While Prof. Lawless' (Ill.) essay, What Empirical Legal Scholars Do Best, is over one decade old, it is surviving the test of time well. At its core, the essay advances the claim that one comparative advantage for legally-trained ELS scholars is that they can more easily lever "in-depth knowledge of fine-grained institutional detail that can unlock patterns that otherwise might remain hidden." At the same time, Bob is also quick (and correct) to note that formal legal training is far from a necessary precondition for generating the helpful in-depth knowledge base. Relatedly, even if legal scholars benefit from comparative advantage when it comes to studying legal institutions or doctrines, many law-trained scholars (those without quantitative Ph.D.s) must overcome other traditional comparative disadvantages, typically involving methodology and empirical execution. The essay's final claim also resonates: "empirical legal scholars should be developing new methodologies that are particularly suited to the study of the legal system."
Even if the essay reminds many of what is already well-understood, periodic reminders can be helpful as well.