By
S. Sponte, Esq.
Preferring
to hide as I do behind the veil of non de plummage, I have had no
opportunity to inquire of my brethren as to the success, or lack thereof, of my
attempts to amuse. Being what I
am, a writer at heart, I yearn for the recognition and praise I am confident my
efforts warrant. You can imagine
then my consternation when, while idly passing through the Courthouse recently,
I overheard my alter ego being taken quite to task by a colleague of the female
persuasion. She was of the opinion
that the substance of my work was basically offensive to women, and that
whoever I may be, I was surely a male chauvinist pig. Not foolish enough to openly defend myself in the presence
of such gripes of wrath, I held my tongue, a rare act for my ilk, while my
colleague proceeded on her way to the Recorder of Deeds Office to file a
complaint in trespass.
It
was right then and there, in the face of such stern criticism from a colleague,
a person fully my peer and intellectually my equal, that I resolved to analyze
my attitudes about female lawyers to determine if indeed any subconscious
hostility lurked beneath my professional veneer. I vowed to do so openly and honestly, and not to discount or
cheapen her heartfelt sentiments by reason of her sex or the obvious fact that
she was short, overweight and quite unattractive.
I
attended law school in the days when female law students were uncommon. Nevertheless, there were several women
in my class. I had come from a coeducational
college and was quite accustomed to matriculating in the presence of
women. These students were
generally well prepared in class and diligent in the pursuit of their studies. I recall quite clearly my admiration
for these girls in devoting so much time, money and sincere effort in their
attempts to marry a lawyer. The
only criticism I might offer concerned the overly emotional manner in which
some approached the material. In
one particular instance, following an intense classroom discussion of Plessy
v. Ferguson, one woman student became irate over the oppression of
minorities in general, and women in particular, and she petitioned the school
administration for the abolition of the well-entrenched doctrine of separate
but equal lavatories. In the grand
intellectual tradition of Brandeis and his co-authorship of the famous comment
on the common law right to privacy, she submitted in support of her stance a
memorandum entitled ÒSquatterÕs Rights to the Common Privy.Ó Her petition was summarily denied, but
I nevertheless respected her adherence to the principles for which she was
willing to stand up like a man.
My
first professional encounter with a female colleague occurred shortly after my
admission. We were appointed
co-counsel for the defendant in a criminal matter. From the beginning she made it clear she preferred to
proceed independently of my Òmale need to dominate herÓ, and she refused to
participate with me in preparation of trial strategy. As a result, we could never really get our act
together. Unfortunately, our
client was convicted, and while I contented myself with the notion that our
client's confession in open court had some effect upon the outcome, she took it
all quite badly. She blamed her
failure on the all male judge and jury, and while her career has been to date
otherwise quite successful, she has steadfastly refused to ever handle another
criminal matter. I suspect that
early experience, so unsatisfying, has caused her to suffer severe anxiety
induced by her belief in the irrational and oppressive nature of the entire
penal system.
Since
that first exposure, I have frequently been impressed with the performance of
women in the Courtroom. They adapt
readily to the rigors of trial practice and quickly demonstrate such enviable
litigation skills as cunning, deviousness, subtlety, manipulation, calculated
cruelty, and unswerving single-mindedness. It is, I suppose, an unqualified tribute that these women
can so adroitly cast off societal inhibitions under pressure and utilize in a
Courtroom all the qualities with which they are naturally endowed.
While
there are not really enough women on the Bench to fairly judge, I find most
female jurists to be quite capable.
Lacking as they do a close working relationship with their male
counterparts, they tend to become highly self-reliant. This admirable trait directs them to
actually read the law from time to time instead of relying on a male
colleagueÕs assurance that his own opinion in a similar case of some years back
remains unassailable. As a result,
the female juristÕs opinion, while not necessarily correct, usually represents
a fresh and innovative approach to the wrong result.
The
self-defense rests. A male I
assuredly am, a pig I may well be, but I am no chauvinist. If in fact the woman lawyer is somewhat
slower and less articulate than a man, those impediments at least occasionally
serve to enhance a clientÕs otherwise baleful cause. All other things being equal, I would not hesitate to hire
as a lawyer in my own office some good looking young chick, provided, of
course, that her typing and shorthand are up to snuff.
Copyright 1979 – S. Sponte, Esq.