We provide quality service and satisfy the needs of the academic community through access to legal information, while maintaining our duty to avoid the unauthorized practice of law.
This principle includes three important issues for academic law librarians. First, providing service and satisfying needs of the academic community; second, providing access to legal information; and the third, avoidance of the unauthorized practice of law. These three issues will be discussed and justified below.
In an academic environment, it is essential that the students and faculty are supported by a librarian who actively provides quality service and is willing to satisfy their needs. According to Wengert (2001), librarians are seen “as experts who instruct others on how to better achieve the projects that they have in mind” (p.486). Whether they are studying, learning, or teaching, the academic community should have a dynamically supportive librarian to whom they can go to for assistance with finding information for which they seek. Academic law librarians should be active in their supportive role, rather than passive. They should satisfy user needs by seeking out the members of the academic community in order to find out their needs, rather than waiting for them to find the library first. Further justification for service and satisfying the needs of the academic community can be found from W.D. Ross, a non-consequentialist theorist. Ross believes it is self-evident that we as human beings have moral duties, which are shown by our moral intuition to do the right thing (Fallis, 2009). He provides seven basic duties, one that can justify the reason for a librarian to provide quality service and satisfy user needs. This duty describes that “one ought to improve the lot of others with respect to virtue, intelligence, and happiness (beneficence)” (Spinello, 1995, p.27). An academic law librarian therefore can state that it is their moral duty to improve the lives of the academic community through intelligence (teaching and engaging the academic community) and happiness (actively satisfying user needs).
The second issue addressed in this principle is providing access to legal information. This is crucial for an academic setting because students and faculty need to trust that they will be able to find and have access to the legal information they require. In today’s world of information overload, there is a “need for someone knowledgeable who can locate, review, and organize all the material that is constantly engulfing users in ever accelerating waves” (Wengert, 2001, p.487). This can be resolved by having an academic law librarian who provides access to legal information that is relevant to the academic community’s needs. As the AALL Ethical Principles state, “We promote open and effective access to legal and related information. Further we recognize the need to establish methods of preserving, maintaining and retrieving legal information in many different forms.” The academic law librarian should therefore, provide open access to legal information while developing effective ways to help the academic community find what they are looking for. In addition, a utilitarian would justify providing access to information as an action that would make the most people happy. In doing a cost/benefit analysis, a librarian would find that through providing access to information, they are choosing the action that has the best consequence for all affected (Fallis, 2009).
The third issue presented in this principle is to avoid the unauthorized practice of law. In other words, an academic law librarian should not provide legal advice. There is a delicate balance between what is considered legal advice and what is considered legal information, especially in the academic law library. Legal advice is typically about a particular course of action to further a person’s interest, whereas legal information pertains to facts about the law and legal services (Krishnaswami, 2009). As the AALL Ethical Principles state, “We acknowledge the limits on service imposed by our institutions and by the duty to avoid the unauthorized practice of law.” Therefore it is critical that academic law librarians differentiate between providing legal advice and legal information, so as to avoid the unauthorized practice of law. Justification for this issue can also be found from a utilitarian perspective. One could argue that by refraining from providing legal advice, the librarian is choosing the action that is likely to lead to the most overall happiness (Fallis, 2009).To weigh the consequences, if a librarian were to provide legal advice to the student, then the student would not learn how to answer their own legal questions, and therefore would not be happy down the road when they practice law. Also, the faculty members will not be happy because their efforts to educate the students would be useless if the librarian is doing the work for them. Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, to avoid the unauthorized practice of law would maximize the total happiness of all those who are affected by the actions (Fallis, 2009).
In the circumstance of conflict occurring between principles, it is good to note that this principle could come into conflict with itself. For example, when a member of the academic community is in need of legal advice, the academic law librarian must still satisfy the user’s needs as well as avoid the unauthorized practice of law. In this situation, the academic law librarian can direct the member of the academic community to various appropriate locations (referral numbers, court lists) to seek legal advice. The academic law librarian cannot, however, recommend a specific lawyer nor determine if a lawyer is needed (Arizona Supreme Court Task Force, 2007). The academic law librarian should only provide legal information.
A good example of a concrete application of this entire principle would occur when a student asks for assistance in finding a treatise on contracts. The academic law librarian would show them how to use the online catalog, to find the call number range for the subject of contracts. Then the librarian would show them on a map where the call number range is located in the library collection, as well as take them to this location. From there they would suggest finding Corbin on Contracts because it is one of the popular treatises for that subject. However, the librarian would also recommend looking at other treatises for comparison, which the library also provides. Through the recommendation of a treatise, in this case, the librarian is using their knowledge of the information, but not interpreting the law in any way (Southern California Association of Law Libraries, 2009, p.50). This example applies this principle because it is exhibiting quality service, satisfying the needs of a member of the academic community, providing access to information while avoiding the unauthorized practice of law.