Philip Petrov

Philip Petrov

Wachtell Fellow in Behavioral Law and Economics, Instructor

Philip Petrov’s research interests include tort law, criminal law, election law, and law and psychology. His current research studies moral cognition and behavior in tort law, as well as authoritarian regimes’ efforts to undermine liberal-democratic institutions.

Philip's work has been published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence; the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies; Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy; Political Psychology; Political Research Quarterly; and Social Science Information.

Earlier in his career, Philip practiced law for several years as an 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

  • 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)