Litigants and the Judicial Hierarchy

• In Event: Formal Theory and the Judicial System

Abstract

What role do litigants play in the resolution of legal disputes? One view is that they signal to judges their private information about whether their case has merit. Another view is that they acquire information (through, for example, discovery) that helps judges make decisions. Either way, litigants are typically viewed as important for helping judges and courts make more informed decisions. However, there are overlooked downsides of litigant-driven appeals. Using a formal model, I show how the appeals process can (1) cause unbiased ("legalist") judges to purposefully generate worse outcomes, and (2) induce wrongfully losing litigants to accept incorrect judgments against them. Paradoxically, these problems will be more common when litigants are relatively good at mounting strong appeals, thus undercutting the widely acknowledged benefits of advocacy. The model therefore provides a rationale for certain institutional limitations on appeals, such as the final judgment rule.

Author

• Ryan Hubert, University of California, Davis