What Judges Think of Lawyers – From Judge Posner

Back in 2008, Judge Richard A. Posner and Professor Albert H. Yoon sent out a survey to a number of judges seeking to determine how lawyers are perceived by the judiciary. Recently, they published their findings in the Stanford Law Review. The abstract:

Studying the legal profession poses several challenges. The evolution of law has moved lawyers away from a generalist practice towards increased specialization.This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to compare lawyers across different practice areas meaningfully and to provide a comprehensive assessment of the legal profession. Judges are well situated to provide such an evaluation, given their experience and scope of cases. This article reports the responses of federal and state judges to a survey we conducted in 2008. The questions relate to their perceptions of the quality of legal representation, generally and in criminal and civil cases; how the quality of legal representation influences how they and juries decide cases; and their recommendations for change in the profession. We find that judges perceive significant disparities in the quality of legal representation,both within and across areas of the law. In many instances, the underlying causes of these disparities can be traced to the resources of the litigants. The judges’ responses also suggest that they respond differently from juries to these disparities,and that the effect of these disparities on juries may be more pronounced in civil than in criminal cases.

The article is wide-ranging and covers a variety of topics. Here are a few highlights:

While judges seem to think that the lawyers before them are fair-to-good, they also don’t seem to think they are getting any better. State trial judges seem to think they are actually getting worse. Not a good trend for lawyers.

As the article notes, it’s also rather unsurprising that Appellate judges rank writing so highly as that is where the most of their interaction with lawyers lie. (Like I noted last week, writing is the primary form of communication for a lawyer. Work on it.)

Worth noting, if you stink as a lawyer, apparently most judges have your back. Over 50% of judges at every level “reported that they conduct additional legal research, presumably to correct for the disparity.” Maybe, that’s the reason they think lawyers are only fair or failing. Do your work people.

And, surprise surprise, juries favor the “stronger” lawyer. Confidence, swagger, etc. – if you don’t have any, get some.

I don’t think it can be emphasized enough, you have to manage a client’s expectations.  Judges across the board agreed that the reason litigants failed to settle/mediate/etc (cheaper, faster) can be attributed to “one of the litigants having an unrealistic assessment of his likely success at trial.” From the Consulting Academy:

“In the figure above, the red line represents your client’s expectations, the black line a measure of the value you’re providing and the green line your client’s perception of that value.”

Somewhere in the process, when litigants go to trial, they’ve fallen into the trap above. They have a high expected value, but the deliverable value is actually much reduced. This is especially true in a case that proceeds to trial where it is likely an all or nothing endeavor.

———

It’s a long read, but the article has lots of good information in it. I don’t have time to go into it here, but the differing views between civil and criminal attorneys by judges is quite interesting, as is the judges thoughts on what needs to change in improve the quality of lawyers. Hint: they think law schools stink at making lawyers as well…Okay, here are a couple choice bits:

  • “[c]learly, more emphasis should be placed on legal writing in law school.”
  • “There are many third,fourth, and even fifth tier law schools that are pumping out graduates who are unprepared and have difficulty finding jobs.”
  • “The legal ‘profession’ is a business (at least since advertising was allowed) and is no longer a profession.”

You can get the whole thing here.

Posner, Richard A. and Yoon, Albert, What Judges Think of the Quality of Legal Representation (August 30, 2010). Stanford Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1668783

Sign up for free updates
No Spam Ever

Tags: , , , ,

2 comments
harry
harry

I am reminded of a survey taken by the ABA in the mid-1970's when concern for the then falling public opinion of lawyers was very evident. The survey not only asked what members of the public thought of lawyers, but then went on to ask what members of the public thought of their lawyer. The AMA followed this same model a few years later. (They like their lawyer, but not lawyer, but not lawyers in general.) When the public was asked about their own lawyer they had a much higher opinion than the general opinion. Indeed, it is fair to speculate that judges too would have a different opinion if asked about a particular group of lawyers in a particular case instead of the broad generalities the inquiry appears to cover. And for state judges, many took the bench because they were not very gifted at practicing law. So for state judges, it is like asking the piano player in the bawdy house what he thinks of the girls. It also appears to perpetuate the myth that the 'best law school' produce the 'best lawyers'. There is no evidence of this. The best law schools merely open the best doors. Time and again lawyers from large firms with stellar backgrounds are taken down by lawyers from low ranked law schools. When is the profession going to face the fact that its snobbery is misplaced from the LSAT score and GPA of undergrads to the bunk science of the ratings in US News and World Reports? Can't we, a profession that holds itself out as critical thinkers and people capable of using language as precisely as language permits finally tell the truth: the profession from the 1L year to emeritus status is rift with snobbery and foolish bias. The survey does not appear to meet the very basic requirements of a public opinion survey as taught in a lowly statistics course at a community college (to put it in the snob world's view). What is being passed off as science by use of statistics is only as good as the questions asked. And it appears those questions called upon people to vent their bias and unsubstantiated beliefs. Judges are no better at taking a survey about lawyers than lawyers are at taking a survey about judges. And we all know what judges think of bar polls. People with the intellectual credentials of these authors should not be given a pass here. This is junk science from the bully pulpit.

Atticus
Atticus

I don't see how what judges think of lawyers is in any way important. In general they have a low opinion of lawyers, like everyone else. They may say, manage your clients expectations, and so on, but since most of them have never practiced law, tried a case or had any real individual clients they really don't know what they are talking about. A far more important question is: what do lawyers think of judges? But that kind of survey might open a Pandora's box.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] I noted on Monday’s post on Judge Posner’s research, judges believe that juries favor the more confident lawyer. Here is some more research backing [...]

  2. [...] a commenter to my post on the topic shared this two days ago: The survey does not appear to meet the very basic requirements of a public opinion survey as [...]

New Here? Like What You See? Follow Me on Twitter
More in Legal News
Drive-Thru Law Firm

Just in case you don't read ATL, at least go check out this post: The Inevitable Future of the Legal Profession:...

Close