Law Clerks Research Articles

Policy and organisational learning in judicial reform: evidence from Italy

The Italian judicial system is well-known for its substandard performance by comparison with its European peers. In this article, we analyse the implementation of an important reform of the Italian judicial system designed and implemented in the context of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan funded by Next Generation EU. The reform, launched in February 2022, involves the introduction of a new organisational structure (The Office for the Trial) staffed with 16,500 newly appointed judicial assistants, representing an increase of about one third of the total judicial workforce employed in Italy. By leveraging the concepts of policy and organisational learning (OL), we show that variation of the modes of policy learning observed in implementation design is linked with variation in the organisational models adopted by different judicial offices to implement the reform. Then, by connecting organisational models to OL and focusing on the performance of five selected sections within the Court of Appeal of Milan, we show that organisational models informed by reflexivity are associated with better performance than models informed by hierarchy. The study contributes to scholarship on policy and OL, as well as providing a first, albeit limited and exploratory, empirical evaluation of a strategic public sector reform.

Does the 1L curriculum make a difference?

AbstractGeorgetown Law's Curriculum B (also known as Section 3) offers a unique opportunity to study an alternative 1L curriculum. The standard 1L curriculum has been around for decades and is still offered at the vast majority of US law schools. Leaders in the legal academy often talk about experimenting with the 1L curriculum, but hardly anyone does it. Georgetown Law has. We study whether Georgetown's Curriculum B yields measurable differences in student outcomes. Our empirical design leverages the fact that enrollment in Curriculum B is done by lottery when it is oversubscribed—meaning our study is effectively a randomized controlled trial. We measure treatment effects of Curriculum B by comparing outcomes of students who received the treatment (Curriculum B) with outcomes of students who received the placebo (Curriculum A) but wanted the treatment. Because students in both the treatment and control groups elected to enroll in Curriculum B, our empirical design overcomes the issue of selection bias. We find that taking Curriculum B decreases students' performance in two business law electives (Corporations and Securities Regulation) and reduces the rate at which they graduate with Latin honors. In addition, we find that it increases students' propensity to take certain public law electives and decreases their propensity to take certain business law electives. We further find that taking Curriculum B decreases students' likelihood of working in the private sector (law firm or business/industry), increases their likelihood of working in the public sector (government or public interest) or doing a judicial clerkship, and reduces their average annual salary. At the same, however, we find no statistically significant effects on other outcomes, including students' cumulative grade point average, their chances of passing the bar exam or being employed 10 months after graduation, or their rate or amount of alumni giving.

Jurisprudential and Legal Review of the Validity of the Expert’s Opinion

Experience is one of the methods of judicial proof. It is resorted to, if necessary, revealing or strengthening existing evidence. The increasing role of technical expertise in our modern era comes - due to the accuracy, complexity and often hidden nature of the facts presented to the judiciary - making the judge need help. With experienced and specialized people and benefit from their advice. Undoubtedly, experts are considered among the judicial assistants who cannot be dispensed with in the scientific or technical cases that the judge finds. He cannot consider some cases that require expertise outside his professional speciality. The judge’s goal is to reach the truth to make his ruling. Fair, and this is achieved by seeking the help of experienced people whose opinion is a means of proving the claim. One thing that no two people disagree about is that the judge, no matter how much knowledge and extensive knowledge he has, cannot comprehend all the different sciences and arts, especially the delicate cases, so there is no escape from referring to people of experience, knowledge, and specialization for the judge to issue his ruling based on reassurance and trust and to be closer to achieving the truth and resolving the dispute.

Some issues on improving the judicial system of the Republicof Kazakhstan

This article discusses some issues related to improving the judicial system of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is emphasized that the judiciary occupies a special place in the mechanism for protecting human rights. The importance of the category of justice for the judicial system is considered, the norms of the current legislation are analyzed, and it is concluded that the term “impartiality of judges” means justice.Justice is impossible if the court is biased, and accordingly, biased justice gives rise to unfair decisions and leads to a low level of citizens' trust in the state as a whole.The article also discusses such a problem as the high workload of judges, and it is proposed to introduce the institution of assistant judges. The legal experience of foreign countries in which the institute of judicial assistants operates is analyzed. World practice shows that assistant judges directly contribute to improving the quality of the administration of justice.Particular attention is paid to the process of expanding the specialization of courts. An analysis of the administrative form of legal proceedings is carried out, as well as the provisions of the new Administrative Procedure Code.In conclusion, this article concludes that the judicial system must be stable and conservative, and a unified judicial practice must be formed.

Some issues on improving the judicial system of the Republic of Kazakhstan

This article discusses some issues related to improving the judicial system of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is emphasized that the judiciary occupies a special place in the mechanism for protecting human rights. The importance of the category of justice for the judicial system is considered, the norms of the current legislation are analyzed, and it is concluded that the term “impartiality of judges” means justice. Justice is impossible if the court is biased, and accordingly, biased justice gives rise to unfair decisions and leads to a low level of citizens' trust in the state as a whole. The article also discusses such a problem as the high workload of judges, and it is proposed to introduce the institution of assistant judges. The legal experience of foreign countries in which the institute of judicial assistants operates is analyzed. World practice shows that assistant judges directly contribute to improving the quality of the administration of justice. Particular attention is paid to the process of expanding the specialization of courts. An analysis of the administrative form of legal proceedings is carried out, as well as the provisions of the new Administrative Procedure Code. In conclusion, this article concludes that the judicial system must be stable and conservative, and a unified judicial practice must be formed.

Nurturing Tomorrow’s Jurists: Rethinking the Indonesian Constitutional Court's Clerkship System through a Comparative Lens

This paper dives into the clerkship system at the Indonesian Constitutional Court (MK), an independent judicial organ that holds high importance as the guardian of the constitution. While the court’s nine justices benefit from the existence of a clerk’s office, its work is still very limited to administrative matters. The paper begins by questioning whether the current system is sufficient to assist justices in their work and fulfill the larger aims of judicial clerkship. Its ultimate objective as a follow-up to the question is to identify ways to improve MK’s clerkship system. In order to assess the Indonesian clerkship system, a comparative analysis study of three other countries’ courts that similarly act as guardians of their respective constitutions – namely the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional Court of South Africa, and Supreme Court of India – is conducted. It is found firstly that there is indeed a need to change the clerkship system in MK as there are multiple ways in which clerks can help the court and benefit from it. Consequently, the changes that should be made run deep into the very purposes and roles of clerks, the structure of the committee or program, and the expected qualifications and selection process. By drawing inspiration from the three aforementioned courts, a contextualized adoption can be identified by taking into account Indonesia’s own circumstances.

Contributors

Previous articleNext article FreeContributorsPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreKristian Bernt Karlson is associate professor of sociology at the University of Copenhagen. His research centers on educational and social stratification. Karlson was awarded the 2022 Raymond Boudon Award for Early Career Achievement in Sociology by the European Academy of Sociology. His recent work appears in Sociological Science, Social Science Research, and Sociological Methods and Research.Heeju Sohn, PhD, is a demographer and a scholar of social inequality in the Department of Sociology at Emory University.Paige L. Sweet is assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. Her book, The Politics of Surviving: How Women Navigate Domestic Violence and Its Aftermath, was published by University of California Press in 2021.Martin Hällsten is professor of sociology at Stockholm University. His research broadly concerns the generation and consequences of inequality and has mainly been focused on intergenerational inequality processes, educational choice, ethnic inequality, and how social relations convey trust and tolerance.Martin Kolk is associate professor in demography at the Sociology Department at Stockholm University and the Institute for Future studies in Stockholm. He works on a diverse set of topics in demography and adjacent fields, including the demography of same-sex marriage, historical demography, and contemporary childbearing patterns. He has published extensively on kinship and how it is related to social mobility.Jaime Kucinskas is associate professor and chair of the Department of Sociology at Hamilton College. In her research, she examines the constitutive institutional conditions under which people engage in moral sensemaking. She is the author of The Mindful Elite and coeditor of Situating Spirituality: Context, Practice and Power (Oxford University Press).Yvonne Zylan is a sociologist and attorney who has taught at the University of Arizona, Hamilton College, the University of New Mexico, Thomson Rivers University Faculty of Law, and the University of British Columbia Allard School of Law. She is the author of States of Passion: Law, Identity, and the Social Construction of Desire, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2011. She currently works as a senior law clerk at the New Mexico Supreme Court.Felix Elwert, PhD, is professor of sociology and affiliated professor of biostatistics and population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and the editor-in-chief of Sociological Methods and Research. He conducts research on methods of causal inference, social inequality, health, and education.Tamás Keller, PhD, is a senior researcher at the Centre for Social Sciences and the Institute of Economics in the Center for Economic and Regional Studies, Budapest, Hungary. He conducts research on education and social inequality.Andreas Kotsadam is a senior researcher at the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research as well as professor of economics at the University of Oslo, Norway. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Sociology Volume 128, Number 6May 2023 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/725999 © 2023 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Does Delegation of Drafting Duties to Law Clerks Result in Judgments That Show Lack of Confidence in Terms of Writing Style? A Stylometric Analysis

Abstract Based on an analysis of all administrative court cases published in the Netherlands in 2020 (N = 4,642), we tested the hypothesis that experienced law clerks write judgments with greater confidence than less experienced clerks. A confidently written judgment was defined as being shorter, less standardized, and containing fewer legal references than a less confidently written judgment. In support of this hypothesis, our results showed that law clerks with more experience co-signed judgments that were less standardized and contained fewer legal references. However, contrary to the confidence hypothesis, we established that these judgments were also longer than judgments co-signed by less experienced clerks. Our study contextualizes the concerns expressed in studies on the US Supreme Court about the delegation of drafting duties to inexperienced law clerks. The study challenges the assumption that delegation of drafting duties to law clerks automatically results in judgments with a less confident writing style, due to the clerks’ inexperience. The assumption may hold for the US Supreme Court, where all law clerks are relatively inexperienced. However, the assumption does not hold in jurisdictions in which law clerks can be just as experienced (in terms of years worked in the legal field) as judges. This conclusion suggests that research on the functioning of the US Supreme Court cannot necessarily be generalized to other jurisdictions.

Gender and Ambition Among Potential Law Clerks

AbstractLaw clerks hold immense responsibilities and exert influence over the judges they work with. However, women remain underrepresented in these positions. We argue that one reason for this underrepresentation is that – like potential political candidates – female law students may have lower levels of ambition compared to men. Using a survey of student editors at thirty-three top law reviews, we find that there is a gender gap in ambition for clerkships with the Supreme Court and Federal Courts of Appeal. Examining potential sources of this difference, we find that while women view themselves to be just as qualified for these positions as men, men are more willing to apply with lower feelings of qualification. Likewise, while women and men report similar levels of encouragement, more encouragement is required before women express ambition to hold these posts. The findings presented here have implications for research on judicial politics, political ambition, and women’s representation.

Introduction

Introduction Timothy S. Huebner The mission of the Supreme Court Historical Society is to collect, preserve, and promote the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Society carries out its mission not only by conducting educational programs for students and teachers, but also by presenting public programs and lectures, producing documentaries and books, and acquiring artifacts and documents of historical significance in cooperation with the Curator of the Supreme Court. The Journal, of course, plays an essential role in carrying out the mission of the Society, as it serves as the only publication devoted exclusively to publishing the latest historical scholarship on the Court. It is a mission that our editorial board, Director of Publications Clare Cushman, and I take very seriously. Part of the Journal's longstanding purpose, moreover, has been to promote and publish the work of young scholars—the next generation of constitutional and Supreme Court historians. To that end, since 1995 the Society has bestowed the Hughes-Gossett Student Award upon an outstanding student paper submitted to the Journal. In addition to this award, I am proud to announce that our editorial board has decided to offer a research grant for early career scholars researching and writing about the history of the Court. Awarded on a competitive basis in June of each year, the $1,000 grant, named in memory of the distinguished scholar Henry J. Abraham, supports the research of those who are pursuing academic careers in legal history, including graduate students, law students, and those who are no more than five years from completion of either the Ph.D. or J.D. The award will be given on the basis of the applicant's potential for producing publishable work in the field of Supreme Court history, and the grant recipient will be expected to produce an article for submission to the Journal. Our board is very excited about this ongoing commitment to young scholars. If you know of someone who qualifies, please make that person aware of this opportunity! More information is available on the Society's website. This issue of the Journal highlights the work of young scholars. In case you haven't noticed, Prof. Brad Snyder's seminar on the Warren Court, which he has offered over the past few years at Georgetown University Law Center, has been the source of several papers of late, including last year's winner of the Hughes-Gossett Student Award. Under Brad's mentorship, these students have [End Page 5] produced outstanding essays based on an impressive array of primary sources. Three essays in this issue come straight from Brad's seminar. The first of these essays, by Theodore Salem-Mackall, explores Justice Hugo Black's opinions in cases involving mandatory arbitration. Although best known for his opinions in civil rights and civil liberties cases, Black dissented in a string of Warren-era mandatory arbitration cases, out of a general wariness of corporate power and a deep belief in each person's right to a fair "day in court." Salem-Mackall, who originally wrote the paper while a law student, is currently a Law Clerk at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. The second essay, by Gabriel Valle, tells the largely unexplored story of Gus Garcia and Hernandez v. Texas (1954), which involved the rights of Mexican-Americans to serve on juries. Although overshadowed by a contemporary case, Brown v. Board, and its emphasis on the struggle of Black Americans to desegregate schools, Valle shows the importance not only of Garcia's advocacy but also the Hernandez decision. Valle is a J.D. candidate at Georgetown. Third and finally, Jordan L. Lampo's essay chronicles the internal deliberations in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), in which the Court invalidated state durational residency requirements to receive public assistance, thereby contributing to the establishment of a constitutional right to travel. The unusual lineup in the case—with Justice William Brennan and outgoing Chief Justice Earl Warren on opposites sides—makes for a fascinating story. Lampo is also a J.D. candidate at Georgetown. In addition to these student essays, Helen Knowles, Associate Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Oswego and a member of...

THE MANY LIVES OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY

THE MANY LIVES OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY

The Explosive Growth of Telehealth Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

The Explosive Growth of Telehealth Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

From Exception to Exceptional: How Gender and Tenure Impact Sponsor Effectiveness

The critical role that referrals play in the hiring process, particularly for candidates contending with negative stereotypes and biases, is well documented. However, how those stereotypes and biases impact sponsors, and the effectiveness of the referrals that they provide, is not well understood. Drawing on evidence of reversals of gender bias, we explore the impact of sponsors’ gender and tenure on the effectiveness of their referrals in the context of U.S. Supreme Court law clerk hiring decisions. This is an appropriate setting because success in the application process for these elite early career positions is contingent on having a strong recommendation from a judge with which the candidate has previously worked, making it ideal to study gender differences in the effectiveness of referrals. Analyses show candidates recommended by male sponsors are more likely to be hired compared to those recommended by female sponsors overall, but this dynamic is also dependent on the sponsor’s tenure and the candidate’s gender. For female sponsors, higher levels of tenure are associated with better hiring outcomes for their female candidates only. All other gender combinations do not benefit from sponsor seniority. Possible mechanisms, limitations, and implications for future research directions are discussed.

Workplace Trauma in a Digital Age: The Impact of Video Evidence of Violent Crime on Criminal Justice Professionals.

High-quality video and audio recordings of violent crimes, captured using now ubiquitous digital technologies, play an increasingly important role in the administration of justice. However, the effects of exposure to gruesome material presented in this form on criminal justice professionals who analyze, evaluate, and use this potentially traumatic content in the context of their work, are largely unknown. Using long interviews and constructivist grounded theory, this qualitative study sought to explore experiences of exposure to video evidence of violent crime among Canadian criminal justice professionals. Sixteen individuals including police, lawyers, judges, psychiatrists, law clerks, and court reporters volunteered to participate in qualitative long interviews asking about workplace exposures to violent videos. Themes identified address the ubiquity of video evidence of violent crime; proximity to violence through video; being blindsided through lack of preparedness for violent content; repeated exposures through multiple and protracted viewings; insufficient customary methods for self-protection; and the enduring impact of exposure to videoed violence. We determine that criminal justice professionals are increasingly and repeatedly presented with deeply disturbing imagery that was once imperceptible or unknowable and thus previously held at a greater distance. Elements of what is newly visible and audible in video evidence of violent crime create a new emotional proximity to violence that potentially increases the risks of secondary trauma and underscores the need for improved safety measures.

A Legacy of Fearlessness

This book review describes an edited volume co-authored by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her former law clerk, Amanda Tyler.

Ko su sudijski pomoćnici u Republici Srbiji?

Judicial assistants are important part of the judiciary of the Republic of Serbia, but impression is that the public is insufficiently informed about their existence and significance. More precisely, part of the public knows that judicial assistants exist, but doesn't know what their job is. The aim of this article is to analyze and present the position, importance, jobs, and problems of judicial assistants and to recommend some suggestions how to improve the position of this important judicial profession. It is often said that judicial assistants are the future of the judiciary, but it is mostly thought that these judicial assistants will be elected as judges "tomorrow". However, it is an uncertain circumstance, that may or may not occur in the future. At the same time, there is a part of judicial assistants who have no desire at all to be elected to the position of judge. Bearing in mind the above, i would like to focus on the present time and finding an answer to the question: "How to improve the position of judicial assistants"?

To the Editor

To the Editor Jon O. Newman, Senior Judge March, 22, 2022 Re Courtney Chistensen’s very interesting article on Trop v. Dulles and the related cases of Perez v. Brownwell and Nishikawa v. Dulles (Vol. 64, No. 3), which (to my surprise) quotes from my law clerk memos to Chief Justice Earl Warren, four comments: 1. In 1967, the Supreme Court rejected its 1958 decision in Perez. The Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Congress from terminating United States citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 523 (1967). 2. As for Trop, it later provoked this astonishing statement by Justice Scalia, “That case has caused more mischief to our jurisprudence, to our federal system, and to our society than any other that comes to mind.” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 899 (2015) (Scalia, J., with whom Thomas, J., joins, concurring). No doubt Scalia was bemoaning Chief Justice Warren’s explicit statement that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of [End Page 232] decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop, 376 U.S. at 101 (Warren, C.J, with whom Black, J. and Douglas, J., join, dissenting), a statement that explicitly rejected an originalist view of the Eighth Amendment. Although scorning Warren’s opinion with its reference to “evolving standards of decency,” Justice Scalia had earlier acknowledged that “this Court has ‘not confined the prohibition embodied in the Eighth Amendment to “barbarous” methods that were generally outlawed in the 18th Century,’ but instead has interpreted the Amendment ‘in a flexible and dynamic manner.’” Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 369 (1986) (quoting Griggs v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 171 (1976). And, he interestingly added, “[O]ur job is to identify the ‘evolving standards of decency.’” Ibid, at 378 (quoting Trop, 356 U.S. at 101 (emphasis in original)). 3. The Yale Law Journal comment referred to in Ms. Chistensen’s article, which first advanced the argument that taking away citizenship as punishment for a crime violated the Eighth Amendment, was written by then-second-year law student Stephen J. Poliak, who went on to become Advisor on National Capitol Affairs to President Johnson in 1967, Asst. Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division in 1968, and thereafter a distinguished lawyer in the District of Columbia. 4. Ms. Christensen’s article frequently refers to Trop (and Perez and Nishikawa) as “denaturalization” cases, when in fact they are denationalization cases (involving loss of citizenship acquired at birth, not revocation of a fraudulently obtained naturalization certificate).1 Jon O. Newman, Senior Judge Second Circuit Court of Appeals ENDNOTE 1. Of minor import, page 338 of the article misquotes the word “pasted” (from Warren’s Trop dissent, 356 U.S. at 94) as “posted.” Copyright © 2022 Supreme Court Historical Society

Law Clerk Selection and Diversity: Insights From Fifty Sitting Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals

Law Clerk Selection and Diversity: Insights From Fifty Sitting Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals

You Can and You Should: How Judges Can Apply the Hague Abduction Convention to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence

This Article is written for trial judges who adjudicate cases pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), although appellate judges, lawyers, and scholars may also find it of interest. Trial judges are my target audience because they are the best defense against the potential injustice that the Hague Convention creates for domestic violence victims who flee transnationally with their children for safety, then face their batterers’ petitions for the children’s return.While the Hague Convention permits the trial judge to refuse to return a child when the taking parent is a domestic violence victim,and while more people than ever before recognize the appropriateness of nonreturn in this context, the law limits the nonreturn option. In fact, many judges complain that the law is too confining; they lament having to return the child but feel as though the law gives them no choice. Legislators have refused to make the judges’ job any easier. While judges now have helpful authority in some appellatedecisions and the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s new Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(b), these sources are uneven and still insufficient. In light of this reality, this Article aims to provide trial judges, as well as their law clerks, the tools and encouragement to promote justice and safety in these cases, evenwhen the legal doctrine may be problematic.Alleviating judicial discomfort is not my sole purpose, however. Judge Alex Kozinski once wrote, “A troubled [judicial] conscience is certainly not pleasant, but the real-life, brutal consequences of an unjust judicial decision are suffered by others.” My chief objective is to change outcomes for domestic violence victims and their children who might otherwise lose.

Law Clerk John Costelloe's Photographs of the Stone Court Justices, October 1943

Law Clerk John Costelloe's Photographs of the Stone Court Justices, October 1943