EMH从更广泛的角度预测，在市场完善的情况下，资本市场的证券交易价格能够充分反映与证券相关的信息。EMH的概念往往走在随机游走模型的前面，随机游走模型认为证券连续价格的变化是随机的，因此无法预测(Shiller 2014)。因此，效率效率的概念被分为三种不同类型的效率，即强效率、半强效率和弱效率。弱形式认为当前的证券价格提供了与历史证券价格一致的信息的充分反映。半强形式认为当前的证券价格提供了涉及公共可用性的可能信息的充分反映。最后，强形式认为，当前的证券价格最终反映了当前存在的所有信息，即使公开与否(Fama和French 2004)。
EMH概念的主要假设是完全市场假设。在市场完善的情况下，没有交易成本，没有获取信息的成本。除此之外，投资者的预期是同质的，这使得投资者的预期在本质上是理性的，因此市场是有效的。有效的市场可以被认为是与证券有关的价格充分反映现有信息的市场。在现实世界的背景下，完美市场中EMH的基本假设并没有最终被持有，因此市场缺乏充分效率(Lo 2012)。然而，一些证据表明，即使在社会运行的不完美世界中，市场的效率也会达到一个特定的极限，因为对新信息的响应会有价格的调整。即便如此，如果现实世界的市场倾向于根据基本价值的反映进行调整，那么它们也可以被认为不那么确定。其次是银行系统故障系统的和最近的全球金融危机,有清晰的事实失败相关的许多假设完美的市场,突出存在的非理性的投资者,异构的期望、信息不对称和交易成本导致价格泡沫和错误定价。这通常会破坏EMH的概念。然而，交易律师作为诉讼律师的角色能否通过交易价值的实际创造而成功地为商业交易增加价值，则是值得怀疑的。持怀疑态度的人可能会考虑让律师成为最佳选择交易的必要成本，而在最坏的情况下，他们的交易是为了杀死寄生虫。由于EMH (Flifel 2012)中没有包含基本假设，许多学者已经在努力论证律师如何在实际工作中成功地提高交易价值。
The Concept of Efficient Market Hypothesis and Key Assumptions
A number of studies have supported the randomness regarding emergence of security prices prior to the concept of EMH starting with Bachelierin the years of 1900s. When considering the theory of perfect market, there can be a prediction that there is adjustment of security price accurately and instantaneously for obtaining new information. The assumptions regarding perfect market can be categorized in the following terms (Flifel 2012):
The population of participants is large in a way that actions of a single participant may not have a materialistic impact on the market.
Each and every participant has been informed fully, with equal accessibility of the market, and acting in a rational way.
Homogenous nature of the commodity
No costs of transaction
From a broader perspective, the EMH holds the prediction that in the situation of perfect market, the trading prices of securities in markets of capital provide full reflection of information in concern with the securities. The concept of EMH tends to be going ahead of the random walk model that perceives the notion that changes take place in successive price of securities randomly, and hence, cannot be predicted (Shiller 2014). Due to this, the concept of EMH has been categorized into three different types of efficiency that is the strong form, the semi- strong form and the weak form. The weak form perceives the notion that current prices of security provide a full reflection about information in consistency with the historical prices of security. The semi- strong form perceives the notion that current prices of security provide a full reflection of possible information that involves a public availability. Finally, the strong form perceives the notion that current prices of security end up reflecting all information in present existence, even if available publicly or not (Fama and French 2004).
The main assumptions for the concept of EMH are the assumptions of perfect market. In the situation of perfect market, there are no costs of transaction, with no cost for availing information. In addition to this, the expectations of investors are homogenous making them rational by nature, and hence, there is efficiency of markets. An efficient market can be considered as the one within which prices related to securities provide full reflection of information available. In the setting of real world, the underlying assumptions of EMH in perfect market do not end up being held and hence, there is lack of full efficiency in the market (Lo 2012). However, a number of evidences have stated that even in the scenario of imperfect world within which the society functions, there is efficiency of markets to a specific limit as there is adjustment of price for responding to a new piece of information. Even though, if markets of real world tend to be adjusting for reflection of fundamental value, they can be considered as less certain. Followed by the systematically failing system of banking and the recent crisis of global finance, there is clarity in the fact that failure of a number of assumptions related to perfect market and the prominent existence of irrational investors, heterogeneous expectations, information asymmetries and transaction costs has resulted in price bubbles and mispricing. This holds the tendency to generally undermine the concept of EMH. However, it is doubtful if transactional lawyers, playing the role of litigation lawyers become successful in adding value to the commercial transactions by the actual creation of deal value. Skeptic may show consideration towards lawyers for being a necessary cost of transaction at the best options while dealing to kill parasites in the worst scenario. A number of scholars have put in effort for demonstrating the ways in which a lawyer will be successful in increasing the deal value actually in the precise real work as the underlying assumptions are not held under EMH (Flifel 2012).