I have devoted large gobs of time to work on a multi-author treatise on the law of evidence.' And before even one volume is published, I will devote further multiple gobs of time to the project-which, perhaps audaciously and perhaps merely foolishly, but with heredity and precedent on our side,2 we are calling The New Wigmore. Accordingly, I found the question posed by this symposium-Does Evidence Law Matter?-rather disquieting. If it is doubtful even whether the law of evidence matters, then how much can a treatise on the law of evidence matter, and how worthwhile can such a work be? Luckily (but not surprisingly, I suppose, for I have considerable sunk cost), I have resolved my fears. Yes, I believe that evidentiary law does matter, at least some of the time. What is more, an evidentiary treatise might make a difference even when in some sense the law does not.
Friedman, Richard D. "Evidentiary Rules and Rulings: The Role of Treatises." Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 25 (1992): 885-92.