Many of us chose our profession because we enjoy assisting people. It is the humanness of our patrons that makes librarianship fun and interesting, that entertains and yet still makes us want to serve. If you happened to catch Amy Hale Janeke’s and Sharon Blackburn’s amusing presentation, “Negotiating with the Bizarre: Strange Questions at the Reference Desk” at AALL in Boston, you are already familiar with the blog they have created for librarians to report their funny or bizarre reference questions at http://bizarrequestions.blogspot.com/. The site has contributions from librarians across the country.
As public service professionals, we may wince at the perception that we are making fun of our clientele. After all, much of what we call bizarre is really naivete or misconception. We have been taught from an early age that there is no such thing as a dumb question (a statement on which I have formed my own opinions since teaching foreign languages at an introductory level to college students), and such patron questions often offer us “teaching moments,” which we love. But sometimes our patrons truly give us the opportunity to rejoice in how varied is the human thought process, and it is delightful.
One librarian on the blog reports that their patron wanted to know, “What's the case law on the type of font to be used for corresponding with public officials?” Other questions mentioned in the presentation at AALL were (paraphrased here): “I need a motion to desist. My neighbor put a hex on me.” “I’m being harassed spiritually” (by demons). “I need to review the anti-witchcraft provision of the Patriot Act.” “How do I copyright my name? I want to sue people using my name in court documents.”
As a state-supported academic institution with absolutely no security, staff in our library are surprised to field questions from people asking whether they are allowed into the building and to observe how they use our facility. One young lady told us that her uncle used to attend our law school, and so she hoped she was eligible to enter and tour the library. We have a paralegal student from the nearby community college who brings her own hefty print cartridge to the Laserjet 1200 series printer in our reference area because she doesn’t want to abuse our supplies, though she spends literally hours in the offices of various law school faculty getting free instruction to assist her in her coursework.
It is frequently the regular patrons who provide the most interesting stories. Another librarian on the blog relates, “One of our regular crazies called me at 8:30 a.m. this morning to tell me about the secret orgies that are going on at the White House with Barbara Bush… In the past, [she] has announced that Aretha Franklin stole her boyfriend, [that] Martha Stuart was sneaking in her windows at night and trying on her hats, and that Kobe Bryant kept showing up at her apartment building.”
We have a local resident who comes to the library regularly. He is researching how he can get a cut of the money from drug busts that black helicopters are making on his property.
One regular patron used to call frequently to get copies of court cases. A mysterious but friendly man who changed his name and town of residence though he was still recognizable by voice, he wanted all items sent to a post office box number, always paid by money order, and would never leave a telephone number. The first several times he called I had to explain to him that I needed case citations to determine which cases he wanted; United States v. Smith just wasn’t enough information. From the time I successfully described what a case citation looked like, his calls would always begin with, “Debbie, I have some citin’s for ye.”
We smile. The stories are fun, and amusement is healthy. These library patrons give us a short respite in our routine address of legal resources. But in our capacity as librarians we recognize that some of these patrons have been to attorneys and been turned away or do not have money to pay for legal assistance. For them, ridiculous or not, an injustice (or perceived injustice) has occurred. It is very difficult to explain that not every injustice can be treated by the legal system. Sometimes injury or loss just cannot be repaired. It’s like a doctor who tells his patients to live with the pain. Some people will accept it, and some will go to other practitioners to find relief. And so, many find themselves in our libraries, trying to sort for remedies through the immense complication we call the law.
This is raising questions for law librarians across the country. How are law librarians handling the questions of their patrons seeking legal research assistance? And what role do librarians play in answering these questions? How are academic libraries addressing pro se patron needs through collection development?
These issues of reference librarian liability regarding legal assistance and the handling of the self-represented litigant have been well-represented in our literature. Paul Healey has done a nice review of library literature on this topic in his article, Pro Se Users, Reference Liability, and the Unauthorized Practice of Law: Twenty-Five Selected Readings, 94 Law Libr. J. 133-138 (2002). In this annotated bibliography, Mr. Healey divides bibliographic references on the topic of reference liability into three categories: reference liability in general (general librarian), unauthorized practice of law and pro se users (law librarians), and legal sources on unauthorized practice of law (legal community).
Among the sources he cites in the first category, there is a split in addressing user needs that occurred in the mid-1980s. Since the first articles in 1976 where the idea of reference liability appears to have been floated, “no reported court decisions or established legal theory…support the concept” of librarians incurring liability for activities conducted at the reference desk. 1 The literature addresses this and has taken a turn to a more general acceptance of the role of librarians in assisting self-represented litigants and a skepticism regarding the possibility of librarian liability.
The issue of unauthorized practice of law and pro se users is most relevant to our academic libraries and has been addressed in the law library literature frequently in recent years, though publication dates do not reflect the same schism that is apparent in the general library literature. Many of these articles are authored by our own members and reflect efforts to balance professionalism with ways to meet needs of the self-represented litigant without practicing law. With equal representation librarians advocate both help to any degree it is possible and advise against over-stepping the role of reference. Cautious advocates suggest practical means to handle patrons through disclaimers, handouts, and limited reference interviews. Interestingly, a trend may be growing that indicates less concern over the liability of reference librarians and greater discomfort over the ethical dilemmas of assisting self-represented litigants.
Those legal resources that address unauthorized practice of law, however, roundly support assistance of the self-represented litigant. The American Bar Association has stated clearly that, “Informal help with legal problems, coming from neighbors, friends, coworkers, religious advisors, teachers, social workers, law librarians, and others who have had experience handling a similar legal problem or who are considered to be reliable sources of information, has not generally been considered unauthorized practice.” 2
For every patron who walks through the door with an unusual question or request, there is a librarian who is applying patient, creative reference assistance. These patrons make great stories, but they can also represent problems with which our profession struggles. It quickly becomes obvious when reviewing our scholars that librarians are not in agreement on how best to handle these patrons, and across the country assistance varies broadly. Do we help the mother looking for a motion to stop her son from dating his current girlfriend because she is of questionable reputation? Or do we work closely with the local court and public librarians to find the most effective means of helping the patron? This question may not have a right or wrong answer at this time. However occurrences appear to be on the rise, and it is time for academic libraries to develop policies and alliances to prepare for these patrons.
1 Paul Healey, Chicken Little at the Reference Desk: The Myth of Librarian Liability, 87 Law Libr. J. 515-33 (1995).
2 American Bar Association Commission on Nonlawyer Practice. Nonlawyer Activity in Law-Related Situations: A Report with Recommendations. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1995, at 35.