When I took the job, I had braced myself for the stress almost immediately, my caseload included clients facing lengthy prison sentences for serious felonies. I worked in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Los Angeles. I began my career as a trial lawyer in 2001, the same year that Rhode published her report. Sexism infects every kind of courtroom encounter, from pretrial motions to closing arguments-a glum ubiquity that makes clear how difficult it will be to eradicate gender bias not just from the practice of law, but from society as a whole. What makes the issue especially vexing are the sources of the bias-judges, senior attorneys, juries, and even the clients themselves. The interests-and, in the criminal context, the liberty-of her client are also on the line. But the stakes in the courtroom aren’t just a woman’s career development and her earning potential. If the courtroom were merely another place where the advancement of women has been checked, that would be troubling, if not entirely surprising. The glass ceiling remains a reality in a host of white-collar industries, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley. In a landmark 2001 report on sexism in the courtroom, Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law professor, wrote that women in the courtroom face what she described as a “double standard and a double bind.” Women, she wrote, must avoid being seen as “too ‘soft’ or too ‘strident,’ too ‘aggressive’ or ‘not aggressive enough.’ ” In the courtroom, however, women remain a minority, particularly in the high-profile role of first chair at trial. In 2016, for the first time, more women were admitted to law school than men. The arrow lands every time.”įor the past two decades, law schools have enrolled roughly the same number of men and women. “Because I am a woman, I have to act like it doesn’t bother me, but I tell you that it does. “I cannot tell you how much it demeans me,” she said. Though Faiella has long since learned to expect the motions, every time one crosses her desk she feels sick to her stomach. Judges always deny them, but the damage is done: The idea that she will unfairly deploy her feminine wiles to get what she wants has been planted in the judge’s mind. She said that at least 90 percent of her courtroom opponents are male, and that they file a “no-crying motion” as a matter of course. When I asked Faiella for a copy of Doyle’s motion, she said that she could send me examples from more than two dozen cases across her 30-year career. (Doyle denied that gender was the motivating factor behind filing the motion he said he had filed such motions against male attorneys as well.) “I don’t understand why you are getting so upset,” she says Doyle replied. “Why would you file such a thing?” she demanded, noting that it was unprofessional, sexist, and humiliating. The judge denied Doyle’s request, saying, in essence, “I expect both parties to behave themselves.” Afterward, Faiella confronted Doyle in the hallway. But she had to take care not to let her anger show, fearing it would only confirm what Doyle had insinuated-that she would use emotional displays to gain an advantage in the courtroom. Not once.”Īs Faiella listened to Doyle press forward with his argument, her outrage mounted. (Doyle told me the information had in fact come from other defense attorneys.) Faiella called his reply “ridiculous.” She told me: “I have never cried in a trial. Faiella says that he replied that he did, but the information was privileged because it came from his client. The judge asked Doyle whether he had a basis for the motion. Faiella’s predicted flood of tears, he continued, could be nothing more than “a shrewdly calculated attempt to elicit a sympathetic response.”įaiella told the trial judge, a man, that Doyle’s allegations were sexist and untrue. “Counsel for the Plaintiff, Elizabeth Faiella, has a proclivity for displays of anguish in the presence of the jury, including crying,” Doyle wrote in his motion. To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |