From the abstract for Andrew T. Hayashi (Virginia) & Gregory Mitchell (Virginia), Maintaining Scholarly Integrity in the Age of Bibliometrics, 68 J. Legal Educ. ___ (2019):

As quantitative measures of scholarly impact gain prominence in the legal academy, we should expect institutions and scholars to engage in a variety of tactics designed to inflate the apparent influence of their scholarly output. We identify these tactics and identify countermeasures that should be taken to prevent this manipulation. The rise of bibliometrics poses a significant risk to the scholarly endeavor but, with foresight, we can maintain scholarly integrity in the age of bibliometrics.

From the abstract for J.B. Ruhl, Michael P. Vandenbergh & Sarah Dunaway, Total Scholarly Impact: Law Professor Citations in Non-Law Journals (Sept. 10, 2019):

This Article provides the first ranking of legal scholars and law faculties based on citations in non-law journals. Applying the methods, as much as possible, of the widely used Leiter-Sisk “Scholarly Impact Score,” which includes only citations in law publications, we calculate a “Interdisciplinary Scholarly Impact Score” from the non-law citations over a five-year period (2012-2018) to the work of tenured law faculty published in that period in non-law journals. We also provide the weighted scores for law faculty at the top 25 law schools as ranked by the US News rankings, a school-by-school ranking, and lists of the top five faculty by non-law citations at each school and of the top fifty scholars overall.

The work of legal scholars outside of law journals is not trivial. Over 600 faculty members from the 25 schools in our cohort published almost 3,000 articles in non-law journals from 2012-2018, and those articles received close to 21,000 citations in non-law journals. The faculties that rank in the top ten based on weighted scores for Interdisciplinary Scholarly Impact using the Leiter-Sisk weighting method (2x the mean + the median) for all faculty with at least one publication in the study period are: Minnesota, Stanford, Yale, Duke, Cal-Irvine, Georgetown, Boston University, USC, Vanderbilt, and George Washington. The rankings, although subject to limitations similar to those faced by the law journal citation studies, demonstrate that it is possible with reasonable effort to include citations in both law and non-law journals in rankings of legal scholars and law school faculties.

Legal scholars are cited in non-law journals for the work they publish in legal journals and, in many cases, for work they publish in non-law journals. Counting only their citations in law journals thus underestimates both the impact of their legal scholarship and their interdisciplinary impact. Non-law journals are widely read by law and policy scholars, scientists who influence legal scholarship, and policymakers, and publications and citations of legal scholars in non-law journals can be an indication of work that has transcended the conceptual frameworks, assumptions, or methods of legal research. Publications and citations in non-law journals thus provide an additional indication of the influence of legal scholars. Citations in non-law journals also provide an indication of the influence of legal scholars on the overall scholarly enterprise outside of law, and accounting for non-law citations in legal rankings can also encourage interdisciplinary scholarship. Scholars from non-law fields have made important contributions to legal scholarship, but the reverse should also be the case. Acceptance by other fields of legal scholars’ proposed legal reforms can play an important role in determining their success, which is made more likely when legal scholars are included in the work of other disciplines.

For these reasons, we suggest in the Article that future evaluations of legal scholars’ work include both the Law Scholarly Impact Score and the new Interdisciplinary Scholarly Impact Score, or combine the two into a Total Scholarly Impact Score. Although there is some mismatch in the citation engine capacities and the time frames for our non-law journal citation study and the most recent Sisk et al. law journal citation study, a combination of the two can provide a rough approximation of the Total Scholarly Impact Score. The top ten law faculties based on this combined measure are: Yale, Harvard, Chicago, NYU, Stanford, Columbia, Duke, Cal-Berkeley, Pennsylvania, and Vanderbilt.

The databases used in the law and non-law studies and their search capacities differ, making it difficult to develop a citation study method that captures all of a faculty members’ law and non-law publications and all citations to them in defined time frames. We are working to improve the non-law citation study database and search capacity.

Following an introduction to the project, in Part I we discuss why accounting for legal scholars’ non-law publications and citations is important when assessing scholarly impact. Part II describes our methodology. Part III presents our results, and Part IV discusses the results.

Ralph Brill passed away Friday evening. Ralph had been a member of the Chicago-Kent faculty since 1961. For 14 years, he was director of the Chicago-Kent’s unique three-year legal research and writing program, for which he is widely known. He is past chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Legal Writing, Reasoning and Research, and a former director of the Legal Writing Institute and of the Association of Legal Writing Directors. Details from IIT/Chicago-Kent press release.

H/T Legal Skills Prof Blog. See also Legal Writing Prof Blog.


Reference/Foreign & International Librarian

The George Washington University Law School, Jacob Burns Law Library, located in Washington, DC, seeks a qualified librarian for its reference/foreign & international librarian position to begin as early as August 1, 2019. The librarian in this position will provide research and reference services to members of the GW Law community and other library patrons.  Basic qualifications for this position are an ALA-accredited MLS (or equivalent) or completion of degree requirements by time of appointment, and an ABA-accredited JD (or equivalent) or completion of degree requirements by time of appointment.

Review of applications will begin June 3, 2019, and continue until the position is filled. For complete information and to apply for this position, please view the posting at Please upload a resume, cover letter, and include contact information for three professional references. Only complete applications will be considered.

Employment offers are contingent on the satisfactory outcome of a standard background screening.

The university is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer that does not unlawfully discriminate in any of its programs or activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or on any other basis prohibited by applicable law

In Academic Reputation Scores for Law Schools Stagnate in 2018 and Rise Modestly in 2019 Robert L. Jones summarizes the results of the U.S. News & World Report rankings published in 2018 and 2019 with respect to the academic reputation scores of law schools. In addition to analyzing the most recent results for the U.S. News rankings, the essay supplements the more extensive longitudinal study published by this author in 2013. The article also includes updated appendices from the prior study that catalog the U.S. News academic reputation scores for every law school between 1998 and 2019.

From the abstract for CJ Ryan & Brian L. Frye, The 2019 Revealed-Preferences Ranking of Law Schools (Belmont Law Review, Forthcoming):

In 2017, we published A Revealed-Preferences Ranking of Law Schools, which presented the first (intentionally) objective ranking of law schools. Other law school rankings are subjective because their purpose is to tell prospective law students where to matriculate. Our “revealed-preferences” ranking is objective because its purpose is to ask where prospective law students actually choose to matriculate. In other words, subjective rankings tell students what they should want, but our objective ranking reveals what students actually want. These rankings were originally based on an average of the previous five-years of LSAT and GPA quartile and median averages for law schools. We updated these rankings with a 2018 ranking that focused exclusively on the 75th, median, and 25th quartiles of each of these measures for the entering class in Fall 2017. We have modified our rankings yet again to evaluate law schools based not only on their success at matriculating the most desirable first year law students, but also on their success at retaining those students and attracting transfer students.

Accordingly, we present our latest rankings, the 2019 Revealed-Preferences Rankings, as an objective measure of how successful law schools are at attracting and retaining students. We believe that our new methodology is an improvement on our previous methodology, because it incorporates data on transfers, which provide information about student preferences after matriculation. Unfortunately, our new ranking cannot be directly compared to our previous rankings, because it uses a new methodology. Nevertheless, we provide a comparison to our previous objective rankings, as well as to the prominent U.S. News and Above the Law subjective rankings. In addition, we once again provide regional rankings of law schools based on our 2019 Revealed-Preferences Methodology.

From the abstract for Bernard A. Burk, The New Normal Ten Years In: The Job Market For New Lawyers Today And What It Means For The Legal Academy Tomorrow, 12 FLA. INT’L L. REV. — (forthcoming 2019):

Despite record-low general unemployment and a strong economy, the graduating law-school Class of 2017 entered a much smaller and more constrained labor market than existed ten years before. Overall, the number of entry-level, strongly law-related jobs (“Law Jobs”) that the Class of 2017 obtained was 26% lower than the Class of 2007, and remains at levels not seen since the early 1990s. The only reason that greater proportions of the graduating class are obtaining Law Jobs than in recent years is the dramatic decrease in the number of students attending law school since 2010.

Examination of the various sectors of the entry-level Law-Jobs market shows that no sector produces more Law Jobs today than it did in 2007. That said, some sectors’ hiring shrank more than others. While there are fewer entry-level Law Jobs overall today than in 2007, there were no drastic changes in the non-law-firm sectors’ share of all Law Jobs or of the graduating class. Among private law firms, it is the smallest (2–10 lawyers) and the largest (over 500 lawyers) that have reduced their entry-level hiring least.

In addition, a look at the pattern of entry-level hiring in the ABA’s “JD Advantage” category (referring to jobs that are law-related but do not require a law license) provides quantitative evidence that many of these positions have long been, and remain, distinctly less preferred by and less satisfying to new graduates than conventional law practice. These findings call into doubt comments touting work that is merely law-related as the future of the profession, and suggest that most law schools would be wise to concentrate on preparing their students for practice.

For reasons explained in detail, there is no reason to believe that any of these patterns will change in the foreseeable future. Overall, this implies that the steady and rapid entry-level legal-employment growth common from the 1970s through the mid-2000s is over, and a stable “New Normal” has established itself. This New Normal likely will see only gradual growth in entry-level Law-Jobs hiring at rates roughly equal to the growth rates of the domestic population and economy—about 1%–3% per year overall.

These changes impose a straitened perspective on the recent increase in applicants to law school in the 2017–2018 admissions cycle, the first meaningful increase since 2010. Given that any substantial expansion in the need for new lawyers is unlikely, any continued improvement in the employment prospects of new law graduates at most law schools will be dependent on keeping entering-class size steady or making it smaller. Law schools that grow without a specific and quantifiable basis to predict commensurate expansion in particular labor markets that they directly serve risk diluting their graduates’ employment outcomes, with corresponding adverse effects on their life and career prospects, as well as the reputation of the institution.

On Lawfare, Ryan Scoville asked “how, and how often, do legal academics use FOIA?” He writes “the actual use of FOIA and its state-law equivalents in legal academia has been quite limited. By my count, fewer than 60 law review articles in the entire Westlaw database report that the author obtained or tried to obtain records under a freedom-of-information law in carrying out the underlying research. In other words, law professors generally embrace transparency—but have traditionally relied upon others to supply it.”

Bridget J. Crawford’s Information for Submitting to Online Law Review Companions (Feb. 2019) “contains information about submitting essays, commentaries, reviews, responses, and other writings to online companions to the main law reviews and journals at selected law schools. The document includes word-count limitations, subject matter specifications, preferred submission methods and other information of possible interest to authors. It covers 20 online companions to main law reviews.”

Here’s the abstract for Robert Blacksberg’s Envisioning the AI-Enabled Legal Team of the Future, 2018 ctrl ALT del conference:

Artificial intelligence (AI) can be found again in the front row of technology investment and development. Perhaps better standing for “augmented intelligence,” AI tools that employ machine learning, natural language processing and expert systems, among others, with the power to handle big data, are earning a place at the legal team’s table.

Now we must bring to the table the people with the necessary skills and understanding to incorporate AI in legal practice.They need to participate in the organization and delivery of legal services from the beginning of engagements and become active members of project teams. There emerged from the ALT conference a vision of a less hierarchical team, with a broader set of skills and a greater degree of client involvement than the traditional phalanx of rainmaker partner, engagement partner, associate and support staff.

From the abstract for Joe Lawprofblawg and Darren Bush, The Most Important Law Review Article You’ll Never Read: A Hilarious (in the Footnotes) yet Serious (in the Text) Discussion of Law Reviews and Law Professors (Feb. 2019):

No! Stop! Go back! Reading the abstract is like taking the red pill in the Matrix.

In this article we discuss “the game.” “The game” is the quest for measuring scholarship success using metrics such as law review ranking, citation counts, downloads, and other indicia of scholarship “quality.” We argue that this game is rigged, inherently biased against authors from lower ranked schools, women, minorities, and faculty who teach legal writing, clinical, and library courses. As such, playing “the game” in a Sisyphean effort to achieve external validation is a losing one for all but a few. Instead, we argue that faculty members should reject this entrenched and virulent hierarchy, and focus on the primary purposes of writing, which are to foster innovation in a fashion that is both pleasing to the author and that improves society. We discuss this rigged game, and seek to reframe our academic life to focus on enhancing innovation and discourse. We would start by skipping abstract writing.

Now go back to your life. Don’t even think about downloading and reading this. It’s too dangerous.

From Scott F. Norberg, The Case for an ABA Accreditation Standard on Employment Outcomes, 67 J. Legal Educ. 1035 (2018):

This article proposes a draft ABA employment outcome standard. Under this draft, a school would be required to demonstrate that, for two or more of the past five graduating classes, at least sixty percent of its graduates had full-time (FT), long-term (LT), bar passage-required (BPR) or J.D. Advantage (JDA) jobs at ten months after graduation. It further provides that in lieu of complying with the sixty percent requirement at ten months after graduation for a given graduating class, a school may
comply with the standard by demonstrating that at least seventy-five percent of the class was employed in FT, LT, BPR or JDA jobs at twenty-two months after graduation. An employment outcome standard could be adopted in addition to or in lieu of the existing bar passage standard.

US News & World Report has announced that it is creating a new ranking, separate from the overall Best Law Schools, that measures faculty productivity and impact. The intent is to analyze each law school’s scholarly impact based on a number of accepted indicators that measure its faculty’s productivity and impact using citations, publications and other bibliometric measures. U.S. News is collaborating with William S. Hein & Co. Inc. to complete this analysis.

For reactions to this change by law professors, see the links in this post.

From the abstract for Adam S. Chilton, Jonathan S. Masur & Kyle Rozema, Rethinking Law School Tenure Standards (Jan. 31, 2019):

Academic departments decide on tenure standards with limited evidence about their accuracy and efficacy. We study the implications of stricter tenure standards in law schools, an environment in which 95 percent of all tenure track hires receive tenure. To do so, we construct a novel dataset of the articles and citation counts of 1,720 law professors who were granted tenure at top-100 law schools between 1970 and 2007. We first show that pre-tenure research records are highly predictive of future academic impact. We then simulate the costs and benefits of applying stricter tenure standards using predictions of law professors’ future academic impact at the time of their tenure decision. Of faculty members not tenured under stricter standards, only 5 percent have greater future academic impacts than their counterfactual replacements. Moreover, increasing tenure denials by 10 percentage points would increase the academic impact of a school’s median professor by over 50 percent.

From the blurb for Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia (Stanford UP, 2019) by Meera E. Deo:

This book is the first formal, empirical investigation into the law faculty experience using a distinctly intersectional lens, examining both the personal and professional lives of law faculty members.

Comparing the professional and personal experiences of women of color professors with white women, white men, and men of color faculty from assistant professor through dean emeritus, Unequal Profession explores how the race and gender of individual legal academics affects not only their individual and collective experience, but also legal education as a whole. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative empirical data, Meera E. Deo reveals how race and gender intersect to create profound implications for women of color law faculty members, presenting unique challenges as well as opportunities to improve educational and professional outcomes in legal education. Deo shares the powerful stories of law faculty who find themselves confronting intersectional discrimination and implicit bias in the form of silencing, mansplaining, and the presumption of incompetence, to name a few. Through hiring, teaching, colleague interaction, and tenure and promotion, Deo brings the experiences of diverse faculty to life and proposes a number of mechanisms to increase diversity within legal academia and to improve the experience of all faculty members.

From the abstract for Nicholas A. Mirkay & Palma Joy Strand, Disruptive Leadership in Legal Education (Jan. 2019):

Legal education is ripe for disruption because the legal profession and the law itself are ripe for disruption. In the last recession, demand for legal education dropped 40 percent, and only in the last year are we seeing increases in law school admissions. The recession illuminated an even bigger crisis for law and legal education—an increasing mismatch between the limited services that the law and lawyers provide and the vast and acute societal needs for legal services. A recent American Bar Association study estimated that 80 percent of the poor and those of moderate income lack meaningful access to our justice system and legal services.

Ample scholarship exists on how to restructure legal education to address this mismatch. However, this essay undertakes a new focus—the tough and potentially perilous road of attempting necessary change in a real-world law school setting. We impart our experiences as unwitting “disruptive leaders” prodding a small, private law school to meet the changing legal environment, and experiencing extreme blowback as result. We discuss characteristics of academia generally that contributed to this resistance—tenure, academic freedom, and the imperatives of university administration to raise funds and maintain tradition rather than respond innovatively to shifting economic and social dynamics. We also highlight characteristics of legal education that make disruptive leadership particularly unlikely to succeed: the ABA monopoly in legal regulation and the gendered nature of law and legal education.

This essay provides a narrative that will resonate with many in legal academia, as well as academia in general. The peer reviews we received also confirmed that this essay will jumpstart an important and necessary conversation on these issues.

On Associate’s Mind, Keith Lee writes “Another year, another data dump. December 15th is the annual reporting day for ABA 509 Disclosures for all ABA approved law schools. These are required public disclosures that law schools must make as part of their ABA accreditation. As soon as the ABA started releasing the data, I began to compile it and release reports at Associate’s Mind.” See Law Schools ABA 509 Disclosure Reports 2018 (Stats + Graphs) for details.

From the abstract for Laura P. Graham, Generation Z Goes to Law School: Teaching and Reaching Law Students in the Post-Millennial Generation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 2019, Forthcoming:

This Article … examines three learning characteristics of Generation Z students that have direct implications for legal educators: they are saturated with technology, they are weaker than their predecessor generations in critical reading, thinking, and writing, and they prefer to work alone rather than in collaborative settings.

Finally, this Article suggests concrete strategies for legal educators to address the challenges presented by Generation Z students, focusing on five areas: (1) more instruction in critical reading; (2) more writing opportunities across the law school curriculum; (3) more thoughtful (and perhaps more sparing) use of technology in the classroom; (4) more careful attention to how and when we use collaborative learning techniques; and (5) more emphasis on encouraging mindfulness and wellness in our students.