History

The Suffolk University Law Review has reached out to former Editors-in-Chief and requested that they share their memories and experiences from their time on the Law Review.

These recollections outline our development and progress and provide a glimpse into the history of the Law Review through the years.

Please also view our alumni staff photos here.

Professor Richard Vacco

Editor-in-Chief, Volume I (1966-1967)

It was the fall of 1966.  Suffolk University Law School had just moved into its new quarters, the Donahue Building.  One of the rooms in that building was to house the Suffolk University Law Review.  As new as the building, the Law Review would have to organize in preparation for its publication of Volume One, Number One.

Professor John Fenton had persuaded the Board of Trustees that if the law school was to continue to grow and prosper, a Law Review was an absolute essential.  Monies were appropriated and Professor Fenton became the first faculty advisor to the Law Review.  There was no program in place for the fledgling review.  Unlike the competitive nature of selection today, a staff was selected from among the student body based on class rank.  From among that staff editorial positions were assigned based on class rank as well.

The first Editor-in-Chief had the responsibility of learning what a Law Review was and how it functioned.  That process involved meetings with several editorial boards of other Law Reviews in and around Boston followed by discussions with the new Law Review staff.  It was a lengthy process.  Slowly but surely the review found a structure.  Although it was not the highly sophisticated structure of today’s Law Review, it was a structure nonetheless.  Overcoming the challenges faced, the Law Review published Volume One, Number One by the end of the 1966-1967 academic year.

Bernard M. Ortwein

Editor-in-Chief, Volume VI (1971-1972)

I realized two things early in my tenure as Editor-in-Chief of volume VI of the Law Review:  (1) it was really great to have Leonard L. Lewin (Lenny) as my Managing Editor as well as an equally strong and extremely competent Editorial Board and Staff to work with and (2) as a group we were extremely fortunate to have John E. Fenton, Jr. as our Faculty Advisor.  Professor Fenton was always available to offer advice and assistance but not so intrusive as to want to be involved in every decision.

During the 1971-72 year we published four (4) issues including a special issue devoted to a review of all the significant decisions of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Review had started publishing these First Circuit decisions as a separate issue beginning with Volume IV and the issue had become a very well respected and frequently requested and cited publication in it’s own right.  During this period we required all students who were seeking membership on the Review to write a case comment on one of the more significant First Circuit cases.  These case comments were considered “competition pieces” which we used as one of the criteria for selecting members of the Staff.  Ultimately these “competition” case comments were published in the First Circuit issue of the Review.  Thus, most every member of the Review whether on the Editorial Board or Staff had at least one article published in the Review.

In these early years of the Law Review each new Editorial Board was responsible for completing the work on the previous Editorial Board’s Volume of the Review before beginning the Volume for which it had primary responsibility. I believe we were the first Board to actually complete our Volume and allow our successor Board to begin work on its own Volume.

My recollections of these years are that we worked really hard, enjoyed each other’s company and learned to respect, admire and appreciate the effort that went into making the Law Review a highly respected product in the eyes of the legal community.

Finally as a historical aside and a matter of personal pride, I and my son, B. Michael Ortwein (Class of 2002) have the proud distinction of being the only father and son to have served as Editor-in-Chief of the Suffolk University Law Review.

Ronald I. Bell

Editor-in-Chief, Volume VII (1972-1973)

The Volume VII Editorial Board realized that as a relatively fledgling Law Review, we would be judged and critically compared to our contemporaries with a longer pedigree.  Therefore, following the leadership and good examples of our predecessor Boards, we were committed to seek the utmost perfection in our product.  Looking back, the Board and the Staff worked exceptionally hard and continued the brief tradition of excellence of a relatively young Law Review.  I was comfortable that we had done our best.

We were the first Editorial Board to include night students on the Review.  Working during the day, going to school at night and committing to a rigorous Law Review workload, these students appreciated the new opportunity and excelled at it.  The Board was rewarded by their hard work.  Professor Karen Blum was one of those first night students to be on the Review.

I had noticed that most other Law Reviews included a preface/summary to each of the articles and notes in their issues.  We were the first Editorial Board to add such prefaces in italics to the articles and notes.

At that time, it seemed to me that many of the controversial decisions of the Supreme Court were decided by votes of 5-4 and I was intrigued by the history of the importance, or perceived importance, of Supreme Court 5-4 decisions.  Our goal was to do an extensive article on the history of those decisions.  I was surprised that there were other Law Review Articles on the subject, but there were not many.  Ours was an ambitious project and we had the entire Review go through all of the Supreme Court Reporters from the Court’s very beginning to discover and categorize all the 5-4 decisions.  Our Note Editor, Carmen A. Frattaroli, spearheaded the effort and did a phenomenal job.  The preface to the Note stated that it presented “an objective and comprehensive analysis of the recommendations for and reasons underlying the extraordinary majority concept.”  The Note also included “a complete and current compendium of all the signed decisions of the Supreme Court, which have been decided by a margin of one vote, i.e., a bare majority.”  They were presented in 3 Appendices:  A.  Statistical Summary; B.  Supreme Court Cases Decided By A Margin Of One Vote; and C.  Percentage of Supreme Court Cases Decided By A Margin of One Vote Per October Term, 1924-1971.  The entire staff completed a truly herculean task and provided a solid foundation to build upon, if any other Review were interested.

I cannot praise our faculty advisor, John E. Fenton, Jr., highly enough.  In addition to the invaluable guidance he provided the Law Review, he was a beloved professor, who went on to become Dean of the Law School and eventually Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Land Court.  His father was also a great man and served as President of the law school in the early 1970s, when I was there.

Richard S. Goldman

Editor-in-Chief, Volume VIII (1973-1974)

By the fall of 1973, the Law Review offices had grown to include two rooms, an office for the editor in chief, managing editor and the secretary, Maureen Lonergan; and, a larger board room arranged to accommodate meetings between the editors and staff, and production of the review.  Professor John Fenton continued as the faculty advisor to the Law Review, and, we enjoyed the exciting leadership of our new (and now legendary) Dean of the law school, David J. Sargent.  There was a strong bond of intellectual curiosity and camaraderie among the editorial board, committed to managing every detail to enhance the tradition of excellence that had begun with the efforts of Professor Richard Vacco in 1966.  Volume VIII of the Law Review consisted of four (4) issues, including the fifth Annual Review of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Winter, 1974, Number 2).  The issue selected thirty five (35) of the more than one hundred fifty (150) published decisions for the term (September 1, 1972 – August 31, 1973) for analysis and comment.  In an effort to expand the reach and influence of the law school and the Law Review, the editors of Volume VIII introduced the first Annual Review of Rhode Island Law.  At that time, a significant portion of the law school student body came from Rhode Island, and there was no law school in Rhode Island.  The Annual Review of Rhode Island law provided an opportunity for students to write about legal issues in their home state, and develop greater access to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island and recognition within the Rhode Island bar.  Richard Gonnella was the first editor of the Rhode Island review and convinced the Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court to write the initial dedication.  Another goal of the Editorial Board of Volume VIII was to provide great opportunity for evening school students to participate in law review.  Members of the evening school program brought great talent and professional experience to the Law Review.  The contributions were significant, and in fact, John G. Martin, an evening student, was elected to serve as Editor in Chief of Volume IX.

Finally, perhaps our most significant contribution to the law school is Professor Karen M. Blum, an extraordinary Note Editor for Volume VIII, who continues to serve the law school as a most respected and extraordinary professor.

Joseph J. Lambert

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XVII (1982-1983)

This was a long time ago, about 175 dog years ago; and in just writing that I realized that the end of my tenure as Editor in Chief is now at its 25th anniversary. “Time flies” is one of the most common clichés and the years have taught me why . . . A lot of water has passed under the bridge, and since I spend most of my time in the air flying to various places around the world I have either a lot of time to reflect or none at all; here’s some thoughts and highlights of my year as Editor-in-Chief.

My first thought is about a man who others participating in this project have mentioned.  That is Professor Alexander Cella, who was the faculty advisor to the Law Review and one of the finest men I have ever known.  He let us take chances, never interfered with decisions on articles or editorial content, but he was a soft voice of reason if you needed help or advice.  He didn’t pretend to know the answers in advance.  He worked with us very closely to find good answers, settle disputes, calm us down.  I became very close to him; his force of personality was one that relied on quiet reason, not bluster or bull.

The biggest thrill was moving into brand new offices.  Prior to our year, the Law Review was in, I believe, one large office with a number of first come first serve desks, I think with the exception of the three top editors who had their own.  But that summer the build out of new office space was completed at the top of the step landing that led into the law library.  The old law library in a building whose name I don’t now know.  It was just the “Law School,” the whole law school.  It moved a few years later into a much larger and impressive building but I always liked the cozy feel of the old one.

But I digress.  WE HAD OUR OWN OFFICES.  There was a white door with a name plate that said “Joseph J. Lambert, Editor-in-Chief”, and inside was a desk and pens and a swivel chair.  I came from a family of 8 kids.  I had never in my life had so much room to call my own.  The Executive Editor and Production Editor had their own offices also and all the others had dedicated desks with all the tools of the trade, and the office doors were never shut; we ran it like one big open space (except during an editorial session with a writer) and boy did that space empower us.  We were not the slovenly kids who published a little review; we were now titans, entrusted with these new offices to create a more impressive, more often cited and generally better, more scholarly, and better looking Law Review.  And I will say we spent a lot of time in those offices, begging “famous” names to write book reviews and serious scholarly title pieces, and we worked at that relentlessly.  And we wrote our own pieces and had the temerity to edit those written by students one year behind us, but we did it with verve and confidence and dedication.  And we also hung out a lot, talked a lot of deep stuff, i.e., opinionated prattle, these were the Reagan years and some of us loved him and some were still in shock that he was truly the President, just could not accept it, an actor, a sieve, a small minded minion of other rich and powerful men, but he was transforming the country before our eyes and we were too young to know just how deep that was and still is, though it may now be displaced by another transformative figure.  We also drank a lot of beer at the Red Hat, but never before 11PM.  It was our nightly hang out after all that exhausting chatter; and, to be serious, exhausting editing – we were so dedicated to getting it right – and of course our school work.  OK, it was third year but there were outlines that had to be read!

For most of us, it was the first independent responsibility to produce something significant beyond grades and cleanly raked lawns and we took it very seriously.  I remember whenever a new volume came out everyone would gather and I would cut the plastic and the rope that held them together and then hold one up in the air.  In a way we were in awe that we could be responsible for printing anything at all, no less something that looked so impressive; and we had some fine authors, a tough job back then when Suffolk did not have the reputation it does now.  This was before PCs and the internet and self-publishing, this was serious stuff and to be published was to be validated.  And we turned out four good volumes, together, with a lot of fun, with a lot of hard work and lot of pride.  I have not thought about those days for a long, long time – as I say 175 dog years – life goes fast, you graduate and you are off to the races:  jobs, better jobs, families of birth, families of choice, loved ones, grief, happiness, life.  The Law Review had receded in my memories but I look back now with a great deal of pride that we, together, not me for sure, but all of us worked collaboratively to put together the best book we could; and it made us proud and confident because we had published scholarly volumes that would be in libraries, court rooms, government offices, and the like.  It made us grown-ups.  And we learned a lot, not least of which was the juggling of many demands; some of us were married (not me, that was years later); a handful had kids; some had sick parents; some took “real” courses; many had part time jobs; all of us had marks to get that had to be good.  And yet we published.  And in that act was pure pride.

Frank M. Baglione

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XXII (1987-1988)

When I was elected Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review in 1987, Suffolk was experiencing tremendous growth and its students were increasingly being hired by the best law firms in Boston and being offered federal and state judicial clerkships.  The goal of our Editorial Board was to increase our profile in the legal community by soliciting articles by prominent figures in the judiciary and in law schools.

Our chief tool for this goal was the Donahue lectures.  As a Boston law school, the legal opinion in our articles had traditionally reflected the political culture of the state.  To balance views on several major legal issues, we invited legal scholars who advocated minority views on privacy/abortion rights, affirmative action, and other issues.  As was the practice, these scholars from prominent legal institutions then wrote articles for the Law Review.

In shifting the tone and emphasizing academic analysis of issues, we were fortunate to have the late Professor Al Cella as our Faculty Advisor.  Professor Cella was very active and supportive of our efforts.  He helped the Board evaluate the credentials and quality of the lecturers and articles, and personally contacted those scholars we were particularly interested in attracting to the series.  Professor Cella, as many know, was a former member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives who counted among his staff a young Michael Dukakis.  Dukakis later was governor of Massachusetts and in 1988 he was the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

We did feel we should produce material in all areas, including Book Reviews, a difficult task handled by a capable Book Review Editor, Jeff Tocchio.  We also maintained the vigorous cite checking of articles, the heavy footnoting of student produced notes and comments, and close editing of all work, including frequent editorial review and revision of work with both outside authors and student writers.  These standards were handed down to us by previous editorial boards and we worked diligently to maintain these standards and insure that we issued each book on schedule.

I am sure that our experience was similar to other boards in that we shared a strong sense of purpose and dedication to the university and to the profession we were entering, developed close personal relationships, and enjoyed the support and encouragement of an excellent faculty.  As the founding editor of the review has pointed out in his remarks, it was important for Suffolk to have a law review and for each successive board to advance the work and reputation of that journal.

Maureen C. Bessette

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XXIII (1988-1989)

When I became Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review in 1988, the Law Review was running smoothly in large part because all of the prior work and templates created by our predecessors.  Frank Baglione and the late Professor Al Cella, our advisor, provided enormous amounts of sage advice and assistance with everything from running the Review to selecting the next year Donahue lecturers.  We brought in new computers and furniture to modernize the office and facilitate our efforts and worked to make sure that our articles along with outside articles were carefully and diligently reviewed, cite checked and published on time.
Robert F. Fitzpatrick, Jr.

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XXVI (1991-1992)

The Law Review is a window through which Suffolk University Law School is viewed by many.  It flourished on the watch of Professor Alexander J. Cella; Deans David Sargent, John Fenton and Malcom Donahue provided important support.  Many excellent volunteer student leaders provided intellectual horsepower and helped to make it go including Gerry McDonough, Trish DiRuggiero, Brenna Beretta, John Keenan, Maura Folan and Liz McGlynn, to name a few.  The Law Review welcomed top flight speakers and writers including Cass Sunstein and Hon. Patricia Wald.  (Bruce Ackerman somehow eluded our grasp.)   The Editorial Board and Staff took seriously the obligation to publish timely and worked hard to meet publication goals.  The task at times was laborious and stressful, but publication, coupled with learning and fun of the shared experience provided ample reward.
Matthew S. Tisdale

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XXXVIII (2003-2004)

The Editorial Board and Staff of Volume 38 were the beneficiaries of the hard work and dedication of the two previous Boards, which set out to bring the Law Review back on schedule, allowing us to successfully publish four volumes of the journal in a timely fashion.  The Law Reviewcompleted work on a special edition of the journal in conjunction with the “Closely-Held Business Symposium:  The Uniform Limited Partnership Act,” which was directed by Professor Carter Bishop.  We also performed the editorial review of the articles for another symposium edition correlating with “Beyond Prosecution:  Sexual Abuse Victim’s Rights in Theory and Practice Symposium” which was hosted at Suffolk in April of 2004 by Professors Jeffrey Pokorak and Ilene Seidman.Since we were on schedule with our journals, the Editorial Board was able to focus on other matters.  We reinstituted an award to be given to a faculty member or administrator whose commitment to the Law Review was commendable, and the award was bestowed upon the recipient at the annual Law Review Awards Banquet.  The award was named the Alexander J. Cella Memorial Award, in honor of the late Professor Cella’s significant contributions to the Law Review, and the Editorial Board presented it to Professor Anthony P. Polito.  Using existing money in our budget, we purchased new furniture and a new refrigerator for the Law Review office.  A majority of Law Review members volunteered at the annual Dana Farber/Jimmy Fund Walk.  We completed a searchable Law Review alumni database, which would allow members the ability to contact prior Law Review members to assist in job searches and networking.  Also during my tenure, I revised the Editor-in-Chief “Handbook,” with the goal of making it more current and more of a reference for my successors.The Donahue Lectures which took place that year were given by Mr. Charles I. Kingson, Professor Joanne I. Gabrynowicz, and Professor William T. Allen, who had been selected by my predecessor, Tom Rankin.  During the 2003-2004 academic year I was able to secure three outstanding lecturers for the following 2004-2005 academic year:  Professor Jack M. Balkin, the Honorable Rosemary Barkett, and Professor Charles R. Lawrence III.  Being a member of the Law Review was one of the more rewarding experiences of my law school career, and I was proud to have served with such an outstanding group of Editors and Staff Members on Volume 38.
James M. Fraser

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XXXIX (2004-2005)

The Editorial Board and Staff of Volume 39 were in a very good position when we assumed responsibility for the Law Review.  After a period of back log, our predecessors left us with a clean slate—we were able to focus on the upcoming publications without simultaneously trying to catch up on books from the prior year.  This enabled us to focus on several key initiatives.

First, we were able to expedite the publication of case comments to less than a year from the date of decision.  This allowed us to offer timely analysis of important cases in advance of many other journals.  Second, we completely redesigned the Law Review website so that it was consistent with the law school’s website, reflected the quality of the journal, and was more functional in terms of design and the information it provided.  As part of the redesign, we also began publishing the journal online to increase its visibility.  Third, we implemented the law review alumni database and made it available online.  This project was largely undertaken by the prior Editorial Board, and we were able to see it through to completion.  Finally, we continued the tradition set in the prior year of publishing all four books in a timely manner.  It still amazes me how hard everyone worked to make that happen, all while job hunting, maintaining our academics, and hopefully having a good time.  The dedication and collegiality of each and every member of the Law Review is impressive, and it is with good reason that the legal profession looks so favorably upon law students with journal experience.

Michael C. Moran

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XXXIX (2005-2006)

My class’s year leading the Law Review was particularly special, because it marked the Law Review’s 40th year, which happened to coincide with the Law School’s Centennial.  We celebrated the occasion by inviting past Editors in Chief to the annual banquet.  Many of them attended and we had a wonderful evening.  Professor Vacco spoke of his experience as the Law Review‘s first Editor in Chief, and noted how far the organization has come.  We honored Professor Fenton by giving him the Professor Cella award, which the Law Review gives each year to a professor or administrator who has made great contributions to the organization.  Professor Fenton spoke of his memories of Professor Cella and the Law Review.

Our goal during the year was to produce a quality journal, and to find ways to expedite the process.  We also emphasized the importance of appreciating the process, the skills gained, and the people we worked with.  We received great support from the Law Review’s longtime advisors, Professor Blum and Professor McJohn, as well as the administration.  We also acted on the Law Review’s goal to arrange for a non-lawyer to deliver a Donahue Lecture, which led to the Donahue Lecture by Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, thanks to her connection with Professor Landers.

Most of my closest friends from Law School are from the Law Review.  There’s not a doubt in my mind that my time on the Law Review made me a better writer, and a better lawyer.

Joseph M. Cacace

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XLI (2007-2008)

The Volume 41 editorial board set out to improve the journal’s reputation and increase its visibility, while also working more collaboratively with the wider Suffolk and Boston legal communities.  We took a strong first step in that direction in April 2008 when we cosponsored The Roberts Court:  A New Jurisprudential Era? with the Center for Advanced Legal Studies, the Boston Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.  Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times delivered a luncheon Donahue Lecture, followed by panel discussions featuring Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, and Suffolk Law professors Michael Avery, Karen Blum, Stephen Callahan, Victoria Dodd, Renée M. Landers, and Miguel Schor.  This program generated high-quality articles and essays to be published in Volume 42.We also reinstated the First Circuit Review with the help of our predecessors on the Volume 40 editorial board.  We designed the First Circuit Review to keep jurists, practioners, scholars, and students apprised of recent development in the jurisprudence of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  Finally, recognizing that symposia are vital to increasing a law journal’s visibility, we endeavored to make symposium issues one of the journal’s regular features.  With the assistance of Professor David C. Yamada, we published a symposium entitled The Employment and Labor Law Professor as Public Intellectual:  Sharing our Work with the World.  With the help of Professors Carter G. Bishop and Robert Keatinge, we arranged for another symposium issue to be published in Volume 42, which will focus on the developments in the law of limited liability companies.By the end of our tenure, we had taken a few small steps toward improving the journal’s reputation and increasing its visibility, while working more collaboratively with the Suffolk and Boston legal communities.  We are confident that our successors will continue in this direction with even greater success and we eagerly await the fruits of their labor.
Pablo Javier Man

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XLII (2008-2009)

Building on the efforts of our predecessors, our Editorial Board sought not only to improve the quality of the pieces we published, but also to have an active role in the legal conversations taking place nationally.  To that end, the Volume 42 Editorial Board took steps to improve its online presence, transforming our website from a passive space into a classroom that provides free access to scholarly resources in various media.  For example, the new Donahue Lecture Archive allows any person to explore a wide range of legal issues by reading articles and listening to lectures from prestigious scholars and jurists.  Further, recognizing that the publication process is slow and that academic conversations move at a faster rate, we designed a pre-print page to facilitate quick access to complete copies of the latest submissions.  We also started this long-term project to learn more about the history of our journal, asking former Editors-in-Chief to write about recollections of their time on the Law Review.  We were very thankful to receive many submissions.The steps that prior Boards took to improve the journal have shaped the Law Review today, and it has been interesting to read and learn about the history of our journal.  We hope that this project will continue with future Boards.  Lastly, we did not neglect the efforts of Volume 41 and others who recognized the crucial role of symposia in journal scholarship.  Accordingly, we published the LLC Symposium, a symposium on legal outsiders in American film, and procured articles for a symposium on the current economic crisis, to be published in Volume 43.  Overall, we worked hard but also had fun as a group, learning from each other, talking politics, law and sometimes nonsense, and forwarding each other the latest news by e-mail.  We sought to continue the efforts of past Boards while launching new projects to elevate our prestige as a relevant journal.  We know that future Boards will continue to improve the journal, and we look forward to seeing those developments take shape.
Lauren P. Gearty

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XLIII (2009-2010)

In an effort to increase readership and garner potential citations, Volume 43’s Editorial Board developed two symposia for publication in Volume 44.  The first, “States in the Vanguard: Protecting Consumers During the Financial Crisis” contains articles addressing predatory lending, credit availability, housing code enforcement, and other pertinent issues facing consumers.  The second symposium features papers concerning Massachusetts constitutional law issues, including a piece by former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Herbert P. Wilkins.  Also, our Board endeavored to take advantage of social media outlets and increase the Law Review’s visibility online.  To that end, we created LinkedIn and Facebook pages for the Law Review, published our articles on various blogs, published forthcoming pieces on the pre-prints page, and created a 2009-2010 Donahue Lecturer page on the website.However, our year in the Law Review suite was not only about hard work, but was also marked by interesting conversation and social activity, which fostered a productive and friendly relationship among the Editorial Board and the Staff.  Some memorable times include Wednesday night trivia at Kinsale, celebrations upon the completion of books, volunteering at the Jimmy Fund Cancer Walk, and late afternoon coffee breaks while studying for finals and the bar exam.  We are very proud of our contributions to the journal as the Editorial Board of Volume 43 of the Suffolk University Law Review.  Our board believes that we made great contributions to the visibility, prestige, and quality of the journal, and in the process created friendships and bonds that will endure throughout our legal careers.  We are confident that future boards will continue to build upon this foundation in new and innovative ways, and we look forward to witnessing the future success of the journal.
Tyler L. Sparrow

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XLIV (2010-2011)

The Volume 44 Editorial Board began the year with great enthusiasm and participation from all, contributing to an extremely productive fall semester.  Our group of students bonded very quickly, through such formal activities as volunteering with Cradles to Crayons and the Jimmy Fund Cancer Walk, as well as through informal gatherings in the Law Review suite and book parties at Four Green Fields.  One of our goals for the year was to continue to produce an extremely high quality product, while also encouraging a friendly, collegial, and open environment within the suite.  I am happy to say that we accomplished both of these goals with ease.We were very fortunate to host three distinguished Donahue Lecturers, each of whom delivered an interesting and thought provoking lecture and lead article.  Our 2010-2011 Donahue Lecture Series consisted of Chief Justice Herbert P. Wilkins, Professor Philip C. Bobbitt, and Professor Lawrence Lessig.  In addition to hosting another successful Donahue Lecture Series, the Law Review was fortunate enough to co-host Contract as Promise at 30:  The Future of Contract Theory with the Center for Advanced Legal Studies. The symposium celebrated Professor Charles Fried’s Contract as Promise, the seminal work on the moral justification for the state’s enforcement of private promises, with discussions by numerous prominent scholars, including Professor Fried himself.During our year in the Law Review suite, we continued to receive wonderful mentorship from our two advisors, Dean Karen Blum and Professor Stephen McJohn.  We were also very happy to present the Alexander J. Cella Memorial Award to Professor Jessica Silbey, in recognition of her continued dedication to furthering the mission of the Law Review.  It bears noting that there were many professors deserving of recognition for their support of the Law Review, and we certainly wished that we were able to honor them all, though we remain confident that they needed little else than our heartfelt thanks.

My year as Editor-in-Chief of the Suffolk University Law Review was one of the most challenging and rewarding years of my life.  I am proud to say that we succeeded in our goal of producing a top notch product, while maintaining a friendly and collegial environment throughout the year.  It was a great honor and a privilege to serve with such a talented and spirited group of fellow editors and staff members on the Suffolk University Law Review Volume 44.

Kevin C. Adam

Editor-in-Chief, Volume XLV (2011-2012)

Volume 45 was truly a collaborative effort. From the outset, the Editorial Board sought to strike a balance between respecting the traditional framework of the Law Review, while also introducing new and creative ideas to the production process. To accomplish our goals of improving the Law Review’s visibility on campus, securing new and interesting lead articles, and improving our approach to the production process, we needed an all-hands-on-deck commitment. Fortunately, our Editorial Board was comprised of a number of energetic, intelligent, committed, and genuine individuals. As Editor-in-Chief, my approach was relatively simple—get as many of these fantastic people involved as possible.With the help of our Production Editor, Pat McDonough, we streamlined our production process by systematically staggering our lead articles, student notes, and symposium pieces in a manner that allowed for our Articles Editors and Front Office members to work on upcoming volumes from the start of the semester. In the end, it was Pat’s production schedule, and the hard work of our staff, that helped us meet our production goals consistently throughout the year. Additionally, Pat was always there for me, as co-Editor-in-Chief of sorts. I do not remember a time when I made a difficult decision without first sitting down with Pat to get his input.

Although Pat’s production schedule was the key to staying on track, it was our Associate Production Editor, Cole Heyer, who successfully implemented it, all while planning the Law Review’s involvement with local charitable organizations, such as Cradles to Crayons. In addition to volunteering, the Law Review also enjoyed a number of social events, such as our book parties and the Honor Ball. With the help of our Executive Editor, Sheena Knox (and the occasional guidance of Chris Sweeney and Zach Golden), these events were always well-attended and entertaining. Additionally, Sheena made her voice heard on campus regarding diversity on the Law Review, hosting a number of events for the school’s minority groups throughout the year.

Our Editorial Board also sought to improve the Law Review’s visibility on campus. With the help of our Lead Articles Editor, Peter Gelzinis, the Law Review hosted successful lectures by Rosalie Berger Levinson and Nancy E. Dowd as part of the Donahue Lecture Series, while also securing four fantastic lecturers for the upcoming year. Peter also played a major role in producing Volume 45, Book 3, a symposium edition titled “Contract as Promise at 30.” The symposium edition is comprised of sixteen articles written by a number of the country’s top contracts scholars, and is likely to generate considerable attention in the academic community. I owe a special thank you to Professor Jeffery Lipshaw, who coordinated the symposium edition, worked with a number of the authors, and contributed personally by writing the introduction.

In addition to securing interesting lead articles, the Editorial Board also attempted to focus more attention on our student notes. With the help of our Associate Executive Editor, Elizabeth Burke, staff members were able to spend more time developing their note topics early in the semester. Liz’s guidance throughout the note-writing process was invaluable and her infectious personality was truly appreciated. From baking cookies for the staff, to placing plants around the suite, Liz was always there to light up the room with her extraordinary personality, which served to welcome new staff members at the start of the year. Our focus on the staff, however, was not limited to the Front Office; our Note and Articles Editors also offered their experience and advice to help guide new staff members through the note-writing process. A notable example was Mark Higgins, who went out of his way to develop a personalized note-writing plan for one of his third-year editees, as means of ensuring that she was able to publish her note in a book that included her name on the masthead. Throughout the year, it was this type of extra effort that made our Editorial Board unique.

And last but not least, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Managing Department of Volume 45. Simply stated, Tom Fulford and Tom McIntrye (the Toms) saved the day. From the start of the year, they were relentless. Whether they were handling multiple page proofs for two or three Books at once, or visiting off-campus libraries to find the correct publishing date for a book, the Managing Department never took its foot off the gas. In the end, it was their tireless work ethic that enabled us to reach our production goals. The days I spent working closely with the Toms to edit and finalize the page proofs of our books are some of the fondest memories of my time as Editor-in-Chief.

As a group, the Editorial Board of Volume 45, our faculty advisors, Dean Blum and Professor McJohn, and our editorial assistant, Rosa Puello, were a fantastic group of individuals to work with. I am forever grateful for the friendships I made while I was member of the Law Review, and I wish each staff member the best in their future endeavors.