Court-appointed experts and accuracy in adversarial litigation

Chulyoung Kim, Paul S. Koh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Concerned about distortion of evidence arising from litigants’ strong incentive to misrepresent information provided to fact-finders, legal scholars and commentators have long suggested that courts appoint their own advisors for neutral information regarding disputes. This paper examines the litigants’ problem of losing incentive to provide information when judges seek the advice of court-appointed experts. Within a standard litigation-game framework, we find that assigning court-appointed experts involves a trade-off: although such experts help judges obtain more information overall, thereby reducing the number of errors during trials, they weaken litigants’ incentive to supply expert information, thus undermining the adversarial nature of the current American legal system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)282-305
Number of pages24
JournalInternational Journal of Economic Theory
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2020 Sept 1

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Economics and Econometrics


Dive into the research topics of 'Court-appointed experts and accuracy in adversarial litigation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this