Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [140]
6. Avoid case names
Generally, avoid case names. Just as the article should usually be about a topic and not just a particular case (see Part I.I.2, p. 35), so should the title. First, the case name might not be familiar to some readers, unless the case is extremely famous; a reader might be interested in the general subject, but might not connect the case to the subject. Second, stressing a particular case makes your claim seem narrower and less useful.
Sometimes, a case may be so important and controversial that many readers will want to read articles about it—referring to the case name will then draw more readers than it will repel. But generally speaking, titles should be about concepts, not cases.
7. Avoid jargon, little-known terms, and statutory citations
Readers may be put off by titles with little-known legal terms, statutory citations (unless they're extremely well-known, such as “Title VII” or “42 U.S.C. § 1983”), and jargon, whether it's drawn from economics, literary criticism, feminist studies, libertarian philosophy, or what have you.
Many readers will be interested in the general topic, but will not fully understand the terms; and when the query gives them those fifty titles, they'll choose the ones they understand rather than the ones they don't. Again, there may be exceptions, for instance if the substance of your article will only appeal to those people who know the jargon—then, the technical terms may attract exactly the readers you want. But usually, stick with plain English.
8. Choose your role models wisely
That other articles have silly or mystifying titles doesn't mean yours should, too. Well-known authors can get away with less descriptive titles, since people will read their pieces because of the author's name, not the article's name. You don't have that luxury.
9. An example
Here's an example. You decide to write an article about whether compulsory licensing of copyrighted musical compositions makes sense, using the recently decided Allman v. Capricorn Records as a starting point. Don't start with “Compulsion or Anti–Monopoly?” or “Licensing Fair and Foul,” or, heaven forbid, “Copyright and § 115: Is Capricorn a Sign of the Times?”
Rather, (1) start with a descriptive title, such as “Copyright and Compulsory Licenses” or “Compulsory Licenses in Copyrighted Musical Compositions.” These aren't exciting, but people who see the title will know whether the piece is likely to help them.
Then, (2) see if there are any other basic concepts around which your article is oriented. For instance, if you argue that compulsory licenses make copyright a form of “intellectual quasi-property,” rather than true property, mention that concept in the title: “Compulsory Licenses in Copyrighted Musical Compositions: Intellectual Quasi–Property as a Remedy for Transaction Costs.” This is especially so if you're trying to pioneer the concept of intellectual quasi-property.
If you do want to rework the title to (3) include some pun or witticism, now is the time to do it. This way, you have the descriptive title in front of you, and can compare it with the amusing alternative. If the amusing version is clearly better, go with it. But if it's not better—and it probably won't be better—then stick with the purely substantive title.
Now (4) see if you can make your title shorter, clearer, and more forceful. Does the subtitle really add enough value to the title? Do you really need the word “Compositions,” or will the title be clear enough (and less technical-sounding) without it? Do you really need the word “Copyrighted,” or will that be obvious, since virtually all musical compositions are protected by copyright? (I think “copyrighted” is probably helpful, because it makes it clearer to the casual reader that the article is about copyright law.) Can you make the title sound more active, perhaps “Compulsory Licenses in Copyrighted Music: Fighting Transaction Costs Through Intellectual Quasi–Property”? I'm not sure what