In their timely and topical book, Reimagining Courts, Victor Flango and Thomas Clarke argue that courts are a victim of their own success. Disputes that once were resolved either informally in the family or within the community are now handled mainly by courts, which strains government agency resources. The authors offer provocative suggestions for a thorough overhaul of American state and local courts, one that better fits the needs of a twenty-first century legal system. Reimagining Courts recommends a triage process based upon case characteristics, litigant goals, and resolution processes. Courts must fundamentally reorganize their business processes around the concept of the litigant as a customer. Each adjudication process that the authors propose requires a different case management process and different amounts of judicial, staff, and facility resources. Reimagining Courts should spark much-needed debate. This book will be of significant interest to lawyers, judges, and professionals in the court system as well as to scholars in public administration and political science.

This book examines the factors that facilitate the inclusion of women on high courts, while recognizing that many courts have a long way to go before reaching gender parity. Why did women start appearing on high courts when they did? Where have women made the most significant strides?To address these questions, the authors built the first cross-national and longitudinal dataset on the appointment of women and men to high courts. In addition, they provide five in-depth country case studies us to unpack the selection of justices to high courts in Canada, Colombia, Ireland, SouthAfrica, and the United States. The cross-national lens and combination of quantitative analyses and detailed country studies examines multiple influences across region and time. Focusing on three sets of explanations - pipelines to high courts, domestic institutions, and international influences -analyses reveal that women are more likely to first appear on their country's high court when traditional ideas about who can and should be a judge erode. In some countries, international treaties, regional emulation, and women's international NGOs play a role in disseminating and linking globalnorms of gender equality in decision-making. Importantly, while informal institutions and reliance on men-dominated networks can limit access, women are making substantial strides in their countries' highest courts where the supply grows, and often where selectors have incentives to select women.Further, sustained pressure from advocacy organizations-at the local, national, and global levels-contributes to some gains.Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published inassociation with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visitwww.ecprnet.eu http://www.ecprnet.euThe series is edited by Susan Scarrow, John and Rebecca Moores Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston, and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

This book examines the factors that facilitate the inclusion of women on high courts, while recognizing that many courts have a long way to go before reaching gender parity. Why did women start appearing on high courts when they did? Where have women made the most significant strides? To address these questions, the authors built the first cross-national and longitudinal dataset on the appointment of women and men to high courts. In addition, they provide five in-depth country case studies us to unpack the selection of justices to high courts in Canada, Colombia, Ireland, South Africa, and the United States. The cross-national lens and combination of quantitative analyses and detailed country studies examines multiple influences across region and time. Focusing on three sets of explanations —pipelines to high courts, domestic institutions, and international influences- analyses reveal that women are more likely to first appear on their country's high court when traditional ideas about who can and should be a judge erode. In some countries, international treaties, regional emulation, and women's international NGOs play a role in disseminating and linking global norms of gender equality in decision-making. Importantly, while informal institutions and reliance on men-dominated networks can limit access, women are making substantial strides in their countries' highest courts where the supply grows, and often where selectors have incentives to select women. Further, sustained pressure from advocacy organizations-at the local, national, and global levels-contributes to some gains. Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit www.ecprnet.eu The series is edited by Susan Scarrow, John and Rebecca Moores Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston, and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

Domestic violence accounts for approximately one-fifth of all violent crime in the United States and is among the most difficult issues confronting professionals in the legal and criminal justice systems. In this volume, Elizabeth Britt argues that learning embodied advocacy—a practice that results from an expanded understanding of expertise based on lived experience—and adopting it in legal settings can directly and tangibly help victims of abuse. Focusing on clinical legal education at the Domestic Violence Institute at the Northeastern University School of Law, Britt takes a case-study approach to illuminate how challenging the context, aims, and forms of advocacy traditionally embraced in the U.S. legal system produces better support for victims of domestic violence. She analyzes a wide range of materials and practices, including the pedagogy of law school training programs, interviews with advocates, and narratives written by students in the emergency department, and looks closely at the forms of rhetorical education through which students assimilate advocacy practices. By examining how students learn to listen actively to clients and to recognize that clients have the right and ability to make decisions for themselves, Britt shows that rhetorical education can succeed in producing legal professionals with the inclination and capacity to engage others whose values and experiences diverge from their own. By investigating the deep relationship between legal education and rhetorical education, Reimagining Advocacy calls for conversations and action that will improve advocacy for others, especially for victims of domestic violence seeking assistance from legal professionals.

An eminent constitutional scholar reveals how our approach to rights is dividing America, and shows how we can build a better system of justice.

As one of the first researchers authorised to observe hearings and access court files at the Court of Protection, Jaime Lindsey offers an original account and analysis of the workings of this court. Using data collected with the approval from the senior judiciary of the Court of Protection and the Ministry of Justice, this innovative book combines empirical data with theoretical and normative analysis. It takes a socio-legal approach to understanding how the Mental Capacity Act operates in practice to achieve access to justice and situates current debates within an international context, showing how other jurisdictions have been guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Furthering scholarship across several fields including access to justice, healthcare law and procedural justice theory, this is a timely and pioneering book that argues for a reimagining of the Court of Protection.

Les Misérables meets Six of Crows in this page-turning adventure as a young thief finds herself going head to head with leaders of Paris's criminal underground in the wake of the French Revolution. In the violent urban jungle of an alternate 1828 Paris, the French Revolution has failed and the city is divided between merciless royalty and nine underworld criminal guilds, known as the Court of Miracles. Eponine (Nina) Thénardier is a talented cat burglar and member of the Thieves Guild. Nina's life is midnight robberies, avoiding her father's fists, and watching over her naïve adopted sister, Cosette (Ettie). When Ettie attracts the eye of the Tiger--the ruthless lord of the Guild of Flesh--Nina is caught in a desperate race to keep the younger girl safe. Her vow takes her from the city's dark underbelly to the glittering court of Louis XVII. And it also forces Nina to make a terrible choice--protect Ettie and set off a brutal war between the guilds, or forever lose her sister to the Tiger.

International law is usually conservative, with lawyers and judges emphasizing consistency, stability and predictability as the major advantages of the law. Legal scholars often prefer not to challenge the status quo, to suggest amendments, or to reform institutions, advocating simply to focus on the implementation of the laws that already exist. This collection stands different. It shares the authors’ discomfort with the present legal order and some of its institutions and courts, and dives into either a corrective or a profound reimagination of these, so that they can better address rising global challenges. Leading experts in their areas present their new and cutting-edge perspectives. Divided into six parts, the volume paints a vast yet solid thematic landscape of unique and critical approaches. The book invites and allows for a deep engagement with a wide range of opinions from across the world. It enables a free and courageous reimagining of the international legal order, detached from the endless feasibility skepticism. The work will be fascinating reading for students, academics and researchers working in the areas of International Law and International Relations.

This book brings together feminist academics and lawyers to present an impressive collection of alternative judgments in a series of Australian legal cases. By re-imagining original legal decisions through a feminist lens, the collection explores the possibilities, limits and implications of feminist approaches to legal decision-making. Each case is accompanied by a brief commentary that places it in legal and historical context and explains what the feminist rewriting does differently to the original case. The cases not only cover topics of long-standing interest to feminist scholars – such as family law, sexual offences and discrimination law – but also areas which have had less attention, including Indigenous sovereignty, constitutional law, immigration, taxation and environmental law. The collection contributes a distinctly Australian perspective to the growing international literature investigating the role of feminist legal theory in judicial decision-making.

Every day, in courtrooms around the United States, thousands of criminal defendants are represented by public defenders--lawyers provided by the government for those who cannot afford private counsel. Though often taken for granted, the modern American public defender has a surprisingly contentious history--one that offers insights not only about the "carceral state," but also about the contours and compromises of twentieth-century liberalism. First gaining appeal amidst the Progressive Era fervor for court reform, the public defender idea was swiftly quashed by elite corporate lawyers who believed the legal profession should remain independent from the state. Public defenders took hold in some localities but not yet as a nationwide standard. By the 1960s, views had shifted. Gideon v. Wainwright enshrined the right to counsel into law and the legal profession mobilized to expand the ranks of public defenders nationwide. Yet within a few years, lawyers had already diagnosed a "crisis" of underfunded, overworked defenders providing inadequate representation--a crisis that persists today. This book shows how these conditions, often attributed to recent fiscal emergencies, have deep roots, and it chronicles the intertwined histories of constitutional doctrine, big philanthropy, professional in-fighting, and Cold War culture that made public defenders ubiquitous but embattled figures in American courtrooms.