Spindle Law is a site dedicated to enabling and encouraging research and community contribution about the law. Recently, and during a few bursts of energy last year, I have been working on and contributing to a small section on the site on the law of forum non conveniens (or “FNC”). You can see the results here.
FNC is an area of civil procedure that often is an early flash point in litigation, generally involving foreign parties litigating in U.S. courts. As a foreign party myself, at least relatively speaking (I was born in England), I have become increasingly interested in FNC. I try to follow the case law and read the secondary source materials when I can. In addition, I have had the great opportunity to work on FNC in practice (though the views expressed about it here and on the site are mine alone not those of the law firm where I am of counsel), including spirited debates with colleagues, opposing counsel and before the court.
I built the section largely by reviewing relevant opinions — some that are known to have defined aspects of the law, others that were recently issued — and by extracting and layering the rules and topics (collectively, the branches) together into the Spindle Law tree. I have tried to organize the section according to the logic of the law and generally the way it appeared in the opinions, but, as our Extended Contributor Guide notes, “[c]reating the organization of any legal issue is more art than science, and if given the same legal issue to organize, Spindle Law contributors might organize it somewhat differently.”
One of the most satisfying aspects of developing the section was ensuring that no topic or rule had more than seven descendant branches. This principle, (the “Rule of Seven”) is based on the theory that seven is about the maximum number of items a person can hold in her mind at once. (For some of us, even seven is a stretch!). This structural requirement translates into substantive analysis. In other words, it means thinking both broadly and narrowly about the particular issue in order to divide and sub-divide it into additional topics and rules. The goal is to set out the law in a way that flows naturally. To anyone who will listen, I have compared the experience of organizing the law in this way to aligning one’s chakras. I urge you to try it.
Although I think the section answers a lot of the important questions about FNC, it undoubtedly has a long way to go: more branches, authorities, comments. I hope to dedicate time regularly to digesting new authorities and contributing their rules and the authorities they cite. As important, if not more so, my goal is to involve others in this endeavor and in the project of building other areas of the law – even micro-topics — on the site. Doing so allows you to think more expansively about an area of the law and help others understand it too, while demonstrating your expertise and connecting you to a community of lawyers thinking about the law in a new way.
If there’s an area of law that you’re jazzed about (your own FNC), whatever it is, find the best place on the Spindle Tree, and dive right in: add some topics and rules, contribute some authorities. Got a favorite, beloved case? Be the first to add the propositions that it stands for. Or comment on the authorities and branches in the areas of law already covered on the site. If we can help, let us know.
