When the author began teaching at the Chicago-Kent College of Law in 1982, it was publishing at great expense a law review that few cited, few professors would write for, and few, if anyone, read. For this reason, he dubbed it a "moot law review" in that students were working hard to produce a publication that mimicked "real" law reviews-that is, law reviews that contribute to intellectual discourse and the body of legal knowledge.
The fact that you are reading this page (and others in this issue) is evidence that the Chicago-Kent Law Review is no longer a moot law review. How this tremendous and unprecedented improvement came about is instructive for other law schools, for there are well over a hundred law reviews that could be called moot law reviews. And it is not the students' fault. No matter how hard they work, it is impossible for students to end a notoriously vicious circle: no professor will voluntarily consent to publish an interesting high-quality article in a journal that no one reads; and no one will voluntarily read a journal that lacks interesting high-quality articles. What follows is a brief history and assessment of the transformation of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. The authors' objective is to show professors and students at other law schools that significant improvements to their law reviews are both feasible and desirable.
70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 123-140 (1994)
Scholarly Commons Citation
Barnett, Randy E., "Beyond the Moot Law Review: A Short Story With a Happy Ending" (1994). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 1247.