Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=283261
 
 

Citations (5)



 
 

Footnotes (197)



 


 



How Do Judges Maximize? (The Same Way Everybody Else Does - Boundedly): Rules of Thumb in Securities Fraud Opinions


Stephen M. Bainbridge


University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

G. Mitu Gulati


Duke University - School of Law


Emory Law Journal, Vol. 51, 2002

Abstract:     
Judicial opinions in securities fraud class actions frequently do not conform to standard theories of adjudication. Instead of the complex modes of legal reasoning predicted by standard models, decisions in this area commonly rely on rules of thumb-decisionmaking heuristics or shortcuts. To the extent prior literature has focused on the use of decisionmaking heuristics in adjudication, commentators have emphasized procedural shortcuts, such as the doctrine whereby courts refuse to address issues that have not been squarely argued. In contrast, the heuristics we identify are substantive law doctrinal rules of thumb enabling a judge to avoid analysis of a case's full complexities. This distinction is significant. Procedural shortcuts do not affect the evolution of substantive legal doctrines, except as to produce no doctrine. Substantive heuristics, however, not only become doctrine but can come to dominate the on-going evolution of substantive law. We suggest that the desire to avoid complexity is an important factor in explaining the emergence of a number of the newer doctrines in the securities area.

Underlying all of these doctrines are assumptions about either, (a) investor responses to information or (b) managerial responses to incentives. The standard approaches used by commentators in the area would be to explain either why the assumptions are accurate or why they are not and how they should be corrected. What we suggest, however, is that the real puzzle thus is that federal judges are claiming-at least implicitly-both a level of expertise about the workings of markets and organizations that, in some areas, not even the most sophisticated researchers in financial economics and organizational theory have reached. Federal judges, however, are far from being experts in these areas. As a group, they have little expertise on the topics of markets and organizational behavior. Further, they are consistently faced with overwhelming caseloads where only a small fraction of cases are securities cases. As a result, there is little opportunity to develop expertise in the area. Finally, judges are known to delegate much of the work of drafting their decisions to their law clerks, who are typically recent law school graduates.

Generalizing from the securities regulation context, we contend that standard theories of adjudication are flawed because they fail to adequately account for institutional constraints. Drawing on the tools of new institutional economics (bounded rationality, transaction costs, and agency costs), we tell a story about recent doctrinal developments in the lower federal courts in the area of securities class actions. The story highlights the link between doctrinal developments and the characteristics of the institutions that produce them. That story is then extended to the contexts of the Supreme Court and the Delaware state courts. Our claim is that the institutional perspective provides insights into the evolution of doctrine that today's dominant models fail to provide.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 71

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 18, 2001  

Suggested Citation

Bainbridge, Stephen M. and Gulati, G. Mitu, How Do Judges Maximize? (The Same Way Everybody Else Does - Boundedly): Rules of Thumb in Securities Fraud Opinions. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 51, 2002. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=283261 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.283261

Contact Information

Stephen Mark Bainbridge (Contact Author)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )
385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
310-206-1599 (Phone)
310-825-6023 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.professorbainbridge.com
Gaurang Mitu Gulati
Duke University - School of Law ( email )
Box 90360
Duke School of Law
Durham, NC 27708
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 6,752
Downloads: 644
Download Rank: 21,948
Citations:  5
Footnotes:  197

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.343 seconds