Bio

Nora Freeman Engstrom is the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. A nationally recognized authority on tort law, professional responsibility, and complex litigation, she also co-directs the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession. Beyond that, she is the author of numerous award-winning scholarly articles, the co-author of a leading legal ethics textbook, the co-author of a classic torts textbook, and a Reporter for two Third Restatement of Torts projects. In 2022, the American Law Institute awarded her the R. Ammi Cutter Reporter’s Chair for her efforts.

Before joining Stanford’s faculty in 2009, Professor Engstrom was a litigator and law clerk, including to Judge Merrick B. Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She also worked at the Department of Justice where she focused on international terrorism and was awarded the Attorney General’s Award for Superior Service. She earned her J.D. with distinction from Stanford Law School and her B.A. from Dartmouth College, summa cum laude.

Academic Appointments

Administrative Appointments

  • Associate Dean for Curriculum, Stanford Law School (2016 - 2018)
  • Co-Director, Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School (2021 - Present)

Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations

  • Chair, AALS Torts & Compensation Systems Section (previously, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer), Association of American Law Schools (2023 - Present)
  • Reporter, ALI’s Third Restatement of Torts: Miscellaneous Provisions & Medical Malpractice, American Law Institute (2019 - Present)
  • Contributing Editor (Legal Profession & Torts), Jotwell (2013 - Present)
  • Adviser, ALIs Third Restatement of Torts: Remedies, American Law Institute (2020 - Present)
  • Advisory Board, Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility eJournal (2022 - Present)
  • Academic Advisor, NYU Civil Jury Project (2018 - Present)
  • Member, Editorial Board of, Foundation Press (2021 - Present)
  • Member, American Law Institute (2016 - Present)
  • Member, Maryland Bar (2003 - Present)
  • Member, District of Columbia Bar (2005 - Present)
  • Member, California Bar Association (2017 - Present)
  • Academic Fellow, National Civil Justice Institute (2017 - Present)
  • Fellow, American Bar Foundation (2016 - Present)
  • Selection Committee, Warren E. Burger Prize of the American Inns of Court (2016 - Present)
  • SLS Reading Group assisting the ABA in its assessment of Hon. Ketanji Jackson’s qualifications., Stanford Law School and American Bar Association (2022 - 2022)
  • Executive Committee Member, William A. Ingram Inn of Court (2012 - 2013)

Contact

Additional Info

  • Mail Code: 8610

Links

2024-25 Courses

All Publications

  • Rethinking the Lawyers' Monopoly: Access to Justice and the Future of Legal Services (Forthcoming) Engstrom, N. F., Engstrom, D. F. Cambridge University. 2024
  • Secrecy by Stipulation Duke Law Journal Engstrom, N. F., Engstrom, D. F., Gelbach, J. B., Peters, A., Schaffer-Neitz, A. 2024; 74: 99-181
  • The Making of the A2J Crisis Stanford Law Review Engstrom, N. F., Engstrom, D. F. 2024; 75 (Forthcoming): (Symposium Introduction)
  • Auto Clubs and the Lost Origins of the Access to Justice Crisis Yale Law Journal Engstrom, N. F., Stone, J. 2024; 134 (Forthcoming)
  • Harnessing Common Benefit Fees to Promote MDL Integrity TEXAS LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N., Venook, T. 2023; 101 (7): 1623-1651

    View details for Web of Science ID 001030535100004

  • Restatement (Third) of Torts: Miscellaneous Provisions Engstrom, N. F., Green, M. D. American Law Institute . 2023; Third (Draft No. 2)
  • Toward the Participatory MDL A Low-Tech Step to Promote Litigant Autonomy LEGAL TECH AND THE FUTURE OF CIVIL JUSTICE Venook, T., Engstrom, N., Engstrom, D. F. 2023: 173-195

    View details for Web of Science ID 001003618200009

  • Legal Tech and the Litigation Playing Field LEGAL TECH AND THE FUTURE OF CIVIL JUSTICE Engstrom, D., Engstrom, N., Engstrom, D. F. 2023: 133-154

    View details for Web of Science ID 001003618200007

  • Restatement (Third) of Torts: Concluding Provisions Restatement of Torts Engstrom, N. F., Green, M. D. American Law Institutde. 2022; Third (Tent. Draft No. 1)
  • Pursuing Public Health Through Litigation STANFORD LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N., Rabin, R. L. 2021; 73 (2): 285–362

    View details for Web of Science ID 000627455800001

  • TORT LAW AND ALTERNATIVES: CASES AND MATERIALS TORT LAW AND ALTERNATIVES: CASES AND MATERIALS (Foundation Press, 11th ed. 2021), with Marc A. Franklin, Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, & Mark A. Geistfeld Franklin, M. A., Rabin, R. L., Green, M. D., Geistfeld, M. A., Engstrom, N. F., et al Foundation Press. 2021
  • Legal Ethics Rhode, D. L., Luban, D., Cummings, S. L., Engstrom, N. F., et al Foundation Press. 2020
  • The Lessons of Lone Pine YALE LAW JOURNAL Engstrom, N. 2019; 129 (1): 2–76

    View details for Web of Science ID 000493797500001

  • The Trouble with Trial Time Limits GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL Engstrom, N. 2018; 106 (4): 933–87

    View details for Web of Science ID 000439475100001

  • THE DIMINISHED TRIAL FORDHAM LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N. 2018; 86 (5): 2131–47

    View details for Web of Science ID 000429046900003

  • RETALIATORY RICO AND THE PUZZLE OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMING MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N. F. 2017; 115 (5): 639-706

    Abstract

    Over the past century, the allegation that the tort liability system incentivizes legal extortion and is chock-full of fraudulent claims has dominated public discussion and prompted lawmakers to ever-more-creatively curtail individuals' incentives and opportunities to seek redress. Unsatisfied with these conventional efforts, in recent years, at least a dozen corporate defendants have "discovered" a new fraud-fighting tool. They've started filing retaliatory RICO suits against plaintiffs and their lawyers and experts, alleging that the initiation of certain nonmeritorious litigation constitutes racketeering activity—while tort reform advocates have applauded these efforts and exhorted more "courageous" companies to follow suit. Curiously, though, all of this has taken place against a virtual empirical void. Is the tort liability system actually brimming with fraudulent claims? No one knows. There has been no serious attempt to analyze when, how often, or under what conditions fraudulent claiming proliferates. Similarly, tort reformers support RICO's use because, they say, conventional mechanisms to deter fraud fall short. But are conventional mechanisms insufficient? Hard to say, as there is no comprehensive inventory of the myriad formal and informal mechanisms already in use; nor do we have even a vague sense of how those mechanisms actually operate. Further, though courts have started to green-light retaliatory RICO actions, no one has carefully analyzed whether these suits are, on balance, beneficial. Indeed, few have so much as surfaced relevant risks. Addressing these questions, this Article attempts to bring overdue attention to a problem central to the tort system’s operation and integrity.

    View details for Web of Science ID 000395722000002

    View details for PubMedID 28379154

  • A DOSE OF REALITY FOR SPECIALIZED COURTS: LESSONS FROM THE VICP UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N. F. 2015; 163 (6): 1631-1717

    View details for Web of Science ID 000358701000002

  • ATTORNEY ADVERTISING AND THE CONTINGENCY FEE COST PARADOX STANFORD LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N. F. 2013; 65 (4): 633-695

    View details for Web of Science ID 000317884500001

  • SUNLIGHT AND SETTLEMENT MILLS NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Engstrom, N. F. 2011; 86 (4): 805-886

    View details for Web of Science ID 000295906900001