« Westlaw Introduces eForms | Main | Korea Explores the Use of Blogs in Court Proceedings »

Judges' Opinions on Blogging

In his blog, 3L Epiphany, Ian Best, a student at Moritz College of Law (Ohio State University), has some fascinating posts exploring judges' opinions on blogging. Best surveyed two judges, Judith Lanzinger (Ohio Sup. Ct.) and Richard Kopf (U.S. District Judge, Nebraska), about their thoughts on citing blogs, blogs as legitimate forms of scholarship, blogs v. law reviews, and more.

Judge Lanzinger on predictions about the effect of legal blogs on the profession:


Assuming that legal blogs are now in their infancy, and that they will grow to have a long and fruitful life, I think that lawyers who ignore them altogether will do so at their peril.

Judge Kopf on whether blogs are substantial and legitimate forms of scholarship:

Sure, at least some of them are "substantial and legitimate forms of scholarship." Blogs written by lawyers, judges, law professors and law students that provide solid information and critical analysis on subjects the authors know something about are just as authoritative as other secondary sources.

Judge Kopf on advantages and disadvantages of legal blogs compared to law reviews and other traditional forms of scholarship:

The advantages are obvious: speed, availability, and topicality. I don't see real disadvantages.

Source: Slaw