Emory Law Journal


Scott A. Moss


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.