Page 146 - The First Fifty Years

Do Not Delete 1/5/2015 4:05 PM

140 HOUSTON LAW REVIEW

http://archive.thedailycougar.com/vol61/87fubar2/4a.html.
35. As reconstructed by Shu and Sergesketter. E-mail from Shu to Joyce (Feb. 22,

2013), supra note 24.
36. E-mail from Shu to Joyce (Feb. 20, 2013), supra note 24.
37. The authors of these essays deny any connection between the editors of Houston

Law Review and the paranoid schizophrenics and enduring recurrent delusional episodes
of fictional characters in the 2001 movie bearing a similar name.

38. See Joyce & Hoffman, Centered, supra, at 98 n.51.
39. See id. at 89–90 (regarding Robert P. Schuwerk’s A Guide to the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct); id. at 93–94 (regarding Cathleen Cochran
Herasimchuk’s Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook (Second Edition)).
40. See Joyce & Hoffman, Boldly, supra, at 60 n.44 (regarding the current Board of
Directors’ instruction to student editors concerning book projects).
41. E-mail from Sergesketter to Joyce, supra note 24.
42. Except as noted otherwise, as for example where Board of Directors meeting
minutes are cited, all of the information contained in the following subsection is drawn
from either the Sergesketter-to-Joyce e-mail cited in note 24 or the personal recollections
of this essay’s senior co-author.
43. Sergesketter elaborates:

Given the stress level inherent in publishing a law review while the students
also were managing a full course load, clerkship interviews, Moot Court, and
part-time jobs, it was understandable that the law review office was not a
favorite place to spend any more than the bare minimum number of hours
required to fulfill one’s law review obligations. So we set out to make the law
review office a place where students enjoyed hanging out before, between,
after—and sometimes during—classes. While this may not have translated
directly into a higher-quality published product, it did make life on the Review
more enjoyable and fostered friendships that have lasted the better part of two
decades. In my opinion, and I expect in the opinion of many of my fellow law
review classmates, it is those lasting friendships that were the best thing to
come out of being on law review.

Id.
44. Sergesketter: “Nothing would have been more depressing than popping

Champagne on graduation night and then having to drag ourselves back to our basement
offices to work on the Review when we should have been backpacking through Europe.”
Id.

45. Although the entire process had been made considerably more efficient
previously by the introduction of word processing software and other more modern
technology during Decade 3. See Joyce & Hoffman, Centered, supra, at 85–86.

46. Nor did the new process inflict on editors nearly the stress that the “never
gonna happen” doubters had predicted. Two boards later, Board 34’s Managing Editor
could report: “[W]e published on time, every time—and had a lot of fun doing so.”
Questionnaire Response, Tony Buzbee, Buzbee Law Firm (Mar. 26, 2012) (on file with
Houston Law Review).

47. Board Report (Oct. 17, 1995) (on file with Houston Law Review).
48. Id.
49. Board Report (Apr. 2, 1996) (on file with Houston Law Review).
50. Board of Directors Meeting Minutes (Oct. 12, 1999) (on file with Houston Law
Review).
51. Board Report (Oct. 17, 2000) (on file with Houston Law Review).
52. Board Report (Apr. 10, 2001) (on file with Houston Law Review).
53. Board Report (Oct. 8, 1996) (on file with Houston Law Review).
54. Board Report (Apr. 11, 2000) (on file with Houston Law Review); Board Report
(Apr. 10, 2001) (on file with Houston Law Review). The articles were Lisa A. Dolak,