 The National Inventory of Legal Materials is a packing list of sorts, describing, detailing, and cataloging where one can find the legal materials for our federal, state, and local systems. At the First Law Dock of Workshop held at Samford in January of this year, members of the Northern California Association of Law Librarians were in attendance. As a group, we decided to develop a California prototype of the inventory. Since that time, we now have over 20 volunteers working on the California inventory, which include nearly 700 records. Some of the information that we have gathered includes copyright assertions, disclaimers, and official status and price information. And as our project grew, so did the larger national inventory. Now there are 195 volunteers across the country working on federal and state level inventory projects, as it is now a full-fledged activity of the American Association of Law Libraries. And it ties in very nicely with the key areas of AAL's leadership and advocacy. Much of our work draws and builds upon the fine work of AAL's Electronic Legal Information Access and Citation Committee. Though the results are preliminary and work is still very much ongoing, I'd like to share with you some of what we've found thus far. At least eight states assert copyright over their statutory codes online. The preliminary research shows that 42% of the states or 21 states assert copyright over their administrative codes online. It appears that five states have limited or no administrative code available online. And apparently only one state provides access to case law for a fee online. It appears that 32 of the state's highest appellate courts offer free public access case information or docket searching without any registration or username or password. Almost every state's online legal resources includes disclaimers, either to the status or reliability of the content. And nearly none of these states have those same disclaimers in their print equivalents. Given that the California inventory is nearly completed, here are a few examples from California. Of the nearly 540 municipalities, counties, and counties in California, most have codes online and have ordinances online. However, approximately 40% of these legal materials state that they are not official and have strong web disclaimers about the use of the online version. Approximately 50% have copyright assertions. Further, a small sampling of these online materials found that none provided folk access. A typical disclaimer on these municipal codes might read, this code of ordinances may not reflect the most current legislation adopted by the municipality. These documents are provided for informational purposes only. These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Formatting impagination varies from the official copy. The official printed copy should be consulted prior to any action being taken. The codes in print, if you were to purchase them, go upwards of $100. One municipality that we contacted wasn't even sure if they still had a paper or official copy available for sale. At the state level, the California administrative code is provided for free online by Thompson West. But there's a copyright assertion, and the cost for the subscription to the official print version is approximately $3,500. Title 24, the building code, is published separately and not part of the California Code of Regulations website. The FAQs on that site direct you to visit the California Building Standards Commission site, which then links you out to the International Code Council's copyrighted site, where you can then view only one section at a time of the building code. If you want to purchase the building code in print, it's approximately $860. Likewise, it will cost you between $130 to $150 to purchase print versions of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing codes, what have you. We have not yet checked, and we are interested in checking to see how many standards incorporated by reference are available freely on the California Code of Regulations site. As to the Attorney General opinions in California, you can find these in official form and print for approximately $400. If you visit the free version online, you find this disclaimer. Disclaimer of duty to continue provision of the data. Due to the dynamic nature of the internet, resources that are free and publicly available one day may require a fee or restrict access the next. One of the executive agencies in California had full text of their administrative decisions on their site. However, without any pagination, which will be required if you were to cite to it in California courts. And as to the courts, to gain access to the full archive of California Supreme Court cases, you must click agree to a license preventing you from using the data for non-profit or public use. Further, it states, it is not intended to function as an alternative to commercial computer-based services and products for comprehensive legal research. The court opinion archive is provided by Lexis under a contract with the state of California and the official print copy of these opinions runs the neighborhood of $300. There is a free archive of recent slip opinions on the California court site, as Professor Martin has mentioned, without a license click agreement. However, these are filed as is with edited corrected versions only appearing on the other site. And it states on that site, this archive is not provided for the purposes of legal research. Outside of California, here are a few other examples and illustrations. Apparently, Delaware is the only state authenticating its online administrative code with digital signatures. Similar to California courts, New Jersey's administrative code has a license agreement you need to click through to view preventing you from using the data for non-profit or public use. It appears that only seven states have clearly made their online administrative code, administrative code of regulations official. The full set of Connecticut state agency regulations, sometimes called an administrative code, is not available on the web. A complete set of regulations in loosely format, 18 binders, may be purchased from the commission on official legal publications for approximately $600. Vermont does not have an administrative code of regulations online. If you want to secure bulk access to the Arizona code of regulations, it will cost you upwards of $15,000. $15,000 initially plus $5,000 to update. However, there is no charge for postage in handling. If you want to get bulk access in Indiana, it might take a bit of time as each request is looked at on a case by case basis. And most states simply don't provide easy information on gaining bulk access to their legal materials. There are also a number of inconsistent examples. Although Arkansas's code of regulations is not fully available online and their registered rules is only official in print form, the Arkansas online court opinions are official, authenticated, and utilize medium neutral citation formats. If you want to look at Alabama's appellate court opinions or highest court opinions on the web, you will need to pay a fee. They are not freely available on the court site. And Connecticut copyrights its appellate court opinions. In Idaho, all cited opinions are posted on the court's website the day of release. However, once in the West Pacific or Idaho reports, the opinions are then removed from the Idaho website. Yet, Idaho by statute has created a digital repository ensuring permanent public access to all state agency materials. When you visit the Vermont statutes maintained on the legislature's website, it states, the Vermont statutes online is an unofficial copy provided as a convenience. It has not been updated, edited for publication. The official version is online at LexisNexis Publishing. However, by statute, the Vermont General Assembly Legislative Council is required to maintain official computerized databases that the Vermont statutes annotated and post them on the web with a seal of authenticity. In Ohio, there are digital signatures on recent Supreme Court opinions showing authenticity, however, only the printed decisions are deemed official. However, both the Ohio revised code and administrative code are not official and bear a copyright assertion. I mentioned that there are many disclaimers on the web and a disclaimer from the Ohio court state, you are granted a limited, revocable, not exclusive right to create a hyperlink to the homepage of the Supreme Court of Ohio. So long as the link does not portray the Supreme Court of Ohio or its producers or services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive manner. The New York official reports as a warning that the New York official opinions may not be downloaded or stored and used in an archival database or other searchable database. User may not sell, license, or distribute the New York official opinions, including printouts to third parties, or use the New York official opinions as a component of or basis for any material offered for sale, license, or distribution. Oklahoma has been a real leader in this in that it has provided freely available Supreme Court opinions since 1890 and criminal appeals cases since 1908 on their court website. Each of Oklahoma's 77 county and district courts have their records available online through one of two court websites. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently issued a directive that public access to electronic case information is available on a case by case basis. Bulk distribution of electronic case information is not allowed. While anyone can search these files online, only members of the Oklahoma Bar can access images of the court documents through one of the vendors for a fee. And one third of the states that did not provide free online public case or docket information searching at the highest appellate court provided either for a fee or only to members of and or to members of the bar. And there will be more examples as we continue to add to the inventory going forward and we look forward to getting your feedback and more input as we go forward. Thank you.