is up and running -- this is the product of a consortium of top law reviews to produce op-ed-length online versions of their full-length paper articles. Here's a quote from their press release (I'm cribbing from Larry Solum's post):
A consortium of America's most influential law reviews today launched The Legal Workshop (www.legalworkshop.org), a free, online magazine featuring articles based on legal scholarship published in the print editions of seven participating law reviews: Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, Cornell Law Review,Duke Law Journal, Georgetown Law Journal, Northwestern Law Review, and University of Chicago Law Review.
The Legal Workshop features short, plain-English articles about legal issues and ideas, written by an author whose related, full-length work of scholarship is forthcoming in one of the participating law reviews. But The Legal Workshop does not house a collection of abstracts. Instead, it offers an engaging alternative to traditional academic articles that run 30,000 words with footnotes, enabling scholars to present their well-formulated opinions and their research to a wider audience. In addition to making legal ideas understandable, The Legal Workshop seeks to house the best of legal scholarship in one place—making it easier for readers to find the best writing about all areas of law.
"But," as Chaucer says, "wherfor that I speke al this?" Note that today's lead article is my very own Choosing Interpretive Methods: A Positive Theory of Judges and Everyone Else, recently published in the NYU Law Review. And the bottom article on the page is also my very own Privatization and the Law and Economics of Political Advocacy, recently published in the Stanford Law Review. Larry Solum has interesting ideas about the project as a whole, so I'll just send you there so you can Read The Whole Thing.