2009 Write-On Competition
Dear Write-On Competition Participant,
Welcome to the 2009 Write-On Competition! Your objective for the next week is to write a "casenote" that offers a thoughtful critique of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. (2008), the oral argument for which will be heard by the Supreme Court in the fall. The case is based on a challenge to investment adviser fees under federal regulations. This case is labeled "1" in the list of sources provided.
If you were unable to attend the workshop in the spring semester, the slides are posted on the competition website and may be a useful tool for you to understand expectations regarding casenote organization, developing the argument section, and bluebooking generally. Additionally, the official instructions are posted on the competition website and lay out in great detail the format of a casenote.
While your casenote should set out the facts and holding of the case, it is important to note that a casenote is more than just a summary of the decision. A good casenote will include your own opinion and analysis. While you should try to organize your casenote according to the recommendations provided on the Competition Website, you have considerable latitude in identifying a particular aspect of the decision on which you would like to focus. You may, for example, criticize or praise one of the Justice's use of caselaw. Or you may spend the bulk of your analysis arguing that the case is indicative of a certain trend on the Court. It is completely up to you. However, you should do your best to develop and explain your own unique view on the case. Do not be afraid to take risks! The papers that usually stand out are the papers that challenge the reader to view the case from new perspective or raise questions and issues one may not catch after simply reading through the case.
The best way to go about developing your own unique perspective on the case is to read the case and read it thoroughly. While there are many additional cases and secondary sources contained in the competition materials, I strongly suggest that you spend a decent amount of time reading Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. before you do anything else. Once you have done so, you will understand all the arguments at issue and accordingly, you will be able to go through the rest of the materials with far greater ease. With a thorough understanding of the issues in this primary case, you should be able to assess the relative importance of the other sources by quickly skimming through them.
The competition materials include a total of 17 sources. A list of all the sources is available from the link below. The amount of may seem overwhelming, but you are free to read, rely on, and cite as many or as few of the sources as you choose. You should consider the competition materials your own personal (but limited) library for the week. Depending on the theme of your casenote, certain sources will be more important to you than others. You may not directly cite to any materials not included in this set of materials. However, you may cite to outside materials that were cited within the materials provided. Just make sure you follow Bluebook protocol on how to do this.
Generally speaking, your casenote will be assessed on your ability to write clearly, footnote your sources properly according to the Bluebook, and present a unique way of thinking about Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. Do not be afraid to use a source just because it seems difficult to cite; make your best effort and use your best judgment. The exact scoring criterion for the casenotes varies from review to review.
The casenotes are due Sunday, August 9 by 10p.m. EST. Casenotes submitted late will be automatically disqualified. Please view the competition website for details regarding exactly how to submit your casenote.
The week ahead promises to be exhausting and intense, but it has the potential to be extremely rewarding. In addition to having a chance at gaining membership on one of this school's reviews, you will have the opportunity to think about, analyze, and develop a point of view similarly to how the Supreme Court justices are preparing for Jones. I appreciate your dedication of this week to the competition, and I wish you good luck!
Sincerely,
Nancy Funkhouser
Writing and Research Editor
University of Miami Law Review
Dear Write-On Competition Participant,
Welcome to the 2009 Write-On Competition! Your objective for the next week is to write a "casenote" that offers a thoughtful critique of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. (2008), the oral argument for which will be heard by the Supreme Court in the fall. The case is based on a challenge to investment adviser fees under federal regulations. This case is labeled "1" in the list of sources provided.
If you were unable to attend the workshop in the spring semester, the slides are posted on the competition website and may be a useful tool for you to understand expectations regarding casenote organization, developing the argument section, and bluebooking generally. Additionally, the official instructions are posted on the competition website and lay out in great detail the format of a casenote.
While your casenote should set out the facts and holding of the case, it is important to note that a casenote is more than just a summary of the decision. A good casenote will include your own opinion and analysis. While you should try to organize your casenote according to the recommendations provided on the Competition Website, you have considerable latitude in identifying a particular aspect of the decision on which you would like to focus. You may, for example, criticize or praise one of the Justice's use of caselaw. Or you may spend the bulk of your analysis arguing that the case is indicative of a certain trend on the Court. It is completely up to you. However, you should do your best to develop and explain your own unique view on the case. Do not be afraid to take risks! The papers that usually stand out are the papers that challenge the reader to view the case from new perspective or raise questions and issues one may not catch after simply reading through the case.
The best way to go about developing your own unique perspective on the case is to read the case and read it thoroughly. While there are many additional cases and secondary sources contained in the competition materials, I strongly suggest that you spend a decent amount of time reading Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. before you do anything else. Once you have done so, you will understand all the arguments at issue and accordingly, you will be able to go through the rest of the materials with far greater ease. With a thorough understanding of the issues in this primary case, you should be able to assess the relative importance of the other sources by quickly skimming through them.
The competition materials include a total of 17 sources. A list of all the sources is available from the link below. The amount of may seem overwhelming, but you are free to read, rely on, and cite as many or as few of the sources as you choose. You should consider the competition materials your own personal (but limited) library for the week. Depending on the theme of your casenote, certain sources will be more important to you than others. You may not directly cite to any materials not included in this set of materials. However, you may cite to outside materials that were cited within the materials provided. Just make sure you follow Bluebook protocol on how to do this.
Generally speaking, your casenote will be assessed on your ability to write clearly, footnote your sources properly according to the Bluebook, and present a unique way of thinking about Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. Do not be afraid to use a source just because it seems difficult to cite; make your best effort and use your best judgment. The exact scoring criterion for the casenotes varies from review to review.
The casenotes are due Sunday, August 9 by 10p.m. EST. Casenotes submitted late will be automatically disqualified. Please view the competition website for details regarding exactly how to submit your casenote.
The week ahead promises to be exhausting and intense, but it has the potential to be extremely rewarding. In addition to having a chance at gaining membership on one of this school's reviews, you will have the opportunity to think about, analyze, and develop a point of view similarly to how the Supreme Court justices are preparing for Jones. I appreciate your dedication of this week to the competition, and I wish you good luck!
Sincerely,
Nancy Funkhouser
Writing and Research Editor
University of Miami Law Review
| You will be directed to log in using your UM Law network user name and password. (The same ones you would use to log into the computers at the law school. If you do not remember this
information, contact the Computer Help Desk (305-284-5297). For non-password-related technical problems, contact Robin Schard (rschard@law.miami.edu or 305-284-6441). |
