Law Commons^™

Following The Science: Judicial Review Of Climate Science, Maxine Sugarman

Washington Law Review

Climate change is the greatest existential crisis of our time. Yet, to date, Congress has failed to enact the broad-sweeping policies required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the rate scientists have deemed necessary to avoid devastating consequences for our planet and all those who inhabit it. In the absence of comprehensive legislative action to solve the climate crisis, the executive branch has become more creative in the use of its authorities under bedrock environmental statutes to develop new climate regulations. Environmental advocates, states, and industry groups that oppose such regulations or assert that agencies could accomplish more under existing …

Per Curiam Signals In The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket, Zina Makar

Washington Law Review

Lower courts and litigants depend a great deal on the Supreme Court to articulate and communicate signals regarding how to interpret existing doctrine. Signals are at their strongest and most reliable when they originate from the Court’s merits docket. More recently, the Court has been increasingly relying on its orders docket—colloquially referred to as its “shadow docket”—to communicate with lower courts by summarily reversing and correcting errors in interpretation without briefing or oral argument.

Over the past decade the Roberts Court has granted certiorari to summarily reverse a growing number of qualified immunity cases, issuing over a dozen unsigned per …

When Patent Litigators Become Neurosurgeons, Katie Chang

Washington Law Review Online

Patent law is where the law meets the most cutting-edge and innovative technology of its time. Usually, subject matter experts, with the help of lawyers, are the ones applying for patents. But when it comes to granting and enforcing patent rights, the job falls onto lawyers and judges, who, for the most part, are likely not experts in the relevant technical field. Bridging the gap between technological expertise and legal expertise has been a pain point in patent litigation, one that Congress has tried to rectify for many years. This Comment primarily examines one of Congress’s solutions—the Patent Pilot Program—and …

Law's Credibility Problem, Julia Simon-Kerr

Washington Law Review

Credibility determinations often seal people’s fates. They can determine outcomes at trial; they condition the provision of benefits, like social security; and they play an increasingly dispositive role in immigration proceedings. Yet there is no stable definition of credibility in the law. Courts and agencies diverge at the most basic definitional level in their use of the category.

Consider a real-world example. An immigration judge denies asylum despite the applicant’s plausible and unrefuted account of persecution in their country of origin. The applicant appeals, pointing to the fact that Congress enacted a “rebuttable presumption of credibility” for asylum-seekers “on appeal.” …

Platform Accountability: Gonzalez And Reform, Eric Schnapper

Presentations

Section 230(c)(1) was adopted for the purpose of distinguishing between conduct of third parties and conduct of internet companies themselves. Its familiar language provides that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The last four words are central to the limitation on the defense created by the statute; it is only regarding information created by “another” that the defense may be available. Section 230(e)(3) makes clear that even a partial role played by an internet company in the creation of harmful …

Theseus In The Labyrinth: How State Constitutions Can Slay The Procedural Minotaur, Marcus A. Gadson

Washington Law Review

Civil procedure is one of the biggest hurdles to access to justice. An array of rules and interpretations of those rules have turned lawsuits into meandering mazes with a procedural minotaur waiting to gobble up meritorious claims. The problem is especially acute for the many Americans without abundant resources or access to a lawyer. Fortunately, there is a ready remedy, albeit one access to justice advocates have ignored: state constitutions. Forty state constitutions, which protect hundreds of millions of Americans, generally guarantee “[t]hat all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his person, property …

Privacy And National Politics: Fingerprint And Dna Litigation In Japan And The United States Compared, Dongsheng Zang

Articles

Drawing cases from two related areas of law-fingerprint and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) data-this Article proposes a modified framework, built on the Balkin-Levinson emphasis on national politics: First, national politics understood as partisan rivalry cannot account for what I call doctrinal lock-in in this Article, where I will demonstrate that in different stages of American politics-the Lochner era, the New Deal era, and Civil Rights era-courts across the nation ruled predominantly in favor of public data collectors-state and federal law enforcement in fingerprint cases. From the 1990s, when DNA data became hot targets of law enforcement, the United States Supreme Court …

The Helicopter State: Misuse Of Parens Patriae Unconstitutionally Precludes Individual And Class Claims, Gabrielle J. Hanna

Washington Law Review

The doctrine of parens patriae allows state attorneys general to represent state citizens in aggregate litigation suits that are, in many ways, similar to class actions and mass-tort actions. Its origins, however, reflect a more modest scope. Parens patriae began as a doctrine allowing the British king to protect those without the ability to protect themselves, including wards and mentally disabled individuals. The rapid expansion of parens patriae standing in the United States may be partly to blame for the relative absence of limiting requirements or even well-developed case law governing parens patriae suits. On the one hand, class actions …

When Uncle Sam Spills: A State Regulator’S Guide To Enforcement Actions Against The Federal Government Under The Clean Water Act, Ian M. Staeheli

Washington Law Review

The U.S. government is one of the largest polluters on the planet. With over 700 domestic military bases and countless more federal facilities and vessels operating within state borders, there exists an enormous potential for spills and discharges of pollutants into state waters. The regulatory burden for enforcing environmental laws against the federal government falls on the Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators. But enforcing laws and regulations against the federal government and its progeny is a daunting regulatory task.

Other scholarship addresses some of the vexing peculiarities involved when regulating Uncle Sam. Those works discuss the “confusing mess” that …

The Finality Of Unmodified Appellate Commissioner Rulings In Washington State, Aurora R. Bearse

Washington Law Review Online

In Washington appellate courts, unelected court commissioners handle most of the motion practice. Some motions are minor and mostly procedural, but other motions touch on the scope of the appeal or its merits. Because commissioners have the power to shape the course of an appeal, the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure allow parties to internally appeal any commissioner decision to a panel of elected judges, via what is called a “motion to modify” under RAP 17.7. If a panel modifies a commissioner’s ruling, the panel’s decision becomes the final decision of the court on that issue. Similarly, multiple opinions recognize …

Structural Barriers To Inclusion In Arbitrator Pools, Nicole G. Iannarone

Washington Law Review

Critics increasingly challenge mandatory arbitration because the pools from which decisionmakers are selected are neither diverse nor inclusive. Evaluating diversity and inclusion in arbitrator pools is difficult due to the black box nature of mandatory arbitration. This Article evaluates inclusion in arbitrator pools through a case study on securities arbitration. The Article relies upon the relatively greater transparency of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) forum. It begins by describing the unique role that small claims securities arbitration plays in maintaining investor trust and confidence in the securities markets before describing why ensuring that the FINRA arbitrator pool is both …

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Washington Law Review

People charged with crimes often speak directly to the judge presiding over their case. Yet, what can be seen in courtrooms across the U.S. is that defendants rarely “talk back” in court, meaning that they rarely challenge authority’s view of the law, the crime, the defendant, the court’s procedure, or the fairness of the proposed sentence.

With few exceptions, legal scholars have treated the occasions when defendants speak directly to the court as a problem to be solved by appointing more lawyers and better lawyers. While effective representation is crucial, this Article starts from the premise that defendants have important …

Frenemies Of The Court: The Many Faces Of Amicus Curiae, Helen A. Anderson

Articles

Ask any lawyer what an "amicus curiae" is, and you will be told that the term means "friend of the court." The term has positive, even warm, connotations. Amicus briefs provide additional information or perspectives to assist courts in deciding issues of public importance. Interest groups, law professors, and politically engaged lawyers are happy to participate in important cases through such briefs. Amicus curiae participation is defended as democratic input into what is otherwise not a democratic branch of government.

Yet, amici curiae—nonparties who are nevertheless advocates, who are not bound by rules of standing and justiciability, or even rules …

Cause Lawyering In Japan: Reflections On The Case Studies And Justice Reform, Daniel H. Foote

Chapters in Books

Each of the case studies presented in this volume is an important and fascinating story in its own right. Taken together, the case studies enrich our understanding of cause lawyering and the relationship between law and social change in Japan. Despite their rather disparate subjects, the studies dovetail exceptionally well. They show numerous commonalities in the use of law to further social causes, as well as some important differences. They reveal a truly impressive level of creativity in the use of law, and they disclose several common barriers to successful litigation to promote social causes in Japan. As discussed below, …

Redistricting Litigation And The Delegation Of Democratic Design, Lisa Marshall Manheim

Articles

This Article seeks to reveal how the practice of litigating as redistricting, which has evolved into a form of litigation highly susceptible to procedural manipulation, has created a type of redistricting that grants profound power to those who choose to litigate. In so doing, this Article rejects any understanding of the redistricting process that understands the influence of litigants to be somehow negated or neutralized by the involvement of courts. It recognizes, moreover, that many of the defining features of redistricting litigation–which are, in certain respects, analogous to those characterizing other problematic forms of litigation–nevertheless reflect some of the most …

Revisiting Trial Basics Every Time: A Ritual For Courtroom Success, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

With fewer cases progressing to trial, many attorneys do not have adequate opportunities to practice the skills necessary to be successful in the courtroom. Here the author provides a useful and uncomplicated examination of the basic trial advocacy skills, which should be reviewed each time an attorney prepares for trial. Writing for the busy practicing attorney, the author concisely addresses six key stages of trial: voir dire, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, impeachment, and closing argument.

Taking Better Depositions By Thinking "Outside The Box", Maureen A. Howard

Articles

While there are reasons a lawyer may ask questions in a deposition to confirm what she thinks she already knows—nailing down facts for a summary judgment motion, confirming factual and legal theories, perpetuating a witness’s testimony, or facilitating settlement by flexing favorable facts—gathering information the lawyer does not know remains the primary goal of almost every deposition. Despite this, lawyers too often ask questions based on what they already know, limiting the universe of answers and undermining the goal of gathering information.

By the time a lawyer notes depositions, she has already built a “working model” of the case based …

Effective Pre-Trial Motions: Persuading The Judge, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Victories won in pre-trial motions can significantly affect the direction and outcome of a trial. For this reason, successful trial lawyers prepare for motions with the same thoroughness that they employ for the trial itself. Arguing a motion to a trial judge, however, is different from arguing your case to a jury; to be effective, an advocate needs to be mindful of the difference.

Judges generally resist what they perceive as emotional manipulation, theatrics, or excessive rhetoric. Many judges expect lawyers to cleanly and succinctly argue the facts and the law without employing any appeal to emotion. That being said, …

The Asymmetry Of Duty In Criminal Trial Practice, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

Although the American trial system has been likened to an arena in which mental combatants fight “to the death” (the verdict), each warrior similarly skilled and equally committed to vanquishing the other in a forum with formal rules of engagement enforced by a learned and impartial judge, the role of the criminal prosecutor is qualitatively different than that of other advocates. This is because, unlike any other lawyer, a criminal prosecutor has an affirmative duty to the opposing party.

A lawyer who represents an individual client is duty-bound to advance that client’s interests vigorously within the bounds of the law. …

Opening Statement: Persuading Without Argument, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A basic rule of trial practice is that a lawyer cannot argue in opening statement. A lawyer who breaks this rule runs the risk of drawing an objection from opposing counsel and having it sustained by the judge. Of course, as with most rules of trial practice, a lawyer can get away with de minimus violations in most cases and wholesale disregard in cases where opposing counsel—whether as a result of inexperience, inattention or trial strategy—doesn’t object. Although simple in concept, lawyers commonly falter in practical application of the “no argument” rule in two ways: 1) failing to understand what …

Mastering Foolproof Witness Control On Cross-Examination, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

In the wonderfully entertaining and instructive video, The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination, the late Irving Younger offered this appraisal of lawyers’ ability to conduct cross-exam: “Most lawyers do it badly all the time, no lawyer does it well all the time, and no lawyer in the early stages of his career does it well at all.” Happily, we’ve come a long way since Younger’s grim 1975 assessment, due to the instruction of maestros like Younger, Terrence McCarthy (McCarthy on Cross-Examination), and Larry Pozner and Roger Dodd (Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques). All too often, however, lawyers …

Closing Argument: Connecting The Dots For The Jury, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A common error made by unseasoned attorneys when giving closing argument is retelling the “story” of their case. Storytelling is best used in opening statement, not closing argument. By the time the jurors hear closing argument, they are well acquainted with the story, because they have heard two opening statements and all the evidence.

Closing argument, as the name suggests, is instead the time to argue. This means that in addition to revisiting the theme(s) presented in opening statement, a lawyer may use rhetorical questions, draw conclusions and inferences from the evidence, discuss the credibility of the witness, examine the …

Playing Nice: The Dos And Don'ts Of Courtroom Etiquette, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

No matter how brilliant the lawyer, impressive her credentials, thorough her case preparation, or razor-sharp her analytic skills, she risks damaging her case — and her reputation — if she fails to comply with basic courtroom etiquette. There are certain dos and don’ts of courtroom behavior that are understood by seasoned trial lawyers and expected from judges. There are also common courtesies expected by jurors of lawyers who are viewed as professional and credible. A lawyer will undoubtedly learn these behavioral norms in the trenches over time, but she is well advised to have a courtroom etiquette checklist in her …

Liar! Liar! Impeaching A Witness On Cross-Examination, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

There are certain trial moments that can set an advocate’s heart a-flutter. One is the opportunity to show the jury that an adverse witness is not to be trusted. Even better is the chance to expose the witness to be a bald-faced liar.

Welcome to the wonderful world of impeachment. Impeachment is the art of discrediting the witness on cross-examination. There are seven impeachment techniques:

• Bias, interest, and motive

• Contradictory facts

• Prior convictions — FRE 609

• Prior bad acts — FRE 608 (b)

• Prior inconsistent statements — FRE 613

• Bad character for truthfulness — …

Direct Examination: Lawyer As Director, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A trial lawyer presenting her case in chief through direct examination is somewhat like a film director: the lawyer thoroughly analyzes the case and develops a plan for the most effective way to present the case to the jury to best advance her theme and theory. Just as no script would play out on film the exact same way in the hands of different directors, no case would be presented in exactly the same way by different trial lawyers. Yet there are constants to be found in the steps effective trial lawyers take during their case in chief when presenting …

10 Tips For Getting Jurors To Talk, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

“Jury selection” is a misnomer because lawyers don’t actually get to “select” ideal jurors; they get a limited opportunity to “deselect” the worst prospective jurors. The goal of voir dire is to identify these jurors by uncovering their attitudes, beliefs, opinions, preconceptions, biases, and prejudices. To accomplish this, a lawyer has a difficult task: she must foster an honest, intimate conversation among strangers in a very public, formal environment.

Even honest jurors may give misleading answers during voir dire due to nervousness, inattention, faulty memory, or misunderstanding. The formal courtroom atmosphere can have a chilling effect at odds with the …

Settling Significant Cases, Jeffrey R. Seul

Washington Law Review

Negotiation, mediation, and other consensus-based alternatives to litigation are most often studied and defended in the context of ordinary disputes, in which liability and distributive issues are contested, but the background norms that govern the outcome of a lawsuit are not. Many consider adjudication to be the only acceptable process for addressing "significant cases": disputes about abortion, school prayer, the environment, and other value-laden issues in which background norms are contested. I argue that this perspective is ironic because litigation, like negotiation, entails compromise. Litigation is a lottery in which the substantive values a party seeks to defend, and which …

Awakening Hong Kong's Sleeping Lion: A Case For Increased Use Of O 62 R 8, Gregor A. Hensrude

Washington International Law Journal

Hong Kong, like much of the world, is facing public criticism about the operation and accessibility of its civil litigation system. One judge and scholar has suggested increased use of a litigation rule requiring solicitors to pay any costs wasted by their misconduct. By comparing this rule to its counterparts in the United Kingdom and the United States, it becomes apparent that such a solution could work to improve litigation in Hong Kong. Increased use of the rule would compensate parties injured by abusive litigation tactics and deter solicitors from engaging in misconduct to line their pockets or win for …

Washington Practice Materials, Nancy Mcmurrer

Librarians' Chapters in Books

• Introduction
• Encyclopedic Sources
• Subject-Specific Resources
• Litigation Aids
• Ethics Opinions
• Directories
• Current Awareness: Bar Publications and Legal Newspapers
• Subject List of Practice Resources