Legal Commentary

Ann Bartow's neat thought experiment -- the suggestion that law reviews revert to publishing only work by professors at their host schools -- prompts me to suggest another set of potential changes to address the reported problems with student-edited law reviews (which, I think, are a bit overblown). (See Howard's reaction to Ann Bartow's post here).

Law Review critic Robert Jarvis (Nova) suggested that law reviews were so desperate for articles that they would publish his grocery list.  I'm not so sure.  I guess it depends on what he's cooking tonight (of course, any law review would publish Posner's grocery list).  My own experience is that at some (somewhat arbitrary) list of "top" law reviews -- at perhaps the top 50 US News schools' "main" law review -- the placement competition has gotten incredibly tight.  It's far harder today to place an article in the "top" (25? 30?) law reviews than it was two "scholarly generations" ago.  At the same time, I think Professor Jarvis is right that, thanks to the proliferation of "specialty" journals and law schools (all of which seem to need to have a journal), there is definitely a seller's market at the "lower end" of the spectrum.

Two suggested reforms, both of which would have the effect of reducing the total number of law reviews:

First, what about "regional" law reviews?  Several "lower" ranked schools could team up and publish a journal jointly.  Different issues could be edited by different schools, but the selection of articles could be made jointly.  E.g,, a "Marquette-DePaul-Loyola Law Review" or a "Louisville-Kentucky-Memphis-Cincinnati" Law Review.  Wouldn't such a journal both combine 3 school's "prestige" (making the journal competitive, for authors with the great misfortune of multiple offers, with more "highly ranked" journals), and provide a benefit to all three schools should the journal (or its articles) be cited?  (A colleague once suggested, in jest, that our school start a "Flyover States Law Review", to cover legal issues relevant for the part of the country that isn't NY, California, Boston or DC, but I think to be practical there would be have to be some greater geographic restriction).

Second, I think schools should encourage specialty issues, rather than specialty journals.  It seems like specialty journals, particularly those that don't begin with the word "Harvard," are particularly challenged when it comes to finding quality pieces and attracting attention upon publication.  Yet the arguments for specialty journals -- that they give many more students journal experience and help ensure the publication of scholarship in areas like corporate law or employment law or tax law that are not "sexy" to student editors -- are persuasive.  My suggestion is that schools replace specialty journals with dedicated specialty issues.  Colorado Law Review, for instance, has a dedicated "natural resources" law issue.  This ensures some natural resources law scholarship will get published.  To provide additional editorial opportunities to non-law review students, such "specialty issues" could invite non-journal members (preferably from existing student organizations like the Environmental Law Society, Sports Law Society, Business Law Society, etc.) to participate as "editorial consultants."  The subject matter experts could help the editorial staff select articles, and contribute substantive editorial suggestions.