Tammy A. Sarver

Bio: Tammy A. Sarver is an academic researcher from Benedictine University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Jury. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 6 publications receiving 130 citations.

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

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.

Have We Come a Long Way, Baby? The Influence of Attorney Gender on Supreme Court Decision Making

Abstract: While the impact of an attorney's sex has been examined with respect to trial court processes (e.g., jury decision making), no one has previously studied its effects on appellate court decision making. In this article, we argue that the application of gender schemas by some justices results in a devaluing of the arguments made by women litigators. Our findings suggest that women orally arguing attorneys are less likely to receive a favorable vote by a justice than are the male counsel they oppose and that conservative justices are more likely than their liberal counterparts to vote against litigants represented by female counsel at oral argument. This suggests that the ideology of elites influences whether they apply gender schemas in a negative fashion. We also find that justices are more likely to side with female lawyers in women's issues cases, indicating that the justices' perceptions of female lawyer expertise are enhanced in those cases. These findings persist even after controlling for multiple factors, including attorney expertise, the sex of the justice, amicus participation, party capability, and judicial ideology.

The Impact of Attorney Gender on Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals

Abstract: Despite a growing recognition of the influence of gender in the policymaking arena, few scholars have studied the relationship between lawyer gender and decision making on appellate courts. This article examines this relationship in the context of the United States Courts of Appeals, where there have been a greater number of female judges for a longer period of time. The results of the analysis suggest that, in the average Courts of Appeals case, judges are generally more likely to side with female attorneys, even in the absence of a “women's issue.” In addition, both male and female judges are equally supportive of female lawyers even when the circuit is not particularly gender diverse. However, circuit judges are less likely to support female attorneys in cases in which the circuit reverses the lower court, indicating a notable disadvantage for female advocates in the very cases in which advocacy might be most crucial at the circuit court level.

Women Lawyers before the Supreme Court of Canada

Abstract: . Recent work by Szmer, Sarver, and Kaheny ( 2010 ) exploring US Supreme Court decision making has suggested that lawyer gender might play a role in influencing judicial voting behaviour. Specifically, while women lawyers were not revealed to have a more difficult time winning cases before the US Supreme Court, the study did suggest they face a tougher challenge in gaining support from the more conservative justices on that bench. Here, we test whether women lawyers face similar challenges before the SCC. Our findings do not reveal any disadvantage for litigation teams with larger proportions of women and, in most instances, such teams have an advantage. Specifically, in our model of civil rights and liberties votes, litigation team gender had no bearing on individual SCC justice decisions. However, in a pooled model of all issues combined and in separate models of criminal and economic votes, SCC justices were more likely to side with litigation teams with larger proportions of women lawyers. Resume. Une etude recente de Szmer, Sarver et Kaheny ( 2010 ) explore la maniere dont la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis prend ses decisions, suggerant que le sexe des avocats pourrait avoir une influence sur le comportement decisionnel des juges. Plus specifiquement, bien que les avocates n'aient pas plus de difficulte que leurs collegues masculins a gagner leurs proces a la Cour supreme des Etats-Unis, l'etude suggere que leur plus grand defi est d'obtenir le soutien des juges plus traditionnels de cette cour. Dans le present article, nous cherchons a determiner si les avocates canadiennes font face a un defi semblable a la Cour supreme du Canada. Les resultats de notre etude ne revelent aucun desavantage pour les equipes d'avocats comprenant plus de femmes et dans la plupart des cas, ces equipes beneficient meme d'un avantage. Plus precisement, dans notre modele decisionnel en matiere de droits et libertes civiles, le sexe des membres des equipes d'avocats n'avait aucune incidence sur les decisions individuelles des juges de la Cour supreme du Canada. Cependant, dans un modele commun reunissant tous les types de dossiers et dans des modeles separes pour les decisions sur des dossiers criminels et financiers, les juges de la Cour supreme du Canada etaient plus enclins a prendre parti pour des equipes comportant une plus grande proportion d'avocates.

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

Abstract: Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

Lawyers, justices, and issue salience : When and how do legal arguments affect the U.S. supreme court?

Abstract: A good deal of scholarly evidence suggests that the decisionmaking of the U.S. Supreme Court is affected by legal argument. At the same time, it seems clear that in a great many cases the justices have enduring, strongly held views. In such cases, they should be impervious to the effects of advocacy. When are the justices apt to be influenced by the Court's legal community, and when will lawyers be less relevant? The answer, we think, has to do with the salience of the issue before the Court. We suspect that in nonsalient cases the justices have less-intense preferences and therefore are open to the persuasion of lawyers. In salient cases, by contrast, the content of legal policy matters much more to the justices. As a result, they are less amenable to legal argument and adhere more strictly to their personal policy preferences. Our empirical tests support this orientation.