Landing in Academia Forum

[Anonymous User]

Incoming 1L at Y that didn’t expect it. Now thinking of possibly pursuing an academia career now that the option seems available. What’s the path?

[nixy]

Do you have a research agenda?

[Anonymous User]

It’s really difficult to get into academia and these days a PhD is pretty much a requirement. You should get on the Yale Law Journal, get as many Hs as possible, develop strong relationships with professors, publish a note, and ideally publish a paper along with a professor as a co-author. Then do a circuit clerkship with a feeder and try for SCOTUS. Then try for the prestigious academic fellowships (Climenko, Bigelow, etc.) and then get on the teaching market.

[johndooley]

Incoming 1L at Y that didn’t expect it. Now thinking of possibly pursuing an academia career now that the option seems available. What’s the path?

It’s not it is all cracked up to be. I speak as an alum who speaks to a lot of his old professors. They shut down my school and now they’re all eating out of cans. A lot are near or post retirement age. Just realize law schools are becoming fewer in number because the ABA lost its mind.

[BrowsingTLS]

It’s really difficult to get into academia and these days a PhD is pretty much a requirement. You should get on the Yale Law Journal, get as many Hs as possible, develop strong relationships with professors, publish a note, and ideally publish a paper along with a professor as a co-author. Then do a circuit clerkship with a feeder and try for SCOTUS. Then try for the prestigious academic fellowships (Climenko, Bigelow, etc.) and then get on the teaching market.

This has to be a joke or insanity. If the former kudos for blurring the line so finely.

[RedNewJersey]

This has to be a joke or insanity. If the former kudos for blurring the line so finely.

... Why, exactly? Seems basically right to me. Professors--even at bad law schools--tend to have quite excellent credentials (in addition to a research agenda).

If you're saying "don't worry so much about YLJ, but really prioritize publishing stuff," that's probably right, but I'd think of that as a friendly amendment at most.

[Anonymous User]

It’s really difficult to get into academia and these days a PhD is pretty much a requirement. You should get on the Yale Law Journal, get as many Hs as possible, develop strong relationships with professors, publish a note, and ideally publish a paper along with a professor as a co-author. Then do a circuit clerkship with a feeder and try for SCOTUS. Then try for the prestigious academic fellowships (Climenko, Bigelow, etc.) and then get on the teaching market.

This has to be a joke or insanity. If the former kudos for blurring the line so finely.

I'm a student representative on the entry level faculty hiring committee at my T14 school. Not sure what it's like at less prestigious schools, but this is dead on at mine. Every single candidate this year was on law review at their school. And that school was usually Yale, sometimes Harvard, and occasionally somewhere like Columbia (or my school). They generally had either a PhD or a circuit clerkship, but some had both. Literally one of my professors who was a pretty recent hire had a PhD, circuit clerkship, and was a Bigelow fellow. This poster was describing the way to make yourself as qualified as possible, and some people get in with fewer qualifications, but they usually check at least most of those boxes.

[nixy]

It’s really difficult to get into academia and these days a PhD is pretty much a requirement. You should get on the Yale Law Journal, get as many Hs as possible, develop strong relationships with professors, publish a note, and ideally publish a paper along with a professor as a co-author. Then do a circuit clerkship with a feeder and try for SCOTUS. Then try for the prestigious academic fellowships (Climenko, Bigelow, etc.) and then get on the teaching market.

This has to be a joke or insanity. If the former kudos for blurring the line so finely.

It sounds pretty realistic to me. Obviously not every prof clerks for SCOTUS and/or has a PhD, but more and more profs do have additional advanced degrees (often PhDs) because those programs train you to conduct research and give you time to publish, neither of which JD programs are actually that good at.

[Joachim2017]

It’s really difficult to get into academia and these days a PhD is pretty much a requirement. You should get on the Yale Law Journal, get as many Hs as possible, develop strong relationships with professors, publish a note, and ideally publish a paper along with a professor as a co-author. Then do a circuit clerkship with a feeder and try for SCOTUS. Then try for the prestigious academic fellowships (Climenko, Bigelow, etc.) and then get on the teaching market.

This has to be a joke or insanity. If the former kudos for blurring the line so finely.

It's neither a joke nor insanity, it's pretty close to 100% accurate. The "BrowsingTLS" guy/girl doesn't know what s/he's talking about.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone is forgetting that you also need to be “Prof-fspring” and that it really helps if your family member is in Academia. Kidding, kinda. The numbers don’t lie.

This is so ridiculously spot on.

My significant other other has a masters and PhD from a well-respected national university. She adjuncts. Why? Because she didn’t run the gauntlet of requirements in her program—lengthening her doctoral a year or two to get on (1) research consortiums that would (2) enable her to do more “second and first author” articles and (3) write a textbook chapter and (4) essentially be an indentured servant to the Department chair on the Student-Faculty boards.

Even IF she had done that, her chances would be at best 50-50.

Instead she just adjuncts now for two classes a year and has a full time job making 3x what most tenured professors do.

The other way to back door into professorships is to get relevant work experience and target “teaching” and non-research track positions. Those schools are not “prestigious” but you’re doing more of the hands on work. A lot of the lower ranked law schools are more like this—they tend to view experience a bit higher.

I totally admire you for starting out THIS early formulating the plan. It is absolutely needed if you want to pursue academia.

My one piece of advice is to pick an area of law you are actually interested in.

[johndooley]

Everyone is forgetting that you also need to be “Prof-fspring” and that it really helps if your family member is in Academia. Kidding, kinda. The numbers don’t lie.

This is so ridiculously spot on.

My significant other other has a masters and PhD from a well-respected national university. She adjuncts. Why? Because she didn’t run the gauntlet of requirements in her program—lengthening her doctoral a year or two to get on (1) research consortiums that would (2) enable her to do more “second and first author” articles and (3) write a textbook chapter and (4) essentially be an indentured servant to the Department chair on the Student-Faculty boards.

Even IF she had done that, her chances would be at best 50-50.

Instead she just adjuncts now for two classes a year and has a full time job making 3x what most tenured professors do.

The other way to back door into professorships is to get relevant work experience and target “teaching” and non-research track positions. Those schools are not “prestigious” but you’re doing more of the hands on work. A lot of the lower ranked law schools are more like this—they tend to view experience a bit higher.

I totally admire you for starting out THIS early formulating the plan. It is absolutely needed if you want to pursue academia.

My one piece of advice is to pick an area of law you are actually interested in.

Being a clinic instructor is a good back door to get the tenure track. Also the profs who have experience are better at giving students the skills to succeed. Some con law prof with “rap and the law” articles is useless, especially at a school like mine that wasn’t as prestigious as say Harvard. Take the former PD with 20 years experience as a prof any day

[nixy]

Everyone is forgetting that you also need to be “Prof-fspring” and that it really helps if your family member is in Academia. Kidding, kinda. The numbers don’t lie.

This is so ridiculously spot on.

My significant other other has a masters and PhD from a well-respected national university. She adjuncts. Why? Because she didn’t run the gauntlet of requirements in her program—lengthening her doctoral a year or two to get on (1) research consortiums that would (2) enable her to do more “second and first author” articles and (3) write a textbook chapter and (4) essentially be an indentured servant to the Department chair on the Student-Faculty boards.

Even IF she had done that, her chances would be at best 50-50.

Instead she just adjuncts now for two classes a year and has a full time job making 3x what most tenured professors do.

The other way to back door into professorships is to get relevant work experience and target “teaching” and non-research track positions. Those schools are not “prestigious” but you’re doing more of the hands on work. A lot of the lower ranked law schools are more like this—they tend to view experience a bit higher.

I totally admire you for starting out THIS early formulating the plan. It is absolutely needed if you want to pursue academia.

My one piece of advice is to pick an area of law you are actually interested in.

Being a clinic instructor is a good back door to get the tenure track. Also the profs who have experience are better at giving students the skills to succeed. Some con law prof with “rap and the law” articles is useless, especially at a school like mine that wasn’t as prestigious as say Harvard. Take the former PD with 20 years experience as a prof any day

Being a clinic instructor only gets you onto the tenure track if 1) that school offers clinical faculty tenure - not all do, or 2) you’re able to publish enough to get into a traditional doctrinal tenure-track position. If your school doesn’t tenure clinical faculty they’re not going back door someone into a tenure track position unless that person can otherwise meet the standard for such a position. (A lot of schools never put non-tt faculty into tt positions because why would they bother if you’re already teaching there without tenure?)

I’m not saying being a clinical prof is a bad gig, just don’t assume it will lead to something else.

In any case, I agree that doctrinal profs with practice experience are better equipped to prepare students for practice, but that’s not what schools hire doctrinal faculty for.

[johndooley]

Everyone is forgetting that you also need to be “Prof-fspring” and that it really helps if your family member is in Academia. Kidding, kinda. The numbers don’t lie.

This is so ridiculously spot on.

My significant other other has a masters and PhD from a well-respected national university. She adjuncts. Why? Because she didn’t run the gauntlet of requirements in her program—lengthening her doctoral a year or two to get on (1) research consortiums that would (2) enable her to do more “second and first author” articles and (3) write a textbook chapter and (4) essentially be an indentured servant to the Department chair on the Student-Faculty boards.

Even IF she had done that, her chances would be at best 50-50.

Instead she just adjuncts now for two classes a year and has a full time job making 3x what most tenured professors do.

The other way to back door into professorships is to get relevant work experience and target “teaching” and non-research track positions. Those schools are not “prestigious” but you’re doing more of the hands on work. A lot of the lower ranked law schools are more like this—they tend to view experience a bit higher.

I totally admire you for starting out THIS early formulating the plan. It is absolutely needed if you want to pursue academia.

My one piece of advice is to pick an area of law you are actually interested in.

Being a clinic instructor is a good back door to get the tenure track. Also the profs who have experience are better at giving students the skills to succeed. Some con law prof with “rap and the law” articles is useless, especially at a school like mine that wasn’t as prestigious as say Harvard. Take the former PD with 20 years experience as a prof any day

Being a clinic instructor only gets you onto the tenure track if 1) that school offers clinical faculty tenure - not all do, or 2) you’re able to publish enough to get into a traditional doctrinal tenure-track position. If your school doesn’t tenure clinical faculty they’re not going back door someone into a tenure track position unless that person can otherwise meet the standard for such a position. (A lot of schools never put non-tt faculty into tt positions because why would they bother if you’re already teaching there without tenure?)

I’m not saying being a clinical prof is a bad gig, just don’t assume it will lead to something else.

In any case, I agree that doctrinal profs with practice experience are better equipped to prepare students for practice, but that’s not what schools hire doctrinal faculty for.

I agree, it is unlikely and no guarantees. Still, decent pay and you’re at a university. You have the resources to publish there. Not too shabby even if not tenured.

Schools really need to hire more profs to prep for practice. The abilities of recent grads is an appalling spectacle at this point.

[Anonymous User]

Incoming 1L at Y that didn’t expect it. Now thinking of possibly pursuing an academia career now that the option seems available. What’s the path?

It’s not it is all cracked up to be. I speak as an alum who speaks to a lot of his old professors. They shut down my school and now they’re all eating out of cans. A lot are near or post retirement age. Just realize law schools are becoming fewer in number because the ABA lost its mind.

How many law schools has the ABA de-certified? Isn't the standard 75% bar passage rate within 3 years?

[Anonymous User]

1) Some schools over tenure or "clinical tenure" to clinical professorships. Outside of that, taking a clinical job is not a good route to be a TT "podium"/doctrinal professor.

2) The above poster is largely correct. Sarah Lawsky at Northwestern publishes a write up each cycle of the credentials of new TT hires. 1/2 have PhDs. A lot also have fellowships and clerkships. 1-2 people get hired each cycle without any of those things, and they've generally been practicing for 5yrs+ and shit out a fair few decently placed papers.

3) I'd spend some time writing and see if you even want to be a doctrinal/TT law professor. I thought I did for a long time, and then I wrote a note that was published, hated it, wrote a paper that got published in a decent law review, hated it, and started drafting another paper, which I put down just short of being in submission shape, because, you guessed it, I hated it. For me, the dream was always teaching. I hated being inside so much reading miles deep into topics that I had an inch of interest in just so I could make an over-engineered argument that other academic writers would still say should be doing more. Luckily, I also enjoy the practice of law, and my practice lets me work on a lot of small projects that don't suck up months of my time. The happy solution for me was law firm partnership and becoming a lecturer at my local T14 where I can teach a couple classes a year. I'm considerably more financially stable and independent than if I chose to pursue being a TT professor. FWIW, even with the effort I put in, I would have needed another publication and then 2yrs on the fellowship circuit making $65-$70k/yr. for a realistic shot on the meat market.

[johndooley]

Incoming 1L at Y that didn’t expect it. Now thinking of possibly pursuing an academia career now that the option seems available. What’s the path?

It’s not it is all cracked up to be. I speak as an alum who speaks to a lot of his old professors. They shut down my school and now they’re all eating out of cans. A lot are near or post retirement age. Just realize law schools are becoming fewer in number because the ABA lost its mind.

How many law schools has the ABA de-certified? Isn't the standard 75% bar passage rate within 3 years?

I think so but that’s a crazy standard especially given how much harder the FL bar is than most states. And yet they allow our main competitor for applicants, Cooley Tampa, continue to operate. It has had an outsize affect on the professor and admin’s financial stability and families and Jacksonville needs a school there to support the local legal community.

[johndooley]

1) Some schools over tenure or "clinical tenure" to clinical professorships. Outside of that, taking a clinical job is not a good route to be a TT "podium"/doctrinal professor.

2) The above poster is largely correct. Sarah Lawsky at Northwestern publishes a write up each cycle of the credentials of new TT hires. 1/2 have PhDs. A lot also have fellowships and clerkships. 1-2 people get hired each cycle without any of those things, and they've generally been practicing for 5yrs+ and shit out a fair few decently placed papers.

3) I'd spend some time writing and see if you even want to be a doctrinal/TT law professor. I thought I did for a long time, and then I wrote a note that was published, hated it, wrote a paper that got published in a decent law review, hated it, and started drafting another paper, which I put down just short of being in submission shape, because, you guessed it, I hated it. For me, the dream was always teaching. I hated being inside so much reading miles deep into topics that I had an inch of interest in just so I could make an over-engineered argument that other academic writers would still say should be doing more. Luckily, I also enjoy the practice of law, and my practice lets me work on a lot of small projects that don't suck up months of my time. The happy solution for me was law firm partnership and becoming a lecturer at my local T14 where I can teach a couple classes a year. I'm considerably more financially stable and independent than if I chose to pursue being a TT professor. FWIW, even with the effort I put in, I would have needed another publication and then 2yrs on the fellowship circuit making $65-$70k/yr. for a realistic shot on the meat market.

All that and you may still have lost out to someone whose only output was “the law in Tupac’s rap lyrics: An analysis”

[Anonymous User]

1) Some schools over tenure or "clinical tenure" to clinical professorships. Outside of that, taking a clinical job is not a good route to be a TT "podium"/doctrinal professor.

2) The above poster is largely correct. Sarah Lawsky at Northwestern publishes a write up each cycle of the credentials of new TT hires. 1/2 have PhDs. A lot also have fellowships and clerkships. 1-2 people get hired each cycle without any of those things, and they've generally been practicing for 5yrs+ and shit out a fair few decently placed papers.

3) I'd spend some time writing and see if you even want to be a doctrinal/TT law professor. I thought I did for a long time, and then I wrote a note that was published, hated it, wrote a paper that got published in a decent law review, hated it, and started drafting another paper, which I put down just short of being in submission shape, because, you guessed it, I hated it. For me, the dream was always teaching. I hated being inside so much reading miles deep into topics that I had an inch of interest in just so I could make an over-engineered argument that other academic writers would still say should be doing more. Luckily, I also enjoy the practice of law, and my practice lets me work on a lot of small projects that don't suck up months of my time. The happy solution for me was law firm partnership and becoming a lecturer at my local T14 where I can teach a couple classes a year. I'm considerably more financially stable and independent than if I chose to pursue being a TT professor. FWIW, even with the effort I put in, I would have needed another publication and then 2yrs on the fellowship circuit making $65-$70k/yr. for a realistic shot on the meat market.

This is absolutely correct. If you want to go into academia because you want to teach, being a clinical or legal writing prof could be a good match - those are jobs where you’re evaluated primarily on your work with students - but those are also jobs that actually require some practice experience first (barring something like teaching writing as a Climenko, but that’s a temporary position designed to place you in doctrinal jobs, not to train you how to teach legal writing). Adjuncting alongside practice can be a great compromise.

People joke about academia being “easy” and the raw hours aren’t like biglaw, but if you don’t enjoy research and writing (or the kind that will get you published in good law reviews) you will hate the job, if you even manage to get it. (If you hate teaching you’ll probably hate the job too, although the teaching load will vary by school so maybe you could strike the right balance.)

[johndooley]

1) Some schools over tenure or "clinical tenure" to clinical professorships. Outside of that, taking a clinical job is not a good route to be a TT "podium"/doctrinal professor.

2) The above poster is largely correct. Sarah Lawsky at Northwestern publishes a write up each cycle of the credentials of new TT hires. 1/2 have PhDs. A lot also have fellowships and clerkships. 1-2 people get hired each cycle without any of those things, and they've generally been practicing for 5yrs+ and shit out a fair few decently placed papers.

3) I'd spend some time writing and see if you even want to be a doctrinal/TT law professor. I thought I did for a long time, and then I wrote a note that was published, hated it, wrote a paper that got published in a decent law review, hated it, and started drafting another paper, which I put down just short of being in submission shape, because, you guessed it, I hated it. For me, the dream was always teaching. I hated being inside so much reading miles deep into topics that I had an inch of interest in just so I could make an over-engineered argument that other academic writers would still say should be doing more. Luckily, I also enjoy the practice of law, and my practice lets me work on a lot of small projects that don't suck up months of my time. The happy solution for me was law firm partnership and becoming a lecturer at my local T14 where I can teach a couple classes a year. I'm considerably more financially stable and independent than if I chose to pursue being a TT professor. FWIW, even with the effort I put in, I would have needed another publication and then 2yrs on the fellowship circuit making $65-$70k/yr. for a realistic shot on the meat market.

This is absolutely correct. If you want to go into academia because you want to teach, being a clinical or legal writing prof could be a good match - those are jobs where you’re evaluated primarily on your work with students - but those are also jobs that actually require some practice experience first (barring something like teaching writing as a Climenko, but that’s a temporary position designed to place you in doctrinal jobs, not to train you how to teach legal writing). Adjuncting alongside practice can be a great compromise.

People joke about academia being “easy” and the raw hours aren’t like biglaw, but if you don’t enjoy research and writing (or the kind that will get you published in good law reviews) you will hate the job, if you even manage to get it. (If you hate teaching you’ll probably hate the job too, although the teaching load will vary by school so maybe you could strike the right balance.)

This is partly true. Nothing is stopping a candidate from working very hard to get tenure and then doing next to nothing. 4-6 class hours a week, one journal article a year since some journals are desperate to publish. You can do nothing until retirement age.

[Anonymous User]

1) Some schools over tenure or "clinical tenure" to clinical professorships. Outside of that, taking a clinical job is not a good route to be a TT "podium"/doctrinal professor.

2) The above poster is largely correct. Sarah Lawsky at Northwestern publishes a write up each cycle of the credentials of new TT hires. 1/2 have PhDs. A lot also have fellowships and clerkships. 1-2 people get hired each cycle without any of those things, and they've generally been practicing for 5yrs+ and shit out a fair few decently placed papers.

3) I'd spend some time writing and see if you even want to be a doctrinal/TT law professor. I thought I did for a long time, and then I wrote a note that was published, hated it, wrote a paper that got published in a decent law review, hated it, and started drafting another paper, which I put down just short of being in submission shape, because, you guessed it, I hated it. For me, the dream was always teaching. I hated being inside so much reading miles deep into topics that I had an inch of interest in just so I could make an over-engineered argument that other academic writers would still say should be doing more. Luckily, I also enjoy the practice of law, and my practice lets me work on a lot of small projects that don't suck up months of my time. The happy solution for me was law firm partnership and becoming a lecturer at my local T14 where I can teach a couple classes a year. I'm considerably more financially stable and independent than if I chose to pursue being a TT professor. FWIW, even with the effort I put in, I would have needed another publication and then 2yrs on the fellowship circuit making $65-$70k/yr. for a realistic shot on the meat market.

This is absolutely correct. If you want to go into academia because you want to teach, being a clinical or legal writing prof could be a good match - those are jobs where you’re evaluated primarily on your work with students - but those are also jobs that actually require some practice experience first (barring something like teaching writing as a Climenko, but that’s a temporary position designed to place you in doctrinal jobs, not to train you how to teach legal writing). Adjuncting alongside practice can be a great compromise.

People joke about academia being “easy” and the raw hours aren’t like biglaw, but if you don’t enjoy research and writing (or the kind that will get you published in good law reviews) you will hate the job, if you even manage to get it. (If you hate teaching you’ll probably hate the job too, although the teaching load will vary by school so maybe you could strike the right balance.)

This is partly true. Nothing is stopping a candidate from working very hard to get tenure and then doing next to nothing. 4-6 class hours a week, one journal article a year since some journals are desperate to publish. You can do nothing until retirement age.

I think a lot of people who make it to top schools and have the qualifications to get tenure would probably hate the reputation of being the slacker/deadweight in the department from doing nothing. If you’ve spent your life going for the brass ring, it’s hard to just stop.

(Also, one article a year is pretty productive.)

That said

[johndooley]

You’d get used to the reputation. One article per year speaks to my point, being a law prof is really undemanding once there’s time wise. Students edit your papers and do the citation and substance. You write less than a page a week and teach the same 2-3 classes every year. Too easy. You can pull it off sub 10 hours a week if you want.

[Anonymous User]

You’d get used to the reputation. One article per year speaks to my point, being a law prof is really undemanding once there’s time wise. Students edit your papers and do the citation and substance. You write less than a page a week and teach the same 2-3 classes every year. Too easy. You can pull it off sub 10 hours a week if you want.

Gives me strong vibes of someone who has never written research-intensive 50 page law review articles, taught in a classroom, or heard that profs have other service obligations beyond research/writing. Being a professor is in many ways a great gig, but to pretend like it's a sub-10 hour week is a special type of delusional. The idea in other posts (presumably by this same poster) that you can just turn it off once you get tenure is also silly considering the fact that you have tenure at an ABA accredited law school meant you probably spent the first 25 years of your life being raised via concerted cultivation and grinding it out through elite undergrad/law schools and then another 5 years in practice, elite clerkships, or competitive fellowships while writing and then another 5 years publishing to get tenure and then just turning it off. Good luck with that. If you're willing to go through all of that shit, you're probably not wired that way.

[Anonymous User]

You’d get used to the reputation. One article per year speaks to my point, being a law prof is really undemanding once there’s time wise. Students edit your papers and do the citation and substance. You write less than a page a week and teach the same 2-3 classes every year. Too easy. You can pull it off sub 10 hours a week if you want.

Gives me strong vibes of someone who has never written research-intensive 50 page law review articles, taught in a classroom, or heard that profs have other service obligations beyond research/writing. Being a professor is in many ways a great gig, but to pretend like it's a sub-10 hour week is a special type of delusional. The idea in other posts (presumably by this same poster) that you can just turn it off once you get tenure is also silly considering the fact that you have tenure at an ABA accredited law school meant you probably spent the first 25 years of your life being raised via concerted cultivation and grinding it out through elite undergrad/law schools and then another 5 years in practice, elite clerkships, or competitive fellowships while writing and then another 5 years publishing to get tenure and then just turning it off. Good luck with that. If you're willing to go through all of that shit, you're probably not wired that way.

Exactly.

[johndooley]

You’d get used to the reputation. One article per year speaks to my point, being a law prof is really undemanding once there’s time wise. Students edit your papers and do the citation and substance. You write less than a page a week and teach the same 2-3 classes every year. Too easy. You can pull it off sub 10 hours a week if you want.

Gives me strong vibes of someone who has never written research-intensive 50 page law review articles, taught in a classroom, or heard that profs have other service obligations beyond research/writing. Being a professor is in many ways a great gig, but to pretend like it's a sub-10 hour week is a special type of delusional. The idea in other posts (presumably by this same poster) that you can just turn it off once you get tenure is also silly considering the fact that you have tenure at an ABA accredited law school meant you probably spent the first 25 years of your life being raised via concerted cultivation and grinding it out through elite undergrad/law schools and then another 5 years in practice, elite clerkships, or competitive fellowships while writing and then another 5 years publishing to get tenure and then just turning it off. Good luck with that. If you're willing to go through all of that shit, you're probably not wired that way.

Okay Boomer! In all seriousness, many Boomer profs I had did not do much of anything. Friends at "better" law schools had even lazier teachers, the kind who write those Law & Hip Hop and "Incarceration in the Age of Eminem" type pieces. Maybe they were more energetic before they got tenure....... Here is a realistic breakdown to do 10 hours a week:

1. Reject every committee invitation extended. They were not in your contract.
2. Do not go to any conferences unless single or have plans to bring the family and skip every event while putting travel expenses on school's dime. If you have to give a talk, speak extemporaneously for 10 minutes and then leave for Epcot or 18 holes in Vegas.
3. Teach 6 credits a semester (4 hours for the doctrinal course, 2 hours for the fluff course on Biggy Smalls' Jurisprudential Philosophy Thru Rhymzzz). Outsource some of this to video content. Youtube videos of court proceedings and movies, maybe show A Few Good Men or The Verdict.
4. You are left with two hours per week to write that 50 page article. Assume one page per week, one half page per hour. This is child's play, especially because your article does not really matter unless it is real law like admin or IP. No editing is necessary. The publication has 2Ls and 3Ls to edit it for you to make it appear presentable.
5. Do not grade the papers. Use word count to assign grades. Odds are you will not be audited. If audited, you will only receive a warning.

[johndooley]

You’d get used to the reputation. One article per year speaks to my point, being a law prof is really undemanding once there’s time wise. Students edit your papers and do the citation and substance. You write less than a page a week and teach the same 2-3 classes every year. Too easy. You can pull it off sub 10 hours a week if you want.

Gives me strong vibes of someone who has never written research-intensive 50 page law review articles, taught in a classroom, or heard that profs have other service obligations beyond research/writing. Being a professor is in many ways a great gig, but to pretend like it's a sub-10 hour week is a special type of delusional. The idea in other posts (presumably by this same poster) that you can just turn it off once you get tenure is also silly considering the fact that you have tenure at an ABA accredited law school meant you probably spent the first 25 years of your life being raised via concerted cultivation and grinding it out through elite undergrad/law schools and then another 5 years in practice, elite clerkships, or competitive fellowships while writing and then another 5 years publishing to get tenure and then just turning it off. Good luck with that. If you're willing to go through all of that shit, you're probably not wired that way.

Exactly.

Yea profs are such busy people........