Sullivan on the Asterisk Footnote

I stumbled across this article the other day and learned a great deal.  The citation is:  Charles A. Sullivan, The Under-Theorized Asterisk Footnote, 93 Georgetown L. J. 1093 (2005).  Here is the abstract:

The asterisk footnote, although universally deployed in legal scholarship, has been equally universally ignored by the academy as a focus of scholarly interest. As I use the term, asterisk footnote refers to the note (usually, but not always, the first one) that, inter alia, identifies the author and (usually, but not always) is indicated by an asterisk. This footnote is used by every scholar but analyzed by none. This scholarly inattention is shocking given the remarkable growth and development of the asterisk footnote over the last 40 years. This Article is the first effort to address this gaping lacuna in scholarship. It is my hope (perhaps not my expectation) that it will launch a wave of asteriskian studies that will throw new light on the legal academy. 

In addition to tracing the history of the asterisk footnote from its origins in the primeval scholarly ooze to its present exalted status, the Article explores its significance for the legal academy on topics ranging from wholesale acknowledgements to dedications to pets. It also considers what light the asterisk footnote can throw on questions as diverse as the proper etiquette for tributes and the democratization of scholarship.

Sullivan's study of the asterisk footnote is the most thorough treatment of the subject I have ever seen.  He is not kidding when he says he will talk about dedications to pets, as he lists several examples of these dedications.  I was pleased to notice that one of the most peculiar of these footnotes was from a UCLA publication.  The footnote mentioned that "Robert Seibel and his wife own four llamas and an alpaca among their menagerie of pets."  (Robert F. Seibel, Do Deans Discriminate?: An Examination of Lower Salaries Paid to Women Clinical Teachers, 6 UCLA Women's L. J. 541).  This sentence followed dedications to people who had helped with the article and had no apparent connection to the subject matter.

Sullivan points out that sometimes authors go overboard in thanking people for support in the asterisk footnote, noting an extreme example where the authors mentioned "fifty-one named individuals, twenty-three conferences or workshops (in at least three countries), and thirty-four research assistants."  (citing Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, Fairness Versus Welfare, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 430 (2000)).  Eugene Volokh has raised the question of whether authors overinclude names in an attempt to persuade articles editors.

I had never even considered trying to impress articles editors with the asterisk footnote.  The most names I ever referenced in an asterisk footnote was seven.  The only professor I thanked in that list was added after the paper had been accepted (the acceptance added a bit of legitimacy to my request for advice on a zombie law paper).

I have yet to develop my own personal philosophy on asterisk footnotes, but I find The Green Bag's author note policy inspiring:

Gratitude to research assistants is nice.  Colleagues who make major contributions should share the by-line; those who help in small ways should be recognized in something printed by Hallmark, not the Green Bag.