Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.     

Quiescence in women's prisons litigation: Some exploratory issues

Despite the increase in prisoner civil rights litigation in the past decades, we know relatively little about the bases of such suits, let alone the differences between male and female litigants. Judging from existing literature, we would expect women to join male litigants in challenging the conditions of their confinement. But it seems that there has been a remarkable quiescence among women prisoners in civil rights litigation. Despite such factors as poor living conditions, overcrowding, internal disciplinary problems, lack of job training programs, and unbalanced racial composition (all positively associated with high civil rights litigation rates), it would seem that women are filing proportionally far fewer suits than their male counterparts. Further, women sue for somewhat different reasons. Using data from one federal district in Illinois and two Illinois prisons, we will argue that, compared to their male counterparts, women do not choose litigation for problem resolution, and we will suggest that gender and organizational constraints may account for much of this quiescence.     

Systemic Reform Litigation and Child Welfare Policy: The Case of Illinois

This study examines systemic litigation against the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Focusing on B.H. , a 1988 class action suit, it looks at the litigation process, conceptualized as continual interaction among litigants, the court, and affected non‐litigants. Dividing the litigation process into five phases, it discusses the effect of B.H. on child welfare policy in Illinois. The study concludes that B.H. provided a stimulus for reform, yet has been unable to completely satisfy the hopes of the litigants in achieving significant systemic reform.     

Picking up the Pieces: Cases Presented to the London Sheriffs' Courts between Michaelmas 1461 and Michaelmas 1462

Almost no records of proceedings in the medieval London sheriffs' courts are extant. I will demonstrate in this feasibility study of one shrieval year to what extent the reconstruction of the lost archives of the London sheriffs is possible and what can be learned from a systematic collection of all available evidence. By going beyond the Chancery corpus cum causa files our knowledge of cases heard in the sheriffs' courts is not only nearly doubled. We also get a more representative picture of proceedings. In addition, we are provided with detailed information about the sheriffs' courts and their personnel. Moreover, by following our litigants into other courts, we learn about their litigation tactics.     

The Biggest “Have” of Them All: Wal‐Mart and Its Litigation Outcomes in Slip‐and‐Fall Cases

Scholars have theorized that resource‐rich litigants known as the “haves” tend to succeed disproportionately in litigation when the adverse party is a “have‐not.” The traditional theory suggests that haves are able to use their wealth to secure better attorney representation and can use their frequent experience in litigation to tip the scales of justice in their favor, particularly when faced with “one‐shotters” whose involvement in litigation is infrequent. A remaining question, however, is whether some haves fare better than other similarly situated haves. Specifically, this article posits that the litigation strategy used by the defendant may also play a role in litigation outcomes. Companies that tenaciously fight claims that, in the short term, would be cheaper to settle might discourage otherwise valid claims in the future from being filed out of fear that the litigation will be a protracted battle. This article examines Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal‐Mart)—the largest revenue‐generating company in the United States—to explore whether it fares better than other resource‐rich defendants. Wal‐Mart in particular has a reputation against settling cases and thus is an excellent vehicle to investigate this hypothesis. Appellate cases in an eleven‐year period involving slip‐and‐fall litigation were compiled, and the results show that Wal‐Mart did win at a higher rate than other defendants. Although more research is needed to explore fully the effect of litigation strategy on win–loss rates, this sample of cases demonstrates that Wal‐Mart is a more effective and victorious litigant.     

Ordinary Heroes vs. Failed Lawyers—Public Interest Litigation in Erin Brockovich and Other Contemporary Films

Although feature films may overpraise lawyers and civil courts as means of securing justice, they caricature lawyers and litigation. Analysis of Erin Brockovich (directed by Steven Soderbergh and produced by Danny DeVito, et al., 2000) reveals four motifs—two favorable and two unfavorable to public‐interest litigants and litigation—that characterize similar films in the last decades: Class Action (1991), The Rainmaker (1997), The Sweet Hereafter (1997), A Civil Action (1998), The Insider (1999), Runaway Jury (2003), and North Country (2005). These filmic populist romances promote ordinary heroines (mostly) who redeem a problematic system through common sense and everyday virtue rather than through laws, lawyers, and litigation.     

Race-Based Peremptory Challenges: An Empirical Analysis of Litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002–2006

This paper examines race-based peremptory challenges. Such challenges occur during the voir dire jury selection process. The process allows both the defense and the prosecution to strike jurors who they believe will not decide cases fairly. However, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be used as a factor in eliminating prospective jurors. This paper examines federal litigation for five years in which it was alleged that race was used as a factor in removing a juror. An examination of the cases revealed that most of the cases involved sole male litigants who allege that there were multiple race-based peremptory challenges used in their cases. Moreover, most of the cases that led to the allegations involved violent offenses. Other case characteristics are noted, but of most significance was the finding that most appellants lost their cases. As such, the courts felt that most of the challenges were, in fact, race neutral. The implications of this research are discussed. This study was funded by an undergraduate research grant from Penn State University.     

Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation,Settlement, and Access to Justice

We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli trial court data, we find that 60 per cent of cases included JPI (through hearings and rulings on motions) whereas 40 per cent involved only the court's institutional function. By juxtaposing JPI and MoD data, we shed light on the scope of judicial involvement in settlements, the ratio between judges’ normative public-life function and their problem-solving function, and other pertinent questions. Since nowadays lawsuits are rarely adjudicated, trial rates are low, and litigants in person (pro se litigants) are common, we argue that access to justice should also be construed in terms of access to judicial attention throughout the proceeding, which is readily measurable through JPI.     

Sexual Harassment Litigation: a Road to Re-victimization or Recovery?

Various aspects of the judicial process have been hypothesized as damaging to sexual harassment plaintiffs, though limited research has been conducted that actually examines this hypothesis. We examined data from a large sample of women who participated in a class action lawsuit alleging workplace sexual harassment and discrimination (n?=?1218) and another sample of similarly situated women who opted out of litigation (n?=?465, non-litigants). We then followed the litigants for 5 years. This study takes an initial look at some of the variables theorized to play a role in the psychological outcomes of both harassment and subsequent litigation. Both the severity of harassment and participation/persistence in the litigation process were related to psychological outcomes at each of three assessments across a 5-year period; the frequency and severity of harassment, as well as plaintiffs’ cognitive appraisals of their situation, appeared to have the strongest relationship to psychological harm. Results of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) revealed that participation and persistence in litigation played a consistent role in psychological outcomes across time, over and above the impact of harassment itself. However, litigation did not appear to be the cause of psychological outcomes as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology, in particular, was the result of the original harassment experience.     

Mansfield v Director of Public Prosecutions

It is inevitable that cases that can give rise to civil litigation and criminal prosecution have arisen and would continue to arise in Ghana. However, the dogmatic adherence to the so-called rule in Smith v Selwyn by Ghanaian courts, without examining the rationale and utility of it in modern times, was not only anachronistic but has caused injustice to litigants. The rule must now be consigned to the legal archives, as it has long been abolished, even in England where it was originally propounded. However, a flexible version of the rule must be retained to serve public interest and promote the ends of justice in real and compelling cases. In this regard, the English Court of Appeal approach in Jefferson Ltd v Bhetcha provides a helpful guide for Ghanaian courts. It is also in tandem with the dictum of Justice Woode in the Ghanaian case of In Re Ashalley Botwe.     

论诉讼契约的效力

诉讼契约需具备一定的要件方可生效。生效之诉讼契约对于当事人和法院都具有一定的约束力。法定诉讼契约对于诉讼程序产生直接效力,而非法定诉讼契约仅有间接效力,尚需义务人实施后续诉讼行为方可对诉讼程序产生一定的效力。基于当事人诉讼上之抗辩,对于诉讼性质诉讼契约之违反,法院依照双方约定的有关程序继续进行或者对双方约定的诉讼行为直接予以认可;对于私法性质诉讼契约之违反,法院在审查双方关于实体部分的合意是否合理履行基础上判定该违反行为是否有效。     

THE PRO SE LITIGANT'S STRUGGLE FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Just as the growth of pro se litigation is a challenge for the courts, so, too, is the bench and bar's resistance to pro se assistance programs and policies a challenge to court reformers seeking to improve access to justice. Even where progressive courts have been able to implement court-annexed pro se assistance programs, judicial and bar resistance to pro se assistance in the courtroom remains. This paper explores the reasons for such resistance, and argues that pro se litigants have a right to receive—and judges have an obligation to provide—reasonable judicial assistance, particularly in cases involving a represented and an unrepresented party. A set of recommendations is offered which will result in pro se litigants being given more basic legal information than previously provided, better preparation of pro se cases, and a more active judge to ensure that all parties have equal access to justice.     

Estimating liability risks with the media as your guide: A content analysis of media coverage of tort litigation

A content analysis of 249 articles fromTime, Newsweek, Fortune, Forbes, andBusiness Week during 1980–1990 examined the representativeness of popular media coverage of tort litigation. Compared to objective data on tort cases, the magazine articles considerably overrepresented the relative frequency of controversial forms of litigation (product liability and medical malpractice), the proportion of disputes resolved by trial (rather than settlement), the plaintiff victory rate at trial, and the median and mean jury awards. Psychological mechanisms by which biases in media coverage could affect the decision making of potential litigants are discussed. The results highlight the need for more systematic monitoring and dissemination of reliable data on tort outcomes.     

Information, Litigation, and Common Law Evolution

It is common in the legal academy to describe judicial decisiontrends leading to new common law rules as resulting from consciousjudicial effort. Evolutionary models of litigation, in contrast,treat common law as resulting from pressure applied by litigants.One apparent difficulty in the theory of litigation is explaininghow trends in judicial decisions favoring one litigant, andbiasing the legal standard, could occur. This article presentsa model in which an apparent bias in the legal standard canoccur in the absence of any effort toward this end on the partof judges. Trends can develop favoring the better-informed litigantwhose case is also meritorious. Although the model does notsuggest an unambiguous trend toward efficient legal rules, itdoes show how private information from litigants becomes embodiedin common law, an important part of the theory of efficientlegal rules.     

当事人主导抑或法院主导？——传统民事诉讼模式的误判与归位

将“辩论主义”或“对抗制”作为传统民事诉讼模式的识别标准,都存在以偏概全的缺陷。在“当事人主张论证一法院裁判”的基本构造下,从程序运作层面、案件事实层面和法律适用层面三个层面考察,无论大陆法系还是英美法系从来没有绝对的当事人主导或法院主导。诉权和审判权之间协调配置是各国传统民事诉讼程序设计的共同法理。     

Lawyer rankings either do not matter for litigation outcomes or are redundant

I investigate the success of litigants in tax cases in England and Wales between 1996 and 2010. I explore the effect upon success of having better-ranked legal representation, according to rankings of barristers published by Chambers. I find that, for a variety of model specifications, there is no significant positive effect of having better-ranked legal representation. After conducting a sensitivity analysis, I conclude that better-ranked legal representation might have a positive effect on litigation outcomes, but only if better-ranked lawyers receive cases that are substantially more difficult to win. However, if better-ranked lawyers receive substantially more difficult cases, this suggests consumers of legal representation are sophisticated enough to dispense with legal rankings.     

民事诉讼协同主义:在理想和现实之间

民事诉讼协同主义,是由当事人的真实义务和法院的阐明权(义务)等一系列诉讼义务构成的理想化的诉讼图景。协同主义的基础条件是民事诉讼制度的社会化、福利化,通过适当扩大法院职权,修正、补充辩论主义。协同主义并非是一种独立的诉讼模式,而是协调各方诉讼行为的一种诉讼理想,其作用在于协调法院、当事人和其他诉讼参与人之间的整体关系。在我国构建协同主义,必须兼顾其周边制度要素。     

An introduction to the law and economics of class action litigation

The consolidation of similar claims for compensation into a single large class of plaintiffs is referred to as “class action litigation.” This practice can have both social costs and social benefits. For an example of the social benefits of consolidating separate claims, if the facts giving rise to the claims are substantially similar, then there may be significant savings in litigation and court administrative costs from presenting those facts once rather a multitude of times. There may, however, be significant social costs to creating a class of litigants and consolidating their claims. For example, this practice may empower those with frivolous negative expected-value claims to wring an unwarranted settlement from the defendant or defendants. The article surveys other sources of social cost and benefit from class-action litigation, reviews the empirical literature on these actions, and examines recent U.S. policy debates about reforming class-action litigation. The article concludes that class-action litigation can have substantial net social benefits but only if courts assiduously oversee the class certification process so as to identify and forestall the social-cost-generating aspects of class-action litigation.     

GOING TO COURT AS A LAST RESORT: ESTABLISHING A DUTY FOR ATTORNEYS IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WITH THEIR CLIENTS

This Note advocates for the creation of a uniform ethical requirement that all attorneys in divorce proceedings involving children inform their clients about alternative dispute resolution (ADR), particularly mediation and collaborative law. By emphasizing cooperation and negotiation among the divorcing parents, both mediation and collaborative law offer these would-be litigants the opportunity to move forward with their parental duties long after the divorce is finalized. Using the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as a template, this ethical requirement will ensure that clients are fully informed of the availability of ADR and of the chance to forgo potentially unnecessary litigation. Ultimately, the implementation of an ethical requirement holds the potential to minimize the impact of divorce on children by facilitating the process of moving forward for the family as a whole.     

In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility

A central question in American policy making is when should courts address complex policy issues, as opposed to defer to other forums? Legal process analysis offers a standard answer. It holds that judges should act when adjudication offers advantages over other modes of social ordering such as contracts, legislation, or agency rule making. From this vantage, the decision to use common law adjudication to address a sprawling public health crisis was a terrible mistake, as asbestos litigation has come to represent the very worst of mass tort litigation. This article questions this view, arguing that legal process analysis distorts the institutional choices underlying the American policy‐making process. Indeed, once one considers informational and political constraints, as well as how the branches of government can fruitfully share policy‐making functions, the asbestos litigation seems a reasonable and, in some ways, exemplary, use of judicial power.