Contesting Professionalism: Legal Aid and Nonlawyers in England and Wales

Professions are granted a form of cartel that enables them to charge more than would arise in a free market on the assumption that they provide better quality and are more trustworthy than free-market actors would be. The theoretical assumption that lawyers are more competent than nonlawyers has given rise to significant formal protections for professions in many jurisdictions. Two testable propositions arise from this theory: (1) lawyers cost more, but (2) they deliver higher quality. It is a testing of these twin propositions that is the subject of this article, with well-triangulated data and a deeper understanding of the theoretical differences between lawyers and nonlawyers.     

Correlates of Mortality in a U.S. Cohort of Youth, 1980–98: Implications for Social Justice

This paper reports results of a study based on a nationally representative sample of U.S. youth (N = 11,549) that asked two questions: (1) How does family structure affect the likelihood of adolescent death beyond that of race/ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, personal behavior, and other structural factors and (2) under what conditions might appeals for social justice be warranted for relative mortality statuses and for absolute gains in mortality? The study found that marital instability increases the likelihood of dying when controlling for a variety of other factors including class, race/ethnicity, sex, and unemployment rate in area of residence. The author argues that this finding lends support to social justice arguments to redistribute resources in such a way as to ensure the likelihood of absolute gains in mortality. The study also found, however, that race/ethnicity/sex also accounted for the likelihood of dying independently of family structure when controlling for socioeconomic and other factors. The author argues that this finding lends support to social justice arguments to redistribute resources on the basis of relative mortality statuses.     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.