IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-723282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Lawyers’ Case Selection Decisions Biased? A Field Experiment on Access to Justice

Author

Listed:
  • Jens Frankenreiter
  • Michael A. Livermore

Abstract

The attorney-client relationship is pivotal in providing access to courts. This paper presents results from a large-scale field experiment exploring how demographic information (encoded in potential clients’ names) affects how attorneys respond to initial inquiries in private injury cases. On the basis of prior literature, we hypothesize that race is a significant factor, but we also explore race and gender interactions. We find that ostensibly Black or Hispanic inquirers receive fewer responses than ostensibly White inquirers, a result largely driven by preferential treatment of White female inquirers. The racial disparities are larger than those previously documented in contexts such as public services but smaller than in contexts such as employment. We also find suggestive evidence that White attorneys are more likely than others to treat White inquirers preferentially, which implies that the differences in response rates are not merely a reaction to jurisdiction-level factors affecting lawsuits’ expected payoffs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Frankenreiter & Michael A. Livermore, 2023. "Are Lawyers’ Case Selection Decisions Biased? A Field Experiment on Access to Justice," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(2), pages 273-304.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/723282
    DOI: 10.1086/723282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723282
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723282
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/723282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/723282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.