INTRODUCTION
A library's collection development policy (CDP) is the “master plan for building and maintaining its collections” (Evans & Saponaro, Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 49). It is a strategic document which enables the library to obtain and manage resources in line with its immediate goals, as well as reflecting wider institutional objectives and priorities.
Garavaglia (Reference Garavaglia2007), considering collection development in academic law libraries, sees a written CDP as the “blueprint” for building a collection whether in tangible or virtual form. Whilst CDPs appear to be in widespread use in academic institutions, there is little evidence to suggest that the same is true of law firms. Many firm librarians may agree with Gruben (Reference Gruben, Kehoe, Lyman and McCann1995, 173) who states that “if there were a collection development policy for a law firm it would be one sentence long and say something like, ‘We buy what we need to support our practice of law’.” However, when discussing this issue with colleagues in a variety of firms, it emerged that there was some interest in CDPs as a way of managing the impact of reduced budgets and mergers.
This article, adapted from coursework submitted as part of an MSc in Library and Information Studies, analyses the existing literature and considers the benefits that a CDP could deliver to a law firm library. It identifies the problems that firm librarians face when developing such policies, and seeks to establish some ways in which they might be overcome.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
Clayton and Gorman (Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 21) highlight particular areas of benefit that a written CDP can deliver. Key amongst these are the rationalisation of resources, responding to changes in funding, and communicating with clients, colleagues and staff.
RATIONALISATION OF RESOURCES
In clearly stating the purpose of the collection and articulating standard procedures, a written CDP can promote a consistent approach to selection, acquisition, discarding, maintenance and evaluation of resources (Clayton & Gorman Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 19). Lastres (Reference Lastres2011, p. 20) suggests selection criteria that can be applied by law firm libraries including quality, anticipated usage, availability of similar material, space requirements, and staff time for maintenance. Clayton & Gorman argue that committing these criteria to a written policy will help to mitigate against “personal bias” of staff, as well as highlighting “imbalances in selection criteria” (Clayton & Gorman, Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 20). Another benefit is that a written policy can enable consistency in the collection despite changes in staff and help to “ease transition from one librarian to the next” (Clayton & Gorman, Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 20). For example, a CDP can outline procedures such as purchasing annual core texts, managing old editions and administering the ‘on approval’ process; all of which are essential to the reliability of the collection and managing user expectations.
A further advantage of a written CDP is that it facilitates collaboration and co-ordination between institutions (Clayton & Gorman, Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 20). This is particularly important for law firm libraries as they move away from ownership of information resources to a model that favours “just-in-time” access (Lastres, Reference Lastres2011, p. 22). In this new model, information needs may be met through internal resources, or external collections such as membership libraries and document delivery services. For example, many law firms do not have the funds or space to retain historical material, which may be of use only rarely. The written collection development policies of two libraries which can be accessed by law firms – those of the Law SocietyFootnote 1 and the Institute of Advanced Legal StudiesFootnote 2 – both highlight their ongoing archival responsibilities. Such policies can enable law firms to make informed decisions about the content of their own collections.
Written CDPs can also play a crucial role in managing the multiplicity of hardcopy and electronic formats that make up the collection. Evans and Saponaro (Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 49) argue that despite the seemingly new and unique challenges posed by electronic resources, library collections have always comprised of a variety of formats. However, they also point out that such resources are likely to be the most complex elements of a collection and therefore can only be managed effectively through a written policy. For example, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP's policy sets out preferences that can be used in negotiation with suppliers, such as requesting a license for one concurrent user rather than one named user, and considering whether content can be shared and stored within the firm (Lastres, Reference Lastres2011, pp. 20–21). Lastres also suggests that librarians include policies for emerging areas, such as delivery of content on mobile devices (Reference Lastres2011, p. 23). With technologies such as e-books and apps entering the mainstream of legal publishing, a written CDP can assist law firms in applying consistent selection criteria across diverse formats.
CHANGES IN FUNDING
A written CDP can enable a “planned response to upward and downward changes in funding” contributing to operational efficiency (Clayton & Gorman, Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, pp. 20–21). In a profit-making organisation such as a law firm, this is of paramount importance. Lastres argues that a CDP can act as an effective tool for dealing with limited budgets and demonstrates a proactive approach to financial management (Reference Lastres2011, p. 20). This view is supported by Maher, who notes the importance of a documented policy which “outlines all of the procedures to follow when ordering material and processing it for payment.” He argues that if the policy is kept up to date and made available to the relevant members of staff “it acts as an effective financial control mechanism” (Reference Maher and Worley2006, p. 136). Financial control is embedded in Debevoise & Plimpton LLP's policy which states that whilst users are encouraged to make recommendations, “all requests for purchases must be directed to the Library Director for approval”, and warns users not to order books independently and expect reimbursement from the library budget (Lastres, Reference Lastres2011, p. 20). Evans and Saponaro also note that a written policy can aid in ‘rationalising’ budget allocations (Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 53). In a law firm context, budget allocations may be divided by practice area and Lastres encourages the librarian to take the lead in creating a budget for each practice area, based on its relative size and economic importance to the firm (Reference Lastres2011, p. 21). This strategic approach to budget allocation, reinforced by a written policy, can help to ensure that collection development is informed by the business needs of the firm.
COMMUNICATION
A third crucial benefit of a written development policy is its ability to communicate vital information to colleagues, staff and users. Internally, the CDP acts as a training tool for staff, enabling them to align their decisions with the goals of the library (Clayton & Gorman, Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 20). Waters argues that a CDP can also serve as an advocacy tool for the collection. She states that a CDP can help in “supporting the case for the collection when dealing with both users and managers” (Reference Waters2012, pp. 24–25). This will not only assist in dealing with complaints about the collection and use of funds, but also have value as an accountability tool which provides users with information about the purpose of collection development itself (Clayton & Gorman, Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 53). A written CDP includes users in the collection development process, and enables them to understand how and why decisions are made. In a law firm context, this will be a particularly powerful tool if the plan is approved by partners. Indeed, Lastres recommends that all stakeholders in the library should be included in the development of a CDP (Reference Lastres2011, p. 20). This will include fee-earners at all levels and library staff, as well as business support teams that interact with the library such as finance, IT and marketing. With the approval of all interested parties, the policy can go some way to being what Clayton and Gorman term “a contract between a library and its users” (Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 19).
WHAT'S STOPPING US?
Clayton and Gorman propose that “the most telling argument against having a written collection development policy is that so many libraries do not have one - indeed most of the great library collections in the world were originally created without such policies.” (Reference Clayton and Gorman2001, p. 20). This statement is particularly relevant to law firm libraries as there is no information available which suggests how many firms rely on written policies. Even if firms do have policies, Evans and Saponaro argue that “libraries and information centers in profit oriented organizations frequently limit the reporting of activities and new systems for proprietary reasons” (Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 80) as this would compromise their competitive advantage. They are therefore unlikely to want to share CDPs with external organisations. This creates an additional problem for law firm libraries as an essential step in formulating a CDP is to consult other similar policies (Garavaglia, Reference Garavaglia2007). Whilst law firm librarians may look to the CDPs of academic or membership libraries for inspiration about the types of materials that need to be acquired, the contexts in which they operate, their mission, and user needs are likely to be markedly different. Therefore, with no evidence to suggest that other firms have policies, and few existing policies available in the public domain to provide a starting point, it may be very difficult for law librarians to justify why it should be a priority.
Another significant constraint is a lack of time to formulate and administer written CDPs (Evans & Saponaro, Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, pp. 51–52). Gruben is sceptical about the benefits of a written policy and in his experience has found that they are not necessary “unless the librarians have a great deal of time on their hands” (Reference Gruben, Kehoe, Lyman and McCann1995, p. 173). Knudsen concurs, seeing written CDPs as “a venture that needs a lot of time which could be better used for other purposes” (Knudsen, Reference Knudsen, Danner and Winterton2011, p. 251). For law firm librarians, these other purposes may directly contribute to the profitability of the firm and involve tasks including chargeable legal research or business development activities. Even if librarians find the time to write the policy, they must also find the time to update it to ensure that it stays relevant. The currency of information in law firm collections is extremely important and Knudsen notes that “law books, unlike books in other fields of the humanities, are outdated the very moment the laws or judgments or policies on which they are based are superseded” (Reference Knudsen, Danner and Winterton2011, p. 253). The collection must also be relevant to the current business needs of the firm. Gruben highlights that “if something is needed, it is purchased. If such a need arises due to a new matter in the firm, the librarian cannot attempt to avoid the purchase by saying that it doesn't fit into the plan” (Reference Gruben, Kehoe, Lyman and McCann1995, pp. 173–174). Law firms must adapt to client needs in order to retain their share of the market and such needs may be unpredictable and quick to change. It is the library's role to support these needs through providing appropriate, current information. However, Evans and Saponaro argue that once the CDP has been written, “updating the policy should not be a monumental problem. Updating does take time, but if it is done annually, it is almost painless” (Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 52). Indeed, if there is sufficient flexibility built into a plan from the outset, this will prevent unnecessary restrictions on collection procedures.
A final area of contention emerges from this investigation. Whilst a strong case is made in the literature for the use of written CDPs in libraries, a far weaker argument is advanced for their use in special libraries. Indeed, in some cases the use of written policies is dismissed as “redundant” (Evans & Saponaro, Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 52). Whilst Lastres (Reference Lastres2011) takes it as a given that law firm libraries should have written CDPs others, such as Gruben (Reference Gruben, Kehoe, Lyman and McCann1995) and Knudsen (Reference Knudsen, Danner and Winterton2011), have dismissed them almost entirely. Therefore, the existing literature is seen to exclude law firm librarians from the discussion on collection development policies. This may go some way to explain why, as Evans and Saponaro argue, “despite their substantial numbers, special libraries have not influenced professional practice as much as one would expect” (Reference Evans and Saponaro2005, p. 80). Whilst it may not be appropriate for law firm libraries to share their CDPs, it may be valuable for firm librarians to share principles and frameworks which could inform the creation of specialist CDPs for law firms. Further investigation by collection development theorists would also serve to open up the debate around CDPs in special libraries, enriching the literature and promoting their benefits.
CONCLUSION
This article has argued that a written CDP can benefit a law firm library by helping to articulate its goals and providing a framework with which to evaluate the success of collection development activities. It has been shown that CDPs can aid the rationalisation of resources by setting standards, encouraging consistency and enabling intelligent use of external collections, whilst providing assistance in dealing with developing technologies and changing formats. It has also been argued that a CDP can contribute to operational efficiency and achieve maximum return from limited budgets. Furthermore, it has been shown that a CDP is essential in communicating procedures to library staff, justifying decisions to users and promoting collection development to all stakeholders. However, despite clear benefits, a number of constraints have been identified. Firstly, a lack of publicly available law firm CDPs makes it difficult for law firm librarians to find a reference point for their own policies. Secondly, a lack of time and a focus on profit-making activities means that CDPs can be low down on the list of a law firm's priorities. Finally, it has been argued that the importance of CDPs for special libraries has been overlooked by collection development theorists, leading to an under-representation of law firm libraries in this area of investigation. A longer investigation could explore this under-researched field in more depth by surveying a number of law firm libraries and critically examining their approach to collection development to draw further conclusions on the benefits of CDPs in the field.
