Substantial research and policymaking have focused on the importance of lawyers in ensuring access to civil justice. But do lawyers matter more in cases decided by certain types of judges than others? Do lawyers matter more in certain political, legal, and organizational contexts than others? We explore these questions by investigating removal proceedings in the United States—a court process in which immigration judges decide whether to admit noncitizens into the United States or deport them. Drawing on over 1.9 million removal proceedings decided between 1998 and 2020, we examine whether the representation effect (the increased probability of a favorable outcome associated with legal representation) depends on judge characteristics and contextual factors. We find that the representation effect is larger among female (than male) judges and among more experienced judges. In addition, the representation effect is larger during Democratic presidential administrations, in immigration courts located in the Ninth Circuit, and in times of increasing caseload. These findings suggest that the representation effect depends on who the judge is and their decisional environment, and that increasing noncitzens' access to counsel—even of high quality—might be insufficient under current circumstances to ensure fair and consistent outcomes in immigration courts.

中文翻译：

---

代表但不平等：法律代表在搬迁程序中的或有影响

大量研究和政策制定都集中在律师在确保获得民事司法方面的重要性上。但是，在某些类型的法官裁决的案件中，律师是否比其他人更重要？在某些政治、法律和组织环境中，律师是否比其他环境更重要？我们通过调查美国的遣返程序来探讨这些问题——移民法官在该程序中决定是接纳非公民进入美国还是将他们驱逐出境。借鉴 1998 年至 2020 年间决定的超过 190 万起遣返程序，我们研究了代表效应（与法律代表相关的有利结果的可能性增加）是否取决于法官特征和背景因素。我们发现女性（比男性）法官和更有经验的法官的代表效应更大。此外，在民主党总统执政期间、位于第九巡回法院的移民法院以及案件量增加时，代表效应更大。这些调查结果表明，代表效应取决于法官是谁及其决策环境，在当前情况下，增加非公民获得律师的机会——即使是高质量的律师——可能不足以确保移民法庭的公平和一致的结果。