Eat your heart out, ladies...

News out of Denver this morning: Outback Steakhouse will pay $19 million to settle a major class lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination at its hundreds of restaurants nationwide.

According to the Denver News, the suit, filed in September 2006, alleges that managers made comments that disparaged women workers.

Tom Flanagan, a joint venture partner, allegedly said female managers had "let him down" and "lost focus" when they had children. He also allegedly said women managers had trouble "saying no" and that he wanted "cute girls" to work in the front as servers. Ben Martinez, a managing partner, allegedly told another female employee she should be a teacher instead of working in the restaurant business.

The $19 million will be paid to female employees at Outback who have worked from 2002 to the present, and who have worked there for at least three years.

And a woman lawyer helped to make this happen. Stephanie Struble, an associate at a Denver law firm, was one of the lead attorneys on the case.

The Gift (or Conflict?) of Romance

The Texas Supreme Court has set forth changes to the state's attorney discipline rules, changes which all lawyers in the Texas bar will vote on next June. The majority of the changes surround conflicts of interest, such as those rules surrounding arbitration agreements and scienter.

Although fascinating topics, there is another proposed rule change that could directly display how greater numbers of women lawyers are influencing the bar.

The Texas Supremes proposed a rule that would prohibit sex between a lawyer and his or her client unless they were already involved in a sexual relationship. This is not a new rule: several states have such a rule. It was strongly recommended by the ABA's ethics committee back in 1992, where they said the clients are often emotionally vulnerable, and that sexual relations can cause serious conflicts of interest.

And interestingly, the rule has been vetoed twice in the past by the Texas bar's board of directors. As this is the first time it will be voted on by all lawyers, some commentators say that the increasing number of women lawyers may influence how the vote turns out.

You've Got Mail

In the season of holiday cards and social gatherings galore, the November/December issue of the New York State Bar Association Journal reminds us about the importance of keeping our correspondence in line an article called E-mail Netiquette for Lawyers.

The article is helpful in a way that other e-mail etiquette articles are not: it recognizes that not all e-mails are equal. There are different levels of formality. But no matter what level of formality, conciseness is key. And errors should not be acceptable. Although it feels more informal, it is still a written communication that is demonstrating your level of care.

My favorite tip: never forward without permission, but always assume others will forward without your permission.

And for once, my love of exclamation points in e-mails is validated (otherwise e-mails are completely emotionless!)

Next chapter of Equal: Using Civil Rights to Combat Violence

22, Using Civil Rights to Combat Violence

Following the passage of civil rights legislation after the Civil War, the Supreme Court had adopted a narrow jurisprudence based on states rights – a jurisprudence that had resulted in Plessy v. Ferguson. These precedents would create difficulties for the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s as well as the Violence Against Women Act.

However, the right of a victim to sue her attacker had survived. Under VAWA, a civil action would exist, based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Biden was supported by the NOW Legal Defense Fund, and its staff attorney Sally Goldfarb. They drew on evidence gathered throughout the country from task forces on gender bias in the courts.

A Minnesota judge [Ed. Note: Kathleen Sanberg], chair of the state's gender bias task force, said, “'Acquaintance rape' promises to be one of the major upcoming issues with which the legal system must learn to deal effectively and with fairness to the victim.”

A task force was created from diverse women's groups throughout the country to vigorously debate the issues and came up with a consensus that VAWA should include a civil rights section.

Pat Reuss, of the now folded Women's Equity Action League, became a grassroots organizer. She saw VAWA as a civil rights law that belonged to women everywhere, not just litigants at the Supreme Court. By early 1992, 50 percent of the senators and 40 percent of the representatives had become VAWA co-sponsors. “The prospects for VAWA seemed too good to be true.”

For the Public Good

The MWL Professional Development committee is hosting an important program this upcoming Thursday, December 11. Titled "For the Public Good: A User's Guide to Pro Bono Work," the event is being hosted at Lindquist & Vennum. The event goes from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m., it's free, and there is lunch served. (Attendees are asked to bring an item for a food shelf.)

The panel of speakers could not be more experienced in this area:

Moderator: Nicole Siemens, Attorney, Lindquist & Vennum
Karen Canon, Associate General Counsel/Chief Regulatory Counsel, US Bancorp
Janine Laird, Executive Director, Minnesota Justice Foundation
Sandra Smalley-Fleming, Attorney, Lindquist & Vennum

If that isn't enough to convince you, I'm not above throwing out a small reminder that it is the season of giving...what could be more valuable than your time and professional skills, given towared a good cause? Registration can be found here.

Rally today to stop abortion-coverage ban

This post comes courtesy of Susan Burns:

Dear friends:

Please take time out today to read the [below] article about Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Rep. Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) and other strong, wise and courageous women who are fighting to preserve the reproductive health rights of our daughters. Then, please give serious consideration to joining other strong, wise and courageous leaders tomorrow at the State Capitol at noon for a rally for reproductive rights. Exercise your voices and express your deep compassion and concern for future generations of young women, who deserve no less than the choices we have had in our lifetime.
Please join the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday, December 2 at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health-care reform!
What: Rally to Stop the Abortion-Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday, December 2 from 12-12:30 p.m.
Who: You and the pro-choice community
Why: Because we cannot allow anti-choice legislators to use health reform to take away our reproductive freedoms!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We had a good and informative conference call on November 20th with Beth Sousa of the National Women’s Law Center. She relayed background information on the perils of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and offered thoughts on where to focus our energy to make sure the amendment does not carry through as part of the final bill on health care reform. Stupak Pitts stands as an unprecedented limitation on reproductive rights. It is not just a grafting of the Hyde Amendment onto health care reform. It is a de facto elimination of health care coverage for abortion.

Here’s how it works:

• Women who receive any federal subsidies or tax credits for the purchase of health care coverage will be prohibited from purchasing policies that cover abortion. Otherwise stated, no policy that provides coverage for abortion may be offered to any purchaser who receives federal subsidies or tax credits for health care coverage.
• Women may use personal funds to purchase a rider that covers abortion, but only if such riders are available.

Problem?
• The number of people expected to receive some form of federal support for health care is significant. A family of four earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level, which is $88,000, will be eligible to receive federal support to purchase health care. Imagine how many Americans will belong to this insurance pool.
• The net effect is that insurers will write few, if any, policies that put at risk the ability to serve this huge pool of potential customers.
• Real world example: North Dakota already has in place a program requiring separate rider coverage for abortion. Blue Cross has 91% of the market share in North Dakota, and it does not provide any abortion riders.

Sadly, the bill contains special provisions to protect companies who are unwilling to provide riders, but contains no provisions to protect abortion providers.

What can we do?

• Support the Caps Amendment (Rep. Louise Caps. D-Ca)

The Caps Amendment is a viable compromise position that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion (essentially Hyde), but allows women receiving federal subsidies for health care to segregate those subsidies and use private dollars to purchase the premiums for abortion coverage. The Caps Amendment was moving smoothly through the House until the 11th hour attack by a group of anti-abortion Congressmen and Catholic bishops resulted in the removal of the CAP insertion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

• Attend the rally, Weds., Dec. 2, 12:00 p.m. at the Capitol

• Contact your Representatives and Senators

Rep. McCollum deserves our gratitude and support for speaking out against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. See here for the text of her statement.

Sen. Franken has also made clear his position in support of reproductive rights.

Sen. Klobuchar is perceived as less clear in her position. Her position paper on health care reform makes no mention of the issue and there does not appear to be anything on her website addressing the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/healthcare.cfm

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

New York Times________________________________________November 28, 2009
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON — In the early 1950s, a coal miner’s daughter from rural Kentucky named Louise McIntosh encountered the shadowy world of illegal abortion. A friend was pregnant, with no prospects for marriage, and Ms. McIntosh was keeper of a secret that, if spilled, could have led to family disgrace. The turmoil ended quietly in a doctor’s office, and the friend went on to marry and have four children.
Today, Louise McIntosh is Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York. At 80, she is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus — a member of what Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, calls “the menopausal militia.”
The militia was working overtime in Washington last week, plotting strategy for the coming debate over President Obama’s proposed health care overhaul. With the Senate set to take up its measure on Monday, a fight over federal funding for abortion is threatening to thwart the bill — a development that has both galvanized the abortion rights movement and forced its leaders to turn inward, raising questions about how to carry their agenda forward in a complex, 21st-century world.
It has been nearly 37 years since Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion, and in that time, an entire generation — including Mr. Obama, who was 11 when Roe was decided — has grown up without memories like those Ms. Slaughter says are “seared into my mind.” The result is a generational divide — not because younger women are any less supportive of abortion rights than their elders, but because their frame of reference is different.
“Here is a generation that has never known a time when abortion has been illegal,” said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who studies attitudes toward abortion. “For many of them, the daily experience is: It’s legal and if you really need one you can probably figure out how to get one. So when we send out e-mail alerts saying, ‘Oh my God, write to your senator,’ it’s hard for young people to have that same sense of urgency.”
Polls over the last two decades have shown that a clear majority of Americans support the right to abortion, and there’s little evidence of a difference between those over 30 and under 30, but the vocabulary of the debate has shifted with the political culture. Ms. Keenan, who is 57, says women like her, who came of age when abortion was illegal, tend to view it in stark political terms — as a right to be defended, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. But younger people tend to view abortion as a personal issue, and their interests are different.
The 30- to 40-somethings — “middle-school moms and dads,” Ms. Keenan calls them — are more concerned with educating their children about sex, and generally too busy to be bothered with political causes. The 25-and-under crowd, animated by activism, sees a deeper threat in climate change or banning gay marriage or the Darfur genocide than in any rollback of reproductive rights. Naral is running focus groups with these “millennials” to better learn how they think.
“The language and values, if you are older, is around the right to control your own body, reproductive freedom, sexual liberation as empowerment,” said Ms. Greenberg, the pollster. “That is a baby-boom generation way of thinking. If you look at people under 30, that is not their touchstone, it is not wrapped up around feminism and women’s rights.”
Abortion opponents are reveling in the shift and hope to capitalize. “Not only is this the post-Roe generation, I’d also call it the post-sonogram generation,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who notes that baby’s first video now occurs in the womb, often accompanied by music. “They can take the video and do the music and send it to the grandmother. We don’t even talk anymore about the hypothesis that having an abortion is like having an appendectomy. All of this informs the political pressures on Capitol Hill.”
The pressures relating to abortion had seemed, for a time, to go dormant. Mr. Obama, who campaigned on a vow to transcend “the culture wars,” even managed to win confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, without the usual Washington abortion uproar. Most of his political energy around abortion has been spent trying to forge consensus on ways to reduce unintended pregnancies.
The quiet was shattered this month, when the House — with surprising support from 64 Democrats — amended its health care bill to include language by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, barring the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion. Lawmakers like Ms. Slaughter, who advocate for abortion rights, found themselves in the uncomfortable position of voting for the larger health bill even though the Stupak language was in it.
Proponents of the Stupak language say they are simply following existing federal law, which already bars taxpayer financing for abortions. Democratic leaders want a less restrictive provision that would require insurance companies to segregate federal money from private premiums, which could be used to purchase plans that cover abortion.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida and chief deputy whip of the House, blames what she calls the complacency of her own generation for the political climate that allowed Mr. Stupak to prevail. At 43, the mother of three children, she has taken up the abortion rights cause in Congress, as she did as a state legislator.
But if she had to round up her own friends “to go down to the courthouse steps and rally for choice,” she said, she is not certain she could. When older women have warned that reproductive rights are being eroded, she said, “basically my generation and younger have looked at them as crying wolf.”
That is not to say all younger women are indifferent. Serena Freewomyn (a name she adopted to reflect the idea that “I don’t belong to any man”) is a 27-year-old administrative assistant at an H.I.V. service provider in Tucson who was inspired, she said, by reading “The War on Choice” by Gloria Feldt. When George Tiller, a doctor in Kansas who performed abortions, was killed in May, she started a blog, Feminists for Choice.
“I think that a lot of younger women do take for granted the fact that they’ve come of age in a time of post-Roe v. Wade, where they have access to lots of different birth control options,” Ms. Freewomyn said. “But I don’t think it’s fair to say younger women are not engaged; I think younger women are mobilizing in different ways than what people in current leadership positions are used to.”
On Wednesday, a coalition calling itself “Stop Stupak” will hold a “National Day of Action” to lobby lawmakers. It will include abortion rights advocacy groups that have sprung up in recent years to reach out to younger voters. Law Students for Reproductive Justice, founded in 2003, will host an Internet seminar to educate law students on the fine points of the House and Senate bills. There’s also Choice USA, which targets people under 30. Kierra Johnson, the group’s executive director, is pairing up with counterparts in the immigrant rights and gay rights movements — tactics she says are necessary if young people are to be drawn in to the reproductive rights cause. “The same young people who are fighting to keep anti-abortion language out of the health care bills are also fighting to insure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people fit in to broader health care reform, making sure that immigrant women don’t fall through the cracks,” she said. “They’re coming at these issues in a much more complex way.”
The question now is whether the Stop Stupak coalition can succeed. Ms. Wasserman Schultz sees the debate as a chance to rouse women of all generations, and Ms. Slaughter warns that if Mr. Obama signs a bill including the amendment, it will be challenged in court. She says she has worried for years about what would happen “when my generation was gone.”
At the moment, her concern has diminished. “Right now, I’ve never seen women so angry,” Ms. Slaughter said. “And the people that were angriest with me were my three daughters.”

GFIC: Substantive Law and Courtroom Environment Changes

To finish out November is the final recap of the Gender Fairness in the Courts CLE from earlier in the month. The last panel reviewed differences in substantive areas of law impacting women and changes in the court environment for women litigants, witnesses, attorneys, and judges in the last 20 years.

The panel consisted of:
Hon. Diana E. Murphy, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Hon. Susan Richard Nelson, Magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court
Marianne D. Short, Dorsey & Whitney
Michelle Grant, Dorsey & Whitney (moderator)

Judge Nelson was asked about her thoughts on the new federal rules surrounding who will be lead counsel in a class action, and how judges have to look at the gender and minority make up of the firms. Judge Nelson thought these rules were important to follow because of the diverse group of plaintiffs present in some of the large class actions law suits. "All those people should be represented by a representative group." She noted that on the Guidant and Medtronic MDLs, the lead trial lawyers and the top in-house counsel where all women lawyers. "This is an extraordinary moment for us."

Marianne Short was asked about how law firms are working to continue to eliminate gender disparity. She said that while 10 years ago it was all about recruiting, "now it is all about retaining and engaging women in practice." She said that they really work to make sure women and minority associates have mentors and role models, and they continue to work on their work distribution, exposure to clients, and taking advantage of technology and the ability to work remotely. She also talked about how the changes law firms are making due to the recession, such as merit-based pay, have to be monitored carefully to make sure they are not having a disparate impact on women. "That concern does give me pause."

When asked what the Bar should focus on in the next 20 years, Murphy responded that there continues to be a need to focus on implementation. Everyone needs to recognize there is a problem, and recognize that each appointment matters. She talked about how studies like the Gender Fairness study from 1989 are a tremendous amount of work, and that there needs to be another generation of people to step up and think about initiating the next one.

'Equal' on violence against women

'EQUAL'
PART FIVE VIOLENCE (1990-2000)

21. A Challenge for a Young Lawyer

In 1990, Senator Joseph Biden asked a staffer, Victoria Nourse, to figure out what Congress should do to reduce violent crimes against women.
Judges historically had viewed rape cases skeptically, requiring proof of the utmost resistance to the point of enduring additional physical violence before finding that a woman or girl had not consented. The law frequently also required corroboration of the victim's testimony. The machinations of a vengeful, scheming woman were much feared.

But Nourse's reading eventually took her to the Fourteenth Amendment. Section five of the amendment granted Congress the right to pass legislation to achieve the amendment's equal protection goals. She discovered that Professor Robin West had proposed “A Married Woman's Privacy Act” that would guarantee protection against sexual assault to all women and prohibit discrimination against married women in applying rape laws. West's use of the right to privacy was somewhat problematic, since that right had been used against women, as for example, refusal to charge batterers for crimes committed in the home. But Nourse believed that a law could target violence against women as a civil rights violation by giving women a civil cause of action.

Laura's wedding bells

Our friend and fellow blogger Laura Hammargren got married Saturday night in a lovely ceremony at the Minnesota History Center. I've never seen a prettier or happier bride. Or one with better earrings (my gift!) Laura danced with her husband Cristof to "Brown-Eyed Girl" and her dad to "Isn't She Lovely." I wanted to cry, and I saw Laura's mom dab her eyes. I haven't written a wedding announcement since I first got out of J-school, but this one was worth it.

Conference call on Stupak-Pitts Amendment

Minnesota attorney Susan Burns and other lawyers will hold a conference call this Friday at noon for lawyers and legal professionals to learn what the Stupak-Pitts Amendment says about insurance coverage for abortion and how women will be impacted if the same provision makes its way into the final Senate bill.

Speaking will be attorney Bethany Sousa of the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C.

Friday, November 20, 12:00 p.m. (CST)
Dial in: 1-888-870-8262
Participant Passcode: 202 956 3065


************************************************************************
Key Language of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment:
“No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act or rape or incest.”

GFIC: Domestic Violence

At the recent 20th Anniversary Commemoration Luncheon and CLE Seminar for the Gender Fairness in the Courts task force report, a third panel spoke on the topic of "Domestic Violence: How Practitioners Identify Violence in Today's Complex World."

The presenters, Loretta Frederick of the Battered Women's Justice Projcet and Professor Nancy VerSteegh of the William Mitchell College of Law, really centered their presentation on the practical. After showing a clip from the movie Waitress (a must-see, by the way), they had these tips for identifying domestic abuse in clients:

• Context is key: for example, think of the many meanings of a slap. Depending on the fear you may or may not have of the offender, it can be a much more, or less, threatening action.
• Differentiate between non-coercive and coercive violence. The difference between the two depends on the reoccurance and constancy of threats. The difference will also greatly impact your representation of a client.
• Think carefully about a common vocabulary. Make sure you are using terms that everyone can have a common understanding of.
• Talk in a safe setting, and remind your client of confidentiality.
• Be as comfortable as you can with the issues, because that will translate to your client.
• Help the client assess the risk, and help her realize the violent outcomes that domestic abuse can have.
  

MacKinnon's students say her class was emotional

Here's a link to a wonderful article about Catherine MacKinnons's Sex Equality class at Harvard.

The student writes: "Legal discourse is theoretically and intentionally rational, but Sex Equality was an emotional class. Contrary to the need to suppress emotion, it was invited into the classroom to inform processes of reason and applications and evaluations of law and legal opinion. Does the current state of rape law make you angry? Well, it should; and that anger is an indication that the law in both the black letter and in its implementation should be modified. Do the horrifying realities of prostitution and legal decisions that blame the victims of these horrors and not the perpetrators of them make you sick? They should."

"And instead of throwing your hands up and joining the ranks of the complacent, consider instead what your unique position as a person with elite legal training could contribute to eradicating horrors, and to eradicating all of the other forms of discrimination we face in our daily lives."

The posts on Equal show how important MacKinnon has been to all of us; and anyone who quotes Virginia Woolf to law students is a pal of mine.

16 Days Against Gender Violence Starts Nov. 25

The Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University's 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence starts Nov. 25. It is an international campaign originating from the first Women's Global Leadership Institute sponsored by the Center for Women's Global Leadership in 1991. Participants chose the dates, Nov. 25, International Day Against Violence Against Women and Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day, in order to symbolically link violence against women and human rights and to emphasize that such violence is a violation of human rights. This 16-day period also highlights other significant dates including Nov. 29, International Women Human Rights Defenders Day, Dec. 1, World AIDS Day, and Dec. 6, which marks the Anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, when a gunman who claimed to be "fighting feminism" murdered 14 women before killing himself.

In connection with the 16 days, The Advocates for Human Rights will hold "Legal Reform on Violence against Women in the Republic of Georgia: Recent Successes and Challenges," a brown bag lunch seminar on Tuesday, Nov. 24, from 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. at Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minnetonka/Tamarack Room (40th floor), 200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis

Equal: Vinson at the Supreme Court

20. At the Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor thoroughly questioned the bank's attorney, Robert Troll, who was forced to concede that if Vinson had brought a case of racial harassment she would not have to lose her job to win her case, and that the same standards should apply to sexual harassment.

O'Connor also began the questioning of Barry. Barry, aided by MacKinnon, told the court that Vinson had pled a pattern of harassment and a hostile environment in the lower courts. Barry had assistance from O'Connor at another point in the argument when she interrupted an exchange with Justice William Rehnquist and gave her an opportunity to point out that she had been denied a free transcript. Rehnquist was committed to a discussion of the evidence of unwelcomeness and the clothes that Vinson wore to work.

Getting caught up in the questioning, Barry twice referred to the California Rules of Evidence. But the general consensus was that Barry had done a terrific job, even with Rehnquist's distractions and Chief Justice Warren Burger's concern that the bank shouldn't be held responsible for the act of the employees.

Despite the hostile environment created by Rehnquist's questioning, the court unanimously supported Vinson in an opinion he wrote. Two days earlier, Rehnquist had been appointed chief justice. Barry assumed that he ruled in her favor because he wanted his appointment confirmed by the Democratic Senate.

The early votes appeared to be in Vinson's favor but the first draft to the Rehnquist opinion surprised the justices. Rehnquist wanted to limit the bank's liability but other justices wanted to apply the same strict liability standard to hostile environment cases as was applied to quid pro quo cases. It didn't seem that Congress would have intended the two Title VII claims to have different standards, Stevens wrote in a memo.

Rehnquist replied that he would be Stevens' sixth vote but not the fifth one. Rehnquist was determined to be in the majority. O'Connor joined with Stevens and Rehnquist followed. But Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Brennan and Stevens concurred in the judgment only, distancing themselves from Rehnquist's refusal to apply strict liability or to define the limits of employer liability.

“We therefore decline the parties' invitation to issue a definitive rule on employer liability, but we do agree with the EEOC that Congress wanted courts to look to agency principles for guidance in this area. While such common law principles may not be transferable in all their particulars to Title VII, Congress' decision to define "employer" to include any "agent" of an employer, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), surely evinces an intent to place some limits on the acts of employees for which employers under Title VII are to be held responsible. For this reason, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that employers are always automatically liable for sexual harassment by their supervisors. See generally Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 219-237 (1958). For the same reason, absence of notice to an employer does not necessarily insulate that employer from liability. Ibid.,” wrote Rehnquist.

Vinson eventually settled with the bank and used some of the money to go to nursing school. Her harasser went to jail for embezzlement. Barry went bankrupt but later revived her practice and MacKinnon became a tenured professor of law at the University of Michigan, and, eventually, Minnesota.

MWL Mentor Kick-off

Last Wednesday was MWL's Student-to-Attorney Mentor Program kick-off event, titled "Reflections on Becoming a Leader: Tips and Perspectives From Women Attorneys." Over 100 attorneys and students attended, reflecting the huge jump in participants this year: The program grew from 60 pairings last year to 120 pairings.

Andrea Pavelka, one of the co-chairs of the mentor program committee, wrote this recap of the event:

The event included a panel presentation moderated by MWL President Megan Hertzler of Trudy Halla, Liz Cutter and Justice Gildea. The panelists and moderator offered a spirited, candid discussion of their paths to leadership within the profession. The panelists reminded the audience to be involved, do what you love, and do it well. The panelists each got involved in their respective leadership positions by pursuing organizations in areas of interest and volunteering to be involved within these organizations. The evening was inspiring for all in attendance. Look for another Student-to-Attorney Mentor Program event in spring 2010.

As an attendee, I echo Andrea's praise that the moderator and the panelists did a great job of reminding everyone to keep developing your career, even in a down economy. The best way to do that: finding what you love and working hard. The leadership will develop naturally from those elements.

GFIC Recap: Family Law

The second panel during the Commemoration of the Gender Fairness in the Courts report last week focused on family law. The panelists were Susan Rhode of Moss & Barnett P.A., and Kay Nord Hunt of Lommon, Abdo, Cole, King, Stageberg P.A.

Both women talked about crucial changes to family law in the last 20 years, and also important changes that still need to be examined. Here are just a few:

• Early Neutral Evaluations: This was highlighted as incredible progress in family law, as these evaluations help parents by evaluating situations early in the process and leading to better parenting decisions over the long haul.
• Best interest of the child: Hunt noted that an important advance in family law was the presumption that joint custody was in the best interest of the child, getting away from notions that to be with one parent offered stability, which should be valued higher.
• Child support: Both women spoke positively about the changes in child support that revolve around assigning support based on parenting time, rather than custody. However, both women commented on how spousal support was still being counted as income in child support calculations, which reduced overall support for children.
• Spousal support in general was a big topic. For instance, spousal support ends upon remarriage of the recipient partner. But an interesting question is why should the need or fair share based on one partnership end if another is entered into?
  
• Another interesting topic was that of professional women getting divorced. Both panelists commented that the time frames for those women reentering the profession are too short--courts expect professional women to start earning a large salary right away, even if they have been gone from the profession for years.