Pure guessing is a coin flip. Pure judging is Dworkin's Judge Hercules, an adjudicator with superhuman intellect and infinite time. No real court sits at either end. Horst Eidenmüller and Anna-Sophie Hochgürtel argued on the Oxford Business Law Blog that jurors rewarded for matching the majority predict the crowd instead of judging the case. Federico Ast, William George and Facundo Trotz reply that the focal point jurors converge on is a strategy, not an outcome: reading the same record by the same rules. Courts also decide between the two poles, under standards of proof and incomplete information, and Kleros sits on the same spectrum. The full article is in the first comment.
More Relevant Posts
-
In high-stakes commercial arbitrations, how do you know your arguments will land before the actual hearing? In a new article, NAM neutral Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin (Ret.) explains how mock arbitration exercises let counsel test their case in front of experienced former judges and arbitrators. Counsel come away with candid feedback on how persuasive and clear their presentation is and how a tribunal might react, while there's still time to adjust strategy. As Judge Scheindlin puts it: "The question worth asking is not whether the exercise is expensive, but what it costs to proceed without it." Read the full article: https://lnkd.in/eP668jPF
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
A valuable perspective on how mock arbitrations can help counsel sharpen their presentation and anticipate how a tribunal may respond well before the hearing. An important tool in effective case preparation.
In high-stakes commercial arbitrations, how do you know your arguments will land before the actual hearing? In a new article, NAM neutral Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin (Ret.) explains how mock arbitration exercises let counsel test their case in front of experienced former judges and arbitrators. Counsel come away with candid feedback on how persuasive and clear their presentation is and how a tribunal might react, while there's still time to adjust strategy. As Judge Scheindlin puts it: "The question worth asking is not whether the exercise is expensive, but what it costs to proceed without it." Read the full article: https://lnkd.in/eP668jPF
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
A fair hearing is not necessarily the longest hearing. What matters is that each party has a meaningful opportunity to understand the issues, present relevant material, and respond to the other side. Thoughtful preparation can help. Identify the questions to be decided, organize documents by issue, clarify how witnesses will participate, and establish realistic time estimates. Procedural decisions should reflect the agreement, applicable law, and the circumstances of the dispute. For professionals preparing for arbitration, a useful starting question is: “What information does the decision-maker actually need to resolve each issue?” A focused process can protect fairness while reducing avoidable delay.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
NEW: "The right to effective participation for suspects" by Piers von Berg, Senior Lecturer in Law at Birmingham City University Read Piers' article on WestLaw here: https://lnkd.in/ew8x75_F
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Our next speaker is Sebastian Lewis (University of Surrey) who will speak on October 28 about his paper 'How Custom Becomes Law'. "This article explains how custom becomes law, keeping apart four questions: the grounds of legal membership, its significance, the technique by which it is conferred, and the authenticity of the resulting norm." See more info below!
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Jury research often lives in dense journal articles written for other scientists. Nick Schweitzer explains how the Science of Juries and Litigation Project at Cornell University will publish accessible white papers, and how a couple of fast ones helped in a Kansas tort reform fight. Alicia Campbell Produced & Powered by LawPods #TortReform #JuryResearch #PlaintiffLaw #CivilJustice 🎧 https://lnkd.in/diNXztRd
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
I am proud to share that my Note, “Whose Burden Is It, Anyway? A Historical Resolution to Burden Allocation Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3),” has been published in the Northwestern University Law Review. I want to thank my wonderful professors, classmates, friends, and family who supported me throughout the writing process. And a huge thank you to the Law Review (especially the Notes Team) for the enormous work that goes into publication. If you’re interested in a deep dive into how centuries-old procedural rules evolved and how they shape federal litigation today, give my note a read!
In "Whose Burden Is It, Anyway? A Historical Resolution to Burden Allocation Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)," Curtis Valencia (Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law JD '27) examines the circuit split over who bears the burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, arguing the majority approach rests on a doctrinal error. Valencia traces venue objections to common-law dilatory pleas in abatement, which placed the burden on the movant. He argues the movant should likewise bear the burden of proving improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). https://lnkd.in/gCBn3Ttb
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
In "Whose Burden Is It, Anyway? A Historical Resolution to Burden Allocation Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)," Curtis Valencia (Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law JD '27) examines the circuit split over who bears the burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, arguing the majority approach rests on a doctrinal error. Valencia traces venue objections to common-law dilatory pleas in abatement, which placed the burden on the movant. He argues the movant should likewise bear the burden of proving improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). https://lnkd.in/gCBn3Ttb
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
In Part Two of this New York Law Journal series, DOAR Director Natalie Gordon, Ph.D., and Consultant Gabriel Hayes-Williams examine how jurors assess expert witness credibility and why confidence, communication, and perceived trustworthiness matter alongside technical expertise. https://lnkd.in/eJqDG6rF
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Our Chief Executive, Isobel Langton, shares her thoughts on the latest Law Commission recommendations for friendly societies. Read the full comment: https://lnkd.in/ebj7McF2
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Full article on the Kleros blog: https://blog.kleros.io/is-guessing-really-not-judging-a-reply-to-eidenmuller-and-hochgurtel/