Privatizing Public Litigation

Government litigators increasingly use private resources—human and financial—to support their efforts in court. In some cases, government entities hire private lawyers to perform legal work on behalf of the government; in others, they draw on private donations to fund litigation; and in some cases they do both, relying on privately funded private lawyers to litigate cases in the government’s name. These mergers of public and private can be understood as part of broader trends toward the privatization of government services. This Article uses lessons from the privatization debates to illuminate the likely costs and benefits of bringing private actors into government litigation. It shows that privatization, often touted as a means of improving the efficiency of government services, may have the opposite effect in the context of litigation. Contracting with private lawyers may be more expensive than keeping the work in-house, and accepting private financing may encourage excessive, duplicative government litigation. Even where the advantages of privatization are most pronounced, significant costs remain. Private attorneys and financiers inject private interests and incentives into government litigation, transforming both the ends sought and the means used to achieve them. One cost of privatization, then, is that it can skew government litigation away from the public interest. That consequence is important in its own right, but it also suggests some of the longer-term risks of privatizing government litigation. Our law reflects the view that government litigation is—and should be—different from private litigation. In various ways, some subtle and others more overt, we privilege government litigation over equivalent suits by private parties. Privatization subverts those practices, allowing private attorneys and interest groups to take advantage of benefits typically reserved for government. While it empowers private interests, privatization simultaneously weakens government litigation, dulling its distinctive features and undermining the justifications for treating it differently. The stronger the resemblance between public and private actions, the harder it becomes to defend preferential treatment for government

Steering Capital: Optimizing Financial Support for Innovation in Public Education

Examines efforts to align capital to education innovation and calls for clarity and agreement on problems, goals, and metrics; an effective R&D system; an evidence-based culture of continuous improvement; and transparent, comparable, and useful data

Review of Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives

This document presents introductory information gathered on a wide range of neighborhood revitalization initiatives

Comparing third party financing of litigation versus legal expenses insurance

C

Policy Framework for Outreach, Enrollment, Retention and Utilization for Health Care Coverage in California

Defines a framework that counties in California can use to structure outreach, enrollment, retention, and utilization systems and strategies. Provides specific recommendations, based on local successes, for improving access to health care by children

Breaking Barriers to Renewable Energy Production in the North American Arctic

As climate change continues to affect our lives, the communities at the northern extremes of our world have witnessed the changes most profoundly. In the Arctic, where climate change is melting permafrost and causing major shoreline erosion, remote communities in Alaska and northern Canada are particularly vulnerable. Furthermore, these communities have limited access to electrical grids and bear oppressive energy costs relying on diesel generators. While some communities have started to incorporate renewable energy into their hamlets and villages, progress has generally been limited with the notable exception of Canada’s Northwest Territories and some coastal communities in western Alaska. During its latest stint as chair of the Arctic Council, the United States outlined community renewable energy in the Arctic as one of its primary goals. This Note focuses on regulatory and practical policy solutions to make that goal possible. It draws on examples from industrialized countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as examples from developing countries, such as India and Peru, to examine solutions for the technical, economic, regulatory, and community engagement problems that Arctic communities in Alaska face when setting up new energy projects. Additionally, this Note describes the current political structure of Alaskan villages under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and argues that Alaska Native Corporations should play a role in developing clean, cheap energy sources for their shareholders. Finally, this Note argues that public-private partnerships, like the non-profit Arctic Energy Alliance in the Northwest Territories, shows that clean, renewable energy projects for rural Arctic villages are possible throughout the Arctic. This Note draws lessons from other communities throughout the world and attempts to apply them to the unique situations that remote northern Alaska communities face regarding access to clean, renewable energy

AID INSTRUMENTS IN FRAGILE STATES

International Development,

Social Impact Bonds: Overview and Considerations

One of the hottest topics in human services is "pay-for-success" approaches to government contracting. In this era of tight budgets and increased skepticism about the effectiveness of government-funded programs, the idea that the government could pay only for proven results has a broad appeal. And those who have identified prevention-focused models that have the potential to improve long-term outcomes and save the government money are deeply frustrated that they have been unable to attract the funding needed to take these programs to scale. Some advocates for expanded prevention efforts are confident that these programs could thrive under pay for success and see such an approach as a way to break out of the harmful cycle where what limited funds are available must be used to provide services for those who are already in crisis, and there are rarely sufficient funds to pay for prevention