Are Blogs Legal Scholarship??

I just came across Brian Leiter, Why Are Blogs Bad For Legal Scholarship, 116 Yale L. J. Pocket Part 53 (2006), which I read with great interest. Professor Leiter, who runs several well know blogs himself,( here ) main point appears to be that professor blogs are bad for legal scholarship because they are not vetted. As he explains, blogs eliminate "mediating boundaries: of distance, experience, education, and intelligence." He also maintains that because of the  instant reach of blogs, an article may receive "blogospheric buzz" even though that article does not deserve it. 

Though by blogging standards, this article is a bit dated (it's almost two years old), Professor Leiter's observations are still correct. I would, however, characterize the issue differently than Professor Leiter. It's not that blogs are bad for scholarship. Rather, it's that most blogs are NOT legal scholarship. In fact, they are not intended to be scholarship. They are intended to alert the reader of a recent case or of new developments in a field of law. They are not intended to provide an overall review of the law in a particular area as traditional law reviews are. In my view, they should be used by scholars as a place to find ideas about larger articles and by attorneys as a way to keep up with recent development in their field of law. They can also be used by students to learn about the law and to help them choose a field of law to specialize in. 

Most importantly, blogs quickly spread knowledge of legal issues and give readers the opportunity to comment. Law reviews are becoming less important today. Just look at how many courts are citing to them. Why? I submit there are two major reasons; articles are too long and take too long to get  published.

So what's the solution to legal scholarship? Actually, I think it was right on Professor Leiter's desk. It's online journals such as Yale Law Journal's Pocket Part which publish shorter articles much quicker than traditional law reviews-sometimes much quicker.

I was able to publish this article in Northwestern Law Review Colloquy about 6 weeks after the Supreme Court decision it discusses. Unlike Yale Law Journal's Pocket Part, Northwestern also allows readers to comment and publishes responses to scholarship. In my view, that is where the future of scholarship lies.

I recognize that others have expressed similar views to mine. Therefore, this posting is by no means formal legal scholarship.

Professor Leiter, care to comment??

Mitchell H. Rubinstein