The Shouldice Hospital, a medical center outside of Toronto, has become well known for bucking prevailing medical norms. Rather than performing the full panoply of medical services, like most hospitals, it focuses on a single type of surgery— hernia repair. The surgeons at Shouldice perform up to 800 hernia repairs per year, more than a general surgeon would likely perform in a lifetime. This repetition has produced results. A hernia repair at Shouldice costs $2,000 less than at the average hospital, takes about half the time, and boasts a recurrence rate of 1%—much less than the 10–15% seen in general hospitals.1 Shouldice has broken from prevailing medical norms and embraced radical specialization in pursuit of quality above all else. The lesson to be learned from Shouldice is that sometimes improving the quality of a process or practice means breaking from tradition, even though it may be less profitable or make us uncomfortable. This principle is not exclusive to the medical field; it operates in, among other disciplines, the law, specifically within the decision-making process of courts. Like hospitals, courts exert a heavy influence over those before them. Often, the wellbeing and liberty of those coming before a court is at stake. Courts are responsible for ensuring fair treatment of those individuals, and ultimately for making the right decision in a case. At the appellate level, where decisions serve as guidance for lower courts, this responsibility is amplified. Making the correct decision is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the legal system generally. The stakes are similarly high, and therefore so should be the emphasis on quality. This Note will attempt to emulate the philosophy of Shouldice and evaluate whether different changes to prevailing norms in the U.S. Courts of Appeals enhance the quality of decision making. Specifically, this Note will explore different means of amplifying “panel effects,” a phenomenon in which a judge or judges on a circuit court panel influence the votes of their colleagues. First, this Note will summarize the existing literature on panel effects and argue that they increase the quality of judicial decisions. Second, this Note will articulate the biggest problems in designing a system to amplify panel effects and offer ways to work around them. Finally, the Note will explore the potential effects of different alternatives to current circuit-court procedure on panel effects.
To read this Note, please click here: In Pursuit of Quality: Amplifying Panel Effects on the United States Courts of Appeals.
icon and
select "Add to Home Screen."