A virtual leap to new sources of valid secondary content
A Field student asked a question today that made me think about which sources I point people to. The question was about anton piller orders.
Anton Piller Orders are a form of injunctive relief, so I naturally thought of the book by Sharpe titled Injunctions and Specific Performance which we have in looseleaf form in both our large office libraries. I pointed the student in this valid and traditional direction.
Then, out of curiosity, I Googled 'anton piller order'. I learned that there is a Wikipedia page for them, they are frequently misspelled as anton pilar orders and that there was a blog post about a 2006 SCC decision at The Court. Some links to potentially valid CLE material also appeared in the first page of Google hits.
Although I would never suggest that someone base a short timeline legal opinion on Wikipedia, certainly a supervised blog of comments on SCC cases based out of Osgoode Hall Law School, like The Court, is a fabulous starting point for legal research which I am very comfortable recommending.
Does this mean I can no longer discount a poke into Google as a valid form of legal research?
Does this mean that in addition to all of the traditional sources (texts and looseleafs, encyclopedias, journal articles, Canadian Abridgment, WeC and QL) I should have inexperienced legal researchers Google their client's question?
Do I Google for them so that I can vet the results?
Comments greatly appreciated.
A note to Field Students - If you only look on Google I will hunt you down :-)