Do Better Lawyers Win More Often? Measures of Advocate Quality and Their Impact in Singapore's Supreme Court

Abstract

Parties to a dispute that goes to court typically seek to retain the best lawyer they can afford. But do the ‘best’ lawyers get better results? This article surveys the literature across various jurisdictions before introducing a recent study of determinants of litigation outcomes in Singapore. The focus is on whether there is a correlation between various measures of lawyer quality (size of law firm, professional status, years of experience, etc) and actual success in court. Consistent with past studies, larger and better-resourced law firms tend to do better on average – though Singapore is unusual in that the Government Legal Service functions like the largest and best-resourced law firm. Individual lawyers, however, yield unusual results, with more experienced lawyers sometimes having a lower success rate in court – perhaps due to them taking on more complex cases. The study also shows that women are significantly underrepresented as lead counsel in Singapore, but on average may outperform men.

Leveled odds? Attorney capability, team litigation, and outcomes in administrative patent cases

“…Applying these considerations to the context of adversarial administrative hearings, we expect to find that legal teams that are more experienced (e.g., McGuire, 1995), larger (e.g., Chesterman, 2020), and that come from more highly ranked firms (e.g., Hyman et al, 2016) are likely to win more frequently than their less experienced, smaller, and less prestigious colleagues. As we have said, one of our goals is to determine whether the theoretical considerations frequently discussed in reference to attorney capability extend beyond the individual to teams of litigators.…”

“…They conclude that the presence of prominent litigators from what they term the “obscenity bar” represents a strong proxy for both a particular case's importance as well as the seriousness of those requesting the Court's attention (McGuire & Caldeira, 1993, p. 719). Although the Court's discretion over its docket is unique—and other factors also serve as important heuristics in filling out that docket (e.g., Pacelle, 2003)—the notion that a litigator's identity may communicate a client's commitment to or investment in the litigation's success has been validated in both international contexts (e.g., Chesterman, 2020) and in the context of other federal courts (Haire et al, 1999, p. 672).…”

“…Another potential cue—litigation team size—has emerged as a signal or proxy for the resources that a client is prepared to invest in litigation (e.g., Chesterman, 2020). Multiple studies have found that a litigation team's size is associated with an enhanced probability of success before non‐US high courts (e.g., Chesterman, 2020; Szmer et al, 2007).…”

“…Another potential cue—litigation team size—has emerged as a signal or proxy for the resources that a client is prepared to invest in litigation (e.g., Chesterman, 2020). Multiple studies have found that a litigation team's size is associated with an enhanced probability of success before non‐US high courts (e.g., Chesterman, 2020; Szmer et al, 2007). In effect, the larger a litigation team's size, the stronger the signal of seriousness or commitment to the litigation's success that gets transmitted to those tasked with deciding the cases.…”

“…In effect, the larger a litigation team's size, the stronger the signal of seriousness or commitment to the litigation's success that gets transmitted to those tasked with deciding the cases. Chesterman (2020), for example, finds that larger and better‐resourced firms tend to do better in the Singapore Supreme Court than their smaller and less‐elite counterparts. However, his study finds no evidence that litigation experience or relational expertise impacts case outcomes in anticipated ways.…”