The Experts below are selected from a list of 17772 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Imre S. Szalai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the supreme court s landmark decision in new prime inc v oliveira a panoptic view of america s Civil Justice System and arbitration
2019Co-Authors: Imre S. SzalaiAbstract:This article examines the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and notes that it was the first decision in several decades where the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of workers and rejected an expansive interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. The New Prime case suggests a new approach that courts may use to fine-tune the existing legal framework of the FAA. There are conflicting decisions involving multiple different aspects of arbitration law, and fixing arbitration law is a pressing need in light of the hundreds of millions of arbitration clauses that have proliferated in American society. The Court’s analysis in New Prime suggests a new judicial approach that can be used to fix the legal framework for arbitration. This article also explores how the New Prime decision should be viewed in the context of the current sociopolitical environment in which it was issued: in the wake of the #MeToo movement, a public backlash has developed against the widespread use of forced arbitration in America. There is also bipartisan support for legislative reforms as well as some private initiatives to cut back on the use of arbitration. Also considered in this article is how the Court’s analysis in New Prime suggests a new judicial approach that can be used to fix the legal framework for arbitration and raises larger questions about the scope of the FAA, which workers are exempt from its coverage, and how workers in the gig economy, such as Uber and Lyft drivers, could be impacted and no longer forced to arbitrate. This article concludes by examining fundamental questions raised by New Prime, like what the future role of arbitration in America’s Civil Justice System should be.
-
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira: A Panoptic View of America’s Civil Justice System and Arbitration
2019Co-Authors: Imre S. SzalaiAbstract:This article examines the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and notes that it was the first decision in several decades where the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of workers and rejected an expansive interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. The New Prime case suggests a new approach that courts may use to fine-tune the existing legal framework of the FAA. There are conflicting decisions involving multiple different aspects of arbitration law, and fixing arbitration law is a pressing need in light of the hundreds of millions of arbitration clauses that have proliferated in American society. The Court’s analysis in New Prime suggests a new judicial approach that can be used to fix the legal framework for arbitration. This article also explores how the New Prime decision should be viewed in the context of the current sociopolitical environment in which it was issued: in the wake of the #MeToo movement, a public backlash has developed against the widespread use of forced arbitration in America. There is also bipartisan support for legislative reforms as well as some private initiatives to cut back on the use of arbitration. Also considered in this article is how the Court’s analysis in New Prime suggests a new judicial approach that can be used to fix the legal framework for arbitration and raises larger questions about the scope of the FAA, which workers are exempt from its coverage, and how workers in the gig economy, such as Uber and Lyft drivers, could be impacted and no longer forced to arbitrate. This article concludes by examining fundamental questions raised by New Prime, like what the future role of arbitration in America’s Civil Justice System should be.
-
The Consent Amendment: Restoring Meaningful Consent and Respect for Human Dignity in America's Civil Justice System
2017Co-Authors: Imre S. SzalaiAbstract:Arbitration agreements now appear throughout American society, in large part because of expansive, flawed decisions from the Supreme Court involving the Federal Arbitration Act, a 1925 statute designed to facilitate arbitration in limited situations. As a result, the courthouse door is blocked for consumers and employees trying to vindicate their rights. Sadly, many consumers and employees are unaware of the existence or significance of arbitration clauses in their contracts. Nevertheless, courts still compel many individuals to arbitrate, even when meaningful consent is lacking. But meaningful consent is the foundation for arbitration, consistent with the fundamental value of party autonomy in a democratic society. The current legal framework for arbitration is flawed and erodes public confidence in our legal System. This Article proposes an amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, based on privacy rules recently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. This Article’s proposed amendment, called the Consent Amendment, restores meaningful consent for consumers and employees, and in turn, promotes respect for party autonomy and human dignity in our Civil Justice System. Through three simple rules, based on transparency, choice, and respect for expectations, this proposal would incentivize businesses to develop fairer arbitration procedures. Among the several benefits of the proposal is that parties can still take advantage of the potential efficiencies of arbitration, provided that meaningful consent exists. This Article’s proposal, which solves an almost one-hundred-year-old puzzle in arbitration law, restores faith in both arbitration and our judiciary as legitimate institutions that respect party autonomy and serve the public good.
Mary Nell Trautner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Tort Reform and Access to Justice: How Legal Environments Shape Lawyers’ Case Selection
Qualitative Sociology, 2011Co-Authors: Mary Nell TrautnerAbstract:How do lawyers decide which cases to accept? Previous studies suggest that they use a simple risk/return formula to make such decisions. I argue, however, that legal environments also shape lawyers’ decisions. Analyses of in-depth interviews with lawyers across four states demonstrate that lawyers make different decisions about cases in different legal environments. Lawyers in states without tort reform emphasize the importance of how “likeable” a client may be to a potential jury, whereas lawyers in states with tort reform instead focus on the defendant’s “liability.” These differences have important implications for who has access to the Civil Justice System, and for consumer and medical protections more generally.
-
Screening, Sorting, and Selecting in Complex Personal Injury Cases: How Lawyers Mediate Access to the Civil Justice System
2006Co-Authors: Mary Nell TrautnerAbstract:Personal injury lawyers aid clients who see themselves as victims of medical, commercial, or other forms of negligence and who seek compensation through the Civil Justice System. Previous studies have suggested that these lawyers are highly selective, accepting only a small percentage of potential cases with which they are presented. Yet little is known about the actual process of screening. How do lawyers decide which cases to accept and which to decline? Do lawyers agree on the factors that make a good case and those which make a bad case? How might local legal and cultural environments influence the screening process? These questions, and related issues of access, inequality, policy, and Justice, are at the core of this dissertation. Using in-depth interviews and an experimental vignette study given to 83 lawyers who specialize in medical malpractice and products liability, I examine the case screening process, paying particular attention to the roles of tort reform and the legal cultures and environments in which lawyers work. Half the lawyers I interviewed practice in states which are considered to be difficult jurisdictions for the practice of personal injury law due to tort reform and conservative political climates (Texas and Colorado), while the other half work in states that have been relatively unaffected by tort reform and are considered to be more “plaintiff friendly” (Pennsylvania and Massachusetts). Lawyers respond not only to legal rules and changes to those rules, but also to their perceptions of how jurors will respond to and evaluate their case. My analyses show that while lawyers in both types of states accept roughly the same percentage of
Randall E. Lasalle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Civil Justice System and going concern audit reports comments on auditors decision making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments evidence from hong kong
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Randall E. LasalleAbstract:Abstract Lam and Mensah [Lam, K., Mensah, Y.M., 2006. Auditors’ decision-making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments: Evidence from Hong Kong. J. Account. Public Pol. 25 (6), this issue] provide some valuable insight on auditors’ choice of going concern audit reports in an environment where the Civil Justice System affords, from the standpoint of the plaintiff, fewer remedies and is more difficult to file a complaint than it is in the US. Hence, from the auditor’s standpoint, this environment can appropriately be described as a “low litigation risk environment”. In this comment, I first question whether a disclaimer of an opinion is any indication of either a quality audit or professionalism. Secondly, three alternative explanations for the empirical regularities are discussed. The Gatekeeper Story suggests auditors are simply not willing to risk reducing their reputational capital by acquiescing to clients that are not likely to survive their own financial distress. The Herding Story suggests that, when auditors are faced with uncertainties or a gap in the authoritative literature, auditors will herd together to form a common response that mimic one-another. The Value of Incumbency Story holds that as the value of incumbency declines with the client’s inability to survive, auditors will have fewer incentives to incur the incremental costs to gather sufficient competent evidential matter necessary to support an unqualified opinion.
-
The Civil Justice System and going concern audit reports: Comments on “Auditors’ decision-making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments: Evidence from Hong Kong”
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Randall E. LasalleAbstract:Abstract Lam and Mensah [Lam, K., Mensah, Y.M., 2006. Auditors’ decision-making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments: Evidence from Hong Kong. J. Account. Public Pol. 25 (6), this issue] provide some valuable insight on auditors’ choice of going concern audit reports in an environment where the Civil Justice System affords, from the standpoint of the plaintiff, fewer remedies and is more difficult to file a complaint than it is in the US. Hence, from the auditor’s standpoint, this environment can appropriately be described as a “low litigation risk environment”. In this comment, I first question whether a disclaimer of an opinion is any indication of either a quality audit or professionalism. Secondly, three alternative explanations for the empirical regularities are discussed. The Gatekeeper Story suggests auditors are simply not willing to risk reducing their reputational capital by acquiescing to clients that are not likely to survive their own financial distress. The Herding Story suggests that, when auditors are faced with uncertainties or a gap in the authoritative literature, auditors will herd together to form a common response that mimic one-another. The Value of Incumbency Story holds that as the value of incumbency declines with the client’s inability to survive, auditors will have fewer incentives to incur the incremental costs to gather sufficient competent evidential matter necessary to support an unqualified opinion.
Jordi Nieva Fenoll - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the impact of the economic downturn in the spanish Civil Justice System
Erasmus law review, 2015Co-Authors: Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Jordi Nieva FenollAbstract:textabstractThe Spanish Justice System has been shaken by the econom- ic downturn as many other institutions have. This article addresses in the first place some statistical data that shed light as regards to the number of judges and the costs and length of the procedure in Spain. These figures help to understand, in the second place, the impact of austerity measures on the judiciary, namely, the freeze on the hiring of judges and the establishing of high court fees. While they mainly concern the supply side of Justice services, others such cost reductions in legal aid have had, in the third place, an impact on the demand side, driving many citizens to social exclusion and to resorting to self-defence mecha-nisms. The final part of this article addresses some remedies that may alleviate judiciary’s workload, but that fall short of doing it. All in all, the Spanish Justice System seems to require a holistic approach to patch up edges, but one in which the role of judge-made Justice in a democratic society has to be central again.
-
The Impact of the Economic Downturn in the Spanish Civil Justice System
Erasmus Law Review, 2015Co-Authors: Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Jordi Nieva FenollAbstract:The Spanish Justice System has been shaken by the economic downturn as many other institutions have. This article addresses in the first place some statistical data that shed light as regards to the number of judges and the costs and length of the procedure in Spain. These figures help to understand, in the second place, the impact of austerity measures on the judiciary, namely, the freeze on the hiring of judges and the establishing of high court fees. While they mainly concern the supply side of Justice services, others such cost reductions in legal aid have had, in the third place, an impact on the demand side, driving many citizens to social exclusion and to resorting to self-defence mechanisms. The final part of this article addresses some remedies that may alleviate judiciary’s workload, but that fall short of doing it. All in all, the Spanish Justice System seems to require a holistic approach to patch up edges, but one in which the role of judge-made Justice in a democratic society has to be central again.
Daniel L. Rubinfeld - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Chapter 5 Empirical Study of the Civil Justice System
Handbook of Law and Economics, 2007Co-Authors: Daniel P. Kessler, Daniel L. RubinfeldAbstract:Abstract In this essay, we discuss empirical research on the economic effects of the Civil Justice System. We discuss research on the effects of three substantive bodies of law—contracts, torts, and property—and research on the effects of the litigation process. We begin with a review of studies of aggregate empirical trends and the important issues involving contracts and torts, both positive and normative. We survey some of the more interesting empirical issues, and we conclude with some suggestions for future work. Because studies involving property law are so divergent, there is no simple description of aggregates that adequately characterizes the subject. In its place, we offer an overview of a number of the most important issues of interest. We describe (selectively) the current state of empirical knowledge, and offer some suggestions for future work. The section on legal process builds on the previous substantive sections. With respect each of the steps, from violation to trial to appeal, we review some of the more important empirical contributions.
-
empirical study of the Civil Justice System
Handbook of Law and Economics, 2007Co-Authors: Daniel P. Kessler, Daniel L. RubinfeldAbstract:In this essay, we discuss empirical research on the economic effects of the Civil Justice System. We discuss research on the effects of three substantive bodies of law--contracts, torts, and property--and research on the effects of the litigation process. We begin with a review of studies of aggregate empirical trends and the important issues involving contracts and torts, both positive and normative. We survey some of the more interesting empirical issues, and we conclude with some suggestions for future work. Because studies involving property law are so divergent, there is no simple description of aggregates that adequately characterizes the subject. In its place, we offer an overview of a number of the most important issues of interest. We describe (selectively) the current state of empirical knowledge, and offer some suggestions for future work. The section on legal process builds on the previous substantive sections. With respect each of the steps, from violation to trial to appeal, we review some of the more important empirical contributions.
-
Empirical Study of the Civil Justice System
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004Co-Authors: Daniel P. Kessler, Daniel L. RubinfeldAbstract:In this essay, we discuss empirical research on the economic effects of the Civil Justice System. We discuss research on the effects of three substantive bodies of law- contracts, torts, and property- and research on the effects of the litigation process. We begin with a review of studies of aggregate empirical trends and the important issues involving contracts and torts, both positive and normative. We survey some of the more interesting empirical issues, and we conclude with some suggestions for future work. Because studies involving property law are so divergent, there is no simple description of aggregates that adequately characterizes the subject. In its place, we offer an overview of a number of the most important issues of interest. We describe (selectively) the current state of empirical knowledge, and offer some suggestions for future research. The section on legal process builds on the previous substantive sections. With respect each of the steps, from violation to trial to appeal, we review some of the more important empirical contributions.