forum-shopping. Few cases reach trial in the U.S. civil litigation system today, after perhaps some initial skirmishing, most cases settle. Yet all cases entail forum selection, be it selection of local venue, interstate shopping, state/federal selection, or international shopping. First, consider the individual case. The plaintiff s opening moves include shopping for the most favorable forum. Then, the defendants parries and thrusts might include some forum-shopping in return, possibly by a motion for transfer of venue. forum is worth fighting over because outcome often turns on forum as i shall document below When the dust settles. the case does too but on terms that reflect the results of the skirmishing. Thus, the fight over forum can be the critical dispute in the case. Second cumulate these tendencies systemically. Forum selection is very important not only to the litigator, but also to the office lawyer who is drafting contracts with an eye toward possible future litigation Itire treatises devoted to the subje ce in litigation frequently dispute forum. Courts deal with nearly as many transfer-of-venue motions as trials Forum selection is a critical concern of the legal system as a whole Accordingly, the U.s. Supreme Courts decisions exhibit the same emphases: jurisdiction comes first in importance, and then recognition and enforcement ofjudgments follow in an orderly fashion, with choice of law entering the Courts mind only as an afterthought. This pattern prompted Linda Silbermans oft-quoted quip ridiculing the Court 's obsessive concern with jurisdictional limits in contrast to its neglect of critical questions such as limits on choice oflaw: she said that the Courts focus reflects a belief "that an accused is more concerned with where he will be hanged than whether International experience is not very different from our internal experience. The history of procedural treaty-making in pre-Community Europe had shown an emphasis on jurisdiction, judgments, and judicial cooperation, rather than on any general harmonization of choice of law or civil procedure. Moreover, in the recent attempts to forge a multilateral judgments convention at The Hague, the intense disputes between Europe and the United States focused almost entirely on Kevin M. Clermont Theodore Eisenberg, Exorcising the Evil of Forum-Shopping, 80 CORNELL L.REV 1507, 1508(1995)[hereinafter Forum-Shopping]. Compare J Skelley Wright, The Federal Courts and the Nature and Quality of State Law, 13 WAYNE L REv. 317, 333(1967)(deploring that forum-shopping has become"a national legal pastime"), with Friedrich K. Juenger, Forum Shopping, Domestic and International, 63 TUL. L. REv. 553(1989) (stressing benefits of forum-shopping), and Mary Garvey Algero, In Defense of Forum Shopping: A Realistic Look at Selecting a Venue, 78 NEB. L REv. 79(1999) See David w. Robertson Paula K. Speck, Access Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases. Forum Non Conveniens and Antisuit Injunctions, 68 TEX L. REy 938(1990)(The battle over where the litigation occurs is typically the hardest fought and most important issue in a transnational case I ROBERT CCASAD, JURISDICTION AND FOR UM SELECTION(2ded. 1999); ANDREW S BELL, FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN TRANSNA TION AL LITIGATION(2003) See Forum-Shopping, supra note 16, at 1509& n3 2 Linda J Silberman, Shaffer v. Heitner: The End of an Era, 53 N.Y. U L. REV. 33, 88(1978) 2ISee SamUEL P. BAUMGARtNER. THE PROPOSED HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND FoREIGN JUDGMENTS 47-67(2003)4 16Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Exorcising the Evil of Forum-Shopping, 80 COR NELL L. REV. 1507, 1508 (1995) [hereinafter Forum-Shopping]. Compare J. Skelley Wright, The Federal Courts and the Nature and Quality of State Law, 13 WAYNE L. REV. 317, 333 (1967) (deploring that forum-shopping has become “a national legal pastime”), with Friedrich K. Juenger, Forum Shopping, Domestic and International, 63 TUL. L. REV. 553 (1989) (stressing benefits of forum-shopping), and Mary Garvey Algero, In Defense of Forum Shopping: A Realistic Look at Selecting a Venue, 78 NEB. L. REV. 79 (1999). 17See David W. Robertson & Paula K. Speck, Access to State Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases: Forum Non Conveniens and Antisuit Injunctions, 68 TEX. L. REV. 937, 938 (1990) (“The battle over where the litigation occurs is typically the hardest fought and most important issue in a transnational case . . . .”). 18ROBERT C. CASAD,JURISDICTION AND FORUM SELECTION (2d ed. 1999); ANDREW S. BELL, FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN TRANSNATION AL LITIGATION (2003). 19See Forum-Shopping, supra note 16, at 1509 & n.3. 20Linda J. Silberman, Shaffer v. Heitner: The End of an Era, 53 N.Y.U. L. REV. 33, 88 (1978). 21See SAM UEL P. BAUMGARTNER, THE PROPOSED HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND FOREIGN JUDGM ENTS 47-67 (2003). forum-shopping.”16 Few cases reach trial in the U.S. civil litigation system today; after perhaps some initial skirmishing, most cases settle. Yet all cases entail forum selection, be it selection of local venue, interstate shopping, state/federal selection, or international shopping. First, consider the individual case. The plaintiff’s opening moves include shopping for the most favorable forum. Then, the defendant’s parries and thrusts might include some forum-shopping in return, possibly by a motion for transfer of venue. Forum is worth fighting over because outcome often turns on forum, as I shall document below. When the dust settles, the case does too—but on terms that reflect the results of the skirmishing. Thus, the fight over forum can be the critical dispute in the case.17 Second, cumulate these tendencies systemically. Forum selection is very important not only to the litigator, but also to the office lawyer who is drafting contracts with an eye toward possible future litigation. Not surprising, then, there exist entire treatises devoted to the subject.18 Once in litigation, the parties frequently dispute forum. Courts deal with nearly as many transfer-of-venue motions as trials.19 Forum selection is a critical concern of the legal system as a whole. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions exhibit the same emphases: jurisdiction comes first in importance, and then recognition and enforcement of judgments follow in an orderly fashion, with choice of law entering the Court’s mind only as an afterthought. This pattern prompted Linda Silberman’s oft-quoted quip ridiculing theCourt’s obsessive concernwith jurisdictional limits, in contrast to its neglect of critical questions such as limits on choice of law: she said that the Court’s focus reflects a belief “that an accused is more concerned with where he will be hanged than whether.”20 International experience is not very different from our internal experience. The history of procedural treaty-making in pre-Community Europe had shown an emphasis on jurisdiction, judgments, and judicial cooperation, rather than on any general harmonization of choice of law or civil procedure.21 Moreover, in the recent attempts to forge a multilateral judgments convention at The Hague, the intense disputes between Europe and the United States focused almost entirely on