Study Finds Male Lawyers More Overconfident

[Elmore Furth]

Who would have guessed that the male ego would have overinflated it's likelihood of success?

Male lawyers have a bigger problem with overconfidence than their female counterparts, a new study found... overestimate their chances of success when predicting the outcomes of civil or criminal cases...

Excessive optimism can lead clients to litigation instead of settling, according to the researchers. The study surveyed 481 U.S. lawyers who represented plaintiffs and defendants in criminal and civil cases expected to go to trial in six to 12 months. They were asked what they'd consider a win situation at the minimum. They then rated their confidence of achieving that goal on a scale from zero to 100 percent.

In follow-up interviews, researchers found that attorneys with confidence levels above 65 percent were less likely to meet their stated goals than colleagues with less confidence. Those with confidence levels of 86 to 100 percent actually achieved their aims only 70 percent of the time.

The ability to more accurately predict case results does not improve with experience, the study also found.


Study Finds Male Lawyers More Overconfident

[Donnachaidh]

1. that's a *no DUH* article

I've yet to meet a male lawyer who hasn't been infected by the blowhard virus - one of the main symptoms being a love of hearing their own voices for hours on end....

[madmax]

3. Reminds me of a line

from 'The Client'. ...lawyers who just looovvvvve to hear themselves speak.'

[hughee99]

5. Male lawyers, like

Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, and Harry Reid? And, of course, our current president.

[avaistheone1]

6. Is Obama a male lawyer?

:hide:

[hughee99]

7. I believe he fits the criteria being both a male and a lawyer. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

8. Bill Clinton and John Edwards -- birds of a feather - hell yes.

They have the other problem - leading with their little head....

[avaistheone1]

2. Mark Geragos comes to mind.

Did he fall off the earth? Haven't seen him on the cover of the funny pages lately.

[madmax]

4. He's not as bad as some...

let me think. Who's worse than Geragos? ok, you win LOL

edit: typo

[happyslug]

9. Notice this is for cases "Expected to go to trial".

Note that the study was restricted to the following:

criminal and civil cases expected to go to trial in six to 12 months

The vast majority of cases are RESOLVED before litigation even starts (and when started is settled relatively quickly). Thus this sample is for cases where both sides have refused to make a deal (something like 90% of the cases are selected BEFORE any actual filing in the court do to both sides making a deal). In many cases the client is the one refusing to deal so the attorney tells the client what to expect and hopes for the best and like most people starts to internalized what the client is hoping for.

This is like the study that found that in 60% of the cases involving Custody that goes to trial, the fathers won, while ignoring the fact that 90% of the cases NEVER go to trial (And the Mother get the Children in almost all of those cases). Yes, more time then not the Father win a Custody case, but such cases only occur when the Father believes the Children are better off with him then the Mother (and in 40% of such cases, the Mother still prevails). In something like 90% of the cases, the father concede that the Children are better off with the Mother and what is being litigated in Visitation (and the law is quite clear on visitation, it is an absolute right of a non-custodial parent unless it cases "Great harm" to the children, a situation that is almost impossible to prove and few mothers claim when it comes to visitation).

I bring up Custody and Visitation law to show how studies can be manipulated to show results that do NOT reflect the real world by being careful of the input data (the famous Computer term, GIGO, Garbage in, Garbage out). The same thing appears to be happening here, the data excludes any case that is settled or about to be settled, and instead relies on a database of questionable value (i.e. those cases expected to go to court). Instead of including those attorneys who work out a deal (And in most cases do to having a realistic outlook at how the litigation will come out) it excludes such lawyers, Thus the group is made up of those lawyers with the least likely understanding of the law and facts of the case. Worse, as the attorney ages he gets a better feel for how a case will turn out and will stop being an attorney who takes a case to trial, and become one that makes a deal (Do to increase understanding of how the court will handled the facts and the law on the case). In affect this study may just be showing the difference between lawyers without much experience and lawyers with a lot of experience.

As to the difference between males and female attorney, this could be the result that until recently males out numbered females in all Law Schools (This has changed) and as such we just have more males then female attorneys especially among the younger attorneys. With age one tends to be dropped from this study do to the affect of experience i.e. the older you are the better feel you have for the law and how the facts affect any legal outcome. Thus most litigation is among younger attorneys. In my opinion younger female attorneys are more willing to accept the advice of an older attorney then young male attorneys. Thus women tend to have more data to judge a case on (i.e. not only her own experience, but other attorneys she discuss the case with). Thus the difference may be just this willingness to listen to older more experience lawyers then anything else.