Just leave the fields blank that you don't want to search
Dr Andrew Hicks
Andrew Hicks
Lecturer and Transforming Programmes Lead
| Biography | Dr Andrew Hicks has taught in the Law School since 1996, primarily in the areas of trusts, legal research and legal skills. Andrew’s research interests focus on trusts, restitution and fiduciary law. His most recent published research examined the role of the constructive trust as a remedy for acquisitive breaches of fiduciary obligation and his earlier work in this area has been cited judicially Currently, Andrew is working on a project which applies cognitive and social psychology concepts to better understand the nature and function of fiduciary obligation and the role and limits of law in the regulation of fiduciaries. |
|---|---|
| Research Interests | Andrew’s research interests are primarily in the areas of trusts, restitution and fiduciary law. Increasingly, Andrew draws upon concepts, theories and experimental research in psychology to understand and offer solutions to legal problems. His current research on ‘Human Nature, Fiduciary Law and Fiduciary Regulation’seeks to evaluate orthodox fiduciary law and theory by utilizing concepts and ideas from cognitive psychology, social psychology and personality psychology (normal rather than abnormal). The research seeks to address three questions. First, are assumptions about human behavior which underpin orthodox accounts of the nature and function of fiduciary doctrine persuasive or useful? The orthodox account of fiduciary doctrine posits that the purpose of the strict obligation of loyalty is to regulate fiduciary opportunism. Yet a rapidly developing body of psychological research on individuals with dark personality traits – the very types of individual who are most prone to opportunism – suggests such individuals do not respond to the legal and extra-legal incentives in the ways that fiduciary doctrine presumes. This suggests a certain undermining of the orthodox position. Second, does fiduciary law have an important role to play in regulating ‘light’ fiduciaries – those with a tendency to exhibit more pro-social, self-transcendent attitudes and dispositions?. The hypothesis is that many aspects of fiduciary law are more coherent and intelligible when considered from the ‘light fiduciary’ perspective rather than from a ‘dark fiduciary’ perspective. This research draws further on the developing body of psychology research on dark and light personality types and behavioral ethics. Third, if human nature is much more complex than is often assumed and fiduciaries are likely to exhibit a complex range and mix of character traits we can expect fiduciaries to respond to different regulatory approaches and to different situations in different ways. Can fiduciary law respond to this challenge by developing a more nuanced, multi-faceted approach to fiduciary regulation and what would such an approach look like? |
| Teaching and Learning | Undergraduate - Introduction to Law and its Study - Law of Trusts - Law of Business Organizations - Dissertation (T1) - Dissertation (T2) |
| Scopus Author ID | 57193174309 |