Fellows
Philip Petrov
Wachtell Fellow in Behavioral Law and Economics, InstructorBiography
Philip Petrov's research interests include democratic backsliding, tort law, legal cognition and behavior, and legal philosophy. His current research studies how the US legal community can more effectively promote the institutional correlates of liberal democracy, as well as how it can counter authoritarian regimes' efforts to re-define democracy for illiberal ends.
Philip's work has been published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Political Psychology (co-authored), Political Research Quarterly, and Social Science Information (co-authored).
Earlier in his career, Philip practiced law for several years as a litigation associate in New York.
He holds a PhD in political science from Stanford University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA from Columbia University. At Stanford, he was an Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellow.
Education
Stanford University, Stanford, CA
PhD, political science, 2023
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA
JD, 2013
Columbia University, New York, NY
BA, political science, 2009
Legal Experience
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, New York, NY
Litigation Associate, 2016 – 2017
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York, NY
Litigation Associate, 2013 – 2016
Campaign for Educational Equity, New York, NY
Legal Analyst, Summer 2011
Works in Progress
- Authoritarian Conceptions of Democracy (proposing methods by which the U.S. legal community can challenge efforts by non-democratic governments to promote authoritarian re-definitions of democracy)
- Protecting Judicial Independence From Political Overreach (proposing methods by which the U.S. legal community can more effectively communicate with the public about the value of judicial independence for decreasing the probability of democratic backsliding)
- The Justice-Efficiency Debate in Tort (arguing that dual-process theory in psychology partly explains the character and persistence of tort law’s ongoing justice-efficiency debate)
- Moral Conflict and Institutional Design (arguing that health officials in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany have adopted unique institutional designs that enable them to prioritize cost-effective medical treatments while acknowledging the moral values of rescue and non-abandonment)
- The Moral-Conventional Distinction (defending an updated explanatory account of the distinction between moral and conventional rules)