Jonathan T. Molot

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors highlight the costs of this failure of risk management and seek to develop a mechanism to relieve litigants of litigation risk, and sketch out a new role for lawyers as market participants.

TL;DR: In a system dominated by settlement, scholars, lawyers, and judges who want to promote accuracy in litigation strive to promote accurate settlements This effort typically relies on judicial intervention in pretrial practice, or on extrajudicial substitutes, to educate parties on the merits of their positions and induce them to settle for amounts that reflect those merits as discussed by the authors.

TL;DR: This article explored the institutional, constitutional, and historical underpinnings of the traditional judicial role, highlighting overlooked parallels between the new problems judges face in pretrial practice and class action litigation today and old ones that judges confronted, and largely overcame, in nineteenth-century trial practice and twentieth-century administrative law.

TL;DR: The post-textualist revolution is over as discussed by the authors, and textualism will be doomed to defeat if strong purposivism is allowed to dominate the interpretive enterprise of modern textualism.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors attempt to link theoretical scholarship about litigation risk markets with a real-world examination of how such markets actually work in practice, relying on practical experience to provide answers to the questions scholars have asked and raising new questions scholars had not previously considered.