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.

Consider this example of the “Compare with” signal from my upcoming publication, The Pedagogy of Legal Synthesis:

The longer or more repetitive a person’s offensive conduct is, the more likely it is outrageous. Compare Craft, 671 S.W.2d. at 248, 251 (holding reasonable jury could find police officer’s conduct was outrageous when he harassed plaintiffs for nearly three months by keeping them under surveillance and disparaging them over CB radio), and Brewer, 15 S.W.3d at 4-6 (concluding sufficient evidence showed that supervisor’s conduct was outrageous when he sexually harassed an employee for seven months), with Humana, 796 S.W.2d at 2-4 (determining nurses did not act outrageously when they told a patient delivering a stillborn baby to “shut up”—and then took the baby’s body from the patient and said they would “dispose of” it—but did not continue any offensive conduct afterward).

The signal is being used to juxtapose two categories of cases—one category where the plaintiff won, one category where the plaintiff lost. The law is the same across both categories of cases; the facts are what differentiate their outcomes.

Before The Bluebook’s 22nd edition released, this example’s citation structure unquestionably fell within the gambit of the “Compare with” signal. Now, the legal writer must stop and wonder: is this actually the best place to use a “Compare with”? Or should I use “Contrast with” instead? What’s the difference? The Bluebook provides no instruction.

Absent additional guidance, I plan to tell my students that these two signals are functionally equivalent and that they should usually stick with the traditional “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.

Be transparent. Hiding the ball does not work in the first-year legal writing course. Students are generally coming in with little to no experience in legal writing. They need all the support they can get from you. That doesn’t mean you tell them specifically what arguments to make on memo and brief assignments, but you should be as transparent as possible about your expectations. Use detailed rubrics and checklists, and share them before assignment deadlines. Aim to be clear, explicit, and specific in your instruction. The challenge students should face is reaching your expectations, not figuring out what your expectations are.

Know that you will make mistakes—and recover from them. Don’t be afraid to seek help! The path to becoming an experienced legal writing professor is a journey. The first year is the hardest and when you’ll make the most mistakes; the second year, you fix what didn’t work the first year; the third year and beyond, you perfect your teaching. Don’t be afraid to ask for help along the way! Or to consult the works of great legal writing professors who came before you. After my first year, one area I wanted to improve was my feedback skills. So that summer, I searched for publications on how to give effective feedback on first-year legal writing assignments. Lo and behold, I found a fantastic resource that compiled articles on this very topic: the LWI Monograph on The Art of Critique Written Work. The wisdom contained in these articles helped me transform the way I comment on student work for the better.

Mistakes are inevitable as a newcomer (and sometimes as an oldcomer too!), but you don’t have to reinvent the wheel, and you aren’t alone. Seek out mentors and resources, stick with what works and throw out what doesn’t, and you’ll be on the road to becoming an excellent legal writing professor.

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.

At the conference, I presented on my forthcoming article, The Pedagogy of Legal Synthesis, 64 Duquesne Law Review (forthcoming 2026). I also facilitated a breakout session for local attendees from capital area law schools to discuss continuing the conference in future years. Enthusiasm was high, and I’m confident that another law school will take up the torch and host the conference again next year.

Here is Catholic Law’s write-up of the event:

Catholic Law Revives the Capital Area Legal Writing Conference: A Celebration of Innovation and Collaboration in Legal Education
June 5, 2025

Catholic Law proudly hosted the 2025 Capital Area Legal Writing Conference on Friday, May 30, and Saturday, May 31. Legal writing faculty from 45 law schools across the DC area and the nation gathered on our picturesque campus in the heart of the nation’s capital to share teaching and research ideas and connect with peers.

The conference opened with a warm welcome from the conference’s organizer and chair Stephen Mortellaro, Clinical Assistant Professor and Director of Artificial Intelligence Academic Integration at Catholic Law. Professor Mortellaro outlined the conference schedule, shared insights into its history, and expressed gratitude to Dean Stephen C. Payne for his invaluable support in hosting the event. The conference encompassed 40 presentations by legal writing faculty on topics including artificial intelligence, the NextGen Bar, professional identity formation, legal storytelling, designing innovative legal writing assignments, teaching legal synthesis, and more.

“Bringing together the legal writing community at Catholic Law has been an honor. The conference fostered intellectual exchanges that will influence legal writing scholarship and pedagogy for years to come,” said Professor Mortellaro.

“The Capital Area Legal Writing Conference has not been held for several years. We appreciate Professor Mortellaro’s leadership and vision to restart this regional conference and Catholic Law’s generous support of this effort,” said Sherri Keene, a conference presenter and Professor of Law, Legal Practice at Georgetown University Law Center. “Professor Mortellaro not only put together an outstanding conference that drew presenters and attendees from across the country, he offered a space to discuss new teaching innovations and scholarship relevant to the field. I learned so much from every presentation I attended. The conference was excellent and so well executed.”

The morning of May 30, Catholic Law also welcomed legal writing scholars to participate in a preconference Scholars Forum sponsored by the Association of Legal Writing Directors. Participants presented on their scholarly works-in-progress and received in-depth feedback from a small group of legal writing scholars.

First established in 2011 at The George Washington University Law School, the Capital Area Legal Writing Conference has become a cornerstone for collaboration and innovation in legal education. Over the years, it has been hosted by prestigious institutions including Georgetown University Law Center, American University Washington College of Law, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, Howard University School of Law, William & Mary Law School, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and Regent University School of Law. The conference was last held in 2017, and this year, Catholic Law was honored to revive and continue this tradition.

Click here to view the conference program.

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.