Do Lawyers Really Believe Their Own Hype, and Should They? A Natural Experiment

Zev J. Eigen and Yair Listokin

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2012, vol. 41, issue 2, 239 - 267

Abstract: Research suggests that attorneys are too confident in the merits of their clients' cases. But attorneys often self-select (1) the area of law in which they practice, (2) the side on which to practice within that area, (3) law firms with whom they practice, and (4) the clients they represent. We exploit a natural experiment involving participants in moot court competitions at four U.S. law schools over 2 years to explore whether, after stripping away these selection biases through random assignment to the role of petitioner or respondent, legal advocates are still overconfident in their clients' claims. We find that, following participation in moot court contests, students overwhelmingly perceive that the legal merits favor the side that they were randomly assigned to represent. We also find that overconfidence is associated with poorer performance in advocacy as measured by legal writing instructors.

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667711 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667711 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/667711

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().