Abstract
The selection hypothesis, known for its conclusion that plaintiffs win 50 percent of trials, posits that (i) trials are disproportionately selected from disputes close to the decision standard (the selection effect), (ii) the range of disputes that go to trial decreases in the precision of attorney estimates of defendant fault, and (iii) attorney estimates are essentially perfect. This article uses experimental methods to examine implications of the selection hypothesis. The results provide support for a selection effect, but there is no evidence of a relation between trial disputes and estimation precision. Instead, the difference between the two sides' estimates as well as the closeness of the dispute are the most significant determinants of dispute disposition. These results suggest that if attorneys estimate fault imperfectly, trials occur when attorneys draw extreme values from the distributions of their estimates. If systematic biases exist, then plaintiff win rates vary with the dispute type.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call