Lawyers and judicial fairness : evidence from big data on court verdicts

Abstract

Fairness and justice are the most fundamental and ultimate values pursued by human civilization. Judicial fairness is the bedrock that allows us to achieve these ideals. Fair proceedings in courts are paramount to judicial fairness, the outcomes of which are reflected in court verdicts. Fair and just court verdicts are the results of the joint efforts of the parties in the litigation process, among whom lawyers play an especially important role. Past research on judicial fairness has focused more on judicial systems, litigation procedures, and legal cultures from a jurisprudential perspective. The majority of these studies employ the methods of logical deduction. Very few studies have used big data to carry out modeling and empirical analysis. In addition, there has been little research on the impact of litigants on judicial fairness. Existing studies focus mainly on arbiters such as judges. The impact of legal representation on judicial fairness is still a virgin field of research. This dissertation contributes to research on judicial fairness in two respects. In terms of the subject of research, the focus is placed upon the lawyer, who is an important participant in the litigation process. By studying how legal representation in civil litigation impacts judicial fairness, this dissertation has enriched the body of research on the factors that promote judicial fairness. In terms of research methodology, this dissertation carried out statistical modeling and regression analysis, enriching methods for research on judicial fairness. This was possible as the Supreme People’s Court has issued strict directives that all court verdicts must be published online. As a result, there are now extensive databases of court verdicts that have been published by courts of various levels. The criteria for assessing judicial fairness are multi-dimensional. One important criterion is whether a verdict from a court that has come into force is fair. This dissertation uses two indicators to measure the fairness of such court verdicts: (1) whether litigants perceive the verdict to be fair; (2) whether the retrial of reviewing courts determine the verdict to be fair. A litigant’s subjective perception of fairness can be effectively determined by whether an application for retrial was submitted. Similarly, the opinion of the retrial of reviewing court can be discerned by whether the application was successful. Basic data on judicial fairness were obtained through the big data on civil case verdicts published on Itslaw. These data was then used to develop two evaluative indicators: (1) retrial application rates; (2) actual retrial rates. Based on these indicators, the empirical analysis used the linear probability model and the difference-in-differences model to analyze the role of legal representation in promoting fair verdicts in civil cases. It was found that after eliminating self-selection bias, lawyers play a more important role in promoting fair verdicts mainly by helping judges accurately ascertain the facts and correctly apply the law throughout proceedings. Empirical analysis of the retrial application rate showed that legal representation in civil litigation significantly lowers the probability of a retrial application by 0.8 percent. This shows that a greater percentage of litigants perceive verdicts to be fair when they are represented by a lawyer in court, indicating that legal representation in civil cases promotes judicial fairness. Empirical analysis of successful applications shows that legal representation in the original trial significantly lowers the probability of a successful application for retrial by 0.78 percent. This shows that a greater percentage of the retrial of reviewing courts deem verdicts to be fair when the case involves legal representation. This indicates that legal representation in civil cases promotes judicial fairness again. It is worth mentioning that although the marginal effect seems limited, it should still be paid attention since the overall retrial application rate is low. Robustness tests were also carried out on the role of lawyers in promoting judicial fairness. First, extending the scope of civil litigation. The scope of civil litigation verdicts was extended to include all types of civil judgments within the whole data. Nevertheless, it was still possible to derive the effect that legal representation in civil proceedings has on promoting fair verdicts. Second, instrumental variables estimation. Two-stage instrumental variable models were also designated to mitigate the bias caused by endogeneity. The result of regression analysis, consistent with the result of the previous empirical analysis, shows that retrial application rates are 0.43 percent lower for cases with legal representation. Third, the number of attorneys. The number of attorneys also had a direct impact on whether facts were accurately ascertained, and laws were properly applied. This dissertation found that verdicts in complex cases were fairer when more attorneys were involved. Finally, validation was conducted concerning the different circumstances of legal representation. It was found that retrial application rates were 0.5 percent lower in complex cases versus simple cases if both parties had legal representation. We define this to mean that judgments have attained “achievable fairness”. For the retrial application rate, there was a room of 0.11 percent for improvement when only the appellant had legal representation, as compared to “achievable fairness”, while there was a room of 0.22 percent for improvement when only the appellee had legal representation.