I've mentioned before that one of my friends asked me last winter whether law blogs are still relevant? It came as sort of a surprise. After years of skepticism about blogs (bloggers' disease and all that), I finally turned a corner and embraced them. Then a friend (and blogger) just sort of off-the-cuff dismissed them. In fact, he asked the question in such a dismissive way that I took it as more of a statement than a question, really. It was I guess a socratic question designed to get me to admit, "oh, of course blogs are irrelevant."
Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who continue to talk about the relevance of blogs -- Jay Brown's recent work on law faculty blogs and disruptive innovation is one example. And now I see Anna Ivey's introduction to the third volume of the "Journal of Law" is focused on scholarship from law blogs. The Journal of Law collects scholarship published elsewhere and they have a section on blogs. By the way, congratulations to Michelle Meyer, who has a post from the faculty lounge reprinted in this year's volume. I think the Journal of Law's focus on scholarship that appears on blogs is helpful in identifying the kinds of work that is appropriate for blogs -- work that is suggestive rather than definitive, quick takes, or in an area that's moving quickly.
But I still have the nagging question: are law blogs relevant?