Lawyers routinely make strategic advocacy choices that reflect directly, if inferentially, on the credibility of their clients’ claims and defenses. But courts have historically been reluctant to admit evidence of litigation conduct, sometimes even expressing hostility at the very notion of doing so. This Article deconstructs that reluctance. It argues not only that litigation conduct has probative value, but also that there is social utility in subjecting lawyer behavior to juror scrutiny.


Comparative Institutional Competence, Pleading, Discovery, Spoliation, Credibility, Advocacy Choices, Litigation Misconduct, Regulation of Lawyers, Legal Ethics, Evidence, Rule 403

Publication Date


Document Type


Place of Original Publication

George Washington Law Review

Publication Information

84 George Washington Law Review 55 (2016)


COinS Andrew S. Pollis Faculty Bio