Page 91 - The First Fifty Years

Do Not Delete 1/8/2015 10:15 AM

CENTERED 85

Perhaps no change was bigger in Decade 3 than the
watershed decision by Board 21 to allow part-time students
membership on the Review for the first time.26 By no coincidence,
membership numbers on the Review began to grow as the decade
progressed, increasing from 39 on Board 21 to 48 by Board 25,27
when HLR celebrated its 25th Anniversary.28 By Board 30’s
arrival, 35 3L editors were on the masthead.29

Board 21 also brought about the resurrection of the Houston
Law Review Alumni Association (HLRAA). As initially
reconstituted, one of the primary purposes of HLRAA was to
coordinate the creation of a summer scholarship program, which
debuted in 1984.30 The fund’s purpose was “[c]ompensation for
editors with summer work restrictions”: those editors who
forewent summer work with law firms in favor of editing in the
basement would be compensated for their service.31 Initial pay
amounted to slightly more than a few hundred dollars per week,
funded in part by familiar donors: Vinson & Elkins, Baker Botts,
Fulbright & Jaworski, Mayor Day, Weil Gotshal, and more.32 To
facilitate cooperation between HLRAA, local law firms, and the
Review, the position of Alumni Developments Editor was created
as a liaison by Board 22.33

A number of important developments also were underway on
the notes and comments side of the Review. HLR’s student
editors implemented structural mechanisms throughout Decade
3 to increase writing efficiency and article quality among the 2L
members. To stay abreast of recent and relevant developments in
law, the position of Legal Developments Editor was instituted by
Board 20 and remained in place throughout the next eight years
to assist second-year students in the selection of their paper
topics.34 By Board 24, the editors had initiated revised writing
procedures to include strict requirements: (1) topic proposals
(taking full advantage of the Legal Developments Editor’s
talents); (2) an initial outline; (3) a first draft; and (4) the final
draft.35 And just in case any student strayed from the deadlines,
additional penalties were levied to avoid tardiness in
submission.36 Overall, the changes proved to be effective and
long-lasting, as the same basic note and comment publication
procedure remains intact to this day.

Technology also began to play a more prominent role in the
Review’s logistics throughout the decade. HLR’s publisher
donated word-processing equipment to Board 21. This benefited
operations by “eliminat[ing] costs at the page and galley stages of
the publication process and cut[ting] down significantly on
turnaround time.”37 Of concern to Board 21’s Editor in Chief was