Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献_第6页

Dispute Resolution in the Signaling Model: A Comparison of Arbitration Mechanisms 信令模型中的争议解决：仲裁机制的比较

IF 1.3 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-05-27 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12420

Paul Pecorino, Michael Solomon, Mark Van Boening

{"title":"Dispute Resolution in the Signaling Model: A Comparison of Arbitration Mechanisms","authors":"Paul Pecorino, Michael Solomon, Mark Van Boening","doi":"10.1111/jels.12420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12420","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conduct an experimental analysis of signaling games using three models of arbitration. In the signaling model, the informed party in the dispute makes a settlement demand to the uninformed party. In conventional arbitration (CA), the arbitrator is free to impose her preferred settlement on the disputing parties. In Final Offer Arbitration (FOA), each party submits a proposal to the arbitrator who must choose one of the two submitted proposals. In one version of FOA we consider, settlement bargaining (which occurs separately from proposal submission) occurs prior to the submission of proposals and in one version it occurs after. We find the lowest dispute rate in CA and the highest dispute rate in FOA when settlement negotiations take place prior to the submission of proposals. The difference in dispute rates across these two mechanisms is 10 percentage points, which is about 25% of the average dispute rate. One factor in the lower CA dispute rate is that fewer disputes result from anomalous demands, which in turn may be a function of the simplicity of the mechanism compared with FOA.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 3","pages":"361-377"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144773974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Distance Factor in Remedies 补救措施中的距离因素

IF 1.3 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-05-06 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12414

Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir, Ilana Ritov

{"title":"The Distance Factor in Remedies","authors":"Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir, Ilana Ritov","doi":"10.1111/jels.12414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12414","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article proposes a new classification of legal remedies that cuts across existing classifications. It argues that all remedies involving the transfer of resources are positioned along a continuum from close to remote, which determines their “distance factor.” The basic distinction is between remedies provided directly by the injurer to the injured and remedies that are provided through third parties. The article presents the results of two original, preregistered experiments designed to examine the effect of the distance factor on perceptions of, and preferences for, various remedies from the perspectives of both the injured and injurers. The experiments reveal that even when the remedy is monetary, both injured and injurers prefer the remedy with the smaller distance factor. Specifically, both parties believe that direct compensation leads to better outcomes than payment via a third party with regard to rectifying the harm done, granting satisfaction to the injured, treating the injured and injurer with respect, improving the bilateral relations, and increasing the injurer's sense of responsibility for the harm. These findings are relevant to the various goals that the law wishes to promote, such as corrective justice, economic efficiency, or distributive justice. They vindicate the importance of private law, offer a more attractive justification for it than the one offered by Civil Recourse Theory, and support pluralism in remedial modes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 3","pages":"270-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12414","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144773945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Law, Justice and Reason-Giving 法律、正义与理性

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-04-29 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12412

Ori Katz, Eyal Zamir

{"title":"Law, Justice and Reason-Giving","authors":"Ori Katz, Eyal Zamir","doi":"10.1111/jels.12412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12412","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reason-giving is a hallmark of judicial decision-making. However, many judicial decisions are not accompanied by detailed reasons—or any reasons at all. Judicial reason-giving serves various goals, including constraining judges' discretion. The very engagement in writing and the enhanced accountability that comes with the provision of written reasons are expected to foster more deliberative thinking and stricter adherence to legal norms. Several prior studies have investigated the influence of judicial reason-giving on judges' vulnerability to cognitive and other biases. But none have examined the effect of reason-giving on the inclination to deviate from formal legal rules in cases where there is a notable tension between the legal rules and the equities of the case in question (“hard cases”). This article reports on four novel, pre-registered experiments designed to test this important issue. The experiments also explored (1) the extent to which a precedent where the court deviated from the formal rule in a hard case affects the ruling in a subsequent “easy case” (one that lacks such tension)—and how reason-giving influences this effect, and (2) the extent to which a precedent where the court followed the formal rule in an easy case affects the ruling in a subsequent hard case—and how reason-giving influences this effect. The article discusses the policy implications of the findings and avenues for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 2","pages":"243-266"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12412","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143926181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools Hallucination-Free吗?评估领先人工智能法律研究工具的可靠性

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-04-23 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12413

Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning, Daniel E. Ho

{"title":"Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools","authors":"Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning, Daniel E. Ho","doi":"10.1111/jels.12413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12413","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. However, the large language models used in these tools are prone to “hallucinate,” or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as “eliminating” or “avoid[ing]” hallucinations, or guaranteeing “hallucination-free” legal citations. Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 2","pages":"216-242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12413","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143926188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Assessing the Conservative Nature of the Supreme Court of Japan via Ideal Point Estimation of Justices 从法官的理想点估计看日本大法院的保守性

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-04-07 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12411

Hirofumi Miwa

{"title":"Assessing the Conservative Nature of the Supreme Court of Japan via Ideal Point Estimation of Justices","authors":"Hirofumi Miwa","doi":"10.1111/jels.12411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12411","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Japan is an intriguing case in the literature of judicial independence because of the Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) long-lasting one-party dominance in government—which, in theory, leads to low independence. Although scholars have found plentiful anecdotal observations implying the LDP's judicial control, quantitative evidence remains scarce. Focusing on the Supreme Court as the first step, this study provides a new dataset on justices' ideal points through an extensive compilation of justices' voting data and application of the dynamic item response theory model. I validate the estimates' interpretability as ideological positions. The results present several novel findings: justices with a career-judge background are relatively conservative; the Chief Justice tends to be particularly conservative; the conservative camp has tended to hold on to a court majority since the 1960s; and the government's partisanship, to some degree, influences appointed justices' positions. These results reinforce scholars' views that Japan's court leans conservatively and aligns with the LDP, with implications for judicial independence in Japan.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 2","pages":"186-215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143925846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Perception Pending: What Do Patents Signal to Consumers? 待定认知：专利向消费者发出了什么信号？

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12415

Alexander Billy, Neel Sukhatme

{"title":"Perception Pending: What Do Patents Signal to Consumers?","authors":"Alexander Billy, Neel Sukhatme","doi":"10.1111/jels.12415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12415","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Patent law encourages inventors to label their products as “patented,” to mark their legal status and potentially secure monetary damages from infringing competitors. We examine whether such labels might have a separate and direct impact on consumers, by affecting how they view patented products and influencing what they purchase. We develop and conduct two experiments to isolate the impact of patent status on consumer behavior. In an online randomized experiment, we demonstrate how increasing the salience of patent status heightens consumers' beliefs that products are innovative and well made. We also reveal consumers' surprisingly sophisticated understanding of the patenting process and what being patented means. Despite this informed perspective, consumers are not more inclined to buy patented products. To determine if these results hold in a real-world setting, we conduct a field experiment at a small retail pharmacy chain. Using scanner data spanning over 4 years, we find no evidence that consumers respond to increased patent salience. Our collective results suggest that while consumers view patented products as more innovative and well made, these positive attributes do not necessarily translate into heightened purchasing behavior. Our research suggests that patent marking might often serve only a legal, rather than a marketing, function. This has implications for patent policy, including the relevance of patent salience in damage analyses and litigation strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 2","pages":"163-184"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12415","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143925911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Correction to “Paying for Performance? Attorneys' Fees in Fraud Class Actions” 更正“按业绩付费？”欺诈集体诉讼中的律师费

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12416

引用次数: 0

Molecular Diagnostic Patenting After Mayo v. Prometheus: An Empirical Analysis 梅奥诉普罗米修斯案后的分子诊断专利：实证分析

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12409

Colleen V. Chien, Jenna Clark, Arti K. Rai

{"title":"Molecular Diagnostic Patenting After Mayo v. Prometheus: An Empirical Analysis","authors":"Colleen V. Chien, Jenna Clark, Arti K. Rai","doi":"10.1111/jels.12409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12409","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since the United States Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus announced a new legal test for patent-eligible subject matter, policymakers, and scholars have vigorously debated the decision's impact on molecular diagnostics innovation. Molecular diagnostics serve as the cornerstone of personalized medicine and its promise of treatments with fewer side effects and better outcomes for patients. This article contributes to the presently thin evidence base on the impact of Mayo by using data on patent applications, examinations, and grants from 2010 to 2019 to comprehensively trace the effects of the test and subsequent related developments. Using descriptive data as well as a difference-in-difference (DID) design we evaluate the extent to which the decision was followed by one of three expected outcomes: a decline in patent quantity (“retrenchment”); increase in patent prosecution “toughness”; and applicant “adaptation” with respect to submitted claims. We find substantial support for our toughness and adaptation hypotheses, but not our retrenchment hypothesis: molecular diagnostic patenting did not decline in aggregate, though there is some evidence of a decline, relative to a control, in the number of diagnostic patent applications and grants associated with small, U.S.-based firms. These results suggest that molecular diagnostic patents are harder to get but they are still being applied for and granted, with their narrowed scope making them less likely to block follow on innovation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 2","pages":"144-162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12409","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143926138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Impact of Judicial Leadership on Consensus Formation: Evidence From the Supreme Court of Norway 司法领导对共识形成的影响：来自挪威最高法院的证据

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-01-08 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12408

Henrik Litleré Bentsen, Jon Kåre Skiple, Mark Jonathan McKenzie, Gunnar Grendstad

{"title":"The Impact of Judicial Leadership on Consensus Formation: Evidence From the Supreme Court of Norway","authors":"Henrik Litleré Bentsen, Jon Kåre Skiple, Mark Jonathan McKenzie, Gunnar Grendstad","doi":"10.1111/jels.12408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12408","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Which judicial leaders are more successful in achieving consensus? This article examines the impact of the leadership of presiding justices on consensus formation on the Norwegian Supreme Court where cases are distributed randomly to two parallel decisional panels. We hypothesize that presiding justices with certain characteristics (e.g., gender and chief justice), when in charge of the decision-making process, are more willing and better able to forge consensus, which could lead to greater respect for courts and the rule of law. We account for a variety of characteristics of the justices, as well as several conditions under which the cases were decided. The results confirm that both chief justices and female justices, when operating as the presiding justice of the panel, are significantly more likely to steer the case towards a unanimous decision as compared to their fellow justices. Legal academics serving as presiding justices had no discernable impact on consensus formation. The results provide evidence outside the American context that chief justices and women justices have the ability to achieve greater consensus. As such, diversity and appointments have consequences for judicial leadership and for consensus formation on a court.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"114-129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12408","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143249040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Introducing a New Corpus of Definitive M&A Agreements, 2000–2020 引入2000-2020年新的最终并购协议语料库

IF 1.2 2区社会学

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2024-12-29 DOI: 10.1111/jels.12410

Peter Adelson, Matthew Jennejohn, Julian Nyarko, Eric Talley

引用次数: 0