Supervised Legal Research

So you're interested in doing legal research for course credit under my supervision? Great! Before we both commit, you should consider the philosophy and policies that I bring to Supervised Legal Research (SLR).

First, I approach supervision in a hands-off way because law students are, like the lawyers they will become, professionals with considerable independence and responsibility. I expect you to propose a schedule and then to either meet it or update me if you change it. I also expect you to reach out when I can help -- by asking to talk or meet or by asking for feedback on part or all of your work. You can expect me to provide substantive feedback on your significant deliverables within two weeks -- provided that classes are in session and you are following the schedule that we agreed to.

Second, an SLR often involves more than a single semester. Provided you make arrangements with me in advance, you might begin early or continue beyond the semester for which you receive credit. However, trying to complete your SLR in your final semester is fraught. If you're interested in publishing with your law journal, you may also need to meet what is likely to be a stringent schedule.

Third, I ask you to approach your legal research with a clear sense of your goals -- including as those goals change. Why are you doing this work? What do you want to get out of it? How do you want it to help you or others? For example, you might use an SLR to produce a writing sample, publish a note in your journal or an article in another journal, develop foundational knowledge, satisfy the writing requirement, improve your writing, plant your flag in the ground for a future area of interest, or connect with others in the field (which I especially recommend).

Fourth, your particular goals can and should shape the kind of research and writing you undertake. Provided they serve your goals, I am open to a wide variety of ideas and formats.

Fifth, if you hope to publish your work, you should consider what makes an article effective. In my view, a good article contributes something of value that in turn gives you current and future credibility. You should aspire for that something to be objective, neutral, novel, and thorough. Perhaps it is a clear explanation of a muddled area of the law, a comprehensive taxonomy that helps future legal analysis, historical background on a statute drawn from original sources that would otherwise be hard to access, (inter)national context that helps decisionmakers understand the full range of options and issues that others have considered, or insights from outside the law that inform a debate inside the law. Contributions such as these are likely to be appreciated by judges and their clerks, by the lawyers who argue before them, by legislators and academics, and by others who are applying, analyzing, and shaping law. Practicing lawyers who are uninterested in a law student's normative views will nonetheless appreciate what a law student's research can do for them, and this appreciation could engender curiosity about and respect for those normative views. In this case, the egg really does come before the chicken.

Sixth, even if I am your formal supervisor, I expect that I will not be your only advisor. Other professors and practitioners may know more about a substantive area of law than I do, especially if you are researching the implications of technology on a traditional area of the law. An SLR also presents a wonderful opportunity to reach out to others who you want to get to know, because you can say, "I admire what you do and want to learn from you. I'm not asking you for a job; I am asking you to share your expertise" -- and because you can then follow up when you finish your research (and perhaps again when you really are looking for a job). At the same time, it is important to respect others' time and work. This includes reading what they have already written on a topic before you speak with them.

Seventh, I am far more interested in quality than quantity. In the professional world, you are far more likely to encounter word maximums than word minimums, and in the past I have rejected some papers for being too wordy. Sometimes these papers lacked sufficient substance, and sometimes their sufficient substance was smothered by an excess of language.

Eighth, I expect that you will cite not only your sources but also your methods. If you use Lexis or Westlaw or Casetext or Google or Wikipedia or ChatGPT to find a source, produce an idea, or refine your writing, tell me. Similarly, if you do use generative AI tools, then you must cite them as you would any other putative authority, including by putting direct quotes in quotation marks and by citing both direct and indirect quotations. Furthermore, I expect you to independently substantiate claims made by a generative AI tool.

Ninth, I evaluate your work with reference to your inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts.

Finally, talk with me! I'm often flexible. But communication is essential.