Should Law Reviews be Ended or Reformed?

[erpowers]

I have been reading "Broken Government", which was written by John Dean. According to both Dean and Louis Fisher, a constitutional law scholar, law review articles are sometimes published even though they are based sound legal ideas. In the book Dean quotes Fisher as saying only law students select articles to be published in professional journals. The actual quote is "In fact, students at a medical school do not pretend to have the competence to select and publish articles for a professional journal. Nor do students at any other graduate school." If this statement is true should law reviews be ended? Should the selection criteria for articles published in law journals at least be reformed? Should the editors or presidents of law reviews be encouraged to reject legal articles that are not based on sound legal theory?

I understand that there can be a debate on who determines sound legal theory, but I think law students should at least be encouraged to reject legal articles that are not based on some form of sound legal theory. In my opinion it makes the legal system better to prevent the publishing of legal articles that have no legal merit. I can also understand the question of when does something begin to have some form of legal merit.

Fisher is not the only person who thinks there are problems with law reviews. There is a link to another article about law reviews that is linked to below. So, what do others think?

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2004/review_posner_novdec04.msp

[GodlessBiker]

1. All this is nonsense without at least one example of a law review article...

that is not based on "sound legal theory."

Posner is a wimp for not coughing up at least one example and attempting to maintain his own thesis without empirical evidence.

[Romulox]

2. Law Review articles aren't controlling in any matter...

So I don't see any issue. I think this critique proceeds from a misunderstanding of legal authority... :shrug:

[MineralMan]

3. What are law reviews used for?

They're not used as precedents. They have no standing in court. They're just discussions of legal theories. As for it being law students who review and select articles, those same students are generally at the top of their law school's academic standings, and will shortly be in practice.

I think this is aimed directly at President Obama, who was involved with the law review while studying law. It's an honor for a law student to be chosen, and it's because of excellence.

Unless these reviews are being used in court, they're irrelevant.

[erpowers]

8. For Some Not Everything is About Obama

The post is not a direct swipe at Obama. It is amazing that some Obama supporters are so sensitive concerning Obama. It is just crazy that a person can ask any question and some Obama supporters claim the whole thing is about Obama. Just to note I was not in the least bit thinking about Obama when writing the original post. However, maybe you should read "Broken Government" by John Dean in order to learn why someone might create a post about law reviews. If you do not want to read the whole book just read pages 108-110.

[depakid]

12. They can in some cases be good research compilations

Especially on regulatory matters or with respect to novel legal theories.

[rucky]

13. Resume padding. n/t

[onenote]

4. methinks someone has an overinflated view of the significance of law review articles

They don't bind a court. And as you essentially admit, there can be a debate on what constitutes sound legal theory. Kind of hard to have that debate, however, if you arbitrarily exclude one side of the debate from being published.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Didn't the president write/edit a law review journal?

Is this some sort of back-handed slap at President Obama?

[erpowers]

7. No

Why is everything about Obama for Obama supporters It is just amazing to me how Obama supporters can make anything about Obama. For some people the world does not revolve around Obama and everything is not about Obama. Some people actually ask questions and have discussions based on what is going on in the world and what multiple people discuss.

The real reason for the question is that John Dean stated that one of the ways Conservatives get their views into courts is by writing those views in law reviews and then using those reviews in court cases in which they have conservative judges. So, it seems to me that one way to stop this practice by Conservatives is to prevent them from publishing their articles in law reviews. At least when those articles seem to not have very much legal merit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. This seems a bit silly.

If the proposition is to say Article A or B may impact Issue X ergo we must filter Article A because it conflicts with Article B then you have already decided how Issue X should be decided and Article A is pointless at best.

What is the criteria for deciding which articles are valid?

I raised my concern for this very reason. Obama was part of a law review journal and if the premise of the compaint is that law review article writers don't have the experience or insight to offer then it diminishes what Obama did.

So what is the new rule?: all law review articles are crap...unless the author goes on to become president.

[erpowers]

15. Not About Obama

People have been question the quality of law review articles long before Obama came on the national scene. The quality of law review articles had been discussed on many occasions. The article talking about reforming law review articles had nothing to do with Obama.

[MineralMan]

11. Your 'No' does not answer the question...

President Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review, which is the chief editorial position.

That fact brings the question into focus, and included President Obama into the issue.

Did Dean mean some negative reference against Obama? Probably not, but our President certainly held that position of honor while at Harvard. It's an honor reserved for the best of the best law students at any school.

From your responses, I take it that you are not an Obama supporter.

[erpowers]

14. Post Had Nothing To Do With Obama

President Obama was not the only person to write or edit a law journal. In addition, Obama was not even mentioned in the post. That was the reason for my response. It is just crazy that you brought up Obama when a post did not even mention Obama in any way. In addition, Dean's book was at least a year before Obama became president. So, the book also did not have anything to do with Obama.

[amandabeech]

6. Maybe someone's big article was turned down by a law review. n/t

[erpowers]

9. No

[musiclawyer]

16. Freakin Law School itself should be reformed

Law Schools still teach like it was 1809, and students are 95% unprepared to practice law once they got out, and law reviews are a part of the problem, not the solution ( You really want to know why there are so many shitty lawyers, sit in on a class, any class, sometime. ) There are some places like the new UCI campus that understand that the whole concept of law school needs to be reformed. Kudos to them. But a law review should be a side dish, not a main course--which it is for many students. I'm all in favor of banning law review save for those who want to stick around another semester after graduation to participate if they are so inclined, and if they love an area of the law so much.

[iceman66]

17. Who cares?

Hardly anyone reads them outside the academic community.

[SB37]

18. n/t