Top Law Schools

I was a notes editor on a secondary journal at my school. The note I wrote did not get published, however, I was wondering if it would still be a good idea to put it on my resume.

My sense is that is kind of weird. Bring it up in interviews to show you're interested in that subject area, but otherwise I don't see what you gain.

Everyone writes a note. The only thing special is if it gets published. So no, don't do it.

I recommend that you avoid doing this.

Don't put things on your resume that will lead to awkward/harmful questions.

"So I see you wrote a note on X--I don't see where it got published, though."
"It didn't."
"Oh."

In addition to why others said not to do it, most employers wouldn't care if it wasn't published. Since most people don't get published, no one will really care if you didn't, too.

I wouldn't put it on there. However, I'd suggest you send your note to other journals that might be interested in it. A few of our LR people submitted their notes that got rejected by our publication to other journals and got it published. Something to consider.

No do not put it on. They know you wrote a note because you are on a journal, so it adds nothing.

It COULD however add confusion. If you don't very clearly designate it as unpublished, it might confuse someone into thinking you were published which in the end would make it look like you're being intentionally misleading. On the other hand, if you designate it clearly as unpublished, you're immediately drawing attention to the fact that it was not selected for publication, i.e. you're highlighting a negative. That sounds a lot like a lose lose situation.

IF you're trying to make it clear that you've written and researched in a particular substantive area (e.g. I would be good for this job because I'm so interested in this area that I wrote a Note on it), that would be something to emphasize in the cover letter, I think.

My note was slated to get published by my journal but I never got around to making some necessary edits due to a couple of new decisions. I put it on there with a note that it was pending publication and it led to some interesting conversations so I guess it doesn't hurt.

I got a writing award from my journal for the note though and the reason I never got around to it was because I'm a part time student and a promotion at work coupled with my daughter being born at home resulted in a decided lack of free time. I might still edit it for publication in my last year though.

Interviewers understood when I explained to them that I had to get bumped due to new cases so I'm not as against this as a lot of the people above seem to be.

^ You're talking about an entirely different animal.

I recommend listing awards—and maybe even the title of the work that won an award, especially if the work was ultimately published. And sometimes qualifiers are okay, but only if (1) you're actually expecting to advance the work toward publication, (2) you're ready to talk about that process, and (3) you're willing to dish out a draft if someone asks.

In academia, there are a broad range of qualifiers that would be acceptable to list after the title of your work. These include (but are not limited to): "in progress," "submitted," "under review," and "in press." Sometimes academics even list the publication (or potential publisher) after the qualifier.

In the legal world, I think it'll depend on how desperately OP needs to fluff their resume. And because it may look more unusual than in academia, they might want to take a conservative approach. In academia, people write things that they intend to publish. Law students write notes because they have to, and I think this makes them likely to look silly when they list something unpublished (and presumably unpublishable) on their resume.

Anonymous User wrote:My note was slated to get published by my journal but I never got around to making some necessary edits due to a couple of new decisions. I put it on there with a note that it was pending publication and it led to some interesting conversations so I guess it doesn't hurt.

I got a writing award from my journal for the note though and the reason I never got around to it was because I'm a part time student and a promotion at work coupled with my daughter being born at home resulted in a decided lack of free time. I might still edit it for publication in my last year though.

Interviewers understood when I explained to them that I had to get bumped due to new cases so I'm not as against this as a lot of the people above seem to be.

along the line of what the poster above mine wrote. If your note is going to be published this upcoming year, you should qualify it as forthcoming.

What you described sound like a "working paper." If you have intention to edit it and get it published, then you should put it on your resume. If not, then the risk of putting it on your resume may outweigh the benefit of putting it on your resume.

.

mikec0824 wrote:I was a notes editor on a secondary journal at my school. The note I wrote did not get published, however, I was wondering if it would still be a good idea to put it on my resume.

This is no different than a diary entry.

Even blog posts are "published."

when applying to jobs that my note topic might be relevant, I would write in the cover letter "I am writing/wrote my note on topic XXX" because that's a potential talking point in an interview. This was prior to finding out its publication status, but I still think I'd do it now as a signaling device. However, I wouldn't put it on a resume unless it's going to be published.

Same anon as above, actually at my school writing a note is purely optional, you would only do it with the intention of getting published usually as an independent study. I was willing to hand mine out as a second writing sample and it didn't get me rejected by the firms that gave me offers so presumably it worked out...

.

My rule of thumb: zero published work >> poor published work ≈ middling work in a disreputable publication. Then again, I maintain an academic bias. I've heard arguments (in a less academic context) that the actual publication in which good work appears is nearly meaningless.

ajax adonis wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Same anon as above, actually at my school writing a note is purely optional, you would only do it with the intention of getting published usually as an independent study. I was willing to hand mine out as a second writing sample and it didn't get me rejected by the firms that gave me offers so presumably it worked out...

You should still try to get it published, and I wouldn't make it your first option as a writing sample.

Yeah my first writing sample is a derivative work from the note that got me an A. It doesn't rely on the same cases so its still good law. Actually got an A for the note too...

Agent wrote:My rule of thumb: zero published work >> poor published work ≈ middling work in a disreputable publication. Then again, I maintain an academic bias. I've heard arguments (in a less academic context) that the actual publication in which good work appears is nearly meaningless.

Considering half of legal scholarship is never read by anyone I think this is incorrect unless you are going for a major political position and your publication is controversial. No one will read it. It looks good to say you're published. Heck, most of the published work by major names isn't that good. No one cares if your note could be better as long as its logical and avoids major errors.

I should have qualified my academic bias as a scientific one. Sorry, I forget how that's not obvious in this context.

I generally don't encourage writing for law journals. I think other legal publications (newsletters, magazines, etc.) are better, worthwhile targets—if they're reputable.

And I don't follow your need for anon-posting.

Anonymous User wrote:

Agent wrote:My rule of thumb: zero published work >> poor published work ≈ middling work in a disreputable publication. Then again, I maintain an academic bias. I've heard arguments (in a less academic context) that the actual publication in which good work appears is nearly meaningless.

Considering half of legal scholarship is never read by anyone I think this is incorrect unless you are going for a major political position and your publication is controversial. No one will read it. It looks good to say you're published. Heck, most of the published work by major names isn't that good. No one cares if your note could be better as long as its logical and avoids major errors.

Where you publish depends entirely on what you want to accomplish. If you want to be a law prof, you need to publish in law journals (law reviews). If you're a practitioner and have no interest in academia, and want to write something that will help other practitioners, then newsletters etc. are better. They just don't have any kind of academic cachet compared to law reviews.

Concur. Which is why I generally don't encourage writing for law journals.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Where you publish depends entirely on what you want to accomplish. If you want to be a law prof, you need to publish in law journals (law reviews). If you're a practitioner and have no interest in academia, and want to write something that will help other practitioners, then newsletters etc. are better. They just don't have any kind of academic cachet compared to law reviews.