I think there’s a big seen/unseen problem. And we tend to pretend it doesn’t exist. Cases aren’t representative. Or even worse, they represent anomalies.

I agree. But I also observe that we seem to tolerate a lot of dishonesty. There are an awful lot of retractions & scandals & a lot of people who should have done something about them sooner.

In my experience, at least some people are pretty good at both. Although it can take some work to learn how to shift from one to the other.

Some of us even associate with plagiarists.

Perhaps we might ask how much we actually value and police scholarly integrity, as opposed to the appearance of integrity?

Exactly. I don’t think you can withdraw to protect your scholarly integrity either. You have to put your client’s interests ahead of all others.

Indeed. I think that kind of litigation is often in tension with duties to the client, even when the lawyer isn’t an academic. Perhaps it’s a special case? Is it worth compromising scholarly integrity if the public benefit is sufficiently large?

Is it ok to as a scholar argue both sides of the same position? E.g. originalism is an invalid method of constitutional interpretation, but this originalist reading of a constitutional provision that supports my preferred outcome should control (or vice versa, of course)?

I represent plenty of copyright defendants pro bono. If I didn't do it, they'd be unlikely to have any representation. I do think there's some public interest there?

Writing a symposium article. 😭

I'll keep you posted! We should have a draft sometime soon.

Huge GIGO problem with this meta-ranking tho...

Major GIGO problem with this meta-ranking tho.

Basically, an effort to recreate the original US News ranking, which was determined almost entirely by the survey scores, but without having to do any surveys, just relying on existing datasets.

We are working on a synthetic prestige ranking of law schools. Back to the future!

Well, wait till you see the new ranking system we're cooking up. I think you'll "like" it.

I wonder how much longer that (IMO currently correct) heuristic is likely to work? papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

It seems to me that you might be able to make the paper broader than just state search & seizure provisions? Can we infer that state Supreme Court indifference to their text is typical of state constitutional interpretation? “State Common Law Constitutionalism”?