The relationship between judicial inputs and outputs remains opaque. Conventional wisdom is plentiful but useful evidence is not. This study examines civil appeals in three federal appellate courts, concentrating on the briefing, the attorneys, and the complexity of the case. We find no evidence that short briefs are more persuasive, while the evidence in favor of long briefs on the appellant's side is provocative. We also find suggestive evidence that the experience of the lead lawyer on the appellee's side matters. However, “Big Law” firms and large teams of lawyers do not seem to perform better on appeal, all else equal. Finally, different kinds of case complexity point in different directions. The presence of a cross‐appeal is associated with judge votes to reverse—but not necessarily in favor of the cross‐appellant. At the same time, complex trial‐level proceedings may be associated with judge votes to affirm.

中文翻译：

---

上诉方面的投入和产出：摘要，大法律和案件复杂性的实证研究

司法投入与产出之间的关系仍然不透明。常规知识很多，但有用的证据却不是。这项研究在三个联邦上诉法院审查了民事上诉，重点是通报，律师和案件的复杂性。我们发现没有证据表明简短的内裤更具说服力，而支持上诉人方面的简短内裤的证据则具有启发性。我们还发现暗示性证据，表明首席律师在被上诉人方面的经验至关重要。但是，在其他条件相同的情况下，“大型律师”事务所和大型律师团队似乎在上诉方面的表现并不佳。最后，不同类型的案例复杂性指向不同的方向。交叉上诉的存在与法官推翻选票有关，但不一定支持交叉上诉。与此同时，