For a major field, employment discrimination suffers surprisingly low-quality plaintiffs[apostrophe] lawyering. This Article details a study of several hundred summary judgment briefs, finding as follows: (1) the vast majority of plaintiffs¿ briefs omit available caselaw rebutting key defense arguments, many falling far below basic professional standards with incoherent writing or no meaningful research; (2) low-quality briefs lose at over double the rate of good briefs; and (3) bad briefs skew caselaw evolution, because even controlling for win[emdash]loss rate, bad plaintiffs[apostrophe] briefs far more often yield decisions crediting debatable defenses.
Scott A. Moss,
Bad Briefs, Bad Law, Bad Markets: Documenting the Poor Quality of Plaintiffs' Briefs, Its Impact on the Law, and the Market Failure It Reflects,
Emory L. J.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol63/iss1/2