Replication Data for: Patronising Lawyers? Homophily and Same-Sex Litigation Teams Before the UK Supreme Court.

In this paper, we investigate patterns of team formation amongst barristers who appeared before the UK Supreme Court between October 2009 and August 2015. We show that there is evidence of considerable gender homophily in the formation of teams of barristers appearing before the UK Supreme Court. Same-sex teams of barristers are over-represented compared to the number we would expect if barristers paired up randomly. We also show that this gender homophily remains when we allow for the possibility that barristers pair up randomly within their chambers, or within their area of law. As such, the formation of teams of barristers in the Supreme Court is governed by practices and preferences which make same-sex legal teams more likely than they would be if team formation simply involved a gender-blind draw from a pool of lawyers. Barristers appearing before the Supreme Court prefer, for whatever reason, to work with other barristers of the same sex. We set out reasons why homophily in team formation is undesirable and discuss the routes through which different remedies might operate.

本文针对2009年10月至2015年8月期间在英国最高法院（UK Supreme Court）出庭的出庭律师（barristers）的组队模式展开研究。研究表明，在英国最高法院出庭的出庭律师组队过程中存在显著的性别同质性现象：同性搭档律师团队的占比，高于律师随机组队时的预期占比。进一步分析显示，即便控制律师在其执业律所（chambers）或特定法律领域内随机组队的可能性，上述性别同质性现象依然存在。由此可见，英国最高法院出庭律师的组队行为受特定执业惯例与个人偏好的支配，使得同性法律团队的出现概率，高于仅从律师群体中无性别偏向地随机组队时的预期水平。换言之，无论出于何种缘由，出庭律师更倾向于与同性别同行开展合作。本文阐释了组队过程中的同质性现象为何存在弊端，并探讨了各类补救措施的实施路径。