Cornell Law Review's New All-Women Board Speaks Volumes, Editor Says
Lauren Kloss, who was recently elected as the next editor-in-chief of the Cornell Law Review, said the election of an all-female executive board at the flagship journal of a top law school is the latest signal that women are edging toward parity in the legal profession.
February 06, 2019 at 02:37 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
The Cornell Law Review made a splash this weekend when it elected an all-female executive board—believed to be a first for a flagship journal at a top law school.
Like most other areas of the legal profession, men have long dominated law review participation and the leadership of those journals—which are key stepping-stones to judicial clerkships, prestigious law firms jobs and powerful government positions. A 2010 survey of law review participation found that women made up 44 percent of law review staffers and 33 percent of those in leadership roles.
But times are changing. After dipping below the 50 percent mark in the early half of the decade, female enrollment at American Bar Association-accredited law schools hit 52 percent this fall. And women are especially well represented at the top 20 law schools.
Law.com caught up with Lauren Kloss, a second-year student who was elected to be the Cornell Law Review's next editor-in-chief, to talk about the significance of an all-female executive board and what that says about how legal education is changing. Her answers have been edited for length.
What was your reaction at the end of the election when you saw the new executive board was all women? We were all so excited. It wasn't something planned, and it wasn't something I think we realized until it got to the end and we were up there standing together. We had our male classmates running, and everyone was questioning them as well and participating in the general election process. But it felt like we had done something larger than what we originally expected.
So you had no sense ahead of time that you'd end up with an all-female executive board? Our year, I think, is maybe 52 or 53 percent women, so we knew we were coming in with a strong female class. Within the law review, we have a very strong female class. Going into that week, we could see who was thinking of running for the various positions. Of course we had male classmates running. But we had no idea until the day of, what would come to be. It was wonderful to see the strong presence of women running, and that many women in our class felt empowered to run. And it was wonderful to see our classmates recognizing how capable this slate of students was and that they trusted them to bring the Cornell Law Review into its 105th volume.
What is the process to get elected to the executive board? We started with editor-in-chief. We had three candidates go up—myself and two others, a male and female. We gave a short speech of why we wanted to be editor-in-chief and what we thought we could bring. Then it was about an hour and a half or two hours of question and answer. It ranged from how we would handle conflict within the student body to what our vision was for the upcoming year and if we had a favorite article we worked on as an associate. It was a grueling two hours. They took about 45 minutes to deliberate then brought us back in to announce the decision. Any contested positions thereafter followed the same process, though it was not as long. There are eight total positions on the executive board.
So this is a first for a top law review, it seems? As far as we know. No one has come forward since the Above the Law article landed. I'd certainly be interested if there were anyone else. We are quite proud to think of ourselves as the first all-female executive board. Mary Donlon was the first female editor in chief of any U.S. law review, and it was at the Cornell Law Review in 1919-20. She was the editor-in-chief for Volume 5, so we're at the 100th anniversary of that momentous occasion.
Do you think the new executive board will function any differently because you are all women? Will you bring a different dynamic? I wouldn't say it will function any differently. We weren't elected because we are female. We were elected because our classmates saw that we would be the best fit for the positions. The fact that we are potentially the first top law school to have this will add a bit more excitement. I have no doubt that we'll be just as capable at fulfilling all the roles and creating a body of work for publication that we are all proud of.
Do you think this says something larger about how legal education is changing? Absolutely. I knew going in that the legal field in general is very male dominated. You can see that in the news. I think we are seeing women professors advance in legal academia. We see which firms are announcing all-female partner classes. I think we feel that we are a part of that movement—that women are a strong force in the legal field and will continue to prove themselves.
How do think the Cornell Law Review is doing on racial diversity? I think there are always more steps to take. We have a woman from Brazil—a Latina—and we have an Asian-Canadian woman who is also on the executive board. I think the board in general will continue with our initiatives to bring greater diversity in terms of the student body, in terms of the authors we decide to publish, and in terms of the subject matter of the pieces we take on. It's a very open discussion and I think it's an important one to thread though each of those issues.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow I Made Partner: 'Prioritize What Is Important to You, Do What Energizes You,' Says Sarah Wellings of Sullivan & Worcester
People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
- 2What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 3Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 4Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 5Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250