Sunday, 23 February 2014


By Victoria Vail

Recently, a member of Clifford Chance’s Women Committee wrote a list of rules that women who aspire to be lawyers should follow.  She sent the list to every female associate in the US, and it was leaked to Above the Law.  Keep in mind that Clifford Chance is one of the largest law firms in the world, and made $1.9 billion in revenue just last year.  The list makes one question what kind of women lawyers were working at Clifford Chance to prompt the author to write what she did. 
Here is the list:
  •       “Don’t giggle.”

  •       “Don’t squirm.”


  •       “Don’t wave your arms”


  •       “Don’t hide behind your hair.”


  •       “Don’t dress like a mortician.”


  •       “If wearing a skirt, make sure people can’t see up it”


  •       “Make sure you can stand in your heels.”


  •       “Your voice is higher than you hear.”


  •       “Wear a suit, not your party outfit”


  •       “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky”

  •       “Think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe.”


  •       “No one heard Hillary the day she showed cleavage.”


After reading the list, one would assume that the points would have been common sense to say the least for a woman hired at any job let alone at a Clifford Chance firm.  However, many of the women who received this list were appalled by the “advice” they were given which they claimed to have learned in high school let alone law school.  Stories like this and the everlasting struggle of equality for women in the work force can make a prospective women lawyer question her potential success in the field of law.  Conversely, many others brush it off and reassure themselves that they are the ones made for the world of law.
            Regardless of one’s view, research regarding women working at law firms can speak for itself.  Twelve years ago, Florence Martin-Kessler interviewed twenty one women who had just graduated from law school and were about to begin their careers with Debevoise & Plimpton.  Each of them beamed of having high hopes for their futures as lawyers.  However, today only a few of the women are still working at the firm.  It can also be said that the rest of the women pursued their law careers elsewhere.  It also takes longer for women to make partner.  More than three-quarters of males make partner within ten years, while only about two thirds of women do so; furthermore, one about one third of women expect to be rainmakers (define term), while half of men do. In light of the data, it is clear that the field of law is not an easy place in which to be a woman. 
            Still, some disagree that women have it worse off than men in the practice of law.  The chairman of Mintz Levin, Robert Popeo, said, “If I had to give any advice to women across the board, [it would be] do not take the role of a victim because you’re not a victim. These organizations that seek to jam a quota in do a disservice to these women, because these women rise on the basis of excellence, not quotas. In my organization over the past 20 years, the top four producing sections of the law firm were run by women. They weren’t there because they were women. They were there because they were talented.”  (don’t end paragraph with quote)
            On the other hand, a Harvard Law Professor Judge Nancy Gertner, stated, {“The question is whether the measure is what it had been 40 years ago. If that’s the measure, then certainly we are fabulous. No question about it. If the measure is the number of qualified women in the pool, that’s a different measure. I love Ruth Ginsburg’s comment about the Supreme Court. Isn’t it wonderful that there are now three women on the Supreme Court? No, she said, there should be half, and there’s no question that should mirror society. So, yes, things are better, there are high-profile women in some positions, but the numbers suggest a glass ceiling. The question is why.” } (massive quote) Any person would agree with this statement who believes in equality in the work place (assumption).  Of course, the fifty percent of women should be qualified and deserve their right to be there.
            Popeo, however, argues that women need to learn the game and play it right.  This proves that he does believe it is harder for women to move up in legal positions, but he does not sympathize for them.  When asked by the Boston Globe if men were favored over women, Pompeo responded, “No. I think that traditionally men have done it, and it’s a new experience for women now. You could look to Karen Kaplan, who is the CEO of Hill Holliday, or Anne Finucane at Bank of America. They’ve all been out there; they’ve all worked the system. There’s a truism here. Unless you make the rules, you better learn the rules of the game and be good at them. You may not like them, but those are the rules of the game and that’s your route to success.”  Pompeo believes that the “rules of the game” need to be abided by and played by.  Nevertheless, when one places his firm in the context of the many sexual discrimination cases it has battled over the past few years, it is hard to take his comments as indicative of the industry as a whole.  Thus, I believe that women who plan to make it far in the field of law need to define the rules, not listen to men like Pompeo.
Then what exactly makes a successful woman lawyer, and why is it so rare to see them?  Perhaps there is no better woman to turn to for advice today regarding women in the legal system, than Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  In her recently published book, “My Beloved World” she details scenes in whichshe faced discrimination.  During a mock trial, she received scoffs from a male in the audience and asked him what she did wrong.  He answered, “It’s not you. It’s me. I just don’t like brassy Jewish women!”  Meanwhile, Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic.  She explained that without women groups she would have never made it to where she is today and that women need to continue to support each other to receive equal treatment and pay one day.  Her relentless attitude shines through in her words and actions.  Her advice to women is, “Don’t give up. The greatest obstacle to your own success is your own fear. Failure is never fun. But each time you fail, you learn something. It’s often said that one should fight to the last person standing. Hey, they’re still standing. And as a woman, I hope it’s us.”  After Obama swore Ginsberg into the Supreme Court, he asked Sotomayor if she was happy that he had brought her not one but two women.  She replied that she was, but she will not be satisfied until five more join her. 
It is true that women are not paid equally to men, and it is true that they have a harder time being hired over men or given higher positions than men.  In law particularly, it can be more difficult for a women to face the stereotypes listed in the beginning of the piece.  However, successful women today prove to be an inspiration for women aspiring to be lawyers one day.  Believing in one’s self and never giving up are truly valuable qualities that women planning to become lawyers should have.  Supporting each other will also help move the continuous women’s battle in the workplace along.  One day, there will be the right amount of women in the Supreme Court (what is the right #?) just as Sotomayor wishes.



Works Cited
Galbraith, Sasha. "Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Advice for Women Today: Know When to               Fight." Forbes (blog), February 05, 2013.                 http://www.forbes.com/sites/sashagalbraith/2013/02/05/justice-sonia-sotomayors- advice-for-women-today-know-when-to-fight/ (accessed November 20, 2013).
Lat, David. "5 Findings from a Survey Of New Partners." Above the Law (blog),                November 06, 2013. http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/5-findings-from-a-survey-of-new-partners/ (accessed November 20, 2013).
Patrice, Joe. "Biglaw Partner Declares Discrimination Over, Forgets Those Pesky Lawsuits." Above the Law (blog), November 04, 2013. http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/biglaw-partner-declares-discrimination-over-forgets-those-pesky-lawsuits/ (accessed November 20, 2013).
Suddath, Claire. "Hey Female Lawyers, This Firm Wants You to Stop Giggling and           Showing Cleavage." BloombergBusinessweek (blog), October 25, 2013.   http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-25/hey-female-lawyers-this-firm- wants-you-to-stop-giggling-and-showing-cleavage (accessed November 20, 2013).
Zaretsky, Staci. "Can women lawyers have it all? Sure, but not in BigLaw ." Above the Law (blog), November 12, 2013. http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/can-women-lawyers-have-it-all-sure-but-not-in-biglaw/ (accessed November 20, 2013).

Implications of Evidence Tampering As Analyzed Through the Hinton Laboratory Scandal


By Caitlin Barbas

The presence of evidence tampering within a subset of the United States legal system results in a failure of the system in performing a fair trial. Evidence tampering, which most commonly occurs through the destruction, fabrication, and suppression of evidence,[1] is a criminal offense often leading to a prison sentences or probation. Forms of evidence tampering include actions such as submitting false laboratory data, killing witnesses of a case, preventing the production of legal documents and reports, and planting objects which would link an alleged offender to a crime. This offense is regarded as highly serious as it results in costly mistrials and, often, the dismissal of prison sentences, generating in a risk of both previously incarcerating an innocent defendant and presently releasing a guilty offender.
In order to better comprehend the stresses placed upon the legal system by the presence of evidence tampering, we will analyze the details and outcome of a recent Massachusetts trial during which a laboratory chemist “pleaded guilty to 27 counts of misleading investigators, filing false reports, and tampering with evidence.”[2]
In August of 2012, the Hinton Laboratory, operated under the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in Jamaica Plains, Boston was closed after police conducted an investigation into the presence of falsified laboratory conclusions.[3] In investigating the work of Annie Dookham, inconsistencies were found within the data. These inconsistencies were result of “dry testing,”[4] meaning Dookham only tested a portion of a sample entering the lab for drug tests, while marking the entire sample as determined by the few. As a result of the guilty verdict, all tests in which Dookham participated must be reviewed for validity purposes, giving defendants the opportunity to appeal for review of sentencing. It is estimated that over 40,000 cases were handled by Dookham within a time frame of approximately nine years.[5]
             As the investigation of the laboratory still continues, the cost placed upon the Massachusetts justice system also continues to rise. Having spent approximately $8.5 million as of November 5, 2013 on the review of hundreds of trials and cases, the justice department has already approved a budget of $8.6 million for the upcoming fiscal year.[6] The scandal has already resulted in the dismissal of 1100 cases across 8 counties, though many more cases are also expected to require a review.[7] Furthermore, of those who received a trial review and were released, 13% were arrested and charged with allegedly committing a separate crime, including murder.[8]
            In understanding the details of this case, we can clearly see the negative impact of evidence tampering on the validity and efficiency of the legal system. Due to the possibility of having convicted an innocent man based on false evidence, the sentencing of hundreds of prisoners, whether innocent or guilty are reviewed and, often, removed.  As evident by the high levels of re-arrest in Massachusetts, evidence tampering results in the risked safety of the community, as well in a monetary cost for the justice department, which must review affected cases.  Thus, the seriousness of evidence tampering crimesis demonstrated as it results in a widespread negative effect on the defendants of the trial, the victims if the trial, society, which must face the release of prisoners and the cost of review.


[1] Sanchirico, Chris W. "Evidence Tampering." Duke University Law Review. Accessed November 25, 2013. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=dlj.
[2] Valencia, Milton J., and John R. Ellement. "Annie Dookham Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." The Boston Globe. Accessed November 24, 2013. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/22/annie-dookhan-former-state-chemist-who-mishandled-drug-evidence-agrees-plead-guilty/7UU3hfZUof4DFJGoNUfXGO/story.html.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Salsberg, Bob. "Mass. Chemist Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." Associated Press. Accessed November 24, 2013. http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/mass-chemist-pleads-guilty-in-drug-lab-scandal
[5] Valencia, Milton J., and John R. Ellement. "Annie Dookham Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." The Boston Globe. Accessed November 24, 2013.
[6] Salsberg, Bob. "Mass. Chemist Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." Associated Press. Accessed November 24, 2013
[7] Ibid.
[8] Valencia, Milton J., and John R. Ellement. "Annie Dookham Pleads Guilty in Drug Lab Scandal." The Boston Globe. Accessed November 24, 2013.