Great "How to Make Law Review" tips
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:16 pm
Law review competitions are starting pretty soon for us (probably later than most), but I was interested if anyone has tips on how to excel. I'm interested in hearing from 2Ls/3Ls who took the test and made law review, as well as those who did not. Also, advice from informed 1L's and 0L's would be helpful.
______________________________________________________________________________
I have done some searches before and have found some great advice:
1. Use headings, topic sentences, and an introductory roadmap to organize your note. These make it much easier for the reader to quickly understand and follow your argument, even if it isn't a great argument. A well-organized average note will usually get a better score than a poorly organized brilliant note, since readers have neither the time nor the inclination to find hidden gems in entries (if your competition is anything like ours, each reader is responsible for scoring well over 30 notes).
2. Offer a clear, well-defined argument. If you can't state your thesis in one, max two sentences, then it is too elaborate.
3. Follow the Bluebook conventions in your casenote. Journal editors--the ones grading your submissions--know the BB cold and will see errors immediately. Common mistakes: using ALWD stuff, like underlining case names; using 2nd Cir. instead of 2d Cir.; failure to abbreviate case names in footnotes per the tables in the back of the BB; failure to italicize signals or use small caps for book citations/newspaper names in citations; screwing up when periods go inside parentheticals and when they don't; failure to end each citation with a period.
4. For the love, don't use all kinds of annoying lawyer-speak in an effort to sound scholarly. Terms like heretofore, inter alia, and post-modern are just unnecessary. Short, crisp sentences are the way to go
_____________________________________________________________________________
This also appears to be the book people recommend.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/writing/
_____________________________________________________________________________
Any advice from others?
______________________________________________________________________________
I have done some searches before and have found some great advice:
1. Use headings, topic sentences, and an introductory roadmap to organize your note. These make it much easier for the reader to quickly understand and follow your argument, even if it isn't a great argument. A well-organized average note will usually get a better score than a poorly organized brilliant note, since readers have neither the time nor the inclination to find hidden gems in entries (if your competition is anything like ours, each reader is responsible for scoring well over 30 notes).
2. Offer a clear, well-defined argument. If you can't state your thesis in one, max two sentences, then it is too elaborate.
3. Follow the Bluebook conventions in your casenote. Journal editors--the ones grading your submissions--know the BB cold and will see errors immediately. Common mistakes: using ALWD stuff, like underlining case names; using 2nd Cir. instead of 2d Cir.; failure to abbreviate case names in footnotes per the tables in the back of the BB; failure to italicize signals or use small caps for book citations/newspaper names in citations; screwing up when periods go inside parentheticals and when they don't; failure to end each citation with a period.
4. For the love, don't use all kinds of annoying lawyer-speak in an effort to sound scholarly. Terms like heretofore, inter alia, and post-modern are just unnecessary. Short, crisp sentences are the way to go
_____________________________________________________________________________
This also appears to be the book people recommend.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/writing/
_____________________________________________________________________________
Any advice from others?