Search results

Adopting an intra-organizational viewpoint is essential to grasp legal intermediation. To deepen our understanding of such phenomena, this chapter proposes a qualitative and “multi-level” approach drawing on insights from the neo-institutional literature, policy ethnography analysis and the research on legal intermediaries. Such a perspective is particularly suited to capture the complexity and the depth of institutional change. Using the 12-hour work legal mechanism of derogation in the context of French public hospitals as an example, this chapter highlights how both macro-level actors (actors of a “reform network”), and micro-level ones (hospital directors) contribute to the shaping and framing of legality in French public hospitals. Results show that variation in how those actors use law depends on the local configuration. Second, results demonstrate that the legal games they play are not merely based on symbolic and superficial compliance with the law, but also on outright manipulations and conscious rule-breaking.

This paper challenges and expands commonplace assumptions about problems of time and temporality in emergencies. In traditional emergency powers theory “emergency time” is predominantly an “exceptional time.” The problem is that there is “no time” and the solution is limited “in time”: exceptional behavior is allowed for a special time only, until the emergency is over, or according to formal sunset clauses. But what is characteristic of many emergencies is not the problem of “no time” but the ways in which time is legally structured and framed to handle them. Using the Israeli High Court of Justice 1999 decision on the use of physical interrogation methods under conditions of necessity, this paper illustrates how legally significant emergency-time structures that lay beyond the problematic of exceptional time, gravely implicate the way that “exceptional measures” are practiced and regularized.

Through an analysis of texts and interviews with sanctuary providers from sanctuary incidents in Canada, this paper first details how sanctuary is made possible by pastoral and non-state sovereign powers. It then argues at least three stories of law are instantiated in sanctuary discourse. Law is at times arbitrary and unpredictable. In other instances, a ‘higher’ law authorizes sanctuary. Law is also a broader game in which lawyers are relied upon and sanctuary becomes a tactic to ‘win’. These legal narratives work together to constitute sanctuary and are instantiations of pastoral and sovereign powers at the level of the subject.

Over the last several decades, virtually all large U.S. law firms have adopted a human capital strategy that emphasizes academic performance and the prestige of the law school attended. Although this focus is rooted more in tradition than in hard empirical evidence that it produces a competitive advantage, the question has long been irrelevant for most law firms because of the perennial rise in profits. If the model is not broken, the adage runs, why fix it? Drawing upon extensive historical and contemporaneous evidence, this essay argues that the limitations of the traditional credentials-based model have been masked by a steady multidecade surge in the demand for corporate legal services. Further, various data and trendlines suggest that the growth in demand for corporate legal services is beginning to flatten out. In the coming years, many large corporate law firms will be in the unfamiliar position of competing over market share. Unlike the relative calm and prosperity of the prior era, their survival will likely depend upon a human capital strategy that asks and answers several basic empirical questions regarding the selection and development of lawyers.

This paper aims to examine how economic freedom impacts the initial choice of legal structure for startup firms. The authors do this by first exploring whether economic freedom is an essential determinant of the initial legal form of organization (LFO). The authors then explore the impact of economic freedom on firms' choice of changing their initial legal structure over time and how this change impacts their survival rate.

The authors employ a multinomial logistic regression model to measure the initial determinants of LFO by utilizing an eight-year panel data set of 4,928 startups in the USA through the Kauffman firm survey and merge it with the Economic Freedom in North American index from the Fraser Institute. The authors then employ a logistic regression model to examine the determinants facilitating a change in legal structure over time.

The results show that economic freedom is a significant determinant in the choice of legal structure. The findings also report that the majority of startups do not change their legal form, but of those that do change the legal structure show a higher survival rate.

Major limitations are the size of the data and the nature of somewhat limited economic freedom differences with the USA. More nuanced measures of economic freedom would be highly desirable.

Policymakers should take note that limited red tape, smoothly working labor markets and straightforward processes for changes of legal structures of organizations would improve survival and growth odds for entrepreneurs.

Drawing on the theory of institutions, the authors attempt to bridge a gap in the literature by explicitly analyzing the determinants of the legal structure in startups in light of economic freedom. Institutional factors do not work in isolation; therefore, the authors also employ traditional entrepreneur-specific variables that affect the choice of legal structure in addition to the institutional framework.

This empirical study of one of China's biggest take-out platforms during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) explores the legal rights and protections for gig workers' availability time.

The study uses a quantitative survey and interviews of take-out platform riders, investigating the intrinsic features of working time and availability time. Labour law professionals and scholars are interviewed to verify the findings.

The availability time of take-out platform riders is difficult to define under the current legal working-time framework. There is a need for a specific method to define availability time, considering the multiple factors in gig-take-out-sector work. One option is to apply working-time regulations to availability time but to use a proportionality test to preserve flexibility whilst the platform offers protection to the riders during that time.

Pandemic-related travel restrictions limited the authors' study to one take-out platform in Beijing. Future studies should cover a wider geographical area and multiple take-out platforms.

The study uniquely evaluates the availability time of take-out platform riders to determine appropriate public policy and theoretical implications. It proposes a proportionality test regulating riders' availability. In particular, the workers being “at leisure” during availability time could mitigate the platform's liability for full remuneration or moderate the ceiling of working hours. The occupational health and safety of riders must be fully protected, as they are still “at the platform's disposal” at that time.

The formality of modern law is a constitutive element in its operation, but the “revolt against formalism” and the charge of mechanical jurisprudence are also as old as the law. This chapter focuses on formalism in legal decision-making in hard cases and assumes that contemporary decision-making in law combines formalistic with nonformalistic expressions as part of its routine operation. The research develops a sensitive multidimensional measure that will be used to evaluate legal texts by examining various vectors of formalism. It begins by exploring diverse jurisprudential cultures of formalism, which have developed mainly in American legal thought. Based on the historical analysis of cultures of formalism, the chapter continues to frame eight claims of formalism that have all been contested in legal writing. It proposes to examine the following parameters, based on these claims: (1) the introduction and framing of the legal question; (2) the use of extralegal arguments; (3) reliance on policy arguments and on legal principles; (4) reference to discretion and choice; (5) the relationship between what is presented as facts and what is presented as norms; (6) preservation of traditional boundaries in law; (7) the use of professional judicial rhetoric; (8) the gap between law in the books and law in action; and (9) judicial stability and institutional deference. Each of these parameters can be used to evaluate the level of formalism in a concrete text. The interplay between diverse evaluations of the same case is a subject for inquiry and contemplation. These parameters can also be redefined as variables for a quantitative content analysis, and legal decisions can be coded accordingly. This will enable an analysis of differences between justices, legal issues, legal jurisdictions, and time frames, as well as the correlation between the various parameters of formalism. The tendency to formalism, according to the analysis here, is never pure and is part of a complex legal culture that usually combines formalistic elements with nonformalistic ones.