Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:44:28.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Being Part of the “Home Team”

Perceptions of Professional Interactions with Outsider Attorneys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Todd A. Collins ,
Tao L. Dumas  and
Laura P. Moyer
Todd A. Collins*
Affiliation:
Western Carolina University
Tao L. Dumas
Affiliation:
The College of New Jersey
Laura P. Moyer
Affiliation:
University of Louisville
*
Contact the corresponding author at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding how attorneys’ perceptions of “insider” and “outsider” status affect negotiations is of both theoretical and practical importance for understanding the judicial system. We utilize a comprehensive survey of attorneys from one state to explore views of trustworthiness and negotiations. Overall, as attorneys become more embedded in their in-group, they increasingly report lower trust levels and less effective negotiations with outsiders. These relationships do vary somewhat by the scope and location of the attorney’s practice. Our findings provide insight into one possible causal mechanism underlying the “repeat player” advantage; they also suggest new directions for research on case outcomes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 141 - 171
Copyright
© 2017 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors’ names are listed alphabetically, and each contributed equally to the project. We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions, and we acknowledge support from the Public Policy Institute at Western Carolina University.

References

ABA (American Bar Association). 2014a. A Current Glance at Women in the Law. Chicago: American Bar Association. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/marketing/women/current_glance_statistics_july2014.authcheckdam.pdf.Google Scholar
ABA (American Bar Association). 2014b. Lawyer Demographics. Chicago: American Bar Association. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/market_research/lawyer-demographics-tables-2014.authcheckdam.pdf.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bebchuck, Lucian Arye. 1984. “Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information.” Rand Journal of Economics 15 (3): 404–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, Lisa. 1997. “Employment Arbitration: The Repeat Player Effect.” Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 1 (1): 189–220.Google Scholar
Blumberg, Abraham. 1967. “The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession.” Law and Society Review 1 (2): 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilyn. 1999. “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues 55 (3): 429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, Nancy R., Rachel T. A. Croson, and Sara Solnick. 2008. “Trust and Gender: An Examination of Behavior and Beliefs in the Investment Game.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68 (3): 466–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumiller, Elizabeth. 1980–81. “Choice of Forum in Diversity Cases: Analysis of a Survey and Implications for Reform.” Law and Society Review 15 (3/4): 749–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Todd A., Tao L. Dumas, and Laura P. Moyer. Forthcoming. “Intersecting Disadvantage: Race, Gender, and Age Discrimination among Attorneys.” Social Science Quarterly.Google Scholar
Colvin, Alexander. 2011. “An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croyle, James L. 1983. “Measuring and Explaining Disparities in Felony Sentences: Courtroom Work Group Factors and Race, Sex, and Socioeconomic Influences on Sentencing Severity.” Political Behavior 5 (1): 135–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bo, Pedro. 2005. “Cooperation under the Shadow of the Future: Experimental Evidence from Infinitely Repeated Games.” American Economic Review 95 (5): 1591–1604.Google Scholar
Daniels, Stephen, and Joanne Martin. 2006. “Plaintiffs’ Lawyers, Specialization, and Medical Malpractice.” Vanderbilt Law Review 59 (4): 1051–73.Google Scholar
Dixon, Jo. 1995. “The Organizational Context of Criminal Sentencing.” American Journal of Sociology 100 (5): 1157–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumas, Tao L., Stacia L. Haynie, and Dorothy Daboval. 2015. “Does Size Matter? The Influence of Law Firm Size on Litigant Success Rates.” Justice System Journal 36 (4): 341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustman, Kimberly, and Phil Handwerk. 2010. Analysis of Law School Applicants by Age Group. Newtown, PA: Law School Admissions Council. http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/data-(lsac-resources)-docs/analysis-applicants-by-age-group.pdf.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Theodore, and Charlotte Lanvers. 2009. “What Is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6 (1): 111–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, James, and Herbert Jacob. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Feingold, Alan. 1994. “Gender Differences in Personality: A Meta Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 116 (3): 429–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 2004. “The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trial and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1 (3): 459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilson, Ronald J., and Robert H. Mnookin. 1994. “Disputing through Agents: Cooperation and Conflict between Lawyers in Litigation.” Columbia Law Review 94 (2): 509–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haire, Susan Brodie, Stefanie A. Lindquist, and Roger Hartley. 1999. “Attorney Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decision-Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Law and Society Review 33 (3): 667–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Beth. 1999. “Representing Homeless Families: Repeat Player Implementation Strategies.” Law and Society Review 33 (4): 911–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Catherin T., Ralph Peeples and Thomas B. Metzloff. 2013. “Does Being a Repeat Player Make a Difference? The Impact of Attorney Experience and Case-Picking on the Outcome of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics 8 (2): 252–82.Google Scholar
Haynes, Stacy Hoskins, Barry Ruback, and Gretchen Ruth Cusick. 2010. “Courtroom Workgoups and Sentencing: The Effects of Similarity, Proximity, and Stability.” Crime and Delinquency 56 (1): 126–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L., and Kaitlyn L. Sill. 2007. “Experienced Advocates and Litigation Outcomes: Repeat Players in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 443–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, John P., and Edward O. Laumann. 1982. Chicago Lawyers. Chicago: Sage and American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson, and Ethan Michelson. 1998. “The Changing Character of Lawyers’ Work: Chicago in 1975 and 1995.” Law and Society Review 32 (4): 751–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, John P., Robert L. Nelson, Rebecca L. Sandefur, and Edward O. Laumann. 2005. Urban Lawyers: The New Social Structure of the Bar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hewstone, Miles, Mark Rubin, and Hazel Willis. 2002. “Intergroup Bias.” Annual Review of Psychology 53:575–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, Jason Scott, and Joel Waldfogel. 2002. “Does Repeat Play Elicit Cooperation? Evidence from Federal Civil Litigation.” Journal of Legal Studies 31 (1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 1990. The Justice Broker: Lawyers and Ordinary Litigation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 1991. Let’s Make a Deal: Understanding the Negotiation Process in Ordinary Litigation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2003. “The Government Gorilla: Why Does Government Come Out Ahead in Appellate Courts?” In In Litigation: Do the Have’s Still Come Out Ahead? ed. Herbert M. Kritzer and Susan S. Silbey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2004. Risk, Reputations, and Rewards: Contingency Fee Legal Practice in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2015. Lawyers at Work. New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.Google Scholar
Landon, Donald D. 1982. “Lawyers and Localities: The Interaction of Community Context and Professionalism.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal 7 (2): 459–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landon, Donald D. 1992. “Law Careers and Community Context: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Experience.” Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 2 (1): 67–96.Google Scholar
Macy, Michael W., and John Skvoretz. 1998. “The Evolution of Trust and Cooperation between Strangers: A Computational Model.” American Sociological Review 63 (5): 638–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, Lynn, Craig A. McEwen, and Richard J. Maiman. 2001. Divorce Lawyers at Work: Varieties of Professionalism in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McAtee, Andrea, and Kevin T. McGuire. 2007. “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review 41 (2): 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Neal. 1991. “An Empirical Study of Forum Choices in Removal Cases under Diversity and Federal Question Jurisdiction.” American University Law Review 41 (2): 369–452.Google Scholar
Miller, Richard E., and Austin Sarat. 1980–81. “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture.” Law and Society Review 15 (3/4): 525–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molm, Linda D., Nobuyuki Takahashi, and Gretchen Peterson. 2000. “Risk and Trust in Social Exchange: An Experimental Test of a Classical Proposition.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (5): 1396–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardulli, Peter, James Eisenstein, and Roy Flemming. 1988. The Tenor of Justice: Criminal Courts and the Guilty Plea Process. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
North Carolina State Bar. 2013. “Demographic Survey Report.” http://www.ncbar.gov/gxweb/wp_demographicsreport.aspx.Google Scholar
Roberts, Jenny. 2003. “Too Little, Too Late: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, the Duty to Investigate, and Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 31 (4): 1097–1155.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, and William L. F. Felstiner. 1986. “Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer’s Office.” Law and Society Review 20 (1): 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John, and Martha Humphries Ginn. 2014. “Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research 42 (3): 441–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John, Susan W. Johnson, and Tammy A. Sarver. 2007. “Does the Lawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Law and Society Review 41 (2): 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery T. 1997. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery T., and Brian Johnson. 2004. “Sentencing in Context: A Multilevel Analysis.” Criminology 42 (1): 137–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulmer, Jeffery T., and John H. Kramer. 1996. “Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity.” Criminology 34:383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uslaner, Eric. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar