Founded in 1933, the Law Review counted among its first editors Edward Levi, Stanley Kaplan, and Abraham Ribicoff, and featured in its first pages the work of William O. Douglas, Joseph Beale, and Robert Hutchins. Read more about our history

The University of Chicago Law Review

Published quarterly, the Law Review features articles, essays, comments, and book reviews. Dialogue, the Law Review's online component, continues the discussions provoked in print and invites new exchanges online. View prior issues

A Journal of Distinguished Legal Commentary

From international corporations and foreign states to academic libraries and private citizens, the Law Review reaches subscribers in over thirty-eight countries across the globe. Subscribe to the Law Review

Reaching a Worldwide Readership

Accepting submissions year-round, the Law Review seeks manuscripts that make a significant, original contribution to their field. Submissions

A Proud Tradition of Trend-Setting Scholarship


Ian Ayres

 In Libertarian Paternalism, Path Dependence, and Temporary Law, Professors Tom Ginsburg, Jonathan S. Masur, and Richard H. McAdams (GMM) present an attractive theory of “temporary law” as law that expires after a set period of time. Their theory builds a persuasive normative case that in limited circumstances, temporary law might usefully dislodge a preexisting equilibrium. Like the archaic Alka-Seltzer ads, there may be times when a legally induced “try it, you’ll like it” strategy produces a superior, new separating equilibrium. 

81 U Chi L Rev Dialogue 72 [Essay PDF]

A response to 81 U Chi L Rev 291 [Essay PDF]


The Problem of Biased Experts, and Blinding as a Solution: A Response to Professor Gelbach

Christopher Robertson

In a recent symposium article, Professor Jonah Gelbach discusses the problem that a litigant in the American adversarial system can consult multiple expert witnesses on a given question but only disclose the single most favorable opinion to the fact finder (a jury, judge, or arbitrator). He calls this the problem of “expert mining.” In particular, Gelbach considers whether a policy that requires litigants to disclose to the fact finder the number of experts that they consulted might be a satisfactory solution to the problem. Alternatively, Gelbach considers whether an even more radical change to the American litigation system—the exclusion of all expert opinions rendered after the first one—might be necessary. In doing so, Gelbach extensively discusses my own work on this problem and the third solution I developed in a 2010 article, Blind Expertise. There, I show that expert mining is one part of a broader problem of expert bias, and I propose a conditional-disclosure rule as the solution. This Essay provides some analysis of Gelbach’s framing of the problem, reviews the blinding proposal, and identifies the limits of Gelbach’s analyses.

81 U Chi L Rev Dialogue 61 [Essay PDF]

Featured Print Articles

Volume 81, Issue 2 (more)


Cost-Benefit Analysis and Agency Independence

Article by Michael A. Livermore

There is a prevailing view in administrative law that the role of cost-benefit analysis in the executive branch is to help facilitate control of agencies by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This Article challenges that view, arguing that cost-benefit analysis in fact helps preserve agency autonomy in the face of oversight.

81 U Chi L Rev 609 [Article PDF]


Accommodating Every Body

Article by Michael Ashley Stein, Anita Silvers, Bradley A. Areheart & Leslie Pickering Francis

This Article contends that workplace accommodations should be predicated on need or effectiveness instead of group-identity status. It proposes that, in principle, “accommodating every body” be achieved by extending Americans with Disabilities Act–type reasonable accommodation to all work-capable members of the general population for whom accommodation is necessary to give them meaningful access.  

81 U Chi L Rev 689 [Article PDF]