Social and Criminal Justice: Academic Research Article Critique
Introduction
The article titled ‘’Tort reform and access to justice: How legal environments shape lawyers' case selection’’ authored by Trautner, (2011) explores how lawyers make their decisions on the cases to take. The author argues that based on previous studies it is highly claimed that lawyers select cases using simplified risk formulas but the author believes that their modes of making decisions are shaped by the legal surroundings. The research utilized a qualitative research method in drawing its conclusions. It was established that lawyers operating in states that have no torts reform assert on the significance of the likable nature of their client on the probable jury whereas those in areas under tort reforms focus on the liability of the defendant. The distinctions are usually characterized by significant implications for those that have Civil Justice System access as well as for medical and consumer guarding in general.
Lawyers of plaintiffs hold great discretion deal while making decisions on the cases to accept and the clients that they should represent. Since individuals injured by medical errors in most cases require lawyers in the quest of obtaining compensation via Civil Justice System the decisions by lawyers usually determines those that hold compensation opportunities for the acquired injuries. In other words, lawyers normally serve as the gate guards to attaining civil courts justice. Therefore the decisions made by the respective lawyers in regard to the cases that they should deny can lead to extended consequences. Apparently, lawyers select cases that are worth their engagements but while injuries on the plaintiff and usually clear the base facts of the cases are unclear in most cases which necessitate extensive investigations. This report will offer a critique of the article’s introduction, purpose, problem, methods, findings, literature review and an overview. The critique criteria is a qualitative one for ’Tort reform and access to justice: How legal environments shape lawyers' case selection’’ authored by Trautner, (2011).
The article begins by attracting the reader’s attention in a quick manner as within the introduction it utilizes engaging language that incorporates the understanding of even the readers with little knowledge. The introduction introduces the purpose of the paper by supporting claims with background research to support its claims. The main study variables are stated within the introduction which the role is played by the legal systems in influencing how lawyers make decisions (Trautner, 2011). The introduction is effective in enlightening the readers in regard to the significance of the research and how such decisions affects justice in civil courts. This part is not too brief or too detailed as the context of the study is fully explained and via this, it does not create any spaces for further justifications.
The introduction is particularly accurate as unnecessary wording has not been utilized and every word has a well-selected meaning in reference to the study’s purpose. It is a reflection of the content and aim of the study and all the information included in the introduction part has been discussed thoroughly in its body section. These approaches are effective in attracting and incorporating the readers understanding while ensuring that the probable readers are left with the desire to dig deeper. However, the article failed to highlight where the introduction began after the abstract which would be useful in easy identification of the main views such as the objective and the background issue under investigation. Within the first few lines of the introduction, the article’s purpose and the problem are clearly demonstrated and explored.
The problem is that lawyer’s decision-making is usually influenced by the legal surroundings rather than risk formulas. In that, lawyers operating in states that have no torts reform asserts on the significance of the likable nature of their client on the probable jury whereas those in areas under tort reforms focus on the liability of the defendant while making choices of the cases that are worth being pursued. This issue is significant in creating a legal judgment to the practicing readers and the public in general. The issue is very specific on a given matter that offers a more apparent study area. From the beginning of the article, the issue is very clear, its significance even prior to the thorough investigation. In general, the title offers a detailed description of the article’s content and its background with a writing format that encourages its readers to go on. In that, the introduction was formulated in a correct manner with the composition of all the essential newspaper components.
Methods Critique
The methodology research part is the most crucial part of the investigation because it facilitates the development of common concepts within the subject (Engel & Schutt, 2014). In addition, it offers data in regard to how the study was performed thus offering the respective readers on insights regarding any kind of dependability and reliability issues. The article’s study utilized a qualitative research which mainly focused on gaining the understanding of how legal surroundings normally influences decision making by lawyers based on two grounds. The researcher conducted interviews with lawyers handling products liabilities and medical misconducts scenarios. The researcher opted to conduct its investigation in states such as Texas and Colorado on the grounds that both states have experienced radical Tort reforms.
The study does not show approval evidence the respective approval boards. In addition, there is no any kind of evidence of informed consent which was offered to the participants in acquiring their approval to utilize the responses in research. However, all the interviewed lawyers were accounted as competent based on their expertise and they offered legal approval on independent grounds. Confidentiality was protected in the collection, summary and analysis part since the evaluation was conducted by the researcher and a selected team. Privacy was enhanced via verbal agreement which might have weakened the study’s approach. The design was a mixed methodology on the grounds that both qualitative and quantitative data was utilized. A systematic review of the existing studies was conducted while interviews created qualitative data to justify any raised claim. In this context, the study can, therefore, be regarded as feasible given that it was developed within a legal setting and this is the most appropriate strategy of conducting research with the engagement of lower risks. In general, the methodology section of the article has been formulated adequately by using a clear design. However, some crucial methodology sections are missing such as sampling, investigation approach and research strategy. This, therefore, creates a rather weak dependability and validity of the methodology tools.
Discussion Critique
The discussion part offers the readers with an adequate understanding of the given statistics thus offering a professional analysis. Indeed, the study demonstrated significant findings in demonstrating how law’s decision making is usually influenced by the legal surroundings. The discussion section is not labeled and this, therefore, requires more effort in making the respective decision in trying to establish the discussion section. Throughout the discussion various studies have been cited which creates reliability as well as accuracy on the grounds that the author does not rely on assumption but all the claims are well supported by justified evidence. All the discussed claims were mainly grounded on the logical study’s findings. Implications, as well as general conclusions, were mainly designed with the knowledge that legal surrounding plays part in the shaping of decisions made by lawyers.
For all the objectives that were included within the discussion, section conclusions were stated logically with the adequate background. The findings of the research are valid as they are accurate compared mainly with previous studies for the same subject. For most of the stated claims, adequate justification is provided without fail. The study gives potential solutions for the existing issues in relation to obtaining justice but the associated limitations have not been mentioned. As a whole, the discussion part is effective given that it is detailed and all the claims have been supported. This creates reliability and validity of the study in general.
Results Critique
Given that both theoretical and statistical data communicates much about the conducted investigative study, there are several elements that are considered prior to labeling a study as valid (Letherby, Bywaters & Ali, 2007). The article under critique was established to be associated with few errors but generally, the Legal significance was not impacted. The study’s data was analyzed using systematic review and standardized ground concept methodology. This technique holds that the researcher reads thoroughly every response report while noting the common concepts. This technique is effective because it results in the creation of thematic categories as well as concepts that are related to the decision making the procedure of the lawyers. The differences in responses are also highlighted and both are utilized in supporting arguments as while as refuting prior studies claims with evidence rather than assumption.
Individual responses data on the grounds of professionals and genders were analyzed in a table format while the control groups were mainly differentiated in regard to percentage and their responsiveness. The analysis was then justified in a thorough narrative design in answering the study queries and the need for investigating the issue. The results were presented both in a theoretical and statistical format for clarity and dependability. This resulted in the creation of a more accurate and reliable research. A detailed findings summary for the study was required in simplifying what was established but this was not presented.
Results are more thorough and dependable when discussed via the use of graphics, tables as well as justified figures which were not presented in the study. However, for the presented table the theoretical information is fully consistent with the statistical information. However, some crucial text justifications are missed such as stating the manner in which such knowledge was acquired. The study’s generalization is one that is questionable. Overall, the results of the study were organized well, demonstrated inappropriate sectioning and the reporting was objective. The study however utilized few table as most of the findings are demonstrated theoretically. However, this was the case despite the proper findings organization the use of fewer tables of effective since on the grounds of the statistical variables that were employed statistical data would not be satisfactory to the readers alone.
Conclusion
The article is well organized, structured, formally written with an appropriate accounting of documentation elements. The abstract has been summarized adequately with appropriate wording and structure which is effective in attracting the reader’s attention. In addition, the article does not incorporate irrelevant adapt since all the important details have been incorporated. The study has utilized a simplified report organization despite the fact that a number of heading sectioning such as for the introduction and discussion have been omitted. This makes it had for the readers in establishing the relevant parts. The strengths for the article included the use of an investigative design which incorporated systematic review as well as qualitative study in coming up with fresh findings. In addition, the wording and the organization of the study can be classified as effective as it only focuses on the subject’s relevance. The study’s weaknesses, however, lies on instruments and methodology. In that, all the methodological components have not been included adequately mainly because the method parts lack some essential aspects such as sampling.
The article’s title is relevant and very objective with simplified and attractive wording. However, the objective should have been highlighted for easy follow ups in a separate part. In addition, the author should have ensured that the sectioning is appropriate with relevant titles so that the provided evidence can be understood at ease. The study’s problem and purpose were well stated with justified justification which does not require further detailing. The research received while by others restructure but its structure not highly accepted. The study resulted in the formulation of other queries in that it should be established on how the legal complexity normally affects decisions taken by lawyers. In that, most lawyers will normally settle for cases with lesser complexity in order to gain maximum benefits based on the legitimation procedures complexity.
Apparently, the study made significant human knowledge contribution. This is because despite the fact medical error cases compress of less than 20 percent of all the criminal cases lawyers’ decision can impact justice. In that most of the claimants depends on the lawyer's ability to get justice and given that the cases engage complex investigation justice is not achieved in most cases. The findings are of significance in criminal justice application since it can equip the lawyers with adequate knowledge by understanding the impacts of their decisions. In addition, the lawmakers can understand how the related policies can be formulated to create positive impacts. In general, the formulated concepts and findings are objective and valid. The study’s findings support the claim that the legal system based on its complexity shapes lawyers decision and lawyers normally choose to play part in cases with fewer risks. In addition, the author acknowledges that the reliability of the study can be questioned on the ground of the utilized tools but the study was significant statistically given that it offers grounds for future investigation. In general, ’Tort reform and access to justice: How legal environments shape lawyers' case selection’’ authored by Trautner, (2011) were authored and developed appropriately by all evidence founded practice standards.
References
Engel, R. J., & Schutt, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of Social Work Research. Sage Publication.
Letherby, G., Bywaters, P., & Ali, Z. (2007). Extending social research: Application, implementation and publication. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Trautner, M. (2011). Tort Reform and Access to Justice: How legal environments shape lawyers' case selection. Qualitative Sociology, 34(4), 523-538. Doi: 10.1007/s11133-011-9203-3
