Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:18:12.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Lawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

John Szmer ,
Susan W. Johnson  and
Tammy A. Sarver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the impact of lawyer capability on the decisionmaking of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Extending prior attorney capability studies of U.S. judicial decisionmaking, we test three lawyer variables: prior litigation experience, litigation team size, and Queen's Counsel designation. We find that the first two variables have a statistically significant and positive relationship with the SCC's decisions in non-reference-question cases from 1988 to 2000. Moreover, this relationship persists even after controlling for party capability, issue area, and judicial policy preferences.

Type
Convincing the Court: Two Studies of Advocacy
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 279 - 303
Copyright
© 2007 Law and Society Association.

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

The authors wish to thank Donald Songer, Susan Haire, Cynthia Combs, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In particular, the suggestions by the editor, Herbert Kritzer, were invaluable, and led to significant improvements in the quality of the article. As always, any errors herein are solely the work product of the authors.

References

References

Arthurs, Harry W., et al. (1988) “Canadian Lawyers: A Peculiar Professionalism,” in Abel, R. L. & Lewis, P. S. C., eds., Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Atkins, Burton M. (1991) “Party Capability Theory as an Explanation of Judicial Function: Behavior in the English Court of Appeal,” 35 American J. of Political Science 881–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, & Hall, Melinda Gann (2001) “‘Haves’ Versus ‘Have Nots’ in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases,” 35 Law & Society Rev. 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Lincoln (1987) The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1985) A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1986) Law's Empire, 2d ed. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farole, Donald J. Jr. (1999) “Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 1043–58.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., & Krutz, Glen S. (2002a) “Selecting Appeals for Judicial Review in Canada: A Replication and Multivariate Test of American Hypotheses,” 64 J. of Politics 232–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., & Krutz, Glen S. (2002b) “Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada,” 35 Canadian J. of Political Science 811–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, Steve (1998) “Takeover Specialists: Why Many Litigators Hand Their Cases to High Court Pros,” 84 ABA J. 38–43.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Social Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gall, Gerald (2004) The Canadian Legal System, 5th ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Carswell.Google Scholar
Haire, Susan Brodie, et al. (1999) “Attorney Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decisionmaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 667–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. (2001) “Federal Government Decisions to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter Cases, 1982-2000,” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco (Sept.).Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. (2001) “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making,” 29 American Political Research 331–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., et al. (2006) “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 100 American Political Science Rev. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. (1990) The Justice Broker: Lawyers and Ordinary Litigation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. (1998) Legal Advocacy: Lawyers and Nonlawyers at Work. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. (2003) “The Government Gorilla: Why Does Government Come Out Ahead in Appellate Courts?,” in Kritzer, H. M. & Silbey, S., eds., In Litigation: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., & Richards, Mark J. (2002) “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making,” 96 American Political Science Rev. 305–20.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., & Silbey, Susan S., eds. (2003) In Litigation: Do the Haves Still Come Out Ahead? Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., & Klein, David E. (2006) “The Influence of Jurisprudential Considerations on Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Study of Conflict Cases,” 40 Law & Society Rev. 135–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, & Freese, Jeremy (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2d ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Mauro, Tony (2000) “Appealing Practice,” 22 American Lawyer 11–13.Google Scholar
McAtee, Andrea, & McGuire, Kevin T. (2007) “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court? 41 Law & Society Rev.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, Peter (1993) “Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949-1992,” 3 Canadian J. of Political Science 535–40.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter (2005) “Selecting the Supremes: The Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of Canada,” 7 J. of Appellate Practice and Process 1–44.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1995) “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success,” 57 J. of Politics 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (1998) “Explaining Executive Success in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 51 Political Research Q. 505–26.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. (2000) “Lobbyists, Revolving Doors and the U.S. Supreme Court,” 16 J. of Law and Politics 113–37.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., & Caldeira, Gregory A. (1993) “Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Laws of Obscenity,” 87 American Political Science Rev. 717–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, F. L., & Knopff, Rainer (2000) The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Ostberg, Cynthia L., et al. (2002) “Attitudinal Dimensions of Supreme Court Decision Making in Canada: The Lamer Court, 1991-1995,” 55 Political Research Q. 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, Anthony, & Bermant, Gordon (1978) The Quality of Advocacy in the Federal Courts. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Rehnquist, William H. (2002) The Supreme Court. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Salokar, Rebecca Mae (1992) The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold (1996) “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1064–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., et al. (1992) “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russell (2000) “The ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have Nots’: An Empirical Study of the Rational Actor and Party Capability Hypotheses in the High Court 1948-99,” 35 American J. of Political Science 255–74.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. (2002) Interviews with Supreme Court Justices of Canada, Ottawa, July 2–4, 2002. On file with the authors.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Sheehan, Reginald S. (1992) “Who Wins on Appeal? Underdogs and Upperdogs on the United States Courts of Appeals,” 36 American J. of Political Science 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., et al. (1999) “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 811–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) The Original United States Supreme Court Database. The S. Sidney Ulmer Project. Lexington: Univ. of Kentucky Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada (2002) Special Bulletin. Ottawa: Supreme Court of Canada.Google Scholar
Szmer, John (2005) “Unequal Justice under Law? The Effects of Party and Attorney Capability on United States Supreme Court Decision Making,” Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, December.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, & Sittiwong, Panu (1989) “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model Across Nations,” 51 J. of Politics 900–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul A. (1997) “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change,” 59 J. of Politics 778–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul A. (1998) “The Development of a Legal Rule: The Federal Common Law of Public Nuisance,” 32 Law & Society Rev. 613–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E., & Ostberg, Cynthia L. (1999) “Search and Seizure Cases in the Supreme Court of Canada: Extending an American Model of Judicial Decision Making Across Countries,” 80 Social Science Q. 757–74.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Stanton, et al. (1987) “Do the Haves Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in the State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970,” 21 Law & Society Rev. 403–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Statute Cited

Supreme Court Act (R.S., 1985, c. S-26).Google Scholar