Do Briefs Matter?

I suspect many lawyers have had the experience of briefing and arguing a case before an appellate court, and then receiving an opinion back from the court that seems like it was written for another case, with the court simply not engaging with the parties’ major arguments.  Although anecdotes along these lines abound, no rigorous studies are available to show us how common such judicial nonresponsiveness is.

Part of the problem is that researchers would have to read a large volume of briefs and opinions, and then painstakingly sort out exactly which arguments were addressed and how thoroughly.  Not only would the work be tedious and time-consuming, but it would also be subject to reliability concerns in light of the subjectivity in deciding whether and how satisfactorily a court has responded to an argument.

Chad Oldfather, Joseph Bockhorst, and Brian Dimmer ’09 think they have a solution to these difficulties: automated research that uses computers to compare a large number of briefs and opinions quickly and objectively.  They describe their project in a new paper on SSRN entitled “Judicial Inaction in Action? Toward a Measure of Judicial Responsiveness.”  

Continue ReadingDo Briefs Matter?

Debating Discovery

As I noted last week, I recently had the privilege of participating in a panel on the need for further amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure related to E-discovery. A video of the event can be found here. (It actually took place at the National Press Club and not the Mayflower Hotel.) For those who like this kind of thing, there’s some interesting stuff.  My argument is that we essentially provide an e-discovery safe harbor for “neutrally” adopted and consistently applied systems for the retention and retrieval of electronic information. Marty Redish wants to reconsider 1938 and, in particular, to place the cost of discovery on the requesting party. I agree but Ron Allen does not. Don Elliott wants to do it only in certain types of cases but, more provocatively, thinks that Rule 4 is unconstitutional.

My remarks begin at 26:00 with a shout out to this blog.

Continue ReadingDebating Discovery

Best of the Blogs: Time Waster Edition

At Concurring Opinions, Kaimipono Wegner directs our attention to an article by Adam Zimmerman in the Duke Law Journal explaining why we waste time. It turns out that we make decisions over time horizons that are too short. Five minutes of watching a parody video on You Tube may bring more pleasure than the productivity gain from five minutes of grading papers. If we were to choose four hours of You Tube, we’d see it differently. But we keep slacking in five minute intervals. 

At the Faculty Lounge, Jacqueline Lipton brings us academic humor. Reminds of the answer to whether one has read some one’s new article. “Read it? I haven’t even cited it yet!”

At the Conglomerate, Gordon Smith, following Ann Althouse, links to the site Subzin. It allows you to search for phrases and words (like your own name) in movie scripts. Don’t start if you have something to do. Those five minute blocs will turn into hours.

Finally, Above The Law announces its’ second annual contest for the best law firm holiday card with links to some of last year’s winners. Not as much fun as Subzin. Seriously, dude, do not start.

Continue ReadingBest of the Blogs: Time Waster Edition