It doesn't take much capital to start a law firm. Why don't women end-run the biases and start their own firms?
2
I had the great privilege of having had, in my first legal job, a fabulous lawyer as my first "boss" at the S.E.C. -- Roberta Karmel, who went on to become an S.E.C. commissioner. As an Assistant General Counsel at MetLife for several years my team consisted of of 5 lawyers -- all highly capable women. Now at Advice Company the terrific lawyer in charge of content read by 2 million consumers every month at FreeAdvice.com -- Patti Gima. My wife Myra Levenson is another incredible lawyer, as are many other friends and current and former colleagues with whom I've served on Bar Association committees who happen to be women. Who knows, next thing we'll hear from those with a troglodyte mentality saying is that women can't code.
3
Professional sports are based solely upon a meritocracy, which is why no rational person ever mentions the racial make-up of the NFL or NBA, even though it might not mirror society at large. If you can help a team win, you play-- regardless of any demographics.
I cannot imagine that any Top 100 law firm and their clients also do not want to win at almost any cost, which makes me question the factual foundation of this column. To say lawyering at its most professionally competitive level is not an absolute meritocracy where the cream rises to the top is hard to believe.
I cannot imagine that any Top 100 law firm and their clients also do not want to win at almost any cost, which makes me question the factual foundation of this column. To say lawyering at its most professionally competitive level is not an absolute meritocracy where the cream rises to the top is hard to believe.
Litigation is for unsucccesdul people who dont know how to work with others (think preschoolers), or people who choose not to work with others (think bullies). Most women are too smart to engage in that dog-eat -dog environment where no one wins, not even the lawyers, who are paid obscene amounts of money to do nothing more than talk, then end up depressed, emotionally unbalanced or substance abusers. The sooner we remove lawyers from courts and teach them to negotiate and collaborate the better we will be. This judge should be relieved to see mostly suits, it demonstrates hope for the future of our culture
2
I have been a trial attorney for over 32 years. Recently, I tried a case with two male attorney in a large county in Middle TN. The male judge was maybe five years older than I am. He kept referring to us as "gentlemen". Not "will counsel approach the bench" but "gentlemen, approach the bench." The jury seemed confused, the other attorneys were aggravated. I just shrugged it off. What else can you do?
2
I was once one of two female associates in a firm of about 30 lawyers. The men used to play poker together regularly. One of the named partners once sent out a memo titled "To: All Male Attorneys" announcing a poker party at his Malibu home that weekend. I kept that memo for years after I left that place, just to remind myself.
Same place where I was the first and second time they had to deal with a pregnant attorney, and where they wanted to fire me the first time because I wasn't yet married (got married three months before the baby was born).
In my interview, the then-managing partner asked me "Do you cry easily?"
And one of the partners, when I was pregnant with my second kid, came up and put his arm around me one day, looked down at me, and smiled: "Pregnant women really turn me on."
All this in the '80s.
Same place where I was the first and second time they had to deal with a pregnant attorney, and where they wanted to fire me the first time because I wasn't yet married (got married three months before the baby was born).
In my interview, the then-managing partner asked me "Do you cry easily?"
And one of the partners, when I was pregnant with my second kid, came up and put his arm around me one day, looked down at me, and smiled: "Pregnant women really turn me on."
All this in the '80s.
7
Thank goodness you are off the bench. The idea that the judge should play a role in who argues on a client's behalf is absolutely absurd. The judge should have zero role in this decision, and the fact that judges were even asked to track such a metric while ostensibly doling out blind justice is troubling, to say the least. How many of these judges were influenced in their decision making by the outcome of their survey? This is outrageous!
4
Some of the best law firms in the United States are composed of a small group of litigators who represent plaintiffs in individual personal injury cases. Some of these aggrieved women might set up their own law firms with a few talented associates. That done, these women in the firm would be able to take the case from inception to verdict without being controlled by men. Juries, IF CORRECTLY SELECTED, are not biased by gender, and a woman can win large verdicts just like men. The big problem about gender relates more to large law firms and not to small ones. If talented women would do this they would take their place among the great litigators.
2
In a desperately sick profession, gender equality is not the most pressing issue. These supposedly plum jobs are BigLaw partnerships, a cutthroat world of deadly competition (both between firms and between lawyers in the same firm) for work from major corporations, along with the occasional white collar criminal who can also afford $1000/hr rates from lawyers required to bill over 2000 hours per year. Meanwhile, real people can only afford lawyers who are as financially stressed as themselves. The private sector of law practice is, in short, a "Snowpiercer" scenario, and if you remember, the subject of that movie was NOT the gender ratio up in the first-class car.
4
Thank you Judge Scheindlin for your words--I am hopeful they will inspire a change in the profession. As a female attorney that has practiced on both sides of the bench, and was on the bench, your remarks are spot on. It was not until I went solo, was the boss and made the rules that I was the lead every time. It is very disappointing that far more females are still not positioned in lead counsel roles. Perhaps, I am in the minority because I did not wait for a man to give me permission to take the lead. Often times in mass federal conspiracy cases, I am the only female attorney of 20+ defense counsel in an entire federal courtroom--this must change.
...And for those commenting that women do not get the lead roles and the client contact because we prefer family time over worktime, I have managed the lead while raising two daughters. Please get passed the poor excuses and recognize that women are a great asset on the team and at the forefront of cases instead of promoting the fallacy.
Thank goodness for the male judges and clients that respected me and my abilities despite my maternity leaves, volleyball games, and family time that some might have perceived as a hindrance.
...And for those commenting that women do not get the lead roles and the client contact because we prefer family time over worktime, I have managed the lead while raising two daughters. Please get passed the poor excuses and recognize that women are a great asset on the team and at the forefront of cases instead of promoting the fallacy.
Thank goodness for the male judges and clients that respected me and my abilities despite my maternity leaves, volleyball games, and family time that some might have perceived as a hindrance.
4
Having worked in an assistant capacity for a variety of law firms over the years I can knowledgeably state that many lawyers who are good researchers and writers are definitely not anywhere as good when it comes to speaking well and handling the pressure in a trial. I'm not arguing with the writer's major point here but this factor must also be taken into account and it appears she has not done so.
2
The civil rights movement, womens rights movement, and LGBT rights movement are all recent achievements. We will get to the point where the best person for the job gets the glory eventually but not immediately. We have a dying generation who believes that a strong white male equals strength but younger generations have different values. Things will change as those younger generations take control.
3
I was just in court today and I was the only woman in the courtroom besides the judge and her clerk. I wrote the brief; I was the one who knew the record (evidence). I did the legal research. My two male colleagues argued the case and I was there to offer assistance with the facts and law. The judges are always cordial, but the opposing attorneys often act like I'm invisible, which I suppose I am.
7
Judge Scheindlin - Why didn't you just ask the female associates mentioned in your article (who you say always write the briefs and know the case cold) to address the Court directly when their male counterparts were conferring with them? Some people just need an opportunity and it appears that the Court has the best opportunity to provide such an opportunity when law firms and clients are reluctant to do so (for whatever the reason).
4
It doesn't seem to have occurred to Judge Scheindlin that the reason why women were found to be the lead lawyers for private parties in New York State’s federal and state courts at the trial and appellate levels barely 20% of the time is likely because that is what they have chosen.
A study by ALM Intelligence (ALI) titled “Where Do We Go From Here? Big Law’s Struggle With Recruiting and Retaining Female Talent” found that among women working at Am Law 200 firms, niche practice groups, such as education, family law, health care, immigration and labor and employment were those with the greatest proportion of women.
"Practice areas with the highest compensation and focus within Big Law, such as banking, intellectual property and litigation, had the lowest percentages of women. Women made up only 35 percent of Am Law 200 litigation departments, 31 percent of banking and taxation practices and accounted for 27 and 23 percent of IP and M&A teams, respectively...."
“I think attorneys go into those niches practices perhaps because they believe there will be more flexibility in their hours,” said Jacquelyn Knight, a legal recruiter at Major, Lindsey & Africa in New York. “[And] they have more control over the hours unlike a M&A or a finance deal that has to be worked on all weekend because [of] a deal.”
But Scheindlin and others of her ilk won't stop pushing us around until we get the numbers she wants.
A study by ALM Intelligence (ALI) titled “Where Do We Go From Here? Big Law’s Struggle With Recruiting and Retaining Female Talent” found that among women working at Am Law 200 firms, niche practice groups, such as education, family law, health care, immigration and labor and employment were those with the greatest proportion of women.
"Practice areas with the highest compensation and focus within Big Law, such as banking, intellectual property and litigation, had the lowest percentages of women. Women made up only 35 percent of Am Law 200 litigation departments, 31 percent of banking and taxation practices and accounted for 27 and 23 percent of IP and M&A teams, respectively...."
“I think attorneys go into those niches practices perhaps because they believe there will be more flexibility in their hours,” said Jacquelyn Knight, a legal recruiter at Major, Lindsey & Africa in New York. “[And] they have more control over the hours unlike a M&A or a finance deal that has to be worked on all weekend because [of] a deal.”
But Scheindlin and others of her ilk won't stop pushing us around until we get the numbers she wants.
3
I am a female public defender. My experience with my kind is that we do a lot of talking in court. But the Judge's piece got me wondering exactly how many women public defender chiefs there are across New York State. So I counted them. There are 41 male public defenders and 7 female public defenders.
Of all the top positions in public defense services (public defenders, conflict defenders, 18-b plan administrators, Legal Aid Society chiefs, and appellate chiefs), 85 (69%) are male and 38 (31%) are female.
Better than the private sector, but still nothing to write home about.
Of all the top positions in public defense services (public defenders, conflict defenders, 18-b plan administrators, Legal Aid Society chiefs, and appellate chiefs), 85 (69%) are male and 38 (31%) are female.
Better than the private sector, but still nothing to write home about.
8
Interestingly, two of my sons are in Big Law. Senior Partners both. One of them is involved in what could be a billion dollar case with multiple lawyers working on it. It is unlikely to get negotiated out, as most of his cases have been. So the trial lawyer will be one of the best trial lawyers in the country, who will steep himself in the case as the court date approaches. My son, who has little actual trial experience will be at the table, available for consultation and information - and the briefs will have been written by his team. But in this case, he is happy to be second counsel and learn at the foot of the master. And he is almost 50. Surely, this must be true in many of the Big Law cases where the trial lawyer specializes in multi million dollar trials. And the specialty trial lawyers with honed skills are generally not the youngsters in the firm.
1
While I know much of this is a result of the sexism that still pervades our profession - I have been the target of it repeatedly - I hope that any analysis of the issue will include a survey of women lawyers asking whether they are deliberately in a secondary role. I am a full-time litiagtor with three kids and a full personal life of work. I feel incredibly fortunate to have found a firm that values my writing and case management abilities, and accommodates my desire to frequently work from home, rarely travel, and engage in only minimal business development. We owe so much to past generations of feminists who fought so long and hard to get us where we are. There is still so much work to be done, but a failure to acknowledge the wide range of choices women now have would be unfortunate.
4
I graduated law school in 1978. There were 20 women out of a class of 120. From that class we have a woman US senator, a woman justice on the state supreme court, and a number of other women on the bench. Out of 20. But these are all women in the public sector, who made their own way, and certainly were not afraid to talk.
There are many women lawyers in court these days, trying cases, arguing motions, etc. The author points out an issue with big firms that has always been the situation. But not only for women, but for every lowly associate. They do the work , and the partner gets the glory and the money.
The bigger issue I see is the disparate treatment of women lawyers as a whole. Its more subtle than it used to be, but still not equal, after all these years.
There are many women lawyers in court these days, trying cases, arguing motions, etc. The author points out an issue with big firms that has always been the situation. But not only for women, but for every lowly associate. They do the work , and the partner gets the glory and the money.
The bigger issue I see is the disparate treatment of women lawyers as a whole. Its more subtle than it used to be, but still not equal, after all these years.
4
Just start your own law firm and never again in your life work for any male...
6
I object strongly to the idea that judges should get involved with this issue with regard to an actual, ongoing trial. Not only is that not their job, it is in my opinion one of their not-jobs. They are not supposed to attempt influence the plaintiff's or defendant's choices in how they are to be represented at trial. If a client would rather be represented by a dumb man than a smart woman, the judge's job is to let that happen.
OUTSIDE of when they're overseeing cases or controversies, of course, there's no problem at all with judges publicly speaking their opinion on the topic. But when they're operating in "Your Honor" mode? No way.
OUTSIDE of when they're overseeing cases or controversies, of course, there's no problem at all with judges publicly speaking their opinion on the topic. But when they're operating in "Your Honor" mode? No way.
17
Exactly. As a retired attorney I was shocked by the suggestion that the judge should decide who will argue or question witnesses. Most law firms do not let all partners argue in Court or litigate cases. As an associate, I wrote briefs and supporting memos all the time. I also sat at counsel table and sometimes handed notes to the partner arguing the motion. But the client had always picked or approved who was going to argue or question witnesses. That person, whether partner or associate, had usually done two or three mock arguments within the litigation section of the firm to prepare her for court. If a judge had called on me to argue, I would have stated that I was not prepared. I eventually became a competent litigator. It took time, observation of more experienced colleagues and practice. I have also known colleagues, men and women, who did excellent research, wrote excellent briefs, but simply could not think on their feet. I got so that I could do all of that. What I wasn't particularly good at was snoozing potential clients. We all have our limitations. A judge can't possibly know what they are.
4
I doubt the judge would deny that the life of a trial lawyer simply -and understandably - doesnt appeal to many sensible women who want to have a life/family. Heck, it doesn't appeal to most men ! If she can come up with that denominator, it's appropriate to strive for equal percentages of men and women participating, but I think the pool of female layers who aspire to the rigors and sacrifices and stress of a litigation practice is much lower than for men. There are major factors operating here that don't even hint of sexism.
2
What makes you think "the pool of female lawyers who aspire to ... a litigation practice is much lower than for men"? What factors?
I had the pleasure of serving on a NYS Bar Association Women In Law panel a few months ago. She is a tireless advocate for diversity. Women litigators love her. She has done what she can to give women a chance. Women need to learn to speak up, be comfortable with discomfort, till you get comfortable again. And, as fast as you can, whenever you can, find the law firm that walks the diversity walk and talk full out and go there. Ginny Pulos, President, Ginny Pulos Communications, Inc., a speech and media consultancy
10
I'm not seeing what Judge Sheindlin did to counter this imbalance in her 40 years of practice. She seems to have noted this problem for years -- and stopped there. And yet she wonders why things haven't improved ...
It also has to do with gender discrimination within many heterosexual marriages. My husband's career was deemed to be more important than mine - I am a lawyer; he a professor. We moved many times - all to benefit his career. Mine went into the toilet. We never questioned this - and, when I finally did - everything in the marriage went south. I don't know how our society should accommodate two professionals within one marriage - but it must.
36
@resharpen - Marriage is almost always a bad option for ambitious professional women. I guess that's one reason the marriage rate, especially among educated women, is down.
7
Resharpen,
you saw your husband career more important than yours. Otherwise, you would have refused to move the first time in order not to lose your job and all your friends.
You made that decision but at the very end you blamed your husband for your mistakes...
If you decided on your own, you should have honored your own decision.
Now you lost both of them - your career and your husband...
Did you question why you married him atoo?
If you said that you sacrificed your career for your kids and not for your husband, everything would be easier for you...
you saw your husband career more important than yours. Otherwise, you would have refused to move the first time in order not to lose your job and all your friends.
You made that decision but at the very end you blamed your husband for your mistakes...
If you decided on your own, you should have honored your own decision.
Now you lost both of them - your career and your husband...
Did you question why you married him atoo?
If you said that you sacrificed your career for your kids and not for your husband, everything would be easier for you...
1
I see among my professional women friends the practice of "marrying down." I make about 2.5 x what my husband makes and he is in a job that tends to be more short, contract positions rather than long term jobs with benefits. When we decided to move about 11 years ago, he was offered a good position in a place where I would not be able to find a job. I told him that if he wanted the experience, he could go for a year, but the financial hit would be too large for me to follow him and to not work in my field for a year would be to give up my career.
Part of the reason that I broke up with my boyfriend in graduate school was that we would not likely be able to find jobs where we could both be happy in the same city. I have more than one friend who went through the same decision process. I have friends that spouses alternated who got to be the leader in the job hunt.
In college, my chemistry undergraduate thesis adviser's husband was a carpenter.
I look around my company and see two women in upper level management who have husbands who live an hour plane flight away. I have a number of friends that one spouse works in Boston and one in New York with one spouse commuting for the weekdays. Yes, many of them do have children.
Society will not go out of its way accommodate two professionals in a marriage. It is something that needs to be worked out between the two in the marriage.
Part of the reason that I broke up with my boyfriend in graduate school was that we would not likely be able to find jobs where we could both be happy in the same city. I have more than one friend who went through the same decision process. I have friends that spouses alternated who got to be the leader in the job hunt.
In college, my chemistry undergraduate thesis adviser's husband was a carpenter.
I look around my company and see two women in upper level management who have husbands who live an hour plane flight away. I have a number of friends that one spouse works in Boston and one in New York with one spouse commuting for the weekdays. Yes, many of them do have children.
Society will not go out of its way accommodate two professionals in a marriage. It is something that needs to be worked out between the two in the marriage.
3
Now we’ve seen everything, even the corporate lawyers complaining about the job discrimination!
What’s the next step for them?
To hire a good lawyer?
What’s the next step for them?
To hire a good lawyer?
Something is really wrong if the Federal District Court judge sees the corporate lawyers as the victims in this country...
Among all those thousands of hurt, mistreated, violated, and deprived of the basic rights parading in front of her court, she felt the compelling sympathy for the corporate lawyers and penned an op-ed on their behalf?!
Among all those thousands of hurt, mistreated, violated, and deprived of the basic rights parading in front of her court, she felt the compelling sympathy for the corporate lawyers and penned an op-ed on their behalf?!
3
May I testify to the decades long fact that law firms are the worst violators of the law?
1
Dear judge,
What you witnessed wasn’t a case of discrimination but the great business opportunity.
You noticed a bunch of very underappreciated and underpaid professionals.
If you quit your current position, created a law firm and hired all those highly skilled lawyers, you would make very quickly a lot of money.
Why?
Your competition would consist of the unqualified male lawyers that just lost theirs most skilled advisers.
In that case there should be no problem to win the legal cases against such an inferior law firm...
What you witnessed wasn’t a case of discrimination but the great business opportunity.
You noticed a bunch of very underappreciated and underpaid professionals.
If you quit your current position, created a law firm and hired all those highly skilled lawyers, you would make very quickly a lot of money.
Why?
Your competition would consist of the unqualified male lawyers that just lost theirs most skilled advisers.
In that case there should be no problem to win the legal cases against such an inferior law firm...
1
The objectivity of this author is suspect at best. At the end of the day she is just another feminist ideologue demanding a guaranteed result for her fellows. I have no love lost for silk stocking Big Law law firms but I find it contemptible when corporate CEO's who want bragging rights at toney upper class wine-and-cheese parties start thinking they can tell the practicing bar who it must hire and who it must send into a court room. And I'm sick of the whining and kvetching by women attorneys who don't make partner or get the plum assignments but who always have "family conflicts" or other excuses why they can't work on weekends on a major matter, why they can't stay late on a weeknight to do a rush contract, etc. Too many talk a good game...but it ends being the single male attorney who ends having to pick up the slack. Private practice law is NOT a 40-hour nine-to-five job...an unpleasnt fact too many women attorneys don't want to address because it doesn't fit the narrative they want to create.
4
Thank you Judge Scheindlin. Wonderful to see real metrics on the speaking roles women hold in New York courtrooms. So sad to see the numbers so terribly low. Women need help from men, and from clients of all stripes, to turn this around. In 1992 (this really was 25 years ago), a federal judge with two adult daughters said to a sea of men in navy blue suits (and me) in a packed courtroom in hearings arising from the Lincoln Savings collapse, "don't your large law firms have any women?" At the next hearing, every single major defendant had a woman on its team with a speaking role. When it came time to compose the trial teams, a more senior male partner intervened in our firm's staffing discussion to suggest they ask me whether I wanted to participate in the trial or to stay in Los Angeles, because I had two children, rather than just assume I wouldn't want to do it. When pre-trial hearings began, our client was the only one of 8 large entities with a woman on the trial team. That was week one. On week two, every major defendant had added a woman to its team. And all of us received a huge boost from that experience, thanks to those two men who focused on the advancement of women before it was even a subject of significant attention. Thank you Judge Richard Bilby and Wayne Smith, for being ahead of the times. And now Judge Scheindlin has shown us it isn't too late for the rest of you.
8
I'm a female minority partner at a large law firm in a major city and have been able to try cases, take the lead on major arguments in federal court on behalf of large, publicly-traded clients, take depositions, etc. How is this possible? I have no children, an understanding partner and have been able to devote the enormous hours and commitment required to go from the associate doing all the doc review and legal research to the lawyer addressing the court. Parents of both genders who wish to spend any meaningful time with their families do not have that "luxury." It's not discrimination; it's the demand of the job. Most men and women make the decision not to devote their time to it, and for good reason. The grueling, unrelenting hours, sleepless nights, cancelled/never-planned vacations and lack of any personal time is a huge sacrifice. To do that with a child at home? Impossible.
6
I appreciate this perspective, but "unrelenting hours, sleepless nights, cancelled/never-planned vacations and lack of any personal time" is just one kind of law firm. Most lawyers don't work in biglaw. My small firm certainly is not run in the manner you describe, and yet I am able to argue all of my own cases, take party depositions and manage my own caseload. Why other small firms are not giving women these opportunities cannot all be attributed to the women's unwillingness to sacrifice.
I find it very surprising that you are willing to dismiss the experience of half your peers because you don't perceive discrimination. I'm glad you haven't experienced discrimination, but please recognize that accepting horrific working conditions isn't the only way to have a successful law practice, and that the women who do remain in those conditions may well be experiencing the discrimination you claim not to see on top of all that.
I find it very surprising that you are willing to dismiss the experience of half your peers because you don't perceive discrimination. I'm glad you haven't experienced discrimination, but please recognize that accepting horrific working conditions isn't the only way to have a successful law practice, and that the women who do remain in those conditions may well be experiencing the discrimination you claim not to see on top of all that.
3
I agree with Law Feminist. Just because you haven't experienced discrimination at your particular law firm, don't assume others aren't already doing what you are already doing -- deferring/ deciding not to have kids, marrying an understanding partner, etc. -- and still having problems making it to the top of their fields or firms. Count yourself lucky and try to help others less fortunate than yourself.
1
Thank you Judge Sheindlin! Fascinating article. Thanks for telling it like it is. I'm a female criminal defense attorney. In the civil arena if there's big money involved, the male attorneys are going to get it, regardless of how good they are or aren't.
3
Preparing a case and arguing it are two different skills. That may just put the gender question at one further remove, but the same division of labor holds among male lawyers, too.
"Judges should suggest that the lawyer who wrote the brief or prepared the witness should be the one to argue."
While a woman may have written a brief or prepped witnesses, that doesn't mean that she is the one who should conduct direct or cross examination. They are very different skills, and someone who is very capable of doing one may be woefully inept at the other.
Your role is to decide the case as it is presented and not opine on the gender of an advocate who appears before you. Sorry, your honor, but justice is blind.
While a woman may have written a brief or prepped witnesses, that doesn't mean that she is the one who should conduct direct or cross examination. They are very different skills, and someone who is very capable of doing one may be woefully inept at the other.
Your role is to decide the case as it is presented and not opine on the gender of an advocate who appears before you. Sorry, your honor, but justice is blind.
2
Though they are very different skill sets. But both brief writing and oral argument are refined by practice and experience. And getting practice is about opportunity. If female litigators are not given a chance to speak in court, those skills won't be developed whatsoever. The male who has done it 100 times will naturally be more skilled at oral argument than a female who has done it zero times. What Judge Scheindlin has recognized is that many women are not given that chance in court. Sure, go with the person who has better oral argument skills at the motion to dismiss hearing or at trial. But if you're allowing junior people in your firm to argue discovery motions or motions in limine, give those opportunities to both men and women. And, day-to-day interactions in the hallways at work is not a way to judge whether someone will be a good courtroom advocate, so that's not an excuse for benching women before they even try. There's a lot of female oral advocacy talent that is never cultivated for lack of opportunity. I see that is my own practice as a litigator.
7
It is undoubtedly true that some attorneys who are particularly strong brief writers prefer not to argue in court. But that isn't the point at all. The point is that women need to be given the opportunity to represent the client in court/at depositions/at arbitrations.
Just because *some* female attorneys would decline those roles does not mean *all* female attorneys should be denied those opportunities.
Just because *some* female attorneys would decline those roles does not mean *all* female attorneys should be denied those opportunities.
5
Wouldn't it be easier if the cases were just tried and judged by LegalZoom, robots or AI? The entire career field is vanishing with tech and modern databases.
After seeing how women are treated in the House and Senate, is it a wonder that women are not fairly treated as lawyers? If misogynistic men are in charge, how will this change if the suggestions in this article depend on them to enact change?
5
Why do we always compare with those who make more money than us? Why do we never compare with those making dramatically less?
Allegedly, if somebody makes more money than us that’s discrimination.
If we make more money than the others that’s the result hard work and commitment...
Would we pick up the vegetables on the fields for a minimum wage? Is that discrimination?
Allegedly, if somebody makes more money than us that’s discrimination.
If we make more money than the others that’s the result hard work and commitment...
Would we pick up the vegetables on the fields for a minimum wage? Is that discrimination?
1
If someone earns less money for doing the same work as another, and it is always the same demographic group that earns less, then yes, that is "discrimination".
10
Zoned,
does it mean you are discriminating against the rest of the world for being paid dramatically higher for exactly the same kind of work?
does it mean you are discriminating against the rest of the world for being paid dramatically higher for exactly the same kind of work?
1
what is the 'same work'? If you take maternity or paternity leave, you won't have the same amount of time in as the person who doesn't, will you? Just like the concept of a living wage--not the same if you have kids, is it?
Wow, it appears that senior partners in large New York law firms arguing in Judge Sheindlin's court sure were sexist.
This tells me nothing about the rest of the country, however.
This tells me nothing about the rest of the country, however.
I came up through the big firm ranks which can be brutal (I don't think one person [male or female] from my associate class is still at that firm). I moved to a slightly smaller firm, but still big, still on the AmLaw 100 and my opportunities increased. One time I was the associate at the table with the partner and I had, of course, drafted the motion, done the research, done the fact investigation, outlined the argument and the partner was whispering back and forth to me and the Judge had had enough. The Judge, a man, asked that I make the argument since it was obvious that I had prepared the argument. I almost got sick, but I stood up and did it and I did a decent job (we did prevail).
Women litigators are repeatedly underestimated. I can't tell you how many times I've been mistaken as the court reporter (and overheard a few things that were not meant for my ears). FYI - how hard is it to go on a firm website and look at a photo of your opposing counsel. I do mostly defense work and although my clients are big they don't pay for two attorneys, so I'm often the only person at defense table and at the other table there will be three older men (always white). Those older men always underestimate me and I kick their butts 9 times out of 10. Big firms need to do more and young women need to ask for more chances, ask to argue, ask to second chair or ask to third chair, take on probono cases if you have to in order to get trial and hearing experience.
Women litigators are repeatedly underestimated. I can't tell you how many times I've been mistaken as the court reporter (and overheard a few things that were not meant for my ears). FYI - how hard is it to go on a firm website and look at a photo of your opposing counsel. I do mostly defense work and although my clients are big they don't pay for two attorneys, so I'm often the only person at defense table and at the other table there will be three older men (always white). Those older men always underestimate me and I kick their butts 9 times out of 10. Big firms need to do more and young women need to ask for more chances, ask to argue, ask to second chair or ask to third chair, take on probono cases if you have to in order to get trial and hearing experience.
10
Yep. I'm a also female litigator at an AmLaw 100 firm in Florida, and I came up through the ranks as well. Your comment is spot on.
3
Ahh, and the curtain, once again, is ripped off the Myth that men are just smarter than women!
4
Make a new rule that 50% of all arguments must be made by women. Then watch who follows it.
To all the commenters saying that men speak more because men win cases, I encourage all of you to look up Lisa Blatt's win record before SCOTUS. Last time I checked it was 33-2.
7
It's the clients. Imagine who a bunch of trumpsters want representing them.... males
3
Writing a brief and research are very different skills from jury selection and summation. A fair and much easier study would present the win loss record of jury verdicts for male and female trial attorneys. Representing a client at trial requires judgment and dedication not found in the law books. Only a handful of women have what it takes.
2
Gosh, my woman brain can barely handle voir dire! It's not even an English word! Am I in Paris?! I want to go drink wine and eat pastries! Tee hee.
Your study would be much easier to conduct (as it's not really a "study," it's just "counting") but it would be entirely useless, as "wins v. losses" is in no way an objective measurement of someone's skill as an attorney. Google the term "confounding variable" and maybe you'll start to understand.
Seems like only a handful of men really have the critical thinking skills necessary to discuss this issue.
Your study would be much easier to conduct (as it's not really a "study," it's just "counting") but it would be entirely useless, as "wins v. losses" is in no way an objective measurement of someone's skill as an attorney. Google the term "confounding variable" and maybe you'll start to understand.
Seems like only a handful of men really have the critical thinking skills necessary to discuss this issue.
8
Nonsense! Only a handful of women have what it takes? Who says? You? Some of the best litigators, including trial lawyers, on the planet are female. Because judgment is based on knowledge of the facts and law and understanding people. Including men like you. I bet your female opponents get who you are better than you understand them. And I bet you are afraid to include cases in your "statistics" that were settled at far less cost to their clients by women lawyers than equivalent cases male lawyers refused to settle, then lost.
3
This is exactly the attitude that prevents women from progressing in law firms. Law schools have been 50-50 male/female for a while now, but antedeluvian opinions from male partners even if not so openly expressed keep women from equal opportunities and mentoring in most law firms. The culture remains that of an old boys' club. That is why there are so many women in Legal Aid, DA and other government related legal positions or corporate counsel. Wake up, Mr. Devany. It's the 21st century.
Judge Scheindlin knows that "diversity" doesn't just mean hiring more cishet white wealthy women, right? This article is on point, and as a recent law school grad I can't really comment on Scheindlin's experience as a federal judge. But despite being a newcomer to this profession, I've often seen well-intentioned white feminism rear its coiffed blonde head..
2
I am a "poster child" for the situation Judge Scheindlin describes. I've spent most of my 30-year career writing briefs (10 years in the Federal Public Defender's office) because that's what I'm good at. I'm OK at oral argument but not great. Why? Because my first thought when I'm challenged in oral argument is "maybe he's right (it's usually a 'he'); I must have screwed up." And of course, the 'he' turns out to have been bluffing, at least most of the time. Bottom line: I'm afraid to contradict men. Pretty sad. I wish I still had my "consciousness-raising group" from 1970. It was the best year of my life.
10
Angels dancing on the head of a pin? My (white, female, over-65) opinion is the courts are too damned slow. Winning a lawsuit after you're dead is stupid. Lawyers, judges, get off your rumps and move it along. Due process doesn't include delayed process. Justice delayed and all that ....
"Diversity" doesn't and can't mean hiring more white, heterosexual, wealthy women. This article addresses an important issue, and there is no doubt that law is a male-dominated profession. As a recent law graduate I can attest that this phenomenon of men's voices being the loudest (though frequently not the brightest) begins in law school. But let's stop pretending that the elitism and clubby good-old-boys aspect to the profession – the same mechanism that allows women to be excluded and minimized in the first place – will be solved when we add more of the same: privileged elite who just happen to be women.
3
My ex-wife had a female attorney during our divorce proceedings, and I can assure you that she spoke up PLENTY!!!
8
Scientific studies have shown that when the amount in controversy in a legal action exceeds $1 million female attorneys clam up.
2
Absolute nonsense. That is all.
1
I was in recently in a Houston federal court. The judge asked for a side bar and said I was smiling too much. It makes me wonder if the implicit bias with this judge was completely out in the open. I doubt he would have said the same thing to a smiling male attorney.
4
I had a female federal judge tell me years ago that I was too obvious with my emotions, sitting there shaking my head when I disagreed or agreed with something. She was right. I changed how I acted in Court. Maybe smiling isn't a good signal to send to a jury in any given case. Learn.
It is weird that the NYTs, would give a forum to a retired judge who was so biased in the major stop and frisk case involving New York City that she was pulled from the case by the Federal Court of Appeals. http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/judge-shira-scheindlin-pulled-from-... Of course, since she is a liberal her good motives and purity are assumed to be present by the NYTs.
JD
JD
6
So, the court room context isn't the only setting in which women are silenced. How many meetings have I and other women attended where we make comments only to have them not be heard. Then, five or ten minutes later, a man makes the same comment - identical - and the attendees say:"what an excellent point!" If you are a woman sitting there, you think to yourself: are they actually not listening when I speak? Surely they are not all hearing deficient.
I have on occasion said something like: Good point that X made, very similar to the point I made 10 minutes ago but might I add, as I did then, ..... Takes guts to do that and it isn't always well received. You can almost feel some of the men saying: "Oh is she hypersensitive...."
The silencing of women occurs in households too. Many abused women and girls do not speak up, perhaps out of fear or maybe because silence produces less violence And, in other settings -- workplaces, schools, government -- women struggle to be heard oft-times.
I've wondered if the solution will emerge, at least in part. when men have daughters who enter the workforce. Will they reflect on these issues differently? Will they ask for women's views specifically? Will they show their daughters that they can hear them, not just see them? Perhaps. I don't hold out much hope.
The answer rests in recognizing that the point is not just to speak up. It is also to be heard. The latter is way harder than the former. This op-ed deals with the former.
I have on occasion said something like: Good point that X made, very similar to the point I made 10 minutes ago but might I add, as I did then, ..... Takes guts to do that and it isn't always well received. You can almost feel some of the men saying: "Oh is she hypersensitive...."
The silencing of women occurs in households too. Many abused women and girls do not speak up, perhaps out of fear or maybe because silence produces less violence And, in other settings -- workplaces, schools, government -- women struggle to be heard oft-times.
I've wondered if the solution will emerge, at least in part. when men have daughters who enter the workforce. Will they reflect on these issues differently? Will they ask for women's views specifically? Will they show their daughters that they can hear them, not just see them? Perhaps. I don't hold out much hope.
The answer rests in recognizing that the point is not just to speak up. It is also to be heard. The latter is way harder than the former. This op-ed deals with the former.
6
Thank you, Judge Scheindlin, for making this important statement.
I recently had two appellate oral arguments unceremoniously taken from me by of course white males -- regardless of the fact that I was the one who wrote the briefs.
But I'm not going to be sitting next to them at counsel's table to feed them the answers they won't know. I responded politely that the decisions to give the oral arguments to others (of course white men) "works for my schedule" because I have other demands on my time, and that I consider my work on these cases over. There are briefs in other cases that this office (of exclusively white men) want me to write -- I'm not going to do it.
If anyone presses the point, I think I might give them a copy of your article ....
I recently had two appellate oral arguments unceremoniously taken from me by of course white males -- regardless of the fact that I was the one who wrote the briefs.
But I'm not going to be sitting next to them at counsel's table to feed them the answers they won't know. I responded politely that the decisions to give the oral arguments to others (of course white men) "works for my schedule" because I have other demands on my time, and that I consider my work on these cases over. There are briefs in other cases that this office (of exclusively white men) want me to write -- I'm not going to do it.
If anyone presses the point, I think I might give them a copy of your article ....
4
Then what of your duty is to the client?
For goodness sake, Judge, stop your incessant bullying!
For 22 years you politicized your courtroom, but apparently you still can't resist the urge to boss people around.
A few truths for you that you won't read in the NYT. Diversity is a form of racism and sexism. "Real" diversity would honestly seek out people with different views and aptitudes and so on. But for Scheindlin the only diversity that counts is sex and race (and possibly a few other forms of "positive" discrimination).
Of course, this completely betrays the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed to Americans that they would be free from discrimination on the basis of their sex. The Act made it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any INDIVIDUAL on the basis of their sex.
Now Judge Scheindlin proposes that employers, judges, clients etc. break that promise and make employment decisions on the basis of sex -- e.g., to achieve Judge Scheindlin's idea of gender balance. In her courtroom, we are no longer unique individuals, we become "representatives" of our race and sex. We are just pieces on a board to be arranged in patterns that conform to Scheindlin's idea of gender diversity.
Stop trying to force "real gender diversity" down people's throats and start respecting their right to make their choices.
For 22 years you politicized your courtroom, but apparently you still can't resist the urge to boss people around.
A few truths for you that you won't read in the NYT. Diversity is a form of racism and sexism. "Real" diversity would honestly seek out people with different views and aptitudes and so on. But for Scheindlin the only diversity that counts is sex and race (and possibly a few other forms of "positive" discrimination).
Of course, this completely betrays the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed to Americans that they would be free from discrimination on the basis of their sex. The Act made it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any INDIVIDUAL on the basis of their sex.
Now Judge Scheindlin proposes that employers, judges, clients etc. break that promise and make employment decisions on the basis of sex -- e.g., to achieve Judge Scheindlin's idea of gender balance. In her courtroom, we are no longer unique individuals, we become "representatives" of our race and sex. We are just pieces on a board to be arranged in patterns that conform to Scheindlin's idea of gender diversity.
Stop trying to force "real gender diversity" down people's throats and start respecting their right to make their choices.
6
When even liberals embrace ideologies that demean and debase women in the name of diversity, it's hard to see how this will change. Think about it we have a president who views women as a number; a vp who can't be in a room alone with a woman not his wife; a speaker of the house who wants to tell women what to wear...please cover your shoulders. We have state legislatures passing and or proposing laws to criminalize miscarriages and legalize forcible rape in order to discourage abortions. It is hard in a country that has decided that men should be involved in the most intimate decisions of a woman's life to think anything will really change. Needless to say I am not optimistic.
8
So - once again - the liberal/female-lawyer solution is: "We need more quotas"
3
"They (judges) can suggest that the lawyer who wrote the brief or prepared the witness should be the one to argue."
While a noble gesture, this is rather like an NBA ref deciding who brings the ball up court in overtime. A neutral should remain neutral.
While a noble gesture, this is rather like an NBA ref deciding who brings the ball up court in overtime. A neutral should remain neutral.
5
Another high status wealthy individual expressing their pet peeve. Very entertaining.
4
Marcia Clark
2
It is the worst kind of bias and prejudice to lump up all the people in the same basket.
We can only evaluate one person at the time. We cannot talk about the dozens millions of them. Each of them is different story with the different traits and characteristics.
It is completely insane to blame all the white males as biased and mean just because they make on average more money.
Imagine if China construed all the Americans as mean and biased just because we make ten times more money than an average Chinese employee...
We can only evaluate one person at the time. We cannot talk about the dozens millions of them. Each of them is different story with the different traits and characteristics.
It is completely insane to blame all the white males as biased and mean just because they make on average more money.
Imagine if China construed all the Americans as mean and biased just because we make ten times more money than an average Chinese employee...
1
I think you are missing the point. Judge Scheindlin is citing the statistics and calling on everyone involved to address the inequities the statistics reveal. If anything, the statistics indicate that women are being denied the opportunity to be evaluated one at a time on their own merits. The current conditions are the product of, in part, individually sexist decisions, but also of institutional sexism, which maintains itself unless there is a determined and broad commitment to disrupt it. On an individual level, Kenan Porobic, you may want to think about what you can do to increase gender equity rather than feeling that the statistics are a personal criticism that generates defensiveness.
5
Jon,
statistically you are discriminating against the rest of the world because you are paid 10 times more for the same work.
Are you going to do anything about it as you suggested to the others?
statistically you are discriminating against the rest of the world because you are paid 10 times more for the same work.
Are you going to do anything about it as you suggested to the others?
1
Kenan,
Try reading what Jon said again. Then if you cannot understand it, tell us and the women will try to explain his points to you.
Try reading what Jon said again. Then if you cannot understand it, tell us and the women will try to explain his points to you.
This writer was a Federal Judge?
Her comments and observations are, at best, banal; and, at worst, just a lack of observational and/or experiential judgment. The generalities of which she writes speak of her frustrations in the 1970s, not todays legal profession and courts.
The good news is that she is apparently no longer presiding over a court. The bad news is that she might be arbitrating or mediating your case.
Her comments and observations are, at best, banal; and, at worst, just a lack of observational and/or experiential judgment. The generalities of which she writes speak of her frustrations in the 1970s, not todays legal profession and courts.
The good news is that she is apparently no longer presiding over a court. The bad news is that she might be arbitrating or mediating your case.
3
That's quite an indictment of the article's author. I guess 22 years on the federal bench didn't give the judge an opportunity to observe and form judgments. Nor was the study that was done recently. What empirical evidence does Islander possess that shows the author is incorrect?
8
Islander, I invite you to read the July 2017 report by the New York State Bar Association linked in the article. http://www.nysba.org/WomensTaskForceReport/
As Judge Scheindlin states in the article, the 2017 report showed, based on 2,800 responses from judges in both state and federal court in New York, that women were underrepresented as counsel in the private sector. In her own experience, she saw the attorney who knew the facts and law was not the one making the arguments. That's in the 21st century, not the 1970s.
Far from being "banal," many litigation firms are following this issue closely. It matters for their business, since the best litigators will go where they are most likely to succeed. It matters for clients because it's wasteful for a senior partner to be the one speaking simply because his name is on the door, when the associate who knows the case will do a better job at half the hourly rate. It matters to the public, because if the best litigators are being edged out by older men, the next generation of lawyers will be weaker and the public will have fewer options for strong, affordable, effective advocacy.
As Judge Scheindlin states in the article, the 2017 report showed, based on 2,800 responses from judges in both state and federal court in New York, that women were underrepresented as counsel in the private sector. In her own experience, she saw the attorney who knew the facts and law was not the one making the arguments. That's in the 21st century, not the 1970s.
Far from being "banal," many litigation firms are following this issue closely. It matters for their business, since the best litigators will go where they are most likely to succeed. It matters for clients because it's wasteful for a senior partner to be the one speaking simply because his name is on the door, when the associate who knows the case will do a better job at half the hourly rate. It matters to the public, because if the best litigators are being edged out by older men, the next generation of lawyers will be weaker and the public will have fewer options for strong, affordable, effective advocacy.
30
Being female while black and a lawyer is to be trebled bedeviled in America.
How many black female lawyers did President William Jefferson Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama nominate to be Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or Court of Appeals judges or District Court Judges?
How many American Fortune 1000 corporations have black female General and Senior Counsels?
How many major corporate law firm's have black female managing and senior partners?
Clients pick their lawyers. Money talks. Politics talks. Most cases never go to trial.
How many black female lawyers did President William Jefferson Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama nominate to be Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or Court of Appeals judges or District Court Judges?
How many American Fortune 1000 corporations have black female General and Senior Counsels?
How many major corporate law firm's have black female managing and senior partners?
Clients pick their lawyers. Money talks. Politics talks. Most cases never go to trial.
3
Fair points, judge, with respect to litigators. But what of the attorneys who are not litigators, and what of those working in-house? Having solely worked in-house beginning in the early 1980s, I can say that women were well represented. Anecdotal, to be sure, but the concluding paragraph suggests that women are behind in all types of practice, but my experience doesn't bear that out, nor does the judge really address any other types of practice beyond litigation, but for a passing mention of arbitration.
4
Thank you so much for an editorial that accurately portrays the realities of trial practice. In my earlier days, I was frequently mistaken for the court reporter. I get to talk now, because I have my own firm. And I generally do well.
10
My experience as a state attorney has been more egalitarian. But not always. My last division head always brought in an older white guy to "help me" try my case. In my current job, if it's my case, I appear in court. Some observations: 1) In my experience, judges favor male attorneys, esp. if the man is good-looking. 2) If a case is assigned to a team, each member has a strength. Some attorneys write well. Other attorneys speak persuasively. Commonly,brief writers are younger attorneys (male or female) who have clerked for a judge. 3) Judges don't want to hear the brief regurgitated on oral argument. It could make sense for another attorney to orally argue for a different perspective. 4) The people who are at the top of Big Law (the types who argue big federal cases) REALLY want to be there. My guess is that most women realize that there is more to life than 100-hr. work weeks. 5) Family law attorneys (read: divorce lawyers), prosecutors and public defenders in state court are often women. However, in private criminal defense practice, the biggest names are male (often ex-prosecutors). When the stakes are high, the default is to choose a white male attorney. I think that this will end when the bench becomes more diversified. However, federal judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate (read: it's political) and state judges are elected officials. Until there are more women and minorities in elected government positions, not much will change.
6
Although largely sharing Judge Scheindlin's observations equally for counsel in European courts, it strikes me that she refers to bright and aggressive women. In my experience aggressive counsel, women and men alike, are usually counterproductive. Some further reflection on the presumed effectiveness the adversarial system, most often leading to useless 'masculin' antagonism, may be helpful for the development of a more efficient system of conflict resolution.
4
So someone hires male lawyer X who is assisted by female lawyer Y and the judge is supposed to tell the client that lawyer Y needs to argue the case because we need more diversity in the courtroom?
Why does that sound not OK to me?
Why does that sound not OK to me?
9
Her point seemed to be when the person arguing the case is a guy and yet he continually has to 'confer' with his second (the woman) to know basics about a case. The person who knows the case best - in these instances - should be arguing, not the big man on campus. It also wastes less time in the courtroom.
6
Because you mis-construe the main point, seeing it only through an ingrained adversarial sense. That's part of the problem. Let the person who is most familiar with the brief answer the question. If that is mostly a junior, woman attorney, that's part of the problem, too. But why could that person not answer the judge's question, no matter what the gender? There is a large difference between answering questions and arguing the case. Eventually junior attorneys should become senior attorneys. The fact that many woman junior attorneys do not become senior members of the firm might be due to many things, one of which is not having the opportunity to participate in cases in a meaningful way where perhaps that person's knowledge is greater and of more understanding of details. This is not a suggestion that the sun rise in the west. It's about doing what is best for the client, the argument and the law firm. It's not about jealously protecting "territory".
4
Alexandra, the client didn't hire the assistant.
2
I don't know whether this is funny or sad. I was an attorney with the US Justice dept from 1974 - 1983, as a Tax Division trial attorney. The first time I appeared in court in Brooklyn, NY, the bailiff came over and told me that "secretaries" could not sit "inside the bar"....I took great pleasure in whipping out my very official looking DOJ credentials...so, he left me alone. While at DOJ, I appeared in numerous Federal courts, in NY, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. From 1983 on, I was in private practice mostly as a sole practitioner, and mostly had male (and white) clients, and practiced tax planning for very high net worth people. That was decades ago. Have things really not changed?
8
I certainly agree with about 90% of the Judge's suggestions, however, it is not the place of the Judge to suggest to counsel who should argue a specific motion. The attorney deems what is appropriate for the client in our system, and the judge is not the advocate. Granted that results in often a less knowledgeable partner arguing a motion that the junior counsel researched, wrote, and knows far better, but that decision is for the law firm and its client. Judges do need to advocate for diversity where appropriate, but interfering with the representation of a client, and the decision lawyers make in that regard, is rarely justified or appropriate.
7
In 2015, according to the American Bar Association, 65 percent of lawyers were male and 89 percent of lawyers were white. In 2015, 35 percent of lawyers were women, but a larger percent of female lawyers than male lawyers are recent law school graduates, which explains why so few are senior partners.
In 2015, 52.2 percent of law students were men, 47.8 percent were women, and 28.5 percent are minority. So, the demographics appear to be undergoing a seismic change, but things won’t change as rapidly as one would expect, judging from law school enrollment. Increasing the number of law schools to attract more women and minorities has flooding the marketplace with too many lawyers. Only 59.9 percent of law school graduates in 2014 were employed in long-term, full-time jobs that require passing a bar exam, according to the American Bar Association. About 40 percent of law school graduates will work in fields that don’t require law degrees.
In 2015, 52.2 percent of law students were men, 47.8 percent were women, and 28.5 percent are minority. So, the demographics appear to be undergoing a seismic change, but things won’t change as rapidly as one would expect, judging from law school enrollment. Increasing the number of law schools to attract more women and minorities has flooding the marketplace with too many lawyers. Only 59.9 percent of law school graduates in 2014 were employed in long-term, full-time jobs that require passing a bar exam, according to the American Bar Association. About 40 percent of law school graduates will work in fields that don’t require law degrees.
2
Did you mean to use statistics from the same year (both sat 2015) or is that a typo? If so, I would be interested in knowing what year?
2
This is a very timely subject. I am a retired Senior Justice on a Court of Appeals in Texas. In September my portrait is being hung at the courthouse in Sooth Texas, the significance of which is that when I was appointed in 1993 I was the first Latina to serve on a Court of Appeals in the history of Texas and the first woman to serve on the 13th COA. So I will be the first woman who's portrait will hang in that courtroom. I couldn't agree more with Judge Scheindlin. My daughters are now lawyers, onw works for one of the largest civil firms in Texas, the other is a criminal defense lawyer, and while the numbers are dramatically different from the time that I first entered the profession in the mid seventies, there are still many challenges as Judge Scheindlin points out.
4
Thank you very much for writing this.
Of course. it will come as no surprise that , despite the increased 'gender equity' to be found in govt. offices, most of the senior manager govt. jobs still go disproportionately to the boys. And people in power (even women) in govt. still defer to men (albeit perhaps unconsciously ) when a high stakes decision has to be made. I could write a book of examples.
During my 30 year career full time career as a govt lawyer I have been overlooked, underestimated, disregarded, talked over, and paid less. In spite of all this, I have had some success as a manager. I have also remonstrated and pushed back (in a "nice" way) against obvious, demonstrable bias (pushing back firmly is one of the reasons I enjoy the job I have now), so the ground is little more even under my feet. But that push back is something my male counterparts, with similar level and degree of experience and skill, did not have to do to get the assignment, the windowed office, or the raise.
Of course. it will come as no surprise that , despite the increased 'gender equity' to be found in govt. offices, most of the senior manager govt. jobs still go disproportionately to the boys. And people in power (even women) in govt. still defer to men (albeit perhaps unconsciously ) when a high stakes decision has to be made. I could write a book of examples.
During my 30 year career full time career as a govt lawyer I have been overlooked, underestimated, disregarded, talked over, and paid less. In spite of all this, I have had some success as a manager. I have also remonstrated and pushed back (in a "nice" way) against obvious, demonstrable bias (pushing back firmly is one of the reasons I enjoy the job I have now), so the ground is little more even under my feet. But that push back is something my male counterparts, with similar level and degree of experience and skill, did not have to do to get the assignment, the windowed office, or the raise.
5
Dear Shira,
As the Federal District Court judge, have you ever seen in your career a class action lawsuit filed against the NBA and the NFL for the systematic widespread discrimination against the white males?
It could be statistically easily proven that the number of the white males playing in those leagues is dramatically lower in comparison to the general percent of the males in the US population.
You have never seen it?!
Do you know why?
We don’t complain when somebody is better than us. We cheer for them!
We don’t blame everybody around us if somebody else is better.
We just work harder and try harder.
For some unknown reason the progressive and liberal circles blame the white males for anything and everything.
If we were so bad, the people would be moving out of America instead of illegally crossing the borders to settle in.
When the people leave everything behind to move here, it means the US white males treat them better than their own countrymen and their family...
Your honor, thanks for considering this case!
As the Federal District Court judge, have you ever seen in your career a class action lawsuit filed against the NBA and the NFL for the systematic widespread discrimination against the white males?
It could be statistically easily proven that the number of the white males playing in those leagues is dramatically lower in comparison to the general percent of the males in the US population.
You have never seen it?!
Do you know why?
We don’t complain when somebody is better than us. We cheer for them!
We don’t blame everybody around us if somebody else is better.
We just work harder and try harder.
For some unknown reason the progressive and liberal circles blame the white males for anything and everything.
If we were so bad, the people would be moving out of America instead of illegally crossing the borders to settle in.
When the people leave everything behind to move here, it means the US white males treat them better than their own countrymen and their family...
Your honor, thanks for considering this case!
4
But you can rest easy in the knowledge that those players are there because they're better than you, because the likelihood of discrimination against white men is so low (indeed, ironic that you should use the NFL as an example given the widespread belief that the disproportionate overrepresentation of white men in QB positions is evidence of bias). Whether male associates are achieving partner at higher rates because they're "better" than the others in their class years, or whether they had the advantage of being groomed for the position, is exactly the question being raised. There are white men with whom I practiced who I do not doubt are better lawyers than me. Without question. Others? Not so much.
7
JKR,
if you were personally the owner, would you hire less competent individual for your chief executive officer or the best person available and capable of bringing you the most revenue?
Accusing the people that we don't know of bias is bias itself...
We always have the wages and salaries we personally agreed to. If we are incapable of negotiating on our own behalf, then we are our worst enemy...
if you were personally the owner, would you hire less competent individual for your chief executive officer or the best person available and capable of bringing you the most revenue?
Accusing the people that we don't know of bias is bias itself...
We always have the wages and salaries we personally agreed to. If we are incapable of negotiating on our own behalf, then we are our worst enemy...
2
More proof that liberals don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. We don't need any more studies measuring percentages of white men in whatever position vs everyone else, with zero context. Next time start with a survey asking women how willing they are to put in 80 hour work weeks. That's the life of a "bet the firm" corporate litigator.
4
They already do put in 80 hour work weeks. With less to show for it. That is the point. Who do you think writes the briefs, puts the exhibits together, etc.? And by the way, ever hear of work/life balance? Nobody puts in 80 hour work weeks all the time, not even men. But they get the prizes.
3
Now, wouldn't she need a "wifey" husband to look after the house and the kids?
Your honor,
Discrimination is always a two way street. We just can’t recognize when we are discriminating against the others.
You could use the statistical data to build a case that the women are allegedly discriminated against because the males are better paid on average.
So what?
The women are the mothers too. They give birth to all of, they raise us, they feed us, they protect us, they heals us, they love us...
Can you put the monetary values on all those efforts?
Why are you judging the people per their salaries and wages? The corporations don’t determine our human values. We do!
Our self-respect come from within, not from the outside world. Why do you imply that a mother raising four children is somehow less worthy than a corporate lawyer?
Finally, do we ever compare our salaries and wages with 95% of the globe?
Do we consider ourselves personally biased and mean if we make two or five times more money than the males or females in the rest of the world?
We could end such a discrimination easily. Just send them a half of your paycheck...
If you don’t do it, are you a bad person?
If not, why do we always blame exclusively the white males for the identical kind of behavior?
Discrimination is always a two way street. We just can’t recognize when we are discriminating against the others.
You could use the statistical data to build a case that the women are allegedly discriminated against because the males are better paid on average.
So what?
The women are the mothers too. They give birth to all of, they raise us, they feed us, they protect us, they heals us, they love us...
Can you put the monetary values on all those efforts?
Why are you judging the people per their salaries and wages? The corporations don’t determine our human values. We do!
Our self-respect come from within, not from the outside world. Why do you imply that a mother raising four children is somehow less worthy than a corporate lawyer?
Finally, do we ever compare our salaries and wages with 95% of the globe?
Do we consider ourselves personally biased and mean if we make two or five times more money than the males or females in the rest of the world?
We could end such a discrimination easily. Just send them a half of your paycheck...
If you don’t do it, are you a bad person?
If not, why do we always blame exclusively the white males for the identical kind of behavior?
3
A lot of good points, but ultimately who leads a case is up to the client. The problem starts there.
4
Yet another article on inequality. Yes it's true that minorities (color,gender) are not proportionally represented in most industries . Tell me something I don't know. Also does the image NYT have to choose an image where everyone in the image is Caucasian? Wish the editor would have pushed the writer to provide a new angle/ perspective to an important topic.
1
When the great old DA in Atlanta, Lewis Slaton, hired the first female prosecutor, she was placed in appeals until 2 great male trial lawyers went to Slaton and said put her on trial. 20 years later she retired as the only "honorary man" of the original great dozen or so male trial attorneys having tried many murder, armed robbery and rape cases over the years. And she always recommended he hire more women, and he did. She never used excuses, wrote her own appellate briefs and argued her own cases from pretrial thru appeals. Because you know, being the first meant being as good as possible, no excuses. Thanks to Judge Charlie Weltner and Judge Clarence Cooper and to the great judges and justices of the court of appeals and supreme courts of GA who all gave the woman the same treatment as they did men in court before them. And thanks to all the wonderful jurors who treated her so well.
If women are given the chance, many will succeed. Just don't use the "female excuses" that many women used to get out of trying cases. I tried cases with the flu, with "female problems" as guys called it, and never let anyone know. Men used lots of excuses to avoid difficult trials, but never the first woman that Lewis Slaton let into the courtroom. Trials are wonderful to show how smart and articulate a great trial lawyer can be. Or how bad a bad lawyer can be.
If women are given the chance, many will succeed. Just don't use the "female excuses" that many women used to get out of trying cases. I tried cases with the flu, with "female problems" as guys called it, and never let anyone know. Men used lots of excuses to avoid difficult trials, but never the first woman that Lewis Slaton let into the courtroom. Trials are wonderful to show how smart and articulate a great trial lawyer can be. Or how bad a bad lawyer can be.
3
I don't have any bone whatsoever to pick with the general proposition that women (1) make very fine attorneys, and (2) are more than capable of handling complex oral arguments in federal court.
I do have a bone to pick with the notion that a party in civil litigation should be deprived of his, her or its pick of the attorney who will represent them -- at any and all stages of the litigation -- based upon the command of a federal judge. And believe me when I say that when a federal judge with the power to make or break your case makes a 'suggestion,' it is definitely a command.
With due respect to Judge Scheindlin, the role of federal judges is limited to fairly and impartially adjudicating the cases and controversies brought before them. Exactly how those cases are staffed is entirely the province of the client and her attorneys, and -- apart from requiring adherence to the law and professional ethics -- is not subject to judicial oversight or 'suggestion,' no matter how well meaning.
I do have a bone to pick with the notion that a party in civil litigation should be deprived of his, her or its pick of the attorney who will represent them -- at any and all stages of the litigation -- based upon the command of a federal judge. And believe me when I say that when a federal judge with the power to make or break your case makes a 'suggestion,' it is definitely a command.
With due respect to Judge Scheindlin, the role of federal judges is limited to fairly and impartially adjudicating the cases and controversies brought before them. Exactly how those cases are staffed is entirely the province of the client and her attorneys, and -- apart from requiring adherence to the law and professional ethics -- is not subject to judicial oversight or 'suggestion,' no matter how well meaning.
5
But the male law partner who got the business doesn't necessarily have to be the person arguing the case. If an eminently qualified colleague who happens to be female is more familiar with the case, the partner can recommend to the client that she lead the argument. Few smart clients would second guess the recommendation of their attorney.
Good luck in trying to obtain gender parity in a "macho" environment. It could be as simple as 'hormonally-driven' but the problem seems deeper than that. Almost as bad as when we discriminate ethnically diverse individuals that are not 'white', no matter how well qualified. Sad to say, we still act 'tribal', all for mine, none for yours. This awful state of affairs must not remain static, as change towards the better will occur, albeit far too slowly.
"After he conferred with her repeatedly, I would ask myself why she wasn’t doing the arguing, since she knew the case cold."
You should have asked HIM.
You should have asked HIM.
8
Who bets the firm anymore? Smart money always settles.
3
This is part of the reason I encourage young attorneys to work for the government, regardless of the level. You get to appear in court and handle your own docket. You are EXPECTED to get the work done, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Note the number of younger women attorneys who speak on MSNBC. Many are women, all former government attorneys. Jill Wine-Banks was unusual during Watergate, and as she pointed out (and as I remember) the commentary was about her mini skirts, which was the fashion at the time, not her abilities.
Note the number of younger women attorneys who speak on MSNBC. Many are women, all former government attorneys. Jill Wine-Banks was unusual during Watergate, and as she pointed out (and as I remember) the commentary was about her mini skirts, which was the fashion at the time, not her abilities.
50
Indeed. I can remember an initial conference before then-Judge Kristin Booth Glen in a case in which the parties were public agencies. The attorneys, the law clerk and law secretary were all women. Judge Glen looked around the table and cracked: "What's this, an all-girls' band?" My boss replied, to a round of knowing laughter: "Government case."
It was a tough case and we all fought hard, but we agreed to conduct "Ladies' Litigation" - no screaming, no slamming down of phones, no ambush motions at 5 o'clock on the Friday of a holiday weekend. Civilized.
It was a tough case and we all fought hard, but we agreed to conduct "Ladies' Litigation" - no screaming, no slamming down of phones, no ambush motions at 5 o'clock on the Friday of a holiday weekend. Civilized.
2
The anecdote mentioned at the top of the article is, I am afraid, still all too common.
1
1. In 1975, I graduated from law school with the first big influx of women. I went to law school to be a trial lawyer and was a federal prosecutor for 28 years.
2. Now, some 40+ years after women started entering the legal profession in large numbers, the top 100 law firms in the US have the names of just two women in their monikers.
3. Life and art. On Law and Order, an otherwise pretty accurate portrayal of the interaction of prosecutors and police, the women prosecutors always sit second chair. Always. They are entrusted with preliminaries and motions but when it comes to trial, the male lawyers always take over. What message does that send? Infuriates me every week.
2. Now, some 40+ years after women started entering the legal profession in large numbers, the top 100 law firms in the US have the names of just two women in their monikers.
3. Life and art. On Law and Order, an otherwise pretty accurate portrayal of the interaction of prosecutors and police, the women prosecutors always sit second chair. Always. They are entrusted with preliminaries and motions but when it comes to trial, the male lawyers always take over. What message does that send? Infuriates me every week.
7
Thank you, Judge Scheindlin, for a fascinating, but disturbing, op-Ed piece. Could the problem you address be the result of who are the "rainmakers" at these law firms? Who controls the money-flow dictates the division of the tasks involved in the hierarchy. It would have been interesting to find out what gender were the lawyers responsible for securing these firms' representations in the first place. Unless and until more women enter the ranks of initially providing clients, I fear that this situation will not improve. Of course, this will require the admission of female counsel to other traditionally male power centers.
2
Lots of comments about the fact that there is gender parity in family court, criminal court, and immigration court. I don't doubt that there are lots of female lawyers taking a lead role in those cases. They don't involve multi-million dollar corporations. The judge was still correct to observe that when it comes to cases for elite corporations they still want the representation of who they think best represents their elite interests - white men.
6
I'm seeing a lot of defensive male commenters who indicate this is not really a problem. Seriously, how would you know? The fact that as men you don't see it only means it doesn't happen to you. Privilege is the absence of discrimination, it's hard to feel something that doesn't exist for you.
The fact that women are still ignored is a problem in law, in corporations, in car dealerships, you name it, in my every day life. I am the breadwinner in my family. I earn it, I pay for things, our life is driven off my credit, I am the detail person. But all of our counterparties defer to my husband - even food servers when I supply the payment, they bring the receipt back to him. It's not because I defer to him, or I don't want to be taken seriously, it's because our society has not evolved to think of women as equals or leaders. Discrimination so ingrained, it seems defensible - when it's really not.
The fact that women are still ignored is a problem in law, in corporations, in car dealerships, you name it, in my every day life. I am the breadwinner in my family. I earn it, I pay for things, our life is driven off my credit, I am the detail person. But all of our counterparties defer to my husband - even food servers when I supply the payment, they bring the receipt back to him. It's not because I defer to him, or I don't want to be taken seriously, it's because our society has not evolved to think of women as equals or leaders. Discrimination so ingrained, it seems defensible - when it's really not.
59
Law firms have not historically been diversity friendly. They are dominated by white males. Recently, however, most top tier law firms have started actively trying to promote women and under-represented minorities (although Asians, both male and female, who are significantly under-represented as partners at top tier law firms, do not benefit from this) in greater numbers viewing gender and race as significant "plus factors" in promotional decisions. It will take many, many years for recently promoted women and minorities (irrespective of race and gender) to advance to a senior enough role within a firm to be trusted by clients and the firm to handle oral arguments. Clients would not let a firm staff a junior partner or associate to argue a "bet the company" case in court. There are of course many junior partners and even associates (both men and women, white and minority) more than capable of making an oral argument successfully. It's just not going to happen.
I therefore don't think the following suggestion is credible: "Let’s start with judges. They can suggest that the lawyer who wrote the brief or prepared the witness should be the one to argue." The people writing the briefs in large part are associates. The senior partner and junior partners assume ownership and revise the brief but an associate likely will be the one to do the initial draft and revise it to incorporate comments. Clients don't want associates arguing big cases.
I therefore don't think the following suggestion is credible: "Let’s start with judges. They can suggest that the lawyer who wrote the brief or prepared the witness should be the one to argue." The people writing the briefs in large part are associates. The senior partner and junior partners assume ownership and revise the brief but an associate likely will be the one to do the initial draft and revise it to incorporate comments. Clients don't want associates arguing big cases.
1
I think you are pointing to exactly what the problem may be. Maybe it is time for us to change things and to re-think how we work as lawyers, as teams. Associates may be able to argue some of the questions if not all. They often add value to the case beyond what the partner does. It requires effort and preparation but it is possible. The old law firm model (billable hours, seniority), all of that is getting old and makes little sense in modern societies.
1
"The survey definitively showed that when there was a big, 'bet the company' civil case, few clients were prepared to put their business’s fate in the hands of a woman." The twist on this I've observed is that, unfortunately, when a woman is lead counsel, the law and facts are against them in a clear and big way. It's the glass cliff in action.
2
This is why this woman was a menace on the bench; she’s obsessed with group-think.
The very notion of “gender equality” is so profoundly silly that likely only someone Bill Clinton would consider for the bench would consider it important.
Consider: women lawyers are still disproportionately young. Only 18% of partners at big firms are female, while almost half of summer associates are. Thirty years from now, things will likely be different.
More judges are female, because when they’re selected, sex matters. Politicians want to ensure that they get the “right” number of women; it’s an express job qualification for the group-think obsessives.
When the judge says she “can only speculate” about the reason why relatively few women argue cases, given her entirely predictable, hard-left, group-think ideology, one knows EXACTLY what that speculation will be.
And, predictably, she argues for open discrimination as a remedy. Clients cannot be permitted to choose their lawyers, if those choices don’t match what the group-think obsessives consider a “diverse” team. And if, as is inevitable, qualified men are ignored in the name of group-think ideology, well, so what? They’re men, and we have lots of male lawyers. Who cares if THEY suffer open discrimination in the name of “diversity”.
I sure wouldn’t trust this judge to be impartial, if my adversary were female. And I’d hire a female lawyer to argue in front of her. Is that really what we want in judges?
The very notion of “gender equality” is so profoundly silly that likely only someone Bill Clinton would consider for the bench would consider it important.
Consider: women lawyers are still disproportionately young. Only 18% of partners at big firms are female, while almost half of summer associates are. Thirty years from now, things will likely be different.
More judges are female, because when they’re selected, sex matters. Politicians want to ensure that they get the “right” number of women; it’s an express job qualification for the group-think obsessives.
When the judge says she “can only speculate” about the reason why relatively few women argue cases, given her entirely predictable, hard-left, group-think ideology, one knows EXACTLY what that speculation will be.
And, predictably, she argues for open discrimination as a remedy. Clients cannot be permitted to choose their lawyers, if those choices don’t match what the group-think obsessives consider a “diverse” team. And if, as is inevitable, qualified men are ignored in the name of group-think ideology, well, so what? They’re men, and we have lots of male lawyers. Who cares if THEY suffer open discrimination in the name of “diversity”.
I sure wouldn’t trust this judge to be impartial, if my adversary were female. And I’d hire a female lawyer to argue in front of her. Is that really what we want in judges?
16
Like the author, I was in the law class of 75, which was the first with a very large number of women (40% where I was). For over 40 years around half of the nation's output of new lawyers have been women. Please don't pretend that women are just starting to get into the field.
11
I am a 62 year old female attorney and I can attest that what Judge Scheindlin describes is pretty damn accurate - and my Harvard Law School class was nearly 50% female, so the writer to whom I respond is wrong about the numbers of women in the legal work force, although many women leave law firms because of inability to obtain promotion - not because they are not as capable as the men but because of gender discrimination.
I worked in several law firms in NYC, both large and small, throughout my 37 year career, as well as a stint at the SDNY US Attorney's office. I was a partner at one law firm for ten years. I did virtually all of the legal research and drafting on most of the briefs, I knew the cases, but I was rarely lead counsel in court. I was not a rainmaker, because the clients were dominated by white men who felt more comfortable sending work to white men in the law firms. Only at the US Attorney's office was gender irrelevant. It's pretty simple, really. And Judge Scheindlin hits the nail on the head.
I worked in several law firms in NYC, both large and small, throughout my 37 year career, as well as a stint at the SDNY US Attorney's office. I was a partner at one law firm for ten years. I did virtually all of the legal research and drafting on most of the briefs, I knew the cases, but I was rarely lead counsel in court. I was not a rainmaker, because the clients were dominated by white men who felt more comfortable sending work to white men in the law firms. Only at the US Attorney's office was gender irrelevant. It's pretty simple, really. And Judge Scheindlin hits the nail on the head.
104
What a bunch of uninformed biased nonsense
4
If we want equal representation for female attorneys, we need a societal effort to offer affordable childcare and alternative work schedules including remote work. I'm sure there are entrenched sexist attitudes in some remote quarters, but it's more often that one or the other parent (or both) has to choose between advancing his or her career or meaningfully participating in family life.
8
Family care issues are eventually a contributing factor, but it's not the reason women aren't making it. Remember, we start as lawyers around 25 years old, long before marriage, let alone children are in the picture. And several female lawyers, like me, were never interested in having children. Really, what I observed is that from day one it's harder to get those development opportunities like responsibility for the whole brief or a deposition. And the people making the decisions as to who gets those opportunities are disproportionately white men. You'll have to ask them why they decide what they decide.
11
Hi Xmas yes you are right that there is underlying discrimination, but the true hurdle for women is their inability to balance family and work. These gender issues exist elsewhere in other countries, but women manage to make it with the help of reliable childcare and work flexibility. It is important to address what women at law firms have expressed. The overwhelming reason for them to leave is their inability to combine with their family obligations.
Mike, I completely agree. If other countries' experience with the advancement of female lawyers (including CANADA!!!) is of any help, then let's start looking at how other countries deal with this issue! Why would a NY lawyer be any different????!!
1
"The talking was almost always done by white men." Anybody else notice a trend these days that when someone wants to add a pejorative to further disparage the noun "man", the qualifier "white" is appended to it? The argument here is that women are not being treated fairly. OK, you can argue that position, but what does race have to do with it? Yeah, I get it, intersectionality. But "white" should not be used as an implied pejorative any more than any other racial descriptor.
6
maybe because for centuries white males have controlled the courtrooms, the legal profession, and the world? I was one of 2 women in my law school class, plus one black, because of the discrimination against us. Oh yeah, and back them, some state schools and most private law schools did not allow women or blacks. White mmales still rule.
2
The question is not do female junior associates speak less in court than senior (mostly male) partners; of course they do. The question is do female junior associates speak less in court than male junior associates.
9
"They should recognize that diversity is an asset in the courtroom."
To whom? As the author of this recognizes, clients prefer white men to argue their case. Should we enforce diversity at the expense of the wishes of the clients? Frankly, if i am a client I don't care about diversity, I want to win my case.
To whom? As the author of this recognizes, clients prefer white men to argue their case. Should we enforce diversity at the expense of the wishes of the clients? Frankly, if i am a client I don't care about diversity, I want to win my case.
15
Robert, I do take the point but I would suggest that diversity at law firms DOES benefit clients. Clients themselves are becoming more diverse and need diverse opinions and ways of winning a case. In addition, this old fashion way of having these old white dudes supposedly being the only ones of winning a case is a legend, a thing of the past which will not lead a firm towards the future.
4
I did not become a great personal injury attorney like a guy I dated because clients preferred white males. I did teach white males that women prosecutors are as great or better than the great white male prosecutors in Atlanta. And I earned the respect of jurors and victims and their families. Always great to have someone call after a trial for some free legal advice from a white female straight prosecutor.
7
@Robert; As the country becomes more diverse, achieving your mission often means having a legal (or medical, business, etc,) team that reflects the jury (or patients, customers,etc.).
1
I think part of the real problem is rampant inequality. Women bear the greater responsibility when it comes to child rearing and house maintenance (and even when they don't they are assumed to by employers). As just a simple example, it is the women who get pregnant and birth babies. This is a physical and often exhausting experience; and it involves monthly, bi-weekly and then weekly doctor visits, almost always during work hours (and then there is the reality that 40% of American women have major surgery while giving birth). Also, in my nearly 15 years experience practicing law, it is quite obvious that women are perceived differently by male partners and associates after they have children; the assumption is that they have become softer, and that their attentions will be diverted from their clients to their children (an assumption that is rarely, if ever, attached to new fathers). When I had my first child, the managing partner at my firm insisted that I bring the baby to the office because he feared I would be worried about the baby in day care and would leave work to see the baby (mind you, a hypothetical reaction that was so completed far off from my personality that it was actually comical to me and my husband) and he also stressed that I would likely have post-partum depression that might prevent me from returning to work after the baby was born (also, never suffered from any psychological problems). Men must abandon their sexism; the women are doing great work!
13
So true! After 10 years in private practice I still don't get introduced in a courtroom setting. I'm often ignored even when I am the lead attorney on the case. And after having kids I have to fight to convince everyone that I truly want to work at a job I love.
15
Law firms assign older male lawyers to do the talking in court for one reason only: judges listen to them and credit what they say. Judges may believe themselves to be above that gender bias, but obviously they are not. The law firm sends in the team member whom that particular judge has favored in the past. As a female attorney and litigator, I find it disheartening that the writer, with years on the federal bench, has failed to understand that firms were assigning men to argue before her because they were getting better results from her. Go back and check how you ruled in proceedings where a female attorney argued. I dare you, your honor.
6
Do you have a record for commenting that J. Scheindlin favored male lawyers' arguments? I often covered her court as a stenographer throughout her tenure, and never ever saw that kind of bias, ever. Rather than dare the judge, I suggest you present back-up for your accusation.
The burden of proof falls on the judge, who has ventured to put forth her own theories of gender bias. Your comments are well meant, but anecdotal nevertheless. Why do you feel that the judge needs to be defended by a court reporter? Can't the judge answer for herself? I am somewhat unsettled at the partisanship of a federal court reporter. Thankfully, I do not practice in New York.
Women are partners at large law firms (the type that handle "bet the company" cases) in much smaller numbers than men. Despite the fact that women make up about 50% of law school graduates, and have for quite some time, they make up only 18% of equity partners in private practice, and, on average, those women equity partners earn only 80% of the average earnings of a male equity partner. Women leave big law for a variety of (very good) reasons. Until you solve that problem, there's no solving the problem of more women serving as lead counsel or arguing in court. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/marketing/women/current_glan...
9
This article lacks any numerical analysis of why private/corporate clients choose male attorneys to lead their defense. What's the win/loss rate relative to the defense lawyer's sex? I don't think these choices of representation are based on sex bias, rather perception of success.
4
Shhhhhh.
1
I've seen this dynamic while in litigation with my own family. The only female paid professional among the accountants and lawyers was my own attorney. I observed that the old boy network in Albany is still in charge. It's said that clients with money at stake don't want to risk it when they go before an old, white, male, politically-appointed judge who's been on the bench for twenty years.
This wasn't large corporate firm culture. It was a dispute over family property.
This wasn't large corporate firm culture. It was a dispute over family property.
3
This is mostly an issue of large corporate firm culture. Come to places like Family Court or Immigration Court. You'll see loads of cases where the judge and the lawyers for both sides are female.
18
Womyn (the spelling from the radical lesbian feminists of the 1970s and 1980s that does not contain "man" or "men") hold up half the sky. But in anno 2017 we are leaving all traces of liberalism behind as we try to recreate the fascist nightmare of a German society in the 1930s, or so it would seem. Only without the discipline of that sexist, militaristic society. I work wth attorneys and despise those, male or female, who use their "minority status" as a pretext to bully, as so many womyn do, in the legal profession and elsewhere, once they reach a certain ledge high up the career cliff.
6
Needless to say this goes double for black lawyers of both genders. But then the odious Charles Murray has explained we're genetically inferior so he says it's ok
8
Men struggle with being heard too. The NYT is becoming an echo chamber with so many of these same types of articles.
20
...and Trump (or a clone) sails into re-election (sigh).
As Judge Scheindlin notes, to see gender equality in the courtroom come to criminal court. Some of the toughest bulldog prosecutors and public defenders are women. We don't have senior partners trying to take credit for our work. And we're not shy about arguing in court!
23
Maybe if the judge left 40 Centre Street and walked over to 60 Centre Street, she would see female trial lawyers in action trying nuts and bolts cases brought by and against everyday people. The same would true in most if not all of the state court system. Look at the Criminal, Family, PI Bars and you will see female trial attorneys in leading roles.
The Judge's observations are based on very limited experience, and otherwise ignores an obvious question. Could it be that these arguments involving teams of lawyers are mere window dressing to run up astronomical legal fees in addition to those from drafting the motion papers? Across the street that doesn't happen because the clients can't/won't put up with it.
The Judge's observations are based on very limited experience, and otherwise ignores an obvious question. Could it be that these arguments involving teams of lawyers are mere window dressing to run up astronomical legal fees in addition to those from drafting the motion papers? Across the street that doesn't happen because the clients can't/won't put up with it.
23
The author does address that, saying that many such case loads are dominated / relegated to women. The 'bet the company', complex legal cases are given to men. And...the judge's observations are based on limited experience after 22 years??
Read before you rant.
Read before you rant.
"Clients, particularly corporate clients, can demand that their legal teams be diverse. They should recognize that diversity is an asset in the courtroom. "
If you're involved in a court case diversity is the last thing you're concerned about.
If you're involved in a court case diversity is the last thing you're concerned about.
21
Ignorance isn't bliss ignorance is ignorance. Depending upon who your client is having a female as the lead at counsel table is a calculated choice. There are way too many factors that go into how a trial is conducted. How many of you writing these opinions have ever tried cases?
Not true, not when you must anticipate that the jury is also going to be diverse. Putting an all-white all-male team out in front of a diverse jury is not a good strategy.
True if you only care about winning.
1
If I were charged with a serious offense and needed a good defense lawyer I would want a man. Not just any man but one with the voice and presence of Perry Mason as played on TV. The effect of a lawyer's appearance and dominant personality on a jury or judge cannot be discounted or ignored. Of course it's unfair, but that's the way it is.
3
If that were your selection criterion -- "get me a man" -- you would end up with exactly the lawyer you deserved. Your comment reveals a complete ignorance of what makes an effective litigator. I have been a criminal defense lawyer for 35 years. Alpha male types frequently do try to dominate the jury, and that offends the vast majority of jurors. You don't persuade people with bravado and sarcasm; you just turn them off. I did a trial with such a man as my co-counsel. Afterwards 7 or 8 of the jurors told me that the trial had seemed like a weird version of good lawyer/bad lawyer. They cringed every time he spoke and felt relieved whenever I took over.
Nor does one's appearance matter to the outcome of the case. It may create an initial impression, but If you know what you're talking about, people will listen.
I'm sure you also think that, if you had a serious illness, you would want a male doctor -- despite a recent study that showed significantly better outcomes for patients with female doctors. Fortunately, people like you don't usually make it onto juries because voir dire exposes their prejudices.
Nor does one's appearance matter to the outcome of the case. It may create an initial impression, but If you know what you're talking about, people will listen.
I'm sure you also think that, if you had a serious illness, you would want a male doctor -- despite a recent study that showed significantly better outcomes for patients with female doctors. Fortunately, people like you don't usually make it onto juries because voir dire exposes their prejudices.
4
Unfortunately, you are ignorant. I'm a criminal defense attorney, and a short woman, and have been both for a very long time. If you're a good lawyer, you're a good lawyer. Judges and jurors know this. If you have good arguments and facts, you will win. Gender has no bearing on success rate in this profession. It's a few people like you that make fewer women want to be in this profession and that's unfortunate.
3
Perry Mason won every single case he had because a witness decided to confess to lying, on the stand, in front of the jury. That never, ever happens in the real world, so you probably need to re-evaluate your counsel-selection criteria.
1
There's probably another factor at work. I suspect the male attorneys who act as lead counsel are older and have a higher status at their respective firms. Which means they charge a higher billing rate than their female partners. But seeing as the female lawyer knows the case better, she must also attend the hearing. And I'll bet there was also at least one junior partner or young associate along for the ride, to carry boxes or litigation cases. All of which adds up to multiple layers of per hour billing, for which the unsuspecting if not unsophisticated corporate clients blindly pay ungodly sums in legal fees. Now, if you want to discuss why the female lawyer doesn't have the same position on the fir's totem pole, we're back to your focus.
3
The long-term solution is for women to start their own firms, in greater numbers. They must make the leap, and connect with female business leaders, to create a new reality, taking fuller advantage of strides made already. Judge Sheindelin's speaking from a place of power is very much appreciated; I hope male-led firms, as well as clients get the message that choosing men to argue because they are men, when they are appearing before female judges, is misguided. But I doubt that many male partners clicked on this article; they must hear it more directly from the bench. Female lawyers teaming up with female business leaders can help rewrite the work-life balance, helping each other achieve in both realms, while proving that work benefits from contact with the world outside the courtroom. Some men will happily sign on to assist in the success so demonstrated. We need to discard learned helplessness.
5
Those who choose to be litigators do not think of themselves as legal scholars. Rather, they excel in flying by the seat of their pants. They are quick thinkers. able debaters, and they believe that they have enough charisma to convince a jury. Litigators are a minority among all lawyers, and particularly among women. Not many are confident they they have the skills and not many think they can persuade people better than they can analyze the law. I was a litigator for twenty years. It was a difficult job. Most men and most women would rather do legal analysis. It's what they learn in law school. It's what they're trained for. I don't see any reason to encourage anyone to be a litigator. It's one choice among many, and it doesn't reflect who may be the best lawyers.
11
Ask the hard question Shira: Why are there zero disabled persons practicing law? I earned two law degrees from name brand universities but have never been able to get so much as an INTERVIEW. The steady drumbeat that women are the most prejudiced class of people is INACCURATE and DISTRACTING from the real issues. Issues like massive unemployment and poverty among the disabled. We have the highest unemployment rate of any other group in the nation. You can understand if I lack the requisite amount of sympathy. In a survey done by Korn/Ferry and commissioned by the Economist Magazine, the magazine evaluated the wage gap between the two genders and found that when controlled for position and length with a company, the wage gap VANISHED. I don't expect the NYT or it's readership to issue their own mea culpa for being so wrong on the issue of the non-existent wage gap. Instead we can expect fine articles such as these.
11
Hm. Plus ça change. Sounds like my days of practicing law in the 1990s and early 2000s.
1
I've always found that using the phrase "practicing law" suggests the person is still in preparation of becoming an attorney rather than actually being engaged in providing legal representation or services.
1
I am an attorney in Pennsylvania, so it is unlikely that I will ever encounter Ms. Scheindlin in practice. But I would avoid her assiduously, if that were to be a real possibility. Her biases are so flagrant, so undisguised, that it would be impossible to bring before her as a mediator a male client, who had a female adversary. It would be impossible or unwise, to appear in a mediation with her if my opposing counsel was a woman. What is bleak is her attitude toward justice, fairness or impartiality toward anyone who does not share her political leanings. I can think of no more powerful argument for the gradual replacement of federal judges, appointed by Democrats, than this op-ed.
14
The private sector is worse than the public sector for one simple reason: It is dominated by Republicans. It is a direct corollary that it is going to be more illiberal, more regressive, more exploitative. Republicans are enemies of humanity.
7
You could substitute this narrative in the legal profession for most places in business. The reality is the world is only slowly changing for women.
5
Not being able to talk at work, much less express an opinion, is part and parcel of being female. In any profession, particularly one so testosterone-driven.
3
now that author - FEMALE LAWYERS CAN TALK TOO - may have time on her hands and hearing her commitments/concerns here, i fully expect to see her on the campaign trail for nicole malliotakis, the republican candidate campaigning to be NY's first woman Mayor.
en marche!...PJS
en marche!...PJS
2
I'm a Democrat, was a fierce supporter of Hillary Clinton (both in 2008 and 2016) and believe firmly that, were she a man, she'd be president now, had my own life's trajectory completely turned upside down by sexual harassment, am a strong proponent for gay marriage, equal pay, etc...but even I am getting sick of reading and hearing about the woes of the oppressed group du jour. It's not that the pleas and points aren't valid. It's that there is a saturation level at this point that has a backfire effect of tuning people out. Women, African-Americans (complete agree, Black Lives Do Matter, but live that, don't say it. The rate of black people killing each other is obscene. Start by making Black Lives Matter in the African American community itself), gay people, trans people...mom shaming, body shaming...it's endless. Change and enlightenment come slowly, and onslaughts tend to turn off and even backfire, not enlighten. And with Trump's election, we know that a depressingly large number of Americans are bigoted ignorants having their own white-victim pity party. It feels out of control now, and it's doing terrible things for us, like making Donald Trump president.
How does that help anyone? I know this comment will be controversial, and I apologize for that, but as a strong feminist, that was my reaction to "yet another". Tuning people out is not going to bring about the change we need.
How does that help anyone? I know this comment will be controversial, and I apologize for that, but as a strong feminist, that was my reaction to "yet another". Tuning people out is not going to bring about the change we need.
3
I am skeptical about the veracity of your initial list of priors -- "I am a Democrat! I love Hillary! I am a strong feminist" -- but my bigger issue with your post is how extreme its reaction to this Op-Ed is. Judge Scheindlin writes here about a visible imbalance in the participation of female attorneys in federal litigation, based on personal experience and empirical evidence, and somehow you have construed this perspective as unhelpful whining? Women are half of the population. We should be fully represented in public life. Not at the expense of others, but in recognition of our humanity and equal status as citizens and professionals. I have no patience for your narrative of fear.
Dear Shira,
It’s not your fault. The NYT editorial board has failed you.
Instead of publishing the analyses that could have helped America and the world regain the sustainable economic course and avoid the protracted deadly wars, thus avoiding the direct damages worth many trillions dollars, the editors were giving an opportunity to the authors complaining that nobody loved them and then blamed everybody else for their own failures...
For me personally, the following is the utmost national priority.
If we didn’t waste many trillions dollars on the useless foreign wars and on subsidizing the foreign nations by overpaying them through to the chronic trade deficits, we could have afforded having the universal health care.
However, if you misuse the enormous financial funds, then later we have to cut the basic services...
I remember being a soldier more than three decades ago. A captain lined us up and was asking the specific questions. Only one guy knew the answers to those technical problems.
The captain didn’t like it. However, he told us the following. He didn’t appreciate a sergeant for a perceived lack of discipline in his unit so he wanted to prove him incompetent and criticize his achievements. However, although just one guy was properly trained, it meant all of us had the same opportunity to learn and advance...
Thus he correctly concluded it wasn’t sergeant’s fault but the incompetence of individual soldiers...
It’s not your fault. The NYT editorial board has failed you.
Instead of publishing the analyses that could have helped America and the world regain the sustainable economic course and avoid the protracted deadly wars, thus avoiding the direct damages worth many trillions dollars, the editors were giving an opportunity to the authors complaining that nobody loved them and then blamed everybody else for their own failures...
For me personally, the following is the utmost national priority.
If we didn’t waste many trillions dollars on the useless foreign wars and on subsidizing the foreign nations by overpaying them through to the chronic trade deficits, we could have afforded having the universal health care.
However, if you misuse the enormous financial funds, then later we have to cut the basic services...
I remember being a soldier more than three decades ago. A captain lined us up and was asking the specific questions. Only one guy knew the answers to those technical problems.
The captain didn’t like it. However, he told us the following. He didn’t appreciate a sergeant for a perceived lack of discipline in his unit so he wanted to prove him incompetent and criticize his achievements. However, although just one guy was properly trained, it meant all of us had the same opportunity to learn and advance...
Thus he correctly concluded it wasn’t sergeant’s fault but the incompetence of individual soldiers...
2
Perhaps when a New York Times staff or contributing op-ed writer investigates the gender gap in the trash hauling sector of the economy as to why few if any women work in this industry then there may be a bit more validity to arguments of the genders gap in other industries and services.
11
Yawn. Yes ma'am, the burning issue of the day is how to get higher pay for the privileged daughters of the elite as they ply their trade in obfuscation, legalese theft, rule by arcana and propagation of the tyranny of the Law against the people. Only the Maxine Waters of the world are more tone deaf than the legal "community" aka, cabal. Let them eat cake.
10
My grandfather was an immigrant tailor, my father a factory worker. My sister and I are the first generation to get a college education. I went to law school and now practice in California. I am certainly not the "daughter of the elite." I'd like parity in salary and position, too. I didn't have it at my first law firm; fortunately I have it now.
1
I have practiced for 42 years. I have litigated in Pa., Fla.,Ca. and several other states. I agree that large defense firms have that male type practice . Plaintiff and criminal defense has been gender blind in my experience since 1974.
8
I have always told young women to start in the government, as I did, because there was little discrimination in the two US Attorney s offices in which I practiced (Maryland and SD Fla), and women first chaired as many cases as men. Then, if they want to go to a law firm, they arrive having tried more cases, often, than the entire litigation department. Whether that will continue in the present regime is the question.
4
Brava Judge Scheindlin! I can attest to what you experienced in the courtroom. I was a court reporter in the Southern District for close to 30 years and witnessed exactly what you described - all the time. And thank you for speaking up for working women everywhere.
50
As a retired (White male) appellate lawyer who practiced primarily in federal court (and who wrote his own briefs), I am disturbed with federal judges "suggesting" to counsel who should argue before them. Often, a federal judge's "suggestion" is viewed by parties and counsel as a "command." Such coercive "suggestions" would interfere with the attorney-client relationship and upend law firm management. It's one thing for a client to demand greater diversity in advocacy, quite another for a federal judge to do the same in the middle of a case.
21
Funny you don't care about what better serves the client. Shouldn't it be the lawyer who knows the case "cold"? Men hate giving up control and its always interesting to see clients learn during the course of a trial who really shaped the case behind the scenes. More and more clients are women too. The judges should care to hear all he ir she can from each side especially in appellate court. Your ego should not matter.
3
I'm a female lawyer. This is my life. My experience has been that the male lawyer likes to take credit for the case (and my work) in front of the judge and client.
That this is not lost on judges is heartening to me. Once we were tasked in court with follow up on a detail-oriented issue; the judge looked straight at me and said "I think she'll be handling that!"
That this is not lost on judges is heartening to me. Once we were tasked in court with follow up on a detail-oriented issue; the judge looked straight at me and said "I think she'll be handling that!"
127
I, like you I'm a female trial attorney in New York. Please forgive me but had the judge not assigned the certain task to you how if it all did you ever stand up for yourself as an attorney? I have had to since I was admitted to the bar and no, it wasn't easy but very few things in life worth having truly are. So let me know , would you have been able to write this little missive but for the judge who assigned the task to you? It seems that without the judge you would not of had the guts to speak up for yourself either inside or outside of the courtroom. True advocacy begins with self ,counsel.
2
@Morgan Taylor - You may be correct, but why should women or minorities have to routinely speak up for themselves in basic matters of fairness? Why is it still okay for them to be treated as second-class members of their firms?
1
When Bella Abzug was a young lawyer in New York, she was often mistaken by the male judges for a lawyer's secretary. So, to correct the problem she started wearing hats, the larger the better. She went on to have a significant career and many women saw her as a role model.
Yes. I agree. Get those metaphorical hats on women and take the lead in the courtrooms and in politics.
Yes. I agree. Get those metaphorical hats on women and take the lead in the courtrooms and in politics.
35
Similar to other situations described in op-eds here: e.g. (a few weeks ago) disproportionately fewer women CEOs. Likely same explanation: usually (obviously not always) to get there (Chief counsel or CEO) you need - among MANY other attributes - to cast an aura of fear. Either subtle (as in 'walk softly but carry a big stick'), or overt and crass. Yes, even in the law profession. For whatever reason, women don't often have that attribute. (Although I once had a woman boss who did - but after her meteoric rise to large company VP was fired after some upper management 'shoot out' - by some personality more intimidating than even her).
1
In larger law firms, if 20% of the partners are women, that is considered success. The reasons can be summed up as follows: (1) sixty hour work week combined with women's "2nd shift" as caretakers places enormous stress on women in the profession - the most successful women either have no children or have a stay at home husband (the latte being true for the successful men as well - the pressure is certainly felt by men, too), (2) larger law firms are still run by white men who mentor younger versions of themselves (actual discrimination and more subtle gender biases), giving young men a leg up that women and minorities do not have, (3) pay gap for women: this is a societal issue but particularly pronounced in the legal profession (NYT recently ran an article about how BigLaw female lawyers make 44% less than their male peers), and when couples are choosing who will be the primary caretaker in a family, they logically cut back on the lowest paid spouse's work schedule, I.e., the woman's (this results in fewer women lawyers feeling like they are succeeding, and more "opting out" for smaller firms and areas of specialty offering a more reasonable lifestyle), and (4) a broken billable hour system that rewards the lawyers who waste the most time and overbill their clients the most over those who work the most efficiently and accordingly save their clients the most money.
90
Yes to all of that and (5) overt and subtle discrimination and harassment.
3
What happens in court cases handled by large firms where more than one lawyer appears in court (which itself is a questionable practice) is not representative of the overwhelming majority of court cases. Female lawyers, like the author of the opinion, are are not wallflowers. Female lawyers have their own clients. In my experience as an attorney I have seen plenty of female lawyers speaking in court without the permission of a male. Those female lawyers who want to speak in court insist on it. Those who don't, don't.
11
Re-read the article. The author is laser-focused on the large, elite firms. As a 40+ year lawyer in San Diego, I can attest this situation is not limited to NYC. Mansplaining will not make the situation change. Only dismantling of the Old Boys' Network will do that.
6
So, it's the women's fault, eh?!
LOL!
LOL!
4
"They can suggest that the lawyer who wrote the brief or prepared the witness should be the one to argue. Often it is a woman. Judges are generally more diverse than the lawyers who appear before them."
What is the suggestion is ineffective? Should there then be a mandate? And what if the mandate doesn't work? Should there be sanctions?
Does the judge have any evidence that equal numbers of women and men WANT to be in this position? Does that matter, at all?
What we have here MIGHT be a problem, but good lead counsel would ask for more evidence.
What is the suggestion is ineffective? Should there then be a mandate? And what if the mandate doesn't work? Should there be sanctions?
Does the judge have any evidence that equal numbers of women and men WANT to be in this position? Does that matter, at all?
What we have here MIGHT be a problem, but good lead counsel would ask for more evidence.
12
The court (judge) has absolutely NO business getting involved in these types of suggestions and this view erroneously assumes that the only criteria for being successful at oral argument is knowledge of the facts.
2
Its not might Shawn. It is a problem. There is plenty of evidence already. But as my old art teacher used to say, "You have eyes, yet you do not see." Bias is a powerful blinder.
2
There is a perception our there ( since time began really ) that men are tougher than women. ( especially in the arena of law and order ) That fallacy is perpetuated as women in general, are woefully represented in positions of power. ( even when they make up more than half of the population )
I find women to be more skillful. more diplomatic, more eloquent, more driven and more qualified than many men in the same position. ( especially in matters of law )
Of course, there will be the typical chauvinistic backlash to that statement, and the numbers don't prove that out, but they haven't been given a chance to do so.
Now is the time.
I find women to be more skillful. more diplomatic, more eloquent, more driven and more qualified than many men in the same position. ( especially in matters of law )
Of course, there will be the typical chauvinistic backlash to that statement, and the numbers don't prove that out, but they haven't been given a chance to do so.
Now is the time.
38
The problem isn't only in court. In my office, I do the work and my boss (not a lawyer) speaks. On the rare occasion I actually get to advise someone directly, my advice is often second guessed, or must be backed up with opinions from others, ie, my boss or outside counsel. Often their advice is the same as mine, but there is never an acknowledgment that a particular approach or strategy was my idea to begin with.
I'm sorry to say that all I've found I can do about it is try to find ways to make it bother me less. It never seems to change.
I'm sorry to say that all I've found I can do about it is try to find ways to make it bother me less. It never seems to change.
58
I can think of two other explanations for this apparent bias:
1. More women than men opt not to engage in trial practice for whatever reason, perhaps because of the unseemly nature of many of the clients. Having said that, some of the fiercest lawyers I know are women.
2. Perhaps women attorneys are better skilled at pre-trial negotiation that results in plea bargains and settlements before a case ever get to a trial phase. Judges would then see a parade of men when it is the women who are indeed better.
What I do find difficult to understand are some of the proposed solutions to a perceived problem raised by the author. One of the suggestions is that a mandate should exist requiring all depositions and trial teams have at least one woman one them. How absurd! There are dozens of different aspects of the law, each with its own subspecialty. I want the best attorney available to represent me in court or negotiations. Is the author suggesting that every law firm employ not only one woman, but one women in each of these subspecialties and roles? That makes for an awfully expensive law firm.
Once you mandate inclusion -- regardless of the field, setting, or who is being included -- you dilute the pool of qualified people to choose from. The client then has good reason to question whether he or she is getting the best, or just some token employee whose only purpose is to satisfy an artificial and capricious quota mandated by folks who have way too much time on their hands.
1. More women than men opt not to engage in trial practice for whatever reason, perhaps because of the unseemly nature of many of the clients. Having said that, some of the fiercest lawyers I know are women.
2. Perhaps women attorneys are better skilled at pre-trial negotiation that results in plea bargains and settlements before a case ever get to a trial phase. Judges would then see a parade of men when it is the women who are indeed better.
What I do find difficult to understand are some of the proposed solutions to a perceived problem raised by the author. One of the suggestions is that a mandate should exist requiring all depositions and trial teams have at least one woman one them. How absurd! There are dozens of different aspects of the law, each with its own subspecialty. I want the best attorney available to represent me in court or negotiations. Is the author suggesting that every law firm employ not only one woman, but one women in each of these subspecialties and roles? That makes for an awfully expensive law firm.
Once you mandate inclusion -- regardless of the field, setting, or who is being included -- you dilute the pool of qualified people to choose from. The client then has good reason to question whether he or she is getting the best, or just some token employee whose only purpose is to satisfy an artificial and capricious quota mandated by folks who have way too much time on their hands.
16
The point is to cure the problem. There are plenty of women who can lead depositions. Don't think you are fooling anyone with the old chestnut that only those with experience are qualified. Try putting this in a racial or ethnic context. Get it now?
1
Mandated inclusion certainly brings its own set of problems, but are seriously suggesting that certain kinds of legal skills are sex-linked?
You are generalizing and by doing so perpetuating inaccuracies. Any experienced well-respected litigator will tell you that a trial is won during the discovery phase... behind the scenes. If you can give the trial attorney the great script you won the case. And yes even though this might upset an awful lot of people if you got great legs and your case needs a little help God gave them to you for a reason use all your resources
This is a comment from a Federal judge who sees the biggest commercial cases in Federal court in the capital of the business world. This is a "Biglaw" problem. In more ordinary practice in New York State courts, the percentages are much different. Women are regularly engaged as lead counsel in insurance defense cases, local commercial claims, and as plaintiff's counsel in personal injury matters -- as well as populating local District Attorney's offices. May I suggest that the problem lies in the corporate lockstep mentality of the handful of huge law firms that hire exclusively out of the Ivy Leagues and who practice solely and exclusively in Federal courts. It is there that law firms could take a page out of the state practice handbook. Good luck with that.
56
I also think many more women are "talking" in family court. Family law courts are the overlooked courts, although the family court system arguably affects more people than any other court. At a 50 year celebration of women at Harvard Law a few years ago, to the best of my recollection there was no panel on family law and not one family law practitioner included in the program. In my experience as a full-time family court practitioner, there are more women as lead (only) counsel and more female judges. I could speculate as to why, but I can say that my trials and cases are as demanding and complex (if not more complex) than any case I had as a "biglaw" associate years ago.
22
Esquire is completely correct. I started as a D.A. in the Bronx in 1978 - I immediately found my voice and was listened to by my boss, the late great Mario Merola, my bureau chief and my team leader. When I came to Philadelphia in 1982, women were closeted however, that changed rapidly. My plaintiffs practice is both state and federal court where I am always the first if not the only chair. BIGLAW means not only big salaries but also big chains of command. The best way around that is to have your own big book of business!
5
Relative to what ML Ramsdale added - as not a lawyer by a social worker, I can remember a particular day in Family Court years ago ( maybe 30?): There was a moment when just as proceedings were getting started - the Judge - and all of us looked around with a kind of laugh: every person in court that day was a woman. That might still be unusual, but women don't take a back seat to men in family law.
1
The writer has effectively drawn a sketch of actual happenings in court. But it seems that US needs at least 15-20 landmark cases won by women to put women lawyers in general in lead arguments role in court rooms. Basic impression about performance by women lawyers in the eyes of public has to change which those prominent 15-20 cases can do aided by publicising press.
Did you read the article? Women won't be in a position to win 15 to 20 landmark cases without the recommendations. It's not happening organically.
5
That's a very good point. If you ask the average person to name a woman lawyer, wouldn't Marcia Clark come up most named? The article points to a lot of work by women in law and very well done. But somehow a line is drawn somewhere so that, as another news piece here today asserts, 93 per cent of work related deaths are men's. Public opinion writers seem to have the answer: women are being held down by mostly unknown men and unenlightened institutions.
"How long, Lord, how long?"
Constance Baker Motley argued Meredith v. Fair before the Supreme Court winning James Meredith'so efforts to attend the University of Mississippi in 1962; she was successful in nine of the ten cases argued before SCOTUS.
The formidable labor attorney Jith Vladeck was renowned for her groundbreaking victories in cases against powerful Wall Street firms and major universities beginning in the early 70s. Most notably she successfully argued many landmark women's employment discrimination cases.
Constance Baker Motley argued Meredith v. Fair before the Supreme Court winning James Meredith'so efforts to attend the University of Mississippi in 1962; she was successful in nine of the ten cases argued before SCOTUS.
The formidable labor attorney Jith Vladeck was renowned for her groundbreaking victories in cases against powerful Wall Street firms and major universities beginning in the early 70s. Most notably she successfully argued many landmark women's employment discrimination cases.
1
As he author notes, women have made up about half of all law school graduates for decades.
The author also notes that women make up about half of the appearances for government- whether it be prosecutors, defense counsel, etc.
The only place that the author doesn't see female counsel is in courtrooms with private clients, especially when the company's survival is at stake.
But it's not unusual for a partner to appear in such cases even when a young associate has, in actuality, done most of the work.
That's how Big Law works and it's not new.
But why is that partner usually a man?
Let me suggest you head to any playground in Brooklyn or the Upper West Side, typically filled with moms, nannies, and about 3 out of place looking dads.
Call out "Counselor!" and see how many of those moms turn around, their family time often subsidized by a husband working late hours at the law firm.
Becoming a partner requires sacrificing any kind of work life balance for years, as opposed to government jobs, where the career track is much more forgiving.
Sorry, Your Honor, but I view the dearth of women in partners' offices as a testimony to women's good sense and better bargaining in their marriages, not evidence of discrimination.
The author also notes that women make up about half of the appearances for government- whether it be prosecutors, defense counsel, etc.
The only place that the author doesn't see female counsel is in courtrooms with private clients, especially when the company's survival is at stake.
But it's not unusual for a partner to appear in such cases even when a young associate has, in actuality, done most of the work.
That's how Big Law works and it's not new.
But why is that partner usually a man?
Let me suggest you head to any playground in Brooklyn or the Upper West Side, typically filled with moms, nannies, and about 3 out of place looking dads.
Call out "Counselor!" and see how many of those moms turn around, their family time often subsidized by a husband working late hours at the law firm.
Becoming a partner requires sacrificing any kind of work life balance for years, as opposed to government jobs, where the career track is much more forgiving.
Sorry, Your Honor, but I view the dearth of women in partners' offices as a testimony to women's good sense and better bargaining in their marriages, not evidence of discrimination.
79
I was at big law. I left and run my own litigation shop. Your explanation is a cop out frequently engaged. My firm had a committee that determined that the reason it couldn't retain women was the flexibility thing. The committee had no women. Had I been asked, I would have told them it was their preference for mentoring and offering opportunity to the boys, a partner giving me a stuffed animal instead of a work assignment, and the expectation that I show up early to the holiday party to help set out the food that caused me to bail out. No wonder women choose to otherwise spend their lives.
163
Ah, so it's all because women chose to not compete?!
Ha!
Way to ignore sexism and discrimination!
Ha!
Way to ignore sexism and discrimination!
13
@Tiger: I believe you make a very good point, but have one rebuttal for what it's worth. What about the women who did not necessarily make a "better bargain" to spend more time outside the courtroom, but ran up against the glass ceiling in their endeavor to be partners, both/either because of lack of promotion or inequality in pay; so their decision to separate themselves may not have totally been their primary decision. I think the disparity is a bit more complex than what you portrayed. And yet, I do admire the fact that more women than men make the choice to create a strong family environment over a career; I don't buy the idea that ALL men ONLY follow the grinding work-obsessed path only for the higher income; when is "enough is enough - I want a balanced life" the proper position? Are women better at recognizing that point? And is that a question that too many men don't want to ask or hear?
40
I would posit that who speaks in a major court case today is a straw-man, which may reflect past gender bias, as the most experienced lawyers will get the most important cases, rather than a contemporary one. An analysis of law firm hiring practices and the comparable time it takes to achieve partner, would be a much more credible analysis of gender bias. If women are being hired at the same rate and acheive partner in the sme time frame, the issue brought up by Ms. Scheindlin will be self correcting. If not, that would be prima facia evidence of gender bias.
6
There have been many reports for decades showing that women and minorities are not making partner in large commercial law firms at the same rate. The percentage is usually 1 to 2.
6
@ Life long reader, You are spot on in your comment, but I am unaware of any current studies
1
Talk about arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic of law practice. Federal judges like her spend their time trying to force parties to settle. The system in this country is so complex and expensive almost all civil cases settle before a trial. I keep hearing federal judges complain about the lack of civil trials they get in their courts. There are partners in biglaw firms who have never tried a case. If anyone wants to actually try cases, there are firms where they can do so, they just might not be the biggest and most complex cases because there are not many fish in that pond at trial.
3
Same same same in Australia
6
Clearly there is a world wide male conspiracy to keep the competition down.
1
As a lawyer for 30 years and a current and former general counsel of several publicly traded companies responsible for hiring lawyers, I can say that progress is being made, driven by companies whose in-house legal teams are demanding more diversity among the outside lawyers who represent them. Money talks, and if law firms are told that diversity is a key factor in whether they get the business, it is remarkable how enlightened they become.
And this is not all "do gooder" stuff, either--it is good legal strategy, especially in litigation. Juries are generally quite diverse, with lots of women and people of different cultures and ethnicities. In many cases they respond better to someone other than a 55-year old white guy (which, by the way, is what I am).
Diversity in the legal professional is the right thing to do, but it is also smart legal strategy and, therefore, good business.
And this is not all "do gooder" stuff, either--it is good legal strategy, especially in litigation. Juries are generally quite diverse, with lots of women and people of different cultures and ethnicities. In many cases they respond better to someone other than a 55-year old white guy (which, by the way, is what I am).
Diversity in the legal professional is the right thing to do, but it is also smart legal strategy and, therefore, good business.
66
What about when there is no jury? Women are routinely seen as less authoritative and more interruptible (even when they are Supreme Court justices!). They're also reigned in and reprimanded more harshly (even when they are senators!). While it's morally wrong to play to biased thinking, asking clients to hope for enlightened male judges or to plan on enlightening them in real time seems like asking a lot. Of course, on that roughly third of occasions when the judge is a woman, the calculation changes.
3
I'm glad you brought up that diversity is a good legal and business strategy. It's the similar case in medicine: patients. especially historically disenfranchised groups, respond better to doctors similar to them and doctors from disadvantaged backgrounds (whether economic, ethnic, or geographic (i.e. rural and inner-city areas)) are more likely to take care of the underserved groups. I've often thought that the way to increase diversity is by emphasizing the business case instead of the "do-gooder" one.
1
I cannot think of a more radical lethal Darwinism meritocracy than war, ie litigation, sudden death in sports overtime is a tea party, there is always next season
If single combat favored (insert pejorative crude reference to gender) then war would bring that advantage forward
ergo
(1) warriors handicap themselves
(2) clients do not have the right to choose their lawyers
(3) judges should pick lawyers not clients
(4) I as client am now to be unsure if my case is heard on merits
(5) cases should be argued 'double-blond' the way FDA trials are conducted, we don't know who wrote the brief (and decisions in multi-judge cases should be unsigned, to reduce judge shopping or pandering in brief, I do that all the time tailor argument to a judge's past rulings)
(6) writing skills and research skills are the same as argument skills (I almost said oral argument)
(7) We should have separate but equal courtrooms
(8) maybe judges should focus on merits of cases
= =
(9) Maybe Judge Scheindlin will talk it up over stop and frisk, gender issues
If single combat favored (insert pejorative crude reference to gender) then war would bring that advantage forward
ergo
(1) warriors handicap themselves
(2) clients do not have the right to choose their lawyers
(3) judges should pick lawyers not clients
(4) I as client am now to be unsure if my case is heard on merits
(5) cases should be argued 'double-blond' the way FDA trials are conducted, we don't know who wrote the brief (and decisions in multi-judge cases should be unsigned, to reduce judge shopping or pandering in brief, I do that all the time tailor argument to a judge's past rulings)
(6) writing skills and research skills are the same as argument skills (I almost said oral argument)
(7) We should have separate but equal courtrooms
(8) maybe judges should focus on merits of cases
= =
(9) Maybe Judge Scheindlin will talk it up over stop and frisk, gender issues
4
After more than a decade in private practice, if I had a dollar for every time a white male law firm partner took the podium in arguing a case when it was the younger associate who actually knew the case, I'd own a few law firms. The partner insists on the speaking role in this situation because he wants the attention to impress the client, not because he knows the case better or can present better arguments. This is therefore the exact opposite of what you believe is happening: the best arguments are often *not* presented to the court. Law firms play this charade routinely. Money is a powerful motivator. The senior partner does not particularly care who has the best understanding of the case. He is first motivated by impressing the client.
10
oops
Freudian typo
'double-blond'
should be 'double blind,' spill checker did not catch that one, oops spool chucker
Freudian typo
'double-blond'
should be 'double blind,' spill checker did not catch that one, oops spool chucker
Dear neilends
You offer: that the lawyer seeks to impress the client.
Flash new, water is wet.
=
I doubt that if/when the case is LOST, the client is impressed. Further, I suspect, if the case is WON, the sufficient argument has been made, 'best' is a metaphysical concept
For these 'bet the company' cases, I VERY doubt that the Big Client is passive and stupid and does not have in-house counsel as proxy or shadow counsel, the 'Red' Team (when our military does war games, it assigns some forces, per purported Russian tactics, to play against the Blue Team
If the client does not shadow the front people, it deserve to lose, this is the jungle, life is a jungle
Sorry to those who think of ecology as peaceful and placed, is it violent, Darwin talked about survival ..
If the female support counsel, second chair? makes the diff, this will be obvious
A fem lawyer nearby, was picked out of support BY THE CLIENT and demanded as lead counsel, this disrupted the local billing structure, but the CLIENT IS GOD
deal w it
=
I still assert that knowing the case is different from arguing the case
coaches are not players, writers are not actors, critics are not artists, your mileage may vary
footnote people, I am one, are not litigators
=
Scheindlin is in bad odor here, she was relieved of some responsibility by her bosses, do you know her story on stop and frisk, quit thereafter
BAD role model, usurped power, got caught and now writes screeds
You offer: that the lawyer seeks to impress the client.
Flash new, water is wet.
=
I doubt that if/when the case is LOST, the client is impressed. Further, I suspect, if the case is WON, the sufficient argument has been made, 'best' is a metaphysical concept
For these 'bet the company' cases, I VERY doubt that the Big Client is passive and stupid and does not have in-house counsel as proxy or shadow counsel, the 'Red' Team (when our military does war games, it assigns some forces, per purported Russian tactics, to play against the Blue Team
If the client does not shadow the front people, it deserve to lose, this is the jungle, life is a jungle
Sorry to those who think of ecology as peaceful and placed, is it violent, Darwin talked about survival ..
If the female support counsel, second chair? makes the diff, this will be obvious
A fem lawyer nearby, was picked out of support BY THE CLIENT and demanded as lead counsel, this disrupted the local billing structure, but the CLIENT IS GOD
deal w it
=
I still assert that knowing the case is different from arguing the case
coaches are not players, writers are not actors, critics are not artists, your mileage may vary
footnote people, I am one, are not litigators
=
Scheindlin is in bad odor here, she was relieved of some responsibility by her bosses, do you know her story on stop and frisk, quit thereafter
BAD role model, usurped power, got caught and now writes screeds
1
In big firms, the partners often pick the attorneys who will speak in court or take on other prominent roles in litigation. The problem is that the partners frequently pick attorneys who look like themselves, excusing the decision as client preference. The lack of diversity perpetuating itself within the firm culture is at least as responsible for this dismal situation as client choice because corporate America is becoming more diverse than big law firms. When circumstances leave no choice but to rely on the attorneys the partners would not make their first choice, clients can often get new ideas, good outcomes, and value for the money spent. The recommendations in this comment have merit not only for shaping client choice, but also the factors within law firms that effectively prevent them from benefiting from the talent already working in their offices.
22
There's a certain psychic quality among commentators which has some appeal similar to that of mysticism over doctrine. 'The problem is that the partners frequently pick attorneys who look like themselves, excusing the decision as client preference'. Lawyers, always ready with an excuse. This practice of picking attorneys that look like themselves is going to make it that much easier when someone decides to go through with the old plan, 'first we kill all the lawyers'. But seriously, doesn't this line of thought have to get past a quasi Darwinian idea that law firms exist because they have been successful defending their clients and survival depends on continuing that. Lots of folk regard the New Testament notion that members have their unique gifts to bring to the body as passe. Maybe equality movements were wise not to choose sameness as their defining adjective.
1
@William - Wow, what a fancy way of saying that, well, women just aren't that qualified.
3