August 5, 2010
NY Times Reports on Outsourcing Discovery Work to India
Today's New York Times features a story about the growing trend of outsourcing discovery work (and other legal work) to India.
August 4, 2010
Grimmel on the Legacy of Rationalism in the European Court of Justice
Andreas Grimmel (Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies (CES); Harvard University; University of Hamburg) has posted "Judicial Interpretation or Judicial Activism?: The Legacy of Rationalism in the Studies of the European Court of Justice" on SSRN.
The abstract states:
August 3, 2010
Akron Law Review Symposium on Erie & Shady Grove
The Akron Law Review announces a forthcoming written symposium, “Erie Under Advisement. The Doctrine After Shady Grove.” The deadline for submitting manuscripts is Oct. 15, 2010.
The symposium issue will explore the contours of the Erie doctrine after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010). The Court’s fractured opinion in Shady Grove raises many questions regarding the durability of the framework established in Hanna v. Plumer for resolving potential conflicts between Federal Rules and state law, or if the framework remains intact, how courts should apply that framework.
Articles should focus on topics regarding the future implications of Shady Grove, and the Court’s treatment of the substantive rights prohibition of the Rules Enabling Act. Manuscripts on other aspects of the future of the Erie doctrine are also welcome.
The Akron Law Review will review articles on a rolling basis until Oct. 15, 2010. Articles should conform to The Bluebook citation format. We welcome articles of any length. Please send all questions and article submissions by e-mail to: Morena Carter, Editor-in-Chief, Akron Law Review, lawreview [at] uakron.edu.
August 2, 2010
Parness on Judicial Verses Legislative Authority in Illinois After Lebron
Professor Jeffrey A. Parness (Northern Illinois University College of Law) has posted "Judicial Verses Legislative Authority after Lebron" on SSRN. It will be published in the Illinois Bar Journal.
The abstract states:
Three New Comparative Articles
Alexei Trochev has posted Meddling with Justice: Competitive Politics, Impunity, and Distrusted Courts in Post-Orange Ukraine to SSRN.
Remo Caponi has posted Italian Civil Justice Reform 2009 to SSRN.
Dorota Leczykiewicz has posted 'Effective Judicial Protection' of Human Rights after Lisbon: Should National Courts Be Empowered to Review EU Secondary Law? to SSRN.
Abstracts after the jump.
Contrary to the theories of judicial empowerment that argue that the presence of strong political opposition is necessary for the development of an independent judiciary, the increasing fragmentation of power in today’s Ukraine goes hand-in-hand with judicial disempowerment - dependent courts regularly provide important benefits to rival elites.
The Italian Civil Justice Reform 2009 (Law no. 69 of 18,h June, 2009 and, based on this law, Legislative Decree no. 28 of 4th March) 2010) has amended several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), but it has left untouched the root causes of inefficiency of the Italian civil justice system.The causes of the unreasonable length of civil proceedings in Italy are many. There are too few judges in relation to the number of disputes to resolve. Many judicial districts are too small and should be merged. The judges are not assisted by law clerks in the preparation of their decisions. Judges often do not even have their own room to work. The presidents of the courts are appointed by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura) which often takes no account of their managerial skills. The number of court clerks is insufficient to cover the needs. Finally, e-justice still remains very marginal. None of these problems has been addressed by the 2009 reform. There is a need for political will, and human and material resources, which are not there. Therefore, we are satisfied with the modification of only the written words in the law's text. In this paper I do not examine all the innovations of the 2009 reform, but only the most important ones.
The article carries out a structural assessment of the EU system of protection of human rights after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It compares the method of protecting human rights in EU law before and after Lisbon, and argues that the question of whether amendments introduced by the new Treaty ensure that the system of protection is complete cannot be answered unequivocally. It is only when the Court of Justice has had the opportunity to interpret art.275 TFEU that we will be able to determine whether all gaps in protecting human rights have been filled. Thus, the article advocates a return to the proposition made by A.G. Mengozzi in Gestoras and Segi as a solution to the potential problem of “incompleteness” of remedies. It explains that recognition of national courts’ power to review EU secondary-law not only complies with the existing doctrine but also improves the status of human rights in EU law and, despite suggestions to the contrary, leaves the position of the Court of Justice as the sole judicial arbiter of Union law intact.