Thread by @CBHessick

Scott Greenfield was nice enough to let me know that he has a response up on his blog to my post in defense of law review articles. blog.simplejustice.us/2018/04/12/zom…
Scott and I have very different views about the value of legal scholarship, but here are some thoughts 1/x

First, Scott challenges the idea that writing a law review article can make someone an expert.
2/x

He goes on to say “Calling yourself an “expert” doesn’t make you one, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.” 3/x

As I said in to @lawprofblawg earlier today, there are different ways of obtaining expertise.
Scott doesn’t tell us how he thinks someone comes to possess expertise, but I imagine he’d agree that one could also develop expertise by practicing law in a field for a long time. 4/x

I agree that practice can develop expertise. But that doesn’t mean writing articles *doesn’t* develop expertise. It develops what you might call “academic expertise” or “scholarly expertise,” rather than expertise based on personal experience. 5/x

Writing law review articles requires you to do a lot of research, engage in a lot of analysis, and defend your ideas. People could spend years doing those things and never develop expertise. They could do shoddy research, or fail to ever listen to those who disagree with them

But then again, I suppose one could also practice law for years and also fail to gain expertise. But both strike me as exceptions rather than rules. 7/x

As for whether law review articles are of no use to judges and lawyers because of their length, I don’t think there is a single correct answer. We know that Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Jacobs don’t think they are valuable. And Scott tells us:

But these opinions aren’t universal. I’ve gotten multiple calls and emails from lawyers and judges to thank me for things I’ve written and to ask follow up questions about how my research affects their case. And I’m sure that my experience is hardly unique. 9/x

I should add that my view of the utility of law review articles is shaped by the fact that, while I was clerking, my judge told me to read a law review article so that we could discuss it. He used that article as the basis for his dissent in a hard case. (He didn’t cite it.) 10/x

But that doesn’t answer the question—could law review articles be shorter? As Scott notes, it depends on the law review article. But he also writes that “there are plenty of law review articles that could make their extremely limited point in ten pages.” 11/x

I think that law review articles have to do a lot more than just “make their point.” They also need to show their work. Oftentimes, I disagree with an author’s conclusion or proposal. But law review articles contribute more than just their conclusions or proposals. 12/x

The background and the analysis that they provide is extremely useful. (And it is my impression that this is the portion of the article that’s most helpful to lawyers and judges.) So that's why I think articles need to be more than 10 pages. 13/x

That isn't to say profs shouldn't try to make their articles *more* useful and accessible to lawyers and judges. The @NACDL does a great job of this for criminal law lawyers: nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?… 14/x

One final note:
To say that what law professors do is different from what practicing attorneys do is *not* to say that what law professors do is better. 15/x

Maybe I’m imagining what seems like some defensiveness in Scott’s post when he says things like “lawyers and judges [are] the vulgarians who do what you see from afar” or “I’m neither an expert nor public intellectual, so what do I know.” Or maybe that's just his writing style.

But in any event, I think that discussions between law professors and lawyers might be more fruitful (or at least more pleasant) if the discussions weren’t conducted against the assumption that law professors look down on practicing attorneys. I know that I don't. /end