Legal empiricism—whether under the rubric of empirical legal studies, new legal realism, or any number of other “brands” of empirical study—is here to stay. That it has evolved since the 1990s from a “hot topic” into a methodological movement with real staying power is demonstrated not only by the broad and deep scholarly literature on various forms of legal empiricism, but also by the proliferation of workshops, conferences, and centers dedicated to how to “do” legal empiricism, both generally and within myriad specific contexts and sub-disciplines. This roundtable will explore, from various perspectives, how legal empiricism has influenced law and interpretation. How, for example, has legal empiricism been used to support and/or refute various theoretical claims associated with different "schools" of legal thought, ranging from critical race and feminist theory to law and economics? How should legal empiricism be used to assess the “success” of legal rules and/or sociolegal policies, what they mean, and what work they do, both descriptively and normatively? And given the many different contexts in which legal empiricism is used, what do those who “do” legal empiricism have to teach and learn from one another? These and other questions will be explored by roundtable participants.
Business meeting at program conclusion.