IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-667711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Zev J. Eigen
  • Yair Listokin

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Zev J. Eigen & Yair Listokin, 2012. "Do Lawyers Really Believe Their Own Hype, and Should They? A Natural Experiment," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 239-267.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/667711
    DOI: 10.1086/667711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667711
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667711
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/667711?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    2. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    3. Koellinger, Philipp & Minniti, Maria & Schade, Christian, 2007. ""I think I can, I think I can": Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 502-527, August.
    4. Loewenstein, George & Issacharoff, Samuel & Camerer, Colin & Babcock, Linda, 1993. "Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(1), pages 135-159, January.
    5. Allen, Douglas W & Lueck, Dean, 1995. "Risk Preferences and the Economics of Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 447-451, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia M. Landeo, 2018. "Law and economics and tort litigation institutions: theory and experiments," Chapters, in: Joshua C. Teitelbaum & Kathryn Zeiler (ed.), Research Handbook on Behavioral Law and Economics, chapter 9, pages 247-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Doron Teichman & Eyal Zamir & Ilana Ritov, 2023. "Biases in legal decision‐making: Comparing prosecutors, defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 852-894, December.
    3. Mehmood, Sultan & Naseer, Shaheen & Chen, Daniel L., 2024. "Altruism in governance: Insights from randomized training for Pakistan's junior ministers," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. Fernandez, Marcelo Ariel & Mayskaya, Tatiana & Nikandrova, Arina, 2024. "Imposing commitment to rein in overconfidence in learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 29-48.
    5. Earnhart, Dietrich & Rousseau, Sandra, 2019. "Are lawyers worth the cost? Legal counsel in environmental criminal court cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Judicial Decision-Making. A Survey of the Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    7. Holger Spamann, 2016. "Can Simple Mechanism Design Results be Used to Implement the Proportionality Standard in Discovery?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(1), pages 227-231, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu Sun & Yun Wang, 2019. "Do On-lookers See Most of the Game? Evaluating Job-seekers' Competitiveness of Oneself versus of Others in a Labor Market Experiment," Working Papers 2019-07-11, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University.
    2. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Daniel Agness & Travis Baseler & Sylvain Chassang & Pascaline Dupas & Erik Snowberg, 2022. "Valuing the Time of the Self-Employed," Working Papers 2022-2, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    4. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    5. Christian Seidl, 2002. "The over-generous boon: Tax splitting in Germany," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 241-260, December.
    6. Wulf Gaertner & Richard Bradley & Yongsheng Xu & Lars Schwettmann, 2019. "Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    8. Verheul, Ingrid & Thurik, Roy & Grilo, Isabel & van der Zwan, Peter, 2012. "Explaining preferences and actual involvement in self-employment: Gender and the entrepreneurial personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 325-341.
    9. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2010. "Fairness Ex Ante & Ex Post – An Experimental Test of the German “Bestseller Paragraph”," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_29, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Nov 2010.
    10. Hernán Bejarano & Brice Corgnet & Joaquín Gómez-Miñambres, 2019. "Labor Contracts, Gift-Exchange and Reference Wages: Your Gift Need Not Be Mine!," Working Papers 19-26, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    11. Guy Mayraz, 2011. "Wishful Thinking," CEP Discussion Papers dp1092, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    12. Rebitzer, James B. & Taylor, Lowell J., 2011. "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motives: Standard and Behavioral Approaches to Agency and Labor Markets," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 8, pages 701-772, Elsevier.
    13. Maitra, Pushkar & Mani, Subha, 2017. "Learning and earning: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in India," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 116-130.
    14. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    15. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2003. "Lorenz, Pareto, Pigou: Who Scores Best? Experimental Evidence on Dominance Relations of Income Distributions," Economics Working Papers 2003-04, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    16. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Smriti Sharma & Saurabh Singhal, 2017. "Cognitive, socioemotional, and behavioural returns to college quality," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-94, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Heinicke, Franziska & König-Kersting, Christian & Schmidt, Robert, 2022. "Injunctive vs. descriptive social norms and reference group dependence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 199-218.
    18. Thomas Buser & Leonie Gerhards & Joël J. van der Weele, 2016. "Measuring Responsiveness to Feedback as a Personal Trait," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-043/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Sund, Oda Kristine Storstad, 2023. "Unleveling the Playing Field? Experimental Evidence on Parents’ Willingness to Give Their Child an Advantage," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 21/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    20. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/667711. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.