A New Breed of Smart Empirically Derived Conflicts Rules: Better Law than "Better Law" in the Post-Tort Reform Era

Book Review by William M. Richman

The second edition of Dean Symeon Symeonides' book The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future is a superb piece of work; that should not surprise many readers of the conflicts literature. The first edition, prepared in conjunction with Symeonides' lectures at the Hague Academy of International Law, received enthusiastic reviews from some of the most prominent authorities in the area. Moreover, veteran conflicts aficionados are accustomed to seeing fine work from Symeonides, including a casebook in collaboration with Professors Perdue and Von Mehren, a treatise in collaboration with Professors Scoles and Hay and Dean Borchers, invaluable annual surveys of American choice-of-law decisions appearing in the American Journal of Comparative Law, and innovative work codifying the conflicts law of Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and Oregon.

In this review of the second edition, I want to highlight some of the virtues of the new edition and also respond to a trenchant critique of the original volume as well as to the doubts of some scholars, who—even before the publication of the first edition—called into question whether the author's project (the formulation and legislative codification of choice-of-law rules) is worthwhile or even possible. In doing so, I shall have to be careful because all of the players—Symeonides and his critics—are long-time friends, and two of his critics are my coauthors.


About the Author

William M. Richman. Distinguished University Professor, University of Toledo, College of Law. B.A. 1970, University of Pennsylvania; J.D. 1975, University of Maryland School of Law.

Citation

82 Tul. L. Rev. 2181 (2008)