Call For Papers: Touro Law Review--Special Issue on Legal Humor

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

TOURO LAW REVIEW – SPECIAL ISSUE ON LEGAL HUMOR

 

 

            Are you funny? Were you the life of the party in law school? Do you make your faculty colleagues or law firm partners laugh out loud? The Touro Law Review is planning a special issue on “Legal Humor” and seeks your work.

 

            GUIDELINES

 

            ● We are looking for short pieces (maximum of 10 pages double-spaced) that take a humorous look at any aspect of the law, including law schools, the practice of law, or the courts.

 

            ● Pieces can take any form, including descriptive, expository, narrative, or technical. Poetry, screen writing, song writing, and other forms of creative writing are welcome as well.

 

            ● Law professors, lawyers, judges, and current law students are eligible to participate. Non-lawyers also are welcome to submit their work.

 

            ● Pieces are due by Tuesday, September 1, 2026, and should be e-mailed as a Word attachment to all three of the issue’s Faculty Coordinators:

 

            Associate Dean Rodger D. Citron (Touro University):  rcitron@touro.edu

            Professor Rena C. Seplowitz (Touro University):  rseplowi@touro.edu

            Professor Robert M. Jarvis (Nova Southeastern University):  jarvisb@nova.edu

 

            ● The Faculty Coordinators will review all pieces that are submitted by the deadline. Acceptance decisions will be sent out on or before December 1, 2026.

 

            ● It is expected that the accepted works will appear in Volume 41, Issue 5 of the Touro Law Review, which currently is set to be released by July 1, 2027.

 

            ● Please keep in mind: All pieces will be judged on their originality, novelty, and general appeal to a legal audience. Previously published pieces will not be accepted. Pieces that seriously examine the use of humor in legal matters or proceedings also will not be accepted. Only legal humor pieces will be considered.

 

            ● Questions? Please e-mail the Faculty Coordinators at the e-mail addresses listed above.

 

We look forward to laughing at your work!

 

Davies on A Wig Without a Home: The Comedic Wisdom of Sir Frederick Pollock

Ross E. Davies, George Mason University Law School; The Green Bag; has published A Wig Without a Home: The Comedic Wisdom of Sir Frederick Pollock in volume 29 of the Green Bag 2d (2026). Here is the abstract.

Frederick Pollock (1845-1937) was the Green Bag’s kind of scholar. The first half of this paper consists of a sketch of his career and character, followed by a closer look at his sense of humor and the roles it played in his work. The second half of the paper is in two sections. First, there is a full republication of the text of a tiny book — a short story by Pollock titled “Queen Titania’s Chancellor”— that for nearly a century sat unnoticed on a bookshelf in the library of the Queen’s Dolls’ at Windsor Castle, until Elizabeth Clark Ashby (Curator of Books and Manuscripts in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle) gave Pollock’s miniature masterpiece some long-overdue and well-deserved attention in her 2024 book (full-sized), “The Miniature Library of Queen Mary’s Dolls’ House.” Second, there is a close (but incomplete) reading and analysis of that tiny text. If there are any lessons to be drawn from this paper, perhaps they are that greatness need not always be cloaked in dignity, and that Jack Point was not the only wit who could “teach you with a quip, if I’ve a mind” or “trick you into learning with a laugh.”

Download the abstract from SSRN at the link.

Call For Abstracts: Human Studies and Free Speech Adjudication: From Theory To Practice

From Laura Little, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law:

The International Society for Humor Studies is soliciting abstracts for its upcoming conference (36th ISHS conference) in Niterói, Brazil, 6-10 July 2026. The Special Interest Group focusing on Humor, Free Speech, and the Law is convening a panel titled Humor Studies and Free Speech Adjudication: From Theory to Practice. We welcome proposals for 20-minute papers addressing one or more of the following questions: • How can insights from humor research help judges, lawyers, or social media regulators develop a fair and nuanced approach to judicial decisions regarding humorous expression? • How can these insights be translated into actionable guidelines for judicial training, attorney counseling, advocacy or online content moderation? And how can this ‘translation’ exercise, in turn, open up new avenues for humor research? • What are the challenges and opportunities offered, in this respect, by a closer dialogue between different branches of humor scholarship (interdisciplinarity), as well as between academic research and everyday judicial practice or content moderation (transdisciplinarity)? Should you be interested in participating, please send an abstract (max. 300 words) and a short biographical note to both Dr Alberto Godioli (a.godioli@rug.nl) AND Prof. Laura E. Little (laura.little@temple.edu) by February 10th, 2026. For more information on the Special Interest Group’s activities, please visit the website of ForHum: Forum for Humor and the Law.

Zinigrad on Laughing Matters in Courts: Humor's Role in Normalizing Hate Speech @RomanZinigrad @AUP_CCDS

Roman Zinigrad, American University of Paris, has published Laughing Matters in Courts: Humor’s Role in Normalizing Hate Speech in Alternatives (complete citation not yet available). Here is the abstract.

Humor is a form of speech capable of boosting the political value of a speech’s content or even reversing its meaning. Courts acknowledge these qualities by considering that an expression may enjoy an elevated level of free speech protection against government sanctions or private suits if it is formulated in a humorous way. This article spotlights another key attribute of humor, that is perhaps more consequential for the socio-political impact of an expression but that nonetheless does not seem to be invoked in free speech litigation: its power to increase the exposure of the speech. A humorous presentation of an idea offers its audience an entertaining form that is desirable to consume independently of the message it conveys. It lowers the costs of processing irrelevant or objectionable content and so bears the potential of catching the attention of those who would not otherwise be exposed to it. I argue that the capacity of humor to “raise the volume” of speech must be accounted for in the balancing formulas of constitutional and international free speech litigation. To underline the importance of this factor, I focus on cases of hate speech, a category where humor plays a decisive role in the outreach to audiences that do not always share the prejudice or intolerance of the speaker. This article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and of French courts as an example of the general disregard of courts for humor’s amplification of hate speech. The far-reaching damage potential of this disregard is demonstrated on the case of Dieudonné, a notorious French antisemitic comic who has masterfully exploited humor to expose large audiences to hateful content.

Full access is available by subscription.

Brown on Laughing All the Way to the Bench: The Role of Humor in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings @ColumbiaLaw @columbiajla

Joanna Brown, Columbia Law School, is publishing Laughing All the Way to the Bench: The Role of Humor in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. Here is the abstract.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings serve a unique role in our government: they are the only instances where future Justices and their judicial philosophies are televised and subject to the scrutiny of not only the Senate, but also the public. Especially as judicial nominations become increasingly politicized and polarized, appearing trustworthy, likeable, and sensible becomes essential to nominees’ candidacy. Humor thus arms judges with the ability to volunteer positive information, appear humble, showcase values, lighten difficult topics and otherwise bond with Senators. Perhaps more saliently, it enables them to dodge, correct, or mock contentious or unflattering lines of questioning. By studying when, why, and how nominees use humor, we can get a glimpse into their future jurisprudence and decisions on the Bench: avoiding a topic or making light of a question may seem harmless in the hearing, but can actually reveal a nominee’s position on an issue and serve an important truth-telling role.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Laura Little, Guilty Pleasures: Comedy and Law in America (Oxford University Press, 2018) @templelaw @OxUniPress

Forthcoming from Oxford University Press: Laura Little, Temple University School of Law, Guilty Pleasures: Comedy and Law in America (2018). Here, from the publisher's website, is a description of the book's contents.

Few people associate law books with humor. Yet the legal world--in particular the American legal system--is itself frequently funny. Indeed, jokes about the profession are staples of American comedy. And there is actually humor within the world of law too: both lawyers and judges occasionally strive to be funny to deal with the drudgery of their duties. Just as importantly, though, our legal system is a strong regulator of humor. It encourages some types of humor while muzzling or punishing others. In a sense, law and humor engage a two-way feedback loop: humor provides the raw material for legal regulation and legal regulation inspires humor. In Guilty Pleasures, legal scholar Laura Little provides a multi-faceted account of American law and humor, looking at constraints on humor (and humor's effect on law), humor about law, and humor in law. In addition to interspersing amusing episodes from the legal world throughout the book, the book contains 75 New Yorker cartoons about lawyers and a preface by Bob Mankoff, the cartoon editor for the New Yorker.

 

Judges, Judging [,] and Humour: A New Publication from Palgrave @Palgrave_

New from Palgrave Macmillan: Judges, Judging and Humour (Jessica Milner Davis and Sharyn Roach Anleu, eds., 2018). Here is the description of the book's contents from the publisher's website.

This book examines social aspects of humour relating to the judiciary, judicial behaviour, and judicial work across different cultures and eras, identifying how traditionally recorded wit and humorous portrayals of judges reflect social attitudes to the judiciary over time. It contributes to cultural studies and social science/socio-legal studies of both humour and the role of emotions in the judiciary and in judging. It explores the surprisingly varied intersections between humour and the judiciary in several legal systems: judges as the target of humour; legal decisions regulating humour; the use of humour to manage aspects of judicial work and courtroom procedure; and judicial/legal figures and customs featuring in comic and satiric entertainment through the ages. Delving into the multi-layered connections between the seriousness of the work of the judiciary on the one hand, and the lightness of humour on the other hand, this fascinating collection will be of particular interest to scholars of the legal system, the criminal justice system, humour studies, and cultural studies.

 

Oakley on Australian Judicial Humor

Jack Oakley, Clifford Chance, is publishing Banter from the Bench: The Use of Humour in the Exercise of Judicial Functions in volume 41 of the Australian Bar Review (2016). Here is the abstract.

Australians are often said to have a sense of humour that is dry, irreverent and ironic. In such a culture, one might expect those who exercise judicial power to feel at liberty to unleash their wit. Yet most judicial officers in Australia today exercise caution and restraint in using humour in courtrooms and judgments. This stringent attitude is reflected in the paucity of Australian examples of judicial humour, especially in written decisions. However, this conventional view deserves to be challenged. This article assesses whether there is an appropriate role for humour in the exercise of judicial functions in hearing and determining cases. This article considers the primary stakeholders in legal proceedings — litigants, judges, advocates and society-at-large — and examines how their different interests are affected by the use of judicial humour. The article then discusses four arguments in support of judicial humour, namely, that humour is a quintessentially human quality we should expect judges to display; promotes open justice by demystifying the language and rituals of the courtroom; oils the wheels of justice by easing courtroom tensions and aiding digestion of complex written reasons; and serves as a social corrective by allowing judges to gently admonish. Balanced against these considerations is the concern that excessive use of humour may conflict with a judge’s ethical duty to acquit his or her role with independence, integrity, propriety and diligence. In extreme cases, a judge’s use of humour might give rise to an apprehension of bias in discharging judicial functions. The use of humour also has to avoid claims of judicial misconduct. While it is fanciful to suggest that even an egregious use of humour could amount to misconduct that warrants removal from office, it could form the basis of a complaint against a judicial officer, and has done so on occasion. Despite these legitimate constraints on judicial behaviour, the article concludes that humour has a place in the curial process. From time to time the use of humour by judges may be called in question, but judges are chosen for their capacity to judge. Extreme cases aside, we should let humour lie within the sound discretion of the court.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Defining "Funny", Protecting Speech

More from Laura E. Little on law and humor:

Bob Mankoff, Judging Humor, The New Yorker, March 20, 2013 (discussing Prof. Little's scholarship).

Just a Joke: Defamatory Humor and Incongruity's Promise, 21 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal -- (2010). 

Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor, in Encyclopedia of Humor (Salvatore Attardo, ed., Sage, 2014). 

Regulating Funny: Humor and the Law, 94 Cornell Law Review -- (2009).

A New Blog and a New Book of Interest

John Denvir, Research Professor of Law at University of San Francisco Law School, has launched a new blog, Guile Is Good, in conjunction with his new book, Guile Is Good (available through Amazon in both paperback and Kindle versions). Here's an excerpt from the book's introduction:

I want to tell the story of how lawyer creativity and craft shape the world we live in. Since humor often reveals truths that more serious talk misses, let me start with a lawyer joke that encapsulates my thesis.
A university search committee is interviewing candidates for the presidency of the university. One candidate is a mathematician, another a sociologist, and the third a lawyer. At the end of each interview, one member of the committee throws in a final question: “Excuse me, but can you tell us how much is two plus two?”
The mathematician responds, “That is a really complex question, but for present purposes we can say that if you take an abstract two and add another abstract two, you get an abstract four.” The questioner thanks him for his answer.
The sociologist is asked the same question at the end of her interview. She replies that “this is an empirical question that requires very careful collection and analysis of data, but roughly the range is from three to five with a mean of about four.” The questioner thanks her for her answer.
As he is about to leave the interview room the lawyer is also asked, “How much is two and two?” The lawyer slowly turns around, approaches the committee, and inquires in a soft voice, “How much do you want it to be?”
The lawyer gets the job.
The punch line anticipates the thesis of this small book—the public respect and fear lawyers because they sense we use our creativity and craft (and craftiness) to shape the world. As lawyers, we should take great pride in the power our skills provide us and think carefully about how we choose to employ them.

Professor Denvir is also the author of Legal Reelism: Movies as Legal Texts (University of Illinois Press, 1996) and Freeing Speech: The Constitutional War Over National Security (New York University Press, 2012).

Judge Humorous, Are You Pulling My Leg?

Mary B. Trevor, Hamline University School of Law, has published From Ostriches To Sci-Fi: A Social Science Analysis of the Impact of Humor in Judicial Opinions at 45 University of Toledo Law Review 291 (2014). Here is the abstract from SSRN.

In the legal profession, understanding — or at least, formal analysis — of humor and its impact is in its infancy. Lawyers and judges are not trained to use or understand humor, although all would acknowledge that humor, cringe worthy or otherwise, is by no means unknown in the practice of law. But for most intents and purposes, we pretend that humor is not part of legal culture. When humor is addressed in the law school or professional advocacy context, for example, it typically gets short shrift: don’t try to be funny. Resources on judicial opinion writing, in particular, generally advise that humor is inappropriate, and commentators on judicial humor have offered similar, mostly negative, assessments.
Despite this advice, humor, while not widespread, is an ever-present aspect of the body of judicial opinions, an aspect that periodically attracts attention. One of the best-known recent examples is Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Co., an opinion by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Multiple counsel in the case had, in Judge Posner’s view, ignored “apparently dispositive precedent” when presenting arguments. Unsatisfied with a mere holding, however, Judge Posner not only verbally compared the tactic to an ostrich burying its head in the sand, but also inserted two photographs into the opinion: one of an ostrich burying its head in the sand, and immediately following, one of a man dressed in traditional “attorney” attire burying his head in the sand. Legal newsletters and blogs picked up on Judge Posner’s opinion, but they were not the only sources to do so. The general press (the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune) did as well. And such treatment was for an opinion addressing an issue that was not a matter of public interest-forum non conveniens.
Judge Posner does not stand alone in his use of humor. There are even some indications that judicial use of humor in opinions is increasing. And in our era of rapid and widespread electronic communication, public awareness of this humor also appears to be increasing. In light of the evidence of continued use of humor in the face of advice and commentary largely counseling against its use, a reassessment of judicial humor seems warranted.
An additional reason for reassessment at this time comes to us from recent developments in the field of social science, which offers sophisticated tools for the job. In the last few decades, social scientists have greatly expanded the study of humor’s role in our society. Their theories offer new tools to assess judicial humor, to bring together the perspectives of earlier commentators on judicial humor, and to offer more comprehensive guidelines for judicial humor than have previously been offered.
The intent of this article is not to suggest that humor is always, or even often, appropriate in judicial opinions. But social science tells us that, despite the bad name humor has justly acquired based on its use in certain opinions, it may be possible for humor to be used appropriately, and even helpfully, in certain instances.

Download the text from SSRN at the link.

Law and Humor

Laura E. Little, Temple University School of Law, has published Legal Restriction and Protection of Humor, in the Encylopedia of Humor (Salvatore Attardo, ed., Sage, 2014).  Here is the abstract. 

Law and humor intersect in many ways. First, humor provides an essential vehicle for the social critique of the many foibles of lawyers, legislators, judges, and the legal process. In addition, lawyers, judges, and law makers sometimes try to be funny as they dispatch their duties. And then there’s a ubiquitous cultural phenomenon: the lawyer joke, which exposes important insights into how society views lawyers and the legal process.
Yet the substance of the law also interacts with humor as well. This entry in the first ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMOR surveys these interactions between legal regulation and humor. The entry first describes how laws such as the First Amendment and intellectual property laws protect humor. The second half of the entry analyzes instances where the law restricts humor, with emphasis on defamation law, contract law, trademark violations, and employment discrimination laws. This latter part concludes that the law tends to avoid regulating humor that contains a significant degree of incongruity.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link. 

Something To Laugh About

Ozan O. Varol, Lewis & Clark Law School, is publishing Revolutionary Humor in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. Here is the abstract.

The study of mass social movements, and their influence on legal, constitutional, and political reform, has long preoccupied legal scholars. Bottom-up social revolutions, ranging from the Civil Rights Movement in the United States to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, are studied extensively in the literature. The traditional conceptions of social movements largely portray them as somber occasions that reflect the gravity of the moment and the seriousness of their objectives. This Article identifies and studies a novel pattern emerging from the social movements of the 21st century, providing a unique contribution to the burgeoning legal literature on the role of non-state actors in shaping legal and constitutional change.

These new social movements — including the Arab Spring, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the mass protests that took place in Summer 2013 in Turkey and Brazil — bear a counterintuitive ingredient in their conception and design: the ubiquitous use of humor. Although humor might appear to be antithetical to the somber nature of social movements, this Article argues, drawing on behavioral research and social movement theory, that humor can be an effective strategic tool to influence legal, constitutional, and political reforms. Humor can pierce the culture of fear prevalent in tyrannical regimes, serve as an effective coping mechanism against repressive government practices, and provoke government officials into reactionary conduct that furthers the social movement’s objectives. The use of humor can reframe and supplant the negative regime narratives of the movement and build solidarity among heterogeneous members of a movement with pre-existing sociopolitical differences. Humor can also support political mobilization by providing a low cost point of entry into a social movement, obtaining domestic and global resonance for the movement, and persuading others to join the movement by depicting an alternate, more appealing, reality. Finally, humor can provide an effective avenue for expressing popular discontent and undermine traditional methods for suppression employed by repressive leaders, including laws that criminalize and censor dissent and social mobilization.

Download the text of the article from SSRN at the link. 

Where The Girls Aren't

Ryan A. Malphurs, Courtroom Sciences Inc., Jaime Bochantin, DePaul University, L. Hailey Drescher, University of Kansas, and Melissa Wallace Framer, Arizona State University, Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, have published Too Much Frivolity, Not Enough Femininity: A Study of Gender and Humor at the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is the abstract.

The four authors in this study took on the exhilarating task of listening to 79 oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term. After two years spent recovering from oral argument overload, the authors have prepared a study that ingeniously tricks readers into reading a study on humor that is really about gender inequality at the Supreme Court and in the field of Law. Initially tallying instances of un-transcribed laughter, the authors — prompted by Hillary Clinton’s urging — began noticing gender and humor discrepancies between the justices and the advocates; what started as a simple humor tabulation devolved into important research. In the following study, the authors lull readers into complacency by offering data related to humor, but then shock their audience with serious data about gender inequality — ruining any fun that readers might have had. It’s true the authors show that the Supreme Court is far funnier than previously thought, and that Justice Scalia enjoys bullying Justice Breyer; however, potential readers should turn back now, because what follows is mind numbing boredom and “PC” discussions about gender veiled within a “humor” study.

The authors would like readers to know that the following study, if you haven’t been able to tell already, does not follow traditional scholarly conventions. “Why?” you may ask, because it would be boring and no one would read it, duh. The authors have endeavored to make this study both interesting in the data and entertaining to read — a truly ground-breaking feat in scholarly studies. Great risk comes with great rewards, and we’re just hoping someone other than ourselves will read this study.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

The Law of Offense

Ronald L. K. Collins, University of Washington School of Law, has published Comedy and Liberty: The Life and Legacy of Lenny Bruce at 79 Social Research 61 (2012). Here is the abstract.

Comedy takes liberties. Hence, it depends on liberty to survive. Sometimes it is divine, other times farcical, sometimes operatic, other times poetic, and still other times shamelessly vulgar. As it moves from sauciness and scandal to sacrilege and sedition, comedy mocks everything in its sardonic path. Over the ages comedy has been tapped to punch out the likes of the mighty or to make swift shrift of their imperatives. Such actions point to the role of the First Amendment in all of this. Conceptually, the two intersect whenever comedy is offensive, that is, when it mocks, scorns, derides, ridicules, or pokes fun at person, creed, or cause. In this regard, no figure stands out more in American history than the always offensive and often funny Lenny Bruce. How a society protects or prosecutes the likes of Lenny Bruce is a barometer of how much it values freedom of speech.

Download the full text of the article  from SSRN at the link.

What's Satire Got To Do With It?

Lauren Feldman, American University, Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, and Edward W. Maibach, George Mason University Center for Climate Change Commication, have published The Impact of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report on Public Attentiveness to Science and the Environment. Here is the abstract.

Prior research on the political effects of late-night comedy programs has demonstrated that by piggy-backing political content on entertainment fare, such programs provide a, "gateway," to increased audience attention to news and public affairs, particularly among less politically engaged audiences. Given the heightened coverage of science and environmental topics on Comedy Central’s satirical news programs, "The Daily Show," and, "The Colbert Report," this paper considers whether a similar process could be at work relative to public attention to science and the environment. An analysis of nationally representative survey data finds that audience exposure to, "The Daily Show," and, "The Colbert Report," goes hand-in-hand with attention paid to science and environmental issues, specifically global warming. Moreover, the relationship between satirical news use and attentiveness is most pronounced among those with the least amount of formal education, who might otherwise lack the resources and motivation to pay attention to scientific and environmental issues. In this way, satirical news is an attention equalizer, reducing traditional gaps in attentiveness between those with low and high levels of education.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

The Reason For Reasoning

Does Homo jurisconsultus represent an evolutionary milestone? Check out Mark D. White's semi-tongue in cheek post at Psychology Today, discussing a new paper by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (via The Literary Table). Drs. Mercier and Sperber investigate why humans have developed reasoning ability. What is it for? And here I thought it was just to make the decision among the Kindle, the Nook, and the Kobo that much easier. 

Defamation and Humor

Laura E. Little, Temple University School of Law, is publishing Just a Joke: Defamatory Humor and Incongruity's Promise, in volume 21 of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal (2011).  Here is the abstract.

Humor often arises as a defense in defamation actions, with defendants claiming that their challenged communication was "just a joke." Given the long established tie between defamation and First Amendment doctrines, United States courts evaluate the defense in light of free speech protections as well as reputational interests incorporated in the elements of the defamation tort. In grappling with humor, courts usually invoke First Amendment doctrine’s familiar distinction between fact and opinion. If a putative joke is sorted down the "opinion" chute, then the humorist faces no civil liability. If, on the other hand, the putative joke suggests false facts unfavorable to the plaintiff, the defendant may face liability. Useful as an analytical starting point, this fact/opinion dichotomy does not adequately integrate all the values and concerns that come into play where humor and defamation law collide.



Humor is complex, capable of both great good and enormous mischief. The challenge whether to provide legal protection for humorous communications implicates the same value clashes between freedom of expression and protection of reputational interests that appear in other defamation contexts. Yet humor’s potential for individual and collective benefit (as well as its capacity to cut deep wounds) suggests that courts should tailor analysis specifically to humor’s unique qualities. Happily, assistance comes from centuries of interdisciplinary scholarship dedicated to understanding humor. In particular, humor scholarship’s core concept - incongruity (the juxtaposition of two or more unlikely ideas) - helps to calibrate an optimal balance of First Amendment concerns and the values of human dignity, property, and honor in defamatory humor cases.



Assistance for United States courts also comes from an unlikely source - Australia. Australian cultural emphasis on humor and plain speaking as well as its lack of a formal First Amendment enables Australian case law to provide meaningful guidance both affirmatively and negatively, as a foil for identifying what analysis is not well suited to United States common law and constitutional traditions.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Oh, That Arnold!

From NPR, this story about a possible coded message from the Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to California State Assemblyman Tom Ammaino. Reporter Melissa Block asks an expert cryptographer for assistance.

Lawyers, Lawyers, Everywhere

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Florida State University College of Law, has published "There's a Pennoyer in My Foyer: Civil Procedure According to Dr. Seuss." Here is the abstract.

This is what it purports to be: a Seussian take on civil procedure. It’s a short, fun essay that covers (1) the iron triangle of civil procedure - the role of lawyers, judges, and juries, and (2) prominent civil procedure doctrines, such as personal jurisdiction, Erie, pleading, discovery, joinder, and preclusion.

Download the paper from SSRN here.