I think, teach, and write about procedure. I analyze the ways that judges use decisionmaking processes to navigate the tensions between law and equity, standards and rules, and rule of law versus individualized justice. While judges and courts generally have freedom to govern themselves and to determine their own processes, these procedures can have significant and lasting substantive consequences, which are often unintended and understudied. Many judicial decisionmaking processes are at odds with the underlying purposes of the specific procedures for which they are employed or are in conflict with other federal judicial system values.

My work systematizes the study of civil procedure. I do that by exploring the processes that judges use when deciding whether to grant or deny requests for various procedural mechanisms. Each of my projects begins with something akin to an archaeology of the procedure of procedure. I question how judges make procedural decisions, how procedural law develops, how judicial incentives affect procedural determinations, and how the design of federal courts and judicial relationships with other institutions affect procedure. This research informs my proposals for how courts should balance different competing concerns and limited judicial resources.

My primary research and teaching interests include civil procedure, remedies, conflict of laws, evidence, professional responsibility, complex litigation, and class actions. I would also be very interested in teaching property, legislation, local government, civil rights, and administrative law.

Descriptions of past and current work are included on my CV.

My publications are available here.