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

          Tuesday, August 23, 2016

          3L Tiffany Ku Leverages San Francisco Tech Background at U.S. Department of Homeland Security

          As part of the Technology Programs Division within the Office of the General Counsel at DHS, Ku worked on government contracts, trademark issues, and cybersecurity policy.
          Monday, August 22, 2016

          Joshua Arce '00 is Running for San Francisco Board of Supervisors

          After 15 years as a civil rights and environmental attorney, he’s campaigning on a social justice platform.
          Thursday, August 11, 2016

          Adante Pointer '03: Fighting For Justice For Victims Of Fatal Police Shootings

          The civil rights attorney has represented the families of Mario Woods, Oscar Grant and Alex Nieto. 
          Wednesday, August 10, 2016

          2L Molly Nevius: Working for the Future of Reproductive Rights

          "I really believe that law students in particular have a unique responsibility to address the harm that institutional powers have created, and I hope to be a part of that."
          Wednesday, August 03, 2016

          UC Hastings Prof. Rory Little Leads Supreme Court Panel at ABA Annual Meeting

          “Review of the Supreme Court’s Term, Criminal Cases” on Friday, August 5, at 2 pm
          Go to News Archive