Even articles that have criticized the institution of the law review tend to note some of the benefits of law reviews such as signaling quality students to employers, imparting rigor to the thought and writing of students via the editing process, and enhancing a law school’s competitiveness. Such functions are the inefficient by-products of law [...]

When Judge John Noonan wrote about law reviews in the Stanford Law Review back in 1995, he likened them to cathedrals. Just as every self-respecting medieval town had one, every self-respecting law school must have one. Schools that aspire to high rankings need more than one, actually. I might use a different analogy, more closely [...]

As another entrant into the fast-growing ranks of online law review supplements, the Connecticut Law Review has chosen to begin by contemplating—or is that “CONNtemplating?”—an ambiguous phrase: “Law Reviews Matter: Legal Scholarship, Law Reviews, and the Online Age.” We might read that open-ended phrase in several ways. Perhaps most interestingly, it might be read as [...]

This Essay, solicited by the Connecticut Law Review for the inauguration of its online companion CONNtemplations, discusses the main structural deficiencies of student-edited general interest paper-based law reviews, namely that they are student-edited, general interest and paper-based.

If you’re reading this, you must not be a federal judge. According to a March 2007 article in the New York Times, legal scholarship has become too ethereal and abstract to be of any practical use to federal judges in their everyday disposition of cases. In the words of Dennis G. Jacobs, Chief Judge of [...]