Please, Sir, May I Have Another Footnote

Hat tip to Paul Lomio on Legal Research Plus for calling attention to Duke law prof Joan Magat's Bottomheavy: Legal Footnotes [SSRN]. From the abstract:

For decades, legal footnotes have been the deserving target of both ample criticism and self-mockery. Apart from their complaints as to footnotes’ mere existence, most critics draw a bead on the ballooning of footnote content. Some journal editors, aspiring to respond to this sound theme, hopefully inform their authors of a preference for “light footnoting.” But where does an author begin to trim, and what editor has the audacity to slash what the author (or her research assistant) has so laboriously compiled below the line? Changing our footnote habits is about benefits and costs. To gain the former, we must ante up. If criticism began the round of bidding, this article modestly raises the stakes, suggesting a rule of reason that might govern the author’s, the editor’s, and the reader’s expectations for footnotes. A gamble, perhaps, but one that might be worth taking. 

Lomio's comment: "As someone who has mined footnotes for years, all I can say is:  Please, sir, I’d like some more." Your wish comes true, Paul. The 42-page article contains 167 footnotes! [JH]