Erectile function (EF) is an important question in lawsuits for divorce, rape, and damages. In this study, a method to evaluate medicolegal cases is defined, and the characteristics of the 265 cases screened for EF between 1989 and 1997 were analyzed. Interview, physical examination, psychometric evaluation, nocturnal penile tumescence, serum hormone levels and blood chemistry, intracavernosal drug injection, penile Doppler ultrasonography, and pharmacocavemosometry and pharmacocavernosography tests were used for diagnosis. The tests performed were selected according to the age of the subject. Of the 265 cases 128 (48.3%) were for divorce, 116 (43.7%) were for rape, and 21 (8%) were for indemnity relating to lawsuits for damages. In only 7 cases (2.7%) was the defendant < 15 years of age. Organic pathology for erectile dysfunction (ED) was present in 22% of lawsuits for divorce, 40.5% of lawsuits for rape, and 33.4% of lawsuits for damages. Three men in cases of divorce and 2 men after genital trauma due to traffic accident suffered psychological ED. This study indicates that lawyers may abuse the assertion of ED in lawsuits for divorce and rape. In 128 divorce cases the defendant was accused of being impotent, but evaluation proved that 75.8% had normal EF. In lawsuits for rape, 59.5% of defendants had normal EF although the lawyers of the rapist claimed their clients were impotent. The investigation, interpretation, and characteristics of medicolegal cases may differ in countries with different cultures.