The Acquis Judiciaire, a Tool for Harmonization in a Decentralized System of Litigation?

Justice, like beauty, may also be in the eye of the beholder. For some individuals, whether or not an outcome, process and system are 'just' will depend on what is expected, available and perceived. From a societal perspective, however, the definition of 'justice' and determining the reach of the justice system as well as the location of just dispute settlement options have significant political, policy, social and funding implications. In this context, the framing of the civil justice system as inimical to the litigation and court system is no longer (if it ever was) part of the policy approach of governments within Australia. Justice is perceived as a much broader concept and the litigation system is more simply perceived as a part of this broader justice system. From this lens, judicial dispute adjudication is viewed as a smaller although critical dimension of the justice system that includes the far broader alternative dispute resolution (ADR) environment.

Patent Assertion Entities, companies that monetise patents but do not practice them, have been over the years negatively portrayed as harmful “patent trolls” that engage in speculative and abusive patent litigation against manufacturing companies, threatening them with injunctions in order to extract settlements unrelated to the value of their technology. Although mass PAE litigation has mainly been US phenomenon, recent study indicated that PAEs are on the rise in Europe and a number of changes the European patent and litigation system have been recommended, in particular the denial of injunctive relief in case of finding of infringement of a valid patent. This article provides a different perspective on PAEs. It will first show that it is incorrect to label all PAEs as “bad” actors. Generally, PAEs are in the business of patent licensing and serve a useful intermediary function in the market, facilitating licensing and technology transfer, while some may be engaging in aggressive monetisation practices. Whether there is abuse of litigation system would depend on the facts of the case, and not a priori whether plaintiff is PAE or not. Second, PAEs have mainly been US phenomenon and the incentives for abuse of European patent and litigation system are not present, or are not present to the same extent as in the US. A combination of factors, such as patent cases being decided by experienced judges, higher costs of patent enforcement, lower costs of defence, loser pays principle and generally higher quality of patents all disincentivise the emergence of opportunistic litigation practices. Finally, the available evidence shows that PAEs are actually responsible for very small number of patent litigation in the EU. The vast majority of litigation is between practicing entities and in majority of cases PAEs are actually defendants in invalidity suits initiated by practicing entities. The evidence therefore suggests that European patent and litigation system is functioning well and that the fear about massive PAE litigation abuses is unfounded. European judges should continue in applying the relevant legal framework for granting legal remedies for infringement of IP rights, which already gives them the tools to guard against litigation abuses by any type of entity.

As early as the Western Zhou Dynasty, China and India had already started cultural exchanges. Because of the similar geographical environment, the same philosophy and the strict hierarchy between the two countries, the litigation systems in Tang Dynasty and ancient India have similarities. However, due to the different interests maintained by the two countries and the different subjects of formulation, there are also many differences in the litigation systems between the two countries. This paper will specifically analyze the similarities and differences between the litigation systems of the Tang Dynasty and ancient India, and analyze the specific reasons.

This Note analyzes the decision of the Mexican legislature to allow for a system of group litigation to redress a particular set of environmentally based legal problems. The laws of Mexico, as they currently read, do not comport with the legislative intent of the authors of the legislation to allow for group litigation. This is primarily an effect of the economic incentives imposed by the new system of group litigation on institutional interests and corporate actors in Mexico. The argument advanced by this Note is that either judicial or legislative clarifications must be made to this legislation to effectuate the intent of the acts of the Mexican Congress. This may be achieved through Jurisprudencias, Ejecutorias, expansive judicial interpretation in the coming years, or through additional legislative amendments; all of which could provide additional parameters to ensure the unassailable environmental and constitutional rights of Mexican citizens. However, this Note advances the idea that the most effectual vehicle for implementing such change is through the introduction of additional pecuniary damages with regard to group litigation. In the coming years, the system of group litigation in Mexico is certain to come under heavy criticism and scrutiny from citizens, legal scholars and politicians alike. The arguments proposed herein must be addressed by the Mexican Congress to ensure that the environmental rights of citizens, guaranteed by the Mexican Constitution, are not subordinated to institutional economic interests.

Group litigation reaches Mexico: Revisiting Mexico's system of collective actions as a vehicle to ensure efficient implementation of environmental justice

This article examines whether the increased use of technology has the potential to deliver a cost-effective and time-efficient litigation system in Bangladesh. It investigates how technology can be an integral part of the litigation system and a factor in reducing litigation costs and backlog to ensure greater access to justice. This empirical research identifies the costliest areas of litigation in Bangladesh, reveals why these costs arise, and how technology can be adopted to ensure a transparent reduction of litigation costs. Although technology has some practical and legal limitations, it represents a potential solution to the current deterioration endured by the Bangladesh judiciary.

This study aims to identify and analyze the maladministration settlement system in Indonesia in the perspective of the applicable laws and regulations with the existence of two institutions that have the authority to settle maladministration actions, namely the PTUN and the Ombudsman. This research is a normative research with a statutory and conceptual approach that is structured descriptively to produce solutions based on the problems studied. The results of this study indicate that the settlement of maladministration actions in Indonesia can be reached by 2 (two) systems, namely the litigation system and the non-litigation system, in which the litigation system is in the PTUN based on articles 51, 52 paragraph (2) of Law Number 25 of 2009 concerning Services. Public Jo Article 1 point 4 of Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning the State Administrative Court Jo Article 87 of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. Meanwhile, the non-litigation settlement system is resolved by the Ombudsman as regulated in Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 37 of 2008 concerning the Ombudsman in conjunction with Article 46 of Law Number 25 of 2009 concerning Public Services. However, there are no clear rules regarding the limits of forms of maladministration that can be resolved by each institution, so the authors suggest that the creation of legal certainty in the settlement of maladministration acts in Indonesia and the creation of good and quality public services, it is very necessary to have clear legal rules governing the boundaries regarding types of maladministration that can be resolved by the PTUN or the Ombudsman.
 Keywords; Solution, Maladministration, Legislation

The court’s case management powers are enhanced by the new regime for the treatment of costs. A principal object of the Woolf Reforms was to control costs, which Lord Woolf described as ‘the most serious problem besetting our litigation system’. Therefore, provisions in the CPR were drafted to incentivize the control of costs. Under CPR 44, the court must, when considering its order as to costs, take into account all the circumstances of the case, including all aspects of the parties’ behaviour both during and before trial. Parties must show they have acted reasonably, co-operatively and proportionately and that they have acted to further the overriding objective.

The last decade has seen a palpable rise of domestic and international instruments to facilitate the enforcement of cross-border mediated settlement agreements. Most recently, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has agreed to create a multilateral convention and to amend the Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation to facilitate cross-border enforcement of commercial disputes via mediation. The mediation process is one of many ways in which dispute resolution has been privatized and taken out of the formal court system. The first wave of privatization probably commenced with the growth of arbitration, leading to the wide ratification of the New York Convention. Mediation now appears to be following the same path treaded by arbitration, spawning the growth of mediation regulations, professionalization systems and now enforcement instruments. Both dispute resolution processes allow the parties to participate more fully in comparison to litigation. Party autonomy is a common attraction shared in both these processes. However, party autonomy plays a much more integral role within mediation. Under most mediation frameworks, the disputing parties not only choose their mediator and type of mediation process, but also have to freely consent to the mediated settlement. Parodoxically, the legitimacy of mediation “requires the use of the very litigation system which the parties eschewed in the first place”. The exercise of party autonomy within this process has to be validated through the courts’ willingness to enforce the mediated agreement across borders. Mediated settlement agreements require the courts’ support by ascribing legal effect to them when the need arises. The efforts by UNCITRAL to create an expedited cross-border enforcement mechanism thus raise the crucial question about how best the litigation system can support the exercise of party autonomy within mediation. This article discusses both the great potential and likely difficulties faced in giving weight to consensual agreements reached through the private mediation process. Part II explores the need for a mechanism to be created to support autonomy, while Part III provides an overview of the key provisions of the convention. Two areas of tension will then be explored. Part IV discusses the difficulties in giving effect to party autonomy amidst the plurality of domestic and international mediation standards; and Part V examines the tension between respecting party autonomy and giving weight to the enforcing state’s public policies. It will be argued in Parts IV and V that the challenges arising from the proliferation of enforcement regimes are not insurmountable. The brave new world of cross-border enforcement may bring about some unavoidable challenges. Nevertheless, the very effort to facilitate international enforcement provides the much-needed impetus to overcome these challenges by encouraging greater convergence of mediation standards and more candid discussion about managing the relevant tensions.

This paper considers the relationship among the inferential style characterizing a society, its litigation system, and other aspects of its culture. Differences between common law and Continental systems of litigation are associated with a stronger individualistic tendency in Anglo-American society than in Continental societies. William Twining’s model of the ‘rationalist’ tradition in Anglo-American adjudication and evidence scholarship, as modified by an overlay of individual rights, tracks important differences between the common law system, on the one hand, and Asian litigation systems, particularly East Asian systems, on the other, and between Western and Asian styles of thinking. The paper speculates that one reason the jury system has taken root in the Anglo-American system is that Anglo-American culture is more likely to generate among its people habits and customs of deliberation that will make them willing and effective jurors.

The Russian Federation is a geographically neighbor country of the Republic of Korea, but it is a country with little sense of distance due to its history, culture and national system. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Korea established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union on September 30, 1990 due to Korea's northern policy and given that the volume of trade between Korea and Russia has been steadily increasing over the past 33 years, the volume of trade in human and material between Korea and Russia will continue to increase in the future.
 Until now, comparative legal exchanges in the legal aspect of Russia in Korea have been insignificant, so Russian law in Korea is a very unfamiliar area in comparative law studies. This paper will explain how the Russian Federation has reorganized legal system for civil litigation through system transition after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
 Today, in the Russian Federation, civil and commercial litigation are concepts of distinction rather than subsidiarity, and both have different applicable laws and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts regarding the litigation procedure. Therefore, the current litigation system for judicial disputes in the Russian Federation is divided into a civil litigation system and a commercial litigation system under a dual system (dualism), and in each area, civil litigation legal relations and commercial litigation legal relations arise according to the relevant laws governing the matters concerning the procedures for disputes to be resolved through courts. The system of provisional disposition and enforcement in civil and commercial proceedings in the Russian Federation is based on the judicial acts of the courts, and there are court decisions (Определе ние суда) and court judgments (Судебный вердикт) as types of judicial acts of the courts regarding the provisional dispositions and enforcement systems. In the case of the preservative disposition system, it is based on a court decision, and the enforcement system is based on a court order or execution judgment of the court.
 Execution in civil and commercial proceedings in the Russian Federation is classified into immediate execution (Немедленное исп олнение) and compulsory execution. In the system of compulsory execution, the institution that actually implements compulsory execution is the Judicial Execution Service, which is an administrative body separate from the courts, under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. In case of immediate execution in civil and commercial cases, it can be executed by the judicial act of the court according to the related litigation law, whereas compulsory execution is a system that is operated completely separate from the jurisdiction of the court and the litigation law. Therefore, in the remedy of rights related to compulsory execution, the judicial enforcement agency is the actual party as the collector, the person to be collected, and the implementer of the actual compulsory execution. The object of execution and all acts related to compulsory execution by the judicial enforcement agency are separated, and the former must proceed with a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment against the object of excessive execution through a civil or commercial lawsuit. In the case of infringement of rights infringed by the illegal compulsory execution of the judicial enforcement agency, a lawsuit for compensation for damages (state compensation) for the illegal acts of the judicial enforcement agency must be carried out through administrative litigation.

Although most individuals who had claims against corporations never brought them to court, hundreds of thousands did. As the system of corporate diversity litigation formed in the 1870s and early 1880s, plaintiffs quickly recognized the disadvantages that removal imposed. The burdens of distance and delay were immediately obvious; the procedural and institutional disadvantages of removal quickly became apparent; and by the late 1880s and early 1890s the federal common law grew noticeably unfavorable in an increasing number of states. Plaintiffs felt ever more keenly the desirability, and in many cases the necessity, of avoiding removal at all costs. “It is a well recognized fact in judicial history, “ wrote a Nebraska federal judge in 1912, “that plaintiffs, in actions brought by employees against railway companies for damages resulting from personal injuries, have quite generally and for many years sought to bring and retain their actions in the state courts. “ The judge acknowledged frankly the practical motives at work. “The expense of trials and appeals in the federal courts have been deterrents, and the variance in the rules of law in such cases has also been well understood. “1 The threat of removal confronted every individual who sued a foreign corporation, and the dangers and burdens of a federal litigation often gave the threat compelling force. The pivotal legal issue in the system of corporate diversity litigation, then, was jurisdictional: Could plaintiffs somehow shape their actions to avoid federal jurisdiction and prevent removal? The system ‘s archetypal battle for forum control, the Nebraska federal judge noted, was “well attested by the multitude of applications to remand such cases which have been constantly presented to the federal courts. “

The new era of environmental public interest litigation is a beautiful crystallization of the relationship between the maintenance of public interest and legal supervision in China. It is an extension of the legal supervision function assigned to the procuratorial organs by the Constitution, which can better promote national governance and safeguard the public interest of the environment. However, in practice, the imperfection of the system and extra-legal factors have induced various problems in the pre-litigation procedure of prosecutorial public interest litigation, such as the difficulty of social environmental organizations to file public interest litigation and the legitimacy of the procuratorial organs for the "performance of duties" of administrative organs. In order to further improve the pre-litigation procedure system of procuratorial environmental public interest litigation, firstly, it is clear that the focus lies on the principle of procuratorial humility according to law. Secondly, the civil public interest litigation needs to optimize the institutional arrangement of environmental protection organizationsin ecological environmental damage litigation, strengthen the linkage between procuratorial organs and social groups, and set up multiple administrative acts review standards for administrative public interest litigation, in order to help Chinese characteristics of procuratorial system of environmental public interest litigation in before litigation procedure of continuous development and improvement in practice.

의료소송에서 가장 문제로 되는 것이 환자가 의료행위에 대한 전문적 지식의 부족으로 인하여 유효한 소송권리의 행사와 의료기관에 대한 실질적 대항을 할 수 없다는데 있다. 이러한 점에서 보면 법관도 의료지식에 관하여 비전문가이기 때문에 전문적 문제에 대하여는 속수무책일 것이다. 우리는 법관의 전능형 인재를 기대할 수 없고, 단지 그들의 재능은 제한적이기 때문에 이와 관현한 전문지식인의 DB를 마련하여 소송에 참여하게 함으로써 원활한 소송이 가능하게 하는 최상의 선택이 될 것이다. 이러한 정책실현의 일환으로 2013년 발효된 중국 《민사소송법(民事&#35785;&#35772;法)》 제79조에서 입법적으로 전문가 보조인제도를 정식으로 확립하였고, 2015년 발효된 최고인민법원 《<민사소송법>의 적용에 관한 해석(&#20851;于适用＜&#20851;于中&#21326;人民共和&#22269;民事&#35785;&#35772;法＞的解&#37322;)》 제 122조와 제 123조의 두 조항에서 전문가 보조인제도를 자세히 규정하고 있다. 하지만 오늘날 중국은 전문가 보조인제도의 제도에 대한 입법은 여전히 원칙성 규정으로 머물러 있어 사법실무에서 당사자와 법원이 이 제도를 어떻게 활용할 것인지에 대해 많은 문제가 발생한다. 그러므로 전문가 보조인의 자격인정, 적용범위, 법정절차, 소송지위의 네 가지 측면에서 중국 의료소송에서의 전문가 보조인제도에 대하여 완비함하여 사법상의 어려움을 해결함으로써 실무에서의 요구를 만족시킬 수 있을 것이다. 자격인정 면에 있어 전체적으로 비교적 광범위한 정책을 하여야 하며, 적용범위면에 있어서는 전문가 보조인제도가 법정심리 전 증거개시와 쟁점정리절차, 감정절차 및 개정 전 조해절차에서 광범위하게 적용되어 법정심리절차에 한정되어서는 안된다. 또한 법정절차 면에 있어, 먼저, 전문가 보조인이 의료소송에 참여하는 것을 불허하는 것을 제한하여야 하며, 둘째, 전문가 보조인이 법정출석에서 구두진술을 하는 것 이외에 전문적 문제에 대하여 서면으로 추측의견을 제시하는 것에 대하여도 규정하여야 한다. 소송지위 면에서는 전문가 보조인의 소송지위는 소송참가인(intervener)로서 이에 상당하는 권리의무를 부담하여야 한다. 在&#21307;&#30103;&#35785;&#35772;中一&#20010;突出的&#38382;&#39064;是, 患方&#24403;事人因&#20026;缺乏&#19987;&#19994;知&#35782;, 无法通&#36807;有效地行使&#35785;&#35772;&#26435;利&#19982;&#21307;方&#24403;事人&#36827;行&#23454;&#36136;性的&#23545;抗。不&#20165;如此, 同&#26679;身&#20026;外行人的法官在面&#23545;&#19987;&#19994;&#38382;&#39064;&#26102;也束手无策。&#23545;此, 我&#20204;不能期待也不&#24212;期待&#23457;判法官是全能型人才, &#35753;具&#22791;相&#20851;&#19987;&#19994;知&#35782;的人&#21442;&#19982;到&#35785;&#35772;活&#21160;中&#26469;, 才符合&#35785;&#35772;&#32463;&#27982;原&#21017;。据此, 2013年生效的《中&#21326;人民共和&#22269;民事&#35785;&#35772;法》第79&#26465;在立法&#23618;面正式&#30830;立&#19987;家&#36741;助人制度, &#24182;在2015年生效的《最高人民法院&#20851;于适用＜&#20851;于中&#21326;人民共和&#22269;民事&#35785;&#35772;法＞的解&#37322;》中用第122&#26465;、第123&#26465;&#20004;&#20010;&#26465;款&#23545;&#19987;家&#36741;助人制度&#36827;一步的&#35268;定。但不得不承&#35748;, 目前中&#22269;&#23545;&#19987;家&#36741;助人制度的立法仍停留在原&#21017;性&#35268;定的&#23618;面, 在司法&#23454;&#36341;中, &#24403;事人及法院&#23545;&#35813;制度如何操作&#20135;生了&#35768;多疑&#38382;。因此, 我&#20204;&#24212;&#24403;&#20174;&#19987;家&#36741;助人的&#36164;格&#35748;定、适用范&#22260;、出庭程序、&#35785;&#35772;地位四&#20010;方面&#23545;中&#22269;&#21307;&#30103;&#35785;&#35772;中的&#19987;家&#36741;助人制度&#36827;行完善, 以求解&#20915;司法困境, 适&#24212;&#23454;&#36341;的要求。在&#36164;格&#35748;定方面, 整&#20307;上&#24212;&#24403;采取&#36739;&#20026;&#23485;松的政策；在适用范&#22260;方面, &#24212;&#24403;&#23558;&#19987;家&#36741;助人制度&#25193;大适用于庭&#23457;前的&#35777;据&#24320;示及&#20105;点整理程序、&#37492;定程序以及庭前&#35843;解程序, 而不局限于庭&#23457;程序；在出庭程序方面, 首先&#24212;限制法院不批准&#19987;家&#36741;助人&#21442;&#19982;&#21307;&#30103;&#35785;&#35772;的情形, 其次&#35268;定&#19987;家&#36741;助人除出庭作出口&#22836;&#38472;述之外, &#36824;可以就&#19987;&#19994;&#38382;&#39064;出具&#20070;面推理意&#35265;。在&#35785;&#35772;地位方面, 明&#30830;&#19987;家&#36741;助人的&#3578A prominent problem in medical litigation is that the patient party cannot substantively confront the medical party by the effective exercise of litigation rights because of lack of professional knowledge. Not only that, but judges who are laymen also are helpless when faced with professional problems. In this regard, we cannot expect and should not expect trial judges to be all-around talents. To give full scope to the talents and turn material resources to good account, it is the best choice meeting the economic principle that people with relevant professional knowledge participate in litigation. Accordingly, article 79 of Civil Procedure Law of the People s Republic of China, which entered into force in 2015, formally established expert assistant system at the legislative level and article 122 and article 123 of the Supreme People s Court on the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People s Republic of China, which came into force in 2015, do further provisions. However, we have to admit that at present Chinese legislation on the expert assistant system remains at the level of principle. In the judicial practice, parties and courts have raised many questions about how to operate the system. Therefore, we should improve the expert assistant system of Chinese medical litigation from four aspects: the qualification, the scope of application, the procedure of appearing in court and the position of litigation, in order to solve the judicial predicament and meet the requirements of practice. In terms of qualification, the overall policy should be looser; In the case of the scope of application, the expert assistant system should be expanded to apply for pre-trial evidence discovery and dispute arrangement procedures, identification procedure and pre-trial mediation procedure, not limited to trial procedure; In respect of procedure pf appearing in court, law should first restrict the cases that the court does not approve the expert assistant to participate in the medical litigation, and then stipulate that the expert assistant may issue written reasoning opinions on the professional problems besides oral statements in court; As for the position of litigation, the litigation status of expert assistant is defined as litigant participant, and the corresponding rights and obligations should be undertaken.

Bryan A. Liang, M.D., Ph.D., J.D.Grayson Distinguished Visiting ProfessorSouthern Illinois UniversitySchool of LawCarbondale, Illinoisbaliang@alum.mit.eduChairmanDepartment of Anesthesiology St. Elizabeth Medical CenterProfessor of AnesthesiologyTufts University School of MedicineEditor-in-ChiefJournal of Clinical AnesthesiaBoston, MassachusettsIn Reply:—We very much appreciate the comments by Drs. Hogan and Laravuso regarding both the recent Anesthesiology article 1and the accompanying editorial. 2We hope our response stimulates debate in this exceedingly important area.Drs. Hogan and Laravuso indicate that the “the problem [of discrepancy between peer review assessment and litigation risk] lies not so much in the system of litigation that society has adopted, as in the training and credentialing of practitioners.” Although the training and credentialing of practitioners is, indeed, an exceedingly important consideration for clinical care, the conflict between what medical professionals deem is appropriate care and that care which may result in litigation may be related primarily to weaknesses with how the malpractice system actually functions rather than training and credentialing per se . Training and credentialing are important within the profession to assure that physicians practice in a clinically appropriate manner. The legal system, through its agents of judge or jury, are to accept what such appropriately trained and credentialed practitioners indicate is standard and apply it to the case at hand. Edbril and Lagasse found that the connect between what is legally answerable and what is professionally appropriate appears lacking. Assuming that the anesthesiology reviewers are not unqualified either through training or credentialing, something I do not believe Drs. Hogan and Laravuso suggest, the disconnect may reside instead in the application of the law and the medical standard of care by the legal system. This possibility is supported by other studies 3–5in addition to the Edbril and Lasse piece.Drs. Hogan and Laravuso also indicate that a justification of the current tort system resides in the contention that “[t]o scrap a system that has accomplished much good (handicap access, gender equity, the tobacco settlement to name a few) would be unwise.” However, medical malpractice, which relies on a professional standard of care that may not be being applied appropriately, is, we believe, quite different from civil rights cases or class action litigation for an unhealthful, but legal, product. The difficulty in medical malpractice cases as illustrated in the Edbril and Lagasse article is that the tort system may not be able to function according to its own rules; thus, its social goals of reducing patient injury and maximizing patient safety may not be accomplished. Further, as pointed out in the editorial, the compensation function is also not being well accomplished. Through reform directly addressing these difficulties, we may be more able to reach the goals of patient safety and compensation; but certainly such reform does not preclude other types of tort litigation.In addition, Drs. Hogan and Laravuso indicate in their letter that another justification of the tort system is that “the personal injury tort system and its incentives represent the physician’s best weapon in the battle for autonomy against managed care intrusions. …” We would respectfully disagree with them on this point. A vast majority of physicians are independent contractors; thus, under traditional independent contractor law, any patient injury liability redounds to the physician him or herself, even if the managed care organization mandates specific utilization review procedures, cost-containment measures, the patients that the physician must see, and so forth. 6–8Further, federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, can immunize managed care organizations from state law tort suits. 6Thus, traditional independent contractor tort law, as well as federal legislation, most likely do not represent weapons against managed care intrusions. Indeed, this is why legislation designed to provide autonomy to physician and patient decision making may not be effective, such as gag clause legislation. 9Drs. Hogan and Laravuso support the call for evidence-based medicine and an assessment of safety outcomes, but indicate that “this alone will fall far short” to accomplish the goal of patient safety. Although perhaps a disagreement only of degree, such study and assessment is essential and is an integral component to improving patient safety as indicated by a recent Institute of Medicine report. 10Of course, education and a change of culture to clinical decisions based on valid evidence is just as important so that the maximum benefit of these insights can accrue to patient safety.To survive in the modern delivery environment of health care, a framework of legal medicine should indeed be part of every medical student’s education as Drs. Hogan and Laravuso suggest. Beyond traditional legal medicine topics such as informed consent and medical malpractice, modern health law and policy considerations such as financing mechanisms for health care, managed care concepts, contracting, fraud and abuse, antitrust law, and alternative dispute resolution methods should be taught so as to truly prepare the student for the practice environment he or she will enter. 11With regard to a legal medicine specialty board, the American College of Legal Medicine certifies competency in legal medicine; however, it currently is not approved by the American Board of Medical Specialities as it once was.Drs. Hogan and Laravuso also suggest that to improve patient injury litigation, a special medical malpractice bar be created akin to the intellectual property bar, with the standard jury system retained. Of course, very few would argue that a more informed legal profession as to medical delivery would be undesirable. Yet the results of the Edbril and Lagasse study and others discussed above indicate that the dissonance between what is deemed medically appropriate and what is deemed legally appropriate lies with the finders of fact, usually the juries. Thus, the focus of reform might be more suitably placed instead upon promoting medically sophisticated juries.Finally, Drs. Hogan and Laravuso note that financing decisions that result in population-based care rather than an individual patient focus may not be well reflected in the traditional legal system. They then indicate that “f doctors and other caregivers believe their patients deserve at least the level of personal zealous representation available to a client at a law office, they must also perceive that a tort system, modified to increase the skill level of its actors, is their last, best defense.” Financing decisions that result in changes in health care delivery emphasize the need for reform of the traditional tort system to reflect these changes. In addition, a belief that patients should be afforded their legal rights is not necessarily in conflict with a belief in medical malpractice reforms. The evidence suggests that the malpractice tort system does not in practice achieve its goal of deterrence, does not induce physicians to act affirmatively to adopt optimal patient safety activities, and does not compensate patients who are injured in the health delivery system. Physicians who call for a system that does achieve these goals, is continuously responsive to an assessment of errors, and integrates results of patient safety research would appear to have their patients’ and professions’ best interests at heart. Continuing to use a system that has been “broken .. for some time”12to further patient interests and professional competence would not seem to be the optimal use of the increasingly scarce resources in the health delivery system.