For convenience and ease of administration, it is in the Court s best interest for the panel to decide a case with unanimity. Also, Skeel argues, deciding with unanimity is consistent with the role that Delaware perceives itself to have in corporate law. Skeel states that he is sympathetic to this argument, and asserts that unanimity reinforces the moral authority of Delaware decision-making. If the Justices were always disagreeing with each other, it would undermine the moral authority that Delaware claims to hold. It does seem to me that there is some room for Delaware to take advantage of the power it has Skeel explains.
Many commentators suspect that Delaware helps out in-state interests, for example, the Delaware Bar.
There is an argument that Delaware tends to encourage lots of litigation, and that Delaware tends to encourage having that litigation brought in Delaware, which is good for that state s lawyers. My view is that Delaware s success on the whole is a good thing rather than a bad thing. There s lots of room for slippage. It has so much power it can afford to re-direct some of its profits without being hurt in the overall competition because it has such an advantage over other states. But the fact remains that Delaware does a superb job of overseeing corporate law.