Even though criminal justice outcomes frequently receive more media, public, and research attention than civil legal outcomes, civil legal outcomes are equally important in ensuring fairness, accountability, and justice for both individuals and society as a whole. This provides individuals an avenue to pursue justice and restitution for civil wrongs, protects civil rights, and compensates those who have been harmed financially. This study examined the relationship between regional implicit racial bias and racial disparities in outcomes of real-world civil trials. In particular, I explored whether the racial composition of the attorneys on the defense teams or race of the plaintiff predicted plaintiff verdicts and greater damage awards. I hypothesized that all-White defense attorney teams and plaintiffs would win their cases at higher rates and would subsequently be awarded more in damages than their non-White counterparts, especially in regions reporting high levels of implicit racial bias. Using real-world civil trials and Project Implicit Race IAT data, I conducted logistic and linear regression analyses to test the effects of race and regional bias on trial outcomes. The results showed that the likelihood of a pro-plaintiff verdict increased when the defense team included at least one non-White attorney. That is, more racially diverse defense teams won their cases less then all-White defense teams. Additionally, I found that the likelihood of a pro-plaintiff verdict decreased in regions reporting relatively higher levels of regional implicit racial bias. Future research aimed at understanding and reducing disparities and bias in the legal system should be extended to include civil trials and both attorney and client demographics.