How do legal institutions change in new democracies? More specifically, what are the origins of justice reforms in Mexico? Existing research establishes the important role of ideas in shaping both the design of courts and the opinions of judges who inhabit them. In short, ideas shape jurisprudence and institutions. However, while we know ideas matter, there is little empirical evidence regarding the content or distribution of these ideas, and even less evidence regarding the manner in which ideas diffuse among judges, institutions, and geographic locations. Why do some judges hold these ideas while others do not? Addressing these empirical and theoretical gaps, this paper offers a first, preliminary look at an ongoing pilot survey of judges in Mexico. The survey contributes original, ego-centric network data, including (a) the structure and composition of personal networks among judges, and (b) the attitudes of judges regarding institutional design and jurisprudence, permitting analysis of the causal relationship between the two. Further, the survey aims to generate whole, socio-centric data on smaller networks of judges, e.g., judges on a state supreme court. While the current sample size (N=5) is too small yet to draw any conclusions regarding network influence on judges' attitudes, the data available at the time of writing offers an initial view of the content and distribution of judges' ideas regarding prominent legal issues in Mexico, as well as data on network structure and composition.