Updated: November 13, 2016

Many paid legal research products such as LexisNexis and Westlaw offer the ability to search for keywords within a certain number of words from one another (a number that you define). For example, some pay databases allow you to search w/ (WITHIN any number of words that you indicate, such as w/2), /s (in the SAME SENTENCE), and /p (in the SAME PARAGRAPH). Google does offer an analogous, but nearly unknown, proximity connector - AROUND(n).

The Google proximity connector AROUND(n) must be placed in upper case as illustrated in this explanation. By replacing the “n” with a number, you determine how many words you want your keywords to be from each other. For example, when we searched for carole AROUND(2) levitt, we retrieved 281,000 results where carole was within 2 words of levitt. The results consisted of results like this:

• Carole A. Levitt
• Carole Ann Levitt
• Carole Levitt
• Nancy Jo Levitt
• Carol Suzanne Levitt (notice the name carol was retrieved)
• Alain Levitt, Carol Lim
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt inexplicably performing Carole King's classic “You Make ...

To conduct an even more targeted search, try enclosing each of your proximity search terms within their own set of quotation marks. Our search for “carole” AROUND(2) “levitt” retrieved 22,600 results. This search only retrieved results where the exact name carole was separated from exact name levitt (with up to two words in between carole and levitt). It disregarded any documents that included various spellings of carole and levitt while the earlier search, without quotation marks, retrieved results with spelling variations for carole and levitt.

Many researchers searching for documents that include a specified proper name conduct a phrase search. But conducting a proximity search for a proper name, using AROUND(n), is a better search than a phrase search. For example, a phrase search for "carole levitt" retrieved 19,800 result and only retrieved results that referred to Carole Levitt in that exact order and with no intervening words. What is missing from this search are the results that an AROUND(2) proximity search retrieved above, such as: Levitt, Carole; Carole A. Levitt; Carole Ann Levitt; Levitt, Carole A., or Levitt, Carole Ann.

In our live Continuing Legal Education seminars and webinars, we are often asked about conducting a compound proximity search, such as this one where the keyword Cybersleuth is within five words of "Carole Levitt", "Mark Rosch", or "Internet For Lawyers".

Usually, the asker will assumem that the query can be written this way:Cybersleuth AROUND(5) "Carole Levitt" OR "Mark Rosch" OR "Internet For Lawyers".

While a compound proximity search like this is possible, it must be written in Google's search box in this way

Cybersleuth AROUND(5) "Carole Levitt" OR Cybersleuth AROUND(5)"Mark Rosch" OR Cybersleuth AROUND(5)"Internet For Lawyers".

In our live MCLE seminars and webinars, we have long addressed the need for a reliable proximity connector when using free search engines like Google and Yahoo!. Google and Yahoo! use the asterisk (in very different ways) as a NEAR or "within one word" connector (respectively), but seemingly, nothing more precise was available. Web developer Kevin Shay created the more-precise proximity-searching GAPS interface; but it ceased working last year when Google retired the programming tools on which the GAPS site was based.  

According to Dan Russell, Google's Uber Tech Lead for Search Quality and User Happiness, the AROUND feature has been around, "for... oh... the past 5 or 6 years. Turns out that nobody ever bothered to write much about it." Russell took the wraps off the feature in a recent blog post. Perhaps the reason the "nobody ever bothered to write about it" is because there is NO documentation of the AROUND function in Google's "Web Search Help" section. There is a mention of the AROUND proximity search function in the Web Search "Help Forums," but it didn't appear up until January 14, 2011.

The Help Forum response suggests an alternate syntax for the proximity search (carole+2 levitt). Note however, that the syntax mentioned in that "help" response yields very different (and less precise) results than the carole AROUND(2) levitt search syntax.

Kudos to the ABA's Legal Technology Resource Center for bringing this feature to our attention.

The post Google Offers Proximity Search appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Google Apps, for example, meets the security standards put in place for the online storage of government agencies' information set out in the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2000 (FISMA 44 U.S.C. § 3541, et seq.).

Cloud computing and "Software as a Service" (SaaS) are two terms used to describe similar services.  They allow you to access software, or store files, on computers that are not at your physical location or even in your physical control. Dictionary.com defines cloud computing as:

Internet-based computing in which large groups of remote servers are networked so as to allow sharing of data-processing tasks, centralized data storage, and online access to computer services or resources.

Wikipedia defines SaaS as:

"Software as a service (SaaS, typically pronounced [sæs]), sometimes referred to as 'on-demand software,' is a software delivery model in which software and its associated data are hosted centrally (typically in the (Internet) cloud) and are typically accessed by users using a thin client, normally using a web browser over the Internet."

Gmail and Flickr are examples of cloud computing or SaaS products because they give you access to e-mail software and message storage, and photo storage (respectively) on computers at a remote location.

In August 2012, the ABA House of Delegates adopted changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct dealing with the question of whether and how lawyers might deal with "confidentiality issues arising from technology." The changes were suggested by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 and were, "designed to give lawyers more guidance regarding their confidentiality- related obligations when using technology."

Share this artice:          

The compilation below provides an overview of the existing Ethics Opinions produced, to date, by Bar Associations around the country.

So far, only a few State Bar Associations have issued formal ethics opinions on the questions. In reverse chronological order, those states include:

• Illinois State Bar Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion 16-06
• Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-F159
• Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF-15-01 (Ethical Obligations of Attorneys Using Cloud Computing) 
• Iowa Ethics Opinion 15-01
• Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 2014-3
• Kentucky Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion KBA E-437 (March 21, 2014)
• Connecticut Bar Association Professional Ethics Committee Informal Opinion 2013-07
• Ohio State Bar Association Informal Advisory Opinion 2013-03
• Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1872
• The Florida Bar Opinion 12-03
• Maine Board of Bar Overseers Professional Ethics Commission Opinion 207
• State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct: Formal Opinion 2012-184
• Washington State Bar Association Ethics Advisory Opinion 2215
• New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 2012-13/4: "The Use of Cloud Computing in the Practice of Law"
• Massachusetts Bar Association Ethics Opinion 12-03
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Opinion 2011-200
• Oregon State Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion Number 2011-188: "Information Relating to the Representation of a Client: Third-Party Electronic Storage of Client Materials"
• North Carolina State Bar Association Proposed 2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 6: "Subscribing to Software as a Service While Fulfilling the Duties of Confidentiality and Preservation of Client Property" (10/20/11) - scroll down to read
• Alabama Bar Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-02
• Nevada Formal Ethics Opinion 33
• State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 09-04
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility: Formal Opinion 2011-200 (available online to Pennsylvania Bar members only)

In 2012 Opinion 2012-184, the Committee took its second look at technology and client confidentiality. Unlike its earlier opinion (Opinion 2010-179; see below) this time they actually used the term "cloud computing" . However, it added a new twist by focusing on a virtual law office practice ("VLO") and whether an attorney can "maintain a virtual law office practice ("VLO") and still comply with her ethical obligations if the communications with the client, and storage of and access to all information about the client’s matter, are all conducted solely through the internet using the secure computer servers of a third-party vendor (i.e., "cloud computing")?"

The opinion explained that, "As it pertains to the use of technology, the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct do not impose greater or different duties upon a VLO practitioner operating in the cloud than they do upon an attorney practicing in a traditional law office. While an attorney may maintain a VLO in the cloud where communications with the client, and storage of and access to all information about the client’s matter, are conducted solely via the internet using a third-party’s secure servers, Attorney may be required to take additional steps to confirm that she is fulfilling her ethical obligations due to distinct issues raised by the hypothetical VLO and its operation. Failure of Attorney to comply with all ethical obligations relevant to these issues will preclude the operation of a VLO in the cloud as described herein." The opinion refers attorneys back to Opinion 2010-179 for a fuller discussion on the analysis that the Committee believes attorneys should undertake when considering the use of a particular form of technology (see the quote below from Opinion 2010-179 for a synopsis of the analysis attorneys should undertake).

Massachusetts specifically addressed the question of “whether it [the use of cloud computing] would violate Lawyer’s obligations under the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct to store confidential client information using “Google docs” or some other Internet based storage solution, and to synchronize his computers and other devices that contain or access such information over the Internet.”

In finding the use of cloud services permissible, the Massachusetts Opinion analogizes cloud services to “lawyer's use of unencrypted Internet e-mail to engage in confidential communications with his or her client” and third-party vendors accessing law firm networks in order to maintain the firm’s hardware or software that the Bar had found permissible in previous Opinions.

Like the earlier Opinions discussed below, Massachusetts instructs lawyers to undertake “reasonable efforts to ensure that the provider's terms of use and data privacy policies, practices and procedures are compatible with the lawyer's professional obligations, including the obligation to protect confidential client information reflected in Rule 1.6(a).” Unlike some other Opinions, the Massachusetts Opinion states that lawyers should get their clients’ prior consent before, “storing or transmitting particularly sensitive client information by means of the Internet.”

Specifically, the committee addressed the question, “May an attorney ethically store confidential client material in ‘the cloud’?” The committee’s conclusion is a qualified “yes.” Like some of the other opinions on this topic, Pennsylvania Opinion 2011-200 instructs attorneys that they “may ethically allow client confidential material to be stored in ‘the cloud’ provided the attorney takes reasonable care to assure that (1) all such materials remain confidential, and (2) reasonable safeguards are employed to ensure that the data is [sic] protected from breaches, data loss, and other risks.”

This opinion includes a bullet point list describing what “the standard of reasonable care for ‘cloud computing’ may include.” In addition to addressing the whole category of cloud computing services that lawyers might use, the Pennsylvania opinion also points to the use of web-based e-mail (naming Gmail among others) as “ordinarily permissible” for lawyers in most circumstances but, “may not be acceptable in the context of a particularly heightened degree of concern or in a particular set of facts.”

The full opinion is ordinarily available online to Pennsylvania Bar members only. However, some other organizations have posted it online.

In this Opinion, the Bar offered a "Yes, qualified" answer to the question of whether lawyers may contract "with third-party vendor to store client files and documents online on remote server so that Lawyer and/or Client could access the documents over the Internet from any remote location." In offering this guidance, the Opinion points to Oregon RPC 1.6 which cover the attorney's duty to "not reveal information relating to the representation of a client."

The opinion stated that, "[a] Lawyer may store client materials on a third-party server so long as Lawyer complies with the duties of competence and confidentiality to reasonably keep the client’s information secure within a given situation.² To do so, the lawyer must take reasonable steps to ensure that the storage company will reliably secure client data and keep information confidential. Under certain circumstances, this may be satisfied though a third-party vendor’s compliance with industry standards relating to confidentiality and security, provided that those industry standards meet the minimum requirements imposed on the Lawyer by the Oregon RPCs. This may include, among other things, ensuring the service agreement requires the vendor to preserve the confidentiality and security of the materials. It may also require that vendor notify Lawyer of any nonauthorized third-party access to the materials. Lawyer should also investigate how the vendor backs up and stores its data and metadata to ensure compliance with the Lawyer’s duties.³" (Note that the footnote material is not included here. To access the footnotes in this Ethics Opinion use the link above to the full text of the Opinion.)

Like New York Opinion #842 (below), this Opinion answers two separate questions regarding lawyers' subscribing to software as a service (SaaS) rather than purchasing and installing software from disks.

First, the Opinion tackles whether lawyers should even be using SaaS products for "for case or practice management, document management, and billing/financial management," or "the storage of a law firm’s data, including client files, billing information, and work product, on remote servers rather than on the law firm’s own computer and, therefore, outside the direct control of the firm’s lawyers." The Opinion answered this question by stating, "Yes, provided steps are taken to minimize the risk of inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of confidential client information and to protect client property, including the information in a client’s file, from risk of loss." The Opinion point to Comments 17 and 18 of North Carolina's Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 - "Comment [17] explains, 'A lawyer must act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer’s supervision.' Comment [18] adds that, when transmitting confidential client information, a lawyer must take “reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients.'"

Second, the Opinion tackles what measures lawyers should take to assess SaaS vendors to minimize potential security risks. Recognizing that criteria for assessing the security of these SaaS services would change with technology, the Opinion outlines a list of points lawyers should consider rather than spell out a specific set of guidelines lawyers must follow. The Opinion introduces this list thusly, "This opinion does not set forth specific security requirements because mandatory security measures would create a false sense of security in an environment where the risks are continually changing. Instead, due diligence and frequent and regular education are required." Some of the security measures the Opinions suggest to be considered are: 

• a specific agreement covering "how the vendor will handle confidential client information in keeping with the lawyer’s professional responsibilities" 
• the ability to retrieve the lawyer's data if "the SaaS vendor goes out of business, or the service otherwise has a break in continuity"
• careful review of the SaaS license agreement and security policy 
• evaluation of security measures, "including, but not limited to, firewalls, encryption techniques, socket security features, and intrusion-detection systems⁴ 
• evaluation of the SaaS vendors backup policies for the lawyer's data

The Iowa State Bar Ethics Opinion (Number 11-01) pointed to Comment 17 to Iowa's Rule 32:1.6 as establishing a "reasonable and flexible approach to guide a lawyer’s use of ever-changing technology. It recognizes that the degree of protection to be afforded client information varies with the client, matter and information involved. But it places on the lawyer the obligation to perform due diligence to assess the degree of protection that will be needed and to act accordingly." 

Comment 17 to Iowa's Rule 32:1.6 reads:

"[17] When transmitting a communication that includes information relating to the representation of a client, the lawyer must take reasonable precautions to prevent the information from coming into the hands of unintended recipients. This duty, however, does not require that the lawyer use special security measures if the method of communication affords a reasonable expectation of privacy. Special circumstances, however, may warrant special precautions. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer's expectation of confidentiality include the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement. A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this rule or may give informed consent to the use of a means of communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this rule."

Also, recognizing the changing nature of cloud computing services, the Iowa State Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Practice Guidelines chose to offer "basic guidance regarding the implementation of the standard described in Comment 17," in the form of a list of considerations lawyers should take into account when performing their due diligence in reviewing cloud services for their firms. 

Opinion, 2010-179 does not use the term "cloud computing," but the opinion can still be used to guide attorneys on their use of cloud computing because it deals with "using technology to transmit or store confidential client information when the technology may be susceptible to unauthorized access by third parties." The 2010-179 opinion explains that, "An attorney’s duties of confidentiality and competence require the attorney to take appropriate steps to ensure that his or her use of technology in conjunction with a client’s representation does not subject confidential client information to an undue risk of unauthorized disclosure. Because of the evolving nature of technology and differences in security features that are available, the attorney must ensure the steps are sufficient for each form of technology being used and must continue to monitor the efficacy of such steps." The opinion further states:

"Whether an attorney violates his or her duties of confidentiality and competence when using technology to transmit or store confidential client information will depend on the particular technology being used and the circumstances surrounding such use. Before using a particular technology in the course of representing a client, an attorney must take appropriate steps to evaluate: 1) the level of security attendant to the use of that technology, including whether reasonable precautions may be taken when using the technology to increase the level of security; 2) the legal ramifications to a third party who intercepts, accesses or exceeds authorized use of the electronic information; 3) the degree of sensitivity of the information; 4) the possible impact on the client of an inadvertent disclosure of privileged or confidential information or work product; 5) the urgency of the situation; and 6) the client’s instructions and circumstances, such as access by others to the client’s devices and communications."

The opinion explains that if client information is highly sensitive and a particular technology presents a risk of disclosure, then the attorney needs to consider other alternatives unless the client provides informed consent.

This Opinion tackled two questions:

• May a lawyer use an online system to store a client's confidential information without violating the duty of confidentiality or any other duty?
• If so, what steps should the lawyer take to ensure that the information is sufficiently secure?

The Opinion cited Rule 1.6 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct that covers confidentiality, as well as Rule 1.0(j) that covers informed consent from clients in reaching the following conclusion:

"A lawyer may use an online data storage system to store and back up client confidential information provided that the lawyer takes reasonable care to ensure that confidentiality is maintained in a manner consistent with the lawyer’s obligations under Rule 1.6. A lawyer using an online storage provider should take reasonable care to protect confidential information, and should exercise reasonable care to prevent others whose services are utilized by the lawyer from disclosing or using confidential information of a client. In addition, the lawyer should stay abreast of technological advances to ensure that the storage system remains sufficiently advanced to protect the client’s information, and the lawyer should monitor the changing law of privilege to ensure that storing information in the 'cloud' will not waive or jeopardize any privilege protecting the information."

In this 2009 Ethics Opinion, the State Bar of Arizona addressed a question similar to the one addressed by Maine the previous year. In it, Arizona cited back to its 2005 Opinion and New Jersey’s 2006 Opinion to validate attorneys’ use of remote, electronic file storage systems, and stated that the “lawyer’s duty to take reasonable precautions does not require a guarantee that the system will be invulnerable to unauthorized access.”

The Bar went on to state that “the Committee also recognizes that technology advances may make certain protective measures obsolete over time. Therefore, the Committee does not suggest that the protective measures at issue in Ethics Op. 05-04 or in this opinion necessarily satisfy ER 1.6’s requirements indefinitely. Instead, whether a particular system provides reasonable protective measures must be ‘informed by the technology reasonably available at the time to secure data against unintentional disclosure.’ N.J. Ethics Op. 701. As technology advances occur, lawyers should periodically review security measures in place to ensure that they still reasonably protect the security and confidentiality of the clients’ documents and information.”

This New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion concluded that “A lawyer may use an e-mail service provider that conducts computer scans of e-mails to generate computer advertising, where the e-mails are not reviewed by or provided to other individuals.” While not named in the opinion, the question’s description of an “e-mail service provider that scans e-mails for advertising purposes” clearly describes Gmail.

The Maine Commission concluded that, “with appropriate safeguards, an attorney may utilize transcription and computer server backup services remote from both the lawyer's physical office and the lawyer's direct control or supervision without violating the attorney's ethical obligation to maintain client confidentiality.”

In this Opinion, the New Jersey Committee stated, “The critical requirement under RPC 1.6, therefore, is that the attorney ‘exercise reasonable care’ against the possibility of unauthorized access to client information. A lawyer is required to exercise sound professional judgment on the steps necessary to secure client confidences against foreseeable attempts at unauthorized access. ‘Reasonable care,’ however, does not mean that the lawyer absolutely and strictly guarantees that the information will be utterly invulnerable against all unauthorized access. Such a guarantee is impossible, and a lawyer can no more guarantee against unauthorized access to electronic information than he can guarantee that a burglar will not break into his file room, or that someone will not illegally intercept his mail or steal a fax.”

• Iowa State Bar Association Committee on Ethics and Practice Guidelines: Ethics Opinion 11-01: "Use of Software as a Service – Cloud Computing" (9/9/11)
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility: Informal Opinion 2010-60 (1/11/11; available online to Pennsylvania Bar members only)
• Vermont Bar Association: Advisory Ethics Opinion 2010-06
• State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct: Formal Opinion 2010-179 (2010)
• New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics: Opinion 842 (9/10/10)
• Alabama Disciplinary Commission Ethics Opinion 2010-02: Retention, Storage, Ownership, Production and Destruction of Client Files
• State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 09-04: Confidentiality; Maintaining Client Files; Electronic Storage; Internet
• New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics: Opinion 820 (2/8/08) 
• Maine State Bar Professional Ethics Commission: “Client Confidences: Confidential firm data held electronically and handled by technicians for third-party vendors;” Opinion 194 (6/30/08)
• New Jersey Bar Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics: "Electronic Storage and Access of Client Files;" Opinion 701 (4/24/06)
• State Bar of Nevada Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility: Formal Opinion 33 (2/09/06)
• State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 05-04: Electronic Storage; Confidentiality (07/05)

Most of the opinions already mentioned in this article point to a lawyer's duty to exercise "reasonable steps" to insure the confidentiality of their client's information. Many of them also refer back to Arizona Opinion 05-04 which states that lawyers should:

"take competent and reasonable steps to assure that the client’s confidences are not disclosed to third parties through theft or inadvertence. In addition, an attorney or law firm is obligated to take reasonable and competent steps to assure that the client's electronic information is not lost or destroyed. In order to do that, an attorney must be competent to evaluate the nature of the potential threat to client electronic files and to evaluate and deploy appropriate computer hardware and software to accomplish that end. An attorney who lacks or cannot reasonably obtain that competence is ethically required to retain an expert consultant who does have such competence."

Conclusion

The reality of computer security requires machines connected to the Internet to be maintained and patched on a regular basis. It’s important for lawyers to know what security measures are practiced by whatever cloud service provider they are considering, as well as where and how often vendors back-up the information stored with their services, among other concerns.  Regardless of whether lawyers are storing files "in the cloud" or on their office’s local network, they must make a  “reasonable effort” to keep that information secure  to insure that those computers are as protected as they can be.

Originally posted 10/30/2011. Last updated 11/8/15. Last updated 2/4/19.

The post Legal Ethics Considerations for Lawyers’ Use of Cloud Computing Services appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Google claims that with this addition will, "help bring a combined 120 million new people to the billions who can already communicate with Translate all over the world." Google also claims that with these additional languages, the service now "cover[s] 99% of the online population."

The new languages added are:

Amharic Corsican Frisian Kyrgyz Hawaiian Kurdish (Kurmanji) Luxembourgish Samoan Scots Gaelic Shona Sindhi Pashto Xhosa

Google Translate is an automated service that can translate blocks of text or entire Web pages from one of the languages it recognizes into any other language it recognizes. Because the translations are generated automatically - without human intervention - they may not be precise, or the same as a native speaker might produce. The service can be useful for "quick and dirty" translations to give you a good idea what a document, or site, is about.

The post Google Expands Translate Service to 103 Languages appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

After the Google Scholar button is installed, click the button that is now located on your browser bar (see next image). The default Google Scholar search is set for articles, so if you want to change the default to case law, click on the gear icon (see next image) at the bottom right to deploy the Scholar settings page.

On the Scholar Settings page (see next image), click into the radio button labeled “Search case law.” Then, under “Collections,” click into the “Search case law” radio button. That change will switch the database to be searched from journal articles to case law.

There are other settings you can adjust on the Scholar Settings page. For example:

• Google Scholar defaults to showing 10 results (and Google claims this provides the fastest results) but under “Results per page,” you can change this to 20 results;
• Beneath the section labeled, “Where results open,” you can click into the “Open each selected result in a new browser window” radio button. This allows you to view each result in a different tab, but whether we clicked into this radio button or not, each result always opened in a different tab;
• Another choice on the Settings page is the section labeled Bibliography manager.”  You can choose “Don’t show any citation import links” or “Show links to import citations into” one of the following: BibTex, EndNote, RefMan, or RefWorks.

To save all your new settings, remember to click the blue “Save” tab in the lower right-hand corner of the Settings page. To retain these settings forever and to deploy them on any device that you use, you must be in your Google account and turn on Cookies.

After you enter your search terms into the Search box, your search results will be displayed in a drop down list.

Note that even after you changed the search default from articles to case law search, it still refers to articles, but as you can see, these are case law results. Click the case name to view the full case or click on the large quotation mark on the right. If you click on the large quotation mark, the case’s Bluebook citation is displayed (see next image) and four bibliography manager tabs are displayed (see next image).  If you wanted to enter a citation into one of the bibliography managers, you would need to have already downloaded it.

While the Google Scholar button is a quick way to search for case law or articles, some of you might prefer to conduct an “Advanced Scholar Search: to narrow your results.

The Advanced Search allows you to search by various criteria, as shown in the next image. Next month, we’ll publish a free excerpt from The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet, by Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch, which explains how to use the Advanced Search menu. Stay tuned.

The post How to Conduct a Quick Google Scholar Search with the Click of a Button appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Recent Google News test searches (like the one above) have included results dating back as far as  2004.

But a visit to Google's News documentation would still tell you that "Google News includes articles that have been crawled within the last 30 days."

Even the Wikipedia entry for Google News still indicates that it only covers the most recent 30 days worth of news content. However, our test searches clearly show that older sources are being included in the results lists.

Whether this extension is a result of Google's intention to permanently return older news results or just a temporary effect caused by Google re-crawling specific news sources remains to be seen.

Note, these results are not being generated by searches of Google's (mostly-ignored) News Archive search.

The post Google Quietly Extends Coverage Range of Google News Database appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

A little over two years ago, in an effort to unify the design of all of its products, Google added a standardized black bar across the top of all of those products. In that black bar (in easily ignored grey text) were links to some of Google’s most popular products and specialized databases.

The goal was to give users access to those popular products in one or two (and sometimes three) clicks.

Google has been rolling out a new App launcher on the upper right-hand side of its Web Search homepage (and other products) as a replacement to the black bar - to access those same products. The new App launcher is reminiscent of design elements of Google’s Chrome operating system. The new App launcher adds at least one click (and sometimes more) to the process of accessing those products. For example, to reach the journal and caselaw databases at Google Scholar now requires users to:

• click the App launcher on the upper right-hand side of their browser window;
• scan down to the bottom of the list presented
• click the More link
• scan down to the bottom of the subsequent list presented
• click the Even more from Google link
• scroll down the list of products presented and locate the link to Google Scholar

Links to access Gmail and Google’s Image Search are still located in the upper right-hand corner of the Web Search interface.

Users could use direct URLs (e.g., https://www.google.com/scholar) to access products like Google Scholar or create browser Favorites or Shortcuts.

The black bar interface still displays on the search results page(s) for some Google products such as Google Groups.

However, if Google’s goal was to make the products on the More and Even More screens easier to access we don’t see this update as an improvement.

The post Google Changes Search Page Interface – Again appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

In a blog post explaining its discontinuation,  Dan Russell, Google's Uber Tech Lead for Search Quality and User Happiness explained, "I agree it's a useful operator in a very small number of cases, but the usage was minuscule bordering on nonexistent, and the feature took up a disproportionately large amount of index space given the low usage. So Google made the call to turn it off.  (Or to think about it in personal terms, I used ~ twice in all of 2011, and I write about this stuff.)"

On the contrary, we write and speak on conducting effective Google searches and frequently use the ~.

Owners of The Cybersleuth's Guide to the Internet and Google For Lawyers should delete the reference to this feature from their books.

The post Google Kills Another Search Feature | No More Tilde for Synonym Search appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Since then, Google has expanded the features of its Apps products. One of those newer features is the Google Drive application for Windows and Mac OS computers. The Google Drive application allows you to have the documents stored in your Google Apps account appear in a folder on your computer - as if they were stored locally. This is similar to other cloud storage services like Dropbox.

Cloud Connect can no longer be used to access, edit, or save documents stored in Google Apps. In order to use Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, or Excel to access, edit, or save documents stored in Google Apps users must now install the Google Drive application for Windows or Mac OS.

Google Apps Administrators must enable their users to use use the Google Drive application on their computers.

If you have Cloud Connect installed, you should uninstall it from your computers:
    •    Click Start and navigate to your Control Panel.
    •    Go to Programs and Features.
    •    Then, select Uninstall or change program.
    •    Choose to uninstall Google Cloud Connect.
 

The post Google Retires Cloud Connect for Google Apps appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

In a blog post on Google's Webmaster Central Blog, Hongyi Li, an Associate Product Manager for Images, noted that,"Based on feedback from both users and webmasters, we redesigned Google Images to provide a better search experience. In the next few days, you’ll see image results displayed in an inline panel so it’s faster, more beautiful, and more reliable. You will be able to quickly flip through a set of images by using the keyboard. If you want to go back to browsing other search results, just scroll down and pick up right where you left off."

If you are not already seeing the new layout and functions, here's a preview.

The post Google Revamps Image Search for Faster Results appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

To search for multiple phrases using the Advanced Search form you must enclose each of the phrases in its own set of quotation marks. Previously, anything entered into this box was treated as a single phrase, even if individual phrases were enclosed in their own quotation marks. To search for a single phrase using this form you do not need to use phrase without quotation marks at all - the form essentially does it for you.

This feature works on both Google Web Search and Google Scholar but not Google Groups.

Users could always search for multiple phrases on the homepage search box of any Google search service by enclosing each of the phrases in its own set of quotation marks. This functionality remains unchanged.

The post Google Updates Advanced Search, Now Recognizes Multiple Phrases From Search Form appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.