A growing number of large-scale, systematic replication attempts in the social sciences are failing to support the claims in the original study. These surprising results have inspired a body of metascientific research aimed at understanding these failures to replicate and ensuring future research is credible. In this article, we relate these new insights from metascience to the field of law and psychology. Specifically, a recent effort to replicate three landmark law and psychology studies published in law journals found results that diverged from the originals. The replicators suggested their results were caused by the changing social context, without explicitly considering whether the original effects were overstated or false positives. We explore that alternative explanation, both generally, and in the context of the three replication efforts. Through meta-analysis of the replication data, convincing support for one effect, but less clear support for the other two. Consistent with the broader literature, all effects seem smaller than initially reported. A lack of transparency and openness made conducting the re-analysis difficult and necessitated significant aid from the replicating researchers.