Volume 2 – Issue 2

Our new issue is complete!  Please enjoy the newest content from Volume 2 – Issue 2.

We include an article detailing the give and take of Congress and the Court.  Then, we take a look at a continuing JLM theme of legal education with the background of the University of Michigan Student Debt Tool.  Finally, Ross Davies provides his annual update to the law review circulation numbers.

 

Volume 2 – Issue 1

Our new issue is complete!  Please enjoy the newest content from Volume 2 – Issue 1.

We first present an explanation of our cover graph on Web 2.0 Citations in Federal Court.  Then we provide this year’s updates to the Appellate Review circuit split statistics and the Law School Website Rankings.  Finally, please find a new addition to the Slugger’s team, Justice Samuel A. Alito.

 

Volume 1 – Issue 3

Our new issue is complete!  Please enjoy the newest content from Volume 1 – Issue 3.

With our third and final issue of our first volume, we are very excited to publish two new articles.  First, we present Law Faculty Blogs and Disruptive Innovation, written by Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr.  Second, we are publishing Top Supreme Court Advocates of the Twenty-First Century, by Kedar S. Bhatia.  Both of these articles are concise and present a significant amount of data in an easy to digest format.  In Law Faculty Blogs, Professor Brown reviews the impact of legal blogs on legal scholarship, legal scholars, and the legal education market.  He has run the numbers and presents a forceful argument that blogs have been a disruptive innovation (and we mean that in a good way!) that are not going anywhere.  In Top Supreme Court Advocates, Mr. Bhatia seeks to “chronicle the current membership of the elite Supreme Court Bar and analyze its demographic makeup.”  During this process he provides a strong case for the importance of this data and the potential for the evolution of the Supreme Court bar in the future.

Introduction

 

We introduce the inaugural issue of the Journal of Legal Metrics. Our aim is to solicit and publish the efforts of scholars whose work demonstrates the explanatory power of numbers and statistics in the legal context. Data challenges the status quo, requiring reconciliation of subjective beliefs with objective measures, and encouraging reexamination of former truths and assumptions. We hope not necessarily to answer the question: “What does the data say?” but rather: “Where is the data in the first place?” Too often commentary surrounding the law is based in opinion, rhetoric, and subjectivity; the foundation of scholarship here is that of numbers and statistics.