Agenda

1. Agenda • Masthead • What’s coming up? • Plagiarism expectations • CS hour system tutorial • Feedback Folder tutorial • Bluebook, CMOS and AC notes • “Super Staffers!” • Announcements • October Staff Meeting – October 15, 2014 • October social event (date TBD)

2. Masthead • Sheet is being passed around the room right now • Please specify how you would like your name to appear on the masthead

3. What’s coming up? • Issue 2 ACs • Scheduled to begin within the next two weeks • Issue 3 ACs • Scheduled to begin end of October • Long Paper Deadlines • October 1: First draft due to your long paper editor (by email) • November 1: Final draft due (submission details TBA)

4. Plagiarism • Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited • Law Review Consequences • Loss of long paper credit • Loss of credit • Expulsion from law review • Referral to the Dean • William Mitchell College of Law Consequences

5. What is Plagiarism? Source: http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism

6. Plagiarism Examples Original Plagiarism 1 Plagiarism 2 Plagiarism Plagiarism 5 3 4 Plagiarism Not Plagiarism 6 7 Not Plagiarism

7. Plagiarism Examples Original 1 Plagiarism 2 Plagiarism Not Plagiarism 3 Plagiarism 4 Not Plagiarism 5

8. Plagiarism Final Thoughts • Don’t plagiarize! • Review Sections 11 and 12 of the College Handbook • When in doubt: • Consult a friend, colleague, professor, librarian or board member • Err on the side of caution and add a citation/quotation marks/etc.

9. Recording CS Hours Hours must be recorded online through your Student Records page Instructions:

10. Feedback Folder • GOAL: Opportunity for you to see if your changes and comments were accepted by the editor • Process: • Everyone will receive an email invitation to join Dropbox after the staff meeting today. Please sign up and join. • Editors will upload post-AC2 and post-Proof versions of each article to the Dropbox “Feedback Folder” • You may open and read the articles to check your work (Note: please do not make any changes to the articles).

11. Bluebook, CMOS and AC Notes Points of focus for today: • Hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes • When to comment vs. when to make the change • Order of signals • Short cites for cases

12. Hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes Read page 52 of the Staff Manual for a quick refresher • Hyphens (CMOS 6.76–6.77): Hyphens are used: • in compound words (e.g., twenty-one) • to separate numbers that are not inclusive (e.g., 651-555-5555) • to separate letters when a word is spelled out (e.g., C-A-T) • En-Dashes (CMOS 6.78): The en-dash is used primarily to connect ranges of numbers (e.g, 654–59). • Em-Dashes (CMOS 6.82–6.89): The em-dash is the most commonly used dash; it can be used to amplify, explain or set off a phrase in the middle of a sentence. • E.g., The evidence was enough—on its own—to convince the judge. - – —

13. Hyphen, en-dash, or em-dash? Sicoli v. Rochat, 343 N.W.2d 748, 756__59 (Minn. 1989). • En-dash: Sicoli v. Rochat, 343 N.W.2d 748, 756–59 (Minn. 1989). Sicoli’s friend was twenty__seven years old. • Hyphen:Sicoli’s friend was twenty-seven years old. Rochat responded with a harsh gesture__one that Sicoli would not soon forget. • Em-dash:Rochat responded with a harsh gesture—one that Sicoli would not soon forget.

14. To comment, or not to comment, that is the question. Chief Justice John Marshall played a pivotal role in the development of Federal Indian Law by deciding to treat an Indian tribe as a “domestic community” instead of a foreign community.25 25See Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832). The quoted language and support for the text is on 583, not 584. Should the staffer have left a comment or made the change?

15. Citing a Bluebook Rule Pre-AC 159 See Cronenv. Radaj, 442 N.W.2d 758, 759–62 (Minn. 2011). Post-AC Italicized the “See” per BB R. 2.1(d). 159See Cronenv. Radaj, 442 N.W.2d 758, 759–62 (Minn. 2011). Was it appropriate to leave a comment citing the applicable Bluebook rule? When is it appropriate to provide a Bluebook cite?

16. Order of Signals Pre-AC 1 29See Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832); e.g., Carcieriv. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009); but seeStratev. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); U.S. Const. art. I, § 9. Post BB R 1.3 • 29E.g., Carcieriv. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009); seeWorcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832). But seeStratev. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); U.S. Const. art. I, § 9. Post BB R. 1.4 • 29E.g., Carcieriv. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009); seeWorcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832). But see U.S. Const. art. I, § 9; Stratev. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).

17. Special short form for case cites In Peterson v. Kieselbach, the Court decided that Peterson did have an ERISA claim against the defendant.10 10 100 U.S. 100, 101–09 (2013). Is this correct? Yes. R 10.9(a)(i): “Omit the case name . . . only if the reader will have no doubt about the case to which the citation refers.” • The Court reversed Judge Posner’s decision in Peterson v. Kieselbach, but upheld it in Ervin v. Wheeler.10 10 100 U.S. 100, 101–09 (2013). Is this correct? No. There is “doubt about the case to which the citation refers.”

18. Super Staffers! Jacob Abdo • “Jacob went above & beyond the call of duty in both an AC1 and a Proof1. He went the extra mile to supply some statutory research that the author had left as something to fill in later that likely would have landed on the editor & EE's plates if not added so early during the AC process.” • “He identified a bluebook ambiguity that we are including in staff training and may consider adding to our local rules (dropping case name in a short form when the case is cited within the text).” • James Schoeberl • Received a 5 on an AC

19. Announcements • Next Staff Meeting – October 15, 2014 • October Social Event (date TBD)