# Do Lawyers Really Use Those Impressive Collections of Cases Volumes?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-lawyers-really-use-those-impressive-collections-of-cases-volumes/559204>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 2, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-lawyers-really-use-those-impressive-collections-of-cases-volumes/559204 "2010-11-02T14:20:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-lawyers-really-use-those-impressive-collections-of-cases-volumes/559204/81 "2010-11-18T18:16:50Z")

</div>

> [@Hello\_Again](#):
>
> Isn’t that an indictment of skimming, not an indictment of online sources? A small subsection can be missed on paper as well. I actually prefer paper statutory sources in general (lexis, in particular, is criminally negligent in their failure to indent subsections).
> 
> That really doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, or the post I commented on, which were about case reporters and whether you find all the relevant precedent.
> 
> I’m pretty sure the online search tools are at least somewhat different, earlier in the thread it seemed to become apparent to me, that outside of the US the pagination online does not match the pagination of the paper reporter, making the online and book citation notably different.

Lexis display for statutes is awful. especially the fact they show at best 25 hits a page and frankly no one is going to skim the whole way through in a 500 section Act.

And on the pagination, your claim is not the case. Or certainly not the case in England and Wales, Australia, Pakistan and India, the jurisdictions I am most familiar with, the pagination is the same. It seems Canada is different.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-lawyers-really-use-those-impressive-collections-of-cases-volumes/559204/82 "2010-11-18T18:27:24Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> I would point out it also depends on the area of law and the type of practice that you do. Lawyers who do mostly transactional work need to do less research and in less depth and can live with mostly online materials. Litigation and trial lawyers need to go into the minutia of each case, while Appellate Lawyers need to go even deeper.

Please, let’s not give the transaction people the dignity of the designation “lawyer.” Let’s call them job creation vehicles for litigators. 😃

They screw up, we get work.

I litigate - antitrust. Pretty much the first thing I turn to for research is Antitrust Law Developments, on paper. Every AT litigator in our firm has a copy in their office. The other thing I go to on paper predominately is World Antitrust Law & Practice.

Then I supplement them by going to the cases they recommend, and looking for something analagous in my jurisdiction.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-lawyers-really-use-those-impressive-collections-of-cases-volumes/559204/83 "2010-11-18T18:53:26Z")

</div>

Litigator research is much more wide than Transactional job creators (!). We ain’t looking just for what the law is, but a case which supports our contentions, a much more onerous task. And the propositions that are thrown at you that you need a precedent for are so varied and often times unique that a clicking on the “Cases citing” link on Lexis is not going to help, much.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-lawyers-really-use-those-impressive-collections-of-cases-volumes/559204.md?page=4)