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, September 22, 2017

          2L Victor Escobar, Who Once Faced Deportation, Seeks To Help Undocumented Immigrants

          After being locked up in immigration detention, the former DACA recipient wants to advocate for others.
          Tuesday, September 19, 2017

          3L Griffin Estes advocates for the marginalized people of San Francisco

          The Managing Director of the Brennan Award-winning Hastings Homeless Legal Services discusses the critical skills needed to pursue a career in public interest and social justice.
          Monday, September 18, 2017

          Student Group Champions Reproductive Justice

          Members of the UC Hastings chapter of If/When/How are making a difference through lobbying, fundraising and career development.
          Friday, September 15, 2017

          The Slants - Live from UC Hastings

          2L Jeremy Chan, president of APALSA, reflects on how the student organization partnered with SFIPLA to bring the headline-making band to UC Hastings to perform and discuss their U.S. Supreme Court victory.
          Wednesday, September 13, 2017

          Community Connections

          La Raza Law Students Association works for diversity in the classroom and the courtroom.
          Go to News Archive