What are the most relevant metrics for rating lawyers? Different fields have different metrics that are used among equals to rate themselves. For example, amongst scientists, the h-index (a researcher has h-index = x if he has at least x peer reviewed articles with at least x citations), among fund managers it is capital under management. What metrics are most useful for lawyers?
There is considerable doubt as to the value of both h-index and amount of capital, under management as indices of the quality or competence of a professional. The h-index says more about the frequency of publication than it does about the real significance of those publications.{1} The amount of capitol under management says more about the quality of the fund's advertising than anything else. The rate of return, compared with other funds in the same area and with similar goal is perhaps more useful. In any case, there is no similar objective or even semi-objective measure for a lawyer that I know of. For a litigator, the ratio of wins to losses has some value, but some cases are much easier to win than others, and a lawyer that takes only easy cases may not have a high reputation. Beyond that, the collective view of the lawyer's peers has value, but is quite subjective and not easy to measure. Notes {1} See the essay &quot;Tolkien's Academic Reputation Now&quot; by Tom Shippey, collected in Shippey's Roots and Branches, for a case where a relatively low h-index would be found for a person with a very high continuing academic reputation is spite of a comparatively small lifetime academic output. There are other cases where a single influential publication effectively cements a scientific reputation. Crick and Watson's paper revealing the structure of DNA is an example.
Different courts have different practices, but I believe the general practice is for plaintiffs to use exhibit numbers, and for defendants to use exhibit letters. As with most procedural questions, the final decision belongs to the judge. The repetition in letters comes in when you get to the end of the alphabet. After you've used A-Z, you go to AA, BB, CC ... ZZ, then AAA, BBB, CCC, and so on.
There is no &quot;correct&quot; way unless there is a binding set of rules for writing case names, and no such rules exist. There is no &quot;best&quot; way without reference to some set of preferences. If you're trying to save keystrokes, the first is best; if you're trying to fill as much space as possible, the last is best. If the question is, &quot;How do American lawyers write court case names,&quot; the most widely accepted reference would be The Bluebook, which would render the case as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. If the question is, &quot;How do American journalists write court case names,&quot; the most widely accepted reference would the the AP Stylebook, which would render the case as &quot;Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.&quot;
&quot;Legal problem&quot; is too vague to be included. &quot;Investigation&quot; needs a bit of refining; &quot;lawsuit&quot; is relatively simple (as long as you mean &quot;actual lawsuit&quot; not &quot;idea that maybe we could sue&quot;). There is no central list of all lawsuits against a given party, but you could theoretically check every jurisdiction to see if there is a lawsuit. That's a really big list, maybe in the millions if you want to be complete. You can use ordinary Google search to find announced lawsuits, typically by government agencies. Finding investigations is even more difficult: you will not be able to determine what investigations I am conducting. Even determining the existence of investigations by police including e.g. the FBI is hard to do. A government attorney is the one most likely to reveal that they are investigating some party with the intent to sue them. Again, you can't get a complete list, you can use Google to get an indication of who has announced an investigation (your results will generally not say whether the investigation was closed, unless you pursue that question as well).
Although it's difficult to find exact numbers on class action settlements, there are some studies that suggest that the settlements are often of little value to plaintiffs. A Mayer-Brown paper was only able to obtain data on six settlements - in these cases, claims rates were 0.000006%, 0.33%, 1.5%, 9.66% and 12%. The same paper found that in one case of an $8 million settlement fund made available to 13,500 members, counsel received $5.5 million. Appendices A and B of this paper provide further examples where class action settlements are either a negligible amount, or benefited a negligible number of class members. Although the scope of this paper is somewhat narrow, its findings suggest that it is representative of many class actions.
It is possible that a free online contract is superior to one specifically written for your situation, and it is possible that the opposite is true. It is more likely that a curated paid contract is superior, if (a) it is drafted by an attorney who is experienced and specializing in that area, (b) you discuss your goals with the attorney, (c) the issue is complex and jurisdiction-specific. It is more likely that the free contract is superior if (a) the attorney you hire doesn't listen to you, (b) doesn't know the area (e.g. specializes in DUI cases and has never touched a contract), (c) if there is already a well worked-out standard contract form (leases and real estate sales contracts come to mind), (d) deals with a very stable area of law where there is negligible state-to-state difference and (e) isn't powered by ChatGPT.
Evidence of pre-trial correspondence can be adduced if it is relevant to a fact in issue, and not excluded by another rule of evidence. Commonly, pre-trial correspondence is not relevant to a fact in issue, because it consists of legal argument and rhetoric. In other words, the letter is a solicitor's inadmissible opinion. And when pre-trial correspondence does set out the facts, it is often in inadmissible hearsay form. Pre-trial correspondence is also likely to attract without prejudice privilege (if sent to the other side in an attempt to negotiate a settlement) or legal professional privilege (if private between a party and their lawyer). For all of these reasons, pre-trial correspondence is not usually considered by a judge or jury at trial. However, in some circumstances pre-trial correspondence is admissible, typically as an admission, prior consistent statement or prior inconsistent statement. Depending on the facts which make the correspondence relevant and admissible, it may also be appropriate to cross-examine the client, a director or other agent of the client who instructed the solicitor, or the solicitor, about it. In some cases, a client may be cross-examined about a prior statement of their solicitor on the basis that the solicitor would not have made the statement without the client's authority, and would have relied on the client's instructions. If the court accepts that a prior inconsistent statement was made with the client's approval, this may damage their credibility. If the client asserts legal professional privilege, or testifies that their lawyer acted without instructions, difficult questions arise. Some of these questions were explored by the High Court of Australia in Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36. Lawyers and judges will try to conduct cases in a way which avoids these procedural challenges, if at all possible. In rare cases, a lawyer may be called to give evidence about whether a previous representation was actually made or authorised. This is, for example, the purpose of having a solicitor or other reputable professional witness formal documents. Barristers should take special care not to place themselves at risk of becoming a witness, but in exceptional cases where the client waives legal professional privilege, they can also be required to give evidence about the client's previous instructions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this comes up more often in criminal law. The decision in Hofer was an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which had received evidence from a barrister about the reasons for making decisions during the appellant's criminal trial. Conversely, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales dismissed an application for leave to cross-examine a solicitor, by applying the rules of evidence concerning prior consistent statements, in Hall v The Queen [2015] EWCA Crim 581.
how would this differ between say ArXiv which is open access, and a publication that is pay-only, like Elsevier or Nature? It wouldn't. But if the equation is the creation of the author of some publication, as in the author is expressing some unique mathematical expression, obviously the publication should be referenced. But is referencing enough? Are there additional rights one must obtain from the publication and/or author in order to show this content? Laws of nature, including purported laws of nature, are not protected by copyright. So, usually, key equations in an academic paper aren't protected by copyright law. Referencing the work is important as a matter of academic ethics, but is legally irrelevant. Copying of exposition by the author beyond laws of nature is permitted as fair use if it is limited to quotations necessary for academic discussion and criticism, but copying of an entire work would not be permissible fair use in most cases and would constitute copyright infringement. Of course, there is a large gray area between those extremes.