Sidebar-For the Other Half of the Human Race

Just in case anyone connects the dots.

2010-05-13T14:25:00.002-05:00

I wrote this blog anonymously. I'm still not going to reveal who I am. But, I am occasionally taking content from this blog and posting it on one of my mainstream blogs which is not anonymous. In case anyone ever connects the dots, I'm posting this here on the off chance they decide to accuse me of plagiarism. Should that day come, I'll officially claim this blog as my own. Until then, this is my CYA. Thanks. Ta ta for now.

Finito

2006-12-05T19:34:00.000-06:00

I think I'm pretty much done with this here blog. Thanks for all the good times, the laughs, the tears..

For those of you that are interested in the whole "women in the law" aspect of my blog, you might want to check out one of the blogs in my sidebar, Sui Generis, which I noticed has recently begun weekly posts on finding balance in the legal profession. Or, you might not. Whatevah.

Sayonara.

Law Firms smelling the coffee?

2006-11-20T09:02:00.000-06:00

There's a great article from Law.com that summarizes much of what I've been saying on this blog: that the priorities of Gen Xers and Gen Yers are going to change the structure of law firms as we know it. The aging dinosaur is dying a slow, somewhat painful death. Hoo-yah!

From the article, which discusses the apparently increasing number of law students who choose to have children while in law school so that they'll be able to actually see their children grow up:

Tornabene's planning isn't an exception -- law school administrators and students say such careful logic is apparently driving a parent boom among student ranks. University of California, Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law's dean of students, Victoria Ortiz, said the school doesn't keep statistics, but her staff has been buzzing about the phenomenon...

Young people, mindful of the realities of working in the legal profession, are taking advantage of the perks of academia. At the top of the list are class schedules that can be arranged to leave mornings and afternoons free for day care drop-offs and pick-ups and the option to take up to a full academic year off without missing a beat on return.

Professors and administrators understand that students juggle all sorts of responsibilities apart from schoolwork, she said, including part-time jobs and internships -- and kids.

That type of understanding seems to be rare at firms, Alon said. Attorneys who come to campus to speak with students do well answering questions about the best places to clerk to ensure a spot with their firm, but they falter on questions about how their 5-year-old feels about their 90-hour work weeks. "They're very surprised to hear questions from students about work-life balance," Alon said, adding that the advice she gets frequently is to "work really hard and pay your nanny really well."

What working attorneys and firm managers are just beginning to understand is that there is a generation entering the profession who don't plan to pay someone else to watch their children.

Amen, sister.

Why womens' bar associations are worthless

2006-11-06T22:07:00.000-06:00

According to this National Survey On Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms report and as summarized by Robert Ambrogi over at Inside Opinions:

Even women who achieve the status of equity partner tend to earn less than their male counterparts and play a lesser role in firm governance. On average, women hold only 16 percent of the seats on their firms' governing committees and make up only 5 percent of managing partners.

So, bottom line, even the women who "make it" have no power.

And that's why I've found that womens' bar associations are worthless for networking. No one that you "network" with has the ability or power to do much of anything for you. I've found that I have far more success networking at the local bar association where I interact with mostly male attorneys.

As I see it, the only women that have any "power" are judges, and even then, it all depends on the political climate. Although women solos seem to be more in the loop than women in law firms.

That's the sad but true reality. Law firms are one of the worst places that a woman could choose to work. And, as the numbers show, women are figuring that out, slowly but surely. Hence, the mass exodus from law firms.

And, I say--good riddance. Who needs the antiquated structure of law firms, which are based on archaic thinking? They're dinosaurs that are dying a slow death. The law firm as we know it is a thing of the past. It's about time.

Stereotypes and typical ratios

2006-10-21T08:09:00.000-05:00

So, someone emailed me the following Gentile jokes (I'm Jewish--half my family is Catholic, however--my mother converted to Judaism):

A Gentile goes into a clothing store and says, "This is a very fine
>jacket. How much is it?"
>The salesman says, "It's $500."
>The Gentile says, "OK, I'll take it."
>
>*******************
>
>Two Gentiles meet on the street. The first one says, "You own your own
>business, don't you? How's it going?" The other Gentile says, "Just
>great! Thanks for asking!"
>
>********************
>Two Gentile mothers meet on the street and start talking about children.
>Gentile mother 1 (said with pride): "My son is a construction worker!"
>Gentile mother 2 (said with more pride): "My son is a truck driver!"
>
>*******************
>A man calls his mother and says, "Mother, I know you're expecting me for
>dinner this evening, but something important has come up and I can't make
>it." His mother says, "OK."
>
>****************************
>A Gentile couple goes to a nice restaurant.
>The man says: "I'll have the steak and a baked potato, and my wife will
>have the julienne salad with house dressing. We'll both have coffee."
>The waiter says, "How would you like your steak and salad prepared?" he
>man says,"I'd like the steak medium......the salad is fine as is." The
>waiter says, " Thank you."
>
>*************************************************************
>A Gentile man calls his elderly mother.
>He asks, " Mom, how are you feeling? Do you need anything?" She says,
>"I'm feeling fine, and I don't need anything. Thanks for calling

************************

Funny? Sure, for the most part. But what gives with all the sexist stereotypes? Loud obnoxious opinionated women--overbearing mothers full of guilt trips--boastful women. And, where are the corresponding stereotypes about Jewish men?

Sure--as a "race" we're all stereotyped as cheap money pinchers, but why is it that there's no negative Jewish husband/father stereotype that's oh-so-funny? Could it be--oh--I don't know--that Judaism's just as patriarchal as all the other major world religions, and thus the sexism filters right on down into the "humor"?

Can you tell that that's my take on it?

And, while we're discussing sexism--as if that's something new on this blog--let's move onto the local bar association's magazine that I just received.

First, in the "In the News" section, which is based on submissions from law firms regarding new hires, promotions, etc, there are 8 men mentioned and 3 women. That ratio sounds about right for our profession, dontcha think?

And, then there's the public service ad from a State bar organization encouraging lawyers to seek help for substance abuse. It states that 1 in 5 lawyers has a problem, and then, just in case we're too stoned to put 2 and 2 together, has 5 photographs. 3 men, 1 woman, and the "mystery druggie" whose face is blacked out, but is obviously a man. So, a 4:1 ratio. Again, sounds just about f*cking right.

Stupid profession.

No posts

2006-10-04T13:00:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of posts. Life got in the way. I'll post a few times over the next few days. See you then!

Getting back on the track...

2006-09-25T19:45:00.000-05:00

Carolyn Elefant at Inside Opinions posted about a really interesting law.com come article that discussed the legal field's very recent attempt to make the return to law easier for women who chose to "opt out" for a few years. From the article:

Traditionally, it's been an arduous journey for attorneys who have stepped off the treadmill to get back on. "It's not impossible, but it can be very difficult for people who haven't kept their hand in, in some way," says Marcia Shannon, a career-transition counselor with Shannon & Manch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal-outplacement and legal-management consulting firm.

But the market may be lending a hand. With attrition rates for associates as high as ever, some lawyers are looking for ways to reach out to nontraditional pools of talent.

Both the American Bar Association and the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco are launching initiatives aimed at helping attorneys who have stopped practicing maintain their connections and ease their transition back into the profession. Two attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom started the ABA project, Back to Business Law, in New York this past spring. The goal of the pilot project is to give nonpracticing attorneys a way to keep abreast of major legal developments and to give them opportunities for informal networking. The program will soon expand to Washington, D.C. Ann Ford, the managing partner of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary's D.C. office, was so taken with the project when she read about it in May that she decided to organize a D.C. chapter.

Now that's what I'm talking about. It's nice to see that law firms are slowly but surely beginning to realize that in about 10 years or less, they're going to be shit out of luck unless they begin to get creative. Sooner, rather than later, I predict that they're not going to be able to fill the ranks with the newly graduated Gen Y-ers who seem to want more out of life than just cash--and lots of it. As I've said in the past, once the men begin to actively seek balance, then things will start look up for the other half of the human race.

Another interesting point from the article is one that I've also mentioned a few times in the past--the accounting field is an indication of what's on the horizon for law firms, and they're light years ahead of us:

Perhaps law firms should take a cue from the accounting industry.

"Law firms are using a flawed accounting system," says Williams, who, through her work for the Center for WorkLife Law and as co-director of the center's Project for Attorney Retention, has been trying to convince law firms that there are sound business reasons for them to embrace more flexibility in the workplace.

The accounting industry has come up with innovative programs to stem the tide of attrition it has been facing, Williams says. For example, one Deloitte & Touche initiative allows its employees to leave the company for up to five years while staying connected to the company and keeping their skills current through firm-sponsored training, mentoring, networking events and ad hoc assignments.

Other accounting firms have followed suit and adopted forward-thinking family-friendly policies. "The reason is that they do the numbers," Williams says. "They know how much it is costing them to churn and burn." They have realized that it is economically in their interest to retain and re-recruit the employees they have already trained, she adds. The Project for Attorney Retention estimates that the cost of replacing a second-year associate, for example, runs about $200,000.

"Law firms are driving up expenses by driving out valuable workers one after another," Williams says.

I can assure you that one thing law firm partners understand is cold.hard.cash. They're just not very good at managing it. And, they're aging dinosaurs that aren't at all comfortable with change and have a hard time spotting new trends. But mark my words, they'll figure this one out soon enough.

I have a hunch. A strong one.

Kids book blogging

2006-09-24T13:08:00.000-05:00

It's time again for kids book blogging. This week my girls picked out just 5 books from the library. When we left the kids' area and headed towards the reception desk, we had six books, but by the time we reached the desk, one of them had lost a book along the way. Pretty typical for my girls!

Here are the books for this week and the applicable male/female character ratios:

Bob the Builder-Let's Find Colors: 5:2. The boys rule, as usual. Once again, I used Wikipedia's page on Bob the Builders to ascertain the sexes of the mostly machine characters.
I Love You: 2:1 (0:0), although I'm inclined to call this book gender neutral. There was a male farmer, and a page that showed the feet of a boy and a girl. All of the animals were androgynous, with the possible exception of two ducks, who were wearing swimming caps with flowers on them--strongly suggesting that they were female, although their gender was not entirely clear. Accordingly, even though this book may have had more males than females, I'm going to tabulate it as 0:0.
When Someone is Afraid: 2:2. The main character is a little boy, and he refers to a bunch of animals. Those whose gender is unknown to him (ie. wild animals) he calls "it" or "they", but refers to his pets by their gender. The cat is a girl and the dog a boy. And, he states that when he is afraid, he calls his mommy or daddy, although his mom happens to respond in the book when he is afraid. So, even though the female is in a stereotypical role in this book, the (female) author obviously gave some thought to gender issues, and I'd call this one gender neutral.
Jimmy's Boa and the Bungee Slam Dunk: 3:3. The main character is a little girls who recounts to her mother her day at school. There is a male coach and a female dance teacher, and a little boy named Jimmy who owned a male snake. Although this book has an even ratio, it has a number of stereotypical gender roles in place (female teacher, male coach, little girl in dance class, little boy involved in sports, mother listening to child's story), it's not exactly a great example of a gender nuetral book, in my opinion.
Bitter Bananas: 1:0. The main character is a little boy, and all other characters are andrgymous baboons.

Tally for this week: 11:7.

I'm always amazed by the total each week. Even on weeks such as this one, that didn't seem as overwhelmingly male character dominated, the girls still end up trailing by quite a bit.

Overall tally: 53:27. *sigh*

Bias hurting women in science? Say it ain't so!

2006-09-20T19:35:00.000-05:00

Oh yes. It's true! As reported in the New York Times here:

For 30 years, the report says, women have earned at least 30 percent of the nation’s doctorates in social and behavioral sciences, and at least 20 percent of the doctorates in life sciences. Yet they appear among full professors in those fields at less than half those levels. Women from minority groups are “virtually absent,” it adds.

The report also dismisses other commonly held beliefs — that women are uncompetitive or less productive, that they take too much time off for their families. Instead, it says, extensive previous research showed a pattern of unconscious but pervasive bias, “arbitrary and subjective” evaluation processes and a work environment in which “anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a ‘wife’ is at a serious disadvantage.”

(Hat tip: Bitch Ph.D.)

It's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend.

I'm getting kind of tired of hearing the same old refrain over and over. Aren't you?

Top firms failing women attorneys? Say it ain't so!

2006-09-20T19:30:00.000-05:00

Oh yes, it's true! As reported here:

Dozens of the nation's top law firms are failing their women attorneys when it comes to advancement, training, work-life balance and more, according to a report released by members of the Women's Law Association at Harvard Law School....

The report found that many women believe their firms don't provide opportunities to make partner or foster an environment that values diversity and family.

But we already knew that now, didn't we?

Let's party like it's 1991

2006-09-17T16:43:00.000-05:00

Because, apparently, it may as well be. According to this article, there has been little or no improvement in the pay disparity between male and female attorneys since 1991:

According to the data for full-time lawyers, only about 5 percent of women lawyers earn $350,000 or more while 20 percent of male lawyers earn at that level. One-fifth of the women earn less than $50,000; just 8 percent of men are in this category.

No female 1990s graduate is above the $200,000-$249,000 level while almost 10 percent of the male graduates from that decade are above it.

I guess it goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

What I didn't expect.

2006-09-14T16:08:00.000-05:00

UPDATED: Here's a link to the full Hirshman article that is referred to on her blog, thanks to Feminists Law Professors.

---------------

I've been thinking about the recent Linda Hirshman post that I discussed here. Something else that she said merits discussion:

I recently wrote a piece in the National Law Journal suggesting that an awful lot of women I interviewed had gone to law school with seemingly little understanding of what it meant to work in the legal profession. (Emphasis added).

She's right in a sense--at least as it relates to me. There was a lack of comprehension on my part, but not as it related to the practice of law. I was well aware of the expectations and the workload. And, I had no problem working 70 hour weeks as an Assistant PD and as an associate in a law firm. I understood those expectations. I knew what life would be like as a practicing attorney and wasn't a bit surprised by the reality of the situation.

What I didn't comprehend was how much work and time was required to run a household that included children. Once kids and a decent-sized home are added to the mix, life becomes increasingly more complicated. Even when the tasks are equally split between two working adults, it's hard to manage.

And the reason I didn't understand this factor was because our culture--and Ms. Hirshman's brand of feminism--denigrates and dismisses this aspect of life. Caring for children and managing a home are equated with eating bon bons 24/7. I can assure you, that's simply not the case. It's hard work. And, children are a huge responsibility. As they should be.

I wish that I'd known how much time this aspect of our lives required. And I wish I'd known how important those contributions are--both to my family and to society. And I wish I'd known how inflexible many legal employers can be. And, I wish that I hadn't pulled the wool over my eyes, with the idea that I'd deal with those issues "down the road."

So, yes, there was something that I didn't fully comprehend when I was in law school. And, I still don't quite get it today--why the domestic sphere of life is dismissed as unimportant, unfulfilling and frivolous, when just the opposite is true.

I've found a manifesto that makes sense.

2006-09-13T13:00:00.000-05:00

The Feminist Law Professors blog recently highlighted what is likely to become my very own manifesto, aptly entitled "The Motherhood Manifesto: What America’s Moms Want—And What to Do About It".

From the book:

Frankly, we are at a transition point in American history. While most mothers work in this country, we simply don’t have sufficient supports in place for parents and families. To suggest that mothers just need to find the proper balance between work and family is to profoundly misunderstand the issue. The truth is that our society hasn’t caught up to support the unprecedented diversity of roles modern women take on in a single day. At the heart of the matter is the need for change.

National policies and programs with proven success in other countries—like paid family leave, flexible work options, subsidized childcare and preschool, as well as healthcare coverage for all kids—are largely lacking in America. These problems are deeply interconnected and often overlap: Without paid family leave parents often have to put their infants in extremely expensive or substandard childcare facilities; families with a sick child, inadequate healthcare coverage, and no flexible work options often end up in bankruptcy (indeed illness is one of the top causes of bankruptcy).

Bravo! My newfound manifesto. They get it. They really get it!

And there's a website devoted to the cause: MomsRising.org. Follow this link to learn what it's about.

And, there's a blog, too!. I've already subscribed.

As an aside, I plan to update my sidebar and include links to website and organizations like this one. Check back soon.

Unbelievable

2006-09-12T12:07:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Here's the link to the original Hirshman article that she refers to in her blog post. (Hat tip: Feminist Law Professors).

----------------

As I read this post from Linda Hirshman's blog, all I could think was "Give me a f*cking break."

First, her main thesis is outrageous:

Men and women should get the same access to law school-same tuition, same scholarships, etc. If, however, 10 years after graduation, the law school graduate is not working full-time at some job for which law school is a reasonable preparation, he, or more likely, she, will have to give the school back the money that it spent educating him or her over and above whatever was paid in tuition. The refunds would be put in a fund for scholarships for law students who could not otherwise afford to go to law school.

I didn't attend law school so that I could give back to society, and I don't owe anyone or any institution anything simply because I graduated from law school.

I obtained a law degree in order to empower myself. I obtained my law degree for me; not society, not feminists, not Ms. Hirshman. One of my goals was to give back to society, and that I did. I gave more than my fair share during my years as a public defender and intend to give back to society throughout my career. But, it doesn't have to be on Ms. Hirshman's regimented schedule.

And, as for her denigration of the women that emailed her regarding her outrageous assertion--don't even get me started. I can't even begin to fathom what goes on in her mind--who says this stuff about other women?

If the letter writers, who are authentic (each of them signed the letter and included the name of her firm), did read the article, it is a little scary to think that practicing lawyers can read this or any text and so completely misunderstand its content...

I read these letters and wonder whether next time I go for legal advice I might get a lawyer unable to understand a simple opinion piece or, if this last writer is telling the truth, an accountant who cannot read the opening paragraphs of Get to Work or, indeed, any non-fiction.

This woman purports to be a feminist? Selective misogyny is a more fitting description.

Kids book blogging

2006-09-10T12:02:00.000-05:00

We went to the library a bit late this week, so this post is also a bit belated. But, it's time for the weekly analysis of the ratio of boy to girl characters in the books that my kids randomly selected from the library. As usual, the girls didn't fare too well.

This week's round up:

Tiger on a Tree--3:0. Not a female in sight in this book. All main and peripheral characters were male.
You Can't Take a Balloon Into the Museum of Fine Arts--2:2. This book was just the way a book should be--and the way that the world is. It had a grandma and a grandpa and 2 grandkids, one of each sex. The peripheral characters were a good mix of each sex.
The Field Beyond The Outfield--3:1. The main character was a boy, he had a male coach, a dad, and the obligatory female--his mom. A prime example of a female character being included only when she fulfills a stereotypical "feminine" role.
No Such Thing--2:2. Two male main characters, a little boy and a boy monster, with the two female characters, their mothers, playing a supporting role.
Snow Music--2:0--A little boy who loses his male dog. There was a picture of a female deer, but it wasn't a major character. All of the boy's friends appeared to be male as well.
Three Little Kittens--2:2. The mom is, of course, female. Of the three little kittens, the pink one is--(Can you guess?)--a girl of course. She has long lashes just like her mom. The other two kittens (blue and orange) are boys.

Total for this week: 14:7. Of the 7 female characters, 4 were mothers, which doesn't even really count in my mind. But, I'll count them nevertheless, because if I don't, the numbers will be absolutely pathetic this week. Oh, wait a minute. They're already ridiculously pathetic.

Total count thus far: 42:20.

It's a sad, sad commentary on our culture, isn't it?

I'll be back

2006-09-08T19:56:00.000-05:00

Sorry posting was light over the last week. I've been a bit swamped with work.

I'll post within the next few days. I promise;)

It's a story again--where are all the female law clerks?

2006-08-30T06:15:00.000-05:00

Here we are again (h/t Feministe). The NY Times has an article on the low number of female Supreme Court law clerks this year. From the article:

Just under 50 percent of new law school graduates in 2005 were women. Yet women account for only 7 of the 37 law clerkships for the new term, the first time the number has been in the single digits since 1994, when there were 4,000 fewer women among the country’s new law school graduates than there are today.

This was discussed ad nauseam over at the Volokh Conpsiracy, among other blogs, in July by what appeared to be mostly men with a conservative bent. And, they purported to discuss the issue in such a clinical and oh-so-logical manner.

A number of commenters seemed quite set upon the idea that all of the potential female clerks wanted to opt out and have kids. Nice idea in theory, but actually pretty lame considering that most clerks are just one year out of law school, making most of them about 27 or so, and the clerkship is only one year long. Speaking as a woman with a law degree who chose to utilize my uterus, I can assure you that waiting until I was in my early 30s to use it was a-ok with me. I was more than happy to gain some experience before I cannonballed my career. I bet the rejected pool of female applicants would agree with me.

I liked Jill's take on this at Feminste:

There’s no way that the traditional boys’ network influenced this one, either — I mean, it’s not as if how much you like a person, or how much you feel you have in common with a person, impacts your hiring decisions, right? And it’s not as if how much you like someone is at all influenced by your social outings, or your potential social outings, with them, many of which — like, say, golf — are highly gendered, right? I mean, no one has ever demonstrated that having more people from underrepresented groups — women, people of color — in positions of power leads to more people from those underrepresented groups finding success in those very fields, have they?

The good ol' boy issue is one of the biggest issues facing women in the legal field, in my opinion. It's a seemingly insurmountable and unquantifiable force that makes it 10 times harder to rise through the ranks in the law firm environment where you are judged, in large part, by the business that you bring in, which is in turn based upon who you know.

And, it's an important phenomenon, and certainly helps to explain the low number of women this year in the halls of the most hallowed court in the land. I hope that this year's low numbers are just a random blip on the radar, as suggested in the NY Times article.

But, I tend to be a pessimist. Tune in next year and I predict we'll see the beginning of a sad and telling trend. One that I'm not at all happy about.

This week's library book ratios

2006-08-28T12:23:00.000-05:00

We just returned from a trip to the library, so it's time to chart the male to female character ratios. It doesn't look too good for the girls this week:

2:0--Too Much Noise--Two men and a bunch of nameless animals. The cow and hen were female (the cow had an udder and the hen is by defintion female), but they were minor, nameless characters.
9:4--Bob's A to Z Word Book--This includes the machines, based upon the gender assigned to them here at Wikipedia's entry on Bob The Builder. Spud the scarecrow wasn't counted since it's apparently androgynous.
2:0--Tough Boris--The two main characters were male, as were all of the pictured unnamed sidekicks. The parrot was assigned no gender. Nary a woman in sight.
2:0--Little Stone Buddha--The two main characters were male, as were all of the other nameless minor characters. The foxes' gender was not established.
2:0--The Custodian from the Black Lagoon--The two main characters wree male. The nameless, minor characters were a mix.
0:1--Silly Little Goose--Goose was a female, looking for a place to lay her eggs. Mnay of the nameless side characters also appeared to be mothers, since they were shown with their young, but it wasn't entirely clear.

17:5 total for this week. Wow. Now that's what I'm talking about! How do you combat that?

28:13 total thus far, since the inception of this little experiment last week.

Have the relationships of married professionals changed?

2006-08-27T10:08:00.000-05:00

As I'd stated previously, I disagree with one of the primary underlying assumptions of Linda Hirshman's new book and article from last winter: that while the public world has changed to accommodate professional women, their private lives and relationships have hardly changed at all.

The basis for my disagreement is my own experience and that of the upper middle class educated women that I know. In this post, I'll provide many examples of the various relationships and work arrangements of women around me.

First off, let me clarify that my blog, and the arguments therein, are intended to address professional, highly educated women, their career choices and the societal forces that affect their choices. Accordingly, this post focuses on the relationships of those women as well. Again--highly educated (post-graduate degrees) women.

Since I entered the workforce after law school, I've found myself surrounded by women that fit that description, in large part because I am one of those women.

So, let's start with me. I never intended to stop working, and always envisioned being the primary source of income for my family, as did my husband, a man with a bachelors degree in a field that has limited earning potential and minimal opportunities for advancement up a ladder--but also happens to be a career that is in high demand right now.

After juggling part-time schedules and seeing each other one day per week, I made an abrupt decision to leave my job, in large part due to career dissatisfaction unrelated to having kids. I took a few years off to have our next child, and am now phasing back into the legal field by working on a part-time basis while my husband works full-time.

Here are other examples of any number of couples with children (that I know fairly well to quite well) and arrangements, all of which appear to me from the "outside" to be egalitarian relationships unless otherwise noted:

Husband (H) is a lawyer, wife (W) a physician. Upon finishing her residency, he left to care for the kids while she worked f/t.
H has a 4 year degree, W is a physician. He worked on and off throughout her residency, and was the primary caregiver for their children when he wasn't working. When he was working they were in daycare. When her residency ended, they moved in order to allow her to follow her career path. His was secondary.
H and W are doctors. Both worked through their residency and kids were in daycare. She's vacillated about not practicing when their residencies ended, but seems to want to continue practicing at this point.
H is a teacher, W is a physician. Initially, she had no qualms about working and always expected to be the primary source of income. After her second child, she tried to work out a p/t arrangement with her practice unsuccessfully. She uses a nanny and is still struggling with the issue of balance. They are considering having him leave work, but it would drastically affect his pension and his tenure track, and thus negatively affect them both in the long run.
H and W are both doctors working full-time. Their kids have always been in daycare. This is one case where H doesn't seem to carry his load, and she bears the burden of childcare and housework when not at work.
H and W are both doctors. He's from Iceland. They had kids during their residencies and both planned to continue working after their residencies end--possibly in Iceland since it's far easier to manage childcare issues and work/life balance in Iceland.
H is involved in some sort of business, W became pregnant in law school and obtained law degree over time, and had another child while in law school. She doesn't plan to practice law anytime soon.
H is involved in business, W obtained law degree, had kids, and then obtained first job in a firm when the second child entered kindergarten.
H is a physician, W obtained law degree while kids were in grade school and is now a partner in a law firm.
H is a lawyer (Asst. AG) and W is a partner in a law firm. W worked part-time for a number of years while the kids were young. The kids attended daycare.
H is a lawyer (a law clerk for a judge), W is a partner in a law firm. W worked part-time for a number of years while the kids were young and utilized an au pair.
H is in sales, W is a lawyer (Asst. PD). His job situation is not exactly stable and he watches the kids when he's not employed. She works f/t, and financially, they both need to be working in order to stay afloat.
H is a lawyer as is W. They were both Asst. DAs when they met. He is now a partner in a firm, she continues to work p/t in the Appeals section of the DAs. The kids are in daycare when she works.

I think that this summary is an indication that the decisions made by professional couples regarding child care and career paths are varied and unpredictable. In my experieince, there is no set pattern evident wherein the woman abandons her career in order to care for kids, while the husband merrily waltzes down the path to professional success.

Each couple considers the various factors and comes to a decision as unique as they are that works for their family. Rarely, if ever, do I see women simply giving up on their careers. Many alter their career paths a bit for a few years, but stay in the loop and jump right back on. You'll notice that many women ended up partners in law firms, even though they reduced their hours for a few yeras. And, some men changed their career paths as well.

I think that my totally unscientific survey is evidence that Linda Hirshman's blanket statement/assumption that "private lives and relationships have hardly changed at all" is patently false.

As a result, I think that all of her conclusions that derived from that assumption are false as well, as I'll be showing over the next few weeks.

There is hope for us yet!

Maybe he's onto something

2006-08-27T09:33:00.000-05:00

Christopher Marston has created what he calls "the firm of the future"--a law firm that is based on a flat fee for services concept as opposed to the billable hours concept.
Here's an article that sums up his background and how he established his firm:

Chris set out to revolutionize the legal industry moments after graduating with a vision for creating the firm of the future. This firm would abandon traditional law practice and the billable hour, focusing on the value of services provided, rather than the cost of one’s time. After conducting thorough research on the topic of the history of law and the billable hour, and unable to find a law firm with this unique business model, it sparked the idea for a business...After months of research, Exemplar Law Partners was born in April 2005.

He's got a blog about his business venture, too.

It's an interesting concept. Only time will tell if it will ultimately be a successful and profitable venture.

But, it's creative ideas like this one--thinking outside the box--that will allow our generation to hopefully abandon the traditional billable hours model and find a better work/life balance. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Hopefully his firm will succeed. That'll show BigLaw a thing or two.

Hell has officially frozen over

2006-08-24T15:13:00.000-05:00

Linda Hirshman and I see eye to eye--at least on one point.

In this post from her blog, she responds to analogies made regarding the article discussed yesterday, "Don't marry a career women" by Michael Noer, wherein some compare her recommendation to young women to marry either an older or younger man to the recommendation made by Noer in his article.

Ms. Hirshman asserts that her actual recommendation is "Don't marry a jerk":

What these writers miss of course is that my rule is "Never Marry A Jerk" MEANING, for anyone who has been on Mars for the last eight months, someone who will not expect the female to bear 70% of the housework and child rearing, let's call him MIchael Noer. Marrying younger or older is just a stand in for the careful work that goes into not marrying a jerk.

Eureka! I think we've found common ground.

Of course, the phrase that I prefer is "Don't marry an asshole." I rather prefer that term of art, don't you?

Don't marry career women?

2006-08-23T15:23:00.000-05:00

(Updated: h/t knownunknowns ;))

I welcome you all to read this rather lovely article from Forbes, of all places, entitled: Don't Marry Career Women. From the intro.:

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

What a pathetic bunch of drivel from a magazine/website that, interestingly enough, consists of a readership that is 35% female. Way to alienate more than 1/3 of your readers.

Not exactly a brilliant business plan from a company that pegs itself as: "(O)ne of the most trusted information resources for the world’s business leaders, providing the uncompromising commentary, relevant tools, concise analysis and real-time reporting they need to succeed at work, profit from investing and have fun with the rewards of winning."

Bravo Forbes. Bravo.

Stop the insanity!

2006-08-23T07:45:00.000-05:00

Japanese workers in their 30s are so stressed out that they're taking lengthy mental health breaks, as reported here:

Japanese office workers, particularly those in their 30s, are increasingly stressed and struck by mental health problems, partly because of grueling corporate competition, a new study shows...

A report by the Mental Health Research Institute of the Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economic Development said nearly 75 percent of the survey's respondents reported having employees who take leaves lasting longer than one month, up from 67 percent in 2004.

Sixty-one percent of the polled companies said employees in their 30s constituted the largest group with mental health problems, a sharp increase from 41.8 percent in 2002 and 49.3 percent in 2004, according to the biennial survey released last month...

"As the traditional, seniority-based pay system has been largely replaced with performance-based pay and achievement systems ... colleagues have become rivals," institute analyst Kotaro Kusunoki said Tuesday.

"Office workers are also under enormous pressure because of demanding responsibility compared to little room for discretion given," he added.

Damn, that sounds familiar. And, it's not exactly cost efficient, now is it? Sounds like it's time for a change.

Turn and face the strange ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

Sexist childhoods

2006-08-22T15:28:00.000-05:00

I'm adding another regular feature to this blog--examples of the sexism inherent in our culture that my two little girls are constantly exposed to as they grow up. I am absolutely amazed at the sheer lack of female characters found in books, movies and toys. It's pathetic. Generally, the only time there are women characters is when the character plays a gender-stereotyped role, such as a mother, grandmother, or princess.

It is so damn frustrating, I can't even begin to tell you. It's an uphill battle and I'm at a loss as to how to counteract it.

Why is this important? Because little girls learn by osmosis from a very young age that they are insignificant, second class citizens. Women are an afterthought in our culture and this is evident to little girls from day one, even if they can't express this concept verbally.

On Tuesdays I'll be posting the ratio of male to female characters from the 6 books chosen by my girls at random from the library. (Either my husband or I generally take them to the library on Mondays). It's a work in progress since I've never actually kept track of the numbers. Let's see how it goes.

And, I'll occasionally be posting other examples as I encounter them on a daily basis with my girls.

Today's library books, counting only major characters with names:

2:2--Cat Heaven--I was pleasantly surprised to see that the default pronoun was "she." But, the book was written by a woman, although that doesn't necessarily mean much, I've learned.
2:3--Rude Giants--Again, another surprising ratio. Female author.
3:0--Terrific--not a female in sight. Male author.
gender neutral--Quack and Count--Just a bunch of nameless ducks getting counted, but at least they're not all boys. Male author.
3:3--The Fabulous Flying Fandinis--Can't complain about that ratio. Written by a woman.
1:0--Truck Song--The "main" character is a truck driver.

11:8 total. Not such a bad week, all things considered. But not a wash. So far, XY is in the lead.

Today's other examples:

3:1--The game Hungry, Hungry Hippos--as we played this oh-so-exciting game my older daughter informed me today that only one of hte hippos was a girl--the pink one. We then examined the names of hippos, as indicated by the stickers that I'd placed on the game when we first purchased it, without even paying attention to their content. The pink one was "Happy Hippo"--maybe a girl, but who knows? The others were "Harry Hippo", "Henry Hippo", and "Homer Hippo." Definitely boys.
5:2--Lyle, Lyle the Crocodile--I read this today to my daughter at her request. Nice ratio. Not.

Roles vs. Goals in law firms

2006-08-19T14:06:00.000-05:00

I recently promised to write about an excellent post from the morepartnerincome blog that offered an intriguing perspective on the work/life/family balance and an interesting solution.

Tom Collins' post begins with what I think is an accurate asssertion:

But if there were one thing that must change before progress is made, I think... it is “firm culture”. Law firms will not be a friendlier place for women lawyers until it is a friendlier place for everyone.

As soon as I read that, I knew I was going to like the article. He hits the nail on the head. As I've said repeatedly on this blog, both men and women at all stages of their professional careers should be accomodated, depending on their needs. It's not just a womens' issue.

He then sets forth the basic premise upon which his "solution" to the problem is based:

Not all lawyers are cut from the same cloth. Yet, given the culture in most law firms, each is judged as if they were. Within too many law firms, success depends on one’s performance against a single “work ethic” standard.

Perhaps law firms should adopt a page from the cultural notebook of commercial businesses that have made it into the circle of excellent enterprises. Excellent enterprises have accepted that there are “Seven Life Phases” into which individuals can allocate their energies and time—job, family, religion, civic activities, health, recreation and self-development. Each choice competes against all others.

Perfect! It's not just a womens' issue. And, it's not just about family and kids. It's about life choices and life phases.

He describes the various outside commitments that employees may have:

For some, when it comes to the Seven Life Phases, their job is their life. For others, religious commitments take absolute precedence over work–no work on certain religious holidays or on Saturdays, for example. Yet for others, physical activities to develop and maintain a healthy body have evolved into a fixed routine from which they will not deviate. Some change their choices over time. The arrival of children usually results in a major shift toward the family choice for most women and some men.

All valid commitments--all valid phases.

Next, he states:

The law firm must make a cultural change and recognize the Seven Life Phases as a fact of business and life. It must accept that one’s pattern of choices is neither good nor bad. How each member works is a result of their choices, and the firm should not allow attempts by some team members to judge others by their own particular choices. The only valid issue is: Given the “Role” one has in the organization, is he/she getting the job done—making a positive contribution to the organization’s purpose, goals and objectives? (Emphasis added).

Exactly. Stop judging your peers and comparing their choices to your own. That goes for all of you Hirshman feminsts as well!

Finally, he addresses the issue of successful and meaningful accomodation:

To accommodate talented and contributing individuals, management must be willing to vary the “roles”, the “organizational expectations”, available to individuals. It means that “work flexibility” has to be accompanied by “role flexibility.” To provide work hour and workplace flexibility without a matching “role” is simply a recipe for failure. And unfortunately, that conflict appears to be the norm today—law firms that have life/work balance options but still hold success in the firm to the same “job is my life” standard.

Yes, yes, yes! Lucidity at last! Someone who makes sense! Tom Collins--I love you. If I weren't already married, I'd propose right now.

Is motherhood the new feminism?

2006-08-19T13:37:00.000-05:00

"Women do not have to sacrifice personhood if they are mothers. They do not have to sacrifice motherhood in order to be persons. Liberation was meant to expand women's opportunities, not to limit them. The self-esteem that has been found in new pursuits can also be found in mothering."

--Elaine Heffner

I love this quote. And, I despise Linda Hirshman's view of feminism, which is the antithesis of this quote. For that reason, I'll be addressing what I call "Hirshman feminism" over the next few weeks by dissecting this article that she published last November and that sets forth the basic premise of her recent book, Get to Work.

Let's begin with his quote from the 4th paragraph of the article:

Why did this happen? The answer I discovered -- an answer neither feminist leaders nor women themselves want to face -- is that while the public world has changed, albeit imperfectly, to accommodate women among the elite, private lives have hardly budged. The real glass ceiling is at home. (Emphasis added).

I could not disagree more wholeheartedly with this "observation", which is really a baseless conclusion, upon which her entire thesis is based.

As I've repeatedly stated on this blog, I don't think that the world outside of academia has changed much at all in terms of "accommodating" women, and in particular women who choose to start a family. In my mind, that's the problem that needs to be solved.

Likewise, I think that many of the men of my generation are far more liberal and willing to enter into egalitarian relationships than their fathers were. Although there are certainly issues of inequality within some relationships, I truly don't think that that's the primary impetus behind women leaving their professional jobs.

So, why are our conclusions so different? Is it simply a difference in life views and experiences, or is there something else at work? What gives?

I'll try to figure out the answers to those questions and will address all of Hirshman's idiotic arguments in the weeks that follow. Should be fun!

I should have known that it was our fault.

2006-08-16T07:07:00.000-05:00

No wonder we earn less than men, dollar per dollar. It's not sexism. It's our own fault. We women are just suckers for a sad story.

At least, that's the explanation, according to this article:

Women in America earn less than men, a disparity that provokes plenty of discussion and debate. But a new study found that women themselves may be partly responsible for the pay gap.

Women professionals tend to charge less than men for the same work out of concern for relationships with clients, according to the study to be released this week at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management...

According to U.S. government statistics, overall, working women earn roughly 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Nice theory. But, how many women are actually in control of their own pay scale and the rates that they charge?

Notice how the article focuses on women veterinarians and mortgage brokers. Clearly, some women professionals likely have more control over how much they're paid than non-professionals. But, I would argue, and I think quite correctly, that the majority of women workers are paid on either an hourly basis or earn a salary that is determined by their bosses. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

Thus, the "conclusion" reached in the first sentence of the article is a completely baseless generalization. Until one determines what percentage of working women actually have a say in how much money that they earn as a result of fees that they set for their services, this particular study has little, if any, bearing the lower pay scale that women are subjected to in this country.

But, it's nice to see that the media has no problem spinning the story like crazy. I'm dizzy already.

Interesting stuff.

2006-08-15T15:24:00.000-05:00

There's a great series of posts on the alleged gender differences in cognition over at the Pure Pendantry blog. It's not exactly light reading, but interesting nonetheless. Bottom line--the alleged disparities are far smaller than the popular media has recently alleged. In some cases, they're non-existent.

So, if that's the case, or if there's even a good argument to be made that that's the case, then why are women so few and far between inthe sciences? Could it be, oh, I don't know, sexism and the refusal to accomdate women and families as they enter their baby-making stage? That's what I'm thinking, but I suppose that's not exactly a big surprise.

Is "part-time" ever really "part-time" in a law firm?

2006-08-15T12:51:00.000-05:00

There's a great post over at Conglomerate about "part-time" schedules at law firms and whether they're really part-time in practice. From the post:

In the law firm context, I have had many friends try part-time schedules only to declare them a myth. They take a cut in pay, but the work keeps coming, as do the hours. Perhaps its because the assignment of work is not centralized. Maybe it's because the person negotiating the deal is not the person parcelling the work. Maybe it's because 80% of everything is still everything. Do attorneys in these negotiations just hear the words "reduced hours" and nothing else, while managing attorneys just hear the words "reduced pay" and nothing else? In my experience, the attorney ends up very jaded and cynical and the firm ends up swearing never to make special deals anymore. Everyone feels abused.

That's exactly what I've seen occur when people are offered part-time schedules at reduced pay. I don't think that the intent is to abuse the part-time employee or take advantage of him/her (usually her). It always sounds great in theory, but never seems to translate well in practice. Maybe one day that will change.

Quote this

2006-08-13T22:26:00.000-05:00

My all time favorite Breakfast Club quote:

John: Hey, how come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up, it'll be anarchy.

It gets me every time.

So what about the men?

2006-08-13T21:13:00.000-05:00

In my last post, I left open the issue of men and husbands and how they fit into the family/work/life balance for professional women. And, I suggested that those that blame the "lazy" or "uncooperative" men for the problems faced by professional women are missing the point.

And, I stand by that. It's not an issue of uncooperative husbands/fathers. It's a societal value system that is at the root of the problem. In most professional fields, including the legal field, there is an absolute failure to acknowledge that life exists outside of the office. Work is considered the end all and be all of life--rather than a means to an end. Somehow, the idea that work isn't supposed to engulf one's life has been lost in interpretation over the years.

The fact that most employers fail to acknowledge that their employees have lives and families outside of the office is a problem for all employees, not just the women. Those that suggest that the husband should tow the line while his professional wife works 24/7 are completely off base. The problem we face right now is that the one partner working while one is at home is the status quo that is necessary in order for one to succeed in most professional fields--science, medicine, academia, the law. And therein lies the problem.

It is inherently unfair to require so much time and commitment from employees at all stages of their life--so much so that the employee's spouse is required to work a reduced schedule of some sort so that life will be manageable for the couple. (I'll post about this next--there's a great post from another blog that suggests a formula for companies that would allow them to balance employee's outside commitments at different stages of their lives with their jobs.)

And, this doesn't just apply to people with kids. Most people will need time off at some point in their lives to care for an ailing spouse, parent, sibling, etc. or in order to tend to their own medical needs. And, people should not be penalized for doing so.

And yet, when a parent attempts to work a reduced schedule for a few years, s/he's absolutely penalized for doing so. As a result, professional couples are forced to do a cost/benefits analysis at some point after becoming parents that many times results in the woman stepping off her career track. And one of the main reasons for that is that the man would be penalized even more than the woman if he altered his career path in order to care for the children. Another reason is that the man, as a result of the sexism inherent in our culture, is more likely to be successful (and make more money) in his chosen career than the women, simply by virtue of his sex. So, many couples that are financially able to do so make a mutual decision to have the woman jump ship for a few years.

In some cases, it's because the man is a sexist pig. But, I would submit that in most cases, that has little, if anything, to do with the decision.

As an example, I offer you exhibit one: me.

My husband (let's call him "Joe") is less educated than I am and has only a bachelors degree. But, he chose a career that offers him far more flexibility than I did. And, his personality is far more "flexible" than my own. Joe is incredibly laid back--he's a walking gumby. And, he's an intelligent, wonderful, liberal, open minded man.

Right now, Joe is currently the primary source of income in our household. And, he cleans our bathrooms, helps with dusting and vacuuming, cooks 1/3 of the time (on the days that he's home), bathes our kids and puts them to bed on the nights that he's home. And, I manage our money 100%. I completely control our finances since he's just not good at it. And, he's fine with that.

Joe was our first child's primary caregiver until I left work. And he did a great job at it and was perfectly content. I made the decision to leave. And it was a really hard decision and a difficult time for me. But, he supported me 100%. His words when I told him that I wanted to leave my job were "I'll do whatever makes you happy. That's all I want--for you to be happy. If you're happy, then I'm happy." He's the best. I love Joe.

And, I'm now working part-time, on my own terms, which has made our life far more hectic, given that we're not putting our kids into childcare aside from our eldest being in pre-school 3 half days per week. My husband has shouldered much of the added burden, since he watches the kids while I work. And he's done so happily. He understands that I can only be out of the loop for so long and supports me, just as he's always done.

I wasn't forced out of my job by a resentful, sexist husband who didn't carry his share of the workload. I left because I wanted to. And, it was a temporary blip on my radar.

Why is it so hard for some of you to believe that other successful, intelligent women with advanced degrees like myself aren't in a similar situation? Why are you so sure that professional women are choosing to leave professional jobs because their cavemen husbands made them do it?

Doesn't it make sense that women who are independent, intelligent, driven and thus empowered, generally choose good, supportive mates? Do you really think that by virtue of society's inherent sexism that we, the privileged, over-educated, savvy, intelligent professional women have all been rendered incapable of making good choices for ourselves? That those of us that have attained that which women have been striving for all these years are still mindless zombies who have succumbed to the patriarchal hierarchy? That we're all really married to Al Bundy? Really?

C'mon. Give us a bit more credit! And, give the guys that chose to marry ambitious, opinionated, outspoken, intelligent women like myself some credit, too. They deserve it.

Visiting boobs

2006-08-07T15:08:00.000-05:00

My "Boobs" post resulted in a ridiculous amount of traffic from those searching Blogger for "boobs". I'm not sure if it was the type of traffic that I was hoping for, but it was still pretty cool!

The funniest thing about all of the traffic: the most popular outgoing link. Skim through my blog roll on the left and see if you can guess what it was.

If you guessed "Barely Legal", then you get a gold star.

It's kind of sad that they didn't get to see what they looking for. Kind of. But not really.

Quote this

2006-08-07T13:30:00.000-05:00

In addition to occasionally featuring Breakfast Club quotes, I'll also be featuring quotes that are more relevant to this blog, including quotes by women lawyers, quotes about men by women, quotes about feminism and quotes about lawyers and the law in general. So, you can look forward to a few "Quote this" posts each week.

Here's today's quote:

When we talk about equal pay for equal work, women in the workplace are beginning to catch up. If we keep going at this current rate, we will achieve full equality in about 475 years. I don't know about you, but I can't wait that long. --Lya Sorano

Based on my experience on this earth thus far, I'm inclined to think that she's correct. We've got a long way to go, baby.

As far as I can tell, we've got a lot of lip service about equality in our culture, but not a lot of equality in reality. Women are treated as equals while we obtain our educations, but once we emerge from the hallowed halls of our undergraduate and graduate institutions, all of the egalatarian talk disintigrates into thin air. Our biological clocks run smack dab into the middle of our career ladders with nary an ounce of acknowledgment of this problem or support from society as a whole, let alone from our colleagues or superiors. It's our problem and ours alone.

And those few women who have made it to the top at the expense of their marriages, families, children and psyches have no helpful advice for the rest of us and tend to be the least sympathetic to our plight.

They'd rather that we do as they did--have one kid or no kids. Cart the kids that we do have off to day care in their PJs at 5:30 am, and leave it to the day care to change them into clothes and feed them breakfast. Pick them up at 6:30 pm, or better yet have a nanny pick them up, since neither parent can get off of work before dinnertime. Hire someone to prepare meals on a daily basis, since there's no time for that, nor is there even time to order take out, since no one's home before 7 pm. Hire someone to run errands, since there's no time for that--even on weekends, since no one actually has an entire weekend off these days. Send out the laundry and dry cleaning. Hire someone to clean the house. Hire someone to do just about everything that can't be done from within the confines of a law office.

And once your kids are in grade school, the only thing that changes is the nanny gets them off to school and cares for them upon their return home in the afternoon. And, when the summertime comes, send your kids to sleepover camp for the entire summer. And when they get older--too old for a nanny--just hope to high heavan that they don't spend the countless hours alone in your huge empty home banging the cute boy next door after smoking a few joints. And, if they do, pray that they use protection. And look forward to holding their hand in rehab (and sinking a lot of dinero into it, too) a few years down the road.

And, make sure that you take your Paxil, your Zoloft, your Ambien and whatever drugs you need to make it through the day and night.

Yep, I want to be just like you you women partners who advise me to "take a deep breath." Just kill me now.

(As for those of you who might pipe in with "What about the husband? Where does he fit into all this?" He does fit in, and he's struggling along with his wife. I'll address that more fully in another post, but let's not blame this issue on husbands. It's a societal and cultural problem and is quite complex. Uncooperative husbands are the least of it.)

Another female partner weighs in

2006-08-06T13:14:00.000-05:00

And, surprise, surprise--she's no more helpful than the last one.

In a recent article, Ms. Wu tried to explain to all of us hapless and harried women attorneys how to rise to the top of the crop, just like she did. And, her advice boils down to the following: 1) you have to work hard--really hard--and be extremely driven 2) men and women can work equally hard, but men admittedly have some advantages by virtue of their sex, so you've got to work harder than them 3) when you decide to procreate, try to get your firm to allow you a flexible schedule, although many of them suck at that--and if you do work a reduced schedule, your male counterparts will most certainly sail on by you up the partnership ladder 4) if you find that you've hit a wall and are frazzled beyond belief as a result of trying to balance work and family, here's her oh-so-helpful advice: take a deep breath.

Yep. Take a deep breath ladies. That'll do it everytime. Why didn't I think of that? And, all of that other "advice". Wow. Earth shattering. So, let's sum up--I should work really really hard, but ask for a reduced schedule even though it's not likely a feasible option, and if I happen to get a reduced schedule, I should expect to have my career side tracked and then some. Oh, and when that happens, I should take a deep breath. Got it.

And, then she says: "At the very least, if you can find a way to work as a contract lawyer, do that." As if a career track that doesn't involve clawing your way to the top of BigLaw is shit on her shoe. (As an aside, why is it that all of the articles about women and the law assume that partnership in a law firm is the end all and be all of life? Carolyn Elefant has a great post from a while back on her blog, My Shingle, about that issue.)

And so it goes. Yet another article from one of the rare women partners willing to sacrifice her soul at the alter of BigLaw purporting to tell all of us misguided, frazzled lawyer-moms how to do it, too. Thanks, Ms. Wu. For nothing.

Boobs, boobs, and more boobs.

2006-08-04T18:06:00.000-05:00

And, no, I'm not talking about partners in law firms. I'm talking about the ones that we women have attached to our chest. They've been the talk of the feminist blogosphere lately as a result of this magazine cover and the harsh critical reaction that it elicited from a bunch of prudes with no sense of comfort with their own bodies or with one of the inherent functions of boobs (hat tip: Pandagon):

God forbid that the curve of a woman's bare breast be featured on a magazine cover. It's not like we haven't seen that before on any random men's magazine cover each and every month.

But I loved the take on this issue from Pharyngula, wherein he posited that perhaps those opposed to the cover would prefer to see this photo of his bare chest on their coffee tables instead:

Oh, yeah baby! That's the stuff!

And, as for breastfeeding and our culture's hang ups, don't even get me started. What am I supposed to do when my kid has to nurse and I happen to be in a public place--erect a tent in order to avoid putting those around me who can't comprehend the basic purpose of breasts at ease?

And, pumping at the office? Fahgeddaboudit! How many of you have pumped at the office? Anyone? How about any litigators? Can I tell you what a nightmare it is when you have an all day deposition in another firm's office and your boobs become so engorged, you can hardly stand it? What are your options? Pump in their public rest room during the 1/2 hour lunch break? And how about trials? Yeah right. Not happening.

I managed, but just barely. How did I do it, you ask? I have 5 words for you: Medula Pump in Style Breastpump. It cost as much as a small island, but let me tell you--it was worth its weight in gold!

Sex, lies and videotape (without the sex)

2006-08-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

Sorry to disappoint you.

According to this strangely pathetic and extremely funny video, that BigLaw firm, Kirkland Ellis, would like you to believe that they offer lots and lots of work/life balance--in the form of a quick bite of dinner with the family before returning to work. And they'd like you to believe that they didn't either dope up the associates in the video or offer them ridiculous bonuses in exchange for the blantant and stilted lies on the video.

After viewing the video, the one thing I do believe is that they're in dire need of a new marketing group.

He's not bitter

2006-08-01T21:36:00.000-05:00

Here's an eBayer who tells it like he sees it--even if it has nothing to do with the amp that he's selling (hat hip: Dave Barry's hysterical blog):

I JUST BOUGHT A PRINCETON REVERB, WHICH I DEARLY WANTED, AND TO STOP WW4 FROM STARTING UP IN MY HOUSE, I HAVE TO GET RID OF AT LEAST ONE THING....SO..I VOTE FOR THIS ONE.,BLUE BEETLE 110 COMBO..ALL TUBE..EL84 AMP...10 INCH SPEAKER..KINDA A RARE AMP BUT VERY COOL..MADE IN EUROPE.......SELLING IT NOT BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT, JUST BECAUSE WOMEN HATE AMPLIFIERS,,,AND THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU GO TO GIGS WITHOUT THEM...AND THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU TAKE THEM TO GIGS AND THEY DONT HAVE ANYONE TO TALK TO,,,,AND THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU PLAY RECORDS AT HOME WHILE THEY TRY TO WATCH THE SCOTT PETERSON FIASCO ON TV..THEY HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT US, BASICALLY....THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU PLAY A GIG FROM 9 TO 1 IN THE VERY CROTCH OF MISSISSIPPI AND SHE KNOWS THE GIG IS 100 MILES AWAY AND YOU FLY HOME ON DARK ROADS IN RECORD TIME AFTER THE MISERABLE GIG AND GET HOME AT 3:15AM AND SHE SAYS, IN A HUFF.. 'WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?..'....THEY HATE OUR CLOTHES...THEY HATE OUR HAIR,,THEY SAY IT'S NOT THE 60'S ANYMORE...,,THEY HATE WHERE WE LEAVE OUR SHOES...THEY HATE THE KIND OF CAR WE WANT TO BUY...THEY HATE THE WAY WE TREAT A BAR OF SOAP.....THEY HATE FOR US TO WATCH ANYTHING ON TV THAT FEATURES A BALL SHAPED OBJECT .. ....THEY WANT US TO TELL THEM HOW GOOD THEY LOOK TO US AND HOW MUCH WE DESIRE THEM, BUT IF WE LOOK AT ANOTHER WOMAN, FOR A SECOND, THEN WE'RE JUST MALE SCUM... IF WE DO SOMETHING BAD ONCE IN OUR WHOLE LIFE (and get caught at it), SUDDENLY ITS SOMETHING WE DO 'ALL THE TIME'...THEY HATE THE CUT OF OUR JIB..THEY HATE GOATEES...THEY HATE IT WHEN YOU WALK LIKE YOU HAVE A CLUBFOOT WHILE YOU'RE IN A STORE WITH THEM....WHERE WAS I,?..,..OK..THIS AMP IS TINY BUT REALLY REALLY SOLID AND HEAVY...I MEAN SOLID...I MEAN HEAVY...ITS LIKE A HUNK OF IRON....IT IS PLENTY LOUD TOO...ITS NOT JUST FOR PRACTICE ..IT DOESNT SOUND LIKE A FENDER,.,HERE IS THE HARMONY CENTRAL LINK TO READ ABOUT IT... http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Guitar+Amp/product/George+Dennis/Blue+Beetle+15+Watt+110+Combo/10/1 FREE SHIPPING...just please pay for the amp if you buy it...oh yea..the handle is broke...everything else works fine..REVERB WORKS..CHANNEL SWITCHING WORKS..THE SPEAKER IS WHATEVER COMES IN THE AMP, I CAN'T SEE THE NAME ON IT....ITS GOOD TO GO.....fooTswitch included....SOLD WITH NO RESERVE..SO NO RETURNS PLEASE..THIS IS AN AUCTION, THIS IS NOT SEARS.....GUARANTEED TO WORK

______________________________________________________

Yep. The dude has issues. Serious ones.

And, he obviously needs to find someone else. It shouldn't be hard. I know tons of women who love it when a guy walks around the store with them acting like he has a club foot. Don't you?

Showing my age

2006-08-01T21:32:00.000-05:00

I'm gonna show my age and start a new running feature on this blog--Breakfast Club quotes. Yep. It's totally off topic. And, I'm a loser. So the hell what.

Accordingly, today's quote is perfectly appropriate:

Andrew: We're all pretty bizarre. Some of us are just better at hiding it, that's all.

You can call me bizarre. You can call me a loser. Whatever.

I'm the blogger and I call the shots. You just read;)

Turn and face the strange ch-ch-changes

2006-07-30T16:52:00.000-05:00

As promised, a post about the dreadfully slow changes just on the horizon for lawyers seeking a reasonable balance between work and life.

As reported here, Reed-Smith, that monstrous BigLaw firm, launched a new initiative aimed at encouraging women's careers--just one day after sending Denise Howell of the Bag and Baggage blog, packing:

The series of workshops is a concept which was launched in the US and aimed at supporting women’s careers at the firm. The workshops, run in conjunction with non-profit diversity consultants Catalyst, provide a forum for female lawyers to discuss their careers.

UK partner Alison Dennis commented: “Central management wants this to happen and has provided a very big budget to make it happen.

She said the firm was committed to assisting working mothers progress up the career ladder, adding that she had worked part-time at the firm for five years and was made up to the partnership since she started working part-time.

Talk about fortuitous timing!

And, Reed-Smith isn't the first large firm to jump on the bandwagon. Others are doing it as well, since it appears that some large clients are now demanding diversity, not the least of which is that bohemith Wal-Mart:

Last year Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that it would begin requiring law firms to demonstrate substantial commitments to diversity shortly before it fired a firm for having too few minorities in leadership positions. But the push for more diversity didn't start with Wal-Mart, says Janet Conley, managing editor of GCSouth magazine, an Atlanta-based trade publication for in-house counsel in the Southeast.

Conley credits Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp. for being among the first to demand accountability from law firms on diversity when BellSouth's former general counsel Charles Morgan came up with a 'Statement of Principle' for Fortune 500 and other large companies to sign.

More than 300 companies have since signed the statement, including local heavyweights like FedEx Corp., and Nashville-based Gaylord Entertainment Co.

"That essentially was saying the biggest companies in America wanted more diversity," Conley said. "They're looking closely now. They don't want to see window dressing -- they want to see minorities having more prominent roles on cases and within the leadership of their firms."

So, it would seem that the times they are a-changing. But, not quick enough for me.

Damn those stupid women who make the rest of us look bad!

2006-07-29T14:42:00.000-05:00

Pamela Anderson. Need I say more?

Well, even though I don't have to, I will.

She's getting married to that weasly speciman of a man, Kid Rock, you know. And, as reported in this article about the nuptials, when asked how she was coping with her nerves before the big event, she replied "I have two words for you: champagne."

Damn you, Pamela Anderson, with your huge fake bazumbas, your bleached blond hair, your collagen lips, and your fake tan. Damn you for being dumber than rocks. And damn you for making men everywhere think that fake everything is beautiful. In more ways than one, you make the rest of us look bad.

(And, damn you for turning what was supposed to be a humorous post into a angry post. How the hell did that happen?)

Question answered

2006-07-26T11:07:00.000-05:00

Here's a picture of attorney Rob Moodie, the cross-dressing-fighting the power-feminist New Zealand lawyer mentioned in my prior post. (Hat tip: Legal Reader).

It appears that Mr. Moodie is wearing men's shoes--black ones. Definitely a fashion no-no, wouldn't you say?

It's raining men!

2006-07-25T15:39:00.000-05:00

Yet another man in our corner--a New Zealand lawyer-cross-dressing-fighting the good ol' boys network-feminist kind of man. My favorite kind of man! (Hat tip: Wandering Bell).

In this article, Rob Moodie proclaims that:

"I will now, as a lawyer, be wearing women's clothing," Moodie said. He said he wants the court to address him as "Ms. Alice" — and that his wife and three children support his protest.

His attire, he insisted, is to highlight the insensitive "old boys' network" of New Zealand's judiciary.

"My confidence in the male ethos is zilch. It's a culture of intimidation, authority, power and control," the high-profile lawyer said.

Amen to that sister--er--brother!

The outfit that he wore to court on the first day that he dressed as a woman was described in the article as follows:

Rob Moodie, 67, arrived at Wellington's High Court on Monday in a navy blue woman's suit complete with diamond brooch and lace-topped stockings over his hairy legs...

But, the important question is, of course, do you think that he wore navy or brown pumps with that suit? My bet's on navy...

A man in our corner.

2006-07-23T14:03:00.000-05:00

Not surprisingly, some feel that the sciences are as biased as the legal field. And, Ben Barres, formerly Barbara Barres, is the first to agree with that assessment, as explained in this intriguing Newsweek article.

Ben, now a he, used to be a she, is a nueroscientist and tenured professor at Stanford.The scientist's physical transformation began at the age of 40, when Barres was diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. When doctors recommended a mastectomy, Barres made a startling request: take the healthy one, too. With his cancer cured, Barres sought testosterone treatments to change his sex from female to male. He says he's lost the ability to cry (or at least cry a flood of tears), which he believes is purely biological. But the "psychic relief" of finally feeling comfortable in his own skin is huge: "I'm so much happier now."

Barres is speaking out because of his deep commitment to science and because he believes he and other senior faculty have a responsibility to help women rise through the ranks. Yes, there are clearly physical differences between the sexes, says Barres, but there's no evidence that those differences are relevant to academic achievement. At Barres's alma mater, half of the undergrad science majors are women, says MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, but women account for only 13 percent of the faculty. The disparity exists nationwide. "It's leakage along the pipeline all the way," says Stanford president John Hennessy. In his commentary, Barres says selection committees need to be diversified, women need help in balancing family with career (Barres wants to start a foundation to fund child care) and academic leadership needs to break the silence about sexism. (Emphasis added).

Aren't those italicised statistics interesting? They're so damn similar to the statistics being bantered about lately regarding the number of women law students vs. women partners in law firms. Coincidence or evidence of an inherent bias in our culture? Or perhaps a combination of factors. But, bias is absolutely an important factor in the mix, regardless of those (usually men, but not always) who purport to offer any number of "rational" explanations for the phenomenon.

One way or another, our culture and the various professions are going to have to find a way to address the failure to retain women in the upper ranks. Otherwise, there will ultimately be a shortage that will be impossible to fill.

And, changes are already on the horizon. As I'll discuss in a few days, some major clients are already beginning to demand diversity and some law firms are making half-hearted attempts to make the workplace more women and family friendly.

But, I doubt we'll see any major changes anytime soon. Unless of course someone wins a major discrimination lawsuit against BigLaw. It certainly changed the field of accounting. But, for some reason, I can't see that happening. But, you never know...

How to dress like a lawyer, part 2

2006-07-21T12:07:00.001-05:00

Here's an article for those of you wondering how to dress for success (hat tip: Precedent: The New Rules of Law and Style). It's from our friends on the other side of the border (well, one of our borders) and is chock full of style tips for the clueless professional women:

Welcome to the inaugural edition of the Style File!
By La Fashionista

You’ll note this column is written under a pseudonym. There’s a reason for that: Y’all are spiteful little bitches and I just know that if you knew who I was, you would rip me to shreds.

But what do you know anyway? I saw you last week at a motion, and you were wearing a suit from Fairweather – you know, the kind where the lining doesn’t reach the bottom of the jacket but stops halfway up the back?

The Style File will monitor trends, provide the profession with much-needed fashion tips, and arm you with fashion-forward information like where to buy the best suits and what actually counts as business casual. In short, the Style File is going to save you from fashion failure.

Let’s start with that age-old dilemma for women lawyers: What hosiery and shoes should be worn with a navy or light-coloured suit? It’s a killer. I know women who simply refuse to buy a blue suit just to avoid this issue. The answer: No white pantyhose. Ever. Unless you are a nurse. And practising health law doesn’t count.

Navy suits require sheer, nude hose (not the shimmery kind please – who are you, Beyonce?) and dark brown shoes. Not navy blue “pumps.” Are there exceptions? No.

And while we’re on the subject, do not buy / wear / go anywhere near “pumps.” Or “slacks.” Or a “jumper.” But I digress. It’s not about the language, it’s about the shoe. You are not your mother or your grandmother or June Cleaver. Here is an easy rule for all of you. If you are under 50, do not buy a shoe with a heel that you could walk 5 miles in. That is a pump.

If you work at one of the mega-firms (aka seven sisters for seven brothers … whatever) find the secretary who has worked at the firm the longest. She works for some old guy who the firm hasn’t yet squeezed out — that guy who just shows up to avoid his wife and children. Find her. Look at her shoes. Don’t ever be caught dead in those shoes.

Now go out and practice what I have taught you. Don’t make me catch you in First Canadian wearing any of the shit discussed above or I’ll call you out.

I'm not so sure that I agree with all of the fashion "advice". What the hell is wrong with pumps? I prefer to be able to walk at the end of the day, thank you very much.

And how about the blue suit advice? Is she spot on or totally off base? I'm not so sure that there's a hard and fast rule in that regard. I agree that white hose are a no-no, but I've nver been a fan of totally nude hose. I think that they're tacky--not sure why--they just are. I prefer hose that are sheer, almost off white-ish tan. Not sure if you get the gist, but they go with everything--tan suits, black suits, navy, you name it. And, I've never been a fan of sheer black hose at the office.--seems too "evening wear" to me.

How about that ban on navy pumps? I'm not buying that one either. If you find the right pair, they look ok with a navy suit, although brown looks nice as well.

So, what do you do with navy blue suits? Any hard and fast rules that you go by? Speak to me!

The Challenge of the Work/Life/Family Balance

2006-07-18T11:29:00.001-05:00

A prominent blogger, Denise Howell, of Bag and Baggage recently posted a thoughtful and detailed post about her departure from Big Law and her plans to find a better work/life/family balance. (Hat tip: Evan Shaeffer's Legal Underground). She explains that:

Instead of shoehorning my most important job — being a mom — into the discrete chunks of time can be wrested away from the demands of being even a part time lawyer at one of the world's biggest firms, my professional roadmap henceforth will involve only things that are washed through a stringent "how much do I really love that?" filter, and can be comfortably accomplished in the limited, catch-as-catch-can hunks of time that fall serendipitously out of the sky during the course of my other "duties."

She also discusses her belief that there is a trend toward parents, both men and women, wanting to be more involved in their children's lives:

Though Kristin seems to think there is a trend afoot away from active parenting, my own experiences and observations lead me to disagree; I think exactly the opposite is true. However, and certainly in the case of parents who seek to maintain their engagement and investment in careers that represent the sum total of the education and training that has occupied their adult lives, the danger of falling into the trap of relegating, delegating, and too often abdicating the parenting role is all too real. While I know countless lawyers who have done this, and I continue to see people do it, what I more commonly see and hear today (and what undeniably is true in my case) is that people — men and women — are no longer content to adopt such an approach and philosophy; they increasingly discern that the consequences are too dear and potentially too dire.

I'm in complete agreement with her on that point and have found that to be the case. I, and many other professionals that I know have struggled with these very issues on a daily basis since the birth of our children.

Denise has some interesting and thoughtful ideas regarding the issues of the retention of talented parents at Big Law. The latter half of her post discusses a number of proposals in that regard, including the creation of a new position in law firms, a Chief Work-Life Balance Officer, that would act as a liaison of sorts between those on a non-traditional course and the law firm.

She raises some good points and offers creative solutions to pressing issues facing law firms and other professions as many professionals entering the work force appear to be recognizing the importance of balancing work and family and actively seek out solutions that work for them.

I wish her luck as she seeks out balance in her life.

For your own safety, wear nice pants

2006-07-14T11:36:00.001-05:00

In the U.K apparently that's a strategy recommended by police to women who go out boozing. Or so says this AP article:

Women going on boozy nights out have been warned by police to "wear nice pants" in case they fall down drunk in the street.

A Suffolk police safety campaign magazine shows pictures of young women slumped on the ground next to messages urging them: "If you've got it, don't flaunt it."

"If you fall over or pass out, remember your skirt or dress may ride up," the magazine says. "You could show off more than you intended -- for all our sakes, please make sure you're wearing nice pants and that you've recently had a wax."

I think that the waxing recommendation is my favorite part. Wouldn't want to offend any passersby now would we? So, dammit, you drunken hussies, wax up!

The article mentions that the safety campaign utilized a style that was "tongue-in-cheek", but this comment from the police chief at the end of the article made me question how tongue-in-cheek the recommendations really were:

"We need to raise their awareness of potential problems," said Chief Superintendent David McDonnell. "They become more vulnerable whilst under the influence of alcohol."

So, avoid short skirts, ladies and make sure that you're clean shaven. You wouldn't want to invite any trouble. It's for your own safety, dontcha know.

Welcome!

2006-07-14T10:01:00.000-05:00

Welcome The Happy Feminist visitors and those visiting as a result of comments made at Prettier Than Napolean. Take a look around and please, please stop back again soon! And, feel free to leave comments--that's one of the best parts about this blog.

If you like what you see, subscribe to my blog via e-mail or otherwise at the top of the sidebar on the left.

I'll post again soon. Again, thanks for stopping by!

Where are the women?

2006-07-11T20:49:00.000-05:00

Karen Asner, an adminstrative partner at a law firm, apparently has the answer to that question and to a lot of others in this article from law.com. In it she re-hashes a lot of what's already been said regarding the low retention rate of women lawyers in law firms--women hit the "mommy track" and that women are more dissatisfied with life in a law firm than men.

What's interesting about this article and Asner's take on this issue is that she makes a lot of assumptions in favor of the almighty law firm. This is apparent at the very beginning of the article when she states that law firms really, really, really and truly want to make women partners, but we just don't stick around long enough for them to do so:

Most law firms these days recognize the importance of recruiting and retaining top talent -- regardless of gender -- particularly in an increasingly competitive job market. Thus, the problem isn't that law firms aren't willing or eager to make their women lawyers partners -- it's that so many of the women leave before such promotions can even take place.

And then she states that aside from the Mommy factor, another reason that women leave law firms is that they're "dissatisfied":

A 2001 study of top law school graduates by think tank Catalyst revealed that while women clearly struggle with work-family obligations, the biggest reason women lawyers leave a firm is because they are dissatisfied with work itself or feel stalled in their careers.

She seems to assume that the dissatisfaction with the job is an entirely separate phenomenon from the "stalled" careers, and proceeds to discuss the reasons for the dissatisfaction. She seems to gloss over the possibility that women are not simply feeling as if they're "stalled" in their careers--they are stalled--and as a result, maybe, just maybe, they're dissatisfied with their career track and their careers in general.

Perhaps watching the male associates around them get promoted to partnership on the "good ol' boys" fast track is disheartening and draining. Perhaps working on the third rate cases while male associates are working on the "important" cases can lead to dissatisfaction.

Or, according to Asner, perhaps the blame for the crappy assignments lies with the women themselves, not the partners that assign the cases:

If they (women) are less likely to view themselves as top performers or take full credit for their work, they are less likely to be singled out for exciting, cutting-edge assignments. And it's the cutting-edge, high-profile work that gets the attention of firm management and leads to partnership promotions.

Well, isn't that an interesting perspective and, quite conveniently, a somewhat circular argument? We don't get the cutting-edge cases because we don't think we're any good, so we lose what (according to Asner) little confidence we had in ourselves, so we get even worse assignments, and so it goes--a self-fulfilling prophecy. What a tidy little explanation.

Although Asner gives a quick nod to the "complexity" of the issues behind the low retention rate of women associates in law firms, she oversimplifies the issues. And the "solution" that she offers in the article was a bunch of hot air.

But don't take my word for it. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

Comments

2006-07-10T12:08:00.000-05:00

I've added Haloscan to my blog (twice now), and, as a result, all prior comments seem to have disappeared (including those from the past two days). I assure you that that wasn't my intent, and apologize to my regular readers and commenters for this. I'm trying to work out a bug with Haloscan and am now wondering if adding it was even worth it. But, what's done is done!

Please keep commenting--that's one of the best parts about this blog! Thanks for your patience.

The hullabaloo over the lack of female supreme court clerks

2006-07-10T12:00:00.000-05:00

Well, Amber over at Prettier Than Napolean has certainly created quite a stir with this post (which was in response to this post at Feminist Law Professors): Why so few female Supreme Court clerks? A number of prestigious bloggers have referenced and/or responded to her post, including Prawfsblog, The Volokh Conspiracy (here as well), Ann Althouse, Crime and Federalism, and Point of Law.

I certainly don't have the answer to her question. But I am amazed by some of the hypotheses posited by both the bloggers and the commenters. Eugene Volokh suggested that the following was one factor that might explain the disparity:

Differences in innate ambition? Social pressures that lead men to be more ambitious than women (for instance, because less ambitious men face more condemnation from parents, peers, or prospective girlfriends than do less ambitious women, or because more ambitious women face more such condemnation than more ambitious men)?

The assumption being that men are innately more ambitious than women. Really? In other words, women are essentially lazy as a result of their biology. Now, that's a loaded statement! The latter half of the quote isn't much better. I have a hard time accepting the idea that men as a whole face more pressures to succeed than women. I think that that particular generalization ignores the many factors faced by each person as an individual person, as opposed to as a man or woman.

And, this post seemed to encourage a veritable assortment of men who were ultra-conservative and/or sexist and/or couldn't get laid to crawl out of the woodwork and offer gratuitous comments regarding the innately deficient characteristics of women. Here are a few of my favorite gems:

But why there are few women clerks is truly mysterious, since the major qualification is ability to kiss up. My female law school colleagues had no problem bedding down the professors, so why can't they get clerkships?***

Two reasons for the male disproportion at the top of the class are the greater male variability in intellectual performance that Eugene mentioned (more at the very top and more at the very bottom) and a greater aversion to competitive environments among women. (Lani Guinier wrote about this). ***

I have 2 kids and am about to start my final semester. (Finishing up in 2 1/2 years). I could easily go clerk for a judge. My wife (if she was a lawyer, thank God she isn't) could and would never even think about it.***

I have the suspicion that, if law school exams were as objective as those in the sciences, women would likely make up around 5% of practicing lawyers, just as they make up less than 5% of practicing hard scientists in the USA, Britain and Germany. ***

Alternatively, she can coast through law school, planning her wedding on theknot.com instead of taking notes in class (I saw a shocking number of women doing this), and still get a job at a top firm earning $135K right out of the box.***

Wow. So, what I've learned from all of this is that women are actually favored by the current system, sleep their way to the top, spend all of their class time dreaming about their weddings and still manage to do well (presumably because we're nailing the professors) and are innately dumber than men. That certainly explains a lot, not the least of which is why we're under- represented as Supreme Court law clerks.

And, the fact that we're not too bright certainly explains why I wasn't able to follow all the big words and complex ideas posited by the pompous asses quoted above. It's my damn double X chromosomes. All those girlie hormones are fogging up my synapses. Good to know.

Get your mentors where you can

2006-07-09T17:25:00.001-05:00

This article from NYLawyer reiterates a a theme from the article discussed in the prior post and stresses the importance of mentors for young women lawyers. Here's the article in its entirety, if you don't happen to have a subscription (my commentary follows the article):

The Gender Gap: Don't Climb The Ladder Alone

New York Lawyer
June 30, 2006
Reprints & Permissions

By Melissa McClenaghan Martin
New York Law Journal

All attorneys, and especially women, need to seek out mentors. "You can't just sit back," says Ida Abbott, diversity consultant and author of "The Lawyer's Guide to Mentoring." "You must proactively get what you need to develop and succeed in your career."

Good mentors can offer feedback on skills, introductions to important clients and networks, and access to the unwritten criteria for success within the organization. They can also advise junior attorneys on their long-term professional development and career goals.

For those who want to make partner, a good mentor will "be your champion and facilitate partnership," said Jane DiRenzo Pigott, a diversity consultant and former partner at Winston & Strawn. "That doesn't often happen for women in law firms."

With women representing only 17 percent of law firm partners but 44 percent of associates, there are simply not enough female mentors available to mentor junior women. Unfortunately, senior men are often reluctant to fill this gap, according to the Minority Corporate Counsel Association study "Mentoring Across Differences," because they fear the relationship will be misperceived as inappropriate or believe it is "too hard and uncomfortable" to mentor women.

With a limited number of potential mentors, how can women create and maintain the mentoring relationships they need to develop and succeed?

"Some women think that, as long as they do excellent work, they will succeed," said Ms. Abbott, who is also a co-author of "Mentoring Across Differences." But they also must proactively seek out mentors.

When women do seek out mentors, they may limit their search to senior women who are "leading the perfect life, that is, the life a younger woman wants," noted Ms. Abbott. But the search for a perfect role model means that women will miss out on significant benefits that other senior attorneys, including men, could offer.

A mentor can serve as a role model, teacher or advisor, but, perhaps most importantly, a mentor can be a power broker within the organization and profession, sharing wisdom and connections with a junior attorney. Because most power brokers are men, "women who are in an effective mentoring relationship with a powerful male mentor have a much higher likelihood of success," concludes Ms. Pigott.

Regardless of what role a mentor fills, "you can't work with only one person and think that's enough," said Susan Kohlmann, a Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman partner and former managing partner of the firm's New York office. "In most firms, that's not a recipe for success." Rather, junior attorneys need to assemble a network of mentors, taking advantage of formal programs and developing relationships informally.

While an associate, Ms. Kohlmann created such a network. She had female partner mentors who gave her advice, including about how they balanced career and motherhood. Her male mentors were particularly helpful when she was up for partner and guided her through the process. She considers this combined mentorship instrumental to her success.

After mentoring relationships are found, sustaining them is often the hardest part.

Diana Sen, a sixth-year associate at Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, and Janice Mac Avoy, a partner and former hiring partner of the firm, developed an informal mentoring relationship while working together. But translating their initial connection into a sustained relationship required continued interaction, which Ms. Sen ensures by volunteering for pro bono cases with Ms. Mac Avoy.

And, when the two won an important case, Ms. Sen suggested they go out for drinks, creating another opportunity for quality time with her mentor.

Many junior attorneys don't realize they must continually develop their mentoring relationships, Ms. Mac Avoy said. "You need to check in before there's a problem." She suggests that mentees routinely "do a drive-by," stopping by a mentor's office.

"Touch base with your mentor in the same way you would with a client," she added.

Pillsbury's Ms. Kohlmann agreed.

"Don't send an e-mail," she said. "In-person contact is critical."

Women may be more likely than men to neglect this important step. Ms. Pigott recently asked the summer associates at a major law firm whether any had stopped by the office of an attorney they didn't know. The only ones who had were men.

"Men are very deliberate about networking," she explained, "so women must be equally deliberate about it."

Some women wonder how to connect and maintain contact with a male mentor.

"I don't follow the Yankees, I don't play golf, so there just aren't as many ways to connect with a male mentor and establish that rapport," said an eighth-year female associate who has worked at two New York City firms.

But finding and maintaining a relationship with a male mentor may present another unique problem, the fear the relationship will be misperceived. While senior men and their male mentees go out for drinks, fear of misperception may prevent women from having the same bonding opportunities with male mentors.

Women don't have to miss out on these opportunities.

"I think that's an easy excuse," said Pillsbury's Ms. Kohlmann. "It's the reality of the workplace that people have to maneuver those relationships."

Ms. Pigott suggested women talk to their male mentor about "the logistics of the relationship, allowing him the opportunity to say, I prefer to meet in my office or over lunch, rather than drinks."

This sort of formality can help any mentoring relationship. Although it is easy to "focus more on the friendship, rather than the utility of a mentoring relationship," said Ms. Abbott, women should be careful not to miss opportunities for professional development.

"Women tend to be very good at building personal relationships, but sometimes it is difficult for them to turn a social relationship into a professional one where they ask a senior attorney for help," she said.

In an informal mentoring relationship, the mentee should "label the relationship," suggested Michele Coleman Mayes, senior vice president and general counsel of Pitney Bowes. "Tell your mentor why you sought them out. Once they realize you have a purpose and it's not just an informal let's-have-coffee meeting, they'll feel responsible and will likely be more rigorous about the relationship."

Women should also be clear on what they want from a mentoring relationship and share their goals with their mentor. These goals should be reassessed periodically, and women should consider whether the mentoring relationship needs to change in terms of substance or logistics.

Throughout their career, women must be both strategic and proactive in creating and maintaining the mentoring relationships they need to achieve their career goals.

"They need to reach out to the mentoring opportunities that are there and be comfortable using them," Ms. Abbott advised, even if doing so requires women to go outside their comfort zone.

Melissa McClenaghan Martin, a non-practicing attorney, writes about the retention and advancement of women in law and other professions.

______________________________________________________

My mentor at my prior firm was a man. I actually had two partners that acted as mentors of a sort, although I considered one of them to be my "primary" mentor. A modified version of that man is mentioned in this prior post.

Of course, contrary to what was described in the aritcle, I found it fairly easy to maintain contact with my mentors, since the firm wasn't huge, and I did a lot of work for the two of them. That being said, it wasn't always a relationship that felt "natural." These sections of the article above struck me as very applicable to my relationships with my mentors:

"I don't follow the Yankees, I don't play golf, so there just aren't as many ways to connect with a male mentor and establish that rapport," said an eighth-year female associate who has worked at two New York City firms.

But finding and maintaining a relationship with a male mentor may present another unique problem, the fear the relationship will be misperceived. While senior men and their male mentees go out for drinks, fear of misperception may prevent women from having the same bonding opportunities with male mentors.

That male/female thing (ie.--the unspoken possibility that we could have sex if we wanted to, or that others might think that we were in fact doing it) always seemed to sneak in. We rarely, if ever had closed door discussions, even though the male associates did it all the time. Drinks with just one of my mentors was out of the question. It just wasn't an option. And, I rarely had discussions with them that weren't business-related, although one of the partners was a bit more chatty than the other, and we occasionally did discuss issues that weren't work-related.

I think that the advice in the article, to have a candid conversation with your male mentor about the logistics of the relationship, is unrealistic, to say the least. That single conversation would have put a damper on the relationship in no time--no doubt about it.

I always found that no matter what I did--no matter how I acted--the gender issue was always there. I caught each of my mentors checking me out as I exited their offices on more than one occasion. And, one of them was clearly a boob man, while the other a leg man. In my case, the leg man had better eye candy available than the boob man, but I digress.

Another strange thing that occurred because of my gender was that I experienced outright catty, jealous behavior from the wives of a few partners on a number of occasions. I found it to be more than a bit humorous, since I had no intention of getting it on with men as old as my dad, especially since I was (and am) happily married to an intelligent, handsome, funny guy my own age, thank you very much.

I do wish that there had been more women partners at my old firm. That certainly would have made it easier for me when it came to finding a mentor. But, that wasn't an option, so I made do with what was available to me. And, it wasn't all that bad, all things considered. And, to this day, my ex-mentors continue to serve as references for me, so I guess all wasn't lost when I threw in the towel and bolted, now, was it?

So, in closing, I definitely agree with this advice at the end of the article:

"They need to reach out to the mentoring opportunities that are there and be comfortable using them," Ms. Abbott advised, even if doing so requires women to go outside their comfort zone.

I suggest that you take it to heart and find a mentor, regardless of their sex. A male mentor is better than no mentor at all.

Is the workplace structured around the idea of one parent working, with one at home?

2006-07-07T14:34:00.000-05:00

That is an underlying premise in Lauren Stiller Rikleen's new book Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women's Success in the Law. From this article, you learn that Ms. Rikleen is a senior partner at Bowditch & Dewey in Framingham, Massachusetts, that she is married to another attorney, and they have two teenage kids. In the article, she states "that the workplace is essentially structured around the idea of one parent working and the other at home raising children. So the challenges that two-career families face are very significant because the workplace isn’t attuned to addressing their issues."

Ms. Rikleen notes the low attrition rate among women in law firms and asserts that one of the best ways to change that is to offer "more flexibility in...schedules - either part-time, telecommuting or a combination of both."

In her book, she focuses on three factors that she believes prevent women from succeeding in law firms:

She cites a number of structural issues inherent in today’s law firms (and, by extension, other professions as well) that pose impediments to women’s success. Among them are the way work is assigned, mentoring, and the question of working part-time.

She's hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned, but the ideas are nothing new. Many others have cited the same factors as being largely responsible for the lack of women at the top of the field. It's harder for women to "fit in" to the workplace--especially at law firms--before they even have kids. It's an old boys network and if you're not a boy, then forget about it.

As an entry level attorney, the playing field is fairly level, but once your success becomes dependent on bringing in the clients (and money), the once-level field is anything but flat--it becomes an insurmountable mountain.

Men can't behave the way that they'd like to when women are around. We cramp their style. So, either you insist on barging your way in to every gathering, despite the uncomfortable, and obvious efforts, by your male colleagues to "hold back" and refrain from the sexual comments, innuendos, swearing, etc., or you attend a few on occasion so as to get in some face time, but bow out gracefully after an hour, to the obvious relief of the men.

As a result, we end up missing out on the all-too-important networking opportunities after hours at the bar, at the country club, on the golf course, and in the strip clubs (yep, they network there, too). And, we fail to make the all-important connections upon which a client base is built.

And, that's all before you have kids. Once you have kids, the uphill battle becomes an all out war--one that has to be waged on limited ammunition, resources, and energy. The thought of waving that little white flag in surrender becomes all the more appealing as your career plummets into crappy-assignment oblivion.

Rikleen posits that a flex-time or part-time schedule is the solution, and she may very well be right. But she also recognizes that it's only a solution if attitudes change, as well:

And finally, on the all-important issue of part-time work, Rikleen said that women on reduced work schedules are treated as "less committed to their careers, and the ramifications are that they are just not given the same opportunities that their full-time colleagues are."

So, the task is to change that perception. But, that's the hard part, isn't it? I think it's happening, though, slowly but surely. But, it's happening. Because both women and men are seeking a better life balance. Because some of the men of our generation grew up beleiving in equality. Because law firms are starting to have very expensive attrition problems.

The good news is it's happening. The bad news is, it's a painfully slow process. I may have missed the boat. Maybe my kids will get to ride a better boat. I'll get back to you on that.

"The emancipation of swimwear has always been linked to the emancipation of women"

2006-07-05T16:58:00.001-05:00

My immediate reaction to the quote in the title of this post was "Really?" The quote is from this article , aptly entitled "Bikinis still abreast of fashion 60 years on" (do you think the title was a play on words, or were they really serious?), which chronicles the history of the bikini in celebration of the 60 year anniversary of the skimpy outfit. The article also includes these quotes:

"The bikini is a snapshot of fashion in the second half of the 20th century,
at once scandalous and forcing women to become ever thinner," said Saillard.

"The bikini transforms women into an object of seduction and desire, such as garage pin-ups. But on the other hand it shows that women are becoming increasingly independent and masters of their own bodies.

"In fact the biggest gesture by women to prove their independence is when in the 1970s they throw away their bikini tops."

Is the bikini really a symbol of womens' lib.? Should it be? What kind of message does that send--that the objectification of women actually served to "liberate" us? That the fact that women are bulimic and anorexic is a good thing, occurring in part because of mens' adoration of our bodies in this ridiculously teeny weeny outfit?

Of course women are welcome to wear whatever they'd like, whenever they'd like. I've got nothing against the bikini and personally prefer them over one pieces. But the bikini as a symbol of feminism? I'm not buying it.

Should you dress "like your mother-in-law is coming to dinner"?

2006-07-04T19:16:00.000-05:00

How should professional women dress in the workplace? What about lawyers, specifically? Should we dress differently if we're going to court vs. working in the office all day?

Interesting questions, I think. This Chicago tribune article explores these issues and begins with the following analogies:

The female members of the self-proclaimed "hot, young cast" of "Conviction," a courtroom drama that recently wrapped up its inaugural season on NBC, sometimes wear skirts as tight as sausage casings and a plunging whisper of chiffon under their suit jackets.
But Assistant District Atty. Leslie Hansen of Colorado is a longtime member of the bar who views the court as a place of reverence. Drawing attention to yourself by dressing provocatively, she says, not only is tacky but also demeans the entire legal process.

And Coroner Jo-anne Richardsonof Frisco, Colo.,says skirts would-n't be practical for someone crawling around the underbelly of a mountain car crash.

And "sexy" won't do. Wearing leather and a cleavage-enhancing top on the job is as plausible as a 10-minute toxicology test. It might happen on "CSI," but not in her office.

These professional women follow the advice of experts who say that if you want people -- of both genders -- to focus on your brains, then you can't dress for distraction.

Personally, I prefer pantsuits simply because they're more comfortable and I absolutely despise nylons--especially in the summer. But, skirt suits do look sharp and I always wear them when I'm on trial. Appearances are everything in front of a jury, and juries tend to be conservative and prefer women to "play the part." I also have a tendency to wear skirt suits if I know I'll be going to court on a given day.

And, in my opinion, as a general matter, suits or very well put together separates are a must for women lawyers, unless your office allows everyone to dress "business casual." I wish the legal field wasn't so conservative, though. Especially when it comes to hair styles. It's hard to find the right balance between a hair style that's not too severe from 9-5, and that can really loosen up after hours.

I think that the following observation from the article is absolutely true:

Initially, there might be benefits to dressing like a sex kitten, but there are hidden costs. "For young women starting out, it's a real temptation [to be sexy]. You get more attention; you might even get hired; but it will only take you so far. Eventually, it undermines perceptions of your competence."

Many young women don't realize that until it's too late. And, a lot of them come to work dressed like it's girl's night out at the local dive. Eventually that's going to backfire.

I was thrown off by this tidbit from the article regarding inappropriate attire:

"A beautiful woman came into our office in a beautiful suit. She looked great. But she wasn't wearing a shirt underneath her suit jacket. [Before long] everyone in the office knew she wasn't wearing a shirt," says Drum, who promptly pulled the woman aside.

Didn't the employees have any work to do at that particular office, or did they all just stand around the water cooler and gossip about the newcomer? And, wasn't there anything else going on at their office that waws juicier than that to gossip about? Apparently not.

As for the issue of whether one should wear a shirt under a suit--it depends. I have quite a few suit jackets that have 4-5 buttons and I rarely wear a shirt that can be seen, if I do wear one, since the "V" ends high enough and the suits are well-fitted. There's nothing revealing about 'em.

What is inappropriate, per se? Ally McBeal skirts are too short no matter what, in my humble opinion. Lace camisoles are also a definite no-no, as is any form of visible lace. And, no, f*** me pumps are not acceptable. Keep it reasonable ladies, unless your office has a stripper's pole installed in it.

Another pet peeve of mine is suits that fit too snugly--so much so that you can almost hear the threads straining at the seams. It seems as if women who are a bit on the chunky side tend to favor snug suits, and I'll never understand why. My guess is that they think it's slimming, when it's really just the opposite. One woman I used to work with consistently reminded me of Miss Piggy. And, I know she thought she was "all that", even though she ended up looking "all fat."

But, enough about my pet peeves. What about yours? What is appropriate for professional women to wear? How about lawyers? What absolutely, positively should never be worn in the office?

And, guys--what do you think? Does sexy clothing on a woman colleague affect your ability to take her seriously? Does it even matter? Are we over-thinking this issue? I highly doubt it.

And, she's "easy on the eyes"...

2006-07-02T17:26:00.000-05:00

The blog post that helped to push this blog in its new direction is this one--specifically the subsequent comments. (Thanks to Feminist Law Professors for the tip).

In it, the PrawfsBlawg welcomes the addition of a female law professor as a permanent blogger and the third comment (from someone purporting to be male) regarding that post is: "New permaprof is easy on the eyes as well."

To which Professor Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors replied: "I was going to wish you good luck even before reading that bit of assholishness. Now I wish you good luck more emphatically still."

At that point, the proverbial shit hit the fan. Some, all of whom were men, aside from a lone female who seemed to take the opportunity to solicit comments regarding her own appearance (and many men quite happily jumped at the opportunity), alleged that Ann Bartow was a "zero tolerance" feminist and that she overreacted. Others supported her comment and its basic premise--that the initial comment was uncalled for and unnecessary--and sexist.

And, someone else suggested that if you post a picture online, then comments on your looks are fair game.

The obvious questions that came to mind as I read the post and its comments:

Was the initial comment improper, and if so, why? Was it harmless? Was it sexist?
Was Ann Bartow's response over the top?
Does a professor who posts his/her photograph online as part of one's online profile (as seems to be the custom for most professors) invite comments regarding his/her looks, no matter what the context?

As for the first question, I thought that the initial comment was totally improper, uncalled for, and irrelevant. It was inherently sexist and served to highlight one fact and one fact only--that Professor Orly Lobel, accomplishments and credentials aside,had a vagina, and that he, the male commenter, could conceivably (and apparently quite willingly) have sex with her. He may have just as well said "Who cares about her mind? It's her reproductive organs I'm interested in." And, no, it was not harmless. It demeaned and denigrated her. And, yeah--I think it was sexist.

As for the second inquiry, I think that Ann Bartow's reply was perhaps a bit harsh, but appropriate. Could she have been more judicious? Maybe. Should she have been? That's debatable.

As for the third question, I don't think that comments upon one's looks are "invited"by posting a picture of oneself--especially not when it's posted in a professional context. Belle Lettre has an interesting take on this issue, which was posted both at her own blog, Law and Letters, and at the Feminist Law Professors blog.

Of course, my take on this is not the end all and be all. What do you think?

New focus

2006-07-02T15:43:00.000-05:00

I've decided on a new focus for this blog--women's issues--specifically professional women's issues. I'm not sure if it's a "feminist" blog, per se. But it will consist of thoughtful (I hope) commentary on issues issues that I believe will and/or do affect professional women. I'll highlight news articles, books (such as Linda Hirshman's recent and controversial book), and posts from other blogs. I'll post about 3 times per week, if all goes well.

So, expect to see a bit more of me, faithful regular readers. And, if you like what you see, tell all of your friends ( Happy Feminist, for example--I follow your blog, and although we may not always agree, I always find your ideas to be interesting).

So, check back in a few days, or even sooner. Looking forward to many interesting and spirited discussions!

Meet--genius boy.

2006-04-28T17:34:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure whether this situation calls for a snide comment about prosecutors or law firm associates. I'm truly torn. Either way, there's no doubt that the guy who's the subject of this article is most certainly an Asshole Partner in the making.

If you can't access the article, Jay Kuo, an idiot law firm associate from "the well-known litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest" who was "on loan" to a San Francisco prosecutor's office blogged about a misdemanor case that he was handling. And most likely due to the defendant's motion, the judge assigned to the matter happened upon his blog. And, it seems that the posts were...well...somewhat inflammatory.

From the article:

The contents of the blog posts were not available online Wednesday, but according to Karnow's ruling, Kuo at various points called his opposing counsel "chicken" when she asked for a continuance, directly alluded to her with some posting titles obscene enough that the judge did not repeat them and mentioned a prior conviction that had not yet been deemed admissible at trial.

Although the judge disagreed with the defendant's assertion that the charges should be dismissed due to the highly prejudicial nature of the comments on the blog, the judge called Kuo's actions "juvenile, obnoxious and unprofessional."

Ya think?

Right back at ya!

2006-04-24T19:04:00.000-05:00

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri recently sent a letter to a constituent that concluded with the following happy-go-lucky sentence: "i think you're an asshole." The letter, in its entirety, can be found here.

According to this article, "Emerson says she can't explain how the offensive language made it into the letter, which otherwise reads like a typical response to a citizen's question about last year's testimony of oil executives before the Senate Commerce Committee."

I can't tell you how many times I was tempted to add a comment like that at the end of a letter to one of my asshole clients.

In fact, one time, Bleached-blond-poodle-hair-secretary-from-hell inserted a similar phrase at the end of one of my letters to a particulary difficult client. If I recall, it was something along the lines of "I hate you, stop calling me." I caught it right away, and BBPHSFH assured me that even if I hadn't she would have deleted it before it went out, but I still wonder.

Maybe Rep. Emerson's stuck with a Poodle Head as well. It would certainly explain the horrendous gaffe.

In fact, if you recall, BBPHSFH was recently fired from my old firm. Maybe Rep. Emerson's secretary is BBPHSFH. Now, that would explain a lot.

True dat

2006-04-22T12:18:00.000-05:00

Rock on Pink, rock on.

Buy it.

Well, that's one way to cop a feel

2006-04-20T12:17:00.000-05:00

An old guy was apparently posing as a doctor and going door-to-door offering to provide free breast exams. (Hat tip: Kevin M.D.)

According to this article:

Carrying a black “doctor’s” bag, investigators claim Winnikoff walked up to a apartment building and told a 36-year-old woman, that he was in the neighborhood offering free breast exams.

According to police, the woman let Winikoff into her apartment and the phony doctor began the exam, touching first her breasts, and then, her genitals.

The woman quickly realized that Winikoff was not a real doctor and she called 911, but the fake doctor had already left her apartment to find another victim; a 33 year old woman who lives in the same apartment complex.

Very creative. He knew what he wanted, aggressively pursued it, and convinced others to go along with it. I bet this guy would have made a great lawyer.

Too little, too late

2006-04-19T20:50:00.000-05:00

So, according to this article, the State of Alabama has finally gotten around to approving a bill that will pardon Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks, in case you're not aware, died last October. Alabama's timing is somewhat curious. You'd think that they could have gotten around to passing this bill sometime within say, the last 50 years.

But, no. Ms. Parks died with the convictions on her record, never having had the satisfaction of knowing that the State of Alabama had acknowledged that she had done no wrong.

There's an interesting article on this issue entitled "Did Rosa Parks Pardon Alabama?". From that article:

I don't question the noble intentions of those who support this legislation. I can appreciate the inconvenience - and embarrassment - a law-abiding person feels at having a conviction on her record. Even a conviction that cost only a $10 fine half a century ago. But I wonder if the supporters of this bill truly appreciate the moral implications of what they are asking. You only need to be excused, forgiven, pardoned, when you've done wrong. And while it's true that Parks and others did break the law, that's not the same as doing wrong.

The author raises a good point.

But, putting aside the issue of whether the remedy is necessarily appropriate, at least Alabama is publicly acknowledging the error of their ways. But, for Rosa Parks, it's too little too late.

Hey waiter, there's a fly in my soup

2006-04-17T19:38:00.000-05:00

In general, I've noticed that a lot of male lawyers in private practice, especially the short, bald ones, are assholes, both on the job and off. And eating out is no exception. Do you think that there's a direct correlation between height and asshole-ness? I do.

The basic premise of this article is that most CEOs agree that you can tell a lot about a person's character based upon how they treat a waiter. I've always felt that to be the case and would never go out on a second date with a guy who was an asshole to the waiter.

In particular, this part of the article rang true to me:

To some people, speaking in a condescending manner makes them feel important, which to me is a total turnoff," says Seymour Holtzman, chairman of Casual Male Retail Group, which operates big-and-tall men's clothing stores including Casual Male XL...

Such behavior is an accurate predictor of character because it isn't easily learned or unlearned but rather speaks to how people were raised, says Siki Giunta, CEO of U.S. technology company Managed Objects, a native of Rome who once worked as a London bartender.

A guy that I used to work with was guilty of this type of behavior. He was incredibly rude to waitresses on a regular basis and constantly embarrassed everyone that was with him. And, to top it off, he pretty much didn't tip--at all. We were always stuck making up the difference. And, guess what? He was short--and prematurely balding. The perfect ingredients for an Asshole Partner in the making.

After working in a firm, I am absolutely convinced that the Napoleanic complex is not a myth. Short men are drawn to the law to over-compensate for their lack of height (and, many times, hair), and become assholes in the process, most likely as a defense mechanism. And, a disproportionate number of them make partner. Go figure.

Of course, I'm no giant and am perfectly nice to wait staff, so obviously my theory only applies to men. Vertically-challenged female lawyers such as myself stumble into the field of law purely by happenstance, dontcha know. We all know that Napolean was a man, and thus that whole complex of his does not translate over to the female of the species. Abso.Lutely.Not. And, besides, I've got plenty of hair.

Taking Sidebar in a new direction

2006-04-15T21:49:00.000-05:00

I've decided that I'm taking this blog in a new direction. I've squeezed out every last drop of associate angst that I have. There's just nothing left, hence the long dry spell.

But, I've got lots more to say about the law, the universe, and everything. I'm not exactly sure where Sidebar is going, but figure it'll be readily apparent after a few posts. Let's just hope I can keep it interesting.

Stop back soon, y'all, ya hear? But, for now, so long and thanks for all the fish.

I'll post soon

2006-04-04T22:17:00.000-05:00

I see thatmy "regulars"--all 16 of you--check back fairly regularly. I'm sorry I've been delinquint in posting. I'll post sometime over the next 2 days or so, once I've given the topic of a post some thought. I'll be back....

You Sure Look Nice In Those Bike Shorts

2006-03-12T22:05:00.000-06:00

Here's another PD story. I know, I know--you want to hear all about Poodle Head. Well, too bad! All in good time. In the meantime, pipe down and listen up.

During my first year as an Asst. PD, I was assigned to represent a guy who was charged with exposing himself--a misdemeanor. The accusatory alleged that he pulled down his pants while in his mother's back yard and told a man who was riding by on his bike that he "sure looked nice in those bike pants."

Sounds pretty cut and dry, right? Well, it turns out my guy was mentally disabled. He was functional, but he definitely had issues. And, not just mental issues--physical issues as well. Urinary issues, to be exact.

When I first met him, he told me all about his urinary incontinence issues. Apparently, he had sudden, overwhelming urges to urinate, and he had a tendency to whip it out wherever he happened to be. And, he was in the process of doing so on the day in question, when a guy rode by on his bike, and my client felt the need to compliment him on his biking attire. It was fairly obvious to me that my client was being sincere. And it was pretty clear that the guy was mentally challenged. If nothing else, that was quite obvious.

The ADA and I were both new at the job, and handled only misdemeanors. Generally, we only dealt with a slew of shoplifting cases from the mall, occasional assaults, and minor property damage (It wasn't until we were promoted to city court that we were exposed to the dirty underside of human existence: drugs, prostitution, public lewdness--the revolving door of the criminal justice system). We weren't sure what to do with him. He had minimal contacts with the criminal justice system, but the case wasn't a typical case for a suburban town court.

We discussed my client's case briefly and decided to adjourn it so that we could talk to higher ups at our respective offices for guidance.

On the adjourned date, my client approached me and pressed a manila envelope exploding at the seams into my hands. He advised me that it contained medical records that established his medical condition and thus his need to drop trousers whenever the need arose. As he walked away from me, I started to remove the documents from the folder when I noticed that they were damp--peculiarly damp. And, they smelled funny. They smelled kind of like--urine.

Somehow, I managed to keep my lunch down. I'm still not sure how.

I held the driest corner of the envelope between my thumb and forefinger and quickly approached the judge's clerk. I asked her if we could call my guy's case right away. As soon as his case was called, I asked to approach the bench and explained the situation to both the judge and ADA. "I swear. He peed on the papers. Here, see for yourself. Can't we just unload this one now?"

Surprisingly, they weren't all that interested in examining my urine-soaked offering.

The good news was that the ADA had spoken to his supervisor, and was authorized to extend a very reasonable offer. We gladly accepted it and my mentally disabled, urinary challenged, client was free to leave.

My parting advice to him was try to pee in the bushes in the future--and to keep his fashion opinions to himself.

Who the hell searches for...

2006-03-12T13:23:00.000-06:00

"paper weight aborted fetus inside"? And, can you believe that my blog was the very first search result? Scary.

Answering machine hell

2006-03-07T21:17:00.000-06:00

Now for a non-firm-related post. And, to tell this story, I'm going to have to give up a bit more background information about myself. I've told you that I was either a an Asst. PD or DA before working in a firm--it was the former. And, the following is one of the funnier stories from my tenure as an Asst. PD.

I was assigned to represent a guy with a long misdemeanor record on some sort of small charge--a petit larceny, if I recall correctly. He was one of literally hundreds of my clients, about 50 of whom were incarcerated, including my guy--let's call him "Joe." I generally made it into the jail to see all of my clients once each week, although I tried to meet with them more often, if possible. I hadn't met with Joe yet, though, and, as I quickly learned, he was desparate to see me.

The only outgoing phone calls allowed from county lock up were collect calls. And we weren't allowed to accept collect calls from the jail. But, Joe still managed to get his message across.

He was all too familiar with the system, since he'd been in and out of it forever. And, he knew how to get around it. Until I was able to get to the jail to see him, he left about 10 messages in rapid succession on my voice mail each day, and they went something like this:

(Automated voice)You have a collect call from: "Ms. Moi, it's Joe. You have to..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Come down to the jail.." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Tonight to talk to me..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Come see Joe, Ms...." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Ms. Moi, PLEASE come see..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Ms. Moi, it's Joe..." Would you like to accept it?

Joe knew that he had about 5 seconds each time, and he took full advantage of each and every 5 second opening. It was quite creative, actually, but the novelty of it wore off by about the third message. After 2 days, I was thoroughly annoyed with Joe and his constant barrage of 5 second messages.

Fortunately, I was finally able to get down to the jail and shortly thereafter was able to dispose of his case quite favorably.

The next day, I was checking my messages, and to my chagrine, there was another set of messages from him. I sighed and thought, "What the hell does he want from me now?"

You have a collect call from: "Hey Ms. Moi, it's..." Would you like to accept it

You have a collect call from: "It's Joe, Ms. Moi..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "I just wanted to tell..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Thanks Ms. Moi..." Would you like to accept it?

You have a collect call from: "Thanks for your help..." Would you like to accept it?

I actually laughed out loud. That was the last thing I'd expected. I didn't get thanked all that often in that job. And I certainly hadn't expected it from Joe. It made my day.

What happened to my secretary(s)

2006-02-28T16:26:00.001-06:00

Rob asked whatever happened with my secretary--ask and ye shall receive.

There were actually three secretaries during my tenure at my firm. My first secretary, she-who-is-inept, eventually left, and then, shortly thereafter asked to come back, to which the hiring partner replied with a resounding "no!"

The shit hit the fan about one week before she left. Her ineptitude had continued for over one year (many lost files found weeks later in someone else's office, sloppy work, continuing screw ups and a deteriorating attitude) and one day I approached her and asked her a random, simple question along the lines of "where is the "Y" file?"

She replied in a very snippy fashion, and I snapped. I informed her, within earshot of other secretaries, that I treated her with respect and expected the same from her, and that in the future she was not to speak to me in that tone again.

Apparently, she made a big spectacle of crying, which was brought to the attention of the managing partner by another secretary. He spoke with me about it and advised that I should avoid chastising her in the hallway, which was certainly true. And, he told me that they were on the verge of firing her, but preferred not to do so simply in order to avoid creating waves amongst the support staff. He said they'd discuss it at the next partners' meeting and let me know. Fortunately, she quit in the interim, which was the perfect resolution for all concerned.

They then hired secretary #2, whom I fondly refer to as bleached-blond-poodle-hair-secretary-from-hell. Would you like to hear about her?

I'll post again soon

2006-02-27T22:11:00.000-06:00

Life has gotten away from me and I've been delinquint in posting, I know. Sorry about that. I'm also running out of easy "material" so it's not as easy to dash out a post now. But, I'll keep trying to do so, but bear with me. Posts may not be quite as frequent as they once were. Check back soon...

Oh sure, why not?

2006-02-22T21:17:00.000-06:00

I was in Asshole Partner's office at the end of the day, discussing an assignment, when Nice Partner stopped by. "Hey Asshole. I can't take you tonight after all. Wifey called and I have to go straight home."

"Thanks for the late notice, Nice. But, that's ok. Moi's here. You can take me, can't you?"

"Um, me? Maybe. When and where?"

"To the shop on Maple to pick up my Porsche. Right now."

"Right now? Well, I guess I can. I didn't actually have any specific plans." That sounded bad. It was only 5:15. I figured I'd pile it on thick, for the hell of it. "Er, that is--aside from lots and lots of work until say--oh--9 tonight." I grinned. I was pretty damn funny.

"Yeah, you and 9 o'clock, Moi. When was the last time that happened?" Asshole Partner cracked a smile. "So you can take me?"

"You're serious, Asshole?"

"Sure I am. How else am I going to get there now that Nice abandoned me?"

I shrugged. "Good question. I suppose I'm your only hope."

"Great! I'll meet you at the elevators in five minutes."

"Ok, Asshole." I walked out of his office, shaking my head. If this kept up, people were going to think we were having an affair. That was the last thing I needed.

No one told me there'd be days like these

2006-02-14T08:54:00.000-06:00

My eyelids began to droop again. I shook my head and took a deep breath and then re-read the case for the fifth time. No wonder Mentor Partner had suckered me into helping with this brief. This stuff was dry. No, not just dry, boring as hell. Indemnification, subrogation, sub-contractor, subrogee. I can't even keep track of the parties, let alone comprehend the convoluted legal issues.

It was like Contracts class all over again. I'd always thought that the practice of law would be a lot more thrilling than this. Law and Order and all that.

Criminal practice hadn't been all that bad, all things considered. Sure, I was overworked and underpaid. But at least it was interesting. Maybe I should have stuck with that.

I sighed. I couldn't concentrate. I needed a break. I read over a few letters in my in-bin. Then I checked my e-mail and skimmed over the latest news headlines. All rightie then. Enough procrastinating. Concentrate Moi!

I picked up the case again. It was as if the teacher from the Peanuts was reading it to me or I was the dog from this Far Side cartoon--blah blah subrogor blah blah sub-lessee blah blah blah indemnitee. My eyes glazed over, all thought processes ceased. Aarrgh!

How is it that no one-- none of my law professors, mentors, strangers on the street--ever told me that the practice of law could be so mind-numbingly dull.

I closed the research folder and stood up. I needed coffee. More coffee. Strong coffee. And lots of it.

Closing argument

2006-02-13T11:17:00.000-06:00

For your reading enjoyment, here's a typical closing argument in a circumstantial evidence case used by many prosecutors. Anyone out there who is/has been a prosecutor will recognize it:

Ms. Olson would like you believe that since no one actually saw the defendant steal the necklace, you don’t have to convict him. Well, you and I both know that just because no one actually saw it, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.

Those of you with children know what I mean. When your children sneak cookies from the cookie jar, you know it happened, even if you don’t see them do it, don’t you?

Why, we’ve all walked into the kitchen to find our three year olds sitting at the table with a pile of crumbs in front of them, crumbs on their hands and face, the lid to the cookie jar askew, met with adamant denials of guilt, haven’t we? But, we’re not fools—we all know what happened, even though we didn’t see it, right?

Or, to put it another way, you can figure out the big picture even if you’re missing a few pieces. That’s what circumstantial evidence is like, although the judge will instruct you more about it later. It’s like a puzzle when you’re missing just a few pieces. You’ve put all the pieces together that you have and you can tell that it’s a picture of a cowboy on a horse in front of a mountain. The puzzle pieces for the cowboy’s hat, the horse’s tail and the top of the mountain are missing, but you don’t need those pieces to know what the big picture is; just as you don’t need an eyewitness to tell you that a crime occurred.

Now, a few minutes ago, I went over each and every piece of evidence in this case with you. And, when you deliberate, I am confident that you’ll agree that the evidence clearly shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant forcibly ripped that necklace from Ms. Andrew’s neck, fled the scene and was apprehended just one block away within minutes, with the necklace in his possession. Members of the jury, on behalf of the People of the State of New York, I would, therefore, ask that you return a verdict of guilty; the evidence demands it. Thank you.

Your tax dollars at work

2006-02-10T16:38:00.000-06:00

Here's a true story about a poor schmuck with a thick Southern accent.

The scene: Your local prosecutors office, Anytown, USA.

Fade in:

Alicia, one of the newer ADAs jumped in. “The funniest thing happened at arraignment part today. This little old black man was charged with Falsely Reporting an Incident. According to the accusatory, he called 911 and claimed that ‘there was a bomb in his house.’ Cops show up, no bomb, so they charge him since they’re pissed.”

“And?” prompted Tom.

“So they call his case for arraignment and this stooped over little
ancient guy slowly hobbles up to the podium, cane in hand. He finally gets there and just as Judge Smythe starts to arraign him, he gets all excited and starts talking in a really thick Southern, dialect, declaring his innocence. He was such a polite, elderly Southern gentleman and was obviously really upset that he’d been arrested.”

“Yeah,” said Sarah, one of younger ADAs. They all leaned in expectantly.

“So the judge says: ‘Mr. Washington. You’re out of line. Let me speak. It says right here that you called 911 and told them that there was a bomb in your house, sir. And when the police got there, it wasn’t there.”

“And….” said another ADA.

“So this poor old guy says: ‘Right, Miss. I tol’ ‘em der was a bom in my house, but she left before dey got der. Dey was too slow!’ At this, the judge looked up from the accusatory in front of her. ‘She?’”

The ADAs grinned eagerly, anticipating the punch line.

“’Yah. Rita,’ he said.

The judge looked down at him. ‘A bum, Mr. Washington? Is that what you called the police about? A bum in your house?’

He looked up at her and said, earnestly, ‘Yah, miss. Dat’s what I said! A bom in da house!’”

They all laughed appreciatively, shaking their heads. “The charges were the dismissed, I hope.” said Tom.

“Yep,” replied Alicia. “The poor guy got to go home."

True 'dat

2006-02-08T17:45:00.000-06:00

I walked into the dump with Mike and Sue. Although I was friendly with the other associates, I was closest with these two. Mike threw his tall, lanky frame into a chair and ran his hands through his short, dark brown hair. His hazel eyes sparkled roguishly. “Whew. I sure needed a break. It's Friday, right?” He winked.

Sue sat down and grinned, “No kidding. If only.” She was a short, shapely woman whose suits were, by choice, almost always one size too small; some might call them snug; others, unseemly. Although somewhat vertically challenged, she wasn’t at all short on personality. Sue cleared her throat and then said, “Drum roll, please.”

We looked at Sue expectantly. “I got the judge’s decision yesterday on the Morgan file.”

“And?” Mike asked.

“We won, of course! What did you expect?” she laughed, her blue eyes lighting up. She absently wrapped a blond curl around her finger as she spoke, “I e-mailed Ron right away to let him know about the decision.”

“What did he say?” I asked.

“Nothing! I never heard back from him!” she exclaimed. “So I ran into him this morning and told him about the decision. He said he’d accidentally deleted the e-mail without reading it and asked me to re-send it to him. I told him that it was still on his computer and to look in the “deleted e-mails” folder. He looked at me like I was speaking Greek. He didn’t even know what I meant! I still can’t believe that most of the partners don’t even understand how their computers work. It constantly amazes me.”

“I know,” said Mike. He took a sip of his coffee and leaned back in his chair, stretching his long legs out in front of him. “You’ve got to remember that most of these guys are over fifty. It’s a generational thing.” He grinned mischievously, “Most of them don’t realize is that we can search the firm directory and read any document that was created on the network. Makes for interesting reading on the weekends when you’re bored, but you didn’t hear that from me!”

I laughed. “I bet it does! Anyway, congrats Sue. You worked hard on that case. And, just think--you made Morgan Enterprises even more money. Way to fight for the downtrodden!”

She smirked, “Yep, that’s why I went to law school: to make the rich richer! It’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it?”

I shook my head. “No. We’re all in the same boat. We’ve got to pay back our student loans somehow. What choice do we have? Not everyone can afford to fight the good fight."

Mike nodded. "True 'dat."

Additions to blogroll

2006-02-05T12:29:00.000-06:00

Since the creation of this blog, I've added a number of blogs to my blogroll and many of the same blogs have also added Sidebar to their blogroll. Here's a brief round up of the blogs that I've added:

Big Law Associate-As the name suggests, it's a blog about the trials and tribulations of working as an associate in Biglaw.

Color of Law-A blog about the life and times of a law student.

Fresh Pepper?-An amusing blog written by an associate in a law firm who lives in his parent's basement and aspires to be a professional chef.

The Happy Feminist-A blog about mostly feminist issues written by an associate in a law firm.

knownunknowns-A group blog written by a few lawyers about a variety of interesting issues.

La Dolce Divas-Another joint blog written by two attorney fashionistas about style, fashion and all that good stuff.

teahouseblossom-A blog written by an associate in a New York law firm about her life experiences.

Wandering Bell- A blog written by a lawyer in San Francisco that consists of his musings on life as a sole practitioner as he trains for his first Ironman.

In the blink of an eye

2006-02-03T13:08:00.000-06:00

As I've mentioned, I was either an ADA or APD prior to becoming an associate in a mid-sized firm. During the middle of my tenure at that position, I was assigned to a judge that was known for making the lives of the APDs and ADAs in his court sheer hell. Judge Hardass was an equal opportunity offender in this regard, and was hard on both APDs and ADAs.

But, I was ready for him. I'd been at my job for a few years at this point and had experienced all sorts of judges, so I was pretty sure that I could handle him. But, I also really wanted to get off on a good foot with him and show him that not only was I was a hardworker, but that I was good at my job.

The first few days of non-stop arraignments seemed to go just fine, so I was caught completely off guard on the fourth day when, out of the blue, Judge Hardass said, in a perfectly calm, quiet and measured tone, "Moi, everytime I make a decision on bail that you disagree with, I noticed that you roll your eyes. It's very subtle, but evident nonetheless. If you continue to do that, I'll hold you in contempt."

I could feel my face blanche and my heart dropped like a bowling ball into the pit of my stomach. I'd never had a judge make that sort of comment to me about my demeanor, let alone in open court. I was mortified. And, I was terrified, since I knew he'd do it; I'd heard stories of him holding attorneys in contempt in the past.

I stood completely still and tried to regain my composure. I took a deep breath, glanced up at Judge Hardass and murmured, "I apologize, Judge. I had no idea that I was doing that. It won't happen again."

For the rest of the morning, I was afraid to even blink, lest Judge Hardass interpret it as an eye roll. I barely moved my head from that point on. We were only about 45 minutes into arraignments and had at least another 2 hours to go and I wasn't sure how I was going to get through the next two hours without either crying or unknowingly rolling my eyes. Somehow, I managed to complete arraignments without doing either one.

Later on, when I thought about what he'd said, I realized that he was right. I was rolling my eyes, albeit unintentionally, and it was disrespectful. I learned a lot from Judge Hardass, although the time spent in his courtroom wasn't the most enjoyable, by any means.

But, apparently we had a mutual respect for one another as I later learned after accepting my next job as an associate at a law firm. Apparently, Judge Hardass had provided a glowing recommendation on my behalf when approached by one of the partners. Maybe he wasn't such a hardass after all.

X chromosone for sale

2006-01-26T21:20:00.000-06:00

I had lunch today with my friend, Karen, who's a fourth year associate at a larger firm in town. She also happens to be 7 months pregnant, but looks as if she was due yesterday. I was amazed by some of the stories that she told me about the reactions of other attorneys to her pregnancy. The one that I found to be the most memorable was her description of a conversation that occurred as she was walking out of a judge's chambers.

A few weeks ago, she was covering a pre-trial conference for one of the partners in an outlying county. The conference had occurred in the judges's chambers with two other attorneys (both men) and the judge (also of the masculine persuasion), none of whom she'd met before. After the conference she, the two attorneys and the judge were walking out of the judge's chambers when the following conversation ensued (right in front of the other attorneys):

Judge: So, Ms. X, you're pregnant.

Karen: Um, yes.

Judge: When are you due?

Karen: March 11.

Judge: So, you're taking maternity leave?

Karen: Yep.

Judge: When are you coming back?

Karen: Um...mid-June.

Judge: So, you're taking three months leave, are you? Now that's got to be inconvenient for your firm.

Karen: (long pause, then sweet smile) Oh, they won't even miss me, judge. I don't do that much around there anyway.

Makes me want trade in one of my "x" chromosones.

What does your secretary do for you?

2006-01-25T14:02:00.000-06:00

Happy Feminist's comment regarding my prior post about my talk with my secretary got me thinking. HF mentioned that her secretary prints out and files her e-mails. Not in a million years would this ever happen with my secretary. I'd rather have she-who-is-inept focus on the big stuff and try to get it right, rather than have a lot of little stuff distracting her. I think it must be a function of her ineptitude.

All that I require of SWII is that she 1) get my mail 2) file mail and other assorted documents, although I'll file some of that myself if I happen to have the file on my desk, just to avoid mis-filing, which is a regular occurrence 3) open and close files 4) type letters and memos that I dictate and 5) organize my files by creating typed folder labels for various sub-files within the main file (she does this very unwillingly--she would prefer that I create the sub-file myself by writing the name of the sub-file on the tab, or, alternatviely, that she be allowed to write, rather than type, the name of the sub-file).

She does not print and file e-mails, take phone calls, schedule appointments, pull files, or willingly and of her own volition organize files or open files with standard sub-files (I have to request them each and every time or she doesn't do it). That's all that I can think of offhand.

In any event, Happy Feminist's comment made me wonder what other people's secretaries do for them on a regular basis. I'd really like to hear from those of you that are associates in law firms on to this issue. It will be interesting, albeit depressing, to learn what I'm missing out on.

So, please, please, let me know: What does your secretary do for you?

A little ditty about jack and...

2006-01-19T21:06:00.000-06:00

I've decided to talk to my secretary tomorrow afternoon. Friday afternoons are always a good time to have "talks." People are happy that the week's over and if the "talk" doesn't go quite as planned, you've got the weekend as a buffer. I envision a building bridges, what can we do to work better together sort of "talk". I'll let you know how it goes.

In the meantime, here's a little ditty about Jack and...Ms. Olsen.

A close friend of mine from the DA's Office, Jack, who's now in private practice was on trial today. It was his first criminal trial as a defense attorney. I happened to be in the court house, so I stopped in to see how it was going and caught the tail end of it.

I'd heard a lot about the prosecutor on his case, both from former colleagues at the DA's office and from defense counsel, although I'd never met her. It turns out, she was a piece of work.

There are two types of prosecutors: those with perspective and an eye toward building bridges that could lead to a career outside of the DA's office down the road, and hardliners with tunnel vision who only see themselves as career prosecutors and take themselves way too seriously. She was the latter and that became painfully obvious during Jack's closing argument, when the following exchange occurred:

“Members of the jury. You’ve now heard all the evidence. And, you'll soon be hearing Ms. Olsen's summation. But, realize that it will be her interpretation of the evidence. And, quite frankly, I could see how some of you might find her to be quite convincing. She’s a very fine attorney—”

Ms. Olson stood up quickly. “Objection, your honor!”

“Overruled.” Said the judge dryly. “You may continue, Mr. Bernstein.”

Jack grinned and spread his arms magnanimously, “Well, whether she likes it or not, she’s a good attorney.” Some of the jurors snickered.

Jack smiled impishly, absently ran a hand through his dark hair as he collected his thoughts and then continued, "Ms. Olsen would like you to believe that my client is guilty of petit larceny..."

Rule #1: Never object during a closing absent extreme circumstances. Rule #2: Think before you object, even if the objection is technically correct. She made an ass out of herself, and alienated the jury in the process. And, guess what? She lost. Here's to hoping that I do better tomorrow afternoon with she-who-is-inept.

All hail queen opinionistas, melissa lafsky

2006-01-18T15:30:00.000-06:00

UPDATE: Now there's a poll re: O's outing. I seem to be in the majority according to the poll results.

Just an aside to acknowledge the unmasking of Opinionista, aka Melissa Lafsky.

Her identity was revealed yesterday at Gawker. The official unveiling, professional photos and all, can be found in this article from the Observer.

Her bio from the cache of her old law firm's web site can be found here.

Her first few posts on her "new" blog can be found here.

And, if you'd like some dirt on the Queen, you can find it here.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see what she'll blog about now that she's no longer an associate in a firm. Good thing you've got my blog to fall back on when you need that associate-getting-shit-on fix, isn't it?

I suppose that's one way to get in

2006-01-15T11:39:00.000-06:00

Fiance never ceases to amaze me. I love him dearly, but he's such a...guy.

Last week, while I was at work, he arrived home from his job to find that the front door wouldn't open. We recently moved into this house, which was built around the turn of the century, and the front door is very old and has a handle on it with a latch, as opposed to a door knob. We learned only after this incident that the latch can become inoperable if a button on the inside of the door near the dead bolt is pushed in, thus making it impossible to open the door from the outside, even if the deadbolt has been unlocked.

Fiance was unable to get into the house, since the only other door is located in our one-car garage, and I have the only door opener to the garage in my car.

So, he was effectively locked out of the house. What do you suppose he did? Did he 1) use either his cell phone or a neighbor's phone to call me at work 2) kill some time at the mall until I got home or 3) break a basement window and crawl through it?

If your answer was either 1 or 2, then you obviously don't know my fiance. He didn't have his cell phone with him and apparently couldn't be bothered to ask the neighbors if he could use their phone. And, I guess he just wasn't in the mood to go shopping either. So, being the self-reliant and practical man that he is, he broke.into.our.house.

Can someone please explain this to me? Was this just a strange variation of the more typical male behavior of refusing to ask for directions under any circumstances in order to appear wholly self-reliant? Or is he a peculiar speciman of a man in need of serious therapy? I'm on the fence...

Good point

2006-01-13T19:49:00.000-06:00

Mentor Partner is my favorite partner. He's thoughtful, intelligent, an excellent attorney, and, obviously, my mentor. We practice law in a similar fashion, which is one of the reasons that he's my mentor. We're both very thorough and careful practitioners. And, we also share fairly liberal views on both social and political issues. I've learned a lot from him about the practice of law and life in general. Which brings me to my point...

The other day I was in his office, and expressed my annoyance with a pro-life protestor who was standing near the back entrance to the courthouse holding a sign with a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus on it. The man seemed to be particularly gleeful when young professional women such as myself passed by him and went out of his way to wave the sign in our faces. He seemed to feel that we were in particular need of this gruesome reminder since, presumably, all women who chose a career were unmarried harlots and viewed abortion as some sort of recreational pursuit.

After I finished my tirade, Mentor Partner peered at me for a moment over his reading glasses, as he is apt to do. He informed me that he could understand my consternation, since he was pro-choice as well, but that he always tried to see things from the perspective of his adversary in any situation. And, he then asked me the following question: if I truly felt that abortion constituted government-sanctioned murder, wouldn't I do everything in my power to stop it? And, was holding a gory sign that depicts the murder such an objectionable means to accomplish my goal?

Mentor Partner is so smart. For the first time, I was able to understand where the annoying-sign-holding-guy was coming from. I still don't agree with him, but he doesn't annoy me as much as he did.

I plan to apply this lesson in the future whenever I encounter assholes on the other side of a case--or down the hall in the corner office.

I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date

2006-01-10T11:12:00.000-06:00

Perhaps I've given you the impression that I don't enjoy working at my firm; I do. And, for the most part, it's a pretty good place to work, all things considered. Working in a mid-sized firm in a mid-sized city is bearable and devoid of a lot of the negative aspects that make Big Law in a big city so unappealing to me and hoards of other young attorneys.

But, (and there's always a "but", isn't there?) partners are partners, and lawyers are lawyers, no matter where you go. And it's those unavoidable truisms that make my job so frustrating. The partner's time is always more valuable than my own, both literally and figuratively. And they're always in a rush. They can't slow down for anything, and therefore, neither can I.

Consider the following, which occurred yesterday:

I knocked on the door and then stuck my head into Generic Partner's office.

"You wanted me to stop by?"

He glanced up at me. "C'mon in Moi."

I sat down in one of the chairs in front of his desk and waited expectantly, pen poised over my notepad.

“I've got a quick research assignment for you for the Schneider file.” He grabbed the file just as Random Partner stuck his head into his office.

“Generic--we’re going downstairs for drinks. You coming?” He didn't even look my way. I rolled my eyes imperceptibly. Sometimes it amazed me the way partners acted as if I weren't in the room; it was as if I were invisible.

“Yeah. I’ll be right down,” replied Generic Partner.

Generic Partner looked back at me. “You know what? Why don’t you walk me to the elevator and I’ll tell you about the research as we walk.”

I suppressed my exasperation and wondered how the hell he expected me to remember the specific issues or even the file number if I couldn’t write it down.

“Sure thing." I replied with all the pep that I could muster. I scurried after him down the hallway toward the elevator, like an obedient puppy, listening carefully, nodding my head dutifully.

He stepped into the elevator. "Great, Moi. Can you get it to me by the end of the week? Just a short memo on your findings?"

"Um, yep. Sure. End of the week," I replied. As the doors shut, I leaned against the wall and sighed. Then I jotted down all that I could remember about the assignment. Next stop: his secretary's desk to get the file number. And then back to my office until the next time-pressed, or just plain old thirsty, partner beckoned.