Legate: Personal Injury Lawyers

ADVOCACY: IS IT DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN? - Venus and Mars in the Courtroom by Barbara Legate

Advocates Society Fall Conference, November, 1998

INTRODUCTION

There are four possible answers to the question posed by the title of this paper:

1. How should I know? How is it for men? Do we have the same experience?
2. Yes. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. [1] Everybody knows that.
3. No. (Political correctness and the wish that it were so, demands this answer be included in this list.)
4. Maybe, sometimes, I’m not sure.

The first answer is probably the honest answer, and the second answer is probably the truth. 

My introduction to the law should be disclosed at this point. I went to law school in the late 70’s. While there, I was exposed to overt sexual discrimination. Men who, today, would wince at the things they said in the classroom, then made me and my female colleagues wonder what in the world we were doing putting ourselves into this hostile environment. After being called to the bar I strode into the courtroom expecting to be treated like everyone else. Imagine my surprise, when, during my first ever trial, the trial judge said in open court (a child and spousal support case) “the problem with Canadian Society today is women like Mrs. (I use Ms.) Legate. I think I would literally wring my wife’s neck if she went out to work.”  Welcome to the profession of advocacy.  I am happy to say things have more or less gone up hill from there, in the courtroom and certainly with the judges I have had the honour of appearing before in the ensuing 18 years.

This is not an easily approached topic. There is a tendency towards the subjective, rather than the objective, assessment of the woman advocate’s experience, particularly if the author of the commentary is a woman. In researching this paper, I found some of my subjective experiences were borne out by hard research. I also found out that certain perceptions of women in society impact on jurors’ perceptions of women advocates, and that was a surprise to one who simply expects to be treated like everyone else. . Finally, I learned that I have some surprising advantages in the courtroom over my male colleagues that I can employ to my advantage.

That having been said, there are a few facts of life to address when approaching a topic like this.

Fact #1

Discrimination and bias on gender lines exists amongst the judiciary, lawyers, clients, and juries.[2]

Fact #2

Some lawyers, judges, clients and jurors can rise above their biases or in fact have none of consequence. Background, and positive experiences may be factors.

Fact #3

There are differences between men and women [3]. This is not necessarily a bad thing, even in advocacy.

Fact #4

If you understand biases, you may be able to make them work for you. A failure to understand biases is a bad thing.[4]

Fact #5

Most people, men and women, see themselves as fair, tolerant and open-minded.
  

PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER

It is my hope this paper has relevance to men who have female juniors and partners, and judges who must deal with their own pre-conceived notions about woman advocates. Primarily, it is written with a view to the woman advocate, and to assist her by identifying the areas of gender bias the she can expect to encounter in the courtroom.  More importantly, I have suggested some strategies for overcoming those biases, and making positive feminine attributes work for women.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT - DOES IT MATTER?

It is trite to say that men and women are different. It is quite another thing to say that it matters when we enter the courtroom as colleagues, counsel and advocates.  I could not focus the issue more clearly than this statement, made in the introduction to the same topic in an exceptionally helpful text published by the American Bar Association:

Are the differences between male and female lawyers paramount, or do the similarities predominate? If women lawyers behave differently, should they cultivate those differences or try to tame them? Clients, jurors, and judges, the people who count, do they believe that the “man’s way” is better? If they do, do women succeed by out-manning the man- or will that technique backfire as the audience senses the attempt at imitation?[5]

My own experience has taught me that both differences and similarities can be paramount, depending primarily on the perspective of the judge or my opponent.

I am aware that, at least in my own case, I sometimes approach problems from entirely different starting point or perspective from my male colleagues. There are some situations that can, I think, lend themselves to different approaches, resulting from the different life experiences of men and women. I came to this realization when dealing with a judge on a regular basis who just simply hated the fact that I kept showing up in his courtroom. The problem always came down to this: I started my analysis of the problem, then family law, at a completely different place from the judge.  The reality of my experience with that specific judge made the fact of my gender paramount in our dealings. With other members of the judiciary, the similarities with my male colleagues predominated the dynamic of counsel- judiciary interaction, and I rarely left the courtroom thinking about the effect being a woman had on the outcome or the argument. Although I may have started my analysis differently from my colleagues, or indeed the judge, if I did, in the end it made no difference.

Are we then lead to the conclusion that the woman advocate should ignore bias? Should she simply lay blame for the problem on the man in the relationship if bias is encountered?  One author I encountered now a judge, chose to ignore bias and simply said it is the other guy’s problem. I suspect her strategy is the one most often employed, and is perhaps the best strategy.  What would be a wrong strategy is ignoring bias without acknowledging its existence.  If we ignore it, then we do not give it credibility, and that makes such a strategy tempting.  The woman advocate does herself a disservice if she fails to acknowledge the existence of potential bias and accounts for it in her trial strategy. It is important to recognize there are two forms of bias that potentially encountered in the courtroom. The first is overt, negative bias from the bench and colleagues. The second is social bias, affecting perceptions of the advocate, that the judge, jurors and colleagues may be quite unaware of. The way she will deal with each form may be entirely different, and perhaps should be.  I offer for your consideration the words of Judge Norma L. Shapiro, US District Court Judge since 1978:

(Regarding her own experience of discrimination) But I can say that I coped satisfactorily by never assuming that the mistreatment resulted form the fact that I was a woman or, indeed, because of anything I said or did. Discrimination and anti-female prejudice I considered a defect of the discriminator and a sign of insecurity – not mine but his. It was a sign that he feared me and had something to learn. In other words, I used it to support my own sense of security. Such an attitude seems to work; at least it did for me.[6]

What ever the choice made by a woman advocate, there can be no doubt that over the course of her career, she will have to face the issues of overt, negative bias, and she will have to, in particular in a practice that involves advocacy before juries, prepare for social stereotypes and biases.  How she chooses to deal with bias will no doubt affect her sense of satisfaction derived from her profession and her confidence when she enters the courtroom. The extent to which she receives support from her peers, superiors and mentors will have an enormous influence on the young woman advocate seeking to find her place in our profession.  My own view is that access to mentors, male and female, coupled with a good understanding of socially-ingrained gender bias and a will to problem solve it, will stand the woman advocate in good stead to deal with her challenges.

Bias that evidences itself in inappropriate, rude, or discriminatory conduct from the bench should never be countenanced. How counsel will deal with it is a personal decision. Here, more than in any other situation, a woman needs a mentor to be a sounding board and to give advice about potential problems and solutions.

Bias that affects perceptions of counsel in the courtroom can be anticipated, and therefore problem-solved in advance.

Let us explore the biases that affect the woman advocate, consider solutions, and then address concerns about mentors and support systems.

BIAS: WHAT ARE THE REALITIES?

It is important to face one’s own tendency to blame negative outcomes or experiences in the courtroom on the judge, the opponent, or the jury. As in most relationships, there is a propensity to blame the other person for what may be our own failings.  The courtroom is a particularly susceptible place for this tendency to be given life, since we all enter it with our own bag full of insecurities, about our case, our skills and our knowledge. We are subjected to judgment in the truest sense; if the judgement is negative, to protect our egos, we blame anything else. Women have their gender and bias to add to list of possible explanations for failure.

It would be unfair, however, to the woman advocate to suggest that the biases and prejudices that invade the rest of society vanish in the courtroom. They do not, of course, and in fact can be made more evident by the predominance of men in positions of authority. That there are more male judges and lawyers we know. What about jurors? Research in the US tells us that although the numbers of men and women serving on juries is about equal, jury foremen are more often men [7]. Men designed the traditional rules of advocacy, often referred to as a fair fight, not an afternoon tea party. Some women have discomfort with the concept of the search for the truth being a fight.  Others who embrace the fight are perceived as being too far out of their roles, and somehow ingenuous or worse, untrustworthy.  Actions taken by a man that would pass without comment in the courtroom may be viewed with derision if undertaken by a woman.  On the other side of the coin, behaviour by a man that is close to the line and that would pass unnoticed with a male opponent, may attract the displeasure of the court, if the object is a female opponent.  Unfortunately, the pervading social attitudes towards men and women locked into our reptilian brains still dictate that men do the fighting and women serve the tea.

The Importance of Credibility: What do Jurors think about Female Competence and Trustworthiness?

In the U.S., much research has been undertaken in the fields of social science and litigation about the relationship between gender and credibility. Credibility is the lynch pin that holds together the advocate’s case.  The Holy Grail of jury advocacy is the perception of counsel as the most trusted “witness” in the case.[8] Without research, we all know that the advocate who walks into the courtroom with credibility already established walks in with the upper hand. Credibility is affected by two major components: competence and trustworthiness.[9] Competence is the assessment that the communicator is in a position to know the truth, while trustworthiness is the assessment that the communicator is likely to tell the truth when it is known.  Credibility increases with the perception of authority. [10] If jurors perceive maleness as authoritative, or are influenced by the presence of a male judge as ultimate authority in the courtroom, does the woman advocate have a chance?

Authority is conveyed in a number of ways, one of which is verbal communication. Another is control of space. No wonder then the large male advocate with the booming voice seems to be such a credible authoritative influence in the courtroom. Again, women, shorter of stature, without the booming voice, must find other paths to credibility and authority.

In her chapter titled Credibility and Gender in the Courtroom: What Jurors Think [11], psychologist and trial strategist/ consultant Reiko Hasuike lists the following major findings relating to credibility and gender:

1.   Both men and women think men generally are more competent than women.

This perception has obvious implications for women.  Consider addressing the court on complicated accounting or engineering evidence. Women are not generally perceived to have competence in the areas of math and sciences.  The perception of competence in these areas is impacted by the gender of the witness and the lawyer offering the evidence.  A woman will start at a disadvantage vis a vis the assessment of her credibility in this area.

2.    Male areas of expertise are seen more favourably than female areas of expertise, just as masculine traits include more positive characteristics than do feminine traits.

We see this evidenced in the Law Society’s survey, cited elsewhere in this paper, which lists the perceived status of various areas of practice. Civil litigation is very near the top of the list. Family law is down the list with general practice and real estate law.  Women are over-represented in family law.  Isn’t there a perception that Family Law is a bit more touchy-feely? Somehow, all that psychology and emotion makes it less important? Of course, that is complete nonsense. What could be more important than the destiny of a child, and the integrity and fair dealing with the family? Why is family law perceived as less important than franchise litigation ( yawn!)?

3.  When a woman shows competence in areas of expertise considered to be masculine, people may believe that her high performance is caused by luck not skill.
Women are appearing in the Courts of Ontario on a regular basis. Some women enjoy highly successful, high profile practices. Some of the most articulate and strong judges on the bench today are women.  Eventually, everyone will get it: it is not luck, it’s talent, intelligence and competence.

4.  Women who show competence in masculine areas are often seen as being more competent than men who perform at the same level.

This may be of interest to male litigators faced with a competent female opponent. The research in this area is fascinating. In an interview with a judge about his perceptions of women, he suggested that he thought women tended to be better prepared, had greater mastery of the facts of the case and superior grasp of the law in many if not most cases. His evaluation may be correct based upon his experience, or it may be this phenomenon at work.
        

5.  Women benefit tremendously when they perform competently in “masculine” ways so long as these ways are seen as being positive and so long as the women do not challenge traditionally female values such as motherhood.

The facts of a particular case will have to be analyzed carefully by the woman advocate, and the theory of her case evaluated with a view to this finding. One would not want to succeed in establishing credibility and mastery in non-traditional areas only to experience rejection because the theory of the case challenged traditional female values.

6.  Women jurors do not necessarily like women advocates more than they do male advocates.

7.  Although women with progressive attitudes about women’s role in society tend to like women who take on non-traditional roles, the same is not true for men with progressive views.

In jury selection, this may be something to keep in mind. With our limited ability to learn anything out about jurors prior to selection, the traditional strategies will continue to be the best – try to find someone who will identify with your client and not with the opponent.

If the findings outlined above are correct, and relevant to the Canadian experience, women start the process of proving competence at a disadvantage.

Balancing, perhaps, this rather bad news for women, are the positive views society holds of women. The roles of mother, sister, and teacher are roles that carry positive connotations. Indeed, some research suggests that women are perceived as being more likely to tell the truth, and that men are more likely to tell serious lies. Other research suggests jurors may perceive women advocates to be more ethical than our male counterparts. I do not believe that women are more or less likely to be ethical or truthful than men.  Wouldn’t I be doing my cause and my clients a disservice if I did not consider the perception the jury is likely to have of me in that regard?

Similarly, wouldn’t it be foolhardy not to address questions of perception of competence, and methods of overcoming biases towards women if that could be done?

Consider the use of vocal characteristics, as an example. Attached at Appendix “A” is a  table taken from Courtroom Communication Strategies, which outlines the stereotypes associated with various vocal cues comparing men and women. Although some cues yield similar perceptions between men and women, (like nasality that results in a perception that the speaker, male or female is socially undesirable), many do not. An example is “throatiness”. Men are perceived as older, more realistic, mature, sophisticated; well adjusted. Women are perceived as less intelligent, more masculine, lazier, more boorish, ugly, sickly, careless, etc. and in short are “cloddish”.

The inescapable conclusion is that bias exists. There is, however, an equally inescapable conclusion: it can be overcome with attention to the traditional skills of advocacy, and the special challenges faced by women. For women like me, who love the courtroom, the preparation for and challenge of trial, solutions simply must be found, and used to best advantage.

CREATING CREDIBILITY IN THE COURTROOM

The strategic planning that goes into every trial must be different in some respects for women from their male counterparts. Care must be taken not to simply adopt the methods and strategies of successful male barristers, but to create our own methods and strategies for success in the courtroom. As a woman constructs her opening, examinations and arguments, she may wish to consider some of the following.

Women are accepted in a teaching role

In a sense, every good advocate, male or female, is a teacher, educating the fact finder about the facts and about how to view them… A woman advocate plays to a receptive audience, one that wants to learn and wants to believe her. Concerning the perception of trustworthiness, the female litigator is one up on her male counterpart [12].

Good advocates know that jurors and judges appreciate a well-paced introduction to the topic upon which they must determine the issues. By simplifying the information, breaking it down into digestible bites, the advocate earns the gratitude and the trust of the juror. This is an essential part of the trial for the woman advocate. In a role that she and her audience will be comfortable with, she has the opportunity to gain the credibility through trust building and giving the jury or judge mastery of the facts and evidence.

Signs of competence and trustworthiness from other sources

The first and obvious source is the trial judge. A second and less obvious source is the witnesses called to testify. If they respect and have confidence in you, they can convey credibility to the juror. Similarly, in cross examination, an examination style that is not combative but rather one which displays command of the subject matter and an ability to expose the weaknesses of an otherwise credible witness, is an important source of external credibility. It is for that reason women cannot appear deferential to the expert witness. Further, women advocates must examine carefully the goals of cross-examination of the expert. If there is a potential loss of credibility in an important area, then the manner and substance of the examination must be carefully planned, right down to the precise words to be used.

The Role of the Trial Judge: Keeping the Fight Fair

When confronted with a woman advocate, the presiding judge must search his, or her, soul and ask if he/she [13] holds any bias towards her because of her gender. Judges, like the rest of humanity, see themselves as fair and tolerant. It is a difficult task for any of us to admit that we may harbor biases or stereotypes that might affect our views and impartiality.

In addressing this issue, a judge could consider the subtle ways he or she affects the jury’s view of counsel’s credibility:

• By first asking male counsel for submissions on procedural matters
• By making a fuss, or not, over the title female counsel use.
• By over-emphasizing or struggling over the use of  Ms.
• By refusing to use Ms.
• By commenting on acceptance of either counsel’s theory  (if the preference of one theory over another is or may be influenced by the gender of counsel because the topic is in an area seen traditionally as one of male competence)
• By constant references to the audibility of female counsel’s voice, in front of the jury
• By employing a change in demeanor or voice when addressing male vs. female counsel

Is it legitimate for the trial judge to go further and to attempt to level the playing field? Is it an insult to the woman advocate to suggest the trial judge should be alert to bias in the courtroom? This is a highly personal decision to be made by the judge. Perhaps a comparison between junior and senior counsel would clarify the matter. We have all experienced trials where the trial judge attempted to overcome the disparity between experienced and inexperienced counsel in the interests of a fair trial. Is recognition of the fact that women are subject to perceptions that have nothing to do with the merits of the case cause for similar intervention? Is it reason to be cautious when commenting, in front of the jury, about the competence or not of either counsel? Perhaps the strongest endorsement a trial judge could give of the woman advocate would be in scrupulous attention to equal treatment.

Establishing Credibility through Mastery of the Facts and the Law

If one of the cornerstones of credibility is knowledge and mastery, a woman in the courtroom simply must be the master of the facts, in particular in front of a jury. It is a rare lawsuit where no disputes arise about what another witness said, or what is the evidence in the case. There is no faster route to establishing competence-credibility than to be seen as the one person in the room who always gets it right.

With the judiciary, consistent experiences with command of the law, preparation and well-conceived arguments will establish unshakable credibility.

Manner of Presentation: Out-manning the man, or Shall I Serve Tea?

If a trial is a fight, and not an afternoon tea, ask this: who is expected to fight, and who is expected to serve tea?

Adopting a male style of combativeness or aggressiveness may be very damaging for a woman. Attributes that stereotypically belong to men will seem exaggerated if employed by a woman. The reason is only that it is unexpected and therefore noteworthy. However, as noted above, if a woman can compete in a male fashion, she gains enormous credibility with the jury. If she loses, the price paid is very high: she will be actively disliked. If one of the routes to trustworthiness is being liked, then adopting male behaviour is indeed a dangerous game in the arena of advocacy.  One author I reviewed suggested a woman employ the tactics associated with the fight sparingly, and indeed suppress any response that appears more like fighting. Saving the punch for the occasion at which it can register a true blow, will be a more powerful statement of credibility.

Otherwise, women may better serve tea. Appear fair, reasonable, measured, and courteous. These are feminine attributes, and there is no shame in them. Indeed, given the sophistication of the modern jury, many men would be well advised to learn the tools of tea service. The jury is not always impressed with a fight. When the focus of the dispute is lost, the jury can become frustrated, and annoyed by the delays that often accompanies the more combative displays in the courtroom.

Before leaving this area, I recognize what I have just said will be very unpopular with some feminists. I respond by stating this: Embracing the feminine and recognizing its value is an honest route to acceptance in the courtroom. I think of my maternal grandmother throughout the tea party analogy. She was a placid, independent, strong and kind woman. I rarely saw her display strong emotion (she was after all, British). I could recount for you word for word, detail for detail, those rare occasions when she displayed her anger. Their rareness, contrasted with what was her usual demeanor, made the incidents loom large in my memory. And she made great tea.

Speaking Style

As a feminist, my blood boils whenever I hear first how Sheila Copps speaks, and second, what she had to say. As a lawyer, seeking to influence my audience, I pay close attention to that reaction. I also pay attention to the fact that Barbara Frum was a very successful television journalist, whose deep voice commanded our respect and attention. I cannot change the fact that I am a woman and have a different speaking voice than a man. I can however use my voice to best advantage. Women advocates must develop a speaking style they are comfortable with, but which emanates and resonates deeply, and not in the throat.[14]  Use of meter, pacing and speed of delivery can enhance the credibility of the message, regardless of voice. For example, the faster talker is seen as more intelligent, knowledgeable and objective. [15]

Appearance- Lessons from Marcia Clarke

Appearance of the advocate should not matter but it does. The appearance of women is of more concern in our society than it is of men. Appearance of men matters too, just not as much.  I recall being in second-year-university, in a social psychology course, looking at pictures of faces, and being asked with the rest of the class to attribute characteristics to the people in the pictures. The class assessment of attributes based on nothing more than a photo was startlingly similar.  Although you cannot judge a book by its cover, we all do.

So what is the lesson for the woman advocate? Dress for success. Look neat. Do not wear anything distracting. The last thing you want is to suffer from Marcia Clarke syndrome and have the entire courtroom thinking about how you look today instead of the evidence and argument you are putting forward. In order to downplay and minimize that distraction, my own strategy includes wearing the same earrings, colour of hose, anything that can be made uniform I do.

Dealing With the Opponent Who Uses Stereotypes

In a recent trial, my opponent made continual references to my “emotional” plea to the jury. He constantly admonished them to look carefully at the facts, not the emotions of the case. If at any time I said anything that tugged at their heartstrings, they ought to steal themselves against that overt manipulation and attempt to move them away from an analysis of the facts.  Given the fact that much of my opening and closing was pure plagiarization from male colleagues, I considered this an attack on my gender, not the argument. I am told, however, by one of those colleagues, that he is attacked on the same basis. As noted at the outset of the section on bias, there is a temptation to lay blame on someone or something else. It is simply human nature. However, in this area, the fact that I am a woman creates expectations and the ability to “sell” the complaint, valid or invalid, to the judge.

In this situation, it is best to rely on one’s command of the facts, and compelling correctness of your theory.  Competence is perceived from a variety of sources, all of which must be utilized.

Understanding the Psychology and Sociology of Persuasion

Women who are serious advocates must educate themselves about persuasion and the techniques of persuasion. While it is axiomatic to state that male advocates should too, women need to more than men do. Sorry. That is what research tells us, and what my own experience has taught me.

 
Despite all Other Advice, By True to Yourself

An integrated, self-assured person makes, in my view, the best advocate. Persuasion is, at its base, about convincing another of the truth, wisdom and justice of your cause. Falseness is its enemy.

WHERE ARE ALL THE ROLE MODELS

Who is  available to teach women the skills of the female advocate? Good question. Where are the female J.J. Robinettes? Where are the women barristers, the women who have not been plucked out of the ranks of the profession in favour of judicial appointments? Just as we need women on the bench, so too do we need women to become senior respected members of the bar, in advocacy.

In family law, the female bar is developing and maturing. In my own area of practice, personal injury litigation, there are growing numbers of senior female defence counsel. Those more entrepreneurial areas of practice, including plaintiff’s personal injury practice, are lacking in many strong female role models.

Apart from lamenting the lack of role models, the purpose of noting this in a paper entitled Advocacy: Is it Different for Women, should be self-evident.  Young men have a rich choice of role models, across all areas of practice. Women have few, and fewer still the “legends” in the practice, to emulate, gain guidance from or take pride in. When I speak to young women about my practice, questions of balancing family and work inevitably arise, along with the expected questions about acceptance in the courtroom. The women who seek me out, telling me they want to be just like me have invariably startled me. I am still looking for my role model and mentor, and fill ill-prepared to embark upon the mentoring role. However, as I look around me, I find few female peers.  That means young female counsel looking for a mentor or role model must be looking at my generation of counsel.

We know from the Law Society’s Report Women in a Changing Legal Profession that women leave the profession at an alarming rate. The concern is that the critical mass of women at senior levels will never be achieved with such high rates of attrition continuing. The danger is in a downward spiral, which results in fewer women in positions of respect and authority. That is simply and clearly a loss for the profession, and a loss for the greater community.

THE GAP GENERATION                                                                                   

Betty Friedan, in her second book The Second Stage, laments the fact that women entering business and the professions take for granted the gains made by the women who came before. They want to understate their gender, and simply wish to fit in without any special accommodations. Of course, it would indeed be a wonderful world if we could accept that gains have been made, they do not have to be protected, and women do not need any special support, one from the other, or from the profession. The world is not so wonderful, and it would be naïve to think that the conservative backlash and reactionary forces that brought us Ronald Regan has not already eroded those gains.  The Handmaid’s Tale was an eloquent and urgent warning about those forces, and just where they might lead. I fear for the younger generation that eschews the company of women advocates and considers it a sign of weakness to acknowledge our challenges.

THE FUTURE –WHAT WILL BE THE PATH TO SUCCESS AND ACCEPTANCE?

The future for women in advocacy is hard to predict. The changes identified in the attitudes of men and women towards the negative lifestyle choices one seems to have to make in order to succeed in a litigation practice may ultimately bode well for women. I am not optimistic. Success in litigation will always, it seems, require an excessive commitment in time, but more significantly, in focus. While litigators seek to be “present” in the courtroom and focused on their case, something can be lost at home, if the advocate cannot switch streams, leave the case in the courtroom and be “present” at home. If one chooses focus on family, despite being in trial, then the litigator may lose the edge in the courtroom to the better-prepared and more focused advocate. The needs of children will always be a concern of both men and women. However, it is still true, and borne out by the statistics gathered by the Law Society Report, that women advocates bear the primary burden of child rearing as compared to men. During a recent, five-week-long trial, my six-year old daughter cried on the doorstep and pled with me to take on another job each and every day of that trial. It was a plea that stayed with me all day, every day. As I discussed settlement with my client, it was on my mind. As I considered how many witnesses to call, it was on my mind. As I prepared testimony and experts, it was on my mind. Is advocacy different for women? It is now, and I believe it will ever be thus.

Many young women counsel have identified me as a role model, but have expressed amazement at “how you do it all”.  There seems to be a perception that, to be successful, a woman must give up family, or so over-extend herself that she leads an unrealistically “full” life. I certainly do not have the answers. I certainly do feel over-extended by the demands of home, children, practice and trial on a regular basis. I am fortunate to have women friends, who provide support, share experiences and simply commiserate with me about our challenges. That willingness to provide support to one another will be, I believe, the cornerstone that will support the success of women advocates. 

A final word to the men who are mentors to young women, or who have female juniors: support these intelligent, capable young women by recognizing they need advice not only from you, but from other women. Do not simply ignore the fact they are women, thinking that is egalitarian, but help them find the strength and talent that is uniquely theirs as women. You will both benefit from the effort.

 

 ___________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES

Information for Injured Persons

• Where to begin
• Suing a Health Professional
• Car Crashes
• Recreational Injuries
• Dangerous Premises
• Neurotrauma
• Pediatrics & Injured Children
• FAQ

Information for Professionals

• Legal Professionals
• Careers
• Health Professionals
• Legislative Changes
• Newsletters
• This Week At FSCO
• Court of Appeals Update

The Latest

• News
• Upcoming Events

[TOP] [login] © 2004 Legate & Associates