July 31, 2007

The other day we got a little impatient with Columbia lawprof Michael Dorf for considering only the "separation of powers" critique of public-entity contingency fees and not the (seemingly stronger) "loss of neutrality" critique that has had success in California cases. Prof. Dorf has now responded here.

Despite the differences in emphasis and presentation, we don't seem to have any actual disagreement on the underlying point, namely that 1) these are two different theories and 2) the second one is likelier to gain traction with courts.