Post on 14-Dec-2015
LAW REVIEW ORIENTATION &
TRAININGVolume 41
Communication◦ Prompt (24-hour) response time
Respect◦ We owe each other a duty of utmost courtesy and
respect as colleagues, professionals, and friends Accountability
◦ Meeting agreed-upon deadlines Fun
◦ All work and no play… makes for a very long and boring semester
William Mitchell Law ReviewValues
Law Review HistoryProfessor Steenson
Faculty Advisor
Law Review Introductions
Introductions: Editor-in-Chief
Who? Pete Kieselbach
What does he do? Everything! • Accountability for all five
issues• Managing the Board, AEs, and
staff• Alumni relations (fundraising)• Faculty relations
Introductions: Executive Editors
Who?
Nic Puechner (Issue 1)Melissa Lorentz (Issue 2)Nicole Faulkner (Issue 3)Josh Peterson (Issue 4)Jenny Rochat (Issue 5 – Sua Sponte)
What do they do?• Identify issue theme/topics & solicit
authors• Manage editorial process for the issue• Work directly with authors throughout
the process
Introductions: Editors
Who?
Katie Babb, Nadja Baer, Sahr Brima, Adam Chandler, Zach Cronen, David Dobmeyer, Jenny Johnson, Elise Radaj, Jenny Rochat (Issues 1 and 2), Amanda Sicoli
What do they do?• Manage editorial process for individual
articles• Assign authority checks to staff
members
19 Assistant Editors (all other returning Vol. 40 staff members)
◦ Library Liaison (Allison Plunkett)
◦ Formatters (Lindsey Wheeler & Jamie Blodgett)
◦ Accountability & Support (Mike Ervin)
Operations Manager (Mikayla Hamilton)
Faculty Advisor (Prof. Mike Steenson)
Introductions: Other positions
Introductions: Staff
Who? All 49 of you—the incoming new members!
What do they do?• Authority checks• Ensure bluebook accuracy• Help with Law Review projects• Leave detailed comments to editors• Write long paper
Introductions: Summary
Law Review Overview
January 2014: Volume 41 Board Elections Spring/Summer 2014: Executive Editors Solicit
Articles May 20, 2014–June 10, 2014: Write-On
Competition June 29, 2014: Volume 42 Staff Members
Announced August 16, 2014: Orientation August 16, 2014 – May 2015: Editing Process January 2015: Volume 42 Board Elections
Volume 41 Timeline
Develop and select issue topic Solicit articles for publication Manage article submission process
Executive Editor Article Solicitation
Editing Process
Source Pull 1 Week
AC1 1 Week
AC2 1 Week
Proof 1 1 Week
Editor Read 2 days
Proof 2 1 Week
Editor Read 2 Days
EE Read 2 Days
Put-Together 1 Day
Editor Read 1 Week
EE/EIC Read 1 Week
Author Read 1 Week
EE Revisions 1 Week
Formatting 2 Weeks
EE/EIC Read 2 Weeks
Final Formatting & EIC Edits 1 Week
Start: Final draft of article submitted to EE.
End: Send to printer. Mail issue!
Issue 1 EE: Nic Puechner Topic: Legal Landscape for LGBTQ Individuals After
Marriage Equality◦ Reproductive Rights◦ Family Law◦ Judicial Perspectives on being LGBT
Topic: Student Case Notes
Timeline:◦ Final Drafts Due: August 14, 2014◦ Put Togethers: October 2014◦ Issue Sent to Printer: Mid-December 2014◦ Mailed: Mid-January 2015
Issue 1 Timeline
Source Pull 8/15/14 – 8/22/14
AC1 8/22/14 – 8/29/14
AC2 8/30/14 – 9/6/14
Proof 1 9/07/14 – 9/14/14
Editor Read 9/15/14 – 9/17/14
Proof 2 9/18/14 – 9/25/14
Editor Read 9/26/14 – 09/28/14
EE Read 9/29/14 – 10/01/14
Put-Together 10/06/2014
Editor Read 10/07/14 – 10/14/14
EE/EIC Read 10/15/14 – 10/22/14
Author Read 10/23/14 – 10/30/14
EE Revisions 10/31/14 – 11/07/14
Formatting 11/08/14 – 11/22/14
EE/EIC Read 11/23/14 – 12/07/14
Final Formatting & EIC Edits 12/08/14 – 12/15/14
Issue Sent to Printer Mid-December
Start: Author final drafts submitted 8/14/2014
End: Issue 1 mailed mid-January
Issue 2 EE: Melissa Lorentz Topic: Indigenous Environmental Justice
◦ Treaty Rights◦ Tribal Environmental Regulation◦ Urban Environmental Justice Initiatives
Timeline:◦ Final Drafts Due: September 18, 2014◦ Put Togethers: November 2014◦ Issue Sent to Printer: End of January 2015◦ Mailed: Early March 2015
Issue 3 EE: Nicole Faulkner Topic: Psychology, Mental Health, and the Law
◦ Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP)◦ Eyewitness Identification◦ Implicit Bias in Employment Law and Healthcare◦ Mental Health Issues in the Legal Profession
Timeline:◦ Final Drafts Due: October 15, 2014◦ Put Togethers: January 2015◦ Issue Sent to Printer: March 2015◦ Mailed: April 2015
Issue 4 EE: Josh Peterson Topic: Workers Compensation & Staff
Member Long Papers
Timeline:◦ Final Drafts Due: January 15, 2014◦ Put Togethers: TBD◦ Issue Sent to Printer: TBD◦ Mailed: TBD
Issue 5 – Sua Sponte EE: Jenny Rochat Topic: Staff Member Long Papers
Timeline:◦ Final Drafts Due: November 1, 2014◦ Published Online: May 2015
Volume 42 Board Selection Information Sessions: Late November/Early December 2014 Submit Application: December 2014 Interviews & Volume 42 Board Selection: January 2015 Volume 42 Board Transition & Training: Spring 2015
Board Selection Criteria Considered:◦ ACs, Proofs, Source Pulls, and Put-Together Quality◦ Long Paper Quality◦ Staff Meeting Attendance◦ Meeting CS Hour Requirements◦ Attendance at Law Review Events◦ Overall Enthusiasm for Law Review (e.g. coming by law review office,
getting to know current board members, etc.)◦ Interview performance and application
Staff Duties and Responsibilities
MandatoryNot mandatory, but a good idea
Mandatory & “Optional” Staff Duties
Editing Process
Source Pull 1 Week
AC1 1 Week
AC2 1 Week
Proof 1 1 Week
Editor Read 2 days
Proof 2 1 Week
Editor Read 2 Days
EE Read 2 Days
Put-Together 1 Day
Editor Read 1 Week
EE/EIC Read 1 Week
Author Read 1 Week
EE Revisions 1 Week
Formatting 2 Weeks
EE/EIC Read 2 Weeks
Final Formatting & EIC Edits 1 Week
Start: Final draft of article submitted to EE.
End: Send to printer. Mail issue!
AC = “Authority Check”◦ AC1—After the source pull◦ AC2—After AC1, before Proof 1◦ Read assigned footnote range and accompanying text.
Make mechanical corrections (using the Bluebook, CMOS and the Staff Manual)
Most Important Function:◦ Ensure source material supports the assertion made in
the text and correct citations per Bluebook
We will practice how to do an AC later today
Mandatory: ACs
You have been assigned various parts of JonesAC1. This assignment is due by 11:59 pm, Saturday, February 15, 2014.
Notes:1. Review Rule 13-Legislative Materials. 2. Ensure proper en-dash/em-dash use.
Mandatory: ACs
Due Date
Notes
Assigned FNs
FN Ranges
Michael Girgenti Range 1
Ben Grannon Range 2
Dan Heller Range 3
Dana Johnasen Range 4
Requirements◦ Minimum 6 hrs/semester; 20 hrs/year
Volunteer / First Response to Email Ways to Get Hours
◦ Source Pulls◦ Proofs◦ Quote Proofs◦ Put-togethers
Report Hours to Mikayla Hamilton◦ We are currently building an online hours entry system, similar
to what is used for externships. When it is up and running, we will go over how to use it.
“Optional” Duties:Collateral Service (CS) Hours
◦ First staffer step in editorial process
◦ Create reference guide for all cited materials Scan all footnotes and determine which can be found
electronically (Westlaw, Lexis, HeinOnline, etc.) and which will have to be pulled together in hard copy
Includes Interlibrary Loan (ILL) requests Our Library Liaison, Allie Plunkett, will be giving a short
presentation on how to make ILL requests later today
◦ Useful to determine whether staffers will need to come to school to complete their ACs
Source Pull
Source Pull
We will practice doing a Source Pull later today.
Proofs◦ Proof 1—First step after AC2◦ Proof 2—Between Author Read & Final Editor Read◦ Proofread the entire article & all citations. Fix lingering
grammar and typos, read for consistency, etc.◦ This is not an AC.
Quote Proof◦ Re-check all direct quotations against original source
material for format, alternations, spelling, etc.◦ Some articles may not have a quote proof if there is not a
lot of quoted material.
We will practice doing a Proof and Quote Proof later today
Proofs
You & a dozen (or so) of your best new WMLR friends meet in the LRO to proof hard copies of each article in the given issue with red pens.
Last chance for corrections before formatting & final edits.
We will practice doing a Put-Together later today.
Put-Together
Staff Duties: Naming Files
[author’s last name]_[stage]_[ACs only: footnote range]_[your last name]
Samples: Jones_SourcePull_Baer.xls Jones_AC1_Range2_Baer.doc Jones_AC2_Range7_Baer.doc Jones_Proof1_Baer.doc Jones_Proof2_Baer.doc Jones_QuoteProof_Baer.doc
Initially, ACs could take as long as 10 hours. But, this time will decrease with practice.
Expect a heavier load in the fall (2-3 ACs at a time) Lighter in the spring Work over school breaks Long paper break (end of October) No work during finals At least 6 CS hours in the fall and spring (20 total) Monthly Staff meetings
Time commitment
Staff Resources
The Staff Manual◦ Everyone should have received a digital copy by email and
read it before orientation today.◦ Contains important information on all aspects of Law
Review◦ Contains important citation “local rules”
The Bluebook◦ There are spare copies in the LRO◦ You can access online Bluebook using LRO computer
The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS)◦ Located on the library website◦ Go-to guide for grammar
What resources will you use for ACs, Proofs and Put-Togethers?
Table of Contents
Contact List ............................................................................................................1 Law Review Dictionary .........................................................................................3 Library Procedures ................................................................................................7 How to Source Pull.................................................................................................9 How to Authority Check .....................................................................................13 AC Checklist .........................................................................................................21 How to Proof .........................................................................................................23 How to do a Quote Proof .....................................................................................25 How to do a Put-Together ...................................................................................27 Citation Policy & Blueboook Reminders ...........................................................29
Purpose............................................................................................................29 Introductory Signals ......................................................................................30 Parentheticals .................................................................................................31 Typefaces ........................................................................................................32 Short Forms ....................................................................................................33 Quotations .......................................................................................................35 Symbols, Numerals, and Capitalization .......................................................37 Cases ................................................................................................................39 Statutes ............................................................................................................40 Session Laws ...................................................................................................42 Books ...............................................................................................................44 Periodical Materials .......................................................................................45 Internet Citations ...........................................................................................46 General Grammar, Usage, and Style Rules .................................................47
Accountability ......................................................................................................51 Long Paper Guidelines and Instructions ...........................................................53
Staff Manualhttp://wmitchell.edu/lawreview/
Local Rules are within boxes in the Volume 41 Staff Manual.
They override any rule from CMOS or the Bluebook
William Mitchell Local Rules
The Bluebook makes use of short form citations optional. The William Mitchell Law Review uses short form citations wherever practical.
Contrary to R. 10.3.1(b), provide a parallel citation to the Minnesota and Northwest reporters for cases that (1) appear in both reporters and (2) were published before 1978. The Minnesota reporter should be recited first in the citation sentence because the reporter name includes the state name.
When citing a state statute for a state other than Minnesota, cite to the statute on Westlaw.
Local Rules
Hirt v. Leader Hardware and Furniture Store, 244 N.W.2d 269, 309 Minn. 572 (Minn. 1976).
Correct the Following Citation
Hirt v. Leader Hardware and Furniture Store, 309 Minn. 572, 244 N.W.2d 269 (1976).
Answer:
Staff Manual, p. 48 Hyphen (“-”): Compound words, separate non-
inclusive numbers (e.g. phone numbers).
En-dash (“–”): Connect ranges of numbers (e.g. page ranges) or open compound adjectives (e.g. “post–World War II”).
Em-dash (“—”): Amplify, explain, or set off a phrase.
Hyphens and Dashes
“Another relevant canon is ejusdem generis — when construing a catch-all term at the end of a list, the catch-all term is limited by the items that precede it.” Id. at 12-13.
Hyphens and Dashes
“Another relevant canon is ejusdem generis—when construing a catch-all term at the end of a list, the catch-all term is limited by the items that precede it.” Id. at 12─13.
Don’t flank dashes with spaces. En-dash between page ranges.
Hyphens and Dashes
Common Bluebook Errors From the
Bluebook Quiz
No signal: Use only when cited authority (1) directly states proposition, (2) identifies source of a direct quote, or (3) identifies authority referred to in the text.
Supportive signals (R. 1.2(a))
E.g.,: There are other authorities that state the same proposition, but citation to the additional authorities would not be helpful.
Accord: Two or more sources clearly support the proposition, but the text quotes or refers to only one source. The sources not referred to in the text are introduced by accord.
Supportive signals (R. 1.2(a))
See: Authority clearly supports the proposition but the proposition is not directly stated.
See also: Additional material that supports a proposition already cited.
Cf.: When the proposition supported is different from the main proposition, but analogous enough to lend support.
Supportive signals (R. 1.2(a))
Compare . . . , [and], . . . with . . . , [and] . . . ◦ Example: Text states that statute did not change
between 1979 and 2012. Compare MINN. STAT. § 609.02, subdiv. 7a (Supp.
1979), with MINN. STAT. § 609.02, subdiv. 7a (2012). ◦ Watch the order of authorities within this signal!
See Rule 1.3.
Signaling a Useful Comparison (R. 1.2(b)
Contra: Where [no signal] would be used. But see: Where see signal would be used.
◦ Omit the but if signal directly follows another negative signal.
But cf.: Where cf. signal would be used.◦ Omit the but if signal directly follows another
negative signal.
Signaling Contradiction (R. 1.2(c))
See generally: Cited authority indicates useful background material. This is the one instance in which a pincite is usually not necessary.
Signaling Background Material
a) No signal, e.g., accord, see, see also, and cf. all belong in one string citation sentence.
b) Contra, but see, and but cf. all belong in one string citation sentence.
c) Compare . . . , with . . . is its own string citation sentence.
d) See generally is its own string citation sentence.
Order of Authorities (R 1.4)
MINN. R. CRIM. P. 2.01 (“the complaint is a written signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged”).
Correct this citation.
Quotations in Parentheticals (R 1.5(a)(ii))
MINN. R. CRIM. P. 2.01 (“The complaint is a written signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”).
◦ Capitalize first word in quotation.◦ Punctuation: There should be a period both before
the final quotation mark and outside the parenthesis.
Quotations in Parentheticals (R 1.5(a)(ii))
Pittston Coal Grp. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 113–116 (1988).
Page ranges (R. 3.2(a))
Pittston Coal Grp. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 113–16 (1988).◦ Drop a number in page ranges.
Page ranges (R. 3.2(a))
Within Five Footnote Rule (10.9) A short form may be used only if (1) the source is
cited in the same footnote or (2) the source can be readily found within the previous five citations, either in long form or short form, including “id.”
The “within five” rule only applies to cases and legislative materials (statutes, constitutions, etc.).
The “within five” rule does not apply to supra and infra cites because they refer directly to a particular footnote and because they cannot be used to refer to cases, statutes, or constitutions, etc. R. 4.2.
T6: Case names in citations, also institutional authors under some circumstances.
T10: Geographical terms.
T13: Abbreviations for law reviews, newspapers, newsletters, and websites.
Abbreviations
Anna R. Light, Criminal Law: The Tension Between Finality and Accuracy: Double Jeopardy in Guilty Pleas—State v. Jeffries, 39 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 306 (2012).
◦ Any thing wrong with that citation? Without looking it up!
Abbreviating William Mitchell Law Review
Chicago Manual of Style
•http://web.wmitchell.edu/library/•Hard copies in the LRO
CMOS 7.85: Hyphenation Table
ACCOUNTABILITY
5: Effort “above and beyond” expectations.
4: Equivalent to an “A.” 3: Equivalent to a “B.” 2 is equivalent to a “C.”
1: Shows a “lack of effort.”
Mandatory One-Point Deductions:◦ A late assignment◦ A misnamed assignment
Mandatory Score of “1”
◦ Failure to check authorities
1. The Grading Scale
E-mail to Staff Members monthly or bi-monthly with grades and Editor comments.
Incorporate feedback into future work.
2. Feedback/Grade E-mails
One 1 or Four 2’s: Meeting with Mike.
Two 1’s or Six 2’s : Meeting with EIC.
More 1’s or 2’s: Meeting with EIC and Professor Steenson.
Discretionary penalties
3. Follow-Up Meetings
Library and ILL Procedures
Allison PlunkettLibrary Liaison
Books checked out to the Law Review will be located in the Law Review Room, on the lower level of the library near the bottom of the stairs.◦ You will need your Mitchell ID to access this room.◦ Let Ayanna or Jeff in the library know if your ID does not work. A spare ID will
be available at the circulation desk Place book back on the Law Review shelves in the correct
article spot or, if the book is non-circulating, in its correct spot in the library stacks when finished.
Keep books in Law Review Room. Non-circulating library books will be located in their usual place
in the library stacks. Do NOT place a non-circulating book on a Law Review shelf.
If a source is “on reserve,” you must check it out in your name, not Law Review.
General Library Procedures
Consult Staff Manual Staff member doing a “Source Pull”
requests the ILL Source we need is not carried by the WMCL Library. Fill out the online ILL form.
Do not request an ILL in your own name◦ Unless it is for your long paper
Requesting an ILL
Login to the ILLiad System (http://wmitchell.illiad.oclc.org/illiad). ◦ Login: Law Review ◦ Password:Volume41
Fill out and submit the ILL form Put “ILL Requested” on the source pull
spreadsheet under location and highlight the entire row in green.
Steps to Request ILL
Fill out the form with as much information as possible. However, the following information must be entered: ◦ Author/Editors ◦ Title ◦ Not Wanted After Date: [enter the date five days from the date of
request] Ex: You are making the request on September 4, so you should enter
September 9 as the “Not wanted after” date. ◦ In the “Notes” section, include the article author’s name, the article
Editor’s name, and your name as person who made the request. For example: Author: Steenson Editor: Cronen Submitter: Jenny Rochat Also in the “Notes” section, include whether the book is available at a
nearby library. WorldCat is a great source (www.worldcat.org).
Filling Out the ILL Form
Be careful with ILLs sources. If a page becomes torn, spilled on, or
otherwise damaged, let Pete, Allison, Ayanna or Jeff know.
Law Review is charged for damaged books. Depending on the situation, you may have
to pay for the damage.
Final Thoughts
Guided PracticeSource Pull
ACProof
Quote ProofPut-Together
Source Pulls
Good afternoon!
I have a source pull available for the Minnesota E-Discovery Working Group: Working Group 4 article. The article has 108 footnotes. I will send the article and template today, and the source pull will be due Tuesday, September 24 at 11:59 PM.
Please let me know if you would like to work on this source pull!
Thank you,
Jenna Johnson
Source Pull E-mail
They lay the framework for a proper AC check by streamlining the process for finding citation authority
Initiate the ILL process for books not in our library
Focus on citations that require hard copies CS HOURS!!!
Source Pulls are important because . . .
An Empty Source Pull Looks Like . . .
A Completed Source Pull Looks Like . . .
Practice Time!
You will receive a sample article and a blank source pull template
Do the first 5-10 footnotes. Note: If there is more than one source in a
footnote, each source needs it’s own line. For example:
When you are done . . . Save the file in the correct format – ([Author
Last Name]_[SourcePull]_[Your Last Name] Email the file to
nic.puechner@wmitchell.edu
Authority Checks (ACs)
It’s the first—and arguably most important—step in the editorial process.
It’s the only time during the editorial process when we actually check to see if the cited material supports the text of the article (hence the name authority check).
It’s the first line of “editing” defense
Authority Check (AC) Overview
Turn on Track Changes.
Check text and footnotes for Bluebook accuracy. Make changes as necessary.
Make sure text is grammatically correct according to CMOS. Make changes as necessary.
Check all cross-references (supra and infra). Highlight each supra and infra so that the editor knows that you checked them.
Ensure that the cited source supports the proposition stated in the text.
Leave helpful comments for the editor.
What you will do:
Alter the substance of the article◦ The author is the expert. We are simply editing the article for
publication
Change the “author’s voice”◦ About.com: “Voice is the author’s style, the quality that makes his or
her writing unique, and which conveys the author’s attitude, personality, and character.”
◦ We don’t want to put our voice into the article.◦ Only correct blatant grammatical errors that are backed up by the
CMOS.◦ When in doubt, don’t make a change in the text. Instead, leave a
comment for the editor. Be respectful with your comment.
Add new footnotes
Delete footnotes
What you will not do:
Think about what the source says and what the author has written. Do they match up? How closely do they match up?
If you think that they do not match up, do the following things:◦ Required: Review the source and see if you can find the correct pincite.
Update the pincite as needed. You do not need to leave a comment.
◦ Required: If you cannot find the correct pincite, check the surrounding footnotes to see if another source nearby might support the proposition. If you find a surrounding source that works, update the footnote and leave a comment for the editor explaining what you did, and why you did it
◦ Required: If you cannot find the correct pincite, if there are no pertinent surrounding footnotes, and if you are confident that the source does not fit with what the author wrote, leave a comment for the editor. In your comment, explain why the cited authority does not support the text.
◦ Optional: Find a source that supports what the author wrote. In your comment to the editor, include a citation to the source that you found. This is not required, but it will help you earn grades of 4/5
Does the cited source support the proposition in the text?
You do not need to leave a comment if you:◦ Make a change that is directly supported by the Bluebook or Staff Manual◦ Correct a pincite◦ Correct an obvious grammatical error that is directly supported by the CMOS◦ Correct an obvious spelling error
You must leave a comment if:◦ You make change that is not directly supported by the Bluebook, Staff Manual
or CMOS◦ You make a change that is only tangentially supported by the Bluebook, Staff
Manual or CMOS◦ You think that the cited authority does not support the proposition stated in
the text◦ You find some other error, but it’s a case of “author’s voice”◦ There is a sentence that does not have a footnote, but you think that it should.
Do not add a footnote! Feel free to try to find a source that would fit (not required, but will help you
get a 4 or 5)
Leaving Comments
You will get 20-25 ACs this year. On average, you will be responsible for 10-20 footnotes
for each AC. You will never have more than 3 ACs at once. Initially, ACs may take up to 10 hours. But, you will get
faster with practice. If you come across a difficult footnote:
1. Check the Staff Manual2. Consult the Bluebook3. Consult with a reference librarian4. Come to office hours in the LRO5. Contact your Pod leader6. Contact any Board member
AC Logistical Info
Time to practice . . .
Hi all-
You have been assigned the AC1 for the Cronen article in Issue 1, which will be due at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, September 1st. The article and source pull are attached. This is one of the student case notes, so it is in pretty good shape, but please be sure you take the time to AC it properly. As a reminder, save the document as Cronen_AC1_RangeX_Lastname. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to send me an email. See below for your assigned ranges.
Range # Staff1 Steph M. Burr2 Seth Harrington3 Kevin Hill4 Jennifer Johnson5 Michael Ervin6 Daniela Kinova7 Brian Kluk8 Amy Krupinski9 Melissa Lorentz10 Christopher Mishek
Thank you!
John SmithEditor, William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 41Juris Doctor Candidate 2015William Mitchell College of Law
Assigning Email
Footnotes 1-2
Guided Practice: Example
Footnotes 3-4
Guided Practice: Partner Practice
Footnotes 5-7
Guided Practice: Solo Practice
Send your completed AC to ◦ peter.kieselbach@wmitchell.edu
Make sure you label the file name correctly◦ Cronen_AC1_Range1_[your last name].docx
When you are done . . .
Proofing An ArticleGuided Practice
A proof is a comprehensive proofread of an entire article
Something you do for CS hours Solicited via email by an editor and
generally completed by only one staff member per article
Two proofs are completed on each article Time to complete is usually about one week
What is a Proof?
Proofs happen after both ACs, but before the Put-Together. While proofing check for:
• Consistency within an article• Typographical errors/Spelling/Grammar• Proper punctuation• Bluebook accuracy• NOT support from the sources (that’s what ACs are
for)
What is a Proof?
Detailed step by step instructions are in the Staff Manual, but basically…
1. Read the text of the article, and
2. Read the footnotes in the article
… checking for all things incorrect.
How to Proof
In its 2004 Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed the Council’s comprehensive planning authority, that the Council uses to protect and enhance regional systems today.
Proofing Practice—Text/Original
In its 2004 Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed the Council’s comprehensive planning authority, which the Council uses to protect and enhance regional systems today.
Proofing Practice—Text/Corrected
Id. § 473.175, subdiv. 3; 473.864, subdiv. 1.
Proofing Practice—Footnote/Original
Id. §§ 473.175, subdiv. 3, 473.864, subdiv. 1.
Proofing Practice—Footnote/Corrected
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg L.L.C., 229 F.R.D. 422, 439, (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting former employee’s motion for sanctions against employer for untimely production of some documents, failure to produce other documents, and failure to preserve relevant evidence).
Proofing Practice—Footnote/Original
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg L.L.C., 229 F.R.D. 422, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting former employee’s motion for sanctions against employer for untimely production of some documents, failure to produce other documents, and failure to preserve relevant evidence).
Proofing Practice—Footnote/Corrected
GUIDED PRACTICE: QUOTE PROOF
Volume 41
Quote Proof Guided Practice
What is a Quote Proof?
• Review entire article checking direct quotes for accuracy• CS Hours (volunteer basis unless nobody takes then
Editors assign)
DO DON’T
• Check every direct quotation and surrounding text against the cited authority (language, punctuation, bluebook quote formatting, pincite)
• No need to bluebook citations or check for grammar throughout other text in the article
But…please point out glaring mistakes even if outside the
quote. We’re all in this together!
Quote Proof Guided Practice
How do you do a Quote Proof?
• LR Manual contains detailed instructions• Review both the TEXT and the FOOTNOTES of the entire
article
CHECK QUOTE AND SURROUNDING TEXT FOR:
• Wording (check every word!!)• Surrounding text (to ensure the quotation marks were
placed properly)• Punctuation• Bluebook quotation formatting (ellipses, brackets, block
quotes, etc.)• Pincite
Quote Proof Guided Practice
Guided Practice: Examples
The Court stated that the “Plaintiffs here in their promissory fraud claim do
not attack the validity of the agreements” but instead “seek to
recover…based on the terms of the contract.”
Cited Authority says:
“Plaintiffs in their promissory fraud
claim do not attack the validity of the real
estate purchase contract or oral
contract.”
The Court stated that the “Plaintiffs here in their promissory fraud claim do
not attack the validity of the [agreements]” but instead “seek to
recover… . . . based on the terms of the contract.”
Quote Proof Guided Practice
Guided Practice: Examples
The court went on to reiterate that “the purpose of the rule is to ensure
that the parties’ final understanding is not subject to change.”
AC2 Margin Comment: This is not a direct quote from this case and seems to be more of a paraphrase. I suggest dropping the quotations.
Quote Proof Margin Comment: I agree with AC2; however, the language is similar enough that dropping the quotes borrows too much exact language. I suggest editing the quote to be exact: “___________”
Quote Proof Guided Practice
Guided Practice: Partner
The Court in Marbury held that “there is no difference between a patent for lands and the commission of an officer” and “the duty
of the secretary is…the same.”
Work with your partner to “Quote Proof” the below sentence using the following cited authority the author provided in the footnote:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 152 (1803).
Quote Proof Guided Practice
Guided Practice: Partner
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 152 (1803)
The Court in Marbury held that “there is no difference between a patent for lands and the commission of an officer” and “the duty
of the secretary is…the same.”
The Court in Marbury held that “there is no difference between a patent for lands, and the commission of an judicial officer” and
“[t]he duty of the secretary is… . . . the same.”
Four edits made to the quote. One edit made to the pincite.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 152150 (1803)
Quote Proof Guided Practice
Guided Practice: Solo
The Court in Marbury provided that “the appointment, under the constitution to be made by the president personally, must be
made by the President also” and “the law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Secretary of State.”
Work on your own to “Quote Proof” the below sentence using the following cited authority the author provided in the footnote:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 159 (1803).
Quote Proof Guided Practice
Guided Practice: Solo
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 159 (1803).
The Court in Marbury provided that “the appointment, under the constitution to be made by the president personally, must be
made by the President also” and “the law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Secretary of State.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 159 (1803) (emphasis in original).
The Court in Marbury provided that “[t]he appointment being, under the constitution, to be made by the president personally, must be made by the President also” and “[t]he law would seem
to contemplate that it should be made to the Ssecretary of Sstate . . . .”
BB Rule 5.3(b)(iii) ellipsis rule
Put-Together – Guided Practice
After the AC’s and Proofs . . .
The Issue’s EE asks for 5-10 volunteers (CS HOURS!!) to do a “group read” over approximately 4 hours
Purpose? To catch mistakes while looking at the article “as a whole”
What is a Put-Together?
Hi Staffers,
The first Issue 2 put-together is scheduled for October 10th at 1 pm. I need 16 volunteers, and the spots will be reserved on a first-come first-served basis. Please plan to spend at least 4 hours at this event, although you might get out earlier than 4 pm. Your job at the put-together is quite simple. Staffers receive a range of pages from an article, in hard copy, and proof the range. This an easy way to get CS hours, AND you get to spend time with your fellow staffers.
Pizza and dessert will be provided. If you volunteer, please inform me of any dietary restrictions. Thanks,
Katie
Sample E-mail
You meet with the EE to go through small sections of a print copy of the articles after about half of the editing process. (Redlining)
We are looking to catch mistakes (e.g., incorrect citations, grammar mistakes)
We are looking to ensure consistency and flow (e.g., a name referred to the same way throughout the paper)
What Happens at a Put-Together?
Guided Practice Time! You will be given one page from an article
from last year.
Read the page and note any changes in ink that you would make. This can include grammar, spelling, incorrect citations . . .
Put your name on the top right-hand corner of the paper.
Turn it in!
Long Paper Update
Every Staff Member must complete a Long Paper this semester
The Long Paper can be a Case Note or a Comment
Every Long Paper must consist of at least 25 pages of text and 25 pages of footnotes
Every Long Paper must be divided into parts, including an introduction and conclusion
Every Long Paper will be considered for publication following the review process
Long Paper Basics
Topic Selection◦ Jillian (the Lexis Rep)◦ Professors and Practitioners in the Field
Long Paper Guidelines◦ The Long Paper Guidelines for Volume 41◦ The Long Paper Committee (Adam, Jenna, Elise,
and Josh) During the Writing Process
◦ Your assigned Long Paper Editor
Resources for Staff Members
August 15: Suggested Long Paper Topic Selection
August 24 at 9 PM: Long Paper Topic Due September 7: Outline Completed and
Major Sources Selected September 14: Complete Very Rough Draft
and Most Sources Selected October 1 at 9 PM: First Draft Due November 1 at 9 PM: Final Draft Due
Timeline
Questions?
ACs will begin sometime next week
First two assignments will not count towards your grade (unless you get a score of 1).
Initial Assignments
Office hours in LRO. Schedule will be posted on Law Review website.
You will have a meeting with your Pod leader within the first few weeks of the semester to review your progress/performance
Feedback Folder – Shared folder on Dropbox.◦ Editors will post articles to Dropbox after AC2 and
Proof 2 stages so that staff can check their work.◦ More info at our first staff meeting
Initial Assignments Support
Check the Staff Manual Check the Bluebook Meet with a Reference Librarian Consult with the assigning Editor Monthly staff meetings Pod leaders Any Board member
Other AC Support