Well, our long national nightmare is over. The Spring 2017 volume of the Journal of Legal Education has hit the digital newsstands; this volume includes my review essay on the latest edition of every lawyer’s favorite citation guide, The Bluebook. Early reviews of my essay have been uniformly… mediocre:
“[David Ziff] reviews the Bluebook”
—Ryan Calo, UW School of Law
— Cristian Farias, Huffington Post
“Everybody knows The Bluebook sucks. What this article presupposes is—maybe it doesn’t?”
— Ron Fisher, Latham & Watkins
“I nearly puked but I’ll still read it”
—Sasha Moss, R Street Institute
“Scariest thing I’ve seen today… by far!”
—Eric Segall, Georgia State University College of Law
“Anyone who wrote a 27 page book review of the Bluebook is not to be trusted.”
— Jim Tyre, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Okay, so maybe those reviews are not great. But I’m pretty sure they were offered in the playful spirit shared by the essay itself. Seriously. I figured I couldn’t take myself too seriously while writing a 27-page book review of a legal citation manual. So while I certainly intended the essay to raise some important issues, I also tried to make it a fun read. I hope you enjoy it!
I’m taking a break from post-election thoughts to write about something much less upsetting: The Bluebook. I recently wrote a 27-page book review of the 20th Edition. Seriously. You should check it out.
In the review, I argue that many critiques of The Bluebook don’t critique the actual book. Rather, they seem to be upset about something altogether different, with The Bluebook just providing an easy target for their scorn.
An instant classic of the genre appeared today in Above The Law. An in-house lawyer offers a recommendation to future in-house lawyers: “Burn Your Bluebook.” Yikes! Look, I admit I’ve never worked as in-house counsel. And I wouldn’t be surprised if in-house lawyers rarely used The Bluebook. But the complaints in the article have almost nothing to do with The Bluebook. You could burn (or not burn) pretty much anything and you’d have just as much of an effect on the problems outlined in the article, since the author’s dispute is not with The Bluebook as a citation guide. Rather, the author seems to dislike providing any legal authority whatsoever in his memoranda. That’s fine! But that has nothing to do with The Bluebook, which contains rules to follow for when you do want to cite to legal authority in your memoranda. Continue reading
In the Autumn issue of the Journal of Legal Education, Professor Michael Dorf reviews Judge Richard Posner’s Divergent Paths. And Judge Posner responds. Judge Posner’s book, Professor Dorf’s review, and Judge Posner’s response are all worth reading in full, but I’d like to highlight a few parts that might be of particular interest to legal writing professors.
Judge Posner’s book is highly critical of legal writing professors, who he claims teach law students to write in a jargon-filled, Latin-peppered, opaque style. This was news to me, and contrary to the way I teach, the way my colleagues at UW School of Law teach, every legal writing text I’ve ever read, and every discussion I’ve had with other legal writing instructors. I’ve yet to meet someone who tells their students to end a memo with quod erat demonstrandum. Continue reading
If you happen to be in Seattle (or will be on March 11) and you’re not already over-saturated with commentary, then please consider coming to the UW School of Law’s King v. Burwell panel discussion. Here’s the info:
King v. Burwell
Obamacare in the Supreme Court (Again)
Once again, the Supreme Court is set to examine the Affordable Care Act. After surviving a constitutional attack, the statute now faces a challenge based on its own text. Challengers claim that the plain language of the statute makes subsidies (a critical part of the ACA) unavailable on federally facilitated insurance exchanges. A panel of professors will discuss the case from the perspectives of health law, tax law, statutory interpretation, and administrative law.
Panel Presentation with Professors Sanford, Schumacher, Watts, and Ziff
Wednesday, March 11
William H. Gates Hall, Room 119
Student sponsors: Federalist Society; American Constitution Society; Student Health Law Organization
The official flyer is here (suitable for framing)! Since we’ll have the benefit of already listening to and digesting the oral arguments, I expect this short program will provide an informative analysis from diverse doctrinal perspectives. For more in-depth analysis, feel free to check out my previous post under the King v. Burwell “tag”: https://ziffblog.wordpress.com/tag/king-v-burwell/
The “sensitivity” of law students is getting a lot of press these days. Scott Greenfield wrote about it over at Simple Justice. Then Above the Law picked it up. I had my little post two days ago. And then today, Conor Friedersdorf offered this lengthy examination in The Atlantic.
Friedersdorf’s column does a nice job of making a couple of distinctions, which I’d like to expand on a bit. First, he acknowledges the possibility of rejecting a student complaint without unnecessarily disparaging the student. Here’s what he says: Continue reading
Don’t worry: no spoilers. (Okay, one little bitty spoiler a ways down, but you’ll get a second warning.)
A few weeks back, following the death of Ben Bradlee, I re-watched All the President’s Men. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t seen the movie since before I went to law school. Even by that time, it was an “old” movie, but it still holds up.
And of course, like everyone else, I’ve been listening to the Serial podcast, which wrapped up this morning. Listening to Serial and watching All the President’s Men got me thinking: investigation of facts is a critical aspect of good advocacy, and something law schools could probably do a better job of teaching. Continue reading
According to Professor Christopher Zorn of Empirical Legal Studies, law reviews are “terrible.” And he presents a list of grievances. I’ll get to those, and I’ve already discussed some of the recent “State of the Law Reviews” discussion here and here. But before the grievances, a more fundamental point: Professor Zorn doesn’t make clear his understanding of the purpose of law reviews so it’s impossible to judge whether law reviews are “terrible” or “great” at satisfying that purpose. You can’t call a cheese knife “terrible” just because you have a hard time cutting steak with it.
Let’s say the purposes of law reviews are to (1) get a bunch of ideas out into the universe, with a reliance on post-publication evaluation and sorting, (2) provide information that is useful to the bench, the bar, and scholars in some ratio, (3) have an article’s sourcing and arguments thoroughly checked by student editors, who effectively serve as volunteer student research assistants, and (4) give law students the opportunity to work closely with professors on current scholarship. On those fronts, I would say the law reviews are doing a decent job. But here are Five Reasons Law Reviews Are Terrible, according to Professor Zorn, with my comments: Continue reading