« Grimmelmann on the Google Book Settlement | Main | Aoki on Open Source Seeds »

April 21, 2009



Hi--I am a student at NYU who worked on the project. I read your comment with interest. I just wanted to point out that while you correctly refer to "The Legal Workshop" at the start of your post, you slip into referring to it as "The Faculty Workshop" which I think is incorrect.

Great blog!

Matt Lawrence

I am a student who worked on the project, and I have to say your first-cut comments are very interesting. There is a lot to unpack in all this, but I do have one optimistic thought/comment: The Legal Workshop site is brand new, and the content currently on it was developed before the site was even up and running, largely by authors and editors who had not had the chance to see the site.

So while I think you are right about readability/accessibility of the pieces currently on the site, I am hopeful that as the site develops the pieces grow better tailored to the format (although I think the pieces on the site already do a very good job of boiling down complicated content). And comments from other bloggers and the online community will allow the students running the site continually to tailor it.

One other point--the long form scholarship you describe often leads to lengthy law review articles talking past one another. Asking authors to boil their arguments down into short form, while keep the long form "supported" print content, will let students "categorize" and tag the pieces that get posted--eventually leading to an indexed archive of scholarship. Along with the possibility to submit response pieces to the site, hopefully this will pull back on the tendency of law review articles to resemble ships passing in the night.

J. Bogart

Content is everything. The journal has significant possibility for practitioners interested in academic developments. I think there is interest beyond immediate practice guides and treatises, and accessible formats will drive some of that further. SSRN is not well known to lawyers, for example. And keep in mind that a significant part of the audience for Antitrust Journal is practicing lawyers.


Color me cynical, but I say enough with the "excitement" about this thing, it's gratuitous self promotion for authors published in the leading law reviews. (no offense to them, if I was published in one of these places I'd draft one of these too).

With that said, for the most part we're getting 2500 word abstracts (up from the 500 word abstracts) but it's still dense legal theory that won't appeal to the masses.

Thus, the only audience left for this are law professors, who don't need short versions of articles to be drawn into scholarship published by Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, New York University, Northwestern, Stanford, Chicago.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar

My Papers

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29