One of the most confounding changes to the new Bluebook edition is the new “Contrast with” signal. Its purpose is unclear; the long-established “Compare with” signal already includes elements of both comparing and contrasting. The structure of the “Compare with” signal is straightforward:

Compare [case A], and [case B], with [case C], and [case D].

One category of cases appears before the “with.” Another category appears after the “with.” The “with” itself facilitates a contrast between the two categories.

So how is the “Contrast with” signal different? Other than swapping out the word “compare” for “contrast,” The Bluebook does not say. This new signal will likely introduce even more confusion for legal writers who were already wary of using the “Compare with” signal.

I had the privilege of speaking yesterday on a panel supporting New Legal Writing Professors at the Legal Writing Institute’s (LWI) New Teacher Training Bootcamp. I was thrilled to join colleagues from other law schools and offer advice for new members of the profession who teach legal writing to first-year law students. My advice included:

Be authentic. Your teaching persona is important, and if you don’t consciously define it for yourself, students will define it for you. Be intentional in determining how funny/serious, formal/informal, and personal/impersonal you wish to be. Whatever you decide, make sure it’s true to yourself. If you aren’t naturally like Prof. Kingsfield from the Paper Chase, don’t try to be like him! Others can smell BS a mile away. Connecting with your students in a way that motivates them to succeed is critical. The first step toward connecting with your students is simple: be authentic.

This past Friday and Saturday, a year’s worth of work paid off: Catholic Law hosted the 2025 Capital Area Legal Writing Conference. Organizing this conference was one of the most rewarding experiences of my career. Legal writing faculty from 45 law schools gathered at our campus; we had 75 registrants and 40 excellent presentations on topics related to legal writing pedagogy and scholarship. This was the first time since 2017 that the Capital Area Legal Writing Conference was held, and I am proud to have revived it. My goal was to bring together the capital area legal writing community, and I’m thrilled with the turnout. Thank you to everyone who presented, attended, and made this conference a success!

In addition to organizing and chairing the conference, I organized a preconference Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) Scholars Forum. It allowed a small group of legal writing scholars to exchange in-depth feedback on their works-in-progress Friday morning, before the conference programming began. The Scholars Forum was supported by a grant I obtained from ALWD.

I am honored that my article, The Pedagogy of Legal Synthesis, has been selected for publication in Duquesne Law Review. The prepublication draft has also been highlighted on the Law Skills Prof Blog, which proclaims “Every law teacher needs to read this fundamental article.”

Read the prepublication draft on SSRN here: The Pedagogy of Legal Synthesis, 64 Duquesne Law Review (forthcoming 2026). The abstract:

The ability to synthesize implicit legal principles from many ambiguous cases is a mark of a skilled attorney. But legal synthesis is notoriously challenging to teach, and law students typically receive little explicit guidance on how to synthesize. The literature likewise offers law professors little direction on how to impart the skill successfully.

This article serves as a guide for professors to effectively train law students to synthesize implicit legal principles. Drawing upon cognitive science, the study of logic, and educational research, this article explains the challenges of learning legal synthesis and equips professors with pedagogical methods and curricular resources to meet those challenges. It walks professors through how to design synthesis-friendly legal writing assignments as a primary vehicle to teach students the skill. It also explains how to lecture clearly about each aspect of synthesis, including how to use inductive reasoning, abstract implicit legal principles from ambiguous cases, and draft clear analyses. Finally, it shows how to drill the skill in class through practice exercises. The article is written with first-year legal writing professors in mind, and the tools it offers can easily be adapted for use in other courses. Armed with proven teaching techniques, law professors can empower students to master the skill of legal synthesis.