Master of the Words
Putting the Bar to the Test: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of Bar Exam Outcomes on Lawyering Effectiveness
Jason Scott et al.
Journal of Law & Empirical Analysis, November 2024
Abstract:
How well does bar exam performance predict lawyering effectiveness? Is performance on some components of the bar exam more predictive? The current study, the first of its kind to measure the relationship between bar exam scores and a new lawyer's effectiveness, evaluates these questions by combining three unique datasets -- bar results from the State Bar of Nevada, a survey of recently admitted lawyers, and a survey of supervisors, peers, and judges who were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of recently-admitted lawyers. We find that performance on both the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) and essay components of the Nevada Bar have little relationship with the assessed lawyering effectiveness of new lawyers, calling into question the usefulness of these tests.
Gender Stereotypes and Candidate Qualifications in Judicial Elections
Megan Kennedy, Michael Nelson & Erin Heidt-Forsythe
Political Research Quarterly, forthcoming
Abstract:
A large literature documents the effects of gendered stereotyping on the outcomes of legislative and executive elections. Less attention has been paid to the effects of these stereotypes on judicial elections, a venue where candidates might encounter unique stereotypes. Further, existing research on judicial elections prioritizes one form of qualification -- prior judicial experience -- leaving unaddressed the effects of other professional experiences on voters' choices in these contests. In this paper, we rely on a conjoint experiment to test the effects of candidate qualifications and gender stereotypes in U.S. state judicial elections. We find that, on average, women candidates are advantaged in judicial elections, though we find no evidence that citizens view women candidates as more qualified. Further, while voters do prefer candidates with prior judicial experience they also -- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- favor judges with prior political experience. Importantly, however, we observe minimal instances of gendered stereotyping in these elections. Our findings call for further research on the effects of gender in judicial elections.
Gender and public perceptions of judges who refuse to recuse
Kayla Canelo
Politics, Groups, and Identities, forthcoming
Abstract:
Recent high-profile investigations into the U.S. judiciary have demonstrated that judges often refuse to recuse themselves from cases where they hold a conflict of interest. Given women's presence in various political institutions has been shown to decrease perceptions of corruption and increase trust and legitimacy, I use a survey experiment to assess whether the public is more trusting of the decision-making of women judges who refuse to recuse themselves in cases where they hold a financial or interpersonal conflict of interest. I find women judges who refuse to recuse are trusted more to be unbiased in their decision-making, relative to male judges. Importantly, I find that men and women respondents are not equally trusting of women judges in this context. Specifically, men are more trusting of women judges than women.
Executives Strike Back: Political Benefits of Sanctioning the U.S. Supreme Court
Matthew Montgomery, Natalie Rogol & Anna McCaghren Fleming
Journal of Law and Courts, forthcoming
Abstract:
Recently there have been extraordinary instances of public and political elite complaints toward the Supreme Court. Through a survey experiment, we find that when respondents read that a copartisan executive is offended by recent Supreme Court decisions and threatening to ignore future decisions, respondents increase their support of executives' not complying with and going public against the Court. Additionally, we find that partisans reward candidates by voting for them at higher rates if they ignore a Court decision that harmed the participant's party. Our findings hold implications for continued institutional arrangements and our understanding of the functioning of our democracy.
Does Civil Forfeiture Fight Crime? Evidence From New Mexico
Jennifer McDonald, Harrison Weeks & Dick Carpenter
Criminal Justice Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
This study examined civil forfeiture's impact on crime rates. Proponents of civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to take and permanently keep property without a criminal conviction, claim it is an essential crime-fighting tool, particularly in the War on Drugs. Critics challenge the crime-fighting efficacy of civil forfeiture while warning the policy violates individual liberties. Previous research has associated increases in civil forfeiture with higher rates of drug arrests, but to date, few studies have examined the impact of a major civil forfeiture reform. Using a 9-year panel of monthly crime rates, this study measured the impact on crime of legislation that eliminated civil forfeiture in New Mexico. This study did not find sufficient evidence to conclude civil forfeiture effectively fights crime. Specifically, when New Mexico eliminated the policy, crime rates did not worsen compared to control states. These findings hold important implications informing the policy debate surrounding civil forfeiture.
Well said!: Professional norms and female justices' evaluation of lower court opinion text
Shane Gleason & Krystoff Kissoon
Law & Policy, forthcoming
Abstract:
Supreme Court justices' opinions shape the contours of case law binding throughout the United States. Importantly though, justices do not write their opinions de novo. Rather, they routinely draw on lower court judges' opinion language when crafting opinions. In doing so, justices stretch the substantive impact of lower court judges' reasoning beyond the boundaries of their circuits. However, justices do not draw equally on lower court opinions; while previous work often ties this to judges' professional qualifications, we draw on work stressing female supervisors are more likely to enforce professional norms on subordinates. We argue female justices are more likely to draw upon lower court opinions complying with professional norms because of greater implicit norm internalization over the course of their careers. We test this proposition with a quantitative textual analysis of the justices' opinions and lower court opinions. We find support for our argument. This raises normative concerns about the overall impact of greater judicial diversity.
You Better Shop Around: Litigant Characteristics and Supreme Court Support
Jamil Scott, Elizabeth Lane & Jessica Schoenherr
Journal of Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Groups seeking to advance rights have often appealed to the Supreme Court. But the justices are hesitant to engage with such cases, especially when it means siding with a traditionally-unpopular group. Attorneys consequently look to make these cases more appealing. One way of doing this is identifying counter-stereotypical litigants, or litigants whose identities do not align with the expected beneficiaries of a decision. Counter-stereotypical litigants should change the conversation about who benefits from a rights-affirming decision and increase support for the Court making that decision. Using survey experiments, we find that counter-stereotypical litigants can make a difference, but not universally. Our results show that Black male litigants increase support for overturning affirmative action while Asian American men decrease it. We also find that White female litigants draw broad support for upholding gun rights. These results suggest that attorneys must carefully consider identity politics when seeking to increase decision support.
Invisible crimes and punitive politics
John-Paul Anderson
Law & Policy, forthcoming
Abstract:
This article develops a reconceptualization of "invisible crimes" and their relation to punitive politics. Analysis and comparison of three cases of criminalization in the United States suggests that when legislation criminalizes easily concealed, pervasive, and morally ambiguous (nondirectly victimizing) behaviors, the negative consequences disproportionately impact poor, vulnerable, and marginalized groups, while benefitting comparatively powerful groups. Normative recommendations relating to the "rule of law" are discussed.
The False Marking Gold Rush: A Case Study of the Private Enforcement of Public Laws
Zachary Clopton
Law & Social Inquiry, forthcoming
Abstract:
Federal law prohibits deceiving the public by falsely marking an item as patented. The "false marking" prohibition has been enforced primarily by private lawsuits on behalf of the United States, with the party plaintiff and the government splitting the penalty. When a court decision dramatically increased the potential recovery for false marking claims, lawyers pounced immediately, filing more cases per week than had previously been filed in years. Indeed, many lawyers who did not previously work on patent cases joined the fray. Within two years, Congress eliminated this type of false marking suit and terminated all pending cases. Using empirical data, interviews with lawyers, legislative history, litigation documents, and news sources, this article tells the instructive history of false marking litigation. This history shows that the supply of private enforcement -- lawsuits by private parties to enforce laws in the public interest -- is sensitive to market forces. It also shows that, even when concentrated interests encourage Congress to cut back on private enforcement, Congress does not move as quickly as the bar. This matters because once Congress authorizes private enforcement, the maintenance of that system depends on judges and lawyers interpreting private enforcement statutes.
Do foster youth face harsher juvenile justice outcomes? Reinvestigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing
Ezra Goldstein et al.
Criminology & Public Policy, forthcoming
Abstract:
For decades, child welfare scholars and policy makers have been concerned with the strong association between foster care and juvenile justice involvement. Foster care placement may lead to differences in justice system outcomes if youth in foster care face "processing bias" -- differentially harsh treatment by agents of the juvenile court. Previous research found that youth in foster care at the time of juvenile justice contact were treated more harshly by the court, resulting in higher rates of punitive case outcomes. We revisit the question of processing bias using detailed administrative data on more than 10,000 adolescents in Pennsylvania in 2015-2019 and a selection-on-observables design. We find no evidence of processing bias against youth in foster care. Compared to observationally equivalent cases, those that involve youth in foster care do not experience more punitive outcomes. If anything, our estimates suggest the opposite -- youth in foster care are less likely to have a charge adjudicated, be placed under court-ordered supervision, or enter into juvenile detention. The precision of our estimates and bounding exercises allow us to rule out even modest evidence of punitive processing bias.