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!

 

Offer, Skead, and Seen on Humor in the Law Classroom @UWALawSchool @tandfonline

Kate Offer, Natalie Skead, and Angelyn Seen have published  "You Must Be Joking": The Role of Humour in the Law Classroom," The Law Teacher, published online October 17, 2017. Here is the abstract.

There is a body of literature, including persuasive empirical evidence, linking the use of positive humour in tertiary classrooms with the creation of a relaxed learning environment, student motivation, attendance and engagement as well as positive student evaluations of teacher performance. However, the literature on the use of humour in teaching law is generally limited to anecdotal evidence. Drawing on the literature on using humour in teaching courses that students perceive as “difficult” in other disciplines, in this article we explore the benefits and pitfalls of using humour in the law classroom and provide illustrations of how humour might be used appropriately and effectively in teaching law.

The full article is available via subscription. 

David Pannick on Humo(u)r in the Law: A Book From Hart Publishing (In Case You Missed It) @hartpublishing

ICYMI:

 David Pannick, I Have To Move My Car: Tales of Unpersuasive Advocates and Injudicious Judges (Hart Publishing, 2008).

There are law books about constructive trusts, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 and the rule in Foss v Harbottle. This is not one of them. David Pannick QC has always been much more interested in unpersuasive advocates and injudicious judges.

In this collection of his fortnightly columns from The Times, David Pannick passes judgement on advocates who tell judges that their closing submissions to the jury will not take long because 'I would like to move my car before 5 o'clock; and he sentences judges who claim to have invisible dwarf friends sitting with them on the Bench, who order the parties to 'stay loose - as a goose', and who signal their rejection of an advocate's argument by flushing a miniature toilet on the bench. In making his submissions, David Pannick QC will entertain and inform you about judges, lawyers, legal entertainment and unusual litigation. - See more at: http://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/i-have-to-move-my-car-9781841138169/#sthash.kjtJQ5k0.dpuf

There are law books about constructive trusts, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 and the rule in Foss v Harbottle. This is not one of them. David Pannick QC has always been much more interested in unpersuasive advocates and injudicious judges.
In this collection of his fortnightly columns from The Times, David Pannick passes judgement on advocates who tell judges that their closing submissions to the jury will not take long because 'I would like to move my car before 5 o'clock; and he sentences judges who claim to have invisible dwarf friends sitting with them on the Bench, who order the parties to 'stay loose - as a goose', and who signal their rejection of an advocate's argument by flushing a miniature toilet on the bench.
In making his submissions, David Pannick QC will entertain and inform you about judges, lawyers, legal entertainment and unusual litigation. - See more at: http://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/i-have-to-move-my-car-9781841138169/#sthash.kjtJQ5k0.dpuf

Here Comes the (Funny) Judge

Mary B. Trevor, Hamline University School of Law, is publishing Ostriches, Trees, the 'Perfect Trial,' and Sci-Fi: A Social Science Analysis of the Impact of Humor in Judicial Opinions in volume 45 of the University of Toledo Law Review (2014). Here is the abstract.

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 article from SSRN at the link. 

Legal Humor

The Zoopreme Court: Equal Justice Under Paws.

Hat Tip to Steven Jamar of Howard University School of Law.