The Legal Workshop

Whether patients should be able to contract out of the malpractice system has been a hotly debated subject in law and economics and health law literature.  Advocates of patient choice argue that if the cost of having the option to bring a malpractice suit truly outweighs the benefit to a… Read More »

Chuck makes a joke.  The joke hurts Gladys, who complains, “That’s not funny!”  If Gladys presses her view, ascribing blame and demanding redress, a court matches her hurt with rules of law.  Carried to its logical conclusion, this legal process regulates Chuck’s joke, sending a message about whether society likes… Read More »

Federal preemption of state tort law is a multifaceted topic. In Federalism Accountability: “Agency-Forcing” Measures, I tackle the federalism dimension of the contentious preemption debate: Congress’s and federal agencies’ respective abilities to serve as loci of meaningful debate with state governmental entities about the impact of federal regulatory schemes on… Read More »

This Editorial is a response to Dan Markel’s Legal Workshop Editorial: Retributive Damages as Intermediate Public Sanctions: A Synopsis.
In Retributive Damages: A Theory of Punitive Damages as Intermediate Sanction, Professor Markel intentionally situates his… Read More »

Punitive damages’ complex and rapidly evolving nature has unsurprisingly attracted the attention of scholars from a variety of disciplines.  But what are punitive damages for?  In terms of normative answers, a number of scholars, such as Professors Polinsky and Shavell, think that extra-compensatory damages should focus on advancing the goal… Read More »

Below is a brief introduction to the Legal Workshop project. We hope you enjoy getting to know us, and we welcome your feedback.
 
Mission:
The Legal Workshop website provides a single online forum for cutting-edge legal scholarship from the top law journals in the country.
The Legal Workshop features… Read More »