Posner Predicts Publication War

(Judge Richard Posner)

My time in Chicago ended on Sunday. But before it was over, we were privileged to hear from the Honorable Judge Richard Posner. Some reading this may wonder: Why would Judge Posner speak to a bunch of law review lackeys? Those wondering this are likely familiar with Posner’s highly critical opinion of law reviews. Indeed, Posner has even written a piece entitled: Against The Law Reviews. Regardless of his reasons for agreeing to speak, I’m glad he did.

Posner is critical of law reviews for one main reason: the vast majority of reviews are under the complete control of student editors. This means all articles and scholarly work submitted for publication by legal academics and experts are edited and prepared for publication by students. In his view, student control is fundamentally flawed. Students are not experts in any area of law. Moreover, the current trend in legal scholarship is a focus on what are called “Law And” articles. Many legal experts are now combining complex fields of study with the law. Not only are student editors required to analyze and edit pieces submitted by legal academics, these academics are adding another level of complexity by discussing economic theory, race theory, anthropology, and other fields of study to their submissions. Simply put, student editors are not qualified to review this level of scholarship for publication.

In addition, Posner is critical of student editors because they, as he said, “torment” authors. Instead of reviewing pieces for clarity, correct annotations and theoretical soundness, editors force authors into conformity with onerous writing styles and rules.

Despite Posner’s criticisms, these problems will never change. The system of publication for legal scholarship is too entrenched. Besides, Posner’s objections are not new.

However, Posner did contribute to the age-old criticisms by making a new argument for law review reform. He claims the world of legal print publications will eventually meet with competition: Blogging! That’s right. He said, “anyone who is anyone has a blog.” This includes high profile legal scholars such as Eugene Voloch and of course Judge Posner himself. And there are hundreds of others. Posner believes blogging will eventually become the norm for exchanging legal argumentation. His belief is that professors and other scholars may forego the “torment” of style conformity and corrections of law review lackeys. Unless, of course, law review editors whip into shape and start respecting authors.

So, what is your view? Will blogging take over print publications? Will it make publication outfits like law reviews more obsolete and competitive? While I’m skeptical of this view, I really appreciated the opportunity to hear Posner’s approach. As a result, I think I may be a more deferential editor.