And then there is the advice I hear. Call anyone you know who teaches at the school considering your article and tell them to call the law review editors to say how great your article is. In fact, and this was a new one to me, have professors who are not at that school send letters of recommendation.
The weird thing is this. Having witnessed people play this game to the point of absurdity, the same people then turn around and take the results seriously. It's like feeling proud about the A you got on a math test that you cheated on. Never underestimate the powers of rationalization.
Here is your moneylaw law review. All submission are anonymous. All credentials deleted as are all acknowledgements. Any outside testimonials mean the article is immediately dropped from consideration. I would say peer review and no multiple submissions but there are probably not enough peers to evaluate thousands of articles and in an authors' market a review that said no multiple submission might not get any. Plus, if the peers are as reliable as those who supply letters in the tenure review letter market, that does not get us anywhere. And, let's admit it: many law professors would apply a political litmus test rather than assess the quality of the work (in fact, for some the difference does not exist) The point is not that all or even most law professors would be lousy at peer review but that the risks are high and who reviews the reviewers? Maybe it's best to stay with the students.
One thing is certain, given what we know about the determinants of law reveiw placement, no moneylaw school would take them seriously, even if their authors do.