Empirical Legal Studies

Northwestern Univ. L. Rev.'s 7th Annual "Empirical Issue": Call For Papers

If evidence of empirical legal studies’ growth was not already obvious enough in the peer-reviewed world, some movement in traditional student law reviews also evidences a turn toward ELS as well. And no more so than perhaps the Northwestern University Law Review which is pleased to announce its seventh annual issue dedicated to empirical legal scholarship, to be published in Spring 2026. The student editors "seek to bring cutting-edge, interdisciplinary, empirical work to our legal audience, and enrich our understanding of the law, legal actors, and legal doctrine through robust and reliable examination of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method data."

The student editors note that the "exclusive submission window for the Vol. 120 Empirical Issue of the Northwestern University Law Review will open on April 1, 2025, and run until April 28, 2025. A subset of submissions will be selected to move forward to peer review. The Law Review promises make every effort to notify authors of rejection or of advancement to peer review by June 30, 2025. Final publication decisions will be issued by August 10, 2025." Submissions must land in the 15,000-30,000 word count range.

For those interested, additional details are found here.

CELS 2025--Save the Date

At the request of the CELS 2025 conference co-organizers, David Hyman, Neel Sukhatme, and Josh Teitelbaum, I am delighted to pass along the following information:

Conference on Empirical Legal Studies

24-25 October 2025

 

The 19th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) will be held on 24-25 October 2025, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.

 

More conference information here.

 

CELS 2025 is co-sponsored by Georgetown Law and the SELS.

Public Input Data on SEC Rulemaking

Incident to its rulemaking activities, the SEC, similar to other agencies, solicits public input on proposed rules and reduces to formal memoranda SEC meetings with industry advocates (and lobbyists) seeking to influence final rules. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) enables scholars to assess possible relations between both forms of public input (comments and memoranda) and final rules. And this is precisely what Adam Pritchard (Michigan) et al., set out to do in their recent paper, SEC Rulemaking: An Empirical Analysis of Comments and Memoranda.

The paper draws from 482 rules, 1018 releases, 84,828 comments, and 5,700 memoranda, which are then linked (through Westlaw and Lexis) to any subsequent trial and appellate court activity. These data were then analyzed for "sentiment" with leading LLMs, including OpenAI, specifically GPT-3.5. A focus on rulemaking activity, at least with respect to SEC's proposed rules, is warranted owing to, at the very least, a detectable trend towards increased public commentary over time as the figure (below) implies.

Among this paper's key findings include that while comment volume and sentiment systematically inform final SEC rules, unsurprisingly, this influence varies across different types of commentators. Similarly, direct advocacy engagement with SEC officials--indicated by SEC memoranda--"is an important marker of proposed rules’ adoption, and if adopted, judicial challenge and survival." An excerpted abstract follows.

"... We find that public inputs contain valuable information regarding the probability that a rule is adopted, challenged, and survives judicial scrutiny. Longer average comments and greater disagreement among commenters correlate with a lower likelihood of rule survival, whereas an increase in the number of suggestions correlates with a greater survival likelihood. Rules affecting issuers are less likely to be adopted and more likely to face a court challenge, while rules affecting broker-dealers are more likely to survive judicial scrutiny. As for specific issues, comments emphasizing the burden on competition correlate with a lower likelihood of rule survival, comments raising constitutional questions reduce both the likelihood of rule adoption and survival conditional on a judicial challenge. Comments by academics have no statistically significant effect at any stage of the process...."

14th Annual Workshop on Research Design for Causal Inference

Once again hosted at Northwestern's Pritzker School of Law, Chicago, IL, the 14th annual summer Workshop on Research Design for Causal Inference will include distinct--though related--"Main" and "Advanced" workshop sessions.

Main Workshop:  Monday – Friday, July 28-August 1, 2025; Advanced Workshop:  Sunday – Wednesday, August 3-6, 2025.

Main Workshop Topics/Faculty: Introduction to Modern Methods for Causal Inference:  Donald B. Rubin (Harvard), Matching and Reweighting Designs for "Pure" Observational Studies: Jens Hainmueller (Stanford), Panel Data and Difference-in-Differences: Jens Hainmueller (Stanford), Regression Discontinuity: Heather Royer (UCSB), and Instrumental Variable Methods: Tymon Sloczynski (Brandeis).

Advanced Workshop Topics/Faculty: Primer on machine learning approaches to prediction: Christian Hansen (Chicago), Applications of machine learning to causal inference:  Christian Hansen (Chicago), Advanced Difference-in Differences: Andrew Goodman-Bacon (Fed. Reserve Bd.), and Advanced Instrumental Variables: Peter Hull (Brown).

In person-registration is limited to 125 participants for each workshop (there will also be a Zoom option as well).

For further information and registration: (click here).

Binary Choice Models: Logit/Probit/LPM/LDM?

In the "old days," debates about binary choice models (where the dependent variable= [0,1]) typically centered on probit v. logit. More recent discussions of binary choice models, however, have broadened to include various linear regression possibilities, including LPM and LDM models (click here for one recent example). As discussions of binary choice model options continue to evolve--and some of these discussions evidence (or reflect) variation in norms across fields (e.g., poli sci, econ, epi, etc.)--so to do resources explaining the competing costs and benefits of various empirical strategies. For examples of a few helpful resources, click here and here.

2025 ICPSR Summer Quant. Methods Programs/Workshops

While best known as a leading social science data archive, one of the ICPSR's under-appreciated assets includes its suite of summer programs/workshops. For more than 50 years, the ICPSR has conducted a range (90+) of courses/seminars/workshops, principally based at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor campus, that spans the arc of quantitative methods as well as a diverse array of social scientific fields. While I recommend in-person programs where possible, online options also exist. Workshop formats vary as well, ranging from 3-5 day courses to 4-week offerings. These offerings can be invaluable for graduate (and undergraduate) students as well as faculty. For those interested, links follow regarding additional registration (click here) and scholarship (click here) information.

Selection Effects & Prof. George Priest (1947-2024)

A prior post noting Prof. George Priest's passing predictably emphasizes his enduring influence on the topic of selection effects in litigation. Among the many papers scheduled for publication in 42:3 Yale J. on Reg. (2025) and presented at a symposium (or 'Festschrift') just months before Priest's recent passing includes 'The Selection of Disputes' at Forty, by Daniel Klerman (USC) & Yoon-Ho Alex Lee (Northwestern). The Klerman & Lee paper (abstract below) complements, contributes to, and reflects Priest's enormous scholarly legacy.

“Priest and Klein's ‘Selection of Disputes for Litigation’ has been one of the most influential law review articles of all time. This Article reviews its contribution to legal scholarship. Priest and Klein's central and enduring contribution is the recognition that some cases are more likely to settle than others. It follows that litigated disputes are not a random sample of all disputes. This basic insight is true under nearly all litigation models and is also confirmed by a large body of empirical evidence. Priest and Klein's article is also famous for its prediction that, under certain conditions, the plaintiff trial win rate will tend to approach fifty percent. That prediction, however, is not supported by most other litigation models and has received only modest support from the empirical literature. Our citation analysis also suggests that 'The Selection of Disputes for Litigation' is one of the rare articles whose importance was both recognized almost immediately and whose influence has continued to grow over several decades.”

Contingent Fees & Access to Justice: Data From NYC

While "contingent fees are certainly not without their problems," recent analyses of NYC data imply that they contribute to increased equity in terms of access to justice "between rich and poor and between whites and racial minorities."

It turns out that since 1957, New York courts require contingent fee lawyers to file a "closing statement" for all cases involving "personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death." While typically confidential, these closing statements also include settlement amounts.

In Contingent Fees and Access to Justice, the authors, Eric Helland (Claremont McKenna--econ) and Dan Klerman (USC), reports results from their analyses of closing data "from 2003–2013 from the First Appellate Division, which has supervisory authority over lawyers in Manhattan and the Bronx."

To be sure, even these rich data (especially the settlement data) are not without limitations. After all, the data only involve eleven years, two NYC boroughs, and certain tort claims. Any data limitations aside, key findings include that "the poor make claims and recover at higher rates than the rich, and African Americans and Hispanics make claims at higher rates than whites." The paper's abstract follows.

"Using a unique dataset from New York City, this article shows that contingent fees seem to have, at least partly, solved the access-to-justice problem in tort litigation. People in poorer zip codes, in fact, make legal claims at a higher rate than those in wealthier areas. This greater propensity to seek and achieve legal redress is partly explained by the fact that poor people are more likely to be injured. In addition, the disparity between rich and poor manifests itself solely in smaller claims. For larger claims, rich and poor make claims at roughly the same rate. African Americans and Hispanics also make claims at a higher rate than whites, and this difference also attenuates when one controls for accident rates or focuses on larger claims."

Transforming "Vertical" Regression Output Into a "Horizontal" Table Format

A recent Statalist discussion (here) walks readers through the coding necessary to transform the following (traditionally "vertical") regression output:

-----------------------------------------
                               mpg       
-----------------------------------------
Weight (lbs.)                      -0.006
                       [-0.009    -0.003]
                                     0.00
Displacement (cu. in.)              0.006
                       [-0.014     0.025]
                                     0.57
Turn circle (ft.)                  -0.139
                       [-0.496     0.219]
                                     0.44
Intercept                          43.588
                       [33.688    53.489]
                                     0.00
Number of observations                 74
-----------------------------------------

into a "horizontal" output format:

-------------------------------------------------------------
                       Coefficient       95% CI       p-value
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weight (lbs.)               -0.006 [-0.009    -0.003]    0.00
Displacement (cu. in.)       0.006 [-0.014     0.025]    0.57
Turn circle (ft.)           -0.139 [-0.496     0.219]    0.44
Intercept                   43.588 [33.688    53.489]    0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated and Unanticipated Costs and Benefits of Mandatory Insider Trading "Blackout" Requirements--Evidence From the EU

Many countries, including the U.S., impose closed periods (a.k.a. "blackouts") on corporate insider trading for a period of time preceding earnings announcements. Such regulations on insiders' trading activity are typically justified due to insiders' unique role and position in capital markets. Whether these regulations achieve their stated goals remains relatively understudied.

In July 2016, all E.U.-listed firms were required to impose a 30-day blackout period on corporate insider trading prior to interim or fiscal year-end earnings announcements. The variation across firms prior to the July 2016 rule created a quasi-natural experiment to assess the new (2016) rule's impact on "insider trading activity, profitability, and market consequences."

In The Impact of Mandatory Closed Periods on Corporate Insider Trading, Francois Brochet (BU—Accounting) et al. report results from a difference-in-differences strategy that compares 30 compare countries that adopted mandated closed periods after July 2016 (treatment group) with companies that already had such policies (control group) in place prior to 2016. Notably, what the authors report is that their results highlight that uniform closed periods "deter informed trading but may unintentionally harm market liquidity and information quality." The abstract follows.

"The Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), implemented in July 2016 across the EU, mandates uniform closed periods, prohibiting insider trading 30 days before earnings announcements. We find a significant reduction in insider trading during these periods in treated countries without prior mandates. Although some trades still occur, they do not appear to be driven by private information. However, treated insiders experience an increase in compensation. Furthermore, information asymmetry rises before earnings announcements, and treated firms experience a decline in institutional ownership. Overall, the study suggests that mandated closed periods do not lead to a wealth transfer from insiders to outsiders, nor do they enhance the information environment. These results underscore the limitations of regulatory one-size-fits-all measures in curbing corporate insider trading."

Empirical Evidence, Courts, and the 4th Amendment

Over time, and since Katz (1954), Justice Harlan's two-part approach has largely guided how courts construe privacy protections in the 4th Amendment context. As the second part of Harlan's approach involves what many consider to be amenable to empirical social science, a growing body of scholarship sets out to mark the boundaries of where, as Christine Scott-Hayward (CSU-Long Beach--criminology) et al., note, "society [reasonably] expects privacy." Increasingly, defense attorneys increasing turn to such research findings in their briefs and pleadings to courts.

While entirely descriptive, The Role of Empirical Scholarship in Fourth Amendment Privacy Jurisprudence levers 13 leading empirical papers in the 4th Amendment space and then identifies and dives deeply into the relatively (and absolutely) small number of judicial opinions that cite to the leading empirical work. The authors' main takeaway is one of frustration with the courts' reluctance to engage with empirical legal scholarship relevant to the question of societal expectations of privacy in the search and seizure context. (To be sure, any judicial reluctance to engage with empirical legal research is merely a sub-set of, for better or worse, courts' collective benign neglect of legal scholarship generally.)

In the end, the paper's findings (and the authors' frustration) both bump into and provide indirect support for a larger point that my Cornell colleague (and friend) Jeff Rachlinski described years ago (2011): “Empirical legal scholarship . . . is not the same as evidence-based law. Empirical legal scholarship resides primarily in the academy.” That relevant empirical legal scholarship will migrate from the academy and into judicial opinions is not a given. Moreover, any such migration will likely continue to vary across legal doctrines and case types.

Options for Small and Unbalanced ("Rare Events") Data Sets

While relogit is a standard "go-to" Stata command when a data set includes "rare events," a threat of bias is enhanced if rare events derive from a "small sample." While bootstraping may be an option for some, a recent Stata listserv discussion (here) emphasizes a pair of commands -- firthlogit and exlogit -- that might make sense for others. Relatedly, Prof. Williams (ND-sociology) helpfully delves into the challenge a bit more comprehensively (here).

George L. Priest (1947-2024)

When my former mentor, Ted Eisenberg (1947-2014), periodically reminded me that "it is difficult to overestimate the influence of selection effects in litigation," his point of reference was a seminal 1984 article, The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Sadly, one-half of the "Priest-Klein" hypothesis, George L. Priest, the Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics at Yale Law School, passed away recently.

Yale Law School's memorial notice echoes what Ted emphasized for decades, "[Priest's] 1984 article (with UCLA economist Benjamin Klein) “The Selection of Disputes for Litigation,” revolutionized theories of the common law and engendered decades of inquiry regarding the probability of litigation outcomes. The article presented what became known as the ‘Priest-Klein hypothesis’ and introduced the concept of selection bias into legal literature.” Empirical scholars, and many others, mourn Prof. Priest's passing.

Job Opportunity of Note (& ELS' Expanding Footprint)

While my proverbial "gaze" typically fixes on scholarship, "ELS-adjacent" issues periodically catch my eye as well. In this spirit, I recently came across a "real-world" (that is, non-academic) job opportunity that might interest statistics-savvy post-docs (and others). The job posting also implies the possibility that ELS is expanding beyond its traditional academic "silo."

What I learned from the job posting includes that: 1) an "Quantitative Research Unit" operates within (and services) the New Jersey judiciary, and 2) this Unit is actively hiring a "Research Analyst Manager" (click here for a direct link to the job posting). According to the [NJ] Judiciary Research Manager, the Unit is looking to hire "an individual to lead the team doing research across the Civil Court and Family Court practice areas. This is a great opportunity to lead applied work in the Law and Courts arena that has near-immediate impact."