus is in this discussion because (as you now concede) [my rep] mistakenly included pricing for it in his March 5 e-mail to me.

I am fully familiar with the benefits of WestlawNext. I have neither the time nor the desire to meet face-to-face with you or [my rep]. (Don’t worry about losing a sale because of my refusal to meet with you in person: I’ve signed two three-year contracts without meeting with a Westlaw rep in person.)

The complexity of West’s pricing structure, combined with the fact that the reps clearly are not familiar with what is being offered (as demonstrated by the facts that (1) [my rep] “forgot” to mention that the pricing in his February 8 e-mail expired on February 28; and (2) more than a month after WestlawNext launched, [my rep] quoted me prices for plan components that don’t even exist in WestlawNext) make it necessary to conduct all negotiations in writing.

Furthermore, you have not responded to [my] questions [concerning application of the 45% 3-year contract discount and the disparity in prices between packages 1 and 2].

If you refuse to communicate further with me by e-mail concerning this matter, I request that you put me in touch with your supervisor.

The Questions

Do you think my experience is an accurate reflection of how West is handling its WestlawNext negotiations? Is my rep unusually incompetent? Or is West punishing me for being outspoken about their pricing strategy?

And why hasn’t the “traditional” legal press (i.e., publications like the ABA Journal or the National Law Journal) written anything about WestlawNext pricing? Could West’s substantial advertising spend (and, in the ABA’s case, sponsorship dollars) have anything to do with it?

Update 3/18/10, 10:15 p.m.:

Here’s the latest round of e-mails. First, the sales manager to me:

To verify, Results Plus is not part of WestlawNext and not an option.

I will try to explain the differences between package [1] & [2], but without doing a full needs assessment, it is difficult to recommend the rate package for your needs. This is why a phone call is recommended.

Package [1] does contain different information than Package [2]. You would have access to Regulations Plus which is our annotated CFR; State Jury Instructions and Key Rules. This option has always been the most expensive.

Package 3 takes out those databases.

The All Analytical is less expensive but it does not have State Jury Instructions, Key Rules nor CJS.

The package prices are the final prices. No other discounts would apply.

I hope this answers your questions.

My response:

First, [my rep] did a needs assessment before providing me with proposals on February 8: I explained my goals to him and he reviewed my usage. If you don’t understand my needs, you should speak to [my rep].

Second, your statement that Package [2] omits three items that are in package [1] is incorrect. The following is copied directly from [my rep's] March 5 e-mail (I have added the red highlighting).

Package #[1]:
All Cases & Statutes NY Gold w/Regs Plus
All Analytical Library
Price: $1102.14/month

Package #[2]:
All Cases & Statutes NY Gold w/Regs Plus
National Secondary Sources—Premium
Price: $909.48/month

Both packages include annotated regulations. Are you telling me that the only difference between All Analytical and National Secondary Sources – Premium is that the latter also includes State Jury Instructions and Key Rules? If so, that is inconsistent with [my rep's] February 9 e-mail to me, in which he stated: “Re: The difference between All Analytical and National Secondary Sources, premium, is primarily the restatements and CJS. I haven’t cross checked all the databases (the list is too long), but those are the major titles.”

Third, the proposal in the February 8 e-mail containing All Analytical was less expensive than the package containing National Secondary Sources—Premium ($567.05 v. $777.15). As you can see from the above, with the new packages, the one containing All Analytical is now more expensive than the one containing National Secondary Sources—Premium. That (and not the fact that the two plans aren’t the same price) is what doesn’t make sense.

Fourth, you still have not addressed my request for a breakdown of the prices into plan components.

Your inability to get your facts correct and your refusal to respond to a simple request for a detailed breakdown of the package pricing (despite the fact that [my rep] previously provided me with precisely that information in connection with the original proposals) is wasting my time. Please advise me of the name of your supervisor.

Unfortunately, the huge gaping hole of information about WestlawNext pricing also exists in the heads of those trying to sell the product.

Though much of the discussion was focused on the WestlawNext algorithm, the participants touched on pricing as well. One of the featured guests expressed this concern: “If this is as cool as it appears, it widens the gap between what large law can do versus the self-represented litigant or even the small law firm. Because large law firms can afford to buy this right away . . . .”

Later, one of the guests, extrapolating from the fact that 80% of lawyers in the country practice in firms with fewer than 20 lawyers that don’t employ law librarians, posited that most of West’s revenues come from small firms.

Greg Lambert recounted the disdain of his co-blogger, Toby Brown, for West’s excuse for charging a premium for WestlawNext (which is that the company has invested significant resources in the upgrade). I agree with Toby’s view that customers expect a company like West to take R&D costs out of its own pocket, rather than so blantanty reaching into its customers’ pockets to cover them.

The show’s chatroom transcript also contains some great nuggets about pricing:

Marcia Dority Baker
How many people are firm librarians? have you bought westlawnext yet?
Mar95
I’ve had the my rep onsite and had a demo. The product looks great, much simpler for users, the problem is the pricing.

mar95
It’s being sold as a seperate product – $900 month in addition to our current subscription. Or there is a pay-as-you-go option, $10 per search, $5 to view/print document, $2 for keycite

mnlawfirmlib
Does anyone else feel reps weren’t very well prepared for the rollout? While I’m glad TR invited bloggers to preview it and greatly appreciate their insights and feedback but reps seem behind the 8 ball and don’t have all the information.
mnlawfirmlib
Example of conflicting information: our rep told us it was $60 per search.

weblawlib
But if you’re able to bill back most Westlaw charges, how does this impact a law firm library budget?
Ken Hirsh
Many corporate clients want flat billing from outside counsel
mnlawfirmlib
That’s just it – we’re not able to bill back many charges b/c many large clients won’t pay for online research or attorneys write it off for a variety of reasons.

cblib
recovery rate is never where it needs to be. i can’t take risks.

Marcia Dority Baker
Hmm, are small firms West’s bread & butter?

mar98
I think smaller firms are probably very important business, many don’t keep books, and just use electronic material on West.

I think it’s fascinating that large firm librarians think that small firms are important to West’s bottom line, since my WestlawNext upgrade negotiations have led me to believe that West isn’t interested in the solo market at all.

It’s also interesting to hear about biglaw’s experience with cost recovery, a topic I posted about last May.

Finally, I’m going to take this opportunity to update my last post (for some reason, the update is breaking that post):

Update 2/25/10, 8:30 p.m.

On Monday, I received a response (by snail mail) from my rep’s sales manager. Included with the response was a long list of the databases included in the National Secondary Sources – Premium plan. Although I haven’t had a chance to review the list in detail, as I expected, it appears to be nearly identical to the All Analytical Library content (which, as noted above, is far from comprehensive, and is nowhere close to offering equivalent value to the sources available in Results Plus), plus Corpus Juris Secundum.

The sales manager’s response to my pricing questions was classic West:

There are no URL [sic] or press releases regarding our pricing modules or programs. As I stated earlier, that information is confidential.

Oh, and the post-February 28 prices for all of the WestlawNext plan components I discussed with my sales rep? “That has not been released.”

So, let me see if I have this straight: First, my sales rep quotes me prices for several WestlawNext libraries. Weeks later—after I prove myself to be a tough customer—the sales manager tells me that my rep forgot to mention that those prices are only the introductory prices. But he can’t tell me what the regular prices will be, even though they’ll be going into effect next week.

While I don’t have a business or marketing degree, I know a little bit about marketing from personal experience. Whenever a company offers a special introductory/early bird price, they tell you what the regular price will be. Why? To motivate you to buy now. And when a company offers an early bird price, they actually advertise it; after all, what’s the point of creating urgency if nobody knows about the special offer?

My last post is two weeks old. I’ve invited West to respond to the issues. A week ago, I raised them in a comment on West’s own blog. Other bloggers have commented on the lack of pricing transparency. Yet West hasn’t offered an official response. The company’s silence speaks volumes about the regard in which it holds its customers.

My Background with Westlaw

I’ve been a Westlaw user for five years, and am currently two years into my second three-year contract with them. Since I work with lawyers nationwide, I have a very broad Westlaw plan (especially for a solo), with particular depth in New York secondary sources (about 50% of my clients are in New York). I currently pay $489/month for my subscription, with a scheduled price increase in March to $514/month. Here’s what my current plan looks like:

I picked up ResultsPlus when I signed my current contract. I love it. Basically, the ResultsPlus plan allows you to click on any of the documents you see listed on the right side of your Westlaw screen without incurring an out-of-plan charge (without ResultsPlus, you’d get an out-of-plan warning screen). Only the “first click” is free: while you can browse through the table of contents of the analytical source you’ve linked to at no cost, if you view any other section of the source from the table of contents, it will be considered out-of-plan (you’ll get a warning screen and can then choose to cancel or continue). At the preview meeting in Eagan, West explained that ResultsPlus was somewhat of an early step towards the development of WestlawNext (which extensively features suggested links to materials in databases other than what you may be focusing on).

My Views About Westlaw Pricing

I expanded the views expressed in my last blog post on Twitter (@ reply indicators have been deleted):

Suppose it’s possible @Westlaw could req. NDA re: Westlawnext pricing, but there would be a huge backlash.

What @Westlaw thinks is “modest.” Frankly, I believe “upgrade” 2 WestlawNext should be free 4 current customers.

After all, @Westlaw will still make $ when customer accesses out-of-plan document from WestlawNext results list. [cont.]

Charging 4 upgrade to WestlawNext is shortsighted, b/c WLN is designed to reveal all relevant docs (incl. out-of-plan).

A WestlawNext user who frequently accesses out-of-plan docs, will convince *him/her self* to expand scope of subscription.

Also want to know what WestlawNext equiv is to WL’s Results Plus add-on (=1st click to doc outside of plan is free).

Agree that there were large R&D costs. WestLawNext algorithm relies on much more than what’s in pub domain.

Still, @Westlaw shld treat current customers better than new 1s; it will still profit as explained in my prev twts

Whether current @Westlaw pricing is outrageous depends on ur view of the added value it provides. I think it’s worth it 4

…my practice, which is research-heavy. If ur use is very light, not much value in a monthly subscription at their prices

My WestlawNext Upgrade Negotiations

After I explained my upgrade goals to my Westlaw rep, I received this response:

Proposal #1

This proposal contains a straight migration of your All Cases & Statutes NY Gold with Regs Plus and adds the All Analytical library. The Law Reviews & Journals portion of your plan is a part of the All Analytical plan and therefore is not listed as a stand alone database. This proposal contains ALR, AmJur, AmJur POF, Causes of Action, Federal Practice and Procedure, etc., and captures the vast majority of your Results Plus usage. Based on your usage, the biggest missing piece in this proposal is CJS which you accessed approximately once a month through Results Plus.

Proposal #2

This proposal is a step up in analytical content and includes CJS and the Restatements.

Proposal #3

For this proposal I took a look at your usage of the CFR. Over the past year you have accessed the CFR 8 times, so it is a database that you may consider dropping. I kept you in All Cases & Statutes and added the NY Analytical plan to replicate the content of a NY Gold package. I added the All Analytical and included CJS as a stand alone subscription.

As I mentioned, WestlawNEXT is a premium product and while I have discounted my proposals to the highest order allowed, the prices reflect that premium. After we spoke I had the opportunity to speak with a reference attorney who has been using WLN for the past few months. Despite her exceptional skill at boolean searching she finds that WLN’s search engine allows her to find the most relevant cases quicker than boolean searching on Westlaw. The reason, she explained, is the intuitive nature of the search engine and its ability to look beyond your search to find the most relevant cases, statues and secondary sources.

As an existing customer, with any of these three proposals you will be eligible for up to $1000 in print at no charge.

Note also that your current plan is scheduled for an annual increase at the end of this month. Starting in March your monthly payment will be $514/month.

Here’s how the plans compare (all monthly prices have been adjusted to reflect the 45% discount I would get for being willing to sign a new 3-year contract at this point):

	Proposal #1	Proposal #2	Proposal #3
Total	$567.05	$777.15	$560.45
All Cases & Statutes NY Gold w/Regs Plus	$357.50	$357.50
All Analytical Library	$209.55		$209.55
National Secondary Sources - Premium		$419.65
All Cases & Statutes			$235.95
NY Analytical			$114.95

(I’ve omitted the cost for CJS from Proposal #3 because I don’t need it as long as I have Am Jur, which is included in the All Analytical library.)

As you can see from the chart above, when a database (such as All Cases & Statutes NY Gold w/Regs Plus) comes over from Westlaw to WestlawNext without any change in its coverage, there is an approximately 11% price increase.

Here’s my response to the proposals:

Please provide me with a complete list of (1) All Analytical sources in WestlawNext; (2) New York Analytical sources in WestlawNext and (3) Results Plus sources in Westlaw. I would prefer if you provide me with links to where I (or anyone else for that matter) can find the sources lists online, as West should be transparent about what libraries/databases are available. If this information is not readily available online to the public (including individuals who are not current Westlaw Subscribers), please provide it as attachments.

Doesn’t All Analytical include everything that’s in New York Analytical? If not, the name of All Analytical is misleading.

Just to clarify: is the only difference between All Analytical ($381) and National Secondary Sources – Premium ($763) the fact that the latter includes Restatements and CJS?

He sent the database lists I requested, which I’ve linked to above. He also responded:

Remember that Results Plus allows the first click into the listed databases, while subscribing to the All Analytical Plan gives you unfettered searching in many of the same titles.

Re: All Analytical v. NY Analytical: The “all” refers to national analytical titles such as ALR, AmJur, etc. As evidenced by the attached documents, NY Analytical is targeted to NY specific analytical sources.

Re: The difference between All Analytical and National Secondary Sources, premium, is primarily the restatements and CJS. I haven’t cross checked all the databases (the list is too long), but those are the major titles.

Re: Proposal #3: The NYCRR is contained in the All Cases & Statutes portion of the proposal.

Any person can always go to www.west.thomson.com and find a complete list of databases for any of our online plans. It is my understanding that they are current with WestlawNEXT as well. As you mentioned, West should be and is transparent with the content of their plans.

Here’s my response:

The All Analytical list is far from comprehensive, and is nowhere close to offering equivalent value to the sources available in Results Plus. Specifically, the vast majority of the All Analytical database seems to be composed of Law Reviews and Journals. Another huge chunk of All Analytical is composed of what appears to be redundant portions of larger works. Here’s one example:

ALR American Law Reports [doesn't this include all of the segments below?]
ALR-BKR American Law Reports–Bankruptcy
ALR-BUS American Law Reports–Business Organizations
ALR-CML American Law Reports–Commercial Transactions
ALR-CSTR American Law Reports–Construction
ALRDIGEST West’s ALR Digest
ALR-DUI American Law Reports–Driving While Intoxicated
ALR-ELD American Law Reports–Elder Law
ALR-ENV American Law Reports–Environmental Law
ALR-EPP American Law Reports–Estate Planning and Probate
ALR-FAM American Law Reports–Family Law
ALRFED American Law Reports, Federal
ALR-GOVK American Law Reports–Government Contracts
ALR-IMM American Law Reports–Immigration
ALRINDEX ALR Index
ALR-INS American Law Reports–Insurance
ALR-IP American Law Reports–Intellectual Property
ALR-LB American Law Reports–Labor and Employment
ALR-MRT American Law Reports–Maritime
ALR-MUN American Law Reports–Municipal
ALR-PAT American Law Reports–Patents
ALR-RP American Law Reports–Real Property
ALR-SEC American Law Reports–Securities
ALR-US-INT American Law Reports–Multinational (Issues Arising in the U.S.)
ALR-WC American Law Reports–Workers’ Compensation
ALR-ZONING American Law Reports–Zoning

Moreover, hardly any of the sources included in Results Plus Pro are included in All Analytical. Significant omissions from All Analytical include the state Jurisprudence works (e.g., CALJUR, FLJUR), the Witkin publications (re: California law) Couch on Insurance, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corps. and Williston on Contracts. Only a tiny handful of non-law journal sources that are included in All Analytical are excluded from Results Plus (e.g., Handbook of Federal Evidence, West’s Federal Forms)

Since the biggest chunk of All Analytical is equivalent to Law Reviews and Journals, while All Analytical is missing perhaps 90% of what is included in Results Plus, the value of All Analytical is much closer to $54.61/month (the current charge for Law Reviews & Journals) than the $209.55/month (after 45% discount) that you propose to charge me for All Analytical. At most, I would pay $100/month for All Analytical, as that database is currently comprised. I would pay $209.55/month for National Secondary Sources – Premium, but only if that plan includes all (or a significant number) of the databases included in Results Plus Pro.

I understand that, in WestlawNext, I have access to the entire secondary source in All Analytical, as opposed to only the first click in Results Plus. However, the whole point of the new WestSearch algorithm is to display the most relevant content alongside my search results (that is also the model for ResultsPlus). Therefore, the first click is generally all I need.

I proposed the following solution:

If National Secondary Sources – Premium, does not include all (or a significant number) of the databases included in Results Plus Pro and/or I can’t get it for $209.55/month, then can I do the following: in WestlawNext, take All Cases & Statutes + NY Analytical and retain in Westlaw only ResultsPlus + Law Reviews and Journals (all of which I calculate to come to $539.06)?

My rep’s response:

The value of the All Analytical package is in its inclusion of ALR, AmJur, Federal Practice & Procedure, Causes of Actions and Proof of Facts. These are huge and popular national analytical sets containing a great deal of information across all areas of law. The content is vastly more comprehensive than the Law Reviews & Journals database.

In all my pricing I have maxed out the available discount. I cannot change the pricing any further and exceptions beyond our discretionary discount (which is, as you know, a generous 45%) are not being considered.

Additionally, accounts can choose from Westlaw or WestlawNEXT. It is not possible to purchase databases from WestlawNEXT and Results Plus. (Practically, this would force you to run all your searches in both search engines).

We do have plans that allow you access to virtually all databases outside of your plan at a discount of up to 90%. For example, for $100/month you get up to $1000/month of ancillary usage. This would be a good way for you to expand your universe of available databases while maintaining cost certainty.

Perhaps you would be interested in a trial password for WestlawNEXT? This way you can use the two products side to side and make the best value decision for your practice.

And mine:

I find substantial value in having access to the 90% of Results Plus sources that are NOT included in All Analytical. In fact, I would appreciate if you can take a look at my account and provide me with a report detailing all of the sources I have used through Results Plus and the frequency of access.

I have used Westlaw Next. I am familiar with the value it can provide. The plans you suggest ($100/month for up to $1,000/month of out-of-plan usage) are not a good choice for me, since $1,000/month adds up very quickly. I want complete certainty.

The “discretionary discount” has a benefit for West, in that it locks in customers for 3 years.

I have no problem running my searches in both engines: it’s a simple copy and paste.

I asked my rep to put me in touch with his sales manager if he couldn’t do anything more for me. Here’s the sales manager’s response:

I received your message from [your sales rep]. You may contact me at your earliest convenience.

In advance, I will let you know that West has painstakingly put together its packages and prices with careful consideration. I assure you [your sales rep's] proposal has met the limits of pricing negotiation and options.

We will understand if you feel your current plan which includes Results Plus remains a better solution for you.

So the bottom line is this: even if I’m willing to pay an 11% premium for the power to search with the WestlawNext algorithm in the same databases I currently have access to on Westlaw, tough cookies. They’re going to change their offerings around enough to make it difficult for you to compare apples to apples. And, most importantly, they’re not going to let you eat just you want to eat: they want to stuff you until you explode, like some crazed Jewish grandmother on Shabbos. Oh (and to beat this food metaphor to death), they’re not going to let you eat just a few courses at the fancy new WestlawNext (the Bouley Restaurant of legal research), and pick up the rest of your meal next door at good ol’ Westlaw (Bouley Bakery/Market): if you don’t want to eat your whole meal at WestlawNext, it’s No soup for you!

Update 2/11/10, 11:30 a.m.: I received this message from my rep’s sales manager this morning:

After reviewing the proposals we sent, I noticed we failed to mention that this is an introductory pricing that we will not be offering after February 28th.

As with all of our proposals and emails, I am hoping this information would be kept confidential.

Not smart, West. Not smart at all.

Update 2/13/10, 1:00 a.m.: Last night, I sent the sales manager an e-mail requesting a complete list of sources included in the National Secondary Sources – Premium plan. I also responded to his request for confidentiality:

With respect to confidentiality, in my view there are no trade secrets involved in our negotiation. The process of upgrading to WestlawNext is like buying a new car. There’s an MSRP, and each option also has its own price. Packages can bring down the price of certain options. But would a car salesman ask you to keep your negotiations confidential? There is no reason—other than a desire to divide and conquer your customers and potential customers—to request confidentiality for these negotiations. “Transparency” goes beyond providing complete source lists (see Elwyn’s message of February 9): it must extend to pricing, too.

Just now (yes, I’m burning the midnight oil), I sent the sales manager this message:

Further to your message of 2/11, please advise what the prices will be for all WestlawNext plan components that I have discussed with [my sales rep] after February 28.

Additionally, please provide the URL(s) for any public statements by Westlaw informing the legal community that it would be offering “introductory pricing” for a total of 14 business days after launch, at a time when very few customers have had a chance to be exposed to WestlawNext, and before “Johnny and Jenny Westlaw” have even had an opportunity to visit six major markets. Certainly, there’s no way each rep can pitch all of his or her accounts, and negotiate plans for all interested customers, in that time frame.

I’ll update again once I hear back (which may not be until at least Tuesday, since Monday is a holiday).