Master of Arts, University of Toledo, 2007, Political Science

For years scholars have asserted that attorneys with more extensive expertise (either overall or in relation to opposing counsel) achieve a higher rate of success for their clients. However, there has been little direct investigation of how differing institutional features among courts might influence the impact of attorney expertise. This paper theorizes that the impact of attorney expertise on judicial decision-making is minimized in institutional contexts where a judge has significant access to neutral information (such as research provided by law clerks) in addition to the partisan information provided by counsel. A more complex method than those previously employed to measure attorney expertise is developed which incorporates information about an attorney's litigation experience, years of practice, relevant clerkships, subject-area specialization, Martindale-Hubbell rating, and law school achievements. The resulting index of attorney expertise is employed to compare attorneys' winning percentages in products liability cases in the federal district and circuit courts between 1995 and 2006. The results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference in the success rate of attorneys based on their expertise in the federal appellate courts where judges have relatively lower caseloads and more staff assistance than district court judges. However, in the district courts—where judges have less time and resources to obtain independent, neutral information—the winning percentage of attorneys with greater overall expertise than opposing counsel exceeds the baseline success rate to a statistically significant degree.

Committee: Sam Nelson (Advisor) Subjects: Political Science, General