Head over to Concurring Opinions for a fascinating online symposium devoted to a forthcoming Yale Law Journal article by Jim Greiner and Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak titled, "What Difference Representation? Offers, Actual Use, and the Need for Randomization." Greiner and Pattanayak conducted a randomized study to determine the impact of an offer of representation from the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau (part of Harvard Law's clinical education program). Their research seeks to answer the following question: "Particularly with respect to low-income clients in civil cases, how much of a difference does legal representation make?" (p. 5) They found that "the study led to unexpected results" and that "the randomized evaluation determined that an offer of HLAB representation had no statistically significant effect on the probability that a claimant would prevail, but that the offer did delay the adjudicatory process." (p. 7) Their findings have sparked strong debate among the symposium contributors and others. The entire list of symposium comments can be accessed at Concurring Opinions here. Set forth below are a sampling:
Introduction to the Symposium by Dave Hoffman, Temple University Beasley School of Law
What Difference Representation: A Response by Bob Sable, Executive Director of Greater Boston Legal Services
What Difference Representation: Inconclusive Evidence by Ted Eisenberg, Cornell Law School
What Difference Representation: Case Selection and Professional Responsibility by Margaret Monsell, legal services attorney for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
What can we learn if we assume Greiner and Pattanayak are right? by Steve Eppler-Epstein, Executive Director Connecticut Legal Services
What Difference Representation: Clinical Trials by Kevin Quinn, UC Berkeley School of Law
Joe, I can't speak to the merits of that study, but you question raises one of the concerns that's sparking so much commentary.
Posted by: John Steele | March 30, 2011 at 07:00 AM