Yesterday, Federal Magistrate Susan Richard Nelson was announced to be Senator Amy Klobuchar's recommendation to the U.S. District Court. Minnesota Women Lawyers released this statement:
Minnesota Women Lawyers congratulates our member and past president, Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson, on her nomination to the U.S. District Court. We anticipate and encourage an efficient confirmation process. Magistrate Judge Nelson has served as a magistrate judge for nearly 10 years, and before that had a very successful trial practice. Not only is Magistrate Judge Nelson a qualified candidate with demonstrated experience as a judge, she brings important additional gender diversity to the court. MWL believes that it is important for the judiciary to fairly reflect the composition of the legal profession and the public that they serve, and applauds the nomination of Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson for the federal district court bench.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
New judge to be named today
The word on the street is that an announcement about the new U.S. District Court judge will come at noon today.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
GFIC Recap: Looking Back
Last week was the 20th Anniversary and Commemoration of the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force For Gender Fairness in the Courts Report. Don't even attempt to say that five times fast.
In other words, last week a luncheon and an afternoon of discussions centered around a report released 20 years ago from a task force created by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the late eighties. The task force--Gender Fairness in the Courts--collected data on several areas of the law and courtroom environment to see if there were gender disparities in the court. Not surprisingly, there were.
The commemoration last week had too much good information and discussion points for one blog post. Thus, this week Woman, Esq. will recap and examine each different component of the program.
We start with the Keynote Address given by Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Harriet Lansing. Judge Lansing played a key part in initiating the movement to make gender fairness on the bench and in the courts a priority in both the nation and Minnesota. Judge Lansing talked about (and even showed photos!) of the many conferences and meetings that she attended to initiate the examination of this issue, in the company of women such as former Justice Rosalie Wahl, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Sociology Professor Norma Wikler.
The issue was finally addressed in Minnesota in 1987 with the establishment of the Supreme Court's Gender Fairness in the Courts Task Force. This task force surveyed and reported on issues surrounding gender fairness in the courts, and still exists today to implement the recommended changes.
One statement in Judge Lansing's speech was especially relevent: she noted how the questions of gender fairness that existed in 1989--and, I argue, even today--are more comprehensive and subtle than law reform. Even directly addressing the issues through substantive law are not enough to change the disparities that exist in the legal process and the legal profession. For example, the small percentage of women who are law firm partners, or the many women who still suffer from the cycle of domestic abuse, despite being in the court system.
Of course, it is those comprehensive and subtle problems that are the hardest to solve. Judge Lansing also got it right when she said that interest and work on these problems need to be regenerated in the new generation of lawyers.
In other words, last week a luncheon and an afternoon of discussions centered around a report released 20 years ago from a task force created by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the late eighties. The task force--Gender Fairness in the Courts--collected data on several areas of the law and courtroom environment to see if there were gender disparities in the court. Not surprisingly, there were.
The commemoration last week had too much good information and discussion points for one blog post. Thus, this week Woman, Esq. will recap and examine each different component of the program.
We start with the Keynote Address given by Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Harriet Lansing. Judge Lansing played a key part in initiating the movement to make gender fairness on the bench and in the courts a priority in both the nation and Minnesota. Judge Lansing talked about (and even showed photos!) of the many conferences and meetings that she attended to initiate the examination of this issue, in the company of women such as former Justice Rosalie Wahl, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Sociology Professor Norma Wikler.
The issue was finally addressed in Minnesota in 1987 with the establishment of the Supreme Court's Gender Fairness in the Courts Task Force. This task force surveyed and reported on issues surrounding gender fairness in the courts, and still exists today to implement the recommended changes.
One statement in Judge Lansing's speech was especially relevent: she noted how the questions of gender fairness that existed in 1989--and, I argue, even today--are more comprehensive and subtle than law reform. Even directly addressing the issues through substantive law are not enough to change the disparities that exist in the legal process and the legal profession. For example, the small percentage of women who are law firm partners, or the many women who still suffer from the cycle of domestic abuse, despite being in the court system.
Of course, it is those comprehensive and subtle problems that are the hardest to solve. Judge Lansing also got it right when she said that interest and work on these problems need to be regenerated in the new generation of lawyers.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
NAWL survey says women aren't making the rain happen
Speaking of gender gaps (see Laura's post) and coinciding with the anniversary celebration of the Minnesota gender fairness task force report, the National Association of Women Lawyers has issued its 2009 Report on the Status of Women in Law Firms. It shows that on average, a female equity partner earns $66,000 a year less than a male equity partner.
Also, women lawyers continue to lag significantly behind men as rainmakers in their firms with nearly half of major law firms indicating they have no women among their top 10 rainmakers. This does not bode well and will likely manifest itself in continued salary discrepancies between men and women.
“[W]omen lawyers are terribly underrepresented in the ranks of major rainmakers in large U.S. firms. Our data cannot tell us whether this underrepresentation is a function of less aggressive rainmaking activities among women, or the result of ‘inherited’ clients of the firm flowing to men, whether women are given opportunities to participate in business development on an equal footing with men, whether women are receiving credit for business development at the same rate as men, or if there is some other explanation for the observed differences,” the survey states.
In addition, the survey examined the affect that the economic downturn had on female lawyers, revealing that women have been disproportionately affected by the layoffs. Women constituted almost all of the terminated attorneys who practiced on a part-time basis. Among full-time lawyers, men and women were laid off proportionally.
Other results:
o About 14 percent of the nation’s largest law firms have no women on their governing committees;
o Women account for about 16 percent of equity partners;
o Women make up only about 15 percent of recent equity laterals, compared to 85 percent for men.
The survey results suggests women lawyers need to take a hard look at whether they are making the rain happen or whether there is an institutional umbrella over their practices.
Also, women lawyers continue to lag significantly behind men as rainmakers in their firms with nearly half of major law firms indicating they have no women among their top 10 rainmakers. This does not bode well and will likely manifest itself in continued salary discrepancies between men and women.
“[W]omen lawyers are terribly underrepresented in the ranks of major rainmakers in large U.S. firms. Our data cannot tell us whether this underrepresentation is a function of less aggressive rainmaking activities among women, or the result of ‘inherited’ clients of the firm flowing to men, whether women are given opportunities to participate in business development on an equal footing with men, whether women are receiving credit for business development at the same rate as men, or if there is some other explanation for the observed differences,” the survey states.
In addition, the survey examined the affect that the economic downturn had on female lawyers, revealing that women have been disproportionately affected by the layoffs. Women constituted almost all of the terminated attorneys who practiced on a part-time basis. Among full-time lawyers, men and women were laid off proportionally.
Other results:
o About 14 percent of the nation’s largest law firms have no women on their governing committees;
o Women account for about 16 percent of equity partners;
o Women make up only about 15 percent of recent equity laterals, compared to 85 percent for men.
The survey results suggests women lawyers need to take a hard look at whether they are making the rain happen or whether there is an institutional umbrella over their practices.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Reflections on the Current Gender Gap
Lisa Belkin had a recent piece in The New York Times Magazine titled The New Gender Gap. The piece compares the historic and current trend where women's status in the workplace is a reflection of men's situations.
The article notes that women will soon be the majority of workers because some are opting back in, and many others who never left are more likely to find and keep jobs than men. But Belkin theorizes that the reasons for this are not a function of the clout of women, but of the predicament of men. Gains by women actually display how far women have to go:
Primarily, women are still cheaper. They earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man, and in a flailing economy employers see that as an attractive quality. Women who are returning to the work force after several years at home raising children are particularly cheap. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy, has estimated that the penalty is 10 percent of income for every two years out of the job market, a loss that is never recouped. From the hiring side of the table, that may be a good bargain.
In addition, women are concentrated in lower-paying industries, like health care and education, where there have been fewer layoffs, rather than in higher-paying realms, like finance, construction and manufacturing, which have contracted. Why this is true has long been an economic chicken-and-egg question — are these professions less lucrative and prestigious because they are predominantly held by women, or are they predominantly held by women because men are less likely to take them given their lower pay and status? But whatever the cause, the end result is that the “female” professions have not suffered as much this past year.
Makes one wonder if we'll ever be able to truly gauge when women are making grounds in the workforce. Even when things seem to be going well, this article reminds us of all the factors at play.
The article notes that women will soon be the majority of workers because some are opting back in, and many others who never left are more likely to find and keep jobs than men. But Belkin theorizes that the reasons for this are not a function of the clout of women, but of the predicament of men. Gains by women actually display how far women have to go:
Primarily, women are still cheaper. They earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man, and in a flailing economy employers see that as an attractive quality. Women who are returning to the work force after several years at home raising children are particularly cheap. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy, has estimated that the penalty is 10 percent of income for every two years out of the job market, a loss that is never recouped. From the hiring side of the table, that may be a good bargain.
In addition, women are concentrated in lower-paying industries, like health care and education, where there have been fewer layoffs, rather than in higher-paying realms, like finance, construction and manufacturing, which have contracted. Why this is true has long been an economic chicken-and-egg question — are these professions less lucrative and prestigious because they are predominantly held by women, or are they predominantly held by women because men are less likely to take them given their lower pay and status? But whatever the cause, the end result is that the “female” professions have not suffered as much this past year.
Makes one wonder if we'll ever be able to truly gauge when women are making grounds in the workforce. Even when things seem to be going well, this article reminds us of all the factors at play.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Equal: Mechelle Vinson heading to high court
19. To the Supreme Court
Barry began to solicit help, including from MacKinnon, who was unemployed at the time. Lawyers at the Sex Discrimination Clinic at the Georgetown University Law Center drew in amici, But it appeared she would not get the support of the EEOC, which was afraid that if Vinson lost, the EEOC would lose its guidelines.
The chair of the EEOC was Clarence Thomas, who would join the Supreme Court in 1991.Thomas opposed the sexual harassment guidelines and the Vinson case, saying that it would be impossible to eliminate personal slights and sexual advances. A lawyer working for the EEOC, Anita Hill, whose strained “relationship” with Thomas would become well known, urged him to accept the guidelines even though talking to him about it make her feel as though she had been dipped in a vat of scalding water. Eventually the EEOC voted 3-2 to oppose Vinson.
The government's brief aligned closely with Bork's dissent. MacKinnon drafted Vinson's brief, hampered by the fact that they could only pay for bits of a transcript at a time. Barry appeared for the first moot courts unprepared and replacing her with Professor Laurence Tribe was discussed. But Barry pulled herself together and stayed on the case.
Barry began to solicit help, including from MacKinnon, who was unemployed at the time. Lawyers at the Sex Discrimination Clinic at the Georgetown University Law Center drew in amici, But it appeared she would not get the support of the EEOC, which was afraid that if Vinson lost, the EEOC would lose its guidelines.
The chair of the EEOC was Clarence Thomas, who would join the Supreme Court in 1991.Thomas opposed the sexual harassment guidelines and the Vinson case, saying that it would be impossible to eliminate personal slights and sexual advances. A lawyer working for the EEOC, Anita Hill, whose strained “relationship” with Thomas would become well known, urged him to accept the guidelines even though talking to him about it make her feel as though she had been dipped in a vat of scalding water. Eventually the EEOC voted 3-2 to oppose Vinson.
The government's brief aligned closely with Bork's dissent. MacKinnon drafted Vinson's brief, hampered by the fact that they could only pay for bits of a transcript at a time. Barry appeared for the first moot courts unprepared and replacing her with Professor Laurence Tribe was discussed. But Barry pulled herself together and stayed on the case.
Actually, there is a formula for predicting domestic violence
Click here for The Advocates for Human Rights director of women's rights, Cheryl Thomas', reply to the local coverage about the murder of Pam Taschuk by her husband.She argues that the prosecutor and judge who released Allen Taschuk did not follow proper procedures when dealing with such a violent person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)