Punitive Damages, Remunerated Research, and the Legal Profession
Stanford Law School
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2008
This Note expands upon the literature analyzing the problems with remunerated research by examining law review articles on the topic of punitive damages that disclose financial support. It first reviews the scope and methodology used to gather the relevant set of funded law review articles, and then highlights trends in the data, such as frequent funders and peak funding years. Next, the Note examines the treatment of funded law review articles, first by the legal profession and then by the judiciary. In assessing the treatment of such articles, this Note looks at the number of citations to particular articles, as well as the prestige of the courts citing to industry-funded pieces as compared to pieces funded by universities. In the second Part, using the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony as a point of departure, the standards governing what qualifies as authority within the legal profession are compared and contrasted with those from other fields. Finally, this Note concludes by offering two proposals for reform: mandatory disclosure of funding sources and the creation of a database to identify articles by funding source.
Keywords: punitive damages, legal profession, daubert, exxon, industry-funded
Date posted: March 14, 2009