Ouch!

A few months ago I submitted a paper I wrote on development exactions to a writing contest. I didn't win. I contacted the writing contest director and asked if they would be willing to show me the scoring card or the judges comments so I could see what needed improving. The director was really nice, she said that my paper was well received and encouraged me to tweak the paper a tad and submit it to law reviews. She also forwarded the judges comments...

Judge #1:

The judge liked the article, and felt it was well written. He said it looks like it may have already been published as a case note. "Well written; some editing need[ed]. Author should be strongly encouraged to cite to applicable law review articles.

OK, this is the kind of criticism I like!

Judge #2:

Extremely well written, with only cosmetic flaws and some small errors. Shows thorough understanding of the cases, takes a strong and well researched opinion; clear; doesn't rely too heavily on quotes. Concise, best paper I've seen so far.

Ha Ha! Yes. They love me. I am the second coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Judge #3:

Section on conceptual severance seems gratuitous and doesn't cite to source literature.

Fair criticism. I'll take note and make improvements.

Judge #4:

This article lacks focus, the intro & "short" history of regulatory takings make up most of the article. The article is full of broad statements that are not explained and don't have citations; theories that are not tied to the issue (e.g., "conceptual severance"); & a mish-mash of takings theories. The author ignored the second part of the question and doesn't seem to understand the significance of the procedural positioning of a case or the basis for some court holdings.

YEOW! I think I am going to cry now. :-(

In case any of you are interested in what my paper might have looked like if I "understood the significance of the procedural positioning of a case or the basis for some court holdings" the winning papers can be found on Pacific Legal's website.