My former colleague, Tori Salzmann, and I have an article coming out in a forthcoming law review where we argue that law professors have become too disconnected from practice. There has been quite a bit written about this over the last two decades, beginning with a famous piece by Judge Edwards in the Michigan Law Review, and perhaps ending most recently with a piece by Bob Schuwerk.
I practiced law for 14 years before going into teaching, and as a practicing lawyer I found most academic writing to be largely irrelevant to practice. Yet, I found the piece that was engaged with real world issues to be invaluable in assisting me to understand the law, and to advise my clients.
Tori and I make probably three points.
One, it is wrong to assume -- as many who have argued against Edwards have -- that lawyers and judges are as equipped as law professors to write (what we call) engaged scholarship. Lawyers and judges are busy, and lawyers are biased, writers.
Two, especially for professors who did not practice much, writing engaged scholarship is a way to be a better teacher. Assumed in that point, of course, is the premise that law school ought to have some connection to law practice.
Third, academic writing which is too esoteric fails to further a key mission of law reviews, which is to provide student editors with analytical (as well as more mundane skills, like cite-checking) skills. Editors don't learn much of use when they are reading stuff that requires no legal analytical skills.
Are we insane for arguing that professors have a duty to write more engaged scholarship?