Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2025

Publication Title

University of Detroit Mercy Law Review

Abstract

A consistent byproduct of American legal scholarship is legal scholars' relentless complaints about the system. Most critics overreact to the existence of student editors and the occasional rough edit, demanding that we burn the whole thing down. I suggest a less dramatic response by identifying several editorial tendencies that are consistently more trouble than they're worth and suggesting that reforms begin there. I begin with the text of the Bluebook, which supports a turn away from explanatory parenthetical overuse and the automatic et al.-ing of multi-author sources. I then turn to editors' overreliance on their journal style guides, urging the relaxation or abandonment of rules that lead to excess footnoting and the suppression of authorial voice. Law reviews may have their flaws, but improvement is possible.

Volume

103

Issue

1

First Page

39

Last Page

76

Download

Share

COinS