Reposted with minor alterations - January 7, 2010
The carrot to get current U of A Faculty of Law students to read this post is that it outlines a contest, with a prize at the end, open only to them. Some might consider the prize worth the effort. The others are vegetarians or Vegans. If need be, we'll work out a compromise.
The contest will close midnight (Edmonton time) January 30, 2010.
---------------------
This posting is intended mostly for lawyer and law-student readers of the blog, or those with an equivalent background. It presumes the reader has a level of familiarity with concepts I don't mention.
I'm told that academic lawyers write articles about legal matters in scholarly journals both for tenure purposes and in the hope that their views will influence the development of the law in what the writer believes is the proper direction. That is, the hope is that that a judge in a position to make a difference will read the article and have an epiphany. I'm told some write in the hope they will be cited (see tenure).
I am not (formally) an academic so don't need to worry about tenure. However, I have written an article or three in the hope that a judge in a position to make a difference would ... etc.
One such article appeared about 4 1/2 years ago under the extremely mellifluous and just somewhat pointed title “The Snell Inference And Material Contribution: Defining The Indefinable And Hunting The Causative Snark – A Not Excessively Subtle and Theoretical Examination of Proof of Factual Causation in Canadian Tort Law". The colloquial name for the piece, for reasons relating to both the title and the contents of the article is "Snark". For those who care, a citation for the article is (2005) 30 Advocates' Quarterly 1.
Recent Comments