Women's Legal Landmarks: Celebrating 100 Years of Women and the Law in the UK and Ireland: Forthcoming From Hart Publishing @hartpublishing

Forthcoming from Hart Publishing: Women's Legal Landmarks: Celebrating 100 Years of Women and Law in the UK and Ireland (Erika Rackley and Rosemary Auchmuty, eds., Hart Publishing, 2018). Here is a description of the book's contents.

Women's Legal Landmarks commemorates the centenary of women's admission in 1919 to the legal profession in the UK and Ireland by identifying key legal landmarks in women's legal history. Over 90 authors write on landmarks that represent a significant achievement or marked an important stage or turning point in women's engagement with law and law reform. The landmarks embrace a wide range of topics, including the right to vote, equal pay, forced marriage, sexual violence, abortion and the ordination of women bishops, as well as the life stories of women who were the first to undertake key legal roles and positions. The collection was produced using an established feminist practice whereby each contribution was presented in collaborative workshops to ensure shared knowledge and insights into both the legal area and the historical context. Women's Legal Landmarks offers a scholarly intervention into the recovery of women's lost history, employing the methodology of feminist legal history to provide accounts which are accurate as to both law and historical context and which, taken together, demonstrate women's agency and activism in the achievement of law reform and justice.

 

Leary on the First Woman To Graduate From the University of Michigan Law School, First To Pass the Bar @LawPals

ICYMI:

Margaret A. Leary published Michigan 's First Woman Lawyer: Sarah Killgore Wertman at 48 Law Quad. Notes 8 (2006). Link to the full text here.

Higdon on Oral Advocacy and Vocal Fry

Michael J. Higdon, University of Tennessee College of Law, is publishing Oral Advocacy and Vocal Fry: The Unseemly, Sexist Side of Nonverbal Persuasion in volume 13 of Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD (2016). Here is the abstract.

In 2015, Naomi Wolf warned that “the most empowered generation of women ever — today’s twentysomethings in North America and Britain — is being hobbled in some important ways by something as basic as a new fashion in how they use their voices.” She was referring to the phenomenon referred to as "vocal fry" — a speech quality in which the speaker lowers her natural pitch and produces a "creaking" sound as she talks. Naomi Wolf is not alone in her warnings; vocal fry has received quite a bit of negative attention recently. Specifically, these critics warn that those who speak in vocal fry are doing themselves great harm by undermining the speakers’ overall perceived effectiveness. In fact, recent studies even lend some support to these arguments, showing that listeners tend to rate those who speak in vocal fry more negatively. The problem, however, is that much of this criticism is directed at young women, and for that reason, some defenders of vocal fry have countered that these criticisms are merely attempts to regulate how women talk. In other words, a preference for speech that does not contain vocal fry is actually motivated by pernicious stereotypes about how women "should" talk. Thus, on the one hand, there are those studies supporting the argument that women who engage in vocal fry are less likely to be perceived positively, yet on the other hand, there exists the very real likelihood that these perceptions are based on gender stereotypes. Accordingly, the question emerges: what should a young woman do? Should she eliminate all instances of vocal fry from her speech so as to maximize her perceived effectiveness as a public speaker if, in so doing, she is reinforcing the very gender stereotypes upon which such preferences are based? Or should she openly confront such stereotypes and employ vocal fry as much as she likes, knowing that, by taking that approach, she is taking the risk that she might be hurting not only herself but also those upon whose behalf she speaks? This essay, by first discussing this background on vocal fry, delves into that very dilemma. It does so specifically in the context of female attorneys given that 1) public speaking is a key component upon which their effectiveness is gauged and 2) to the extent their public speaking is judged to be less than ideal, they are not only harming themselves, but also potentially a client. Finally, in wrestling with this question, these essay hopes to shed light on a bigger concern — specifically, how useful are studies on effective nonverbal behavior when the results of those studies are largely driven by underlying societal prejudice.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

ABA Seeking Nominations For the Margaret Brent Lawyers of Achievement Award

The American Bar Association is seeking nominations for the Margaret Brent Award. The Award recognizes female attorneys who excel in law and have assisted other women in the field. More information and instructions for making nominations are below. Visit the ABA webpage on the award here.

The Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, established by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession in 1991, recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of women lawyers who have excelled in their field and have paved the way to success for other women lawyers.
Call for Nominations for the
2016 Margaret Brent Awards

Deadline for Nominations -
Friday, December 4, 2015
The 2016 Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Awards will be presented on Sunday, August 7, 2016 in San Francisco during the ABA Annual Meeting.
Nomination Criteria and Application RequirementsNomination FormThank You to Our Generous 2015 Supporters2015 Commemorative Program and Tribute Book
Previous Award Recipients
Honorees receiving the Margaret Brent Award have achieved professional excellence in their field and

• influenced other woman to pursue legal careers,

• opened doors for women lawyers in a variety of job settings that historically were closed to them, and/or

• advanced opportunities for women within a practice area or segment of the profession.

View the list of distinguished award recipients

A New Blog Devoted To the History of Women Lawyers

Bari Burke, University of Montana School of Law, has launched a new blog, Montana's Early Women Lawyers: Trail-Blazing, Big Sky Sisters-In-Law.  Each post focuses on an interesting (and unknown) story about a female lawyer from the past, which Professor Burke has unearthed from cases, newspapers, and other publications. Fascinating to see the number of mentions (and the depressing sameness of observations about women attorneys).  From the August 12th, 2015 post, this excerpt from a letter published August 12, 1907:

‘Possibly men are afraid to pay court to a woman lawyer, from the knowledge that she has too many brains for him, and can see further into his subterfuges and little evasions than most women could. It may be that the legal atmosphere is chilling to affection. It may be that women lawyers are too smart to tie themselves down. I do not know. I only cite the facts.
One of the happiest households that I know, is composed of two lawyers, one the husband, and the other the wife. But he was a lawyer and she was not when they got married. She studied under him, and is his legal assistant rather than his partner. Perhaps that is why they get along so happily together.'”

Oh, dear.
[Cross-posted to Feminist Law Professors]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Legacy

Paul Schiff Berman, George Washington University Law School, has published Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Interaction of Legal Systems in The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in (Scott Dodson, ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2015). Here is the abstract.

The idea of legal pluralism is that law must always negotiate situations when multiple communities and legal authorities seek to regulate the same act or actor. These overlapping jurisdictional assertions may occur because of federalism, or because disputes often cross territorial borders, or because of complicated inter-jurisdictional arrangements, as with Indian tribes in the United States. In all of these situations, judges must develop strategies for determining how best to balance the competing claims of multiple communities: does the law of one community triumph, does the law of the other community triumph, or is there some hybrid solution available?

This Essay surveys some of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s key writings on the interaction of legal systems, both in law journals and in judicial opinions. This analysis reveals a consistent theme in Ginsburg’s jurisprudence. Across a variety of substantive legal areas, Ginsburg often chooses a path that provides maximum play among the legal systems at issue. Beginning with her earliest scholarly writings, she has tended to oppose doctrines allowing one legal system to block another from adjudicating a dispute, and throughout her later career Ginsburg likewise tends to reject bright-line rules that choose one legal system over another. Instead, she often seems to prefer procedural arrangements that seek accommodation and flexibility in order to ensure that multiple legal systems and a variety of norms and processes are respected. These principles also carry over to Ginsburg’s views about international and transnational law. A committed internationalist, Ginsburg advocates the importance of seeking wisdom from others. This non-dogmatic, deferential approach to plural legal systems characterizes much of her jurisprudence on inter-systemic conflicts, though interestingly such deference does not always apply with as much force in Ginsburg’s opinions concerning tribal communities.

By taking stock of Ginsburg’s navigation of legal pluralism in a set of representative writings, we can better theorize her contribution to a jurisprudential approach that seeks ongoing negotiation in an interlocking world of multiple jurisdictions and multiple legal norms. Just as important, this discussion provides an initial case study for thinking more broadly about possible judicial responses to the reality of legal pluralism.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

A New Novel With an Assertive Lawyer-Protagonist

Heller McAlpine reviews Eliza Kennedy's first novel, I Take You, for NPR.  Says McAlpine in part,

Kennedy, a graduate of the University of Iowa and Harvard Law School, is a former litigator herself, and married to writer Joshua Ferris. Her snappy comedy of mis-manners delights in subverting expectations, from its indictment of monogamy as unnatural to its ardent defense of lawyering and casual sex. Lily unabashedly extols her job: "Because being a lawyer is great. It's mentally engaging and competitive and fun. Work is really the only time that I feel focused." She reconsiders: "That's not true. One other thing focuses me. But I don't get paid for it." She reconsiders again. "That's not true. I got paid for it once."

Read an excerpt of the book here.
More here from the publisher's website.

Where Are the Women?

With a hat tip to Bridget Crawford. Professor Auchmuty has traced one trailblazer.

Rosemary Auchmuty, University of Reading, has published Recovering Lost Lives: Researching Women in Legal History at 42 Journal of Law and Society 34 (2015). Here is the abstract.

Drawing on the research I undertook into the life of Gwyneth Bebb, who in 1913 challenged the Law Society of England and Wales for their refusal to admit women to the solicitors’ profession, this article focuses on the range of sources one might use to explore the lives of women in law, about whom there might be a few public records but little else, and on the ways in which sources, even official ones, might be imaginatively used. It traces the research process from the case that inspired the research (Bebb v. the Law Society [1914] 1 Ch 286) through to the creation of an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and what this means for women's history, emphasizing the importance of asking the ‘woman question’ and seeking out the broader significance of a woman's life in the context of her times.

The full text is not available from SSRN. 

The UK's First Female Law Professor

Fiona Caird Cownie, Keele University, has published The United Kingdom's First Woman Law Professor: An Archerian Analysis, in 42 Journal of Law and Society 127 (2015). Here is the abstract.

In 1970, at Queen's University Belfast, Claire Palley became the first woman to hold a Chair in Law at a United Kingdom university. However, little is known about the circumstances surrounding this event, or Claire Palley herself. This article (part of an extended project exploring her life history) seeks to address the question ‘Was there something about Claire Palley herself that made it more likely she would become the United Kingdom's first female law professor?’ Initially focusing on method, it seeks to answer that question by utilizing, for the first time in the context of legal education, the theoretical perspective provided by the work of the sociologist Margaret Archer. Reflecting upon Claire Palley's subjectivity, it focuses on those aspects of her personality which enabled her to pursue a successful career and become a pioneer in her chosen profession.

The full text is not available from SSRN. 

Australian Women Judges and Lawyers Through the Archives

Heather Roberts, Australian National University College of Law, has published Telling a History of Australian Women Judges Through Courts' Ceremonial Archives at 40 Australian Feminist Law Journal 147 (2015). Here is the abstract.

Swearing-in ceremonies are held to mark the investiture of a new judge on the bench. Transcribed and stored within courts’ public records, these proceedings form a rich ‘ceremonial archive’. This paper showcases the value of this archive for the (re)telling of Australian legal history and, particularly, a history of Australian women lawyers. Using a case study drawn from the swearing-in ceremonies of women judges of the High Court, Federal Court, and Family Courts of Australia between 1993 and 2013, the paper explores what this archive reveals about the Australian legal community’s attitudes towards women in the law. It argues that despite the regional and jurisdictional differences between these courts, recurring themes emerge. Notably, while feminising discourse dominates the earlier ceremonies, stories of the judges’ personal and judicial identity come to display a more overt feminist consciousness by the end of the Labor Governments in power in Australia between 2007 and 2013.

The full text is not available from download. 

Taking Ally Seriously

John Denvir, University of San Francisco School of Law, has published Romancing the Law: Ally McBeal and the Art of Subversive Comedy as a University of San Francisco Research Paper. Here is the abstract.

The television sitcom Ally McBeal drew large audiences and won many awards, but the series also had detractors who felt that it demeaned both women lawyers and the legal profession. People loved and hated the show, but no one has thought it a serious commentary on the American legal system.

I think it is time to take Ally McBeal seriously. I believe that its creator David E. Kelley has used the narrative devices of romantic comedy to make a subtle but powerful critique of the American legal system and to suggest a new future for law. It is an excellent example of what I call subversive comedy.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link. 

CBS Orders Pilots For Sherlock Holmes and "Mommy Track" Detective Series

From the Hollywood Reporter: news that CBS may schedule a new Sherlock Holmes series; it has ordered a pilot from CBS Television Studios and producers Sarah Timberman and Carl Beverly. In addition, the Eye is ordering a pilot based on Ayelet Waldman's series based on stay-at-home "Mommy Track"  sleuth (and former lawyer) Juliet Appelbaum. Ms. Waldman, like her detective a former attorney, will write, and Jennifer Levin and Sherri Cooper will produce. I really like the Juliet Appelbaum mystery novels,. Entertaining and well-written, they feature a genuinely smart woman--someone I'd like to know. First in the series: Nursery Crimes (Berkley, 2000).

Women and Their Work In Early Twentieth Century U.S. Criminal Courts

Mae C. Quinn, Washington University, St. Louis, School of Law, has published 'Feminizing' Courts: Lay Volunteers and the Integration of Social Work in Progressive Reform, in Feminist Legal History: Essays on Women and Law, (Tracy A. Thomas & T. J. Boisseau eds.; NYU Press, 2011). Here is the abstract.

This essay, appearing as a chapter in FEMINIST LEGAL HISTORY: ESSAYS ON WOMEN (N.Y.U. PRESS 2011), uncovers groundbreaking court innovations employed by Judge Anna Moscowitz Kross. To date, Kross's work has gone largely unexamined by legal historians and court reformers. This essay describes how Kross, one of the nation's first women judges, sought to rethink the role and goals of criminal courts in order to meet and address social realities. Beginning in the 1930's she expanded the boundaries of criminal courts to permit female volunteer caseworkers and lay probation officers, as representatives of the larger community, to play a role in court operations. Her lay volunteer armies, which were seen as controversial and at times came under official scrutiny, continued their efforts over the course of several decades. What is more, many courts across the country replicated Kross's experiment without crediting her for her ideas. While this essay celebrates this largely forgotten historical figure and her work as an early judicial innovator, it also warns that social engineering efforts in criminal courts at the hands of lay counselors, both then and now, raise important questions that are worthy of further exploration. This essay, therefore, concludes by suggesting that today's criminal justice reformers might learn important lessons from Kross's attempts at judicial creativity that relied on private funding and private citizen participation in criminal court proceedings.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

New DVDs

Out on July 12: The Lincoln Lawyer, starring Marisa Tomei and Matthew McConaughey, based on the
Michael Connelly novel. Also available now: the re-release of Tell It To the Judge, a 1949 comedy about a judicial nominee Marsha Meredith (Rosalind Russell) who may not be confirmed because she's (horrors) divorced. Worry not: ex-hubby Pete (Robert Cummings), also an attorney, still loves her and wasn't really involved with Another Woman (Marie McDonald).

Latina Lawyers Before the Supreme Court: An Updated Abstract

Maria G. Mendoza has updated the abstract of her paper, The Thirteen Known Latina Litigants Before the Supreme Court of the United States, on SSRN. Here is the updated abstract.

From 1935 to 2010, only thirteen known Latinas have argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The first known Latina to argue before the United States, Miriam Naveira Merly, then serving as the Solicitor General to Puerto Rico, argued before the High Court in 1975. A year later, Vilma Martinez, the first known Mexican American woman to appear before the Supreme Court, argued East Texas Motor Freight Sys., v. Rodriguez, marking the last time the 1970s was known to entertain an appearance by a Latina advocate. Over the course of the 1980s, six Latinas are known to have litigated before the Court, and sadly, the 1990s only brought one known appearance by a Latina before the High Court. From 2000 to 2010, four known Latinas have argued before the Supreme Court.



Before the Supreme Court, these Latinas took on everything from the battles of the downtrodden and the impoverished – including the legal woes of the Latino community – and they took on the causes of the government. After defying odds and breaking down barriers, these Latinas went on to become the “firsts” to hold particular positions such as judgeships, Ambassador to Argentina, law school professor, and appellate attorney. They are perhaps the most underrepresented demographic to appear before the Court, which is unfortunate, because Latinas are now part of the nation’s largest, youngest, and fastest growing minority in the United States. Historically, advocates from all walks of life have powerfully shaped our nation’s laws to reflect the values, priorities and character of the American people, and the Supreme Court bar and greater legal profession must act aggressively to ensure that “we the people” continue to contribute to the development of the law.



These Latinas who powerfully shaped our laws deserve to go down in history along with the other “firsts” and champions of the Supreme Court, but unfortunately, never before has there been an attempt to learn who was the “first” Latina to argue before the Supreme Court or learn about the history of Latina litigants before the High Court. By interviewing these Latina litigants about their formative experiences, entry into the legal profession, and the pathway these remarkable Latinas took to present their argument before the High Court, this article tries to understand why so few Latinas have argued before the Supreme Court. Part one of this article addresses the lack of research on Latinas before the Court, and why caring about the history of Latina litigants before the Supreme Court matters. Part two of this article looks both at the salient barriers and opportunities that made it possible for these Latinas to argue before the Court, and part three of this article focuses on the life and career of these Latina litigants. Part four of this article describes how the dearth of appearances by Latina advocates is highly influenced by the rise of a small group of elite lawyers who focus on Supreme Court cases, the Court’s shrinking docket, and the bleak state of Latinas in the legal profession.

The full text of the paper is not available on SSRN.

The Law School Experience

Adrien K. Wing, University of Iowa College of Law, has published One L Redux at 78 University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 1119 (2010). Here is the abstract.

This article is the personal story of Adrien Wing’s first year at law school and her struggle with prejudice as she tried to shatter the glass ceiling at Stanford Law School. She wrote this article 30 years after graduation while she was at her alma mater preparing for a reunion. It concludes with a commentary on improving legal teaching methods and imparting wisdom to her students.



"When they asked what I thought now about the 1L year, about law school in general, I said, ‘Despite the pain and agony, I would do it all again. I have learned that the law can have soul. The law can have heart. And I hope that in my teaching, I have shown generations of students that this must be so.'"

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

British Women On the Bench

Michael Blackwell, London School of Economics & Political Science, has published Old Boys' Networks, Family Connections and the English Legal Profession. Here is the abstract.

A decade and a half on from Lord Taylor’s promise that “there will be more [female judges]… and they will not all be the sisters of the Lord Chancellor!”, this paper assesses the changes to the composition of the higher judiciary over this period, in terms of gender and educational, professional and socio-economic background. Descriptive statistics are presented on how these characteristics have changed over the period, for members of the High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords. These show only slight improvement in the representation of women and little change to the proportion educated other than at Oxbridge and public schools. Obituaries and other sources are used to illustrate the high socio-economic class, often with legal connections, into which many judges were born.



To show that this is not solely, at least in respect of educational background, a result of the pool from which such judges are recruited, this paper contrasts these statistics with those of QCs appointed since 1965. It also uses event history analysis to see how these diversity characteristics have affected propensity to be appointed to the High Court and subsequently promoted during this period.



Finally, to assess the potential for future increases in judicial diversity, this paper contrasts the gender and educational background of the solicitors and barristers profession and the speed of change thereto in recent years – showing both a greater diversity and rate of change with solicitors. The significantly lower rate of solicitor applicants appointed in selection exercises to the High Court is noted. The paper concludes by suggesting a reappraisal of the appointment criteria to increase the representation of solicitors and so facilitate improved judicial diversity.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Latina Lawyers Before the Supreme Court

Maria Guadalupe Mendoza has published The Thirteen Known Latina Litigants Before the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the abstract.

Never before has there ever been any attempt to collect the history and experience of Latino advocates before our nation’s highest court, and no one has ever been known to have answered the question of who was the first Latina to argue before the United States Supreme Court. In 1981, Judge Vanessa Ruiz of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals successfully argued Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, before the nation’s high court. For years, she was dubbed as one of the first women to have argued before the nation’s highest court after Justice O’Connor’s 1981 ascent to the Supreme Court. Then in 2009, I began working for her as a judicial law clerk, and I wondered if Judge Ruiz was one of the earlier women to argue before the high court, was she the first Latina to argue before the nation’s highest court? I turned to research, and though I could find the “first” to argue before the Supreme Court for many other communities within seconds of simple internet research - the first African American male, the first African American woman, the first Hispanic males, the first Asian American woman, the first woman - until now, there has been no information on Latina litigants before the nation’s high court.

Profoundly touched by the unavailability of any information as the “first” Hispanic woman to argue before the nation’s high court, I sought to discover who this remarkable woman was. In the course of researching the history of Latina advocates before the high court, I not only learned who the first known Latina to argue before the high court is, but I also learned that while the first Latinos to have argued before the Supreme Court has long been thought to be Carlos Cadena and Gustavo (“Gus”) Garcia - the lawyers of Hernandez v. Texas - the first known Latino to argue before the Supreme Court was really Mexican American activist and lawyer, Manuel J. Ruiz, Jr. He argued Buck v. California before the Supreme Court in 1951, three years before Gus Garcia and Carlos Cadena made their historic argument in Hernandez v. Texas, and a few decades before the Supreme Court would entertain an argument by a Latina. Manuel J. Ruiz, Jr.’s story as the first Latino to argue before the Supreme Court needs to be told, but recognizing that Latinas have never been identified as a community of Supreme Court litigators, this article opts for first introduce the known Latina litigants of the Supreme Court.

From 1950 to 2009, only thirteen known Latinas have argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The first known Latina to argue before the United States, Miriam Naviera de Rodon, argued before the high court in 1975. A year later, Vilma Martinez, the first known Mexican American woman to appear before the Supreme Court, argued East Texas Motor Frieght Sys., v. Rodriguez, marking the last time the 1970s was known to entertain an appearance by a Latina advocate. Over the course of the 1980s, six Latinas are known to have litigated before the high court, and sadly, the 1990s only brought one known appearance a by Latina before the high court. From 2000 to 2009, four known Latinas have argued before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, these thirteen Latinas took everything from criminal law, racial discrimination class actions, first amendment right to free exercise of religion, to pro bono housing discrimination claims to the highest court of lands. During their glorious argument, these women worked for civil right champions the Mexican American Legal Defense Educational Fund (“MALDEF”), for Stanford Law School, while others were in private practice and in the government. These Latinas took on the direct battles of the impoverished and downtrodden - including the legal woes of the Latino community - and other Latinas, proudly strengthened the jurisprudence of our nation through service to the government, private law firms, and public interest entities. Some of these women came up the hard way, overcoming racial discrimination, poverty, and life in a country that was not initially familiar to them, while some of these other Latinas enjoyed access to opportunities that were not previously available to the generations before them. The thirteen Latina litigators of the Supreme Court begin entering the legal profession in the 1960s and have continued achieving access that had previously not been available, becoming the “firsts” to also serve our great nation as Judges, an Ambassador to Argentina, a law school professor, civil rights leaders, appellate attorneys, and as mentors to other Latinas aspiring a career in law.

So why care about the Latina litigants of the Supreme Court? Because generally there is no other court where advocacy can wield more far-reaching influence than the Supreme Court. Advocates from all walks of life powerfully shaped the law to reflect the values, priorities and character of the American people. Consider, for example, the triumphant some of these “firsts” went on to achieve. James DeAnda, an attorney with the Hernandez v. Texas team, went on to successfully argue a series of school desegregation cases, created a civil legal services for low-income families, and was one of the founders MALDEF. Justice Thurgood Marshall pioneered litigation to end racial segregation and discrimination in the United States. Constance Baker Motley at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund (NAACP LDF), who was the first African American woman to argue before the high court, argued ten race discrimination cases before the high court between 1961 and 1964, winning nine of them. Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project briefed and argued the leading women’s rights cases of the 1970s as the Director of the Women’s Rights Project.

Latinas who constitute 7% of the total U.S. population and are part of the nation’s youngest, largest and fastest growing ethnic group represent only 1.3% of the nation’s lawyers. The underrepresentation of Latina attorneys has a “negative impact on the ability of Latino/as to advocate and to participate in national and local politics, and it limits access to vital legal services in Hispanic communities, which often face cultural and linguistic barriers. Increasing the number of Latina lawyers can have a profound impact on the political and socioeconomic status of Hispanics in the United States. Their under-representation challenges our legal and business institutions to implement strategies of inclusion and retention for Latinas and all women of color.

The full text is not available from SSRN, but Ms. Mendoza tells me that she hopes to make additional research and an article available in future.

On the subject of Latina/Latino attorneys, see also Michael A. Olivas' The First Latina/Latino Lawyers To Argue Before [the] Supreme Court. [Hat tip to Maria Guadalupe Mendoza].

Arthur W. Maclean and the Legal Education of American Women

Ronald Chester, New England School of Law, has published History's Orphan: Arthur Maclean and the Legal Education of Women, at 51 American Journal of Legal History (April 2011). Here is the abstract.

Relatively few people, even American legal historians, recognize the name Arthur W. Maclean. This article aims to change that by reconstructing the life of this fascinating individual. Arthur MacLean was a pioneer in the legal education of women, who founded Portia Law School in Boston in 1908. MacLean ran that school (now the large, co-educational New England School of Law) as the world’s only all-women law school until 1938. His venture was not only unique, but for the most part highly successful. Yet, MacLean died in near-obscurity and his story nearly vanished from the history books – at least until now.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Drop Dead Diva

Season 3 of Drop Dead Diva returns this June. Lifetime is offering a season 2 recap here.

While D3 is a much lighter series than shows such as Law & Order: SVU, which emphasize their "ripped from the headlines" relevance, it does manage to make points, and one third season episode should be particularly interesting. Wanda Sykes will guest as a no-nonsense judge. Writer Josh Berman based the episode on the story of Constance McMillen, who sued her Mississippi school district when it refused to allow her to attend her prom with her girlfriend. Ms. McMillen has a small part in the episode.