Neil Vidmar

In this work, Hans and Vidmar review the historical evolution of the trial jury, the contemporary role of the jury in the American criminal justice system, and future prospects for the jury as an institutional force.

Unhappy clients bring thousands of legal malpractice claims every year, against mega law firms and solo practitioners, for simple errors or egregious misconduct, and for losses than can reach $100 million or more. This in an industry, legal services, generating nearly $300 billion a year in revenue and touching every facet of American society. Yet, scant if any scholarly attention has been paid to the questions and consequences of lawyers’ professional liability. This book is the first to fully explore the mistakes lawyers sometimes make, the nature of these mistakes, the harm they do, and the significant disparities in outcomes for corporate and individual victims of lawyers’ errors. A systematic, empirical study of legal malpractice, When Lawyers Screw Up employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the frequency and nature of claims, the area of practice producing them, the amounts at stake, and the resolutions. The authors also use a range of data sources to study the frequency and outcomes of legal malpractice trials, whether bench or jury. Their comparison of legal malpractice cases involving the corporate and personal service sectors reveal the difficulties confronting claims coming from the personal sector—difficulties that often deny victims redress, even when they have suffered significant harm. When Lawyers Screw Up draws on a series of interviews to describe the practices of lawyers with expertise in handling legal malpractice claims, even as it notes how few such experts are available to prosecute these claims. In light of their findings, the authors suggest a range of reforms that would help victims of legal malpractice, particularly individuals and small businesses, in pursuing their claims.

Although the right to trial by jury is enshrined in the U. S. Constitution, in recent years both criminal and civil juries have been criticized as incompetent, biased, and irresponsible. For example, the O. J. Simpson criminal jury's verdict produced a racial divide in opinions about that trial. And many Americans still hold strong views about the jury that awarded millions of dollars to a woman who spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself. It's said that there are "judicial hellholes" where local juries provide "jackpot justice" in medical malpractice and product liability cases with corporate defendants. Are these claims valid? This monumental and comprehensive volume reviews over fifty years of empirical research on civil and criminal juries and returns a verdict that strongly supports the jury system. Rather than relying on anecdotes, Vidmar and Hans—renowned scholars of the jury system—place the jury system in its historical and contemporary context, giving the stories behind important trials while providing fact-based answers to critical questions. How do juries make decisions and how do their verdicts compare to those of trial judges and technical experts? What roles do jury consultants play in influencing trial outcomes? Can juries understand complex expert testimony? Under which circumstances do capital juries decide to sentence a defendant to die? Are juries biased against doctors and big business? Should juries be allowed to give punitive damages? How do juries respond to the insanity defense? Do jurors ignore the law? Finally, the authors consider various suggestions for improving the way that juries are asked to carry out their duties. After briefly comparing the American jury to its counterparts in other nations, they conclude that our jury system, despite occasional problems, is, on balance, fair and democratic, and should remain an indispensable component of the judicial process for the foreseeable future.