Psst … Your Bias Is Showing—a Response From YL Editorial Board
We chose to respond not because we're necessarily offended, but because we believe in challenging one another and promoting honest discussion.
October 03, 2019 at 04:32 PM
3 minute read
We as a board are constantly looking for ways to improve our industry. We devote a great deal of time to identifying issues facing our generation and contemplate ways in which we, as young lawyers, can create awareness and facilitate appropriate change. Once in a while, the "older guard" throws us a softball.
This week an article titled "Dressing in a Lawyerly Way: 10 Reasons to Wear a Suit and Tie" appeared in the Legal Intelligencer. The article offered advice to lawyers on how to dress like professionals and highlighted a few benefits of doing so. It was great reading—for the waiting room of a urologist's office. Not only does the title of the article equate looking lawyerly with work clothing traditionally worn by men, the article itself ignores female attire entirely! We're all for looking lawyerly, but since when is that synonymous with wearing a suit and tie?
The article goes on to question the judgment of those who choose not to shave (their faces) and encourages readers to patronize the local men's store. The author also points out the usefulness of a suit as an informal barometer of healthy living, contrasting it with the forgiving nature of slacks and an untucked shirt. The author was providing advice on "dressing lawyerly" and, whether he realized it or not, defaulting toward a traditional male audience.
Make no mistake—we're not suggesting that the article was written with any ill intent; quite the contrary, in fact. It's clear the article was written in good faith, and that the author wishes to impart upon his fellow barristers the advantages of professional attire. The problem lies not with his advice, but with his failure to recognize the limits of its application.
We get it—we're living in a time when it's difficult to say anything without offending someone, and we hope this response is not summarily discredited for that reason. The truth is we chose to respond not because we're necessarily offended, but because we believe in challenging one another and promoting honest discussion.
Sure, a suit and tie is a great look for some, but there are a lot more ways to look lawyerly.
The YL Editorial Board members: Leigh Ann Benson, Rachel Dichter, Scott Finger, Sarah Goodman, Kevin Harden, Jae Kim, Kandis Kovalsky, Bethany Nikitenko, Rob Stanko, chairman; Jeffrey Stanton, Shohin Vance and Meredith Wooters
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 AllDon’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
7 minute readSeven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
7 minute readMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readTrending Stories
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