Interesting posts at WSJ Law Blog and American Lawyer. The posts discuss a theory that women lawyers’ inability to schmooze prevents keeps them from leading more trial and appellate work:
A panel of legal professionals suggested that women lawyers’ ability–or lack thereof–to network, schmooze, and ask for business is keeping them from first-chairing commercial and appellate cases.
My Take:
This theory is mostly wrong. Everyone—men and women—could get more work if they “schmoozed” better. Even those who are great at it could get more. I’m not much of a “schmoozer” myself, so I admire and sometimes envy other people who do it well. And I do agree that it helps get business. But the question is whether that is the biggest reason few women lawyers first chair trial or appellate work.
Incidentally, I’m not sure I buy a blanket assertion that men network better than women. But even if we assume the fact that men schmooze better than women, is it the biggest reason that the vast majority of lead trial and appellate lawyers are men? I’m saying no.
I’m not sure I have a good answer to the question. Maybe it’s just a numbers game. There are plenty of women litigators in Mississippi and elsewhere who are equal to any male lawyer.
But as a group, male lawyers seem to seek and enjoy the adrenalin rush of trial more than women.
Why are so many race car drivers men? Why are so many fighter pilots men? I don’t know. I’m asking.
I know a female lawyer who is very good in the courtroom. But she doesn’t like it. At all. She would rather write briefs even though she is good in the courtroom. For whatever reason, she finds the sensations that the courtroom evokes unpleasant in a way that does not leave her wanting to come back for more.
It seems different for men. Trials for men are mentally and physically painful. But more men like it. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know. But it’s not because they schmooze better.