Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Antitrust issues  





2 See also  





3 References  














Wexis







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Wexis is a humorous portmanteau used to refer to the alleged duopolyofpublishing conglomerates that dominate the U.S. legal information services industry – namely, West Publishing and LexisNexis.[1][2]

Neither of these companies is independent – they are parts of much larger conglomerates that dominate the entire information services sector. West is owned by Thomson Reuters, while LexisNexis is a division of RELX Group.

These companies dispute the allegation that they are a duopoly; LexisNexis sued TheLaw.net which used the terms "Wexis" and "duopoly" in its marketing literature.[3][4]

Antitrust issues

[edit]
During the 1990s and 2000s, almost every law school in the United States had a pair of Westlaw and LexisNexis printers like these, to which students could print research results for free. However, Westlaw discontinued free printing for law students effective June 30, 2013.

The United States district court imposed various requirements regarding the companies' operations in a consent decree resulting from an antitrust inquiry by the United States Department of Justice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act in connection with Thomson's purchase of West Publishing, and West's and Lexis's settlement of various outstanding claims in that proceeding.[5] For example, West was required to license the "star pagination" in its printed reporters under certain terms.[6] Otherwise, lawyers in jurisdictions that require citations to all official and unofficial reporters would have to subscribe to both online services to get all the necessary page numbers for citations in their briefs. The judge also had concerns about the Thomson and West products ordered to be divested through a sale to Lexis,[7] primarily statutory and case law publications of Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, such as United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition and United States Code Service,[8] but those sales were ultimately approved.

Both companies are known for their aggressive marketing programs in American law schools. Law students may print documents for free that are obtained through their respective services. Both companies ran programs through which students earned points (based on their number of searches) that could be redeemed for free gifts.[9] While LexisNexis still runs its rewards program, Westlaw has discontinued its promotion.[citation needed]

Wolters Kluwer is the largest company which to date has attempted to establish a beachhead against the "Wexis" duopoly. At one point, it took over offline legal publishers like Aspen Publishing and online legal services like Loislaw, and also owns Commerce Clearing House (CCH). However, Wolters never developed an automated cross-referencing or citation-checking service that could directly compete against Westlaw's KeyCite or Shepard's Citations from LexisNexis. Wolters eventually sold Loislaw in 2015 and Aspen in 2021, but still owns CCH.

Bloomberg Industry Group is the best known of the remaining law publishing companies. Both Bloomberg and CCH have arrangements with Lexis and Westlaw to publish their content though those electronic services, although they also provide their subscribers web access to certain publications.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ McKnight, Jean (April 1997). "Wexis versus the Net". Illinois Bar Journal. 85 (4): 189–190.
  • ^ Statsky, William P. (2015). Introduction to Paralegalism: Perspectives, Problems and Skills (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. p. 526. ISBN 9781285449050.
  • ^ "LexisNexis wins first phase of legal battle with competitor". Business First-Columbus: A13. 29 June 2001.
  • ^ Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. TheLaw.net Corp., 269 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (denying TheLaw.net Corporation's motion to dismiss LexisNexis's suit).
  • ^ Final Judgment: U.S. v. The Thomson Corporation and West Publishing Company, Civil No.: 96-1415 (PLF), United States District Court for the District of Columbia, March 7, 1997.
  • ^ Final Judgment, Part IX.
  • ^ Transcript - Conference before Judge Friedman, February 6, 1996 -- USA v. Thomson, 96 CV 1415, USDC District of Columbia.
  • ^ Final Judgment, Part IV and Exhibit A1.
  • ^ Rauch, Maggie (March 2005). "Court of appeal: legal information providers vie for student loyalty". Incentive. 179 (3): 13. Archived from the original on 2015-01-23.

  • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wexis&oldid=1145861331"

    Categories: 
    Law of the United States
    Legal research
    Hidden categories: 
    Articles with short description
    Short description matches Wikidata
    All articles with unsourced statements
    Articles with unsourced statements from July 2020
    Articles with unsourced statements from June 2009
     



    This page was last edited on 21 March 2023, at 11:38 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki