In his Article, Understanding Legal Realism, Professor Brian Tamanaha argues that legal realism has been largely misunderstood, because the work of the Realists is often interpreted within a false set of historical and theoretical assumptions.  Tamanaha defines realism as consisting of two closely related aspects: a skeptical aspect and a rule-bound aspect. 

The skeptical aspect refers to the awareness that judges must sometimes make choices; that they can manipulate legal rules and precedents; and that they can be influenced by their political and moral views and by their personal biases.  The rule-bound aspect refers to the understanding that legal rules nonetheless can work; that judges can abide by and apply the law; that there are practice-related, social, and institutional factors that constrain judges; and that judges can render generally predictable, legally based decisions.  Using these definitions, Tamanaha dispels some common misconceptions about legal realism.