We assemble studies within a set that we label randomized control trials (RCTs) in the US legal profession. These studies are field experiments conducted for the purpose of obtaining knowledge in which randomization replaces a decision that would otherwise have been made by a member of the US legal profession. We use our assembly of approximately 50 studies to begin addressing the question of why the US legal profession, in contrast to the US medical profession, has resisted the use of the RCT as a knowledge-generating device.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Abramowicz M, Ayres I, Listokin Y. 2011. Randomizing law. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 159:929 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abrams DS, Rohlfs C. 2011. Optimal bail and the value of freedom: evidence from the Philadelphia Bail Experiment. Econ. Inq. 49:3750–70 [Google Scholar]
  3. Abrams DS, Yoon AH. 2007. The luck of the draw: using random case assignment to investigate attorney ability. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 74:41145–77 [Google Scholar]
  4. Albiston CR, Sandefur RL. 2013. Expanding the empirical study of access to justice. Wis. Law Rev. 2013:101–20 [Google Scholar]
  5. Amberson JB, McMahon BT, Pinner M. 1931. A clinical trial of sanocrysin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Am. Rev. Tuberc. 24:401–35 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson JM, Heaton P. 2012. How much difference does the lawyer make? The effect of defense counsel on murder case outcomes. Yale Law J. 122:154–217 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ayres CE, Rankin A, Sturz H. 1963. The Manhattan Bail Project: an interim report on the use of pretrial parole. N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 38:67 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker SH, Sadd S. 1981. Diversion of Felony Arrests: An Experiment in Pretrial Intervention Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Natl. Inst. Justice [Google Scholar]
  9. Berecochea JE, Jaman DR, Jones WA. 1973. Time served in prison and parole outcome: an experimental study. Tech. Rep. 1, Calif. Dep. Correct. Res. Unit, Sacramento [Google Scholar]
  10. Boissel JP. 1989. Impact of randomized clinical trials on medical practices. Control. Clin. Trials 10:4120S–34S [Google Scholar]
  11. Botein B. 1965. The Manhattan Bail Project: its impact on criminology and the criminal law process. Texas Law Rev. 43:319 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chilton AS, Levy MK. 2015. Challenging the randomness of panel assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals. Cornell Law Rev. 101:1–55 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark SH, Ellen ED, McCormick K. 1995. Court-ordered civil case mediation in North Carolina: an evaluation of its effects. Tech. Rep., N.C. Adm. Off. Courts, Chapel Hill. http://courtadr.org/files/CourtOrderedMedNC.pdf [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen IG. 2013. Rationing legal services. J. Legal Anal. 5:221 [Google Scholar]
  15. Colbert DL, Paternoster R, Bushway S. 2002. Do attorneys really matter? The empirical and legal case for the right of counsel at bail. Cardozo Law Rev. 23:51719–93 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis RC, Taylor BG, Maxwell CD. 2000. Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn Tech. Rep. 180772, Urban Inst., Washington, DC. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/180772.pdf [Google Scholar]
  17. Deschenes EP, Turner S, Greenwood PW. 1995. Drug court or probation?: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court. Justice Syst. J. 18:155–73 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ditman KS, Crawford GC, Forgy EW, Moskowitz H, MacAndrew C. 1967. A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrests. Am. J. Psychiatry 124:2160–63 [Google Scholar]
  19. Eaglin JB. 1990. The pre-argument conference program in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: an evaluation Tech. Rep. FJC-R-90-1, Fed. Judicial Cent., Washington, DC. http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/preargcon.pdf/$file/preargcon.pdf [Google Scholar]
  20. Elek JK, Ware LJ, Ratcliff JJ. 2012. Knowing when the camera lies: judicial instructions mitigate the camera perspective bias. Legal Crim. Psychol. 17:123–35 [Google Scholar]
  21. Engel C. 2013. Legal experiments—Mission impossible?. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2276566
  22. Farrington DP. 1983. Randomized experiments on crime and justice. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 4 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Farrington DP, Welsh BC. 2005. Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades?. J. Exp. Criminol. 1:9–38 [Google Scholar]
  24. Feder L, Dugan L. 2002. A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: the Broward experiment. Justice Q. 19:2343–75 [Google Scholar]
  25. Feder L, Jolin A, Feyerherm W. 2000. Lessons from two randomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime Delinq. 46:380–400 [Google Scholar]
  26. Finkelstein A, Taubman S. 2015. Randomized evaluations to improve health care delivery. Science 13:720–22 [Google Scholar]
  27. Freed DJ, Wald PM. 1964. Bail in the United States Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Vera Inst. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fried C. 1974. Medical Experimentation Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gaudet FJ, Harris GS, St. John CW. 1933. Individual differences in the sentencing tendencies of judges. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 23:5811–18 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldkamp JS, Goddfredson MR. 1984. Judicial Guidelines for Bail: The Philadelphia Experiment Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Natl. Inst. Justice [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldkamp JS, White MD. 2006. Restoring accountability in pretrial release: the Philadelphia pretrial release supervision experiments. J. Exp. Criminol. 2:143–81 [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldman J. 1978. The Civil Appeals Management Plan: an experiment in appellate procedural reform. Columbia Law Rev. 78:61209–40 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldman J. 1980. Ineffective Justice: Evaluating the Preappeal Conference Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldman J. 1983. Experimentation in the law: report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 8:3733–39 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gorman EH, Sandefur RL. 2011. ‘Golden age,’ quiescence, and revival: how the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work Occup. 38:3275–302 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gottfredson DC, Exum ML. 2002. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: one-year results from a randomized study. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 39:3337–56 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gottfredson DC, Kearley BW, Najaka SS, Rocha CM. 2005. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court 3-year self-report outcome study. Eval. Rev. 29:142–64 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS, Kearley B. 2003. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: evidence from a randomized trial. Criminol. Public Policy 2:2171–96 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS, Kearley BW, Rocha CM. 2006. Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: results from an experimental study. J. Exp. Criminol. 2:167–98 [Google Scholar]
  40. Green DP, Thorley DR. 2014. Field experimentation and the study of law and policy. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 10:53–72 [Google Scholar]
  41. Greenwood PW, Turner S. 1993. Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: a residential program for serious delinquents. Criminology 31:2263–79 [Google Scholar]
  42. Greiner DJ, Pattanayak CW. 2012. Randomized evaluation in legal assistance: What difference does representation (offer and actual use) make?. Yale Law J. 121:82118–215 [Google Scholar]
  43. Greiner DJ, Pattanayak CW, Hennessy JP. 2012. How effective are limited legal assistance programs? A randomized experiment in a Massachusetts housing court. Accessed Sept. 13, 2015. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1880078
  44. Greiner DJ, Pattanayak CW, Hennessy JP. 2013. The limits of unbundled legal assistance: a randomized study in a Massachusetts district court and prospects for the future. Harv. Law Rev. 126:4901–89 [Google Scholar]
  45. Greiner J. 2011. Randomized trials do not require abandoning merits screens or ethical duties: a response to Margaret Monsell. Concurring Opinions March 28. http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/03/randomized-trials-do-not-require-abandoning-merits-screens-or-ethical-duties-a-response-to-margaret-monsell.html [Google Scholar]
  46. Hannaford PL, Hans VP, Munsterman GT. 2000. Permitting jury discussions during trial: impact of the Arizona reform. Law Hum. Behav. 24:3359–82 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hanson R, Hersey GW. 1991. Appellate court congestion, or how do you spell R-E-L-I-E-F?. Gov. Fla. 1:11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Harrell A, Cavanagh S, Roman J. 2000. Final report: findings from the evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Tech. Rep., Urban Inst., Washington, DC. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178941.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Harris R. 1981. The Real Voice Upper Saddle River, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]
  50. Heuer L, Penrod SD. 1988. Increasing jurors' participation in trials: a field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking. Law Hum. Behav. 12:3231–61 [Google Scholar]
  51. Heuer L, Penrod SD. 1989. Instructing jurors: a field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law Hum. Behav. 13:4409–30 [Google Scholar]
  52. Heuer L, Penrod SD. 1994a. Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: a national field experiment. Law Hum. Behav. 18:2121–50 [Google Scholar]
  53. Heuer L, Penrod SD. 1994b. Trial complexity: a field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law Hum. Behav. 18:129–51 [Google Scholar]
  54. Imbens GW, Rubin DB. 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Jiménez D. 2015. Dirty debts sold dirt cheap. Harv. J. Legis. 52:41 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kakalik JS, Dunworth T, Hill LA, McCaffrey D, Oshrio M. et al. 1996. An evaluation of mediation and early neutral evaluation under the Civil Justice Reform Act. Tech. Rep., Inst. Civ. Justice, Santa Monica, CA. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR803.pdf [Google Scholar]
  57. Kobbervig W. 1991. Mediation of civil cases in Hennepin County: an evaluation. Tech. Rep., Minn. Judic. Cent. Res. Plan. Off. State Court Adm., St. Paul, MN. http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/mandated/910535.pdf [Google Scholar]
  58. Labriola M, Rempel M, Davis RC. 2005. Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring Tech. Rep., Cent. Court Innov., New York. http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/battererprogramseffectiveness.pdf [Google Scholar]
  59. Labriola M, Rempel M, Davis RC. 2008. Do batterer programs reduce recidivism? Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Q. 25:2252–82 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mandell MB, Marshall A. 2002. The effects of court-ordered mediation in workers' compensation cases filed in circuit court: results from an experiment conducted in the circuit court for Baltimore City Tech. Rep., Univ. Md. Baltim. Cty. Md. Inst. Policy Anal. Res., Baltimore. http://www.courts.state.md.us/macro/pdfs/reports/baltcityworkercompreportfinal.pdf [Google Scholar]
  61. Margolin FM. 1970. Counseling in contested custody and visiting in a court setting. Family Court Rev. 8:211–13 [Google Scholar]
  62. Marks HM. 1997. The Progress of Experiment: Science And Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Schepise MM, Hazzard JE. et al. 2003. Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Crim. Justice Behav. 30:2141–62 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mashaw J. 1996. Unemployment compensation: continuity, change, and the prospects for reform. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform 29:1–24 [Google Scholar]
  65. McEwen CA. 1992. An evaluation of the ADR pilot project Final Rep., Bowdoin Coll. Accessed Sept. 13, 2015. http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/c/cmcewen/pdfs/an-evaluation-of-the-adr-pilot-project-final-report-1992.pdf [Google Scholar]
  66. McGarrell EF, Olivares K, Crawford K, Kroovand N. 2000. Returning justice to the community: the Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment. Tech. Rep., Hudson Inst. Crime Control Policy Cent., Indianapolis. http://www.ibarji.org/docs/mcgarrell.pdf [Google Scholar]
  67. Meldrum ML. 2000. A brief history of the randomized control trial: from oranges and lemons to the gold standard. Hematol./Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 14:4745–60 [Google Scholar]
  68. Monsell M. 2011. What difference representation: case selection and professional responsibility. Concurring Opinions March 28. http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/03/what-difference-representation-case-selection-and-professional-responsibility.html [Google Scholar]
  69. Morris E. 2014. The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld (Part 4): Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The New York Times March 28. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/the-certainty-of-donald-rumsfeld-part-4/#ftn3 [Google Scholar]
  70. Neyfakh L. 2012. Free legal advice—But does it work?. The Boston Globe Dec. 23, https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/12/23/free-legal-advice-but-does-work/GUoKaBqK068IhaZt5Bj-qKI/story.html [Google Scholar]
  71. Parker M. 2005. False dichotomies: EBM, clinical freedom, and the art of medicine. Med. Humanit. 31:23–30 [Google Scholar]
  72. Patridge A, Lind A. 1983. A Reevaluation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan Washington, DC: Fed. Judic. Cent. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pearson J, Thoennes N. 1984. Mediating and litigating custody disputes: a longitudinal evaluation. Fam. Law Q. 17:4497–524 [Google Scholar]
  74. Petersilia J, Turner S. 1991. An evaluation of intensive probation in California. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 82:3610–58 [Google Scholar]
  75. Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932)
  76. Robinson CT, Yokum DV. 2012. The effect of blinded experts on juror verdicts. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 9:765 [Google Scholar]
  77. Rosenberg M. 1964. The Pretrial Conference and Effective Judgment New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Rudd BN, Hotzworth-Munroe A, Reyome JG, Applegate AG, D'Nofrio BM. 2015. Randomized control trial: online parent program and waiting period for unmarried parents in Title IV-D court. J. Fam. Psychol. 29:5679–85 [Google Scholar]
  79. Samaha AM. 2009. Randomization and adjudication. William Mary Law Rev. 51:1–86 [Google Scholar]
  80. Schneider AL. 1986. Restitution and recidivism rates of juvenile offenders: results from four experimental studies. Criminology 24:3533–52 [Google Scholar]
  81. Seron C, Frankel M, Van Ryzin G, Kovath J. 2001. The impact of legal counsel on outcomes for poor tenants in New York City's housing court: results of a randomized experiment. Law Soc. Rev. 35:2419–34 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stapleton WV, Teitelbaum LE. 1972. In Defense of Youth: A Study of the Role of Counsel in American Juvenile Courts New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
  83. Steelman DC, Goldman J, Conti SD. 1986. The Settlement Conference: Experimenting with Appellate Justice: Final Report Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts [Google Scholar]
  84. Susskind R. 2010. The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Thoennes N. 2001. Permanent custody mediation Tech. Rep., Cent. Policy Res., Denver, CO. http://cntrpolres.qwestoffice.net/reports/Lucas%20County.pdf [Google Scholar]
  86. Thorley D. 2015. Randomness Pre-Considered: Recognizing and Accounting for “De-Randomizing” Events When Utilizing Random Judicial Assignment Nov. 20. Unpublished manuscript, copy on file with authors [Google Scholar]
  87. Tomkins AJ, Bornstein B, Herian MN, Rosenbaum DI, Neeley EM. 2012. An experiment in the law: studying a technique to reduce failure to appear in court. Court Rev. 48:96–106 [Google Scholar]
  88. Ursa Inst 1984. Evaluation of the Early Representation by Defense Counsel Field Test Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Natl. Inst. Justice [Google Scholar]
  89. Weitzman SE. 1983. Early Representation by Defense Counsel in Shelby County, Tennessee 1982–1983: Final Report Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Natl. Inst. Justice [Google Scholar]
  90. Zeisel H. 1973. Reflections on experimental techniques in the law. J. Legal Stud. 2:1107–24 [Google Scholar]
  91. Zeisel H, Kalven H Jr, Buchholz B. 1959. The case for the official experiment. Delay in the Court H Zeisel, Chapter 21 Boston: Little, Brown [Google Scholar]
  92. Zuberbuhler J. 2001. Early intervention mediation: the use of court-ordered mediation in the initial stages of divorce litigation to resolve parenting issues. Fam. Court Rev. 39:203–5 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error