Just because I've been submitting text to this column for several years now, that's no reason to think that my library's online catalog must have all of its subject access points in perfect order. Nope. Not at all. For example, just the other day I noticed that we had used the subject heading Lawyers--Fees--United States a couple of times, whereas we already had numerous entries with the subdivisions in a different order: Lawyers--United States--Fees. My first thought was: "One of these headings is wrong." (Duh!) As you are probably aware, the Library of Congress has been trying to regularize its practice with geographic subdivisions, with the result that more and more topical subdivisions are having the "(May Subd Geog)" instruction added to them. With a little verification work, I was able to determine that this is what happened to Lawyers--Fees. In this case, there was an LC Subject Authority Record for the heading; it was revised in 1996. Also revised in 1996 was the SCM:SH List of Free-Floating Subdivisions Under Classes of Persons, showing the same thing:

[Class of persons] ­Fees (May Subd Geog)

I wondered What other changes to subdivision practice have we missed? I should note that what I've given below is not a complete list, as I have only included subdivisions that are known to have been used or likely to be used under the Lawyers class of persons, with a couple of Judges subdivisions thrown in. The list was developed by comparing a 1984 ed. of LC's Subject Heading Manual: Subject Headings memo 1100 to the 1996 ed. (updated through Aug. 1997) of the same title, in addition to reviewing the Legal L.C. Subject Headings Weekly Lists: Cumulation, compiled formerly by Peter Enyingi and currently by Melody Lembke. Law catalogers might wish to check the following in their catalogs:

Lawyers--[Place]--Abuse of
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Abuse of--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Alcohol use
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Alcohol use--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Costume
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Costume--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Crimes against
has been revised to:
Lawyers--Crimes against--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Drug use
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Drug use--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Fees
has been revised to:
Lawyers--Fees--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Insurance requirements
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Insurance requirements--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Job stress
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Job stress--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Rating of
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Rating of--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Recruiting
has been revised to :
Lawyers--Recruiting--[Place]

Judges--[Place]--Residence requirements
has been revised to:
Judges--Residence requirements--[Place]

Judges--[Place]--Resignation
has been revised to:
Judges--Resignation--[Place]

Judges--[Place]--Selection and appointment
has been revised to to:
Judges--Selection and appointment--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Substance use
has been revised to:
Lawyers--Substance use--[Place]

Lawyers--[Place]--Time management
has been revised to:
Lawyers--Time management--[Place]

Now, on to a related topic about these classes of persons. Despite the fact that Lawyers and Judges are examples of "Classes of Persons" covered by the SCM:SH memo 1100, there are two free-floating subdivisions listed there that are not to be used under "Lawyers" or "Judges":

--Legal status, laws, etc.
--Professional ethics