Careerist Judges

In this paper I analyze how judges formulate their decisions using information they uncover during deliberations as well as relevant information they gather from previous decisions. I assume that judges have reputational concerns and try to signal to an evaluator that they have high aptitude for interpreting the law correctly. If an appeal is made, the appellate court’s decision reveals whether the judge interpreted properly the law and allows the evaluator to assess the judge’s ability.

The monitoring possibilities for the evaluator are therefore endogenous, because the probability of an appeal depends on the judge’s decision. I find that judges with

career concerns tend to inefficiently contradict previous decisions. I also show that the praxis of binding precedent may actually exacerbate the distortionary behaviour

of careerist judges.

For more information, contact Antonio Merlo.