Monday, March 19, 2007
Following up on Friday's post, Judges Use Law Reviews "Like Drunkards Use Lampposts: More For Support Than for Illumination", Adam Liptak has an interesting article in today's New York Times: When Rendering Decisions, Judges Are Finding Law Reviews Irrelevant:
The assembled judges pleaded with the law professors to write about actual cases and doctrines, in quick, plain and accessible articles. “If the academy does want to change the world,” Judge Reena Raggi said, “it does need to be part of the world.” To an extent, her plea has been answered by the Internet. On blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy and Balkinization, law professors analyze legal developments with skill and flair almost immediately after they happen. Law professors also seem to be litigating more, representing clients and putting their views before courts in supporting briefs.
- Ann Althouse, Althouse: "I haven’t opened up a law review in years. No one speaks of them. No one relies on them."
- Jack Balkin, Balkinization: Judges Lose Cite of Law Reviews
- Doug Berman, Law School Innovation: The Judicial (and Judicious?) Decline of Law Review Cites
- Al Brophy, MoneyLaw: The Declining Importance of Law Reviews
- Dale Carpenter, The Volokh Conspiracy: Two More Thoughts on the Decline of Law Review Citation
- Michael Dorf, Dorf on Law: Dorf on Dorf
- Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy: How Often Should Judges Cite Law Review Articles?
- Peter Lattman, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog: Judges Are Ignoring Law Review Articles
- Elizabeth Nowicki, Truth on the Market: Helpful Law Review Articles?
- Dan Solove, Concurring Opinions: Why Are Judges Citing Fewer Law Review Articles?
- Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy: How Much Should Legal Scholarship Aspire To Being Cited by Judges?