Breaking Barriers to Justice
communication. Anything less is not access; it is approximation.
“In all court interactions, each court, its judicial officers, and its employees should refrain from engaging in conduct and should take action to prevent others from engaging in conduct that exhibits bias, including but not limited to bias based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law, including Government Code section 12940(a) and Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3(B)(5), whether that bias is directed toward counsel, court staff, witnesses, parties, jurors, or any other person. The court, judicial officers, and court employees may consider such classifications only if necessary or relevant to the proper exercise of their adjudicatory or administrative functions.” In spite of these strides, the system is far from perfect. Effective trial lawyers anticipate challenges and adjust strategy. For example, lawyers should prepare clients for how they could be perceived, not just what they say. Both the client and lawyer should work towards telling the client’s human story in a relatable way. A lawyer can use voir dire not only to surface biases among prospective jurors but also to gain credibility and secure commitments to not let unfair biases interfere with their verdict. In settlement negotiations and mediation, attorneys should educate mediators and decision-makers about a client’s cultural context before misunderstandings take root. If a client’s damages are undervalued because of culture, socioeconomic status or other biases, an effective advocate will call out the bias and reframe the discussion so damages are calculated appropriately.
Trial Lawyers Must Also Manage Bias within the System
Even if the lawyer gets it right, cultural competence does not end with the attorney. Trial lawyers must also anticipate how explicit and implicit bias may affect mediators, judges, jurors, and opposing counsel. For example, jurors may equate accented English with lack of credibility. Mediators may read quietness as weakness. Opposing counsel may exploit cultural misunderstandings. The Judicial Council of California has recently taken the lead on acknowledging and counteracting harmful biases within the justice system. In 2023, it added general jury instructions for both criminal and civil cases to prevent implicit bias among jurors. To be read as part of the concluding instructions, the civil instruction, 2 CACI 5030 (2026), reads in part as follows: “Although we are aware of some of our biases, we may not be aware of all of them. We refer to biases that we are not aware of as ‘implicit’ or ‘unconscious.’ They may be based on stereotypes we would reject if they were brought to our attention. Implicit or unconscious biases can affect how we perceive others and how we make decisions, without our being aware of the effect of these biases on those decisions.” The Judicial Council also imposed new duties on judges to not only avoid bias (as they were obligated to do in the past) but also actively prevent bias. Per the California Rules of Court (2026), Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 10.20 (b)(1):
70
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs