Richard Danner notes in his OH, THE TREATISE! essay that the legal treatise declined during the 20th century as academics favored writing more critical works largely directly toward their peers.

Danner describes how scholars have pointed out that, although doctrinal research had been-

“the heart of legal scholarship” for most of the twentieth century, even the highly regarded major treatises were “elephantine works” that “tied together vast masses of cases, giving them some kind of coherence, real or imaginary.”

The decline of the treatise was caused by the mountains of case reporters that became difficult to distill into a coherent explanation of law or doctrine. Also, the rise of legal realism discounted the importance of doctrine and the use of  formal rules and principles in analyzing law and legal practice.

As explained by Danner:

Many treatises were seen as hack work—produced by publishers for commercial gain, not by knowledgeable scholars devoted to their subjects.

Ouch. I agree that at their worst, some treatises do read as if they are incoherent digests of cases but many have been quality publications during much of their lifespan.

Danner concludes by asking if we “need a new Blackstone?” Do we need writers of “grand treatises” (befitting an electronic age) such as that by Williston?

My take on it is that we now have academics butting heads over power and control. Universities are, fundamentally, institutions that seek to maintain their role as gatekeepers and censors of information and thought. In the modern electronic world, they are losing. The result: vicious fighting amongst themselves.

The critics of Mellen seek to defend their traditional academic turf of bureaucracy, control and gatekeeping. EMP seeks control of the critics by way of silencing them. A pox on both your houses.

Read more here.

Particularly interesting is David Cheifetz’s comment that law is more theology than science. Therefore, updating a term of art to make it more plain may in fact change its meaning.

Are the publishers’ pricing models causing them to stall and delay on ebooks? When will reality set in? Probably when there is no choice left and it is far too late.

“Don’t destroy your old revenue model before you have proved your new revenue model.”

So said one CEO in response to the J.C. Penney disaster.

One comment to the above Forbes article ridiculed the company for trying to “fire” its mid-market customers in order to replace them with upper-market (pricing) customers.

Is there a lesson in any of this for legal publishing and information companies?