Monday, March 11, 2013

          Depoorter on "The Upside of Losing"

          From the Abstract of "The Upside of Losing," forthcoming from Columbia Law Review:

          Conventional understanding in law-reform communities is that time and resources are best directed toward legal disputes that have the highest chance of success and that litigation is to be avoided if it is likely to establish or strengthen unfavorable precedent. Contrary to this accepted wisdom, this Essay analyzes the strategic decisions of litigation entrepreneurs who pursue litigation with the awareness that losing the case can provide substantial benefits. Unfavorable litigation outcomes can be uniquely salient and powerful in highlighting the misfortunes of individuals under prevailing law, while presenting a broader narrative about the current failure of the legal status quo. The resulting public backlash may slow down legislative trends and can even prompt legislative initiatives that reverse the unfavorable judicial decisions or induce broader reform.

          This analysis revises some conventional wisdom about litigation. First, while it is traditionally understood that legal reform activists must persuade courts to recognize unattended rights or to confirm new rights and activist positions, the analysis here suggests that social changes can be obtained in litigation without requiring the involvement of courts as policymakers. Moreover, passive courts and judicial deference in fact strengthen the mobilizing effect of litigation by clearly shifting the burden to legislators and their constituents. Second, the dynamics of successful defeat in litigation shed new light on the costs and benefits involved with litigation. In the proposed framework, a plaintiff’s decision to litigate rests not simply on the probability of success but also on a tradeoff between the potential costs of a negative precedent and the political benefits obtained in defeat. Third, the mobilizing potential of adverse court decisions presents a fascinating conflict between the immediate interests of the actual plaintiff and of the litigation entrepreneur or intermediary that supports the litigation with an eye on the underlying long-term goals of a social cause. Finally, the potential benefits of adverse outcomes refute some of the criticisms about the limitations and downsides of pursuing social change through courts.

          Depoorter also recently published “Copyright Fee Shifting: A Proposal to Promote Fair Use and Fair Licensing” in the California Law Review.
          Go to News Archive

          Share this Story

          Share via Facebook
          Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

          Other Recent Stories/ RSS

          Friday, July 22, 2016

          David Owen '09 Is Steering Airbnb's Policy As Laws Evolve

          ‎“We are in a new space that's constantly evolving, and there's a lot of opportunity for creativity and innovation," says Owen, Head of Policy Strategy at Airbnb.
          Wednesday, July 20, 2016

          UC Hastings Staff Who Bring the Awesome: Maria Catig, Accounts Receivable Accountant

          “She’s short in stature, but 10 feet tall with joy and personality!”
          Wednesday, July 06, 2016

          Alumni Roger Chan ’98 and LaRonda McCoy ’86 Appointed to Superior Courts

          Chan joins the San Francisco Superior Court bench, McCoy the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
          Friday, July 01, 2016

          UC Hastings Board Chair Thomas F. Gede ‘81 Elected to the American Law Institute

          Clarifying the law through Restatements, Principles and Model Penal Codes
          Thursday, June 30, 2016

          Summertime Challenges

          Letter from Acting Chancellor & Dean David Faigman
          Go to News Archive