Does Empirical Legal Studies Shed more Heat than Light? The Case of Civil Damage Awards

Empirical investigation of legal systems is emerging as a leading trend in both the social sciences and the legal academy in the early twenty‐first century. Law reviews are now filled with studies reporting empirical data. Because empirical investigation of law commonly seeks to inform contentious social and political debates, however, its research often fuels more debate than it resolves. Partisans on both sides of contentious issues now cite the same body of research to support their reform efforts. However, social science research on law is not a useless undertaking, as it can sharpen debate. But the hope that the new empirical legal studies movement will become a neutral source of information for policy makers is unlikely to be realized.     

Pursuing performance and maintaining compliance: Balancing performance improvement and accountability in Ontario's public health system

This article examines the compatibility between performance improvement and compliance‐based accountability in the implementation of a new system of public health performance management in Ontario. Findings from this mixed‐method study show that only minor elements of performance improvement get incorporated into pre‐existing compliance‐based accountability structures, that reinforcement of accountability structures works to the detriment of performance improvement intentions, and that limiting managerial influence in developing performance measures and targets diminish the utility of information for improvement. The study concludes that achieving a better balance requires an alternative to top‐down decision making that goes beyond consultation to include partnership.     

The Ethics of Care and (Capital?) Punishment

Law and Philosophy -     

The Ethics of Corporate Lawyers: A Sociological Approach

The American Bar Association is considering a revision of its Code of Professional Responsibility. One revision deals specifically with lawyers whose clients are organizations; it attempts to delineate the ethical responsibilities of such lawyers when they discover an employee or a member of one of their clients is engaged in wrongdoing on the organization's behalf. Because the proposal suggests that corporate counsel may be justified in public disclosure of the wrongdoing when the organization itself fails to rectify the problem, it has sparked much controversy in the profession and much speculation as to whether and when corporate counsel will "blow the whistle." The article offers a sociological perspective on the act of a corporate counsel's public disclosure of organizational wrongdoing. The act of disclosure is treated as a social behavior, the likelihood of which is increased or decreased by a number of factors including the attorney's awareness of the wrongdoing, the attorney's orientations to the larger profession, the structure of the professional practice setting within which the counsel is located, and the supports for disclosure offered by the legal profession through its formal organizations. These factors are described and then combined into a general predictive model of disclosure by corporate counsel. A concluding discussion of the general ramifications of the proposed revisions focuses on the social implications of the attorney-client privilege, in which the client is as unique an actor as is the large organization.     

The right to refuse treatment: An application of the economic principles of decision-making under uncertainty

When courts do not defer to professional judgment, alternative ways must be used to make treatment decisions for persons who are deemed incompetent. Rather than impose the preferences of society on the mentally ill individual, courts have favored alternative procedures. The two most common approaches are substituted judgment and best interests. In using both the substituted judgment standard and the best interest standard the guardian of a patient who is judged incompetent to make a treatment decision tries to make the decision the patient would have made, had he been competent. The guardian must consider the individual's attitude toward risk in making this assessment. Substituted judgment can be used when clear and convincing evidence of the patient's preferences exists. The evidence would come from a study of the patient's expressed attitudes towards medical treatment and behavior before he or she became incompetent. This approach is effective only if the patient has revealed his or her preferences toward relevant medical treatment in the past. The best interest standard is used when no clear and convincing evidence of the patient's treatment preferences exists. The treatment decisions of competent patients whose characteristics are similar to the incompetent patient's, and who have faced a similar situation, can be used as a proxy for the decision the incompetent patient would have made. Using the choice function of similar people may make it possible to develop a reasonably objective basis for determining what course of action is in the patient's best interest.