How important is Law Review? Forum

[CanadianWolf]

But those that do the work become editors.
So your hard work gets rewarded with more work.

In the past, EICs & managing editors were often given sizable bonuses upon joining a firm. Probably not practiced as much today because of the change in the market for lawyers (less demand) & the fact that very few end up on equity partnership tracks in the current market. In fact, not many remain in biglaw after 4 to 6 years anymore unless they lateral to another biglaw firm.

[JCFindley]

Other than the name of your law school and your gpa/class rank, there is nothing better to distinguish you than making law review. Not doing it when you could is like turning down a prize in a competition - you win the race but decline to take the podium and receive your medal?

There is no higher accomplishment in law school than getting onto law review (well, except honorifics like cum laude and such). Do it, absolutely do it. I was on law review, and I will admit something - when I learn about a peer who didn't make law review, I know I'm not talking to someone who stood out from their peers in law school. This may not even be a valid thought - I do know people who for one reason or another simply couldn't do the write-on, and missed out but were still incredibly talented. But I still think it - and its always a ding against an interviewee.

For those who say its hard work - yeah, but nothing good is easy. It took time and work, but so what? I wasn't in law school for the fun of it, I was there to increase the amount of salary I could command in the jobs market.

The upside of law review will ALWAYS outweigh the downside, in my opinion.

"You know you're not talking to someone who stood out from their peers?" Is that a joke? How about - you didn't distinguish yourself from your peers because you had to write on and couldn't grade on like a man. Kidding, sort of.

In all seriousness, I have the same question as OP. Assuming I can grade onto LR (which may not be the case, my grades might drop but right now I'm well within the limits for grading onto it) after second semester, why should I? If I've already got two 1L SA's lined up, and if my 2nd semester grades continue to be good such that I could grade on, why would I?

What can I get from doing LR that I can't get already if I don't want to go into academia or clerk?

Also, law review is a scam. The school gets free labor to run its journal, which is the only place law professors can get published. Their entire bogus profession is supported by the sweat and tears of unpaid, overstressed law students. For what? So you can learn more about blue book? At what cost?

Is there really a firm job that someone who can grade onto law review couldn't get without doing law review?

Scam or not, it seems like a silly tradition that has been going on for a very long time and so will naturally come up during interviews. I choose not to do law review, but the reason is because I plan to quickly move into my own practice, and because I have the prior experience that would allow me to do so.

If you are aspiring to work in BigLaw, then it sounds like you have to embrace the herd mentality (so prevalent in law school) and do the mind-numbing work. If, on the other hand, you have the guts and creativity to step outside of the box, I would suggest figuring out something more valuable to do with your time.

Time is a precious resource, and I believe that simply doing law school just because everyone else is doing it is completely ridiculous. In terms of the actual benefits of it, give me a break. If a person is really interested in improving their writing skills, I’m sure there are better ways than cite-checking articles. All of the “benefits” seem to just be attempts to hide the fact that it is merely a resume booster. But there comes a point when you have to wonder whether you could get more out of life and your career by not worrying so much about what somebody else thinks of your resume, and instead focus more on what exactly it is that you want to do with your time.

I am a ways away from LR but do have a question while this thread is active if yall don't mind.

Would it matter at all that I was a well published aviation writer in a past life including being a Contributing Editor at one magazine? Or, is this all about publishing in the legal writing field?

Thanks,

JC

[kalvano]

If you know how to research and don't care about being published, it's like maybe 2 hours a week average, if that. It also gives you an excuse to take a long walk to the undergrad library to pull some books no one has read in 30 years besides the guy who wrote the article.

My notes editor told me my note was one of the worst, but I still got credit. And I got to write about the real money auction house in Diablo 3 for 45 pages.

You mentioned a point that hasn't been discussed, but is worth noting. It's very difficult to be kicked off of a journal, and other than when someone refuses to do anything, I've never heard of it happening. If you're worried about having the credential and don't want to do the work, there are few safeguards to prevent you from doing a second-rate job. Your colleagues might think you're stupid/devious, but by then you've already cashed in the credential. Judging from the notes I've read, this is a common, although unspoken, strategy.

Plenty of people get kicked off for not doing the work / doing obviously subpar work.

[quakeroats]

If you know how to research and don't care about being published, it's like maybe 2 hours a week average, if that. It also gives you an excuse to take a long walk to the undergrad library to pull some books no one has read in 30 years besides the guy who wrote the article.

My notes editor told me my note was one of the worst, but I still got credit. And I got to write about the real money auction house in Diablo 3 for 45 pages.

You mentioned a point that hasn't been discussed, but is worth noting. It's very difficult to be kicked off of a journal, and other than when someone refuses to do anything, I've never heard of it happening. If you're worried about having the credential and don't want to do the work, there are few safeguards to prevent you from doing a second-rate job. Your colleagues might think you're stupid/devious, but by then you've already cashed in the credential. Judging from the notes I've read, this is a common, although unspoken, strategy.

Plenty of people get kicked off for not doing the work / doing obviously subpar work.

Perhaps it varies, but it doesn't happen at my school. The CSO isn't going to risk hurting overall employment.

[kalvano]

It's not up OCS here. It's up to the LR board.

[spaceman82]

What're people's thoughts on doing LR as someone primarily interested in non-gov PI work after graduating? Does it offer the same kind of boost in that area?

[Reprisal]

If you write on to a journal, instead of grading on, mention that! Don't your entire callback hopes on that tidbit, but if asked, be proud that you wrote, not walked, onto a journal.

[Bildungsroman]

I am a ways away from LR but do have a question while this thread is active if yall don't mind.

Would it matter at all that I was a well published aviation writer in a past life including being a Contributing Editor at one magazine? Or, is this all about publishing in the legal writing field?

Thanks,

JC

No 0Ls in the forum for law school students.

[JCFindley]

I am a ways away from LR but do have a question while this thread is active if yall don't mind.

Would it matter at all that I was a well published aviation writer in a past life including being a Contributing Editor at one magazine? Or, is this all about publishing in the legal writing field?

Thanks,

JC

No 0Ls in the forum for law school students.

Roger that. See ya in a month.

[deebs]

If you know how to research and don't care about being published, it's like maybe 2 hours a week average, if that. It also gives you an excuse to take a long walk to the undergrad library to pull some books no one has read in 30 years besides the guy who wrote the article.

My notes editor told me my note was one of the worst, but I still got credit. And I got to write about the real money auction house in Diablo 3 for 45 pages.

You mentioned a point that hasn't been discussed, but is worth noting. It's very difficult to be kicked off of a journal, and other than when someone refuses to do anything, I've never heard of it happening. If you're worried about having the credential and don't want to do the work, there are few safeguards to prevent you from doing a second-rate job. Your colleagues might think you're stupid/devious, but by then you've already cashed in the credential. Judging from the notes I've read, this is a common, although unspoken, strategy.

Plenty of people get kicked off for not doing the work / doing obviously subpar work.

Perhaps it varies, but it doesn't happen at my school. The CSO isn't going to risk hurting overall employment.

I mean, if someone hasn't figured out how to pass by doing the bare minimum by now with at least 5 years of higher education, I'm not quite sure how they made it this far. Hit the page limit, make sure your cites are correct, get rid of typos and grammatical errors, and you're set. They can't kick you off because your note wasn't cutting edge enough or didn't contain the best arguments. In the end, you're just one of the 75% of the editors who didn't have a note published.

I've done pulls/checks in a total of 4 hours, and the EE has e-mailed me telling me it was great and made his job easier. Granted, we only do one or the other at a given time, but some of the ppl in my class tell me it takes them all weekend. Outside of the note, the workload is virtually nothing, unless you count 12 hours a semester (1 check/1 pull per) a lot of work. I guess if using westlaw next is complicated or the dewey decimal system doesn't make sense, then checks and pulls could take a while.

[Borhas]

If you know how to research and don't care about being published, it's like maybe 2 hours a week average, if that. It also gives you an excuse to take a long walk to the undergrad library to pull some books no one has read in 30 years besides the guy who wrote the article.

My notes editor told me my note was one of the worst, but I still got credit. And I got to write about the real money auction house in Diablo 3 for 45 pages.

Gollly jeez willikers, an excuse to go the UG library!

[wuduhel]

T2 LR v. secondary. Worth it to do secondary? Isn't it the same sort of work?

[henry flower]

What about one of the more prestigious secondary journals at Gtown? I have good grades, and a moderate interest in writing the note, but I'm not enthused about cite-checking, etc.

Worth it for Biglaw? Clerkships?

[Blindmelon]

What about one of the more prestigious secondary journals at Gtown? I have good grades, and a moderate interest in writing the note, but I'm not enthused about cite-checking, etc.

Worth it for Biglaw? Clerkships?

I don't think there are really "more prestigious" secondary journal than others - just do the one thats closest to what you want to do OR do the one that is the least work. At my school, 1 secondary journal only publishes twice a year, so people do like 2 cite checks. Another secondary publishes 4 times - thats double the work and both journals look equal on a resume.

T2 LR v. secondary. Worth it to do secondary? Isn't it the same sort of work?

I strongly disagree with the people above - LR is an absolute ton of work, but I think it depends on the school. If you go to a WUSTL where like 20% of the school is on LR, its probably less work. Secondary will be the same type of work, but less of it.

[yips]

What about one of the more prestigious secondary journals at Gtown? I have good grades, and a moderate interest in writing the note, but I'm not enthused about cite-checking, etc.

Worth it for Biglaw? Clerkships?

I assume you are referring to either ACLR or Tax. These are both well respected if you have an interest in criminal law or tax law, respectively. I wouldn't pass them up just for a lack of enthusiasm about cite-checking.

But if you're talking about one of the other journals, or if you have moot court, etc, it's a closer call. If you aren't interested in the subject matter, and you aren't enthused about cite-checking, hopefully you have something else on your resume. Two years is a long time to be unenthused, but personally, I'd still do it.

[quakeroats]

A Prof shares an interesting perspective:


I, however, think the problem lies elsewhere. The issue for many seems to be that their particular article was better than its placement. And high placement for articles is connected with various benefits, including perhaps higher pay, more mobility options, prestige, recognition, tenure, etc. But that’s the problem. 2Ls have power that they should never been given.

Here’s my solution: read the articles. If it’s good, recognize it as such. If it’s not, well, do what you’d like. But there’s no reason why intelligent people should give automatic respect to an article that they haven’t read simply because 2Ls at a top school thought it was a great piece of scholarship.

I understand the need for qualitative ranking. If that’s the case, perhaps scholars in the various fields should rank the top, say, 20, articles each year. If your article appears on the list, then you have shown to your colleagues that your work is well-respected by your peers. I'm sure others can devise other ways of ranking articles. But the legal academy must simply get beyond giving placement intrinsic value.


http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/08 ... oblem.html

[Blindmelon]

A Prof shares an interesting perspective:


I, however, think the problem lies elsewhere. The issue for many seems to be that their particular article was better than its placement. And high placement for articles is connected with various benefits, including perhaps higher pay, more mobility options, prestige, recognition, tenure, etc. But that’s the problem. 2Ls have power that they should never been given.

Here’s my solution: read the articles. If it’s good, recognize it as such. If it’s not, well, do what you’d like. But there’s no reason why intelligent people should give automatic respect to an article that they haven’t read simply because 2Ls at a top school thought it was a great piece of scholarship.

I understand the need for qualitative ranking. If that’s the case, perhaps scholars in the various fields should rank the top, say, 20, articles each year. If your article appears on the list, then you have shown to your colleagues that your work is well-respected by your peers. I'm sure others can devise other ways of ranking articles. But the legal academy must simply get beyond giving placement intrinsic value.


http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/08 ... oblem.html

Grrr to profs who rag on how LRs are run. They could easily fix the problem by being more involved with how journals are run. Instead, they are too lazy, and spend their time moaning about how it isn't better. 2Ls aren't the problem, its the professors who only care about submitting their crappy articles only to have 2Ls do their research, FNs, and sometimes even help craft their argument, for free.

[sundance95]

A Prof shares an interesting perspective:


I, however, think the problem lies elsewhere. The issue for many seems to be that their particular article was better than its placement. And high placement for articles is connected with various benefits, including perhaps higher pay, more mobility options, prestige, recognition, tenure, etc. But that’s the problem. 2Ls have power that they should never been given.

Here’s my solution: read the articles. If it’s good, recognize it as such. If it’s not, well, do what you’d like. But there’s no reason why intelligent people should give automatic respect to an article that they haven’t read simply because 2Ls at a top school thought it was a great piece of scholarship.

I understand the need for qualitative ranking. If that’s the case, perhaps scholars in the various fields should rank the top, say, 20, articles each year. If your article appears on the list, then you have shown to your colleagues that your work is well-respected by your peers. I'm sure others can devise other ways of ranking articles. But the legal academy must simply get beyond giving placement intrinsic value.


http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/08 ... oblem.html

Grrr to profs who rag on how LRs are run. They could easily fix the problem by being more involved with how journals are run. Instead, they are too lazy, and spend their time moaning about how it isn't better. 2Ls aren't the problem, its the professors who only care about submitting their crappy articles only to have 2Ls do their research, FNs, and sometimes even help craft their argument, for free.

LOL at law professors bitching about others making arbitrary decisions about their writing just because it has a huge effect on their career path

just LOL

[JusticeHarlan]

Here’s my solution: read the articles. If it’s good, recognize it as such. If it’s not, well, do what you’d like. But there’s no reason why intelligent people should give automatic respect to an article that they haven’t read simply because 2Ls at a top school thought it was a great piece of scholarship.

I understand the need for qualitative ranking. If that’s the case, perhaps scholars in the various fields should rank the top, say, 20, articles each year. If your article appears on the list, then you have shown to your colleagues that your work is well-respected by your peers. I'm sure others can devise other ways of ranking articles. But the legal academy must simply get beyond giving placement intrinsic value.

Confirmation that not even law professors read law review articles? These people have no shame.

[quakeroats]

Some more on the problem of law students as inexperienced gatekeepers:

How can we judge the quality of student decisions? Well, one way I guess is to ask the experts. Often when I read an article in a truly elite law journal that's in my area of expertise I'm surprised that it was selected -- this is because I can see and identify problems with it. Of course, I have no idea what the other articles under consideration were, so the fact that I think a particular piece isn't great (and that I'm familiar with better pieces published in "lesser" law reviews around the same time) isn't a great judge.

Another way of looking at this issue is to use citation data. As I wrote about a couple weeks back in the context of Theodore Eisenberg's and Martin Wells' latest on citations, a study of citations also has a lot of problems. But if we would just suspend objections for a moment, I want to talk about a simple study I published a few years back, which looked at citations to articles in a thirteen leading law journals over a 15 year period. The study found that many articles in our nation's most elite journals did substantially less well than articles published in very good, even if not the most elite journals. There are a lot of things to be said about this -- including that, wow, there's not a lot of space in those journals and some articles do great -- absolutely fantastic in citations -- but a lot don't. But I think it also suggests that a lot of judgements, even by editors of the best journals, may not be the best decisions they could have made. This is hindsight -- and it poses all kinds of problems related to field bias in citations -- but it also reminds us that some articles in the best journals may not be as good as many other articles published in other journals. And I think that's an important caveat, especially this time of year as hiring and promotion and tenure committees are gearing up.

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/08 ... icles.html

[Blindmelon]

A Prof shares an interesting perspective:


I, however, think the problem lies elsewhere. The issue for many seems to be that their particular article was better than its placement. And high placement for articles is connected with various benefits, including perhaps higher pay, more mobility options, prestige, recognition, tenure, etc. But that’s the problem. 2Ls have power that they should never been given.

Here’s my solution: read the articles. If it’s good, recognize it as such. If it’s not, well, do what you’d like. But there’s no reason why intelligent people should give automatic respect to an article that they haven’t read simply because 2Ls at a top school thought it was a great piece of scholarship.

I understand the need for qualitative ranking. If that’s the case, perhaps scholars in the various fields should rank the top, say, 20, articles each year. If your article appears on the list, then you have shown to your colleagues that your work is well-respected by your peers. I'm sure others can devise other ways of ranking articles. But the legal academy must simply get beyond giving placement intrinsic value.


http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/08 ... oblem.html

Grrr to profs who rag on how LRs are run. They could easily fix the problem by being more involved with how journals are run. Instead, they are too lazy, and spend their time moaning about how it isn't better. 2Ls aren't the problem, its the professors who only care about submitting their crappy articles only to have 2Ls do their research, FNs, and sometimes even help craft their argument, for free.

LOL at law professors bitching about others making arbitrary decisions about their writing just because it has a huge effect on their career path

just LOL

My point is that if they know better, they could get more involved and make the process better. Think that students need help picking articles? Volunteer to be involved in the article selection process. The solution is that easy, but it takes extra effort on part of the professor.

[JJW]

1L with a BL SA, “just offered” so I am cancelling all my OCI interviews. The only remaining question is LR. I decided a while back if I were offered I would decline LR. But now I am not so sure and I don’t know why (other than “down the road” it might be helpful). Friends who say take it are generally conformist types. The others who claim it is pointless are unequivocal in their opinion (and declined LR).

Would someone kindly convince me, one way or the other?

[TatteredDignity]

1L with a BL SA, “just offered” so I am cancelling all my OCI interviews. The only remaining question is LR. I decided a while back if I were offered I would decline LR. But now I am not so sure and I don’t know why (other than “down the road” it might be helpful). Friends who say take it are generally conformist types. The others who claim it is pointless are unequivocal in their opinion (and declined LR).

Would someone kindly convince me, one way or the other?

If you're going to be doing something better with your time over the next two years, such that doing LR is an opportunity cost, then sure -- don't do it. If you're just going to be screwing around, you never know what potential door in the future you'll be closing by doing so. If you're the type to take the easy way out and you don't care about potential future opportunities, you'll probably decide to quit on your own, anyway.

[JJW]

If you're going to be doing something better with your time over the next two years, such that doing LR is an opportunity cost, then sure -- don't do it. If you're just going to be screwing around, you never know what potential door in the future you'll be closing by doing so. If you're the type to take the easy way out and you don't care about potential future opportunities, you'll probably decide to quit on your own, anyway.

I do not know anyone at this school taking the easy way out (largely because none exists). I am also not implying that because of this offer I should throw caution to the wind. What I wondering about is the scenario x years from now where LR makes a difference. I understand that somehow a scenario could exist, I just cannot fathom what.

[Miller32]

LR just signals that you had a successful law school career. After practicing for a number of years, it's unlikely you'll send out your transcript to employers if trying to lateral firms, move in-house, do government work, etc. Instead, it'll be things like LR and Latin honors that act as indicators. It might be stupid that people place importance on it, but that's the way it is.

In my view, there is no good reason to decline LR. Just coast by and have it as a resume bullet.