UCHastings Instagram

          Jeanette Acosta *highly recommends* the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic. #wiifm #asylum #hope
          Instagram Photo Likes aoverhouse, andrew.m.scott, paris.hayes and 18 others like this.
          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, April 17, 2015

          3Ls Hayley Reynolds & Daniel Zarchy Win at Ninth Circuit

          Case presents novel issue of whether witness tampering is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of federal immigration proceedings, writes Stephen Tollafield, Professor & Associate Director, Legal Writing & Moot Court Department.
          Thursday, April 16, 2015

          HAP Students Argue Police Evasion Case at Ninth Circuit

          3Ls Gregory Michael and Dorothy Yamamoto argued their pro bono case, Medina Nunez v. Holder.
          Thursday, April 16, 2015

          Thinkers & Doers: April 16, 2015

          UC Hastings community members in the news and making moves,  April 10, 2015 - April 16, 2015.
          Friday, April 10, 2015

          UC Hastings Legacy Society Celebrates at "A View From Above" Reception

          Photos and more from the Legacy Society's "A View From Above" reception, hosted by Trustee Betsy England '78.
          Thursday, April 09, 2015

          Feldman and Frondorf: Patent Trolls Are Crashing The IPO Party

          Professor Robin Feldman and Research Fellow Evan Frondorf have published a new study demonstrating that companies are often approached by patent trolls shortly before or after an IPO.
          Go to News Archive