because we were able more easily to discount explanations based on differences in the strength of nontransferred and transferred cases. That is, the win rate declines largely because the plaintiff has lost a forum advantage. a plaintiffs odds would drop after transfer of venue from 50%to 40%, after controlling for all available variables. Neither the court system nor the applicable law changes after transfer, so we must be seeing only the effects of a strongly shifted balance of inconveniences and a shift of local biases. Still, such a big effect of transfer in reducing the win rate is not surprising Transferred cases comprise those cases where the forum advantage would be the greatest. After all the plaintiff tried to forum-shop, the defendant chose to fight back, and the court in granting transfer decided that the forum really mattered. The transferred plaintiffs all lost a big forum advantage and thus litigated less successfully in the unfavorable forum, so the win rate dropped A normative lesson emerges here too. Given the nature of transfer, the transferee forum is usually a more just forum giving a more accurate outcome. Under the governing statute's terms transfer undoes the plaintiffs forum advantage only when the " interest of justice"so counsels, and therefore undoes the plaintiffs opportunity to gain an unjust victory in litigation(or to achieve an unjust settlement--our research showed the effect of transfer seen in judgments carries over to influence all nonjudgment settlements and other resolutions). Transfer works to neutralize any lopsided cost advantage, and thereby to equalize the effectiveness of the two sides'litigation expenditures, so the outcome should also be more accurate in the transferee court. Note that transfer does not shift the choice of forum from plaintiff to defendant, but instead from plaintiff to judge Moreover, the judge decides to transfer only in rather extreme cases of forum-shopping, normally respecting the presumption in favor of the plaintiffs selected forum. In short, the transferee forum should generally be a better forum affording a better outcome Therefore, the transfer study shows that forum matters, in terms of both outcome and justice. Accordingly, plaintiffs frequently choose the initial forum to obtain an advantage--if only to sue at home,as they os. So some plaintiffs still are managing to forum-shop their way to unjust victories they often do Transfer offsets the advantage, but transfer occurs in only 1% to 2% of federal civil cases a role consequently remains for a robust federal law of territorial authority to adjudicate, one that ensures the plaintiff is choosing initially from a limited list of fair forums In summary, study of removal and transfer suggests a consistent forum effect, whereby the plaintiffs'loss of forum advantage by removal or transfer reduces their chance of winning by about one-fifth. I do not maintain that this insight from empirical research is surprising, because in the main it confirms what most lawyers already knew. The name of the game indeed is forum-shopping, and so all those lawyers out there are in fact not wasting their clients money on forum fight Choice of forum can mean joyous victory or depressing defeat. A wrong selection and C. Removal, supra note 24, at 603 n 67(showing reduction to 38% for diversity cases alone) 29This empirical result is working its way into further research. For example, an article of the doctrinal variety, n which the author attempted to rationalize the prevailing forum-selection doc trines that permit all this forum-shopping builds on the established premise of a sizable forum effect. Antony L. Ryan, Principles of Forum Selection, 103W.VA L REv. 167, 168, 200(2000). Another researcher undertook the first large-scale empirical analysis of patent enforcement in the federal district courts. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice affect Innovation?, 79N. C L REv. 889, 901 n50, 920 n 99(2001). She concluded that a wide choice of forum exists in patent outcome of patent litigation. Forum shopping is alive and well in patent litigation. "Id at 93/ y a critical role in the litigation, that the parties actively work to select the forum, and that the forum continues to play7 28Cf. Removal, supra note 24, at 603 n.67 (showing reduction to 38% for diversity cases alone). 29This empirical result is working its way into further research. For example, an article of the doctrinal variety, in which the author attempted to rationalize the prevailing forum-selection doctrines that permit all this forum-shopping, builds on the established premise of a sizable forum effect. Antony L. Ryan, Principles of Forum Selection, 103 W. VA. L.REV. 167, 168, 200 (2000). Another researcher undertook the first large-scale empirical analysis of patent enforcement in the federal district courts. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C.L. REV. 889, 901 n.50, 920 n.99 (2001). She concluded that a wide choice of forum exists in patent litigation, that the parties actively work to select the forum, and that the forum continues to play a critical role in the outcome of patent litigation. “Forum shopping is alive and well in patent litigation.” Id. at 937. because we were able more easily to discount explanations based on differences in the strength of nontransferred and transferred cases. That is, the win rate declines largely because the plaintiff has lost a forum advantage. A plaintiff’s odds would drop after transfer of venue from 50% to 40%, after controlling for all available variables.28 Neither the court system nor the applicable law changes after transfer, so we must be seeing only the effects of a strongly shifted balance of inconveniences and a shift of local biases. Still, such a big effect of transfer in reducing the win rate is not surprising. Transferred cases comprise those cases where the forum advantage would be the greatest. After all, the plaintiff tried to forum-shop, the defendant chose to fight back, and the court in granting transfer decided that the forum really mattered. The transferred plaintiffs all lost a big forum advantage and thus litigated less successfully in the unfavorable forum, so the win rate dropped. A normative lesson emerges here too. Given the nature of transfer, the transferee forum is usually a more just forum giving a more accurate outcome. Under the governing statute’s terms, transfer undoes the plaintiff’s forum advantage only when the “interest of justice” so counsels, and therefore undoes the plaintiff’s opportunity to gain an unjust victory in litigation (or to achieve an unjust settlement—our research showed the effect of transfer seen in judgments carries over to influence all nonjudgment settlements and other resolutions). Transfer works to neutralize any lopsided cost advantage, and thereby to equalize the effectiveness of the two sides’ litigation expenditures, so the outcome should also be more accurate in the transferee court. Note that transfer does not shift the choice of forum from plaintiff to defendant, but instead from plaintiff to judge. Moreover, the judge decides to transfer only in rather extreme cases of forum-shopping, normally respecting the presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s selected forum. In short, the transferee forum should generally be a better forum affording a better outcome. Therefore, the transfer study shows that forum matters, in terms of both outcome and justice. Accordingly, plaintiffs frequently choose the initial forum to obtain an advantage—if only to sue at home, as they often do. Transfer offsets the advantage, but transfer occurs in only 1% to 2% of federal civil cases. So some plaintiffs still are managing to forum-shop their way to unjust victories. A role consequently remains for a robust federal law of territorial authority to adjudicate, one that ensures the plaintiff is choosing initially from a limited list of fair forums. In summary, study of removal and transfer suggests a consistent forum effect, whereby the plaintiffs’ loss of forum advantage by removal or transfer reduces their chance of winning by about one-fifth.29 I do not maintain that this insight from empirical research is surprising, because in the main it confirms what most lawyers already knew. The name of the game indeed is forum-shopping, and so all those lawyers out there are in fact not wasting their clients’ money on forum fights: Choice of forumcan mean joyous victory or depressing defeat. A wrong selection and