Why Acknowledging Implicit Bias Is Key for Better Legal Research
The road of facing internal implicit biases and confronting archaic actions might be awkward, but legal research professors say it's necessary.
July 17, 2020 at 10:30 AM
4 minute read
Addressing one's implicit bias isn't an easy task, but a panel of law school professors said it's necessary for becoming a better attorney and producing higher-quality legal research that takes into account different cultural and historical perspectives.
Yesterday, the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) livestreamed its "Fear and Loathing in Teaching Legal Research: Addressing Cultural Competence and Managing Implicit Bias" panel during its virtual conference.
The panel noted that acknowledging internal implicit biases and questioning assumptions requires attorneys to think out of the box and improve their skills.
"As attorneys, one of the best things they can do is ask questions because you do not know everything," said University of New Mexico School of Law associate dean of institutional climate and equity and professor of law librarianship Sherri Thomas.
Ronald Wheeler, Boston University School of Law director of the Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries and associate professor of law and legal research, also noted that exposure to different cultures or perspectives can enhance lawyers' research capabilities
"When we get to the point in legal research about constructing searches and finding synonyms about the thing you're trying to search, an example I often use is the police," Wheeler said. "What is the synonym for police? Cops? Fuzz? One time I said 'the po-po,' that's what we call it in Detroit, and people laughed." While comical to some, the inclusion of that search word could yield possible connections to information useful for a lawyer's argument.
Wheeler said professors and students can get to the point of sharing cultural references after the professor takes the initiative to be vulnerable about their own biases. Professors that talk about their own experiences and biases challenges students to question their assumptions, Thomas noted.
Students may say, "'I saw it in The New York Times, it's one of the best resources.' But that's not always true," Thomas said. "But when you look at the resources in the article, it's a jumping-off point to start talking about bias at a larger level, then talking about the biases we have implicitly."
To be sure, professors discussing their implicit biases and exposing their vulnerabilities isn't easy. But the panel noted it's needed more than ever.
"I try to find ways to underscore my own humanity and my own vulnerability when we talk about things like implicit bias, Black Lives Matter and other difficult topics like racism, homophobia or sexism," Wheeler explained. "We are asking students to put themselves out there and be vulnerable. I think it's fair for them to expect that from their professors."
St. Mary University School of Law deputy director of administration and professor Mike Martinez Jr. noted law is a reflection of society at certain points in time, "and it's our responsibility to unpack this." However, researching U.S. legal actions may unearth uncomfortable truths.
When posed the question of conducting legal research with offensive terms, panelists noted that language evolves over time. Certain words or phrases gradually become less acceptable, but the terms could be integral for researching a matter.
"Historical context, when it comes to the law, is everything. What I do is try to connect its comprehensiveness to legal research," Thomas explained.
Awkwardness aside, Wheeler argued implicit bias and cultural competence is a discussion law students want to have.
"Students want us to facilitate that conversation," Wheeler said. "It's something that is uncomfortable but is needed but also a main takeaway students want from their legal education."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250