Over the past couple of years working as a practioner, I started craving for a more academic experience. Hence, I got back to my research roots and started re-developing my academic writing (which I had basically left off immediately after finishing university).

Contrary to what was the case when I was still at university, I am now married - to someone who studied hard sciences (chemistry), no less. When she first reviewed one of my articles, she laughed out loud because of the incredible amount of footnotes and references. I explained her that is not uncommon in legal academic writing. However, she did have a point.

In recent legal scholarship, footnotes have become an art form. They are used not solely for reference to a source (or two, or three, or..), but also for references to related work. Or, even worse, for actual substantive comments.

I am guilty as charged myself. In my position as a teaching assistant I even advise students to pull out the non-essential from the main body of text and put it in the footnotes.

As I see it now, that was horrible advise. What is not essential, simply shouldn’t be in there. References and footnotes can be useful, but they should not be substantive. They hinder reading, and take up disproportionate amount of time writing and editing.