How many of us entered law school dreaming of following the
paths of Brandeis, Marshall, etc. in the field of constitutional
law? How many of us now can go weeks, or even months, without
reading a Supreme Court case? Paying off student loans led many of
us to work for law firms where there was far less available to do
in constitutional law than in, say, commercial disputes,
securities, or product liability law. But we're not mooning
over the path not taken. Somewhere in that perineum between law
school graduation and partnership, we learned that while
constitutional law gets the headlines, it can also be in some ways,
a less satisfying practice area. We don't merely mean that it
doesn't pay as much, at least not reliably. The problem with
constitutional law is that it turns too much on the predilections
of a few judges, and turns too little on rules and realities.
Statutory interpretation or antitrust analysis or a
Daubert dispute demand rigor. Perhaps there is rigor
