Legal Commentary

The advent of online journal supplements has led to some uncertainty in their value.  For those who are unfamiliar with them, they are "extensions" of the print law reviews that enable publication of shorter essay or op-ed style pieces with more immediacy.  The supplements take several forms.  Some allow only commentary on the print articles (e.g., Harvard Law Review Forum), some allow stand-alone pieces (e.g., Virginia Law Review In Brief), some allow only online symposia (e.g., Michigan Law Review First Impressions), and some allow a variety of genres (e.g., Yale Law Journal Pocket Part).

I have written both a stand-alone piece and a response-and-reply series in supplements.  In the former, I wrote an essay on the big pleading case of last term, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, for Virginia Law Review In Brief.  In the latter, I wrote an essay on a jurisdictional case from last term, Bowles v. Russell, in Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy.  Three others responded to my Colloquy piece: Professor Perry Dane, Professor Beth Burch, and Mr. King Poor, Esq.  The final installment, my reply to their responses, was just posted today.  I thought that format was both satisfying and effective.

In both cases, I thought the medium provided a wonderful opportunity to reach academics, practitioners, and judges, and thereby to enhance the relevance of the academy to those actually in the trenches.  But that could party be because of the particular topics I picked.

What are the thoughts of others out there?  Are these online supplements valuable?  If so, which formats are most effective?  What are their future, and what should they do to make the most of it?