Monday, March 23, 2020

JOTWELL: Mulligan on Rubenstein on federal common law

The new Courts Law essay comes from Lumen Mulligan (Kansas), reviewing David. S. Rubenstein, Supremacy, Inc. (UCLA L. Rev., forthcoming), exploring the interaction among federal-contractor immunity, preemption, and federal common law.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 23, 2020 at 09:39 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 09, 2020

JOTWELL: Effron on Zambrano on discovery as regulation

The new Courts Law essay comes from Robin Effron (Brooklyn), reviewing Diego Zambrano, Discovery as Regulation (Mich. L. Rev., forthcoming 2020), which reframes discovery in private enforcement litigation not as a tool of litigation but as a form of public regulation.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 9, 2020 at 01:28 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 24, 2020

JOTWELL: Kalajdzic on Fitzpatrick on the conservative argument for class actions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Jasminka Kalajdzic (Windsor), reviewing Brian Fitzpatrick, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (2019). Brian gave a Fed Soc on the book at FIU last month.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 24, 2020 at 10:25 AM in Article Spotlight, Books, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 10, 2020

A Model of Constitutional Litigation

My new piece on universal injunctions has been published in Lewis & Clark Law Review. Precedent, Non-Universal Injunctions, and Judicial Departmentalism: A Model of Constitutional Litigation joins three threads that I have been writing and blogging about here--the requirement of particularized injunctions, the distinction between precedent and judgment, and a model of departmentalism in which all branches are bound by judgments but only courts are bound by judicial precedent. The result is a model of how constitutional litigation functions in fact and should function in our understanding.

Abstract after the jump.

This Article proposes a model of constitutional adjudication that offers a deeper, richer, and more accurate vision than the simple “courts strike down unconstitutional laws” narrative that pervades legal, popular, and political discourse around constitutional litigation. The model rests on five principles:

1) an actionable constitutional violation arises from the actual or threatened enforcement of an invalid law, not the existence of the law itself;

2) the remedy when a law is constitutionally invalid is for the court to halt enforcement;

3) remedies must be particularized to the parties to a case and courts should not issue “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions;

4) a judgment controls the parties to the case, while the court’s opinion creates precedent to resolve future cases; and

5) rather than judicial supremacy, federal courts operate on a model of “judicial departmentalism,” in which executive and legislative officials must abide by judgments in particular cases, but exercise independent interpretive authority as to constitutional meaning, even where those interpretations conflict with judicial understanding.

The synthesis of these five principles produces a constitutional system defined by the following features:

1) the judgment in one case declaring a law invalid prohibits enforcement of the law as to the parties to the case;

2) the challenged law remains on the books; and

3) the challenged law may be enforced against non-parties to the original case, but systemic and institutional incentives weigh against such enforcement efforts and push towards compliance with judicial understandings.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 10, 2020 at 07:15 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, February 08, 2020

JOTWELL: Steinman on Engstrom on Lone Pine Orders

The latest Courts Law essay comes from Adam Steinman (Alabama), reviewing Nora Freeman Engstrom, The Lessons of Lone Pine, 129 Yale L.J. 2 (2019), on the history and development of Lone Pine orders in mass-tort class actions.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 8, 2020 at 03:31 PM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Academic Feeder Judges

I have posted to SSRN the pre-submission draft of Academic Feeder Judges--a study of the federal judges (especially from courts of appeals) for whom law professors clerked at the beginning of their careers and who “produce” law professors from the ranks of their former clerks. Coming soon to a law-review mailbox near you.

Update: Karen Sloan at National Law Journal gave the piece a nice little write-up, as did Above the Law.

The abstract is after the jump. Spoiler alert above the jump: The leading academic feeder judge is Guido Calabresi (Second Circuit), followed by Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, died in 2018), Stephen Williams (D.C. Circuit), Dorothy Nelson (Ninth Circuit), Richard Posner (Seventh Circuit, resigned in 2018), and Harry Edwards (D.C. Circuit).

PermaPrawfs' former judges are well-represented in the top-101 (arbitrarily set at 8+ academic former clerks)--John Walker of the Second Circuit (Ethan), Patrick Higginbotham of the Fifth Circuit (Rick H.), Joseph Sneed of the Ninth Circuit, died in 2008 (Lyrissa), Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit (Dan), Raymond Randolph of the D.C. Circuit (Carissa), Calabresi (Gerard), and Jane Roth of the Third Circuit (me, as well as current guest Christine Chabot). Marsha Berzon of the Ninth Circuit (Steve), Richard Arnold of the Eighth CIrcuit (Rick G.), and Ed Carnes of the Eleventh Circuit (Paul) just missed the 8-prof line.

I wrote previously about the origins of the paper: Seven or eight years ago while helping with a reunion/portrait unveiling for Judge Roth, I noticed what seemed a lot of .edu addresses on the list of former clerks. I wondered how many of her former clerks went into teaching (13, it turned out, plus several in other disciplines), whether that was a lot or a little, and who among lower-court judges "produced" academics from among their former clerks. I finally got around to doing the study and writing the paper.

Comments welcome.

This paper identifies “academic feeder judges”—the federal judges (especially from courts of appeals) for whom law professors clerked at the beginning of their careers and the judges who “produce” law professors from the ranks of their former clerks. The study is based on a summer 2019 review of publicly available biographies and c.v.’s of full-time faculty at ABA-accredited law schools, identifying more than 3000 “academic former clerks” and the judges for whom each clerked. From this, the paper identifies 1) 101 lower federal judges with the most academic former clerks, 2) 52 federal trial judges, 3) 53 federal judges appointed since 1995, 4) top state-court judges, and 5) SCOTUS justices, current and past. For each judge within each grouping, the study examines appointing presidents, biographical information such as former career, numbers of academic former clerks, rankings of the schools at which former clerks teach, and a projection of how many academics newer judges might produce over a 35-year judicial career. The study closes with some comments and conclusions from the data. (Spoiler alert: The leading academic feeder judge is Guido Calabresi (Second Circuit), followed closely by Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, died in 2018), Stephen Williams (D.C. Circuit), and Dorothy Nelson (Ninth Circuit)).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 30, 2020 at 03:17 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

JOTWELL: Michalski on Copus on judicial attention

The new Courts Law essay comes from Roger Michalski (Oklahoma), reviewing Ryan Copus, Statistical Precedent: Allocating Judicial Attention (Vand. L. Rev., forthcoming), which considers ways to determine the types of cases that warrant judicial attention.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 21, 2020 at 08:15 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 09, 2020

JOTWELL: Malveaux on Burbank & Farhang on rights retrenchment

The new Courts Law essay comes from Suzette Malveaux (Colorado), reviewing Stephen B. Burbank & Sean Farhang, Rights and Retrenchment in the Trump Era, 87 Ford. L. Rev. 37 (2019), a follow-up to their 2017 book on the counter-revolution against federal litigation.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 9, 2020 at 11:15 AM in Article Spotlight, Books, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

JOTWELL: Pfander on Sohoni on universal injunctions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Jim Pfander (Northwestern-Pritzker), reviewing Mila Sohoni, The Lost History of the "Universal" Injunction, 133 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming), which shows the long SCOTUS practice of issuing universal injunctions (without calling them such).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on December 11, 2019 at 12:37 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, December 05, 2019

Another study shows handwriting > computers

New in the Journal of Legal Education, from Colleen Murphy and Christopher Ryan, Jr. of Roger Williams Law and Yajni Warnapala of the Roger Williams Mathematics Department. The study looks at performance in required 2L Con Law and Evidence courses at Roger Williams. It also contains a piece from Murphy's 1L Civ Pro class, showing that students who were given the option of using a laptop but were shown a memo describing the studies comparing handwriting with computer notetaking were more likely to elect not to use computers.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on December 5, 2019 at 06:45 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

JOTWELL: Azad on McAlister on unpublished dispositions

The new Courts Law essay is a guest submission from Ryan Azad (a clerk on the California Supreme Court), reviewing Megan McAlister, "Downright Indifference": Examining Unpublished Decisions in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 118 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (2019), arguing that unpublished opinions should at least explain the reasoning for the benefit of the (often pro se) litigants.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 27, 2019 at 10:55 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

JOTWELL: Tidmarsh on McGovern & Rubenstein on negotiation class actions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Jay Tidmarsh (Notre Dame), reviewing Francis E. McGovern & William B. Rubenstein, The Negotiation Class: A Cooperative Approach to Class Actions Involving Large Shareholders. The timing is perfect, because the Sixth Circuit just agreed to review the class certification decisions in the opioid litigation that followed the McGovern & Rubenstein approach.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 13, 2019 at 11:49 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

JOTWELL: Mullenix on Choi on class-action mega fees

The new Courts Law essay comes from Linda Mullenix (Texas), reviewing Stephen J. Choi, Jessica Erickson, and Adam C. Pritchard, Working Hard or Making Work? Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees in Securities Fraud Class Actions, which examines "mega fee" awards in class actions.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 30, 2019 at 11:36 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

JOTWELL: Bookman on new approaches to dispute resolution

The new Courts Law essay comes from Pamela Bookman (Fordham), reviewing Matthew Erie, The Emergent Landscape of International Commercial Dispute Resolution, ( Va. J. Int'l. L., forthcoming 2020) and Will Moon, Delaware's New Competition (Nw. U. L. Rev., forthcoming 2020), exploring new procedural mechanisms for handling business disputes in other countries.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 16, 2019 at 11:45 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 23, 2019

JOTWELL: Campos on Bartholomew on e-notice in class actions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Sergio Campos (Miami), reviewing Christine P. Bartholomew, E-Notice, 68 Duke L.J. 217 (2018), exploring the use (or non-use) of new technologies for providing notice in class actions.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 04, 2019

JOTWELL: Levy on Fisher and Larsen on virtual briefing

The new Courts Law essay comes from Marin Levy (Duke), reviewing Jeffrey L Fisher & Alli Orr Larsen, Virtual Briefing at the Supreme Court (Cornell L. Rev., forthcoming), exploring how online speech and writing affects SCOTUS decisionmaking.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 4, 2019 at 11:36 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 09, 2019

Lawyering Somewhere Between Computation and the Will to Act: The Last Outtake

I've now posted my summer project on SSRN (it's my contribution to the "Lawyering in the Digital Age" conference I mentioned earlier). The title has changed since I first posted a week or so ago - and that turns out to be one of last outtakes.  It's now Lawyering Somewhere Between Computation and the Will to Act: A Digital Age Reflection, with the following abstract:

This is a reflection on machine and human contributions to lawyering in the digital age. Increasingly capable machines can already unleash massive processing power on vast stores of discovery and research data to assess relevancies and, at times, to predict legal outcomes. At the same time, there is wide acceptance, at least among legal academics, of the conclusions from behavioral psychology that slow, deliberative “System 2” thinking (perhaps replicated computationally) needs to control the heuristics and biases to which fast, intuitive “System 1” thinking is prone. Together, those trends portend computational deliberation – artificial intelligence or machine learning – substituting for human thinking in more and more of a lawyer’s professional functions.

Yet, unlike machines, human lawyers are self-reproducing automata. They can perceive purposes and have a will to act that cannot be reduced to mere third-party scientific explanation. For all its power, computational intelligence is unlikely to evolve intuition, insight, creativity, and the will to change the objective world, characteristics as human as System 1 thinking’s heuristics and biases. We therefore need to be circumspect about the extent to which we privilege System 2-like deliberation (particularly that which can be replicated computationally) over uniquely human contributions to lawyering: those mixed blessings like persistence, passion, and the occasional compulsiveness.

The deleted title (before the colon) was Unsure at Any Speed, a bit of just-a-tad-too-clever wordplay on my part.

As you can see, the piece is an exploration of the upsides and downsides of, in Daniel Kahneman's coinage and book title, Thinking Fast and Slow.  My little joke was/is:
Over a forty-year professional career, in Kahneman’s lexicon, my thinking has been both fast and slow. What that really means is that often I was unsure at any speed. At the same time, I made binary “go/nogo” decisions in the face of complexity and uncertainty.

What I thought was really clever was the play on Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed, his classic 1965 takedown of the Chevy Corvair. One of my reader/editor/commenter/friends, clearly far too young to catch the allusion, tagged it with a big question mark.  A good reason to have a reader/editor/commenter/friend, because her suggestion that I perform a pre-colon-oscopy on the title was well-taken.

The ultimate outtake.

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw on August 9, 2019 at 10:33 AM in Article Spotlight, Legal Theory, Lipshaw, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 05, 2019

DeStefano on "the Adjacent Possible"

Michele-DeStefano_cropLast week, one of the SSRN journal emails included a new piece by an old friend, Michele DeStefano (Miami, left) - Innovation: A New Key Discipline for Lawyers and Legal Education. From the abstract:

It begins by demonstrating that clients' call for innovation is really a call for transformation in service from their lawyers. It then explores why answering this call can be problematic for lawyers. It seeks to show that lawyers' professional identity, training, and temperament (along with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation) make it difficult for lawyers to adopt the collaborative, creative mindset and skillset of innovators. This chapter recommends that innovation be incorporated as a new key discipline at both the law school and executive education (continuing education) level because in the process of learning how to innovate, lawyers hone the mindset, skillset, and behaviors that clients desire. In support of this contention, it reveals that, as an added benefit, by honing the innovator's DNA, lawyers also grow into inclusive leaders our society needs us to be. The chapter concludes with some suggestions for lawyers to help them better collaborate towards innovation along with a pie-in-the-sky call to the legal universe to make innovation the new key discipline for practicing and aspiring lawyers.

This is music to my ears - because it's about the self-imposed limitations, for better or worse, that can be the result of the frames or presuppositions from which many lawyers (and law professors) see and make sense of the world (e.g., deliberately, logically, algorithmically, dispassionately, syllogistically). Michele's point here (and in her book Legal Upheaval: A Guide to Creativity, Collaboration, and Innovation in Law) is that kind of square-cornered thinking is just the beginning; clients will demand as well a collaborative and creative mindset in order to craft solutions to problems.

What was particularly delightful was finding Michele's incorporation of a coinage from Stuart Kauffman, M.D., theoretical biologist, and complexity researcher (University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, Santa Fe Institute, among other affiliations), about the "adjacent possible." I also recently came across Kauffman's work, and I've used it in the piece (title has changed but that's another blog post to come) from which I've been out-taking this month. The "adjacents possible" are the possible next states from the one in which we are in or which we are observing. Kauffman's point was to distinguish the adjacent possible in physics (or cybernetics) from that in a complex biological or economic system.  In a physics or computational system, all of the adjacents possible in either direction, all state changes, are predictable. But not so in biology (and I would add, in human thought). There, the move to the adjacent possible (the set of all possible next states), while not random, is not predictable. (I like this particular observation: the universe has constructed every possible stable atom, but not every possible protein.)

The connection to human creativity and innovation should be obvious.

More to come later.

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw on August 5, 2019 at 09:37 AM in Article Spotlight, Lipshaw, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, August 03, 2019

Administrator bias and legal frameworks

I have posted a draft of an article entitled Bias in Regulatory Administration.  Comments welcome.

The larger questions of which this article is a part are not at all new:  How ought we to think about the sacred principle that We the People are entitled to an open-minded, neutral decisionmaking in administrative agency decisionmaking -- especially in the context of administrative adjudication, but even on occasion in rulemaking?  Should the principle be different in the regulatory context than in the traditional courtroom, given unique features of the administrative state?  Lon Fuller famously opined on this question in "Forms and Limits" and Judge Friendly's famous unpacking of the requirement of "some kind of a hearing" furthered helpfully the discussion in an earlier era.

Although my paper doesn't address, except in passing, this issue, there are some important reasons to reconsider the entire matter of administrator bias, both at the level of principle and of administration, given the rise and impact of machine-learning mechanisms in the regulatory administration context.  Discussions of algorithmic bias is all the rage, and rightfully so.  My hope is that we can tie together more ambitiously the deep questions underlying discussions of AI, its promise and pitfalls, to ubiquitous issues of bias, interest, and influence as they have arisen in the doctrinal context for a long while in administrative law.  That, in any event, is the more global question of which this paper is a small part.

Posted by Dan Rodriguez on August 3, 2019 at 01:40 PM in Article Spotlight, Daniel Rodriguez | Permalink | Comments (3)

Friday, August 02, 2019

Confusion of the Inverse??

At JOTWELL, Omri Ben-Shahar has a review of a forthcoming article in the Stanford Law Review claiming to have shown in a study that consumers are cowed by a consumer contract's fine print even if they believe they have been defrauded by the seller - i.e., have been expressed guaranteed A and learn later that (i) they aren't getting A, and (ii) the fine print says they have no legal right to A. (The reviewed piece is Meirav Furth-Matzin & Roseanna Sommers, Consumer Psychology and the Problem of Fine Print Fraud, 72 Stan. L. Rev ___ (2020)).

I've been blogging with outtakes from the not-quite-ready-for-prime time Unsure at Any Speed . Here the outtake intersects with another subject on which I have gotten involved recently: how to deal with the spread of detailed and unread consumer contract fine print, particularly given the ease by which it can appear to be made binding via internet click-throughs.

The question is not whether the conclusions Furth-Matzin and Sommers draw from their laboratory experiments are correct.  First, I don't know enough about qualitative research methods to assess their hypotheticals and questions to test subjects. Second, from what I can tell, they have given enough detail about the methodology to allow the tests to be repeated and therefore falsified. So I accept them for what they seem to say: people seem to take the fine print seriously even when they know they have gotten screwed.

My question is rather about empirical statements that underlie the study to begin with. Is it the case that widespread non-readership of fine print leaves consumers open to exploitation by unscrupulous firms? Is it true that sellers can outright lie about their products and services and then contradict the lie in the fine print?  The Stanford article takes the answer "yes" to those questions as a given, and then proceeds to assess the impact of fine print, given that there was fraud.  I cannot find, however, at least in the footnotes on the first six pages of the article anything other than a couple of anecdotes in support of the proposition that unscrupulous firms are a widespread problem.  I'm not saying they aren't; I just don't see any evidence one way or the other.

Is this an example of "confusion of the inverse," the subject of my outtake?

What I mean by "confusion of the inverse"

I cut from Unsure a detailed explanation of the "confusion of the inverse." It is, along with things like availability heuristic, the law of small numbers, hindsight bias, and confirmation bias, an example of the predictable divergences from actual probabilities to which Kahneman, Tversky, and others demonstrated humans are prone. My particular heuristic/bias peeve has to do with academic assumptions about the morality and competence of corporate oversight (Caremark doctrine for you governance nerds), exacerbated perhaps when, my having recently been been a corporate executive, a colleague blithely characterized corporate executives as "turnips" at a workshop shortly after I joined the faculty.

Here is the confusion of the inverse applied to my peeve.  Conditional probability is the quantification of the following question: given the probability that A is true (P(A)), what is the probability of B given A (P(B/A))?  The formula for deriving the answer is:

P(B/A) = [P(A/B) x P(A)]/P(B)

What we are trying to derive is the probability that we have a corrupt/incompetent board given that we have observed material corporate wrongdoing.

The probability of MW among the set of all corporations is P(A).

The probability of MW given CIB is P(A/B).

The probability of CIB is P(B).  Note that you can have a CIB even if you don't have MW, and you can have MW even if you don't have CIB.

Our formula now looks like this: P(CIB/MW) = [P(MW/CIB) x P(MW)]/P(CIB)

So...

Let's assume the following.  It turns out MW among all corporations is very rare.  Say P(MW) = .01 (one in a hundred).

The probability of material wrongdoing, however, is very high, IF you have a corrupt/incompetent board.  Say P(MW/CIB) = .95

The formula gives us the following numerator:  .95 (the probability of MW given that we have a CIB) x .10 (the probability we have MW).

But remember you can have a CIB even if you don't have MW, and you can have MW even if you don't have CIB.  So the denominator P (CIB) has to take all possibilities into account.

Hence, P(CIB) = [the probability that there is MW given CIB times the probability of MW] plus [the probability that there is MW with no CIB times the probability of no CIB].

So... P(CIB/MW) = (.95 x .01) /[(.95 x .01) + (.05 x .99)]

P(CIB/MW) = .16

So given that you observe material wrongdoing, the probability of also encountering a corrupt or incompetent board P(CIB/MW) is .16.  The confusion of the inverse is to believe P(CIB/MW) is .95.  It is not to say that you can't have corrupt or incompetent boards. It is to say instead that it is wrong to assume board members are turnips just because you observed material wrongdoing.

There are even more malignant examples of the confusion of the inverse.  When a police officer pulls over a car, what is the probability that there are drugs in the car, given that the driver is African-American?  When TSA does a search, what is the probability that the individual is a terrorist, given that he/she appears to be Middle Eastern?  When you are tested for a rare disease, what is the probability you have it, given that the test is positive?

Confusion of the inverse and contract fine print issues

As I said, I express no view on the study in the Stanford Law Review article.  I just don't see any evidence about the prevalence of out-and-out fraud. My intuition is there is probably less of it than the article seems to suggest.

That isn't to say there aren't real fairness issues with fine print. I have engaged with Rob Kar on his Harvard Law Review article with Margaret Radin, the thesis of which is to ground an attack on over-reaching boilerplate on a demarcation of the "true" agreement between the contract drafter and the consumer by way of Grice's "conversational maxims" and an actual shared meaning.  (Theirs is Pseudo-Contract and Shared Meaning Analysis; my response, just published in the Australasian Journal of Legal Philosophy (Vol. 43, pp. 90-105) is Conversation, Cooperation, or Convention? A Response to Kar and Radin.)

What I take from the Stanford Law Review study is that consumers aren't completely led down the primrose path by the fact of "fine print" - they expect there to be terms and conditions even if they don't read them.  The study seems to bear that out, even in the extreme where the consumer really does believe he/she/they got screwed. The real question is to what extent should the fine print be binding.  I agree with Omri that disclosure is not likely to be helpful - oy, more fine print disclaiming the fine print. Nor do I think trying to find the actual agreement or shared meaning is going to be fruitful.  Rather, there is a convention about what is and is not fair, and that probably ought to be reflected in regulation.

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw on August 2, 2019 at 11:45 AM in Article Spotlight, Corporate, Culture, Law Review Review, Legal Theory, Lipshaw | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

JOTWELL: Smith on Litman on remedial collapse

The new Courts Law essay comes from Fred Smith (Emory), reviewing Leah Litman, Remedial Convergence and Collapse, 106 Cal. L. Rev. 1477 (2018), exploring how recent doctrine has caused the exclusionary rule, habeas limits, and qualified immunity to converge, resulting in denial of all remedy for constitutional violation. Both are worth a read.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 31, 2019 at 10:36 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

JOTWELL: Wasserman on multiple authors on the problems with SCOTUS term limits

I have the new Courts Law essay, reviewing Christopher Sundby & Suzanna Sherry, Term Limits and Turmoil: Roe v. Wade's Whiplash (forthcoming in Tex. L. Rev.) and Daniel Epps & Ganesh Sitaraman, How to Save the Supreme Court (forthcoming in Yale L.J.). The first article shows the doctrinal instability that might arise from 18-year term limits, using an empirical study of Roe; the second offers two alternatives to term limits.

One of the Epps/Sitaraman proposals would have a fifteen-person SCOTUS comprised of ten permanent Justices (five from each major party) and five lower-court judges sitting for one term, chosen unanimously by the permanent members. Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has endorsed that proposal, but Elie Mystal believes it is unconstitutional and naive, if exciting.

I somewhat like the other Epps Sitaraman proposal of the Supreme Court Lottery--the "Court" consists of every court of appeals judge and each sitting two-week sitting features a randomly selected panel of nine. This would have the interesting effect of making SCOTUS more like an ordinary federal court, which might not be a bad thing.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 4, 2019 at 11:26 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thursday, May 23, 2019

JOTWELL: Erbsen on Frye on Tompkins

The new Courts Law essay comes from Allan Erbsen (Minnesota), reviewing Bryan L. Frye, The Ballad of Harry James Tompkins, 52 Akron L. Rev. 531 (2019), which argues that we may have the facts of Erie wrong, that Tompkins actually was trying to jump on the train when he was struck by that protrusion.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on May 23, 2019 at 11:57 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

FIU Micro-Symposium: Infield Fly Rule Is in Effect (Updated)

I am happy to announce that FIU Law Review has published a micro-symposium on my book, Infield Fly Rule Is in Effect. We found nine people, in and out of legal academia, to write short comments, followed by my overall response. This was fun to put together.

I want to flag two contributions containing ideas that I really wish I had seen or thought of myself while I was writing the book, if only to respond to them.

Rob Nelson, a former minor-league pitcher and the founder of Big League Chew, introduced what he called the "Enfield Fly Rule." There are two versions, both designed to keep the basic protections of the Rule in place but denying to the defense any windfall from an unintentional drop. Under one version, an infield fly is a foul ball, so the batter is out if it is caught and the ball is foul if it is not caught. Under a second version, the ball is fair and live if caught (so the runners could tag-up), but a do-over if not caught (so it does not even count as a strike).

Spencer Waller (Loyola) identifies another non-baseball situation requiring a limiting rule--flopping in soccer and in basketball. Both fit the criteria I described for when a limiting rule is needed to deter the conduct and avoid an extraordinary benefit. What is interesting is that the solution both soccer and basketball have come up with is post-game sanctions of fines and/or suspensions should officials, upon reviewing plays on video, identify a flop. But these rules do nothing to sanction or deter the flop in the moment, thereby allowing the flopping player to gain the benefit of the flop (a penalty kick or red card in soccer, free throws or a turnover in basketball). So fines or suspensions may not provide sufficient deterrence against the conduct--a player may deem the flop worth it in the moment to allow his team to win, willing to deal with a fine or even one-game suspension after the fact.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on May 23, 2019 at 11:48 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

JOTWELL: Mulligan on Spencer on personal jurisdiction in federal court

The new Courts Law essay comes from Lumen Mulligan (Kansas), reviewing A. Benjamin Spencer, The Territorial Reach of Federal Courts, Fla. L. Rev. (forthcoming), which argues for federal courts exercising jurisdiction based on national contacts through a self-executing Fifth Amendment Due Process.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on May 7, 2019 at 11:44 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

JOTWELL: Coleman on public comments on the code of judicial conduct

The new Courts Law essay comes from Brooke Coleman (Seattle), commenting on the proposed changes to the federal judicial code of conduct and the advocacy work by the Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on April 23, 2019 at 10:59 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

FIU Law Review: Barnette at 75

I am happy to announce that the new issue of FIU Law Review is available online, featuring last fall's symposium Barnette at 75: The Past, Present, and Future of the Fixed Star in Our Constitutional Constellation. The hard version (which includes Q&A transcripts and a contribution from keynote speaker John Q. Barrett) should be available soon. Ron Collins wrote something up at FIRE. My introduction includes a discussion of an issue I have been playing with--whether, if you could establish state action (which I do not believe you can), the NFL violates the First Amendment by prohibiting players from kneeling during the anthem.

The TOC and links are available after the jump.

Volume 13, Number 4 (2019) Barnette at 75: The Past, Present, and Future of the Fixed Star in Our Constitutional Constellation

Front Matter

Introduction

Introduction: Barnette at 75
Howard M. Wasserman

Articles

Posted by Howard Wasserman on April 17, 2019 at 01:38 PM in Article Spotlight, First Amendment | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

JOTWELL: Thomas on Fountain & Willard on plea bargaining with juveniles

The new Courts Law essay comes from Suja Thomas (Illinois), reviewing Erika N. Fountain & Jennifer L. Willard, How defense attorneys consult with juvenile clients about plea bargains, 24 Psych. Pub. Pol'y & L. 192 (2017).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on April 9, 2019 at 09:20 AM in Article Spotlight | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

JOTWELL: Steinman on Burbank & Wolfe on class action statutes of limitations

The new Courts Law essay comes from co-section-editor Adam Steinman (Alabama), reviewing Stephen B. Burbank & Tobias Barrington Wolfe, Class Actions, Statutes of Limitations and Repose, and Federal Common Law, 167 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2018), considering the common law nature of the tolling rules for FRCP 23.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 26, 2019 at 10:35 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Racial bias and diversity jurisdiction

Scott Dodson's new article (forthcoming in Duke L.J.) came at a good time, as I began diversity jurisdiction (and the rationales for it) Monday and continue on it tomorrow and have presented some of his ideas in class. Scott argues that outsider bias does not justify diversity jurisdiction, while considering other reasons for having (and perhaps expanding) that jurisdiction. This includes suggestions that diversity jurisdiction might alleviate racial bias in state courts.

Reorienting diversity jurisdiction around racial bias (regardless of in- or out-of-state) offers a strong new argument against the complete-diversity requirement, as illustrated by New York Times v. Sullivan. Sullivan sued four Alabama-based African-American civil rights leaders (Shuttlesworth, Lowery, Seay, and Abernathy) who had signed the Times ad; this prevented removal to federal court, by destroying complete diversity and adding non-removable forum defendants. The complete-diversity requirement made no sense in Sullivan even on the local-bias rationale: Having a local defendant did not cure the bias when: 1) the local was an African-American who was functionally an outsider in 1960 Alabama and 2) there was an obvious outsider (The Times) waiting to be hosed.

The racial turn adds to this position. There unquestionably was bias against the African-American defendants in state court because of their race (the trial court allowed Sullivan to enforce the judgment against the four men). Scott's argument suggests their presence in the case, rather than keeping the case in state court, should have been the basis to make it (and cases like it) more readily removable.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 19, 2019 at 06:38 PM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 07, 2019

JOTWELL: Michalski on Gluck, et al. on opioid litigation

The new Courts Law essay comes from Roger Michalski (Oklahoma), reviewing Abbe Gluck, Ashley Hall, & Gregory Curfman, Civil Litigation and the Opioid Epidemic: The Role of Courts in a National Health Crisis, 46(2) J. Law, Med. & Ethics 351 (2018), exploring how courts are litigation claims and issues arising from the opioid epidemic.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 7, 2019 at 10:27 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, February 28, 2019

JOTWELL: Kalajdzic on Erichson on class actions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Jasminka Kalajdzic (Windsor), reviewing Howard M. Erichson, Civil Litigation Reform in the Trump Era: Threats and Opportunities Searching for Salvageable Ideas in FICALA, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 19 (2018).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 28, 2019 at 09:43 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

JOTWELL: Tidmarsh on Hodges & Voet on collective redress

The new Courts Law essay comes form Jay Tidmarsh (Notre Dame), reviewing Christopher Hodges & Stefaan Vogt, Delivering Collective Redress: New Technologies (Hart 2018), which explores the European search for alternative approaches to collective litigation and redress.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 12, 2019 at 09:53 AM in Article Spotlight, Books, Civil Procedure | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

JOTWELL: Pfander on Sutton on state constitutionalism

The new Courts Law essay comes from James Pfander (Northwestern), reviewing Judge Jeffrey Sutton's new book on state constitutions and their role in constitutionalism.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 30, 2019 at 09:52 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

JOTWELL: Bookman on Sinnar on procedural experimentation and national security

The new Courts Law essay comes from Pamela Bookman (Temple), reviewing Shirin Sinnar, Procedural Experimentation and National Security in Courts, 106 Cal. L. Rev. 991 (2018), which explores ways to handle national-security concerns while allowing for transparency and litigation on the merits.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 16, 2019 at 12:33 PM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, December 20, 2018

JOTWELL: Campos on the Bolch Institute on class actions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Sergio Campos (Miami), reviewing  the Bolch Institute at Duke University's guide to best practices in class actions.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on December 20, 2018 at 08:55 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 05, 2018

JOTWELL: Malveaux on Trammell on preclusion and nationwide injunctions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Suzette Malveaux (Colorado), reviewing Alan Trammell, Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions, which uses preclusion principles (including arguing that offensive non-mutual preclusion should be available against the government) to support the power to issue broader injunctions.

Alan's paper just came across SSRN yesterday, so I look forward to reading and citing it. My initial thought is that the preclusion analogy (even accepting that Mendoza is wrong) runs into the fact that allowing non-particularized injunctions allows the issue court to police the effect of its own judgment, whereas preclusion ordinarily is the bailiwick of the second court. This is sort of the issue in Nevada v. Dept of Labor and the private attorneys held in contempt for violating the injunction of one court (based on privity principles) by representing a plaintiff in a different lawsuit in a different court . To the extent the injunction binds these private attorneys, it would be through preclusion, which would be for the second court to determine, not the issuing court.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on December 5, 2018 at 09:30 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 23, 2018

JOTWELL: Mullenix on Vitiello on a civ pro companion

The new Courts Law essay comes from Linda Mullenix (Texas), reviewing Michael Vitiello, Animating Civil Procedure (Carolina Academic Press 2017),  a companion to Civ Pro casebooks offering a procedural-justice gloss on the major cases and issues.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 23, 2018 at 11:17 AM in Article Spotlight, Books, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 05, 2018

JOTWELL: Levy on Re on Marks

The new Courts Law essay comes from Marin Levy (Duke), reviewing Richard Re, Beyond the Marks Rule (Harv. L. Rev., forthcoming), which critiques the Marks Rule and its (ineffective) efforts to create binding precedent absent a majority opinion.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 5, 2018 at 10:34 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

JOTWELL: Lahav on Frost on nationwide injunctions

The new Courts Law essay comes from Alexandra Lahav (UConn), reviewing Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions (N.Y.U. L. Rev., forthcoming). My views on this subject are well-known here. Amanda visited FIU last week to present her paper and to debate  injunctions for several student organizations.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 23, 2018 at 10:37 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 09, 2018

JOTWELL: Walsh on Hickman on severability

The new Courts Law essay comes from Kevin Walsh Richmond), reviewing Kristen E. Hickman, Symbolism and Separation of Powers in Agency Design, 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1475 (2015), considering the use of severability to remedy separation of powers defects in the design of federal agencies.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 9, 2018 at 10:50 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Data Science and Law (and Farewell)

In my last post I want to briefly discuss the experience of Bar-Ilan Law Faculty (where I serve as Dean) in a new joint research initiative with the Bar-Ilan Data Science Institute. This joint project builds on Bar-Ilan strength in data science (DS), especially in the fields of natural language processing (NLP) and network analysis. The project is motivated by idea that the law rich textual and web structure makes it a great medium for analysis using the methods of NLP and network science (see, e.g., my recent paper, Transnational Networked Constitutionalism, co-authored with Ofir Stegmann). We currently have more than 20 on-going research projects using DS methods in various stages.  

Our experience in these joint studies has raised several challenges and questions and I will be happy to hear from others who have been involved in similar projects about their experience. We will also be very happy to cooperate with other institutions.

Probably the most critical issue for the success of such projects concerns the need to move into a team based work. Almost all our projects are based on joint teams that include, DS and law profs, graduate students and supporting stuff. This mode of work brings legal research closer to empirical social sciences and research in the natural sciences. It requires willingness and openness from both the DS and law side.

Another challenge we had to cope with from the start is how to think about the roles of the DS and law profs in such joint project. A naïve way to think about such cooperation is that the law side should be responsible for collecting the data and the DS side should be responsible for analyzing it. We think that this is a mistaken paradigm. A good interdisciplinary DS-law joint-project must involve the two sides across the whole life-cycle of the project. It is important that the DS people will be involved at the data collection phase (which involves critical questions about what data to collect and how to structure it) and in the hypothesis framing phase. It is also necessary for the law side to be involved in the analysis phase (even if the technical analysis will be led by the DS people). This requires ‘each side’ to develop some understanding of the ‘other’ knowledge domain.

Another question concerns the publication and evaluation of the results of such interdisciplinary projects. In most cases the main contribution of the project would be in the legal domain and not in computer science or in mathematics. It will commonly use existing methods to study law-related questions (although law could also trigger innovation in the DS domain). However, a significant work may need to be done in order to adapt and apply such methods to specific research questions and environments. This means that the venues in which such work could be published would probably be in legal journals that accept empirical work. This could create a motivation problem for the DS people. Solving this problem requires university authorities to explicitly support interdisciplinary work and to recognize the contribution of DS people even when the work is published in journals outside the DS domain. Equally law profs should be ready to venture beyond traditional legal publications toward DS journals (where the focus could be on the more technical aspects of a project). Such extension of the publication spectrum is important for the feasibility of such joint-projects.

Let me close by thanking Howard Wasserman and the forum again for having me as a guest this month. Thanks also to all those who responded and commented on my posts.   

Posted by Oren Perez on September 30, 2018 at 09:39 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Information and Technology | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Revising the Web of Science JCR ranking of law reviews

I want to conclude my discussion of the Web of Science JCR ranking of law reviews by offering several proposals for revising this ranking, which  draw on my co-authored paper ‘The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels, Scientific Communities, and Journal Rankings’ (Modern Law Review) (with Judit Bar-Ilan, Reuven Cohen and Nir Schreiber). I want to emphasize that our proposals are tentative because I don’t think there is a single right answer as to how to devise such a ranking. They also do not cover the whole range of problems associated with such rankings. One of the main lessons of our analysis is that the choices underlying any ranking should be made explicit and that anyone using them should make sure that these methodological choices fit his needs. A further important note concerns the purpose of our project. We do not call for the use of metrics in evaluating research. As I noted in my first post, our project is based on the observation that there is currently an increasing global pressure to use metrics in order to evaluate research (both at the individual and the institutional levels). This trend makes it worthwhile to critically examine the methodology and structure of such metrics.

Our proposal draws on our finding that that PR and SE journals form two separated communities (see the citation graph here); however, this inward tendency is more pronounced in SE journals, especially generalist ones. We found that SE generalist journals, direct and receive most of their citations to and from SE journals. This finding reflects, we argued, a tacit cartelistic behavior, which is a product of deeply entrenched institutional practices (for a defense of this argument see my previous post). Because the mean number of references in SE journals is about 2.5 times greater than the mean number of references in PR journals lumping the two categories can generate a distorted image of the ranking of law reviews (see my post for a demonstration of this effect).   

We believe that there are two main paths for revising the WOS ranking. The first path is to create two separate rankings, one for student-edited (SE) (non-peer-reviewed) journals, and another for peer-reviewed (PR) journals. This approach reflects the different writing and citation styles of the two categories and their strikingly different article selection practices. Creating two different rankings would also cancel out the advantage that U.S. SE journals have in a combined ranking structure. While this approach does have some logic, it is also problematic because the two journal categories, despite their differences, still belong to the same scientific domain, explore similar questions and have over-lapping audiences. It is also inconsistent with the current practice of all the existing global law reviews rankings.  A second strategy would continue the current practice of lumping the two journal categories in a single ranking, but would offer a way to counter some of the distortive effects of the current structure of the WOS ranking. A basic component of this strategy would be to adjust the value of citations received from SE journals. As I demonstrated in a previous post, adjusting the citations of SE journals by a factor of 0.4 significantly changes the relative ranking of PR journals. Using an adjusted impact factor would not amount to a satisfactory solution by itself. We think that a better strategy would be to combine an adjusted impact factor with an algorithm that takes into account the prestige of the citing journal drawing on some variant of the page-rank algorithm. The idea is to calculate the prestige of a journal through an iterative process that computes the “prestige” gained by the journal through the transfer of prestige from all the other journals included in the network through citations. JCR already offer a ranking based on such algorithm although it is not widely used. 

Another problem concerns the composition of the ranking sample. The WOS includes a relatively small sample of law reviews (147 out of more than 1600 law reviews based on our recent counting of the Scopus, WOS and Washington and Lee datasets). This reflects the WOS philosophy that only well established and high quality journals should be included in the list. While this approach has some merit the current list leaves out many good journals which should have been included (both SE and PR). Another problem concerns the inclusion of interdisciplinary journals (especially PR) such as the Journal of Law & Economics, Law and Human Behaviour and International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics. These are high-quality publications, which publish articles that are very related to law, but are dominated by economists, psychologists and political scientists that study law-related questions (although law profs do publish in these venues occasionally). Should these publications be included in the same list as more classical law journals? I believe that they should because they provide a high-quality venue for interdisciplinary work that discusses legal problems, but I can see good arguments for both sides.    

 

Posted by Oren Perez on September 27, 2018 at 09:13 AM in Article Spotlight, Law Review Review | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

JOTWELL: Effron on Manta on Tinder lies

The new Courts Law essay is from Robin Effron (Brookyln), reviewing Irina Manta, Tinder Lies (Wake Forest L. Rev., forthcoming), which proposes a small-claims court vehicle for remedying lies and fraud on dating apps.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 25, 2018 at 08:50 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 17, 2018

Reconstructed Ranking for Law Journals Using Adjusted Impact Factor

I would like to thank everyone for their comments and especially USForeignProf who added an important perspective. The main  motivation of our study was to expose the risks of blindly relying on rankings as a method for evaluating research. While we do not have data about the impact of metrics on the evaluation of research in law, we suspect that law schools will not be insulated from what has become a significant global trend. Our study highlights two unique features of the law review universe, which suggest that global rankings such as the Web of Science JCR may produce an inaccurate image of the law journals web: (1) the fact that the average number of references in SE articles is much higher than in articles published in PR journals; and (2) the fact that citations are not equally distributed across categories. In our study we tried to quantitatively capture the effect of these two features (what USForeignProf has characterized as the dilution of foreign journals metrics) on the ranking structure.

To demonstrate the dilution effect on the Web of Science ranking, we examined what happens to the impact factor of the journals in our sample, if we reduce the “value” of a citation received from SE articles from 1 to 0.4. We used the value of 0.4 because the mean number of references in SE journals is about 2.5 times greater than the mean number of references in PR journals (in our sample). For the sake of the experiment, we defined an adjusted impact factor, in which a citation from the SE journals in our sample counts as 0.4, and a citation from all other journals as 1. I want to emphasize that we do not argue that this adjusted ranking constitutes in itself a satisfactory solution to the ranking dilemma. We think that a better solution would also need to take into account other dimensions such as journal prestige (measured by some variant of the page-rank algorithm) and possibly also a revision of the composition of the journals sample on which the WOS ranking is based (which is currently determined - for all disciplines - by WOS stuff). However, this exercise is useful in demonstrating numerically the dilution effect. The change in the ranking is striking: PR journals are now positioned consistently higher. The mean reduction in impact factor for PR journals is 8.3%, compared with 46.1% for SE journals.  The table below reports the results of our analysis for the top 50 journals in our 90 journals sample (data for 2015) (the complete adjusted ranking can be found here). The order reflects the adjusted impact factor (the number in parenthesis reflects the un-adjusted ranking). In my next post I will offer some reflections on potential policy responses.

  1. Regulation and Governance (10)
  2. Law and Human Behavior (13)
  3. Stanford Law Review (1)
  4. Harvard Law Review (2)
  5. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (18)
  6. Yale Law Journal (3)
  7. Texas Law Review (4)
  8. Common Market Law Review (22)
  9. Columbia Law Review (5)
  10.  The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (29)
  11. University of Pennsylvania Law Review (8)
  12. Journal of Legal Studies (15)
  13. Harvard Environmental Law Review (14)
  14. California Law Review (6)
  15. American Journal of International Law (19)
  16. Cornell Law Review (7)
  17. Michigan Law Review (9)
  18. UCLA Law Review (12)
  19. American Journal of Law & Medicine (36)
  20. Georgetown Law Journal (11)
  21. International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics (41)
  22. American Journal of Comparative Law (25)
  23. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization (37)
  24. Journal of Law and Economics (35)
  25. International Journal of Transitional Justice (42)
  26. Law & Policy (44)
  27. Harvard International Law Journal (26)
  28. Chinese Journal of International Law (47)
  29. Journal of International Economic Law (48)
  30. Law and Society Review (46)
  31. Antitrust Law Journal (27)
  32. Indiana Law Journal (24)
  33. Behavioral Sciences & the Law (51)
  34. Virginia Law Review (16)
  35. New York University Law Review (17)
  36. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (39)
  37. Leiden Journal of International Law (54)
  38. University of Chicago Law Review (20)
  39. Social & Legal Studies (58)
  40. World Trade Review (61)
  41. Vanderbilt Law Review (23)
  42. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (32)
  43. Modern Law Review (63)
  44. Annual Review of Law and Social Science (49)
  45. European Constitutional Law Review (64)
  46. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (59)
  47. Journal of Environmental Law (65)
  48. European Journal of International Law (57)
  49. Law & Social Inquiry (62)
  50. George Washington Law Review (31)

Posted by Oren Perez on September 17, 2018 at 02:53 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Information and Technology, Law Review Review, Peer-Reviewed Journals | Permalink | Comments (13)

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Tacit Citation Cartel Between U.S. Law Reviews: Considering the Evidence

In my previous posts, which draw on my co-authored paper ‘The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels, Scientific Communities, and Journal Rankings’ (Modern Law Review) (with Judit Bar-Ilan, Reuven Cohen and Nir Schreiber)  I described how the metrics tide is penetrating the legal domain and also described the findings of our analysis of the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports of law reviews. We studied a sample of 90 journals, 45 U.S. student-edited (SE) and 45 peer-reviewed (PR) journals and found that SE generalist journals, direct and receive most of their citations to and from SE journals. We argued that this citation pattern is a product of tacit citation cartel between U.S. SE law reviews. Most of the comments focused on the following valid point: how can we distinguish between a tacit citation cartel and epistemically-driven scientific community (generated by common scientific interests). We argue, generally, that in tacit citation cartels, the clustering observed should extend beyond what can be explained by epistemic considerations, reflecting some deep-seated cultural and institutional biases.

In the paper we provide several arguments (both quantitative and qualitative) in support of our tacit cartel thesis. While none of them is conclusive in itself we think that jointly they provide a robust support for our thesis. First, we considered whether the clustering of U.S. SE journals could be explained by geographic proximity. Our sample included 57 U.S. journals consisting of all 45 SE journals and 12 PR ones. Statistical analysis reveals however that US PR journals do not receive more citations than non U.S. ones. Second, we also analyzed separately the sub-sample of generalist (PR & SE) journals but the citation pattern remained the same. Third, we considered the hypothesis that U.S. SE journals constitute a separate epistemic field – maybe due to their emphasis on U.S. law. We rejected this explanation on qualitative grounds, primarily because U.S. SE journals have become increasingly more theoretical and interdisciplinary over the past few years (Harry T. Edwards, ‘Another Look at Professor Rodell's "Goodbye to Law Reviews’; George L. Priest, ‘The Growth of Interdisciplinary Research and the Industrial Structure of the Production of Legal Ideas). This trend should make PR journals very relevant to U.S. legal scholarship. Fourth, one may try to explain the citation pattern by assuming a deep difference in the quality of the papers published in the two journal groups. We do not think this argument stands up to scrutiny.  First, the selection practices of SE journals were subject to strong critique (e.g., Richard A Posner, ‘The Future of the Student-Edited Law Review’ (1995)). This critique casts doubts on the thesis that there is a strong and systemic difference in quality of papers published in the two categories. We also examined this claim empirically by looking into the citations received by the 10 top-cited articles published in PR journals in our dataset. We found that even these highly cited papers received only a small percentage of their citations from SE journals.

Finally, we also considered the accessibility of PR journals in Lexis, Westlaw and Hein. We found indeed that these databases only offer access to approximately half of the PR journals (See Table F, technical appendix.) However, we do not think that this fact provides a convincing explanation to the phenomenon we observed. We believe that most U.S. law schools have access to digital depositories that allow access to the PR journals in our sample. A quick search in 3 US libraries demonstrates that (https://www.law.pitt.edu/research-scholarly-journals; https://library.columbia.edu/find/eresources.html ; http://moritzlaw.osu.libguides.com/legalresearchdatabases ). Rather than providing an explanation to the citation pattern we found, this claim constitutes a manifestation of the institutional culture that facilitates the citation bias we identify. The comment we received from an AnonymousLawLibrarian (suggesting that U.S. legal academics, unlike equivalent scholars in the social science disciplines, only use Westlaw/Lexis/Hein or in-discipline journal research) seems to support our interpretation.

We think that this citation pattern is epistemically problematic because it hinders the flow of ideas. Further (and independently of the question of whether or not we are right in describing it as a tacit cartel) it can also influence the journals’ ranking. I will discuss this latter question in my next post.  

Posted by Oren Perez on September 12, 2018 at 02:10 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman, Law Review Review, Legal Theory | Permalink | Comments (7)

Friday, September 07, 2018

JOTWELL: Smith on Tang on the role of political power in judicial review

The new Courts Law essay comes from Fred Smith, Jr. (Emory), reviewing Aaron Tang, Rethinking Political Power in Judicial Review (Cal. L. Rev., forthcoming), arguing that courts should be less willing to invalidate laws that burden the politically powerful, a new corollary to the longstanding political-process idea that courts be more willing to invalidate laws that burden the powerless.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 7, 2018 at 11:47 AM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, September 05, 2018

Tacit Citation Cartel Between U.S. Law Reviews

In my previous post I discussed the various metrics that are being used to measure law schools and legal journals. One of the difficulties with these metrics is the perverse incentives they may create for both authors, research institutions, and journals to use various manipulating techniques in order to elevate their scores. Examples of manipulating strategies include the publication of editorials with many journal self-citations, coercive journal self-citation, and citation cartels (Phil Davis, ‘The Emergence of a Citation Cartel’ (2012)). There have been several conspicuous cases of citation cartels, which have been widely discussed in the literature. Particularly notorious was the case of several Brazilian journals that have published articles containing hundreds of references to papers in each other’s journals in order to raise their journals’ impact factors (Richard Van Noorden, ‘Brazilian Citation Scheme Outed’ (2013)). We distinguish in the paper between explicit citation cartels, in which the cross-citations are a product of explicit agreement between editors or scholars and tacit citation cartel. In the latter case the citation dynamics may be a product of tacit cultural and institutional habits. Both tacit and explicit citation cartels should be distinguished from epistemically-driven scientific communities. Although tacit citation cartels do not carry the same immoral connotations as explicit citation cartels, they have similar adverse effects, especially given the increasing influence of the impact factor in the evaluation of research quality. By (artificially) elevating the scores of some journals and disciplines over others, they may distort the publication choices of scientists, and consequently may impede the creation of ideas.

The challenge for the metrics industry then is to develop ways to detect and respond to both tacit and explicit citation cartels. In our paper ‘The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels, Scientific Communities, and Journal Rankings’ (Modern Law Review) (with Judit Bar-Ilan, Reuven Cohen and Nir Schreiber) we examined the ranking of law journals in Journal Citation Reports focusing on the question of the existence of tacit citation cartels in law. We studied a sample of 90 journals included in the category of Law in the JCR: 45 U.S. student-edited (SE) and 45 peer-reviewed (PR) journals. The sample, which amounts to 60% of all legal journals in JCR, included the most prestigious PR and SE journals (e.g., Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Columbia Law Review, Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Modern Law Review). The number of papers published by both SE and PR journals in our sample is nearly identical (47.8% of the articles were published in PR vs. 52.2% in SE journals). There are huge differences, however, in the total number of references and in the number of references per article. The SE journals produced in 2015 overall 3 times more references than the PR journals. The mean number of references in SE articles is 2.5 times higher.

We found, using both statistical analysis and network analysis that PR and SE journals are more inclined to cite members of their own class, forming two separated communities. You can find the citation graph here. Close analysis revealed that this phenomenon is more pronounced in SE journals, especially generalist ones. We found that SE generalist journals, direct and receive most of their citations to and from SE journals. This tendency reflects, we argue, a tacit cartelistic behavior, which is a product of deeply entrenched institutional and cultural structures within the U.S. legal academia. Because the mean number of references in SE articles is 2.5 times higher than in articles published in PR journals, the fact that their citations are directed almost exclusively to SE journals elevates their ranking in the Journal Citation Reports in a way that distorts the structure of the ranking. In the next post I will demonstrate the implications of this finding on the journal ranking in JCR. In further posts I will also consider some potential explanations and counter-arguments associated with this result.

Posted by Oren Perez on September 5, 2018 at 01:35 AM in Article Spotlight, Information and Technology, Life of Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (15)

Saturday, September 01, 2018

The Metrics Tide and the Law

Thanks Howard for having me (and for Michael Helfand for making the connection). Most of my posts this month will focus on the question of metrics and rankings and their increasing influence on the legal academia. I will draw in that context on a new article – ‘The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels, Scientific Communities, and Journal Rankings’ which I have co-authored with Judit Bar-Ilan, Reuven Cohen and Nir Schreiber (all from Bar-Ilan University) and forthcoming in Modern Law Review.

Research evaluation is increasingly being influenced by quantitative data. Journal impact factor (JIF) (the mean citation counts of items published in journals in the preceding two years) has become particularly salient in this context, leading to “impact factor obsession”. There has been widespread opposition to this trend in the scientific community. The DORA declaration for example recommends that journal-based metrics, such as JIF, should not be used “as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions”. However, despite the opposition these metrics continue to flourish.

The legal field has not escaped this ‘metrics’ wave. Law schools and legal journals are being ranked by multiple global rankings. The key rankings for law schools are the Times Higher Education and Shanghai University subject rankings for law and SSRN Ranking for U.S. and International law schools. These global rankings are accompanied by local ones such as the influential U.S. News Ranking in the U.S., the UK law schools ranking by the Guardian and the University Magazine ranking of Best Canadian law schools. Law Journals are measured by four different rankings: Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), CiteScore from Elsevier, Scimago and Washington and Lee. Despite their quantitative appearance, the pretense of these metrics for objectivity is merely illusory. Because of the increasing influence of these metrics, and the bodies that produce them, on research evaluation, it is important to closely scrutinize their structure and methodology. In our paper we examine one particular metric - the influential ranking of law journals in Journal Citation Reports and critically assess its structure and methodology.   I will discuss our findings in the next post.

Posted by Oren Perez on September 1, 2018 at 11:12 AM in Article Spotlight, Current Affairs, Howard Wasserman, Information and Technology | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 31, 2018

Sponsored Post: The unauthorized practice of law for nonlawyers

The following post is by Ellen Murphy and Steve Nickles (both from Wake Forest) and is sponsored by West Academic.

The dramatic changes in the legal profession since the 2008 market crash, from the increase in virtual law practice to the rise of DIY services to clients’ increasing demand for efficiencies, have led to a recognition that nonlawyers have an increasingly critical role in the delivery of legal services. While most regulatory bars are not yet sure exactly: (a) what this role should be; or (b) how, if at all, it should be regulated, that a change is coming is certain.

Meanwhile, companies large and small -- saddled with increasing regulations but fewer resources – look more frequently to employees in risk management, compliance, and human resources, to name but a few, to exercise legal judgement, decreasing the reliance on traditional inside and outside counsel.

When the ABA created the Commission on the Future of Legal Services, with a goal of using technology and innovation to increase access to justice, the President acknowledged that some people see this shift as a “back doorway of disrupting a system that they’re comfortable with.” All a perfect precursor to the coming regulatory challenges for our current restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law.

In response, education directed at nonlawyer legal professionals is also increasing; the providers include law schools, other higher education entities, trade associations, and for-profit companies. However, little of this education is focused on the unauthorized practice of law. As the debate is getting hotter over what nonlawyers, people or computers, can do without running afoul of unauthorized practice of law restrictions, education must include coverage of the current state of the law, no matter how impossible it may be to define the “practice of law” with precision.

To bridge this gap, our new book and interactive course, The Unauthorized Practice of Law for Nonlawyers, explores the extent to which people with legal training, but no license to practice, can use the law, as a social and economic variable, to better manage risk without fear of prosecution or civil liability. Materials include a complete, 1-credit course syllabus, with over 4-hours of videos and 700-minutes of direct-faculty contact hours through discussion prompts and project prompts, perfect for an active-learning, flipped classroom. Alternatively, the materials can be used as a 1-hour self-directed module.
The book is intended for general education about the UPL and to provoke informed thinking and useful discussion about the UPL’s present and future boundaries. UPL regulation varies widely across the country, is always and everywhere highly fact-specific, is riddled with non-uniform, judicial and legislative exceptions, and always is decided on a case-by-case basis. But even with this uncertainty, educators must promote and provide for the exploration of these issues.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 31, 2018 at 03:23 PM in Article Spotlight, Sponsored Announcements | Permalink | Comments (0)