This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: New research in Economic Inquiry provides evidence of in-group bias operating within the judiciary—a setting where impartiality is expected. Using Florida medical malpractice cases with randomly assigned judges, investigators found that sharing a law school with the presiding judge boosted a plaintiff's attorney's probability of recovering damages by approximately 2 percentage points.
The researchers found no comparable effects when judges and lawyers attended different law schools of similar rank or shared the same gender or minority status, suggesting that the result is not driven by school quality or these other observable similarities. The effect was also strongest when the judge was at least 10 years older than the lawyer, consistent with an age-dependent effect. "Courts are designed to deliver impartial justice, yet our findings show that something as simple as a shared law school can affect whether plaintiffs recover damages," said corresponding author David Zhang, Ph.D., of Rice University.
He noted that this raises important questions about when ties between judges and lawyers should be disclosed or lead to recusal. "The fact that observable similarities alone do not explain these patterns highlights the nuances of decision-making in high-stakes cases—and the power of rigorous data collection and research design to uncover what really matters," added co-author Tianwang Liu, Ph.D., an independent researcher. Alumni Relationships and Judicial Bias, Economic Inquiry (2026).
DOI: 10.1111/ecin.70080 MA in English, copy editor since 2021 with experience in higher education and health content. Dedicated to trustworthy science news. Full profile → Master's in physics with research experience.
Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X's editorial success.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
