Advertise on podcast: Talking law and economics at ETH Zurich

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, David Abrams (University of Pennsylvania) and Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Abrams’ paper “Prose and Cons: Evaluating the Legality of Police Stops with Large Language Models”. In the United States, police departments document millions of pedestrian stops each year, yet the legal assessment of these encounters is often constrained by the high cost of hiring expert attorneys. In their study, David Abrams and Jonathan Choi (Washington University in St. Louis) fine-tune large language models (LLMs) to determine whether police stops are legally justified. Their findings reveal racial disparities in the legality of police stops, disproportionately affecting Black and Hispanic individuals. Replacing low-legality officers with median officers would only modestly reduce illegal stops, highlighting the potential of LLMs to measure legal compliance more broadly and directly. In this vlog episode, Prof. Abrams and Prof. Bechtold discuss the study’s findings in more detail. Paper References: David Abrams — University of Pennsylvania Jonathan H. Choi — Washington University in St. Louis Prose and Cons: Evaluating the Legality of Police Stops with Large Language Models https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6210681 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Roberto Galbiati (CNRS-Sciences Po & CEPR) talks about his paper "Science under Inquisition: The Allocation of Talent in Early Modern Europe" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich). In their study, Roberto Galbiati and his co-authors Edgard Dewitte, Francesco Drago, and Giulio Zanella explore how the Roman Inquisition shaped the development of science in Europe during the Scientific Revolution. Focusing on the 16th and 17th centuries, they combine historical evidence with an economic model of how talented individuals made decisions about their careers and where to live and work. The paper sheds light on the complex relationship between institutions, the threat of punishment, scientific production, and economic growth. Paper References: Edgard Dewitte (University of California, Berkeley) Francesco Drago (European University Institute & CEPR) Roberto Galbiati (CNRS-Sciences Po Paris & CEPR) Giulio Zanella (University of Bologna) Science under Inquisition: The Allocation of Talent in Early Modern Europe https://sites.google.com/view/galbiatir1/research Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Max Schanzenbach (Northwestern University) and Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich) discuss the paper "Divesting University Endowments", which examines the legal and financial principles governing university endowment divestment and evaluates both historical and current divestment efforts. Professors Schanzenbach and Sitkoff (Harvard University), the authors of the study, argue that nonfinancial divestment is legally permissible only when it aligns with a university's charitable mission of research and education and has a reasonable impact on the endowment portfolio — a standard that is difficult to meet under modern investment practices. They also find that, contrary to common belief, universities have rarely undertaken broad divestment campaigns, including during apartheid in South Africa. The authors demonstrate that a divestment for moral abhorrence could pass fiduciary muster as consistent with the public benefit principle of charity law if supported by a clear public policy established by confirmatory governmental actions. Paper Reference: Max Schanzenbach (Northwestern University) Robert H. Sitkoff (Harvard University) Divesting University Endowments https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6332018 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

Globalization creates new opportunities for cooperation across vast networks of individuals who may never meet. Social exclusion and monetary exchange are institutions that in theory can incentivize cooperation. But what encourages cooperation most effectively – money or social exclusion? In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Maria Bigoni (University of Bologna) and Maurizia Di Buono (ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Bigoni's paper "Money and Social Exclusion in Networks" (joint with Gabriele Camera and Eoardo Gallo). In an experiment, the authors evaluate the relative performance and interaction of monetary exchange and social exclusion in anonymous networks of different sizes. The results suggest that monetary exchange and temporary social exclusion perform similarly well in small networks. In large networks, however, monetary exchange is the only institution that promotes full cooperation by crowding out ostracism and keeping the network complete. The study offers an important insight: in an increasingly globalized world, well-functioning monetary systems are more effective than social exclusion in fostering cooperation across large and diverse communities. Paper Reference: Maria Bigoni (University of Bologna) Gabriele Camera (Chapman University) Edoardo Gallo (University of Cambridge) Money and Social Exclusion in Networks https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/25-06.htmlAudio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being considered for tasks once thought to be uniquely human—including legal interpretation. The idea of “AI judges” suggests appealing possibilities: consistent, fast, and ostensibly unbiased answers to legal questions. But how reliable are these models? Can their judgments truly be trusted? And do they withstand careful empirical scrutiny? In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Prof. Jonathan Choi (University of Southern California & Washington University, St. Louis) joins Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich) to discuss his paper, “Off-the-Shelf Large Language Models Are Unreliable Judges.” Prof. Choi presents findings from a series of empirical experiments designed to test how well LLMs perform as legal interpreters. His results reveal that model judgments are highly sensitive to prompt phrasing, output processing methods, and training choices. Moreover, post-training adjustments in today’s most widely used models can push LLMs’ assessments far from empirically grounded predictions of language use. These insights raise serious questions about the credibility of LLMs in legal interpretation and cast doubt on their ability to capture the “ordinary meaning” of legal texts. Paper Reference: Jonathan Choi – University of Southern California / Washington University (St. Louis) Large Language Models Are Unreliable Judges https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188865 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Prof. Murat C. Mungan (Texas A&M University) discusses his paper "Symmetry, Presumptions, and the Judges Design" with Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich). In his work, Murat C. Mungan discusses an important assumption underlying a popular empirical method used in social sciences, namely average monotonicity, and shows the conditions under which this assumption can be violated. Paper Reference: Murat C. Mungan - Texas A&M UniversitySymmetry, Presumptions, and the Judges Design PLOS One, Forthcoming https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4322684 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Berk Ustun (University of California San Diego) discusses his paper "Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich). In their work, Berk Ustun and his co-authors investigate how machine learning models in high-stakes settings, such as lending and hiring, assign "fixed" predictions that individuals cannot change regardless of their actions. They introduce a formal procedure called "recourse verification" to certify whether a model allows for responsiveness or precludes access. In addition, they develop an auditing tool for practitioners to flag models that effectively block access to certain outcomes before they are deployed – a crucial step to promote fairness and transparency in machine-led decision making. Paper Reference: Berk Ustun – University of California, San Diego Avni Kothari – University of California, San Diego Bogdan Kulynych – Lausanne University Hospital Tsui-Wei Weng – Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12820 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Mitu Gulati (University of Virginia) and Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich) discuss "Swiss Cheese Contracts", a topic drawn from Gulati's new book "Contract Hazards: Lawyers and Their Landmines", co-authored with Stephen J. Choi (NYU) and Robert E. Scott (Columbia University). In the study "Swiss Cheese Contracts: The Costs of Creative Lawyering", Prof. Gulati and his co-authors examine contracting practices in high-yield secured syndicated loans and Liability Management Transactions. They describe how new loopholes are continually discovered and exploited, creating a landscape that increasingly resembles a block of Swiss cheese. References: Stephen J. Choi – New York University Mitu Gulati – University of Virginia Robert E. Scott – Columbia University Swiss Cheese Contracts: The Costs of Creative Lawyering https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5391281 Contract Hazards: Lawyers and Their Landmines https://academic.oup.com/book/61634 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Raquel De Haro (ETH Zurich) interviews Anu Bradford (Columbia University) about her recent paper “The False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovation.” Prof. Bradford is the Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization, and a leading scholar on the EU’s regulatory power and digital regulation. She coined the term “Brussels Effect” and is the author of the influential books "The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World" and "Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology". This discussion addresses the widespread belief that digital regulation inevitably harms innovation, and why that assumption is often wrong. Prof. Bradford explains the real factors that have prevented EU technology companies from thriving. She also provides examples illustrating why digital regulation and innovation are not mutually exclusive and can even be mutually reinforcing under certain circumstances. A thought-provoking conversation for anyone interested in tech policy, digital markets, or the global race to govern big platforms. Paper Reference: Anu Bradford – Columbia University The False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovation https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol119/iss2/3/ Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Francesco Parisi (University of Minnesota & University of Bologna) discusses his paper "Rewarding Failure" with Gianmarco Torchetti (ETH Zurich). In their work, Parisi and his co-authors Alice Guerra and Andres Sawicki challenge the one-sided incentive structure of intellectual property law, which rewards only successful innovations while overlooking the social value of failed research. The paper shows how negative results – information about what does not work – can generate significant learning externalities that benefit future research. Yet, under current legal frameworks, these valuable failures often go unshared. Paper Reference: Alice Guerra – University of Bologna Francesco Parisi – University of Minnesota & University of Bologna Andres Sawicki – University of Miami Rewarding Failure University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4726758 Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-12https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4726758 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Manisha Padi (University of California, Berkeley) discusses her study "The Rise of Nonbanks in Servicing Household Debt" with Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich). In their work, Padi and co-authors study the effects of capital regulation focusing on the case of the market for mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) and the Basel III regulation. Using a theoretical model and U.S. credit registry data, the authors analyze the shift in servicing riskier mortgages from banks towards non-bank servicers triggered by Basel III. Their analysis shows the tension between reducing agency conflicts and enhancing investor welfare on one side, and the borrowers' welfare on the other. Paper Reference: The Rise of Nonbanks in Servicing Household Debt Olin Business School Center for Finance & Accounting Research Paper No. 2023/08 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4550175 Naser Hamdi – Equifax, Inc. Erica Xuewei Jiang – University of Southern California Brittany Almquist Lewis – Washington University in Saint Louis & Indiana University Manisha Padi – University of California, Berkeley Avantika Pal – Washington University in Saint Louis Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Kevin Cope (University of Virginia) discusses his paper "An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich). In his work, Kevin Cope investigates how to measure judicial ideology and how this construct influences legal decisions. He introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), a new metric based on over 10,000 written evaluations of judges by thousands of jurists collected over three decades. The paper shows that these ideology estimates outperform existing measures in predicting appellate decisions. This innovative dataset opens up new possibilities for empirical research in judicial politics that were previously constrained by limited data. Paper Reference: Kevin Cope – University of Virginia An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology, Political Analysis (forthcoming) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4742254 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Jacob Goldin (University of Chicago) discusses his paper "Work Requirements and Child Tax Benefits" with Noah Fehr (ETH Zürich). In his work, Jacob Goldin examines the trade-offs between targeting child tax benefits to the most vulnerable families and preserving incentives to work. Alongside his co-authors, Goldin uses administrative tax data and quasi-random variation in eligibility to estimate the labor supply effects of removing work requirements from child tax credits. The findings suggest that eliminating these requirements leads to negligible reductions in maternal labor force participation, challenging the notion that such provisions are essential for maintaining work incentives. Paper Reference: Jacob Goldin et. al Work Requirements and Child Tax Benefits https://www.nber.org/papers/w32343Revised in December 2024 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Daniel Hemel (New York University School of Law) discusses his paper "Law and the New Dynamic Public Finance" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich).In his work, Prof. Hemel explores how insights from the new dynamic public finance can inform legal policy. This framework challenges conventional wisdom in classical tax theory, offering novel perspectives on taxation, social insurance, and regulatory design. The paper highlights the potential benefits of age-dependent tax schedules, provides fresh justifications for capital taxation, and critiques the structure of retirement savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s. Paper Reference:Daniel Hemel – New York UniversityLaw and the New Dynamic Public FinanceSSRN Working Paper, March 2025https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5154785Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Raquel De Haro (ETH Zurich) interviews Professor Nick Feamster (University of Chicago) about his studies on compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Prof. Feamster’s research examines how businesses implement opt-out options for data sharing and explores the use of "dark patterns”. His findings reveal that many websites do not fully comply with CCPA regulations, either by employing tactics that complicate the opt-out process or by failing to provide opt-out options altogether. The discussion further addresses whether the CCPA is emerging as the de facto national privacy standard in the US. Paper References: Van Hong Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Ranya Sharma, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior Strahilevitz Dark Patterns in the Opt-Out Process and Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09222 Van Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior Strahilevitz Measuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17225 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w