Law students are involved in writing - from seminar papers to editing journals - and many could benefit from hearing experienced writers talk about the writing process. Some students might also be considering law teaching as a career - or simply might be curious about what their professors do besides teach. So we planned a lunchtime program with a panel of professors talking about how they write law review articles.
Mary Whisner moderated and asked the professors questions, including:
The professors shared the mike with one another. As we’d hoped, the panel came across as a conversation, rather than one person after another holding forth. We had time for a few questions from students at the end.
The professors often echoed their colleagues’ comments, but also provided diverse opinions and advice on the topics raised. For example, in response to questions about gathering information and formulating ideas one professor advised that “as junior writers, look to insert yourself into an existing discourse or debate between known practitioners” while another professor stressed the goal of searching “for something no one has written about.” When discussing their recommended sequencing of researching and writing, one professor advised that the students should not start writing too early, before ideas are formulated, while another stressed the importance of starting to write early, noting that “one of the biggest obstacles for students, professors, for anybody just beginning to write. … It’s not supposed to be perfect when you start.”
The professors also provided very practical advice for students. In response to the question of how to determine when an article is ready to submit to a journal (or a paper ready to submit to a professor), one professor provided a three step analysis: (1) Is the formatting complete? (2) Is there a coherent argument that is easy to follow and can be summarized in a few sentences or an abstract? (3) In a fast-moving field of law, can you logically stop at this point?
A student asked “as a student gathering ideas for writing, when should I go to a professor for help?” The consensus from all three professors was that the student should already have a general idea formulated and some preliminary (due diligence) research completed before approaching the faculty member for assistance with the paper.
We were very pleased with the turnout - there were about 75 students and three professors in the audience, and they seemed interested and engaged. The room was actually standing room only! Here are some of the steps in the planning that contributed to the success.
The idea. The germ of the idea was at AALL in Boston. Our colleague Nancy McMurrer heard a program on writing at which an audience member asked whether the panelists talked to their students about their publications. The panelists said no, but we later kicked around the idea and thought it sounded great.
The administration. Our early efforts at organizing the panel included contacting (via email) the associate dean for research and faculty development, the assistant dean for academics, and the faculty advisers to the student journals. There was some interest, but no one said “Gee, yes, let’s do it!” We picked up the idea a year later and decided to go with it. We let administrators know we were planning it, but did not wait for them to do anything.
The journals. Ann Hemmens contacted the editors-in-chief of the three student journals (Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Shidler Journal of Law Commerce & Technology (an e-journal), and Washington Law Review). They agreed to co-sponsor the event - that is, we could use the journals’ names in the publicity and they would encourage their staffs to attend. Ann negotiated with the editors to find a date that would work for all of them (as well as for us).
The panel. Mary recruited the panelists, choosing professors who had published at least two law review articles in the last couple of years. We chose to focus on traditional law reviews (as opposed to public health journals, philosophy journals, newspaper op ed pages, etc. - which could be topics for another panel).
She also selected based on a “niceness factor” - who would be willing to do this favor for the library and the students and would have a warm, friendly rapport with the audience? This factor helped with attendance. Some students came because they wanted to see professors they knew and liked.
The panelists have diverse scholarly interests. However, they were not as diverse demographically - three white men between 32 and 40 - but these professors were perfect on all the other criteria.
Publicity. Ann advertised the lunch hour panel through multiple mediums including: flyers posted throughout the Law School and Library, a brief article in the Law School’s weekly newsletter, and repeated email announcements to the student list and the Law School (faculty and staff) list. As co-sponsors of the event, the editors of our three journals encouraged their staffs to attend. To entice students to attend we promised “giveaways” - Gallagher Law Library pens, notepads, and mouse pads - all tools used in the writing process. And we obviously encouraged students to bring their lunch.
Handout. We had a simple, one-page handout. It listed two recent publications by each speaker (including the moderator, Mary), plus the speaker’s first publication (often a student note). (Including Mary’s publications exposed the students to the idea that law librarians also write and that there’s a field of law librarianship - covered, among other places, in Law Library Journal.)
The handout gave the URL of our guide, Writing for and Publishing in Law Reviews, http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/lawrev.html. The guide includes resources for developing paper topics, finding journal addresses, and researching journal rankings. At the start of the panel, Mary projected the guide on the classroom’s screen and pointed out the URL in the handout so students could refer to it later.
Logistics. To create a relaxed and inviting atmosphere, we reserved a medium-sized classroom and encouraged students to bring their lunch to the event. The three panelists sat at a table in the front of the room and Mary stood behind the lectern, posing questions and creating a conversation among the panelists.
Several students and staff who were unable to attend the panel asked that it be videotaped, so Ann worked with the Law School’s audio-visual specialist to set that up. We are now digitizing the VHS tape and will make it temporarily available on the Law School server.
Conclusion. We were very pleased with the success of this event. We hope to build on it, and we encourage you to try it at your school.