Abstract: An ambitious symposium orchestrated by Loyola University Chicago Law Journal asked keynote speaker Judge Richard Posner, “What is the future of legal scholarship? He replied, “None.” Even a full-throttle critique by one of the most cited legal judge-scholars does not render all of the underlying product and labor of legal academics, lawyer-writers, and law students meaningless. Rather, legal scholarship — and law schools themselves — are worth saving.
In this essay, I argue that there is a vital future for legal scholarship, though we must be nimble in refining what we write and where we publish. We must re-calibrate our own valuations of proxies for merit rather than merit itself. It is possible to foster creativity and deep analysis. Why do we write at all? Whom do we hope to reach with our words, research, and thoughts? Can we balance social media and teaching with scholarly rigorous goals? Is it possible to be true to yourself and meet institutional requirements?
In answering these and other questions, I provide 21 unpopular opinions on legal scholarship. You definitely don’t want to miss number 4, so download away.
Publication Year: 2018
Publication Date: 2018-04-24
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot