Law Commons^™

International Arbitration - Between Myth And Reality: The 9th John E.C. Brierly Memorial Lecture, Susan Franck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The first woman to deliver the John E.C. Brierly Memorial Lecture in November 2016, Susan Franck explores common but flawed accounts of international arbitration based on anecdotes and myths while encouraging the audience to pay more attention to scientific facts. While acknowledging the challenges of living in a “post-factual” society, she argues that international arbitration, whether commercial or investment-based, is caught within a larger geo-political maelstrom which includes a backlash against globalization, the popularization of populism, and a turn toward nationalism. Rather than permitting decisions to be affected by an emotive torrent of intuitive forces that facilitate decisions based upon …

Time Is Money: An Empirical Assessment Of Non-Economic Damages Arguments, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

Non-economic damages (pain and suffering) are the most significant and variable components of liability. Our survey of 51 U.S. jurisdictions shows wide heterogeneity in whether attorneys may quantify damages as time-units of suffering (“per diem”) or demand a specific amount (“lump sum”). Either sort of large number could exploit an irrational anchoring effect.

We performed a realistic online, video-based experiment with 732 human subjects. We replicate prior work showing that large lump sum demands drive larger jury verdicts, but surprisingly find no effect of similarly-sized per diem anchors. We do find per diem effects on binary liability outcomes, and thus …

Countering The Plaintiff’S Anchor: Jury Simulations To Evaluate Damages Arguments, Christopher Robertson, John Campbell, Bernard Chao, David Yokum

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have shown that anchoring strongly effects juries. For scholars and policymakers, this evidence is worrisome for the legitimacy and accuracy of jury decisions, especially in the domain of non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering). For litigators, this evidence had led some to believe that “the more you ask for, the more you get.” Others believe that the damage demand must pass the “straight-face” test. But little scholarly literature exist to determine whether an outrageously high request really does undermine the plaintiff’s credibility, and whether this “credibility” effect outweighs the anchoring effect.

Likewise, little scholarly attention considers whether a …

What's On First?: Organizing The Casebook And Molding The Mind, Donald G. Gifford, Joseph L. Kroart Iii, Brian Jones, Cheryl Cortemeglia

Faculty Scholarship

This study empirically tests the proposition that law students adopt different conceptions of the judge’s role in adjudication based on whether they first study intentional torts, negligence, or strict liability. The authors conducted an anonymous survey of more than 450 students enrolled in eight law schools at the beginning, mid-point, and end of the first semester of law school. The students were prompted to indicate to what extent they believed the judge’s role to be one of rule application and, conversely, to what extent it was one of considering social, economic, and ideological factors. The survey found that while all …

The Case For Contribution In Patent Law, Bernard Chao

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Under tort law’s theory of contribution, when one party is sued, it can implead other parties that may be jointly and severally liable and ask that they pay their fair share of any judgment. Although contribution theory has spread to numerous wide-ranging areas of the law, patent law is not among them. Thus, when a manufacturer is sued for patent infringement, it cannot seek contribution from the component supplier that included the patented technology in its component. This omission from patent law has generated surprisingly little commentary. In the few instances where an accused infringer has sought a right of …

Reporting On Palin: Negotiations In Political Theater, Erin Ryan

Scholarly Publications

This short essay uses negotiation theory as a lens to analyze the McCain campaign's efforts to manipulate its media coverage during the 2008 presidential election. It offers a timely consideration of the troubling dynamic that can arise between the media and the campaigns that they cover, which often approximates a formal negotiation. The essay compares the campaign's strategies for managing press coverage of its candidates to the well-researched techniques of competitive bargainers, including anchoring tactics, the scarcity effect, and psychological warfare. It reviews how reporters are uniquely hamstrung in coping with competitive bargaining tactics compared to ordinary negotiators, and tailors …

Inside The Bankruptcy Judge's Mind, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In this paper, we extend our prior work on generalist judges to explore whether specialization leads to superior judicial decision making. To do so, we report the results of a study of federal bankruptcy judges. In one prior study of bankruptcy judges, Ted Eisenberg reported evidence suggesting that bankruptcy judges, like generalist judges, are susceptible to the "self-serving" or "egocentric" bias when making judgments. Here, we report evidence showing that bankruptcy judges are vulnerable to anchoring and framing effects, but appear largely unaffected by the omission bias, a debtor's race, a debtor's apology, and "terror management" or "mortality salience."'

Because …

Insurers, Illusions Of Judgment & Litigation, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Insurers play a critical role in the civil justice system. By providing liability insurance to parties who would otherwise be untenable as defendants, insurers make litigation possible. Once litigation materializes, insurers provide representation, pay legal fees, and often play a central role in resolving disputes through settlement or adjudication. In this paper, we explore empirically how these key litigation players make important decisions in the litigation process, like evaluating a case, deciding whether to settle, and if so, on what terms. We find that insurers, though not entirely immune to the effects of cognitive illusions that have been shown to …

Anchoring, Information, Expertise, And Negotiation: New Insights From Meta-Analysis, Chris Guthrie, Dan Orr

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this article, we conduct a meta-analysis of studies of simulated negotiations to explore the impact of an initial "anchor," typically an opening demand or offer, on negotiation outcomes. We find that anchoring has a significant impact on the deals that negotiators reach. We also explore whether negotiator experience and the information environment mitigate the influence of anchoring. We conclude by offering prescriptive advice, both "offensive" and "defensive," to negotiators.

Confronting Conventional Thinking: The Heuristics Problem In Feminist Legal Theory, Nancy Levit

Faculty Works

The thesis of The Heuristics Problem is that the societal problems about which identity theorists are most concerned often spring from and are reinforced by thinking riddled with heuristic errors. This article first investigates the ways heuristic errors influence popular perceptions of feminist issues. Feminists and critical race theorists have explored the cognitive bias of stereotyping, but have not examined the ways probabilistic errors can have gendered consequences. Second, The Heuristics Problem traces some of the ways cognitive errors have influenced the development of laws relating to gender issues. It explores instances in judicial decisions in which courts commit heuristic …

Judging By Heuristic: Cognitive Illusions In Judicial Decision Making, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Many people rely on mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to make complex decisions, but this sometimes leads to inaccurate inferences, or cognitive illusions. A recent study suggests such cognitive illusions influence judicial decision making.