Abstract
Professor Steinberg's first two arguments attack our benefit analysis, as he contends that we failed to show any real drop in plaintiffs' win rate upon transfer and that, even if we did succeed, we have no reason to suspect that the change is in the direction of accuracy. His third argument goes to our cost analysis, as he contends that the expense of handling transfer motions is exorbitant. Professor Steinberg's fourth argument addresses our conclusion, as he says that if against all odds we were right, then we should be championing the more radical reform of narrowing the plaintiffs' initial choice of forum. We believe that our article met Professor Steinberg's first three arguments. As to his fourth point, however, we are in agreement. Our point had indeed been to open the door to that more radical reform, but we gently pushed it open because we were early in the process of gathering empirical support. Since writing that article, we have extended our focus beyond transfer. We have shown that forum affects outcome in other contexts. Therefore, we are now prepared to argue ever more explicitly that the initial choice of forum is currently a little too wide to be just. At any rate, we shall reply to Professor Steinberg's four arguments in order.
Keywords
Forum shopping