Plan B Forum

CANTON — Lawyers and journalists from around the country packed a probate courtroom here for a much-awaited showdown Tuesday between Viacom Inc.’s CEO and his boss, Sumner Redstone. But the first thing on the judge’s mind was not the fate of Redstone’s $40 billion media empire.

It was something perhaps far more important than a bunch of rich people squabbling: the glaring lack of female attorneys in court.


At the start of the hearing, there were so many suits that Probate and Family Court Judge George Phelan asked for all lawyers involved in the case to line up in front of his courtroom for a roll call.

The headcount: 22. Only two were women. He was not happy.

“I’m wondering why there are not more female attorneys among us,” Phelan declared from the bench. “I suppose that’s a question for another day and another place.”

No, it’s about time someone said something. In that moment, Phelan put front and center an issue that has dogged the legal profession for decades. Even with women making up just under half of all law school graduates, a gaping gender gap persists.

Perhaps it’s the long hours, the male-dominated culture, or outright discrimination, but women drop out and account for only about 36 percent of the profession, according to the American Bar Association. Of those who practice, only about 18 percent of women are equity partners at the country’s largest firms, and they earn only 80 percent of the typical male equity partner, according to survey done by the National Association of Women Lawyers.


“It can’t be or shouldn’t be in 2016,” retired federal judge Nancy Gertner said of poor female representation. But “when the stakes in a case go up, the number of women litigators decline.”

Guinevere wrote:This is a good day. I hope we never have to celebrate it again.

Least suspenseful election?

Sue U wrote:Well, I'm looking forward to a Hillary landslide so that I can go back to voting Socialist or Green.

Guinevere wrote:

Sue U wrote:Well, I'm looking forward to a Hillary landslide so that I can go back to voting Socialist or Green.

I hope that means you voted for her yesterday and will do so again in November!

Lord Jim wrote:

Least suspenseful election?

I believe he's referring to suspense regarding the outcome, but he's wrong about that too, (quelle suprise) since his lifetime has included the '64, '72 and '84 elections...
...

While those were not close elections the issue was in greater doubt 4 months before the polls opened than it is this year.

Guinevere wrote:

Sue U wrote:Well, I'm looking forward to a Hillary landslide so that I can go back to voting Socialist or Green.

I hope that means you voted for her yesterday and will do so again in November!

Lord Jim wrote:

While those were not close elections the issue was in greater doubt 4 months before the polls opened than it is this year.

Are you actually trying to claim that the polls at comparable times in 64, 72, and 84, had Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan leading by less than the 2 point poll average lead that Clinton currently has over Trump?

Really?

Sue U wrote:I almost pushed the button for Hillary yesterday, but with both the Spousal Unit and Eldest Spawn voting for her, I felt fine about voting for Bernie just to show there is an actual "left" that the Democrats should take heed of. (It's my usual reason for voting in the D primaries anyway.) And since Hillary won by more than a 25-point margin, she didn't really need my vote to prove anything. (Going into Election Day I knew she was up by double digits, but I frankly didn't think it was going to be that much of spread.)

If the polling in November shows less than a 10-point lead in New Jersey, I will vote for Hillary. If she is again up by double digits, I will vote either Socialist or Green. And either way, I will be fine with President Hillary.

Bicycle Bill wrote:Sue, this is one election that we cannot let get away from us and into the pockets of Donald Trump. I would suggest that even if Hillary is showing a 20-point lead on November 7th that you still vote for her on the 8th. The idea here is to repudiate Trump and his bullshit, to utterly humiliate him, to crush him under a landslide of such epic proportions that he will never ever again think that he could campaign for and win any office higher than dog catcher.

The Pinkos or the Greens can get along without you this one year.

Polls concerning the general election are not meaningful* at this point, certainly less so than the hours of coverage every week about whether particular GOP leaders...

the issue was in greater doubt 4 months before the polls opened than it is this year.

Lord Jim wrote:

Polls concerning the general election are not meaningful* at this point, certainly less so than the hours of coverage every week about whether particular GOP leaders...

Okay, so my contention that this claim of yours:

the issue was in greater doubt 4 months before the polls opened than it is this year.

is false is based on the comparisons of data gathered through scientific polling methods, and your contention that it is true is based on some theory about nose holding...

Got it...