Friday, February 19, 2010

Anthony Niedwicki Named as New Director of The John Marshall Law School Legal Writing Program

Niedwiecki, Anthony SThe John Marshall Law School in Chicago announced today that Anthony Niedwiecki will be the next Director of the school's Lawyering Skills Program.  Anthony is presently an Associate Professor and Director of the Lawyering Skills and Values Program at Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Anthony received his B.A. from Wayne State, his J.D. from Tulane, and an LL.M. from Temple.  He was the Managing Editor of the Tulane Law Review.  He was a commercial litigation attorney with Mayer Brown & Platt (in their Houston office) and a labor and employment attorney with Gardere & Wynne (Dallas).  He was a lecturer and later an Assistant Professor at Temple University.  He also taught at Arizona State before joining the faculty at Nova Southeastern. 

Anthony brings to John Marshall many years of directing a large and vibrant program.  Congratulations to Anthony (and to The John Marshall Law School).

(mew)

February 19, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

LWI President-Elect (in a New Orleans Saints Football Jersey)

I lost the bet Why is Ken Chestek, a legal writing professor at the University of Indiana-Indianapolis and  President-elect of the Legal Writing Institute, wearing a New Orleans Saints football jersey?  Because he made a bet with Mary Algero, a legal writing professor at Loyola University in New Orleans and President-elect of the Association of Legal Writing Directors as to whose team would win the Superbowl.  The loser had to don the other side's jersey, have their photo taken at the classroom podium, and post the photo on Facebook for a week.  The loser also has to wear the jersey to the other writing organization's board meeting in Marco Island at LWI's conference in June.  Get used to that Saints shirt, Ken!

(spl)

February 19, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Law Librarian BlogTalkRadio hosting discussion of WestlawNext

From the Law Librarian Blog:

The Law Librarian Blogtalkradio program will discuss WestlawNext, NCCUSL and other timely topics of concern to law libraries, law librarians, legal bibliography and the profession during today's episode at 2:00 PM Central. The call-in number during the live broadcast is 347-945-7183

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 19, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Scholarship alert: "The Ethics of Contract Drafting"

This article is by Professor Gregory M. Duhl of William Mitchell College of Law. It's forthcoming in the spring edition of the Lewis and Clark Law Review but for now can be found on SSRN here.

From the abstract:

This Article provides the first comprehensive discussion of the ethical obligations and duties to non-clients of lawyers drafting contracts. It discusses fraudulent representations, errors, fraud, and "conscious ambiguity" in transcription, as well as "iffy" and invalid clauses, and argues that the standard for lawyer misconduct under the disciplinary rules should be consistent with the purposes of contract law, one of which is to promote trust between contracting parties. Additionally, the Article discusses lawyer liability for negligence to non-parties in contract drafting and contends that lawyers should be liable to non-parties only when they are third-party beneficiaries to the contract between the lawyer and client for the lawyer‘s services. The Article concludes by arguing for a functional set of ethical rules for lawyers drafting contracts that reflect the increasing emphasis on cooperation, rather than competition, in the contracting process.

Hat tip to Professor May Beth Beazley.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 18, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Inside the belly of the beast - the Chicago Manual of Style's "scary" online forum

The Chicago Manual of Style recently launched an online forum where you can get answered any and all of your writing style questions.  The problem is, as Inside Higher Ed reports, many people are so intimidated by the forum's fastidious readers that they're afraid to post:

Just two weeks after its Feb. 2 launch, The Chicago Manual of Style Online’s new discussion forum already features numerous discussions with titles like “ ‘Predecessor to’ or ‘predecessor of’ “? and “Worst online punctuation abuse?” But the most popular thread thus far is titled “I’m afraid to post here.” Its first message: “Could there be a more intimidating place to post?”

Other commenters echoed that sentiment: “I do fear a grammatical error in posts here because even if everyone is polite enough to ignore it they will surely notice it,” fretted one.

On the positive side, the nascent forum is proving to be an invaluable resource to writers everywhere.

[U]sers can ask any and all style-related questions ("Is there a rule about using whether or if?") and receive quick responses from others, often citing the Manual itself ("From CMOS 5.202: determine whether; determine if. The first phrasing is irreproachable style; the second is acceptable, though less formal"). The press hopes that this function will finally bridge the long-standing gap between the number of questions that Chicago users submit to its Q&A each month (hundreds, Gibson said) and the number that editors can answer (about 10 every month). But the forum isn't limited to the nitty-gritty of copy editing; it also includes sections where users can post their questions on author relations ("How does one deal with the frustration of continually correcting the same differences in usage without losing one's temper or alienating the writer?"), professional development ("Have you ever taken a class in copyediting?") and the publishing industry ("How can publishers best utilize Facebook and Twitter for marketing purposes?"), as well as, of course, miscellaneous ("Best way to develop good grammar habits?"

You can read more here.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

 

February 18, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Scribes Program on "Legal-Writing Tips from Top Experts"

Picture 125 Dickerson, Darby Kimble, Joe Scribes--The American Society of Legal Writers--will hold a free legal writing seminar from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. on Friday, March 5, 2010 (to be followed by a reception).  The program will offer "sound, practical tips for writing clearly in all legal papers, preparing effective memos and briefs, [and] drafting contracts and rules."

Panelists will include some of the superstars of legal writing: Darby Dickerson (Dean of Stetson University College of Law and author of the ALWD Citation Manual), Bryan Garner (pictured at left; he's the President of LawProse, Editor of Black's Law Dictionary, and author of many many many many writing books), Joe Kimble (pictured at right; he's a Professor at Thomas Cooley Law School and editor-in-chief of the Scribes Journal of Legal Writing).  The moderator will be Professor Mary Rose Strubbe of Chicago-Kent College of Law (whose picture I sadly don't have).  The program will be held at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, 565 W. Adams Street, Chicago.  Click here for more information.  Download Writing Seminar 2010 Flyer.  There does not appear to be an RSVP list.

(mew)

February 18, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Is WestlawNext calibrated to allow novice legal researchers to find the results they need?

On today's Law Librarian Blog, Joe Hodnicki has reprinted a message from Westlaw sent to the law librarian listservs in response to questions raised by bloggers about the new WestlawNext research platform.  Although I haven't yet taken it for a test-drive, WestlawNext is supposed to provide users with a more "Google-like" search experience.  Apparently it does so by employing an algorithm that generates a list of the most relevant results based on the user's search query. (Perhaps WestlawNext - like Google - "learns" the idiosyncrasies of its user and adjusts the search results accordingly).

One of those very clever law librarian-types thought to ask Westlaw whether the algorithm takes into account the unsophisticated search queries of novice law students.  Thus, the question implies that 1L's might have more problems generating meaningful search results from WestlawNext than they would if, for instance, they were searching for shoes on Google (the response, below, implies that WestlawNext search results are more accurate than if the algorithm took into account novice missteps and thus WestlawNext rewards the skill and experience of the researcher). 

It's an excellent question although as a practical matter I don't think it changes much about how we'll teach legal research next fall.  Regardless of the search engine, the biggest hurdle is teaching students to "think" like a lawyer as a prerequisite to being able to formulate appropriate search queries.  Like writing, the teaching of legal research is dependent on students having some foundational understanding of the substantive law that is the subject of their search.

Questions relating to inexperienced researchers informing the search results. This is a really interesting discussion. I talked to the technology team behind WestlawNext, and student research was never to be part of the algorithm to inform search results. It was a very good question though, and I wish we had spoken to it in our original discussion about the artificial intelligence technology.
 
WestlawNext is an entirely new platform, and we worked hard in the days around launch to provide the right information to the right individuals. I think we all understand now that there will be questions popping up for awhile as people ask smart questions and as strategy and planning unfold.
 
We will continue to scan the blogs and listservs for comments that reveal gaps in the discussion, and I will try to speak to those points on a regular basis on Legal Current, the corporate blog for Thomson Reuters, Legal. I invite your questions and comments and I appreciate being part of the discussion.

Westlaw is actively reading the blogs to better understand what questions and concerns you have so please feel free to let them know by posting your questions in the comments section below.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 16, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Another update from Westlaw on when academics can expect to receive their WestlawNext passwords

Westlaw has been monitoring the blogosphere buzz on WestlawNext and knows both law librarians and profs are anxious to learn when they'll be getting new passwords.  As reported by the Law Librarian Blogtoday, a Westlaw representative responded with a message sent to the AALL's listservs (I guess legal writing prof listservs don't rate) providing the following update:

There has been a lot of conversation around WestlawNext these past couple weeks. Overall, we are pleased with the attention that WestlawNext has generated. When we went down this path, five years ago, we began with the question, "how can we make doing legal research and practicing law easier for our customers?" That is still our goal, and I’m happy that our work toward this end is something that you also find interesting.
 
Recent commentary from the librarian community has been mostly very thoughtful, as I would expect, and related to product strategy, rather than the posts of the past couple weeks that spoke mostly to features and functionality.
 
There are [two] points I’d like to address, where it seems speculation has been incorrect and has understandably caused concern:
 
Rolling out WestlawNext to law firms. Our sales team will make trials of WestlawNext available to customers based on customer needs and priorities. Customers can learn more about WestlawNext by visiting westlawnext.com.
 
Rolling out WestlawNext to law schools. In a previous note, I said that we would begin showing WestlawNext to law schools in a phased rollout of trial passwords, beginning with librarians and faculty this spring, and that we were making plans for launching WestlawNext to law students, with possible introduction as early as the Fall 2010 semester. It appears that it was understood by some that this meant that WestlawNext would be in all law schools by the fall of this year. To be clear, we are still determining timing for our rollout to law schools, and will work closely with law schools and the legal profession overall with the goal of helping them make better potential lawyers as we have always done.

So for now, we sit tight and wait for further word from the legal research deities in Eagan.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 16, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Green Bag announces legal writing awards for 2009 - Ginsburg, Roberts and Souter make the list.

File this story under "better late than never."  Somehow I missed the original announcement back in early January so thanks to our good friend Mitch Rubinstein of the Adjunct Law Prof Blog for tipping me off to this.

The Green Bag, a self-described "unconventional" law review, is devoted to excellent legal writing.  To that end, the publications gives several annual awards to those who have demonstrated exemplary legal writing over the past year.  According to the Blog of the Legal Times:

Among the winners are three Supreme Court justices: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and now-retired Justice David Souter.

Souter's award is perhaps the most notable due to the brevity of what he wrote: a two-sentence concurrence in a mostly overlooked ruling from April, United States v. Navajo Nation.The ruling was a defeat for the Navajos in a long-running dispute over royalties under a coal lease. It was a sequel to a 2003 ruling by the same name, which was also a loss for the tribe. Souter's simple and eloquent concurrence (joined by Justice John Paul Stevens,) went like this: "I am not through regretting that my position in [the first case] did not carry the day. But it did not, and I agree that the precedent of that case calls for the result reached here."

Roberts won for his forceful anti-drunk-driving tract in his dissent from denial of review in Virginia v. Harris, and Ginsburg won for her majority opinion in United States v. Hayes, a statutory interpretation case heavy with references to syntax and grammar. 

Other winners in the jurist category include the Honorable Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit and the Honorable Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit.  Non-jurist winners include book authors: 

Amy Bach for her "Ordinary Justice," Annette Gordon-Reed for "The Hemingses of Monticello," and David Post for "In Search for Jefferson's Moose." 

In the news and editorial categories, Eugene Fidell, Dahlia Lithwick, Kermit Roosevelt, and Jeffrey Toobin were winners. The finalists were picked from among books and articles nominated by a board of advisers (disclosure: including the author of this blog post.) The winning entries will be published in full or in excerpts in the Green Bag's forthcoming legal almanac for 2010. Among other winners were Solicitor General Elena Kagan and law professors Lani Guinier, Pamela Karlan, Frederick Schauer, and G. Edward White.

You can read the rest here.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 16, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, February 15, 2010

quotable

Here's one I wish some legal writing students would take to heart.:

"I try to leave out the parts that people skip."

~ Elmore Leonard

February 15, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

the neuroscience of persuasive legal writing

1620403_big The ABA had published a new book on How Brain Science Can Make You a Better Lawyer, by David Sousa.  It seems like information we should start incorporating in legal writing instruction.  Here's a summary of the book, from the ABA's bookstore website:

"Recent studies of the brain offer information, strategies, and insights that can make you more successful as a lawyer and a professional. In recent years, discoveries in Neuroscience and cognitive psychology have revealed more and more about how the human brain learns. On a daily basis, lawyers are involved in changing someone's brain. That may sound dramatic, but that's exactly what happens when the human brain learns and remembers information--it is changed for a long time, perhaps forever.

"Whether it is with a client, arbitrator, colleague, judge, or jury, lawyers are usually arguing a point, explaining a rule, or defending a position in an effort to teach or convince the listener. Consequently, the more lawyers know about how the brain works, the more likely they are to be successful at helping it to learn and remember.

"Now you can add these discoveries and insights on the human brain to help make you more effective with the clients they serve, and be more persuasive in front of a judge or jury. This is information rarely taught in law schools. Lawyers need new approaches in order to communicate with juries composed of members acclimated to today's technological world. Learn what appeals to the brain and apply it in your day-to-day practice with this unique and informative book."

(spl) 

February 15, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Modern Language Association looking for speakers on professional writing

Proposals are now being accepted for the four technical and professional communication sessions to be held at the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association (RMMLA) Conference in Albuquerque, NM, October 14-16, 2010.  Proposals for presentations should include a 200-word abstract and a 50-word biographical statement. Faculty and graduate students are encouraged to submit; co-authored proposals and panel proposals are especially welcome.  Proposals are due by March 7 and acceptance notifications will be sent by March 20 so that presenters can pay current-year RMMLA dues ($35 for faculty, $25 for students) before April 1 to appear in the program.

The sessions will include:

1. Technical and Professional Communication in the Classroom.
Panel Chair: Ryan Hoover, ryan.hoover@ttu.edu
Proposals should discuss new and innovative strategies used in the classroom. Methods for applying theories of rhetoric, composition, ethics, electronic technology, or information design are especially welcome.

2. Technical and Professional Communication in the Workplace and Beyond.
Panel Chair: Erik Juergensmeyer, juergensmeyer_e@fortlewis.edu 
Proposals should discuss ways to integrate coursework with internships, service learning, employment, or any other types of experiential learning.

3. Theory and Research in Technical and Professional Communication.
Panel Chair: David Reamer, dreamer@ut.edu
Proposals should discuss current research being conducted, courses in research theory and practice, or new theories in need of wider implementation.

4. Forces of Change in Technical and Professional Communication.
Panel Chair: Alan Blackstone, alanb@ext.usu.edu
Proposals should address new directions or trends in the field, including how the discipline is changing in both academia and the workplace.

RMMLA is a friendly and well-attended conference that offers interesting excursions and evening activities.  Please send proposals as e-mail attachments in MS Word to the session chair listed above or to the RMMLA program chair for technical and professional communication: <dreamer@ut.edu>. Proposals may also be sent using snail-mail to the following address (postmarked by March 1, 2010):
David Reamer, PhD
Assistant Professor of English
The University of Tampa
401 W. Kennedy, Box R
Tampa, FL 33606

hat tip:  Ben Opipari

(spl)

February 13, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Another blogger kicks the tires on WestlawNext and lives to tell about it

Contract drafting expert and commentator Ken Adams of the Adams Drafting blog travelled to Eagan, Minnesota earlier this week to get a firsthand look at WestlawNext.  Here's a portion of his report:

You can search on WestlawNext using “natural language” or by using Boolean terms and connectors. But a natural-language search on WestlawNext is much more sophisticated than a natural-language search on Westlaw. For one thing, that’s because WestlawNext’s search algorithms leverage West’s extensive proprietary analytical content, notably the West Key Number system. If two cases are grouped together in the Key Number system, a WestlawNext search that retrieves one of the cases will take that grouping into account in determining whether to include the other case. Similarly, WestlawNext searches also consider KeyCite citation links between documents.

I found it particularly intriguing that in handling a given search, WestlawNext also considers customer usage with respect to comparable searches. More specifically, it looks to “meaningful interactions.” If a customer looked at a given document retrieved in a search, that’s not especially meaningful. But if the customer printed the document, or saved it to a folder, that would increase the odds that the document was particularly relevant for purposes of a similar search performed subsequently. When amassed over thousands upon thousands of searches, that sort of incremental information should add real value.

You can read more of Ken's review here.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

 

 

February 11, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

When the Legal Writing Prof Blog talks, Westlaw listens.

While extremely doubtful, I'd still like to believe it's true anyway  

The other day I complained on this blog that I don't yet have an academic pass for WestlawNext - the new legal research platform from West that's been five years in the making.  After my comment got picked up by Law.com, West issued a statement (ok, so it was speaking to law librarians and not me) explaining that academic passes for WestlawNext will be forthcoming soon. 

Here's a copy of West's open letter to legal writing professors law librarians courtesy of the Law Librarian Blog:

This month marks the official launch of WestlawNext. This new version of Westlaw has been in the making for several years and was developed in large part through research and collaboration with our customers. Many academic law librarians provided feedback as part of the development process, and their input was instrumental in shaping our product and launch strategies.
 
Our plan is to offer law schools a phased rollout of trial passwords, beginning with librarians and faculty this spring. In addition to preview events in a variety of cities throughout the United States, we also will offer customized in-school presentations for librarians and faculty. In the coming weeks and months, your Academic Account Manager will schedule these events and distribute trial passwords.

We're now finalizing plans for launching WestlawNext to law students, with possible introduction as early as the Fall 2010 semester.

WestlawNext for law school subscribers will be included as part of your current Westlaw subscription agreement. There will not be an incremental charge to access WestlawNext.

We are pleased to work with law school librarians and faculty to evaluate WestlawNext, and we look forward to your feedback. We'll be in touch soon; until then, please contact your Westlaw representative with any questions you may have.

Anne Ellis
Senior Director, Librarian Relations
Thomson Reuters

A big hat tip to the Law Librarian Blog for breaking the news.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 11, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

fun with collective nouns

After I had read a number of student drafts, I felt compelled to administer a short quiz on pronoun agreement and collective nouns.  In the course of my research, I came across the following entertaining sites:

http://idiocrasiesoflanguages.blogspot.com/2007/11/collective-nouns-humorous-outlook.html (this is a humorous list of made-up collectives, including "a quarrel of lawyers")

http://www.ojohaven.com/collectives/ (I especially like "an attitude of teenagers")

(njs)

February 11, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Supreme Court issues order requiring shorter reply briefs.

Effective next Tuesday, February 16, 2010, the United States Supreme Court is mandating that advocates trim 1500 words from their reply briefs.  Until then, attorneys can still use 7500 words with which they can try to persuade the Court.  

According to the Legal Blog Watch:

In an explanatory comment on the change, the clerk of the Court said the Court was returning to a length close to what it had required in earlier years when it used page limits rather than word limits. The clerk explained that “[e]xperience has shown that the increased volume limit has allowed for the filing of some briefs that repeat previous arguments rather than address only new material presented in intervening briefs.”

You can also read more about the new rule change here at the Blog of the Legal Times.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 10, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Scholarship alert: Volume 18, (Fall 2009) "Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing"


Brutal Choices in Curricular Design...

Mika, Karin. Games in the law school classroom: enhancing the learning experience. 18 Perspectives 1-6 (2009). 

Enquist, Anne. Multitasking and legal writing. 18 Perspectives 7-10 (2009).

Teachable Moments...

Scott, Jane. Intro to plagiarism. 18 Perspectives 11-15 (2009). 

Liemer, Susan. Teaching students to harness the power of word processing as they write. 18 Perspectives 16-17 (2009). 

Turner, Tracy. E-mail etiquette in the business world. 18 Perspectives 18-23 (2009). 

Centeno, Candace Mueller. A recipe for successful student conferences: one part time sheets, one part student conference preparation questionnaire, and a dash of partial live editing. 18 Perspectives 24-29 (2009). 

Writing Tips...

Armstrong, Stephen V. and Timothy P. Terrell. Why is it so hard to front-load? 18 Perspectives 30-33 (2009). 

Olszewska, Mary and Thomas E. Baker. An annotated bibliography on law teaching. 18 Perspectives 34-42 (2009). 

Bintliff, Barbara. Legal research and writing resources: recent publications. 18 Perspectives 43-48 (2009). 

Hotchkiss, Mary A. Index to Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing, volumes 1-17 (1992-2009). 18 Perspectives 49-92 (2009).

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 10, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Professionalism alert: How not to write to a potential employer.

Many of you may remember this law student-employer email dust-up from a few years back that traveled the globe and back, serving as a warning about how private emails can go viral as well as a lesson in how not to talk to an employer. 

It's happened again. This time it involves a still unidentified 3L and an IT consultant who mistakenly received the student's resume.  We'll let Above the Law's Elie Mystal take it from there:

The situation started innocently enough. The unidentified 3L sent in a résumé and cover letter to Webster & Associates LLC, looking for legal work. The letter was inartfully addressed to “Esteemed Mr. Webster, Partner:”

The problem is that Webster & Associates is not a law firm; it’s a company run by a man named Bruce Webster that specializes in IT consulting. Two seconds on the Webster & Associates website would have revealed this fact.

Webster sent the job seeker back an — admittedly curt — response. And then things got out of hand.

You can read about the denouement here.

Hat tip to the online ABA Journal and ATL.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

 

February 10, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Are law profs lazy?

Maybe, according to this article in the National Jurist (a magazine targeting law students and law students-to-be).  According to the author: 

As in most other aspects of life, the “Seven Deadly Sins” manifest themselves in legal education.

There’s plenty of Professor Kingsfield–style wrath (see class discussions with unsuspecting 1L’s). There’s both pride and envy (Google “law school rankings” for some examples). And there may even be lust.

But the one “Sin” in legal education that is the most pervasive and serious, in light of today’s legal landscape — affecting not just groups of students but every law student and recent law grad — is sloth.

Call it complacency, apathy, inactivity, inertia or plain ole’ laziness, but one thing is clear: When law professor’s slack, the students (and future lawyers) suffer.

Take the examination process, for example. Several recent news stories have broken about law professors “accidentally” using questions from previous exams or previously released practice questions, no doubt resulting in huge headaches for their respective administrations. (Make students retake the exam? Count it as a “pass/fail” grade? Grade as is? Any conceivable option presents some level of unfairness to some students, plus potential complaints, unnecessary costs and logistical nightmares for administrators.)

So far, so fair.  But then the NJ author plays the dreaded "student-as-consumer" card:

Clients are the lifeblood of any business, and law students are the lifeblood of legal education. If you’re already in law school, your tuition dollars pay your professors’ salaries. You are their client. Make their instruction worth your while.

I can't imagine any law prof would disagree with the statement that students have a right to excellent classroom instruction. Beyond that, comparing law students to "consumers" of legal ed. breaks down pretty quick.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog also picked up on this story under the headline "Are Law Professors Just Plain Lazy?" Speaking for myself, I'm pretty doggone sure I work more hours than any of my students.  But, that's just like my opinion, man.

Big 'ol hat tip to the TaxProf Blog.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 9, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Do you have your WestlawNext free academic password yet?

Apparently not many do - including me - according to Joe Hodnicki at the Law Librarian Blog.  Joe suggests that West may be reluctant to distribute free passwords to the academy until its paying customers make the upgrade.

You can read the rest here.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

February 9, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)