SIVACRACY.NET: Why Do They Write?

The Blogging Law Professors are all over this question. Ann's post below was the best so far.

I have noticed these:

There must be many more.

So the real question is why law professors feel the need to justify their place in the world of words and ideas? I guess this is healthy. But as a lurker in the legal academic world (i.e. I have never written "legal" scholarship in law reviews etc.) I think this is kind of funny.

One thing to think about: the only law professors who seem to be obsessing about this question are bloggers -- those with a propensity or need to "go public." Of course, if others were obsessing about it I would never know. :)

Legal scholarly writing has its own system of rewards that are internally maintained. Good arguments get cited a lot and carry cultural power (and perhaps later job offers from better paying places). Powerful articles might get cited in court decisions, giving law professors the thrill that they did more than train lawyers who went out and did bad things for a lot of money. Really effective legal writing need never leave the domain of Lexis/Nexis to have a profound and almost invisible effect on the world (see Easterbrook, Benkler, Landes). In other words, most law professors have no need to "go public" to make a difference. They just need to be cited. So they need to write really long, complicated, and hopefully profound law review articles.

So why do law professors blog? I'm glad they do. They keep me up on stuff and distill complicated things into clear language for me.

Still, no one on my side of campus asks this question. Beyond getting fired if we did not write, we would never have entered this profession if writing were not central to our daily life already. It's like asking a musician why she tunes her instrument.

So why don't I write law review article? That's a better question. Here is a hint: I hate writing for free. I like getting paid.