Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 90 Results in First Amendment
TOTM Last month the New York Times ran an editorial with the headline “Addressing the Justice Gap,” observing that “the poor need representation and thousands of law graduates . . .
Last month the New York Times ran an editorial with the headline “Addressing the Justice Gap,” observing that “the poor need representation and thousands of law graduates need work.” The piece proposed several solutions, but notably absent was the reform most likely to deliver legal services to those in need and to create jobs for unemployed lawyers: corporations should be able to own law practices and provide legal representation. It’s not only a matter of managing the justice gap in America in the face of an enduring economic recession and increased global competition; it’s also a matter of First Amendment concern.
Read the full piece here.
Popular Media Welcome to “Unlocking the Law: Deregulating the Legal Profession.” Licensing and regulation of lawyers, long questioned by scholars, is emerging as an important public issue. . . .
Welcome to “Unlocking the Law: Deregulating the Legal Profession.”
Licensing and regulation of lawyers, long questioned by scholars, is emerging as an important public issue. Legal costs are rising for individuals and firms with increases in litigation and regulation. These costs tax business growth and entrepreneurship and impede ordinary Americans’ access to the civil justice system. Meanwhile, the development of new business structures and technologies and significant regulatory moves toward opening up competition for legal services in the UK and elsewhere are forcing policymakers to address lawyer licensing and regulation. The U.S. is certainly not immune from the economic and other institutional forces nudging toward a reconsideration of existing licensing and regulation regimes. It is an excellent time to reexamine the costs and benefits of existing and alternative regimes in light of these changes.
The Unlocking the Law Symposium will be running today and tomorrow. This symposium is designed to start an intellectual dialogue on this topic, bringing together legal scholars and economists with a variety of views and perspectives on the law and economics of the legal profession, regulation, and competition policy. Just a few of the questions the Symposium will consider are:
We encourage both the participants and commenters to keep the discussion going in the comments. In addition to Larry Ribstein and the other TOTM bloggers, we’re very pleased to announce an excellent list of participants with a variety of perspectives on the complex combination of issues involved with deregulating the law:
Without further ado, lets begin with our first set of posts from Larry Ribstein, Bill Henderson, and Robert Crandall.
TOTM I find it interesting that many on the left, so intent on maintaining their anti-market narratives, distort reality so badly that black is white and . . .
I find it interesting that many on the left, so intent on maintaining their anti-market narratives, distort reality so badly that black is white and up is down–and “government” is “corporations.”
I’ve highlighted this before when discussing the misdirected criticisms (and solutions) of self-described privacy advocates who point the finger at Google when really they should be concerned about the government.
TOTM Jonathan Adler and Orin Kerr chime in over at VC to make the point that MSNBC’s rules against contributions from television personalities is pointless, or . . .
Jonathan Adler and Orin Kerr chime in over at VC to make the point that MSNBC’s rules against contributions from television personalities is pointless, or perhaps counterproductive. Here’s Adler…
TOTM In an earlier post on the CARE Act, I highlighted the fact that the law would essentially immunize state laws regulating the distribution and sale . . .
In an earlier post on the CARE Act, I highlighted the fact that the law would essentially immunize state laws regulating the distribution and sale of beer, wine and liquor wholesalers from challenge under the Commerce clause and the Sherman Act. For more details on the CARE Act, see the earlier post, but the bottom line is that the CARE Act will put an end to successful challenges to anticompetitive state regulation protecting alcohol wholesalers such as the Costco v. Maleng or Granholm v. Heald. In this post, I want to focus on a recent empirical research project that I undertook with FTC lawyer and economist James Cooper evaluating both the competitive effects and social harms from these state regulations of alcohol distribution. For those who want to skip the background and get straight to the paper, here is the SSRN link to “State Regulation of Alcohol Distribution: The Effects of Post and Hold Laws on Output and Social Harms.” The paper has also been released as part of the FTC Bureau of Economics working paper series.
TOTM The Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act — yes, the “CARE Act” — or HR 5034, is a piece of legislation aimed at supporting “State-based alcohol . . .
The Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act — yes, the “CARE Act” — or HR 5034, is a piece of legislation aimed at supporting “State-based alcohol regulation.” Recall the Supreme Court’s decision in Granholm v. Heald, which held that states could either allow in-state and out-of-state retailers to directly ship wine to consumers or could prohibit it for both, but couldn’t ban direct shipment only for out-of-state sellers while allowing in for in-state sellers. Most states thus far have opened up direct shipping laws to the benefit of consumers. While we occasionally criticize the Federal Trade Commission from time to time here at TOTM, its own research demonstrating that state regulation banning direct shipment and e-commerce harmed consumers is an excellent example of the potential for competition research and development impacting regulatory debates. Indeed, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Granholm cites the FTC study (not to mention co-blogger Mike Sykuta’s work here) a number of times. But in addition to direct shipment laws, there are a whole host of state laws regulating the sale and distribution of alcohol. Some of them have obviously pernicious competitive consequences for consumers as well as producers. The beneficiaries are the wholesalers who have successfully lobbied for the protection of the state. Fundamentally, the CARE Act aims to place these laws beyond the reach of any challenge under the Commerce Clause as per Granholm, the Sherman Act, or any other federal legislation. Whether the CARE Act has any ancillary social benefits is an important empirical question — but you can bet that the first-order effect of the law, if it were to go into effect, would be to increase beer, wine and liquor prices. More on the CARE Act and state regulation of alcoholic beverages below the fold.
Popular Media Lately, business could really use a friend. Regulatory panic has followed fresh on the heels of the financial meltdown. Grand political ideas that competing interest . . .
Lately, business could really use a friend. Regulatory panic has followed fresh on the heels of the financial meltdown. Grand political ideas that competing interest groups can smother in good times tend to burst out in post-bust regulatory orgies. Legislators tend to focus on reining in unbridled business with little concern for how laws might reduce the economic blessings business can confer. When reform’s fires rage, rhetoric rules, difficulties melt away and compromises suddenly materialize, wrapped in vague statutory language that grant broad discretion to regulatory agencies.
TOTM Let me say at the outset, some of my prior beliefs. First, I believe in the marketplace of ideas and think that more speech is . . .
Let me say at the outset, some of my prior beliefs. First, I believe in the marketplace of ideas and think that more speech is generally better than less speech. I believe the Founders shared this belief and enshrined it in the “no law” component of the First Amendment. I believe this is especially true for speech about politics. Why else would we allow the Nazis to march in Skokie? Other countries don’t let Nazi’s march because they (rightfully) view their ideas as repugnant. But we let them march. We do so because we are more confident in our citizens’ ability to know right from wrong, to look beyond rhetoric for substance, and to be able to weigh competing claims of truth. If we didn’t trust the people to make decisions based on all available information, if we didn’t trust the people to be able to filter speech according to its source and content, if we didn’t trust the people to know what is good for them, we wouldn’t let the Nazi’s march. But we let them march.
TOTM I feel no great urgency to revise the Guidelines. True enough, they’re more of an analytical thought experiment than an accurate description of how merger review . . .
I feel no great urgency to revise the Guidelines. True enough, they’re more of an analytical thought experiment than an accurate description of how merger review takes place in the agencies, but who’s really fooled? Perhaps some business people think that the Guidelines are a computer program waiting for the introduction of the relevant data to spit out the answer, but most sophisticated executives contemplating a merger will understand that the Guidelines are just a beginning point for conversation.
