Google your way to better results

Google is a fun and helpful resource. Most law students like using it because it is easier than a lot of databases used by lawyers. The skills and strategies used in Westlaw or Lexis can also be employed while using Google. All you have to do is consider how Google works. It is well known that Google's search algorithm is a company secret, but the general approach Google employs has been shared by Google. While the details of their algorithm is shrouded in secrecy to prevent people from gaming the system as well as to keep Google ahead of their competitors, the basics are widely known.

Google uses automated programs called spiders or crawlers to scour the Internet retrieving information in the form of words on each web page. The information is indexed and from the index Google applies the algorithm to create a rank of pages based on the query entered. Most people simply type in a key word or two, but a good search applies Boolean logic (AND/OR/NOT) to obtain results that maximize the relevance of your results. You can use AND/OR/NOT concept through Google's Advanced Search page.

When writing your query or search, keep in mind that Google indexes the information retrieved by the spiders in such a way that the content of the page and the pages own description determine whether it will be found in a particular search. If a page mentions certain key words in the page in itself and in the title, that page will likely be ranked high in a search using that key word. However, if you only ask for what you do not want and do not ask Google to omit irrelevant items you will waste time sorting through results. If you are looking for a story about a crime committed you can type in your relevant key word, but you can also ask Google not to bring back results involving crimes you aren't interested in. Because Google's index takes into account each word on a page you can easily eliminate unwanted results. For instance, using Google's Advanced Search tools you can search for murder, but not robbery. Next time you are using Google click on Advanced Search to the right of the search box to see all the ways you can control your results.


Developing your search skills will help you find the perfect place for dinner in record time, but more importantly, it will help you become a better lawyer.

Bad Legal Advice

Talk of prosecuting Bush legal eagles who wrote memoranda that provided legal justification for torture is swirling around the blogosphere and the traditional media. The Wall Street Journal legal blog argues that bad advice is bad, of course, but not criminal. Traditionally organizations have relied on the advice of legal counsel, but acting on the advice of counsel is not a defense to criminal liability. To leap from criminal culpability of the actor to criminal culpability of the attorney whom the actor relied upon to conform his conduct is troubling to the legal community and for good reason. However, these are extraordinary circumstances.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) clearly states that it is the obligation of those subject to the code to disobey unlawful orders. This legal concept was made explicit to unambiguously reject the Nuremberg Defense. The Nuremberg Defense is essentially that the defendant is not liable for his acts because he was following orders he was legally bound follow. This is relevant now because military personnel relied upon the advice of the President's counsel and conducted interrogations that violated the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ. (Any argument that water boarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, striking repeatedly, but without the intent to cause substantial bodily harm do not violate those agreements is too specious to warrant a serious reply.) Obama has assured the Central Intelligence Community (CIA) that those who acted in reliance of the so-called Torture Memos will not be prosecuted. This stance has been harshly criticized by the left. On its face, Obama's position is essentially a redux of the Nuremberg Defense. It may be politically attractive and practical in the context of the continued threat of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to take this stance, but it overlooks one of the most important lessons of the Nuremberg Trials: each individual must be held accountable for his actions if we are to be free from state sanctioned atrocities against humanity.

So, what do we do with the lawyers? The front line actors are allowed by the Geneva Conventions to use the defense of following orders to mitigate liability, but not absolve it. Arguably, if the documents created by the lawyers were used as a basis to commit crimes, their bar standing may be in jeopardy (though politically within the Bar, that result is extremely unlikely). I doubt they can be prosecuted for bad advice unless they knowingly issued the memoranda in question with the intention of causing others to commit violations of the law. Since it seems the primary purpose of the memos was to explain how the torture techniques were not illegal, criminal prosecution seems unlikely.