Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [174]
Such a footnote is also a matter of politeness and self-interest as well as honesty: You don't want readers to notice a familiar passage and assume that you've copied someone else's work, or to become annoyed that they've been led to reread something they've already read before. Alerting them at the outset is better for them and for you.
B. Being Candid
It's unethical to characterize sources in a way that you know is wrong or misleading (for instance, by quoting out of context, by omitting important qualifiers, or by portraying some source as dispositive when you know that there are contrary sources that you aren't citing). You would feel betrayed if a supposedly scholarly source deceived you, and you'd condemn the source's author. You should likewise make sure that your work is never open to this sort of criticism.
Candor is also practically useful as well as ethically necessary. Explaining and responding to the weaknesses in the evidence tends to make your work more impressive and ultimately more persuasive. Trying to hide the problems or, worse, mischaracterizing the facts (even by omission or misleading description) will on balance make your work less effective and less worthy of respect.
And if your faculty advisor suspects you—even without solid proof—of knowing misstatements or omissions of important details, your grade will suffer. At best, the advisor will give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you've been merely sloppy rather than deceitful; and who wants that as a best case scenario? This, after all, is the person who will be grading your work, and whom potential employers may call when they want a candid evaluation of your qualities (whether or not you list the advisor as a possible reference).
The same is true of potential employers who read your work because it's listed on your resume. Some of them will only skim your work casually, and not see the problems; but others will know more about the field than you do, especially if you're looking for a job in the field in which you've been writing. They'll be tolerant of occasional errors—but if they see a pattern of errors that is suggestive of dishonesty, the results can be devastating for you. If you're one of several applicants for a job, even a hint of possible misconduct might be enough to get you rejected.
C. Being Fair and Polite to Your Adversaries
As Parts XV.A (p. 138), XV.B (p. 139), and XX.C.2 (p. 250) mentioned, it's better to be polite and impersonal in your criticisms of your adversaries, and to be candid, fair, and thorough in responding to their arguments. It's the right thing to do. It makes your article more persuasive. It makes you look better. And it avoids turning your adversaries into your enemies.
D. Being Fair to the Law Review Editors Who Publish Your Article
You'll be working closely with your law review editors, and you may run into them unexpectedly in your future career. Everything will go much more smoothly if both sides treat the other fairly. Some particular points:
1. If you borrow from an old article of yours in a new article, mention this in the footnotes (p. 338).
2. Never renege once you've accepted an offer (see p. 269).
3. Don't lie about your credentials.
4. When you're shopping up an offer (see p. 268), be clear and honest about who gave you the offer and what the offer's terms are.
5. After you've accepted an offer, call or e-mail the other journals to withdraw your piece (see p. 268).
6. Comply with the law review's publication schedule, and if you need to be a few days late with some step, let the editors know as soon as possible.
E. Preserving Confidentiality
Make sure that nothing you write violates any of your obligations of confidentiality.
1. If you're