Inputs and Outputs on Appeal: An Empirical Study of Briefs, Big Law, and Case Complexity

Adam M. Samaha, Michael Heise and Gregory C. Sisk

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2020, vol. 17, issue 3, 519-555

Abstract: The relationship between judicial inputs and outputs remains opaque. Conventional wisdom is plentiful but useful evidence is not. This study examines civil appeals in three federal appellate courts, concentrating on the briefing, the attorneys, and the complexity of the case. We find no evidence that short briefs are more persuasive, while the evidence in favor of long briefs on the appellant's side is provocative. We also find suggestive evidence that the experience of the lead lawyer on the appellee's side matters. However, “Big Law” firms and large teams of lawyers do not seem to perform better on appeal, all else equal. Finally, different kinds of case complexity point in different directions. The presence of a cross‐appeal is associated with judge votes to reverse—but not necessarily in favor of the cross‐appellant. At the same time, complex trial‐level proceedings may be associated with judge votes to affirm.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12263

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:wly:empleg:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:519-555

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().