Lawyers’ Ethics Beyond the Vanishing Trial: Unrepresented Claimants, De Facto Aggregations, Arbitration Mandates. And Privatized Processes

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2017-04-06 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2919396
J. Resnik
{"title":"Lawyers’ Ethics Beyond the Vanishing Trial: Unrepresented Claimants, De Facto Aggregations, Arbitration Mandates. And Privatized Processes","authors":"J. Resnik","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2919396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trials are a vivid variable in the world of litigation, as reflected in the title of this colloquium, Civil Litigation Ethics at a Time of Vanishing Trials. In this Introduction, I argue that the challenges for lawyers loom larger than those reflected in the declining rate of trials. More facets of contemporary dispute resolution need to be engaged when contemplating the topics and roles that legal ethics must address in the decades to come. \nMillions of litigants appear in civil cases without attorneys. When clients are represented, they are often grouped by judges and lawyers into aggregates, created through a variety of methods, both formal and informal. Trial rates are down; one in one hundred federal civil cases goes to trial. Less in focus is that case filings are also flattening. \nTo the extent people do go to court, they are often greeted by mandates to resolve disputes privately. Courts are now venues in which public adjudication has taken a back seat to alternative dispute resolution, which generally occurs outside the public purview. In short, vanishing trials are but a piece of the privatization and relocation of process. Dispute diffusion captures the eclipse of adjudication in courts as the central paradigm of government-based dispute resolution. \nCan and will lawyers impose regulation on themselves in response? Ought regulations be placed instead in statutes and court rules? And what shape should such provisions take, with what potential impact on the norms of lawyering and the body politic? This colloquium offers a series of essays responding to aspects of these new and daunting challenges.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2919396","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Trials are a vivid variable in the world of litigation, as reflected in the title of this colloquium, Civil Litigation Ethics at a Time of Vanishing Trials. In this Introduction, I argue that the challenges for lawyers loom larger than those reflected in the declining rate of trials. More facets of contemporary dispute resolution need to be engaged when contemplating the topics and roles that legal ethics must address in the decades to come. Millions of litigants appear in civil cases without attorneys. When clients are represented, they are often grouped by judges and lawyers into aggregates, created through a variety of methods, both formal and informal. Trial rates are down; one in one hundred federal civil cases goes to trial. Less in focus is that case filings are also flattening. To the extent people do go to court, they are often greeted by mandates to resolve disputes privately. Courts are now venues in which public adjudication has taken a back seat to alternative dispute resolution, which generally occurs outside the public purview. In short, vanishing trials are but a piece of the privatization and relocation of process. Dispute diffusion captures the eclipse of adjudication in courts as the central paradigm of government-based dispute resolution. Can and will lawyers impose regulation on themselves in response? Ought regulations be placed instead in statutes and court rules? And what shape should such provisions take, with what potential impact on the norms of lawyering and the body politic? This colloquium offers a series of essays responding to aspects of these new and daunting challenges.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在消失的审判之外的律师伦理:无代表的索赔人,事实上的聚集,仲裁授权。私有化过程
审判是诉讼世界中一个生动的变量,正如本次学术讨论会的标题《审判消失时的民事诉讼伦理》所反映的那样。在这篇引言中,我认为律师面临的挑战比审判率下降所反映的挑战更大。在思考法律伦理在未来几十年必须解决的主题和作用时,需要参与当代争端解决的更多方面。数以百万计的诉讼当事人在没有律师的情况下出庭。当客户有代表时,他们通常由法官和律师分组,通过各种正式和非正式的方法创建。试用率下降;每一百个联邦民事案件中就有一个进入审判阶段。不太引人注意的是,案件备案也趋于平缓。就人们诉诸法庭的程度而言,他们通常会受到私下解决争端的授权。法院现在是公共裁决退居替代争议解决地位的场所,而替代争议解决通常发生在公共权限之外。简言之,消失的审判只是私有化和重新安置进程的一部分。争议扩散捕捉到法院裁决作为基于政府的争议解决的中心范式的黯然失色。作为回应,律师能也会对自己实施监管吗?法规和法院规则是否应该取而代之?这些条款应该采取什么形式,对律师规范和政治体有什么潜在影响?本次学术讨论会提供了一系列文章,以应对这些新的、令人生畏的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1