Women Trial Lawyers Held Back By Inability to Schmooze?
Interesting posts at WSJ Law Blog and American Lawyer. The posts discuss a theory that women lawyers' inability to schmooze prevents keeps them from leading more trial and appellate work:
A panel of legal professionals suggested that women lawyers’ ability--or lack thereof--to network, schmooze, and ask for business is keeping them from first-chairing commercial and appellate cases.
My Take:
This theory is mostly wrong. Everyone—men and women—could get more work if they “schmoozed” better. Even those who are great at it could get more. I'm not much of a “schmoozer” myself, so I admire and sometimes envy other people who do it well. And I do agree that it helps get business. But the question is whether that is the biggest reason few women lawyers first chair trial or appellate work.
Incidentally, I'm not sure I buy a blanket assertion that men network better than women. But even if we assume the fact that men schmooze better than women, is it the biggest reason that the vast majority of lead trial and appellate lawyers are men? I'm saying no.
I'm not sure I have a good answer to the question. Maybe it's just a numbers game. There are plenty of women litigators in Mississippi and elsewhere who are equal to any male lawyer.
But as a group, male lawyers seem to seek and enjoy the adrenalin rush of trial more than women.
Why are so many race car drivers men? Why are so many fighter pilots men? I don't know. I'm asking.
I know a female lawyer who is very good in the courtroom. But she doesn't like it. At all. She would rather write briefs even though she is good in the courtroom. For whatever reason, she finds the sensations that the courtroom evokes unpleasant in a way that does not leave her wanting to come back for more.
It seems different for men. Trials for men are mentally and physically painful. But more men like it. Don't ask me why. I don't know. But it's not because they schmooze better.
I'm guessing that women schmooze differently, as in speaking a different schmooze language, looking for different schmooze cues and responses. Is this one of those areas where we miss each other?
It is not an issue of who can schmooze better. I know many many women who can schmooze just as well as men. It is an issue of opportunity. Even in 2011, law firms and corporate legal departments are still dominated by men, and they decide who gets to run the ball into the inzone. No judgment towards anyone. It is only natural to gravitate towards your own. However, as far as the "panel of legal professionals" is concerned, let's not confuse lack of opportunity with lack of talent. Just ask Christy Jones.
Wow. How much time do you have? I could discuss this topic for hours. Bottom line, there are MANY talented women litigators in this state who love being in the courtroom and enjoy the adrenaline rush just as much as their male counterparts. The reasons our numbers are smaller have more to do with obstacles than desire. Women face barriers in their attempts to be hired as litigators, to become partners, to have direct access to clients, to be appointed to the judiciary, to be associated and/or designated first chair by male counterparts, to balance family and career, etc. etc. etc. More and more women are finding ways around the barriers, but the barriers remain. Blaming our low numbers on our "schmoozing" abilities is a ridiculous dodge of the serious issues that continue to remain for professional women in the legal field, as well as other professional fields.