On Oct. 2, the Daily Report online ran an article on "How Dressing Lawyerly Changed Between 1995 and 2019." This article had one glaring omission: women.

Despite not being described as how "men's" or "male" lawyerly dressing has changed, the article went on to address only the professional attire of men, with absolutely no mention of the existence of women lawyers, much less changes in dress. This oversight is exemplified by the article's mention of ties, local men's stores and how the popular "unshaven look" is not appropriate for those reading the article.

In speaking with my women colleagues, I was reminded how—despite some of the progress the legal profession has made since 1995—women still face scrutiny, judgment, omission and sometimes even discrimination based solely on their work clothes.

One colleague recalled that, during her first year of law school in 2002, her professor—a practicing woman attorney—had no comment about the substance of her performance during an oral argument but instead criticized both her and her female partner for wearing pantsuits instead of skirt suits. Similarly, I also recall how during my first year of law school in 2010, women were not allowed to wear flats to oral argument, a rule one particularly astute student remarked meant we literally were not on equal footing with our male peers.

Although the article's author started practice in 1969 and went to law school at a time when few law schools had even 10% female students (ABA, 1981), the Daily Report is undoubtedly aware that, according to the ABA's April 2019 report, women make up 38% of the legal field. Increased participation and professional success by women can help the legal profession as it tries to improve the quality of life for its practitioners, the success of its firms and the representation for our clients, but the presence of female attorneys must be recognized before our profession can truly step forward.

The omission in this article of nearly 40% of our profession highlights one of the everyday slights and oversights many lawyers face. For the Daily Report to allow this article to go to print suggesting that it applies to all lawyers rather than just men is disappointing and disheartening. We need to insist on better.

Emily Ward

Atlanta