Empirical Legal Studies

Presidents, Picking Judges, and Politics

Over at Concurring Opinions, Corey Yung (John Marshall) is on a blogging roll. His latest post summarizes results from his study addressing: "which President(s) appointed the most ideological judges?"

UPDATE: Part 2.

ABF Research Professor

Pending budgetary approval, the American Bar Foundation (ABF) invites applications to join its Residential Research Faculty as Research Professors beginning in the 2011-12 academic year.

 

We seek candidates with distinguished records of scholarship in law and the social sciences or demonstrated potential for such accomplishments.  Research area, discipline, methodology, and rank are open.  The ABF is strongly committed to diversity in hiring.

 

The ABF is an independent, scholarly research institute committed to social science research on law, legal institutions, and legal processes.  Its faculty consists of leading scholars in the fields of law, sociology, psychology, political science, economics, history, and anthropology.  Research Professors may be appointed either full- or part-time.  When Research Professors are jointly appointed with law or social science faculties of Chicago-area institutions, the ABF works closely with these institutions to coordinate on matters such as salary, benefits, and other work arrangements.

 

The Appointments Committee will begin reviewing applications on August 15, 2010.  We ask that applicants submit a letter of application, a curriculum vitae, a brief (no more than 2-page) description of current research and plans for future research, and a list of three references.

 

Application letters should be addressed to Robert Nelson, Director, and sent in electronic form to Roz Caldwell, Senior Administrative Assistant, at [email protected] with the subject line “Faculty Search.”  Queries about the application process can be directed to Ms. Caldwell at (312)988-6531.

Measuring Judicial Ideology Conversation

Nice discussion (the first of a promised series of posts on the topic) over at Concurring Opinions prompted by Corey Yung (John Marshall) here.

UPDATE: Part 2.

UPDATE #2: Part 3.

UPDATE #3: Part 4.

Second Annual Property and Psychology Roundtable Workshop

For those already in (or near) the Syracuse area, Jeremy Blumenthal (Syracuse) mentioned that the Second Annual Property and Psychology Roundtable Workshop is open to all interested (June 7-8). Participants include:

Karen Neary, University of Waterloo Psychology Department: Artifacts and Natural Kinds: How Children Judge Whether Objects Are Owned
Discussant: Jeanine Skorinko, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Stephanie M. Stern, Chicago-Kent College of Law: Regulatory and Ownership Perceptions: An Empirical Analysis of Regulatory versus Physical Takings
Jay Hook, Harvard Law School: Psychology of Property
Discussant: Oliver Goodenough, Vermont Law School

Alex Shaw, Yale University Department of Psychology: Ideas as Property: Children Apply Ownership to Ideas
Discussant: Jeremy A. Blumenthal, Syracuse University College of Law

Terry Turnipseed, Syracuse University College of Law: Is Voting in Churches Unconstitutional?
Discussant: Robin Paul Malloy, Syracuse University College of Law

Jeffrey Stake, Indiana University Maurer School of Law: What is "Just Compensation?"
Discussant: Meera Adya, Syracuse University, Burton Blatt Institute

Employment Arbitration

As Congress ponders new legislation, scholarly interest in arbitration--especially arbitration outcomes and how they compare to litigation outcomes--grows. One typical hurdle--access to arbitration data--is less of an obstacle in California where state law compels disclosure. In a paper forthcoming in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2011),  Alexander Colvin (Cornell--ILR) exploits data from reports filed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) pursuant to California law. An excerpted abstract, below, summarizes key findings.

"The study analyzes 3,945 arbitration cases, of which 1,213 were decided by an award after a hearing, filed and reaching disposition between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. This includes all the employment arbitration cases administered nationally by the AAA during this time period that derived from employer-promulgated arbitration procedures. Key findings include: (1) the employee win rate amongst the cases was 21.4%, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials; (2) in cases won by employees, the median award amount was $36,500 and the mean was $109,858, both of which are substantially lower than award amounts reported in employment litigation; (3) mean time to disposition in arbitration was 284.4 days for cases that settled and 361.5 days for cases decided after a hearing, which is substantially shorter than times to disposition in litigation; (4) mean arbitration fees were $6,340 per case overall, $11,070 for cases disposed of by an award following a hearing, and in 97 percent of these cases the employer paid 100 percent of the arbitration fees beyond a small filing fee, pursuant to AAA procedures; (5) in 82.4 percent of the cases, the employees involved made less than $100,000 per year; and (6) the mean amount claimed was $844,814 and 75 percent of all claims were greater than $36,000. The study also analyzes whether there is a repeat player effect in employer arbitration. The results provide strong evidence of a repeat employer effect in which employee win rates and award amounts are significantly lower where the employer is involved in multiple arbitration cases, which could be explained by various advantages accruing to larger organizations with greater resources and expertise in dispute resolution procedures. The results also indicate the existence of a significant repeat employer-arbitrator pairing effect in which employees on average have lower win rates and receive smaller damage awards where the same arbitrator is involved in more than one case with the same employer, a finding supporting some of the fairness criticisms directed at mandatory employment arbitration."