Local Legal Culture and the Control of Litigation

Bibliographic Data

ID4874853
AuthorsHerbert M Kritzer (Twin Cities Orthopedics), Frances Kahn Zemans
Year1993
Volume27
Issue3
Pages535-557
Publication date1993-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLaw & Society Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/3054104
OpenAlexW1989893066
LanguageEN
Citations received12
References cited17

In 1983, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were modified to mandate sanctions against attorneys who filed frivolous pleadings or motions or who failed to make reasonable efforts to verify facts or statements of law made in pleadings or motions. There is substantial variation among federal judicial districts in the use of this Rule 11 provision. To what degree can these variations be explained by situational or legal factors? Does one need to use a concept such as local legal culture to account for at least some of the variation? These are the questions addressed by this article. We find that variations in most Rule 11-related activities can be explained by structural and situational factors. We conclude that beyond the expectations created by specific structural and legal factors, one does not need to resort to local legal culture to explain Rule 11-related phenomena. We suggest that the conditions that make local legal culture a useful construct in the context of the criminal courts may not apply in the civil justice system

Business · Control (management · Economics · Legal culture · Management · Political science · Comparative and International Law Studies · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · Law · Law in Society and Culture

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub