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

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.