Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Law Professor Lateraling 101 – Part One (Are You Experienced?)

posted by Paul Secunda

jobs.jpg

Before I start this series of posts on the process and mechanics of law professor lateraling, let me first give a shout out to Dan, Dave, and the other girls and boys of CO for letting this Workplace Prof talk about things non-labor and employment.

So, I was thinking that I should blog on a topic that I enjoy myself the most reading about when I read various blogs and that I know something about. And although I do enjoy an occasional post about the latest academic article or trend, I always find myself intrigued by the comings and goings of law professors at the entry-level and after.

Indeed, I’m not alone in this guilty pleasure as witnessed by the vast amount of advice given to entry-level professors by law professor luminaries like Brian Leiter, Orin Kerr, Eric Goldman, and Brad Wendel. I do not attempt to duplicate that advice here, but instead want to spend some time on the less-discussed and more mysterious law professor lateral process.

And just to be clear, this post is not about why law professors are lateraling or whether the hiring of laterals is a good way for law schools to rise in the rankings (two topics which have been ably covered by other bloggers here and elsewhere), but instead is about the nitty gritty of what it takes to lateral and how the process and mechanics work. It is amazing the number of times law professors have asked me to share with them my lateraling experiences. So I offer these humble observations as someone who has been on the lateral market for the last three years and who has been turned down by numerous schools (including two after fly backs), turned down a lateral offer, and finally, accepted a lateral offer to Marquette this year. I have also served on my school’s appointments committee which hired a lateral this past year.

Each post in this series will attack a different part of the lateral process and hopefully will act as a clearinghouse for those of you who now or someday may want to know what it takes to lateral.

But first a disclaimer.


There may be as many factors beyond your control about whether you obtain a lateral job as those that are within your control. These factors include whether you are a junior or senior faculty, whether you are tenured or not, what curriculum slot the school is looking to fill, what demographic diversity you bring, the crazy politics of a place, or even just the crazy interior world of one faculty member who has made it his or her life goal to get you for reasons not apparent to anyone (including maybe even said law professor).

So with that as an aside, how do you know if you are a potential lateral material? Most seem to agree that the number one factor is how prolific of a legal writer you are (of course, this is true to a lesser extent on the entry-level market). Not surprisingly, most schools want an objective way to determine whether you will be a ongoing, contributing scholar on their faculty. Good teaching and being a good contributor on faculty committees may also help, but I do not know of anyone who got a lateral position for winning teacher of the year or for taking one for the team and chairing the Admissions Committee.

Also, it is not enough that you write a lot. A lot of people these days write a lot. There needs to be quality measured by who publishes your articles, books, and other writings, and increasingly, how many times your articles are downloaded on SSRN or featured on blogs or other on-line resources. Also, among different types of publications, treatises and casebooks are OK, but most schools want some sign that the person is an original, creative thinker whose ideas help to advance or change their discipline in significant ways.

What else besides publications? People may disagree on this one, but a national profile is normally essential. Scholars no longer achieve that profile just through law review articles, but also through blogging and networking at national conferences like AALS, SEALS, and Law & Society. The more people who know you, the more likely you will be invited to symposium and conferences where your work will be spotlighted. And, of course, the more your work is spotlighted nationally and virtually, the better chance you will make a name for yourself (though some people have achieved this notoriety in exactly the wrong way – no names please in the comments).

Finally, even at this initial point of determining whether you would be a good lateral candidate, you should consider whether you have been someone who has taken the initiative in doing projects outside of your institutional responsibilities (though for some schools it may be important if you are dedicated to institutional building, especially with newly-founded law schools). Schools will likely be interested in knowing whether you have been an officer in an organization like the ABA or AALS, have helped put together symposium or conferences in your discipline, or have written op-ed or articles in major newspapers and magazines. All these are indicia that you will bring welcome attention to your new institution and will help that new institution sell itself to the greater legal academic community.

So, that is my two cents on what it takes to be a candidate with some likelihood of actually landing a lateral spot. No one will probably ever know how many professors consider lateraling, go through the interview process, etc., but we do know that even with increasing numbers, the overall number of professor lateraling in any given year is still relatively small. Maybe 125 out of 5000 last year? So it is important to have your ducks in a row before going through this exhausting process.

Next post will be on the mechanics of how to actually put yourself out there in that hard-to-find, Cheshire-like, lateral market.


 February 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm   Posted in: Law School (Hiring & Laterals)   Print This Post Print This Post

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress