| Abstract: | Summary During the 1990s a sometimes bitter controversy in legal circles has raged concerning what has become known as “citation reform.” Major proponents of reform include small legal publishers, the American Bar Association, and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). Major opponents include the West Group and a number of federal judges and court clerks. Proponents argue for a universal, public domain, vendor neutral, medium neutral citation system (short title: universal citation) based on two premises: (1) a change is necessary to break the West Group's virtual monopoly on its own citation system, which the courts have up to now declared worthy of copyright protection; and (2) the proposed system is objectively superior to West's version. Because West's citation system is used extensively by the courts, its monopoly status keeps the cost of legal research artificially high at a time when inexpensive technologies like the Internet and CD-ROMs are increasingly making it possible to lower the cost of access to case law. In addition, compared to the West system, a public domain, vendor neutral system is simpler, is permanent when the case is first issued, is uniform for all jurisdictions, covers all formats, print and electronic, and is easier to understand. This article explores the issues surrounding the controversy, discusses the pros and cons of both systems, and analyzes current copyright cases that are likely to determine the outcome of the argument. |
