Several studies have underscored the significance of familiarity and collegiality in shaping judicial behaviors in U.S. federal courts. However, the distinct features of the U.S. judicial system might not always offer the most appropriate framework for examining cognitive biases. This research utilizes an extensive dataset of 84,335 decisions from Taiwanese appellate courts on civil cases to explore the impact of familiarity within a career judge system. Contrary to the U.S., in Taiwan, lower court judges are temporarily promoted to appellate courts for three years, after which they return to their district courts for further tenure. By examining the judicial actions during their initial and subsequent promotions, and contrasting these with the practices of permanent appellate judges, Dr. Chang and his associates identify similar biases among Taiwanese judges as those previously reported in the literature. The large and diverse nature of their dataset, along with the random allocation of court cases in Taiwan, strengthens the claim that judicial biases are widespread and consistent across various legal systems. Moreover, Dr. Chang and his associates specify two distinct sources of familiarity, differentiating them clearly from collegiality, thus enriching the understanding of the intricate factors that influence judicial decision-making.