Scrivener's Error

null
Scrivener's Error	Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

21 November 2011

link to: 11:35 [GMT-6]

Goose and Gander for Thanksgiving

Holiday preparations go really well with migraines.

David Segal, in another item in the NYT, hops again on the "law schools don't create lawyers" bandwagon. Leaving aside that there is not one educational program — in any field — that adequately prepares someone to step into "practice" in the "real world" without some additional training, if only in the administrivia of particular positions; and leaving aside that the other major learned profession (medicine) requires far more extensive and intensive supervision of new graduates (MDs, RNs, and registered therapists alike) than does law; and leaving aside that there's a fundamental difference between "education" and "training," and that any profession requires both...

Well, leaving aside all of that, let's share the blame with those who deserve it. And right now I'm going to pick on the Chief Justice of the United States of America for his contribution to the "problem" Segal complains of. Chief Justice Roberts is notorious for attacking legal academics as being out of touch, and proclaiming that law journal articles are meaningless to judges in practice and unhelpful. Goose, meet gander: Justice Roberts, your Court's legal opinions are insufficient to guide either lawyers in practice or students. As a specific example, consider the massive changes in pleading practice wrought by Twombly and Iqbal in the last few years, which changed half a century of pleading practice. Throughout those opinions — and the dissents — the various justices argued extensively about whether a particular complaint adequately suggested, to a level of probability that was the subject of the argument, a theory of potential liability. That was fine, in a sense; the problem is that nobody — not the Supreme Court, not the Courts of Appeals, not the District Courts — quoted the actual data at issue: The allegations in the complaint. This would have been trivial; the critical section of the complaint in Iqbal, for example, is only four double-spaced-typed pages long. We would not then be wondering what data set led to the high-minded principles used to dismiss those complaints... nor would there remain the ideological/"results-oriented jurisprudence"/"docket control" issues, or at least not so overtly due to the courts' success in suppressing the data from general accessibility. (Yes, I know how to use PACER to get those complaints; but there's no equivalent in most state courts... or for older cases...)

Twombly and Iqbal give us the Science News version instead of the Journal of the American Chemical Society version. Nobody treats Science News as a primary source for scientific principles, and yet we're expected to treat the equivalent as a primary source for legal principles. In turn, that means that the complaints don't make their way into casebooks, and thus in front of students. Yet many complain that law journals have the very same defects, because they are not grounded in the realities of practice. Admittedly, there is crap in law journals; there's crap in scientific journals, too (and the less said about garbage like the Harvard Business Review, the better). That's no excuse, however, for tolerating crap in judicial opinions that would not pass muster at even a mid-level scientific journal because the opinions expect the reader to take the data on faith.

None of this is to say that everything in the legal academy is perfect. It is only to say that the problems are not at all what Segal (et al., as it has become quite a popular meme) says they are, let alone what the cause of any of those problems is... let alone what a solution to any of those problems might be (hint: whatever such a solution might be, it is not teaching civil litigation administrivia to someone whose first job is reviewing M&A documents for a fairness opinion). <SARCASM> Or maybe the legal profession could just jettison its animus toward second-career lawyers, both in practice and in legal academia, since much of the "administrivia" aspect of learning to practice gets learned in those first careers that lead to law school. Yeah, that's gonna happen Real Soon Now. </SARCASM>
Speaking of data, scientific journals, and worthwhile publishing, consider Springer Verlag's generally well-considered efforts to digitize its backlist of scientific works. If you walk into the office of any chemist, mathematician, geologist, physicist, or (only almost any) researcher in the life sciences, you'll find at least one Springer publication... and it probably has marginal notes, and dogeared pages, and bookmarks (unless you've found a brand-new edition or a brand-new researcher!). I am most encouraged by Springer's apparent care for what it has the rights to do. I may not agree that Springer in fact has those rights in each specific instance... but unlike most digitizing efforts, it has integrated that inquiry into the system at the beginning point. In short, this is how the Google Books System should have been done, especially considering that there's an at least credible argument against publishers profiting from academic works in the first place (that has substantial flaws, but it's a lot more credible than the equivalent argument for trade fiction or anything else in which expression is more important than the facts conveyed).
Perhaps there's a place for a liberal in American politics. We don't have one in the Half-White House at present — Obama is a moderate, not a liberal. Maybe Massachusetts can do better than a model for Cosmo as a US Senator. Or maybe not; there's that whole "antiintellectualizm rulez" thread in the Tea Party and among "social conservatives" (I guess one shouldn't think too hard about whether something really is moral, eh?) to fight against. BTW, how did abject stupidity and overt rejection of conscious thought work out with the economy from 2004 through 2008?
Or maybe this is all just another failure of Rawls's test for the original position that pops up in unexpected places like determining who gets to be a professor... or, more properly, can afford to be a professor. Like, for example, Professor Warren herself...

Labels: copyright, intellectual property, jurisprudence, law practice, politics, publishing

Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.

All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.

Site Feed

I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Sausages?

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

Archives

Warped Weft

Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of the more infamous threads that have appeared here by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.

Links of Interest

Links open in a new window.

Writer Beware and the Writer Beware Blog provide essential knowledge for writers who don't want to be ripped off
Writing-World.com published by the former managing editor of the now-defunct Inklings
Agent Research & Evaluation provides both free and paid analyses of literary agents
US Copyright Office, including both registration forms and records and quite a bit of other helpful information
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) allows searches of granted, pending, and some rejected trademark registrations
US Supreme Court Opinions from the current and past couple of terms
Law Library of Congress includes statutes for free
The Public Library of Law can help you find the law... but not use it in court, as many of its resources are not in proper form and do not provide all of the citation information needed in court papers
Legal, free e-books are available through Online Books (University of Pennsylvania) and Shakespeare (MIT)
Legal, free music is available through
- ClassicCat.net (what kind of music do you think you'll find here?)
- Music.Download.com (long-awaited successor to MP3.com)
- Janis Ian (artist)
- John McCutcheon (artist)

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.

A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.
Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:
- Professor Anthony Arend (Georgetown Law)
- Professor Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA Law) (aka "The Perfesser")
- Professor Jack Balkin (Yale Law)
- Professor Dennis Crouch (Missouri Law) (better known as Patently-O)
- Professor Michael Froomkin (University of Miami Law)
- Professor Eric Goldman (Santa Clara University Law)
- Professor Rick Hasen (Loyola-LA Law)
- Professor Brian Leiter (U of Chicago Law/Philosophy)
- Professor Lawrence Lessig (Stanford Law)
- Professor Michael Madison (Pitt Law)
- Professor Rebecca Tushnet (Georgetown Law)
BoingBoing, by speculative fiction writer (and 'net activist) Cory Doctorow, is quite hostile to copyright enforcement efforts, particularly regarding file-sharing
The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance
Cyberlaw (Stanford) has its agenda grounded firmly in the so-called "digital commons," which might make a bit more sense if any of the advocates of that viewpoint understood diddly-squat about population ecology
The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Searches

Optimized for at 1024x768.