« Ind. Courts - Judicial Technology and Automation Committee Now Hiring | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 10 NFP) »
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Law - Law reviews irrelevant to judges; is there any question why?
Adam Liptak of the NY Times had a column Monday titled "When Rendering Decisions, Judges Are Finding Law Reviews Irrelevant." (Apparently availble only to TimesSelect customers, but try here). Judges from the 2nd Circuit met with law professors at a conference on the topic earlier this month where judges told the profs that "their scholarship no longer had any impact on the courts.."
Some [of the profs] suggested, gently, that judges might not have the intellectual curiosity to appreciate modern legal scholarship.Articles in law reviews have certainly become more obscure in recent decades. Many law professors seem to think they are under no obligation to say anything useful or to say anything well. They take pride in the theoretical and in working in disciplines other than their own. They seem to think the analysis of actual statutes and court decisions — which is to say the practice of law — is beneath them. * * *
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.
Law reviews, by contrast, feel as ancient as telegrams, but slower.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 20, 2007 08:58 AM
Posted to General Law Related