Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Denial of tenure case at Georgetown raises thorny issues .  LAC

NYT editorial quotes Dan Solove likening NSA snooping to Seurat art: one small dot seems trivial, but together a portrait emerges. Here. (LAC)

Warren Buffett never negotiates on price, always makes his highest offer first.  LAC

An elite decline? (kw)

Unanswered Questions (kw)

Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Charlie Naegle on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Michael Dorff on Questioning Performance Pay

    • Sandra Sperino on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    • Michal Zapendowski on What Should a Judge's Reversal Rate Be?

    • Orin Kerr on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • AP on Unintended Consequences of Scholarship

    • Howard Wasserman on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Unintended Consequences of Scholarship

    • George Conk on Unintended Consequences of Scholarship

    • Tyrone Grandison on Views on Surveillance May Depend on Degree of Responsibility

    • Katie Eyer on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    • Brian Clarke on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    • Douglas Levene on Sherrilyn Ifill on Race v. Class: The False Dichotomy

    • Howard Gilbert on The state secrets privilege in challenges to government surveillance programs

    • AF on The Humble Justice Scalia
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Judicial Plagiarism

posted by Gerard Magliocca

I’m curious to know what folks think of this hypothetical.  Suppose somebody writes a law review article with an insightful and original analysis of an issue.  When that issue comes before a court, the court adopts the logic of the article and closely tracks its reasoning in the opinion (in a way that’s pretty obvious), but does not cite the article.  Is that wrong?

I think we’d all agree that if a student or an academic did this, it would be plagiarism.  True for a court as well? One reason I ask is that courts often lift passages from briefs without attribution (John Marshall famously did this in M’Culloch v. Maryland) and nobody seems to care.  Likewise, I don’t know of any examples of “judicial plagiarism” where the professor in question complained and got a court to amend its opinion and acknowledge that a particular idea that was passed off as original was, in fact, not. More broadly, one might say that all that matters is that the law gets stated correctly, not who gets the credit, especially as the professor can always write another paper that takes the credit.


 July 18, 2011 at 11:09 am   Posted in: Legal Ethics   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (12)

  1. Ken Rhodes - July 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    A law student reads a paragraph in a textbook and thinks to herself “Wow! What a clear and concise way to state that important concept!” She remembers it.

    Years later she prepares a brief and those words that impressed her as clear and concise jump off her pen onto the page. Should she footnote a citation, or is she simply stating clearly and concisely a point of law she studied in law school?

  2. Phil Cave (mljucmj) - July 18, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    You might be interested in reading United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

    Here is one of the granted issues:

    This Court granted review of the following issues:
    I
    WHETHER THE LOWER COURT’S VERBATIM REPLICATION OF
    SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S ANSWER BRIEF AS
    THAT COURT’S OPINION CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
    NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND
    SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.

    Here is a link to the opinion on the court’s website.

    http://goo.gl/Niog5

    Cheers,

  3. Emily Bremer - July 18, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Compare Chief Justice Robert’s famous ending line from Parents Involved v. Seattle:

    “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is stop discriminating on the basis of race.” (551 U.S. 701, 748)

    with Judge Bea’s final line in dissent in the Ninth Circuit decision below:

    “The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race.” (426 F.3d 1162, 1222)

  4. Orin Kerr - July 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    It might be sort of lame, but I don’t think it’s wrong. The purpose of a legal opinion is to express the best analysis of the law given the framework of existing precedent, not to give credit to the source of where the judge found the analysis. Credit is generous, but not required, I think.

  5. Josh Blackman - July 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    Eugene blogged about a case from British Columbia where the Court copied most of his decision from a party’s brief: http://volokh.com/2011/04/15/judge-copies-most-of-his-decision-from-a-partys-briefs-why-is-that-wrong/

  6. A.J. Sutter - July 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Ken’s argument is one that has been used against intellectual property generally, though maybe more often for patents. Almost no inventors, it’s claimed, could get their ideas without stuff they learned in school (e.g. math and science), from books, or from seeing other peoples’ inventions.

    Phil’s interesting case clearly says that when the borrowing from a brief is substantial (in both the qualitative and quantitative senses), the court hasn’t met its duty of providing an impartial and independent review. The brief borrowing raises a more important issue than plagiarism (and anyway most parties would be thrilled to have their side’s brief be the basis for the judgment). But it doesn’t seem necessarily relevant to the law review case.

    In some civilian jurisdictions, esp. Germany, academic commentaries (to statutes, constitution, etc.) are considered sources of law, or awfully close to it. But they’re cited explicitly. If a judge quotes substantially (e.g., several sentences, a whole paragraph) without an attribution, seems to me that at some point that could cross the line into some sort of misconduct. The punch-line example provided by Emily might not be substantial, but does seem at least ungenerous on the part of the CJ.

    However, lifting ideas from a law review article — which is Gerard’s hypothetical — isn’t quite plagiarism; and I imagine this goes on quite often in the academic world anyway. Certainly I read plenty of books and articles where I’m surprised that the author hasn’t cited some source that I’ve read previously. I also don’t expect that judges often claim originality for ideas in their opinions. (Should they give credit to their clerks, BTW? And should the “work made for hire” notion of employer appropriation apply to credit, not just ownership? For that matter, judges are employees, too.) I expect that determining where such a borrowing/appropriation crosses the lines from “reading the zeitgeist” or professional custom (as with judicial clerks) to rudeness to misconduct depends on the circumstances of each case — but that last line seems hard to cross, under the present hypothesis.

  7. Ian - July 19, 2011 at 4:55 am

    Not providing any sort of reference to source could be seen as promoting the paradoxical opposite situation where a court provides an opinion which is clearly ill informed, but where it can find no basis for any opposing view, in the expectation that somebody will provide it with that elusive element, providing the answer; or promoting a change in the regulation.

    Would that be wrong?

  8. Bill Reynolds - July 19, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Over-worked cts, esp state IACs, copy freeely from briefs, w/o attribution. It has happened to me often. I have also had articles stolen from–no doubt by former students–w/o attribution. It is merely part of the game to me.

  9. Joey - July 19, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    I would think that a lot of litigants would be very pleased to see their argument appear nearly verbatim in the opinion.

    (Not only does the court say exactly what you asked them to say, but in the case of a published opinion, the court also allows you to cite your own words in the future and attribute them to the court. Very handy.)

    It would seem both churlish, and a bit self-undermining, to respond to such a victory by turning around and asking the court for some attribution!

  10. Lance McMillian - July 19, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    I fail to see how a court’s decision to copy a part of a brief in its opinion can lead to questions about the court’s impartiality when it is very common, especially in state court, for counsel to prepare the actual order and submit it for a judge’s signature.

  11. Phil Cave (mljucmj) - July 20, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Lance, if you refer to how the military appellate courts act, then there is a difference. Under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S. Code 866, the courts of criminal appeal have the power to act as a second jury and set aside the findings of guilt for factual (as well as legal) insufficiency. They can also set aside or reduce the sentence (but not as an act of clemency). Thus, each CCA judge is required to be personally satisfied that the appellant is in fact guilty beyond reasonable doubt before he/she can vote to affirm a conviction or a sentence. Thus the concern when the court adopts almost word for word the government’s brief. As CAAF discussed, when the CCA adopts the governments brief (not just a court order) there leads to a number of potential issues. (CAAF uses the usual legal standard in Jackson v. Va.)

    Interestingly, in Jenkins the remand panel gave him additional relief not already granted by the first panel. Also, there were three other cases remanded at about the same time from the same panel. So we see a distinction between almost complete adoption, as opposed to some language from parts of the parties brief, and publication of the government’s brief as the court opinion, and the parties writing a court order for the judge to sign.

    Perhaps just another sign of how arcane practice in military courts can be. The thought arises then that “judicial plagarism” is contextual, and perhaps dependent on the forum and reasons the judge is writing. Oh oh, no bright-line rule or Black P.

  12. Tim R. - July 22, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Could it be copyright infringement, though? If the court quotes non-trivial portions of a (copyrighted, revenue-generating) law review article, is the court itself violating the author’s copyright? And, considering that court opinions are not copyrightable and therefore a non-cited quotation may be reproduced by others in various ways, would the person citing the quote be unintentionally violating the original author’s copyright as well?

    Granted, the violation would have to be much more egregious than Gerard’s hypothetical, but…

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Andrew Blair-Stanek
Ryan Calo
Katie Eyer
Stephen Galoob
Woodrow Hartzog
Claire Hill
William McGeveran
David L. Schwartz
Babak Siavoshy
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Jay Kesten
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Meredith Render
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Aaron Saiger
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress