Study shows racial bias in evaluating legal writing

April 25, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When handing out the same memo to various law partners to critique under the guise of a study on the writing competencies of young attorneys, researchers discovered law partners found more errors in the memos they believed were written by an African-American attorney.

Nextions wanted to explore the idea of confirmation bias in racial perceptions of writing skills. It received 53 responses from partners who either looked at the same memo written by "Thomas Meyer," an African-American third-year associate from NYU Law School; or the memo written by "Thomas Meyer," a Caucasian third-year associate from NYU Law School.

In a previous study, researchers found evidence that supervising lawyers perceived African-American lawyers to be subpar in their writing skills as compared to their Caucasian counterparts. The study results released this month by Nextions confirmed that.

African-American Thomas Meyer’s memo averaged a 3.2/5 rating; Caucasian Thomas Meyer’s memo averaged a 4.1/5 rating. Comments were also generally more positive for Caucasian Thomas Meyer.

The memo contained 22 different errors: seven minor spelling/grammar errors; six substantive technical writing errors; five errors in fact and four errors in the analysis of the facts. The memo was sent to 39 Caucasian partners and 21 racial/ethnic minorities; 23 were women and 37 were men.

“We undertook this study with the hypothesis that unconscious confirmation bias in a supervising lawyer’s assessment of legal writing would result in a more negative rating if that writing was submitted by an African American lawyer in comparison to the same submission by a Caucasian lawyer. In order to create a study where we could control for enough variables to truly see the impact of confirmation bias, we did not study the potential variances that can be caused due to the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, generational differences and other such salient identities. Thus, our conclusion is limited to the impact of confirmation bias in the evaluation of African American men in comparison to Caucasian men. We do not know (although we plan to study the issue in the very near future!) how this impact will splinter or strengthen when gender and/or other identities are introduced,” the researchers wrote in their summary.

“The data findings affirmed our hypothesis, but they also illustrated that the confirmation bias on the part of the evaluators occurred in the data collection phase of their evaluation processes – the identification of the errors – and not the final analysis phase. When expecting to find fewer errors, we find fewer errors. When expecting to find more errors, we find more errors. That is unconscious confirmation bias. Our evaluators unconsciously found more of the errors in the ‘African American’ Thomas Meyer’s memo, but the final rating process was a conscious and unbiased analysis based on the number of errors found. When partners say that they are evaluating assignments without bias, they are probably right in believing that there is no bias in the assessment of the errors found; however, if there is bias in the finding of the errors, even a fair final analysis cannot, and will not, result in a fair result.”

Take a look at the study and let me know what you think.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Great to see Dr Arin moving on
    The author of this report was previously all about getting separate but equal restrooms for womyn attorneys (but not female secretaries), so it is really good to see her moving on from that: Reeves acknowledged that there may be a desire for inclusion; however, there is still inadequate support for it. An example she provided was a woman lawyer who did not have a designated restroom, as there were only two: one for women secretaries and the other for male lawyers." http://www.lewisu.edu/news/Newsarticle.htm?PArticleID=5722#.U1vG1Vda80M
    • Thinking about it
      Who circuluates a memo with the race of the author on it? What to expect next month, sexual preferences listed?
    • Does the study confirm unconscious bias on the part of the author?
      It seems to me that the study is a pretty thin one where it is possible that it reveals more about the unconscious confirmation bias of the author than of the subjects. Perhaps she has the belief that law partners are biased against minorities and women and used the information to confirm her belief. Looking at the errors detected by the reviewers, the only place where there was a significant difference in errors detected was in the spelling errors (2.9 for the "Caucasian" vs. 5.8 for the "African-American") whereas the error differences in technical writing (4.1 vs. 4.9) and facts (3.2 vs. 3.9). That could easily be interpreted to reach the conclusion that spelling counts and the reviewers have a more negative view about the work of poor spellers. Of course, the point can be made that the partners found more spelling errors in the work of the "African-American" associate based on their biases; however, by not doing a more thorough job, the author detracts from her point.
      • Direct hit
        I was thinking just the same, Larry. Who crunches her stats? What was the confidence interval? Will this "study" be peer reviewed? Is she not a "consultant" seeking to peddle her "services" in light of this thin social research? Is this science or mere rhetoric and manipulation parading as social science? I have to say that the probability is that it would never pass muster in even an undergrad class on social science. Rather sad to see such shody work promoted here, but I guess since it arrived at the "right" (make that "left") conclusions it is good to go, breaking news, justification for indicting the entire social order. Coming next month, how inherent biases cause us to discriminate against left handed typists.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT
      1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

      2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

      3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

      4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

      5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

      ADVERTISEMENT