Download Free Exploring Economic And Democratic Theories Of Civil Litigation Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Exploring Economic And Democratic Theories Of Civil Litigation and write the review.

Recent efforts to assess whether or not the trial is vanishing from the civil justice system, have thus far not drawn distinctions between cases in which the market efficiency function of the legal system is in play and those in which democratic and political functions are in play. As Marc Galanter famously set out thirty years ago in his seminal work on why the haves come out ahead and as current studies of the legal profession confirm, however, we should expect that there are significant differences in how corporations, organizations, governments and private individuals fare in our legal system: these different entities bring different resources to bear and they face different repeat versus one-shot incentives. Normatively, the issues at stake in our understanding of what is happening to civil cases and the efforts to craft alternatives to traditional civil litigation require that we differentiate between litigants, between legal functions, and between the different goals of our legal system. It may be that the disappearance of public civil trials to resolve commercial contract disputes is of no consequence; indeed it may be an efficient response to the increasing cost of the public system. The same cannot be said of the disappearance - if it is a real phenomenon - of public adjudication of civil rights or the claims of individuals about the misconduct of public or corporate actors. Private and confidential dispute resolution may be perfectly appropriate and something to be promoted in the resolution of family disputes, whereas it may be inappropriate in the resolution of patent disputes in which two corporations may bargain over the division of monopoly rents or in the resolution of disputes between the state and citizens about how electoral districts are determined. If judicial resources are strained by caseloads, which litigants are flooding in - corporate or individual? And if rationing is required, if an attempt to reduce the number of cases to which judges and courts devote their efforts is required, which cases should be diverted into private dispute resolution and which should be retained for public adjudication? In this paper I present preliminary data on the differences between individual and organizational litigants in the disposition of federal civil cases. This paper follows on an earlier paper in which I developed a methodology for increasing the value of the database created by the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Here I endeavor to show the differences between individual and organizational litigants in the rate at which cases are abandoned, defaulted, adjudicated without a trial, adjudicated with a trial, or settled. The results show substantial differences in cases based, primarily, on plaintiff rather than defendant type. I find individual plaintiff cases are substantially more likely to be determined by an adjudication - especially a non-trial adjudication - than are organizational plaintiff cases. I also find evidence that organizational plaintiffs - against either individual or organizational defendants - are substantially more likely to settle their cases rather than to have them decided either by trial or non-trial adjudication.
Some describe civil litigation as little more than a drag on the economy; Others hail it as the solution to most of the country’s problems. Stephen C. Yeazell argues that both positions are wrong. Deeply embedded in our political and economic systems, civil litigation is both a system for resolving disputes and a successful business model, a fact that both its opponents and its fans do their best to conceal. Lawsuits in a Market Economy explains how contemporary civil litigation in the United States works and how it has changed over the past century. The book corrects common misconceptions—some of which have proved remarkably durable even in the face of contrary evidence—and explores how our constitutional structure, an evolving economy, and developments in procedural rules and litigation financing systems have moved us from expecting that lawsuits end in trial and judgments to expecting that they will end in settlements. Yeazell argues that today’s system has in some ways overcome—albeit inconsistently—disparities between the rich and poor in access to civil justice. Once upon a time, might regularly triumphed over right. That is slightly less likely today—even though we continue to witness enormous disparities in wealth and power. The book concludes with an evaluation of recent changes and their possible consequences.
A collection of essays by one of America's leading legal theorists.
What should we expect from democracy, and how likely is it that democracies will live up to those expectations? In The State of Democratic Theory, Ian Shapiro offers a critical assessment of contemporary answers to these questions, lays out his distinctive alternative, and explores its implications for policy and political action. Some accounts of democracy's purposes focus on aggregating preferences; others deal with collective deliberation in search of the common good. Shapiro reveals the shortcomings of both, arguing instead that democracy should be geared toward minimizing domination throughout society. He contends that Joseph Schumpeter's classic defense of competitive democracy is a useful starting point for achieving this purpose, but that it stands in need of radical supplementation--both with respect to its operation in national political institutions and in its extension to other forms of collective association. Shapiro's unusually wide-ranging discussion also deals with the conditions that make democracy's survival more and less likely, with the challenges presented by ethnic differences and claims for group rights, and with the relations between democracy and the distribution of income and wealth. Ranging over politics, philosophy, constitutional law, economics, sociology, and psychology, this book is written in Shapiro's characteristic lucid style--a style that engages practitioners within the field while also opening up the debate to newcomers.
This is the fortieth anniversary edition of a classic of law and society, updated with extensive new commentary. Drawing a distinction between experienced “repeat players” and inexperienced “one shotters” in the U.S. judicial system, Marc Galanter establishes a recognized and applied model of how the structure of the legal system and an actor’s frequency of interaction with it can predict outcomes. Notwithstanding democratic institutions of governance and the “majestic equality” of the courts, the enactment and implementation of genuinely redistributive measures is a hard uphill struggle. In one of the most-cited essays in the legal literature, Galanter incisively demolishes the myth that courts are the prime equalizing force in American society. He provides a penetrating analysis of the limitations and possibilities of courts as the source and engine of large-scale social change. Galanter’s influential article is now available in a convenient, affordable, and assignable book (in print and ebooks), with a new introduction by the author that explains the origins and aftermath of the original work. In addition, it features his 2006 article applying the original thesis to real-world dilemmas in legal structure and consequence today. The collection also adds a new Foreword by Shauhin Talesh of the University of California-Irvine and a new Afterword by Robert Gordon of Stanford. As Gordon points out, “The great contribution of the article was that it went well beyond local and contingent political explanations to locate obstacles to social reform and redistributive policies in the institutional structure of the legal system itself.” Gordon details ways in which Galanter’s prophesies have come true and even worsened over four decades. Talesh catalogs the article’s place in legal lore: “seminal, blockbuster, canonical, game-changing, extraordinary, pivotal, and noteworthy.” Talesh introduces how repeat players gain advantages in the legal system and how “Galanter set out an important agenda for legal scholars, sociologists, political scientists, and economists. In short, “every law and legal studies student should be required to read the article because it contextualizes the procedural system as something more than a set of rules that should be memorized and mechanically applied.” A powerful new addition to the Classics of Law & Society Series by Quid Pro Books. Features active contents, linked notes, active URLs, and linked Index.
While the right to have one's day in court is a cherished feature of the American democratic system, alarms that the United States is hopelessly litigious and awash in frivolous claims have become so commonplace that they are now a fixture in the popular imagination. According to this view, litigation wastes precious resources, stifles innovation and productivity, and corrodes our social fabric and the national character. Calls for reform have sought, often successfully, to limit people's access to the court system, most often by imposing technical barriers to bringing suit. Alexandra Lahav's In Praise of Litigation provides a much needed corrective to this flawed perspective, reminding us of the irreplaceable role of litigation in a well-functioning democracy and debunking many of the myths that cloud our understanding of this role. For example, the vast majority of lawsuits in the United States are based on contract claims, the median value of lawsuits is on a downward trend, and, on a per capita basis, many fewer lawsuits are filed today than were filed in the 19th century. Exploring cases involving freedom of speech, foodborne illness, defective cars, business competition, and more, the book shows that despite its inevitable limitations, litigation empowers citizens to challenge the most powerful public and private interests and hold them accountable for their actions. Lawsuits change behavior, provide information to consumers and citizens, promote deliberation, and express society's views on equality and its most treasured values. In Praise of Litigation shows how our court system protects our liberties and enables civil society to flourish, and serves as a powerful reminder of why we need to protect people's ability to use it. The tort reform movement has had some real successes in limiting what can reach the courts, but there have been victims too. As Alexandra Lahav shows, it has become increasingly difficult for ordinary people to enforce their rights. In the grand scale of lawsuits, actually crazy or bogus lawsuits constitute a tiny minority; in fact, most anecdotes turn out to be misrepresentations of what actually happened. In In Praise of Litigation, Lahav argues that critics are blinded to the many benefits of lawsuits. The majority of lawsuits promote equality before the law, transparency, and accountability. Our ability to go to court is a sign of our strength as a society and enables us to both participate in and reinforce the rule of law. In addition, joining lawsuits gives citizens direct access to governmental officials-judges-who can hear their arguments about issues central to our democracy, including the proper extent of police power and the ability of all people to vote. It is at least arguable that lawsuits have helped spur major social changes in arenas like race relations and marriage rights, as well as made products safer and forced wrongdoers to answer for their conduct. In this defense, Lahav does not ignore the obvious drawbacks to litigiousness. It is expensive, stressful, and time consuming. Certainly, sensible reforms could make the system better. However, many of the proposals that have been adopted and are currently on the table seek only to solve problems that do not exist or to make it harder for citizens to defend their rights and to enforce the law. This is not the answer. In Praise of Litigation offers a level-headed and law-based assessment of the state of litigation in America as well as a number of practical steps that can be taken to ensure citizens have the right to defend themselves against wrongs while not odiously infringing on the rights of others.
Privatization is occurring throughout the public justice system, including courts, tribunals, and state-sanctioned private dispute resolution regimes. Driven by a widespread ethos of efficiency-based civil justice reform, privatization claims to decrease costs, increase speed, and improve access to the tools of justice. But it may also lead to procedural unfairness, power imbalances, and the breakdown of our systems of democratic governance. Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy demonstrates the urgent need to publicize, politicize, debate, and ultimately temper these moves towards privatized justice. Written by Trevor C.W. Farrow, a former litigation lawyer and current Chair of the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy does more than just bear witness to the privatization initiatives that define how we think about and resolve almost all non-criminal disputes. It articulates the costs and benefits of these privatizing initiatives, particularly their potential negative impacts on the way we regulate ourselves in modern democracies, and it makes recommendations for future civil justice practice and reform.
"In Civil Justice Reconsidered, Steven Croley demonstrates that civil litigation is, for the most part, socially beneficial. An effective civil litigation system is accessible to parties who have suffered legal wrongs, and it is reliable in the sense that those with stronger claims tend to prevail over those with weaker claims. However, while most of the system's failures are overstated, they are not wholly off base; civil litigation often imposes excessive costs that, among other unfortunate consequences, impede access to the courts, and Croley offers ways to reform civil litigation in the interest of justice for potential plaintiffs and defendants, and for the rule of law itself"--Publisher's web site, viewed February 10, 2017.
"The first book to comprehensively analyze, critique, and provide solutions for the new pleading regime in U.S. federal courts. In two recent recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically altered the pleadings landscape by imposing a new version of fact pleading and merits screening - what Scott Dodson calls 'New Pleading.' The result of this abrupt regime change is a broad, significant, and adverse effect on the civil-justice system. But because of its nascence, no scholar has provided a comprehensive, doctrinal, theoretical, and prospective look at what it means for U.S. federal civil procedure, both at home and in the larger global community. This book takes on that task. It aims to synthesize a theoretical account of New Pleading, argue that New Pleading is inconsistent with a system of procedural justice, provide two distinct solutions for rectifying the inconsistency - return to Old Pleading or adopt 'New Discovery' - and, finally, situate New Pleading and its remedies in a global comparative context"--Jacket.