« New Locations (and an Explanation) | Main | D.C. Bar Article on Legal Blogging »

Are Blogs Superior to Law Reviews?

This practitioner commenting here thinks so. (His comment is in regard to reading law professor blogs, not maintaining a blog of his own.):

"Blogs are better for me than L.Rev.s will ever be, in these ways:

  1. I need speed. Often, we have a pending appeal that raises the same issues as a USSC case, so we need to do a supplemental brief, or adjust a brief-in-progress, and blogs that give us ideas are great…

  2. I need easy-to-digest bites. Sorry, but we don't all have time to read your academic masterpieces.

  3. I need a focus on what the law is or conceivably might be in my near future. I like insights into where the Supreme Court's jurisprudence is actually headed, not a Grand Unified Theory of what-might-be if 6 Justices retire and are replaced by Critical Legal Theorists or something.

  4. I like being able to jump in discussions, and having other practitioners jump in as well…."

February 8, 2006 in Blogs and Law Reviews | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are Blogs Superior to Law Reviews?:


I'm looking for the origin of the concept of "litigation shields." The most obvious is the interpleader. We have all studied the concepts of the shield and sword of certain legal theories in the prosecution or defense of legal actions. What I'm interested in most, however, is the use of this term as a "legal term of art" that addresses the concept of avoiding court intervention via the traditional lawsuit (e.g. a general durable power of attorney can avoid the need of guardianship and/or conservatorship proceedings).

Posted by: James Chellis | May 10, 2006 8:27:50 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.