Category: Law School (Scholarship)

2

Contract Evolution

There’s a fantastic symposium issue out of NYU this month, devoted to evolution and innovation in contract terms.  There are articles by the ridiculously productive trinity of Choi/Gulati/Posner, a wild piece by Kevin Davis on Contracts as Technology, and a very cool empirical paper by Marotta-Wurgler and Taylor on evolving terms in standard form contracting online.  I’m obviously biased toward empirical work on this exact topic, so I’m a sucker for this stuff.  But I do think that this kind of empirical and theoretical work is where contract scholarship should be heading in the next 10-20 years.  Check it out.

 

4

SSRN Law Professor Top 50 by Downloads

SSRN Inspired by Paul Caron’s listing of the latest SSRN ranking (as of March 1) of tax law professors by number of paper downloads from the SSRN database, following are the top 50 active US-based law professors in all subject areas in the all-time downloads category.  (For the top 25 in corporate law, see here.) Please see Paul’s post for his summary of other rankings  SSRN provides, inherent limits of the meaning of such things, and links to some of his academic writings about them.  See also here for a piece I once wrote about them for a conference Paul hosted some years ago.   

 

1 Bebchuk, Lucian A. 190.698
2 Solove, Daniel J. 173,999
3 Black, Bernard S. 135,130
4 Sunstein, Cass R. 134,109
5 Lemley, Mark A. 125,150
6 Bainbridge, Stephen M. 92,448
7 Landes, William M. 76,844
8 Leiter, Brian 75,362
9 Posner, Eric A. 73,136
10 Kerr, Orin S. 64,538
11 Coffee, John C. 62,631
12 Reynolds, Glenn H. 61,868
13 Parisi, Francesco 58,217
14 Sidak, Gregory G. 55,643
15 Kraakman, Reinier H. 53,194
16 Kahan, Dan M. 52,607
17 Partnoy, Frank 52,038
18 Gilson, Ronald J. 49,677
19 Vermeule, Adrian 49,616
20 Schwarcz, Steven L. 48,356
21 Solum, Lawrence B. 45,760
22 Gulati, G. M. 45,635
23 Evans, David S. 45,188
24 Wu, Tim 44,779
25 Hovenkamp, Herbert J. 44,257
26 Ferrell, Allen 41,830
27 Cohen, Alma 41,311
28 Fried, Jesse M. 39,737
29 Shavell, Steven 38,669
30 Yu, Peter K. 38,635
31 Bratton, William W. 38,457
32 Hansmann, Henry 37,322
33 Braman, Donald 36,976
34 Thomas, Randall S. 36,058
35 Stout, Lynn A. 36,001
36 Romano, Roberta 35,760
37 Roe, Mark J. 34,742
38 Fairman, Christopher M. 34,427
39 Barnett, Randy E. 34,383
40 Hopt, Klaus J. 33,581
41 Cunningham, Lawrence A. 32,320
42 Donohue, John J. 32,273
43 Choi, Stephen J. 30,812
44 Avi-Yonah, Reuven S. 30,012
45 Robinson, Paul H. 28,888
46 Burk, Dan L. 28,871
47 Skeel, David A. 28,565
48 Blair, Margaret M. 28,126
49  Bix, Brian 27,373
50  Tamanaha, Brian Z. 27,270
0

SSRN Corporate Law Professor Top 25 by Downloads

SSRNInspired by Paul Caron’s listing of the latest SSRN ranking (as of March 1) of tax law professors by number of paper downloads from the SSRN database, following are the top 25 active US-based corporate law professors in the all-time downloads category.  For some qualifications and a listing of the top 50 prawfs overall, see here.
Corporate Law 
1 Bebchuk, Lucian A. (Harvard) 190.698
2 Black, Bernard S. (Northwestern) 135,130
3 Bainbridge, Stephen M. (UCLA) 92,448
4 Coffee, John C. (Columbia) 62,631
5 Kraakman, Reinier H. (Harvard) 53,194
6 Partnoy, Frank (San Diego) 52,038
7 Gilson, Ronald J. (Colum/Stan) 49,677
8 Schwarcz, Steven L. (Duke) 48,356
9 Gulati, G. M. (Duke) 45,635
10 Ferrell, Allen (Harvard) 41,830
11 Cohen, Alma (Harvard) 41,311
12 Fried, Jesse M. (Harvard) 39,737
13 Bratton, William W. (Penn) 38,457
14 Hansmann, Henry (Yale) 37,322
15 Thomas, Randall S. (Vandy) 36,058
16 Stout, Lynn A. (Cornell) 36,001
17 Romano, Roberta (Yale) 35,760
18 Roe, Mark J. (Harvard) 34,742
19 Cunningham, Lawrence A. (GW) 32,320
20 Choi, Stephen J. (NYU) 30,812
21 Skeel, David A. (Penn) 28,565
22 Blair, Margaret M. (Vandy) 28,126
23 Gordon, Jeffrey N. (Columbia) 26,241
24 Clarke, Donald C. (GW) 22,961
25 Kahan, Marcel (NYU) 21,824

 

A dozen schools are represented on this list, with the following densities:

Harvard leads by a wide margin with 6;

Columbia edges out with 2.5 the next 6 schools, all of which are represented 2x:  Duke, GW, NYU, Penn, Vandy and Yale; and

those represented 1x are Cornell, Northwestern, San Diego and UCLA.

0

Free Advice to Incoming Law Review Boards

While academics angst, law journal editors toil to manage the fire hose of submissions, real and fake expedites, and the uncertainty that comes with a new job.  Many journal editors now seem to have the goal of “improving their ranking“.  Seven years ago (!) I wrote some advice on that topic.  It seems mostly right as far as it goes, but I want to revise and extend those comments below, in letter form.

Read More

5

Does Blind Review See Race?*

In a comment to my earlier post suggesting that law review editors should seek out work from underrepresented demographic groups, my co-blogger Dave Hoffman asked an excellent question: Would blind review remedy these concerns? It seems to me that the answer here is complicated. Blind review would probably be an improvement on balance, but could still suffer from — err, blind spots. Here are a few reasons why.

The paradigmatic case for the merits of blind review comes from a well-known study of musician hiring, published about a decade ago by Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse in the American Economic Review. Goldin and Rouse gathered data on symphony auditions, and found that blind auditions — that is, ones which concealed the gender of the auditioning musician — resulted in a significantly higher proportion of women musicians auditioning successfully. As Rouse commented,

“This country’s top symphony orchestras have long been alleged to discriminate against women, and others, in hiring. Our research suggests both that there has been differential treatment of women and that blind auditions go a long way towards resolving the problem.”

The Goldin-Rouse study shows that blind review can be a useful tool in combating bias. Would a similar review system work in the law review context?

Well, maybe. Read More

1

What is the Point of Symposia?

Over at the Faculty Lounge, the estimable Michelle Meyer argues that it’s possibly inconsistent to take account of race, gender, and sexual orientation in symposia invitations but not to do so when selecting articles in law reviews.  Her post is thoughtful and well-written, though I believe it rests on a false premise.  Go over there and read it and then come back to find out which one.

Read More

43

In Defense of Law Review Affirmative Action

As you may have seen, the new Scholastica submission service allows law reviews to collect demographic information from authors. A flurry of blog posts has recently cropped up in response (including some in this space); as far as I can tell, they range from negative to negative to kinda-maybe-negative to negative to still negative. The most positive post I’ve seen comes from Michelle Meyer at the Faculty Lounge, who discusses whether Scholastica’s norms are like symposium selection norms, and in the process implies that Scholastica’s model might be okay. Michael Mannheimer at Prawfs also makes a sort of lukewarm defense that editors were probably doing this anyway.

But is it really the case that law review affirmative action would be a bad thing? Read More

0

NBLSC Call-for-Papers

From our friends sponsoring the National Business Law Scholars Conference (NBLSC), scholars please take note of the following  Call-for-Papers:

The NBLSC will be held on Wednesday, June 12th and Thursday, June 13th at The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law in Columbus, Ohio. This is the fourth annual meeting of the NBLSC, a conference which annually draws together dozens of legal scholars from across the United States and around the world.

All on-topic submissions are welcome and the sponsors will attempt to provide the opportunity for everyone to actively participate. Junior scholars and those considering entering the legal academy are especially encouraged to participate.

To submit a presentation, email Professor Eric C. Chaffee at echaffee1@udayton.edu with an abstract or paper by April 15, 2013. Please title the email “NBLSC Submission – {Name}”. If you would like to attend, but not present, email Professor Chaffee with an email entitled “NBLSC Attendance”. Please specify in your email whether you are willing to serve as a commentator or moderator. A conference schedule will be circulated in late May.

Conference Organizers: Barbara Black (University of Cincinnati); Eric C. Chaffee (University of Dayton); Steven M. Davidoff (The Ohio State University).

14

When is it ok to be “descriptive”

I presented a taxonomy of federal litigation today to a terrific audience at Rutgers-Camden. As I’ve covered in exhausting detail, the paper sets out to describe how lawyers organize causes of action together into complaints.  It uses a method called spectral clustering to illustrate the networks of legal theories that typically are pled together.  (It does some more stuff, but that’s the gist.)  As often happens when presenting this particular paper, it was pointed out to me that the project lacks a clearly defined normative “so what”.  This is basically correct. The “so what” of the paper is “this is a different, more-finely grained, way to see how attorneys think and produce cases. With pretty pictures. How do you like them apples?

As I said, I tend to get the so-what objection quite often when presenting this paper, and it’s pushed my co-authors and I to make the paper clearer about the implications of the method. At the same time, it has made me even more aware of the bias in legal writing to come up with papers that do more than taxonomize, or describe. This is a well-known problem with the legal academy.  True, taxonomies can be highly successful – Solove’s Taxonomy article is just one recent hit in a long parade of exceptionally good papers that basically try out different ways to organize legal concepts.  But those papers generally pitch the contribution of taxonomies  as systems to harmonize doctrine, or because they illustrate something about the world that needs fixing, or they uncover a missing category that is novel and interesting.

What’s less common is work that is no more than descriptive – this is what the world looks like; this is what happened – and doesn’t go on to fix or recommend a single thing.  Often such work is derided as mere reportage, a practitioner’s piece, or (worse) an uninteresting collection of facts, put together without a synthesis of why we should care.  (Actually, some papers are attacked on all three grounds.)  But other times, descriptive work is seen universally to be immensely important and valuable, even if it doesn’t advance any prescriptive agenda. Some of the middle-period Law and Society papers have this feel, though of course L&S generally is quite ideological.

You may be wondering: what’s the so-what of this post?  Here it comes:

-what is your sense of the appropriate criteria for deciding that purely descriptive scholarship makes a contribution?

-relatedly, if you were advising a first-time scholar, would you advise against writing a paper that is missing a policy solution in Part IV?  

My answer to the first question is that schools and faculties vary widely, and consequently I’d say the risk averse response to the second question is very, very clear.  Discuss.

1

What’s Next for Contracts in the Real World?

Thanks to all participants for their wonderful contributions to the on-line symposium about Contracts in the Real World: Stories of Popular Contracts and Why They Matter.   (To see all posts together, click the subject matter link below this or other posts for Symposium (Contracts Real World) or select that topic from the Categories menu on the sidebar at left.)

As the reviews suggest about readers finding the stories fun and the lessons enjoyable, you may be able to guess that I found researching and writing them fun and enjoyable too.  Many of the stories were originally written, in a slightly different form, for this blog. Many of those stories generated productive comments.

I therefore must thank not only my fellow perma-bloggers here at Concurring Opinions for the opportunity to develop these ideas on this site, but also to many readers of the site for their thoughtful contributions. Double that gratitude for having allowed so much space to be devoted to the book these past several days.

Beyond contracts, several publishers and I believe that there is a series in this approach to the content and presentation of many law school subjects. That would certainly seem apt for other traditional 1L courses such as Torts, Property, Criminal Law and Civil Procedure.   Read More