Delgado, Richard. "How to write a law review article." USFL Rev. 20 (1985): 445-454.Just as there are different reasons for writing law review articles, there are different types of articles. I can think of at least ten.
First, there is the "case cruncher",-the "typical" article. This type of article analyzes case law in an area that is confused, in conflict, or in transition. Doctrine is antiquated or incoherent and needs to be reshaped. Often the author resolves the conflict or problem by reference to policy, offering a solution that best advances goals of equity, efficiency, and so forth.
Next, there is the law reform article. Pieces in this vein argue that a legal rule or institution is not just incoherent, but bad-has evil consequences, is inequitable or unfair. The writer shows how
to change the rule to avoid these problems.
There is also the legislative note, in which the author analyzes proposed or recently enacted legislation, often section by section, offering comments, criticisms, and sometimes suggestions for improvement.
Another type of article is the interdisciplinary article. The author of an interdisciplinary article shows how insights from another field, such as psychology, economics, or sociology, can enable the law to deal better with some recurring problem. Professor Charles Lawrence's upcoming article on theories of unconscious motivation and their relation to race relations law falls within this category.
There is the theory-fitting article. The author examines developments in an area of law and finds in them the seeds of a new legal theory or tort. Warren and Brandeis's famous article on privacy is a well-known example of this type of writing.
Discussions of the legal profession, legal language, legal argument, or legal education form yet another category of law review writing. Lawyers are like most people-they enjoy reading about
themselves. There is a brisk market in such pieces.
There are the bookish, learned dialogues that continue a preexisting debate. These pieces take the following form: In an influential article in the W Law Review, Professor X argued Z. Critics, including Professor Y, attacked her view, arguing A, B, and C. This Article offers D, a new approach to the problem of Z (a new criticism, a new way of defending X's position in the face of her
critics, a way of accommodating X and her critics, or something of the sort)."
Another category consists of pieces on legal history. The origins and development of a legal rule or institution may shed light on its current operation or shortcomings. Similarly, comparative law articles are often valuable and engrossing for many of the same reasons: it will sometimes happen that other legal systems treat a problem more effectively or more humanely than does ours. Friedrich Kessler's famous article on contracts of adhesion is a well-known example of a piece that draws on the experience of foreign systems to improve the quality of American justice.
The final categories are the casenote, which examines a recent decision, together with its antecedents, argument, deficiencies, and likely consequences, and the empirical research article. The latter is, in some ways, the most useful of all, if one can manage the logistical problems it presents, because it enables the writer to expand
knowledge beyond the armchair confines limiting most legal writing. An example of this type of article is Bea Moulton's article on the development of small claims courts as vehicles for oppression
of the poor by the petty bourgeoisie.
My point is that there are many accepted law review formats and objectives, not just one-different strokes for different folks.