Unknown Speaker 00:00 I play the entire conference today is women as changemakers and issues of power for women as moving into positions of power. And I think implications of what it means to be a woman in a position of power, in terms of one's perspective in terms of issues of concern to women generally. And that's what our panel is going to be focusing on today in the specific context of the issues that are posed for women as judges. Our panel today consists of Judge Betty ellering, who's to my right, who's the Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, first apartment in New York. I'm going to ask actually in a few minutes for us to go around the room, also to find out who you are. But for those of you who are assuming that not everybody in the audience is a lawyer or a judge or familiar necessarily, let me just say the appellate division first department is the intermediate appellate court for the state court system of New York. Betty is the first woman on the appellate division first department, which includes Manhattan. I'm sorry, in the Bronx, in New York. She was before that acting, she was before that administrative judge of the the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of the state of New York and was responsible from 1982 to 1980. But basically, primary responsibility for administering the operation of the New York City Court system. And before that, was, she had been elected to the bench in 1976. And had served in a number of clerkship capacities before that. She is also an important has been a very, very important person in a very important national organization, the National Association of Women judges. She is currently vice president of the National Association of Women judges, which includes women judges from all over the country, and is the chair of its national task force on gender bias in the courts, which has been the issue of gender bias in the courts and the appointment of task forces in many states around the country. And now some Federal Circuit's as well, of task forces on Women in the Courts has been an important development that we'll talk about in the course of our panel. To my left is justice Carol Berkman, who is an acting Justice of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. She has been an acting Justice of the Supreme Court since 1982. In 1979. She was first appointed to the criminal court in the city of New York, and was reappointed in 1989. Carol has a long litigation background before being appointed to the judiciary, she was associated Assistant Attorney in charge of the Legal Aid Society. And it also worked at a law firm Proskauer, Rose gets in Mendelssohn, and another law firm curl spinbox in London, she's also been involved in a lot of activities, particularly in the Bar Association in the city of New York, involving women in the judiciary, and other issues, and has also been involved in the National Association of Women judges, and sits currently on its board of directors of the New York City Chapter of The New York chapter. Unknown Speaker 03:28 So that's Betty and Carol. As I said, I'm going to function as moderator and commentator. I'm a, as I said, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, and was a civil rights attorney for many years before I went into law teaching at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. I also served as law clerk to the first woman, she judged us federal judge in the Southern District of New York, Judge Constance Baker Motley. And I've been involved I teach women in the law and have also been a visiting professor since 1989, at Harvard Law School, and I teach in the area of women's rights and write about women, I teach civil procedure, women judging feminist theory, and women and law generally. The format of our panel today is that we're going to have Betty start talking about some of her own experiences and her perspectives on some of the issues and experiences of women as judges. Carol is going to talk also then from her own perspective, I'm going to comment on their remarks. And also try to open it up for some dialogue with all all of you. Before we start the panel though, what I would suggest is that we do go around the room since we are a pretty small group, because I think it will be helpful for us also in our shaping our conversation with each other in our remarks to sort of know who all of you are, what your interest is in this topic and just be able to shape it a little bit more directly. So I'm liking or I used to calling on people. Unknown Speaker 05:12 My name is Arthur Sinodinos. I don't have legal background yet starting law school. Unknown Speaker 05:20 Last year, Unknown Speaker 05:21 I was the president of a campaign in cell phones. And it was an interesting experience, because I found that lawyers have a lot to do with contribute contributing campaigns, especially for senator. And I found that further research a little bit of a subtle what to do with will eventually becomes a judge. So I was curious, I, you know, besides my interest in becoming a lawyer and then actually becoming a judge, how do you become a judge? Yeah, without going through these channels? I don't know. I just wanted to hear pretty much I want to hear also what it's like to be a woman in such a way to help position. Unknown Speaker 06:15 My name is Barbara Catholic, civil court judgment. Hamburgo. I've been in a court system for a long time. I started out Jelena with the judgment effect, she made a one sheet for me the day I passed the bar exam. Unknown Speaker 06:29 And I've also been involved with a lot of women's bar associations, and have just started getting involved with women judges. Unknown Speaker 06:41 My name is Valerie Porter. I become very interested in the area of gender discrimination. And I partake in a workshop with Catherine MacKinnon. And I know a lot of research in the area. My name is Stephanie Smith, and Unknown Speaker 06:57 I may or may not get into Brooklyn Law School Unknown Speaker 07:01 or CUNY law school. They started law school in the fall, and I'm interested in working with seven women judges. Unknown Speaker 07:14 I think we assumed that the general level of interest Unknown Speaker 07:20 My name is Amanda Fishman. I am interested in issues concerning women. I currently work at Planned Parenthood and my interests also definitely revolve around legal issues and going to law school in the fall. I'm there I'm Unknown Speaker 07:35 a first year student in Cleveland, Marshall College of Law, and I'm president of the Women's Law Caucus and I want to soak up everything I can today. Unknown Speaker 07:45 I'm also in my second year at getting a law school. I was Advocates for Children last summer after working Unknown Speaker 07:58 there I'm Mary Ellen Perry. I'm an attorney in Cold Spring Harbor second department Unknown Speaker 08:07 very dear friend Jessica. Dean at Bank Street College is right over here. And I've been interested in gender bias issues in the legal system at all times. Unknown Speaker 08:15 I'm really interested in perspective. Unknown Speaker 08:19 Cap many pets when Unknown Speaker 08:31 it was found waters, Unknown Speaker 08:33 literature Thank you. Minor Haman. I've worked for the board of education now trying to change some testing the way tests are given and so forth, interested in Unknown Speaker 08:52 gender bias testing and are getting my master's in education. Now I'm considering moving to law trying to merge those two. Unknown Speaker 09:05 My name is Sharon shrimp. And I'm a sophomore in Monterey. Unknown Speaker 09:09 English major, maybe. I'm Dr. Rodriguez reason for undergrad, my first year at Brooklyn Law School. And I will be working a clinical internship as an intern this summer as the Commission on Human Rights. And I noticed that informal session but if I refer to the judges as Your Honor, it's because the middle of a moot court competition authority that parents Unknown Speaker 09:46 engage in actually practicing. I had the pleasure of having connector Schneider professor of the law school or the women of law class when I can serve as national interest in representing our women This is part of the seminar leaders, change makers, people pleaser you want to change the laws with respect to child support? And not enough accounting is none. There's no mention Abby today. Unknown Speaker 10:18 Well, the child support guidelines are now in effect. That was a step Unknown Speaker 10:24 it is a step. It's it's not a I just find that it's a it's not enough. My name is I've always just been in town. And I've had people tell Unknown Speaker 10:48 me, we'll use a little, like, a lawyer or something just because they kept you around. Okay, well, let's start. Unknown Speaker 11:04 Well, listening to the comments around the table there any one of the four speeches I could have made? That I might that might have been greater relevance to some of you, but we were given the topic? Do women judges make a difference? So I jotted down some notes. And that's what you're going to hear, although during the question and answer period, you can feel very free to ask about some of those other areas, and I will touch upon them. I think, as I go along. First of all, let me say I've been a very vocal feminist for over 50 years. So I didn't I am not yet. Unknown Speaker 11:46 beyond the pale, you can see that I started the rather early age. And throughout all those years, the emphasis has always been on achieving equality for women, in all walks of life, in demonstrating that women, at the very least were equal to men in intellect and ability, and therefore entitled to share equally in the halls of power. Be an executive, legislative, or judicial, where the decisions governing our lives are made. So with all of this emphasis on equality, it's somewhat ironic that we should now be asking whether women make a difference. And I remember feeling somewhat uncomfortable about 15 years ago, when I was a comparatively new judge, when I received a telephone call from a reporter who was working on an article about women judges. And, you know, Miranda was our her question was, do you feel that women judges are different? So I went through the litany of, well, no, we have equal abilities, and, you know, equal training and experience. And then I said, but I do think that maybe women judges are generally have a greater sensitivity and understanding when dealing with certain types of cases. And having once publicly acknowledged that fact, I felt somewhat liberated. And my beliefs in this area have, over the years really been expanded by virtue of my traditional experiences. Actually, I suppose the starting point should be what are the qualities that a judge should possess any judge? The historic wisdom has been that judges must be fair, neutral, impartial, objective, free from bias. And Brian, for the 150 years that our judges are exclusively male, we had the kind of fairness and impartiality that made rape, the only crime that required corroboration, because after all, a woman's word alone could not possibly be enough to convict a man and we're decisions on support and alimony began with the question. Well, how much does he the wage earner need to live comfortably before even considering the need of the heretofore homemaker, spouse and children? And where domestic violence no matter what the extent of the injuries to the battered woman were just family affairs not important enough for court attention. And even in the realm of real property rights, seemingly a gender neutral field, these fair and unbiased judges concluded that we're a husband and wife owned property jointly as tenants in the entirety, but the husband had provided the consideration for buying the property during their lifetimes. That property was owned exclusively by the husband and the wife only had a right of survivorship. alternatively, where it was owned jointly, and the wife had provided the consideration, well, then it was assumed that each of them had an undivided half because it was assumed that she immediately made a gift to him. Half of it. I remember being utterly shocked as a law. Clerk doing research in this area back 30 years ago, when this came to my attention was changed in that regard. But that's how the law was. These examples are are the fairness impartiality, and proceed from the vantage of those who dispense those judgments, and exclusively male Vantage. In fact, the high sounding buzzwords that describe the ideal judge as completely dispassionate, disengaged and impartial a blank slate as it were, or a fiction. A more realistic explanation was given by Judge Shirley Abramson Zhan, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, who said, What does my being a woman specially bring to the bench, it brings me and my special background. All my life experiences, including being a woman affect me and influence me. My point is that nobody is just a woman or a man. Each of us is a person with diverse experiences, each of us brings to the bench experiences that affect our view of law, and life and decision making. So the recognition that a judge of whatever gender brings to the bench her or his perspective, as formulated by that person's life experiences and exposures, both personal and interactive, is increasingly recognized. And in my view, is the underlying reason why it is so important to have increased numbers of women and minorities on our benches. So that the overall judicial perspective will be advanced and expanded by the breadth of the multiple perspectives and experiences of our multi faceted society. Unknown Speaker 17:14 Now, let me relate some of those generalities, to the realities of the courtroom. Or, as Liz said, Tell some more stories. And I'm going to do it particularly from the vantage of whether women judges make a difference. So I hope a few of these stories may be somewhat illustrative. Let me first start with how rape cases were treated. 25 years ago, at that time, I was a walker to a Supreme Court judge who was assigned to the criminal term of the Supreme Court that deals with felony cases. And I remember, and he was the calendar judge, which meant that we had about 50 cases a day that could come into that part. And frequently, I was the only woman in the courtroom those days. A lot has changed in that regard. Happily. And I'm in whatever rate case would come in the snickering the snide remarks, the couple was that would you know, sort of walk around the room, not just from the defense lawyer from court personnel, and from the assistant district attorney, who was scheduled to try the case and to prosecute the complainants point of view. So it was small wonder, and by the way, because I was in the room, they would restrain themselves, haha. But you know, you've got the whole or an atmosphere and that's the way it was pretty much the wild the court system, you know, the ceiling about rape cases. So it was small wonder that the convictions were rare and that women frequently refused to submit to further degradation by pursuing these claims. They would rate it frequently at the hands of the so called law enforcement community. Well, a lot has changed in those intervening point why 30 years? First of all, we have many judges, like judge Bergman, who sits in the criminal trial court and others. Many of the Assistant District Attorneys are women, many of the court offices are women. The defense attorneys are women, so that the heinous nature of the crime is treated not with Snickers and befores. But with the seriousness that warrants clearly the special perspective and understanding of that inhumane act, by the many women in the process has been transmitted and had an ameliorating effect. I suppose that there are still those who have some underlying Snickers and obscene thoughts, but because of the presence of so many women, those are kept very silent and to themselves. As a personal aside, and with respect to how I feel that my being a woman had sort of shaped my perspective, I'm going to tell you a story about when I was in an arraignment park my earliest days as a judge, that's when you sit in the criminal court. And that's the first time that a criminal defendant is brought into the courtroom to be a judge. And I sat nikecourt, Carol will remember that experience? Well, it was not one that we all love. Remember, yeah. That's why I want to read the Supreme Court. In any event, but once you got into what, you know, you got caught up in the dynamic. And you've got all kinds of cases in the course of that process. Quite a few of them when prostitution cases. So I'm sitting at the bench, and I looked at the next case on the docket, and I see two names as defendants one male and one female. And however, I only see one person sitting, you know, at the defendants side of the bed with a lawyer and the assistant district attorney comes up and says, because the male, obviously with the John, and the female, with the prostitute, district attorney comes up and he said, Oh, well, Judge, the people are moving to dismiss the case against John Jones. I said, Oh, really? And the case against Jane Jones. Oh, we're continuing that. So I think no, I don't think so. Not in this court room. What's good for the gander is good for the groups, dismissing the asked him, I'm dismissing against her, Well, maybe that wasn't very earth, shattering a case. But in small measure, it demonstrated to that assistant district attorney and everyone in that courtroom, that equal treatment meant just that, irrespective of gender. Unknown Speaker 21:53 Similarly, we would get on occasion of domestic violence case in that court. And I think I should tell you, I was not looked upon as a tilde. I think I was looked upon as one of the more compassionate judges, defense lawyers were not unhappy, you know, when they saw me in the courtroom, I give you that aside, as a preliminary as to what transpired in comes a case of domestic violence. Beat me for approval, they showed me the pictures, they were just really awful. And tours approach and two of them. So I said, yeah, yeah, it's a family affair. You're on the parole one. And tomorrow, we'll send the case to the family before. Translated what that meant was, once he walked out of that courtroom, believe me, she wasn't going to bring charges anywhere, he would have probably, you know, given her a repeat, because she did to bring charges. So I don't know, I think you have the wrong judge. Make your bail application. And really what I did, I'll be very honest, I put enough bail on so that I knew that he would not be able to make it. And why because I had really read a great deal about this. And many of the domestic violence perpetrators are not your regular, you know, run of the mill criminals who know what it's like back there in the pens, and to go to Rikers overnight. It's a traumatic experience to them. And if they have that experience, they'll think twice next time before they seek to brutalize, you know, their partner. And I must say they hear again, when I know those days, Porto versus tried to shut off those cases, many of the judges did too. But because now there are so many women in the criminal courts, those cases are treated with the seriousness that they warrant. And also because, again, a thrust from women judges on the bench. We have judicial education programs that try to educate all of our colleagues to the significance and the seriousness of those cases. And the fact that the woman doesn't come back to prosecute, what the psychological reasons for that are and what have you. And I think we have made some strides in that regard. And for that, we have to thank also, not just our women judges on the bench, but the judicial education leaders like Liz Schneider, and names that I don't know if you will recognize but who are truly also leaders in this field, Norma Winkler, and Lin. Heck, Jacqueline, they've been wonderful leaders in the gender bias, movement demonstrating how our courts, in many ways are permeated by gender bias. And I think I'm now an appellate judge, I suppose. I want to give you a little insight into that area and my role in that court and the role that a woman can play as Liz indicated to you I was the first woman appointed to the appellate division first department. We are 13 judges I am one woman there. I go back one woman eight years ago, and I'm still not one one. Now we sit in benches of five. And we review the cases that come up to us from the trial courts. And that includes matrimonial cases, property divisions, and support awards. And I must say, I think that it is here that my perspective had been particularly helpful, I hope to my colleagues, one thing I noticed silence in this area. They are a wonderful group, and they have been very receptive to expanding their awareness about the economic problems which confront a woman upon termination of marriage, the inability to obtain meaningful employment after years out of the job market, the difficulties of caring for children and getting a job that will pay enough to cover childcare costs, and the life. Now, while women on the bench are not a monolith, with the mass of identically shared experiences, because of our interaction with our less fortunate Sisters, we are sensitized to these kinds of problems. In my view, it's not it's both our responsibility and our privilege to be able to elevate the consciousness of other judges to those problems. And wrong, most judges don't have that particular experience. But when you bring it to them, you make it a very real kind of thing. They have a greater understanding, and they're able to rule, I think, in a more sensitive and realistic way. Unknown Speaker 26:46 feminist scholars have sought to define differences in the perspectives which men and women bring to the process of judging. Judge Bertha Wilson, the first woman justice on the Supreme Court of Canada summed it up. Firstly, she said, men see moral problems as arising from competing rights. The adversarial process comes easily to that. Women see moral problems as arising from competing obligation, the one to the other. The important thing is to preserve relationships, to develop an ethic of carrying. The goal, according to women's ethical sense is not seen in terms of winning or losing, but rather in terms of achieving an optimum outcome for all individuals involved in the moral dilemma. It is not difficult to see how this contrast and thinking might form the basis of different perceptions of justice. Now, again, while it must be emphasized that women, whether it's judges, or anything else, are not fungible, or clones, and they represent a broad spectrum of philosophies and perspectives, I believe, based on my claims with the many women judges that I own country wide, that most women judges to reflect the kind of humanist concern and caring about the ultimate outcome of a case as it impacts are the human beings involved that enriches and patronize our system of justice. The continued persistence of bias against women throughout our society and in our court system, because our own gender bias stands for demonstrated that the New York courts also are rife with gender bias. But I think that with the increase of the number of women as judges on the bench, we will have one, not only a bias for you will have more bias free Ford system, but one that is more committed to justice and to human that, I hope someday some of you will be among those who will help to bring about that desire to go. Unknown Speaker 29:12 I should start by saying that I'm a trial judge my appeals or my decisions go to a Betty's court. But I don't want you to think either that I therefore defer to her or that we got together to prepare our remarks. Sir, certain overlaps here. Unknown Speaker 29:34 But that's why I emphasize the age difference. First, Unknown Speaker 29:41 I thought it was because you were on the higher court. I will say I will say just so that you understand, I guess some of the background I was. I was an appeals attorney before I became a judge. So I have something of of a But it's only in some ways this sort of reverse way I was in the appeals courts, although not a judge before Judge ellering was in the trial court while she's an appeal. Judge. So we do come from those sort of joint traditions, all that from slightly different points of view. Now, I think, just to stick to the topic, which I'll try to do fairly, strictly, strictly as I can, that we as women, whether women judges or women, whatever play an important role just by being in a position of importance or power, I think a great deal of what happens in terms of bias throughout our society is that we are not born to we do not grow up with, we are not entirely accepted of women as people of power. Some of you have questions, you're younger, perhaps it's easier for you to think of women as doctors or women as surgeons, or women as judges or women as governors. It's a little difficult for many of us in this society to accept that. So as women, we play a very important role as judges simply by being women, whether we agree or disagree, whether we're conservative or liberal, whether we're sensitive or not sensitive. And the same, of course, I think it'd be sad for African Americans or or other minority people in those positions of power, we all have to learn how to not be surprised to walk into a courtroom and see a woman on the bench to walk into a doctor's office to walk into a board meeting. And we were a long way from arriving at that. But that, it seems to me is we are finally gender bias will not be an issue anymore. We're not surprised by seeing those things. This, I think has been an evolution. Although sometimes I'm a little you know, we don't learn by our history entirely. Last year, I went to my 25th law school reunion. And there's an enormous the a dispute on the campus about the rights of women and the rights of African Americans and other minority people. And whether or not the faculty is sufficiently diverse, and a lot of activism among the student body and people. One young woman said at a at a meeting, we called a few alums from my class, to hear what the students were talking about. And we were looking around the room, the class of 67, was looking around the room. And there were so many women, we were 25 have a class of 500. And there were so many African Americans and so many Asian Americans. And it was astonishing to us. And there were they were complaining bitterly about how nothing had ever done, nothing had changed, nothing had changed. And every one, when you're going to end, we were talking about how indeed, things have changed over land have not yet succeeded. And one young woman we've been talking about lady's dead. When I was in law school, were a couple of professors who had ladies dead because they didn't want to bother the class was calling on women all the time. So they had a couple of days a year when they call on women and not bother to class with it for the rest of Europe. The young looked at us and we thought that was a legend. Unknown Speaker 33:51 You know how to open a dispute. Unknown Speaker 33:54 But even though we as women, we have this sort of strange position, we're still put in this position of somehow being feminine and feminist at the same time. Last year, I heard tattling brown make a speech. And here's this woman who was treasurer of California pick that's her titled, maybe the next governor and she was talking about making a speech. She controls millions of dollars, millions and millions of dollars. And she made a speech and she tells a story about how after she made the speech. A woman came up and said I have something really very important I want to share with you. I really want to talk about it. And Kathleen Brown was perfectly happy to hear something really important from this audience and the woman said You know, you should always wear a scarf. So, no, or had not wear a headband. So we as women are still laboring under that And, but it isn't evolution, things have changed and will continue to change. Now, as a trial judge, it is my job to decide specific cases, unlike Betty's job where she does decide the specific case, but also has to think about whether to write and affect many other cases in the future. That's not my job. My job is to decide the case that comes up for me that day. Some of them most of you are not lawyers who are even out of law school. And those of you in law school. I remember this, you know, you want to handle sort of important cases and big issues. And basically, what happens is that the law in litigation is made up of a lot of little cases, they are certainly not trivial to litigants, and never trivial to litigate. If they were trivial, they wouldn't be in court, they wouldn't come to the wire in the first place. Now, I will say that I think I read the materials that Lucy sent him I was a little bit, I'm a little bit I'm getting a little old and inflexible. So I was reading about deconstruction on my so what are they talking about? I cannot, I cannot perhaps those of you who are younger or more flexible than I can imagine a society in which there are no judges. We can call them whatever we want. But in every organized society, there has been somebody who has resolved disputes with have the final word who is acting as a mediator, I cannot imagine a society in which there are no judges. The theory of judging, it seems to me has always been that the judge decided, the case is according to neutral principles of law. And the question then becomes who decides what are neutral principles of law? neutral principles of law, supposedly, of what allows us to distinguish between deciding a case according to our personal predilections or personal prejudices, or between judgment, so the race corroboration into which that he had had reference was once considered a neutral principle of law. It was justified because it was so hard for a man to defend against this, and so easy to make the accusation. So it was considered to be a neutral principle of law, that person could not be convicted of rape, simply on the word of the complainant. That was a neutral principle of law under a male dominated legal system. Unknown Speaker 38:06 Now, it goes on the other side, as well, a colleague of mine, who had sat in the criminal parliament who had left it came to me for a little help, she had gotten a motion for who since the defendant had been convicted, after trial before her have been quite brutal attempted rape. And she had thought under the specific facts of the defendants previous convictions, conviction record that he, it was required under New York law that this defendant received a life sentence. And she had some sentence to. As it turns out, the defendant then made a motion after his conviction, saying, Well, you're in error, because my previous conviction record is not as you thought. And he sent evidence that indeed, this was the case, it's entitled to resend under New York law. So I, you know, sort of looked at it and my college had been out on the criminal side for a long time, sort of forgotten all these little rules and regulations about sentencing. And I said, Well, you can now send him as what we call predicate violent, and the minimum is four to eight and the maximum is seven and a half to 15. And my guess is she gave him 25 To Life last time, you want to give me seven to 15. So no problem. Now, my colleague happens to be a liberal who doesn't like the establishment the power of the establishment either. So in this instance, she said, Well, no, I think I've already given four to eight. So the her feminist principles which one would think would to go up to the maximum on the case, we're at war with other principles that she had, which were that the organized society, the police say the establishment work to be not to be catered to by giving a giving the highest sentence in the case, I mentioned that not to criticize that particular sentence or speak on that particular case, come on, it was on probation report, the minimum might have been just as appropriate as the maximum ultimately in that case, but just simply to dramatize that, that, in arriving at whatever it is that we think are neutral legal principles, sometimes, you know, the same things that make us laugh, make us cry. Ray Charles says, you know, we get into these pushes and pulls. We're not happy. We may not be happy with the Nazis marching in Skokie, but we want our First Amendment rights. So there were those problems now, you know, there's I have one more war story about neutral legal principles. Some years ago, I handled an appeal, I represented a defendant, who had been convicted of rape, and had been out on a date with this woman, and according to her, he had raped her. Now, I should make a comment, I think this might be interesting to discuss it the session. I don't know how many of you are aware of the fact that that at NYU Law School, there has been some uproar because some of the students got upset at being required to participate in a moot court, which had topics which they did not find. Unknown Speaker 41:56 Acceptable. They didn't like the sides, they were asked to take the examples, as I recall them, or one of them required the law student to read and study the account of a young child who had been sexually molested and to read about the details of the gynecological examination of the child. And it was felt by some student group that this would be very painful to those law students who had themselves been the victims of child sexual abuse. There was another case in which it was a custody dispute between a father and a lesbian mother. And the students did not want to represent the Father because they felt that required them to take a homophobic position. Well, this was back in the days when one could still, although with some slight discomfort, represent people who had done things which we didn't much prove up, but the criminal defense lawyers in that was our role to take to represent on top of their clients, and simply to present the law. I remember in this particular case, that when I when I wrote the brief, and file that I had a little prayer, I sent it off to the appellate division first department, this was before bed instead, I wouldn't have had a private I tell you, I would not have I prayed. I had a list, I had a list, I looked at the list of the judges and I had a list of those judges I wanted to have on the panel in order to win this case. And I got four out of five that I wanted, and I won the case. And it went to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed, and it went back to the appellate division. And I won the case again. And that's because I had four out of five of these judges who did not want to believe that a woman might indicate an interest in going out with the guy and still say no, they didn't want to believe you couldn't have a conviction under those circumstances. So why won that case? Now I won that case, I don't believe I betray incompetence or violate any ethical rules by saying that I don't think I should have won that. And as I said, I don't think I would have won that case if Betty L. Ron had been on that court. Not even on that panel, but on that court. But again, I come back to neutral principles of law can be very elastic concepts. Finally, I was asked to sort of address the question of what women bring to the question of fact finding as opposed to war finding. I don't have quite as much experience because I don't, I don't I've not worked on the civil side. So I've never done domestic relations. And in fact, most of the factfinding my reports done by jury Unknown Speaker 45:10 some of the what we think about as fact finding and the basis on which we make fact findings or decide whether we like somebody who don't like somebody, or believe somebody or don't believe somebody really is based on a lot of prejudice, and a lot of, if you think about it, a lot of sort of cultural bias. So you think about eye contact, which we make a big thing out of in our American culture, which is, in some places considered to be enormously rude and unacceptable. Here, and without going into cultural things, a lot of us probably have, and as a judge, you have to resist this a force is that a middle class educated person may seem more credible to you. And another educated person, simply by being more articulate, being better dressed than being a better presentation. So those things are also subject to elasticity. You know, there are no neutral legal principles, or even no neutral principles at all for making these decisions without bringing the prejudiced women, of course, suffer in this context, because women as witnesses, do not hear the powered because of our cultural biases. So a woman comes in and you kind of she has a different, she may have a different impact as a witness the cause of those biases. I feel I can't prove not done a survey of that I've tried, I've presided over the trials of a number of rape cases, including a number of Daybreak cases. And it's interesting, because I tell some of my colleagues, you know, they'll say, Well, what are you trying? And I'll tell them, Well, is this case of a woman? And she knew this guy, and he offered her a ride, and so forth and so on? And then he did such and such? Oh, that's gonna be well, I don't know. Not an acquittal. Unknown Speaker 47:28 No, named steady. Unknown Speaker 47:32 No names. We know better than I think. I think that the the effect on a jury, whatever it may be of seeing a woman judge, perhaps a woman prosecutor is that rather than react with the snicker effect? And it's still there? I mean, I've tried cases in which the lawyers have argued, well, you know, comes like, what'd she do when she didn't want to do that? Not it's still there. It's not gone. But I think the juries react to simply the whether it's body language, or simply the fact that the judge says, this is a serious problem. This could have happened, as opposed to a judge who says, Unknown Speaker 48:20 Show me I'm from. So I think those are very important factors that we as women bring to the process, whatever our Unknown Speaker 48:34 whatever our own predilections may be a simply by being there. We require we require people to sort of sit back and abandon some of those prejudices and look at things seriously, particularly if they involve women. I wouldn't say finally, and I think this is kind of in line with, with what Betty said about women not being fungible. I don't think that she would argue with me if I said that I probably more conservative and probably am known as Attila the Hun. Unknown Speaker 49:12 Why not play? Not quite. Unknown Speaker 49:18 But I think that one of the things that we as women have to look at and maybe it's the thing that we can topic we can discuss, if you're interested in and that is that, you know, when you read articles about what women bring to the process of judging and the ports and to being a lawyer, you read about caring and compassion and sensitivity and intuition. And I don't want you know, as a as a product of the evolution of our society and becoming equal to lose good quality means being a woman in our current society. On the other hand, I would say that this kind of caring is a trap for us as women. That if we have to care, and we have to be compassionate, we have to be sensitive, we also have to wear a scarf. Well, that's a wonderful, those are two really interesting perspectives. And I think some really many, many wonderful things that both of you set for us to have sort of taken and talk about. And Shawn, given the nature of who the boy or audience is, I thought that maybe what I might do now, rather than talk about, pick up on the themes of women and judging directly, is to give you a little bit of background, a little bit of context of the dialogue that I think we just heard from both Carol and men to comment a little bit in a few minutes about some of the issues that I think both of the mission, and some other issues that I think are important for us to think about. The context that I want to start with is just understanding some of the bringing out and making more explicit, perhaps some of the history that both Ben and Carol, were mentioning. And one of the things that we have in this room today is a very long sort of chronological line in a sense of terms of agent perspective, of many of us in this room. And it's wonderful to have many of you here who are in college thinking about going to law school, we need you, we need more women, we need more women who are thinking, I would say quite explicitly, in a feminist perspective, to go into law and to be making a difference with respect to law. There is no doubt an incredibly dramatic difference in what Carol is describing from her own 25th Law School Reunion. And certainly the experience that we have now I graduated a little bit later. I graduated in 1973, from NYU. And in my class we had I would say about maybe 15% of my class was women, many of whom, by the way, many of the women in my class are still actively as I am engaged and committed to doing work in the area of women's rights. We had no women faculty members, once I went to law school to do work in the area of the women's movement, because I was already involved in doing work, I was already an activist in the women's movement. And I went to law basically went into law to do basically the work that I have been privileged basically, over the last 20 years to continue to be able to do which is to do public interest work and women's rights work. And I have to teach in the area of women's rights. But we had no role models. We were basically starting it from scratch. There were no case books, I started to teach women in the law at Brooklyn Law School was an adjunct in 1974. When I graduated right after I graduated from NYU, and there was not a single case book, we were using Xerox materials handing on there were four courses in the country that were taught at that time. In law, we were handing that to Xerox materials back and forth among the four of us who taught these forces. You know, there was just it was a totally, totally different world. And it is important, I think, to hold on to that history. One of the things that I am concerned about, I have to say honestly, now, both in the students that I teach at Brooklyn, and also in the students that I've been teaching since 1989, and Harvard is the lack of history, the lack of historical perspective, the lack of understanding of on the one hand, how far we've come, and simultaneously, how far we have to go. And it seems to me there's a message in the stories that we're talking about today. That really is the message no question. The world I you know, the the the, the Carol's vivid description of the Unknown Speaker 53:58 the dialogue that you had at your reunion last year, of seeing the numbers of women, I mean, I now have, you know, 80 people who were who take my women in the workforce of Harvard Law School. So obviously, it's a dramatic difference from what Carol's class look alike. But there still are very few women who are tenured on that faculty. And there are four women who are tenured on the faculty that the students in the year that I taught there, were totally starved for people to do work on feminist theory to relate to their concerns as women to do to teach courses relating to women, to be role models to talk with them to guide them, whatever. So we've come a long way. But there is really a very, very, very long way to go. Now, not only a couple of things that I want to just put through on the table as issues just again as part of this context. One is that there is no question that we have seen a dramatic difference. One of the ways is numbers. Surely the numbers have 43% now have a Students in law schools are now women. But video learning has remained the only woman on the Appellate Division Police Department before, hopefully not for long, but for what is it eight Unknown Speaker 55:10 years now, Unknown Speaker 55:12 we've seen a lot more progress in terms of the trial level courts in the city of New York. But again, we're talking about New York City. And in terms of what what we're seeing around the country, the vast number of taskforce reports on gender bias and reports that have now been published, by most states in this country, and now, by at least one federal circuit, the Ninth Circuit, what is now pending in the DC Circuit dramatize that we are still talking about paltry numbers, both not not only in terms of judges, but in terms of lawyers and any positions of power. In general, we're seeing increases in number of women law teachers, but yet they are we're still seeing increases more at the less pay less long term, less tenure areas such as legal writing, and clinical teaching, rather than tenure track and Dean ships, and other positions of power. We are seeing increasingly certainly improvements in the curriculum of many law schools. I now sit on the associate on the executive committee of the Association of American law schools. And that is the basically the governing body for all law schools in the country. But there have only been two women who have been presidents of that organization. And very few women who have ever sat on that executive committee. We are involved in doing all the accreditation, basically, and all the review of all law school programs in the country. And I can tell you that although there is a dramatic increase in the number of, for example, courses, such as women in the law, we are not necessarily seeing the kind of real integration of women's concerns and feminist concerns into the broader law school curriculum. For the last many years, for example, the section on women and legal education of the ALS had programs every year at the annual meeting where all law school teachers come to talk about the integration of concerns of women and feminist issues into contracts towards civil procedure, the basic courses and all of the other courses in the curriculum. And we are not we it's wonderful to have courses that specifically focus on issues of women. But we need to see the integration of these issues and the integration of these concerns in every aspect of the curriculum. And you need to see the entire law school program and focus of the Law School Program integrated with these concerns. And I have to say that that process of real integration has been far slower than the numbers of women who are now in law schools and numbers of women who are now in law teaching would suggest, partially because of the very dilemma that I think the entire theme of this conference poses, which is the difference between women and women who have a commitment and concern to women's issues more generally, I see many women who are now in law schools, as my students, and many of them believe that basically issues of equality for women have now been solved, that the time has passed, that that was an age old now that that was something in the 70s. And then now basically, they need not fight or commit themselves, basically to broader concerns with respect to women, I think nothing could be further than the truth. We are at it seems to me a crucial watershed for a variety of reasons, which I'm very happy to really talk about and have something that we talked about in our discussion. But I think that we're now at a very critical turning point that the numbers are not sufficient. They are they are they are necessary, they are a necessary prerequisite. Without the numbers, we are never going to make change. But it is really a broader commitment to a struggle. And the broader commitment seems to me to see oneself as part of that struggle. That is very, very important. Now a couple of issues that I think raised identifying sort of make this work just said more concrete. One is the you know the enormous difference in institutions, where there are more women as opposed to where they are not. I teach regularly at Brooklyn Law School where between a third and a half of my faculty are women and women the tenure track and or tenured Unknown Speaker 59:36 teaching at Harvard where I was one of four women. And out of the faculty of 80 was a dramatic difference. Being the only woman teaching in the entire first year of law school curriculum as I was in 1991, where at Brooklyn I am one of 15 women teaching the first year creates a very, very different message for my students. Many of them have two or three Women's do we have women teachers, it sends a very, very important and very different message. The burdens of being one of the few women as Betty, Betty's experience, I think, could probably tell us a lot of being the only woman on a court, we're being the only woman on the faculty of having to constantly be the person who raises the woman's point of view, as though there were a single woman's point of view, is a very, very enormous burden for all women born women into positions of power in whatever setting, it makes an enormous difference to be among in faculty or to be in a situation institutional situation, where you are one of many, where different perspectives can surface and be discussed and be talked about as though they're really to really sort of surface all of the different range of perspectives of which women may have. And I think that the burdens of, of this kind of, of moving into positions of power as a woman and the way in which it forces one to sort of, to really not be able to identify in four ways that sort of expressing a full way, the range of diverse perspectives is very much something that was very much implicit in what both Betty and Carol will say, from their two different vantage points both on the appellate court as well as in the trial court. It has made an enormous difference, to have people like Betty and Carol, and the many other women judges and to have an organization like the National Association of Women judges, I can't begin to tell you now at the ALS we have a a section on women in legal education, which has promoted lots and lots of dialogue about feminist concerns in law school curriculum, has promoted model sexual harassment guidelines, has really raised issues of women's concerns in liberal education in a way that has had a really important national impact. And one of the things that I think is one of the reasons why I mentioned both Carolyn guides affiliations, is because I think that these are women who have not only been changemakers in their own boardrooms, in their own settings, but who have also been advocates in broader sense, who see their alliances more broadly, and who see the importance of working institution money. And it seems to me that a number of issues that I think are just implicit in what comments that they try to surface them for our discussion as a group. One of them is I think, the issue that Carol raised about the tension, the sense of women's special role. And the issue of do women make a difference, in a sense. The the notion of Carol was referring to it specifically, it's kind of most key to those of you who may be familiar with Carol Gilligan's work, or modified now, it's somewhat of Deborah Tannen sort of picked up on some of these things about the notion of sort of male individualism, women's are more web like kind of caring, and a range of other a range of other associations intuitive contextual center, Carol's raising. And I think in a context in which I agree, I think it is very troubling, which is to say that Unknown Speaker 1:03:37 the question of how much that really can be attractive, the degree to which on the one hand, we may want to think that there is something affirming in that notion that it validates, in some sense, what we may intuitively feel with our own experience. And it's implicit in the notion do women judges or for example, to even on a lower level, do women lawyers make a difference? And I certainly think that in my in terms of, for example, my own experience in teaching work on Carol healing and talking about that a lot within and law students are talking about that generally. It does seem as though a lot of those sort of innocence rough generalizations do frequently corroborate people's own intuitive senses of their own experience, that there are differences, and that those differences sometimes do relate to those characterizations. On the other hand, it is any more missed crap. Because frequently, Betty and I were talking about this last night that frequently what I find more and more, and you see this in employment discrimination cases I see this now, in the operation of tenure denials, for example, to women around the country. I see this and other settings is that women who do not conform To those stereotypes are in a sense, doubly punished. And the bottom line is that, you know, for example, the notion of reasonable woman, as a new standard, something you may have all heard about in sexual harassment cases, can be very problematic because the assumptions about what reasonableness is even in a gender way, can we create the very same stereotypes that we are seeking to break out of? It seems to me that what we really want is the capacity to between these individuals with the range of the capacity to be aggressive, intuitive, strong, forceful, quiet, whatever we are, and to be recognized as human beings and affirmed as women in whatever those capacities or so I think this notion of distinctive voice that we're sort of visiting is implicit both. It seems to me in the entire focus of this program today, generally, the notion of what distinctive qualities women bring as changemakers is something that we really need to think about in the particular context in which we're talking about here in lawmaking. And in lawyer in and in judgment. One of the other issues that I think is is raised is the issue that Danny was talking about, and also Carol mentioned in terms of neutral principles, impartiality. Certainly, we've seen dramatic changes in the law. And I think Carol's example of that corroboration is a wonderful example of that. You know that that was a neutral principle 15 years ago. And now, for example, think about even your case with respect to Unknown Speaker 1:06:48 faith. That the concept, there was no concept of Unknown Speaker 1:06:52 date where you 15 years ago, we didn't live in our language, there wasn't a concept of sexual harassment. 20 years ago, there wasn't a term for it, there wasn't a concept of woman abuse 20 years ago, we didn't have a term for it, even, for example, these new new laws, for example, anti stalking legislation, it's a concept, the notion of stalking, which by definition takes it out of innocence, one might argue, a woman's centered perspective into something that is more general and possibly useful because of its generality is a concept which just didn't exist, we are in an exciting and important process of transforming the law, transforming language, transforming law to conform to women's experiences, but those wins, but women's experiences are diverse. And they are multiple and different. And they are not singular and essential, and only one way. We have many different experiences based on race and class classes, ethnicity, and age and sexual orientation, and all of those things. So it is important to understand that we're part of a broad process of change. But that, that that process is very ongoing. I think there are some very fascinating and important issues that relate to the difference between trial and appellate work also, with respect to issues such as what Carol was suggesting, factfinding issues of credibility. One of the ways that I think we these gender bias task forces that I mentioned before, that he mentioned before, as well, have been very, very important is not only in highlighting enormous substantive areas of discrimination, and also highlighting enormous problems of discrimination in the legal profession generally, but also highlighting issues which tend to be frequently more subtle, such as women's women, litigants lack of credibility in the court system, or women, for example, expert witnesses, lack of credibility in the court system, the way in which women in whatever capacity we are in wherever we are, tend to carry less credibility, less power and less regard. And it seems to me that those are some important issues that we need to be thinking about. Those are important ways in which I believe women judges make a tremendous difference, because I think that sensitivity to issues and I don't mean here, by the way, everyone would judge because my concerns before as I suggested before, about a kind of essential wising of women this I think is really a problem. But on the other hand, I would say that, I think a sensitivity to issues of gender sensitivity to the problems of credibility to the problems not only of substantive law, discrimination, the kinds of issues that Betty was raising about matrimonial context which is particular area per review, but also the broader problems that are posed by fact finding in general with respect to credibility, the valuation of witness's credibility that is based lack of credibility based on gender generally. And then I would just throw out also for, you know, sort of as a final point, the fact that one of the one of the issues that I think really, that I'm interested in hearing more about that I think, would be is an important difference also, in the various judging perspectives that we've heard is, Betty, as you know, sits on the appellate division. And so she wrote, she is the only woman who was working with 13 other judges, right. 12 other judges and sitting in panels have fun, Carol is making her decision. So obviously, those are two very, very different contexts. You know, one of the issues that has, you know, has been surfacing around the issue of the question of Supreme Court nomination, is, you know, the capacity for really working for building consensus. What that means how difficult that is. Unknown Speaker 1:11:13 And I think those are two different this is, these are two situations that are different in the judging context. But they are also different situations that cut through other lawyers situations, working, being the only woman in a situation where you are having to work with many other judges, or many other lawyers, or other co workers in collaborative decision making situations obviously, requires some very special skills, very, very important skills. And, and being alone there and not really frequently, having other women or other people to talk with in that situation, having been in analogous situations myself, will be enormously difficult. Obviously, Carol faces, what is the painful sort of crisis of any person judging, of having to deal basically with themselves or luckily, a trusted law clerk to be able to to deal with the issues in that way. So there are advantages and disadvantages of both perspectives, but they present both different opportunities, and also different challenges. So that I don't know if you want to react it on anything I've said or open it up to our group here. Unknown Speaker 1:12:42 Well, I do have some things you said. First of all, the feminist literature seeking to find this unifying thread, which you have indicated, is problematic. problematic, I read further, I'm having lunch or I really think it's somewhat counterproductive. I think this is diverting a great deal of attention from the very concrete problems which exists and confront winning. And then instead of philosophizing about why wouldn't we want to get right to those problems, if I may put it one way. Campbell here, who represents, you know, women in the matrimonial context, let's be perfectly candid. We live in a society where economics control a great deal of the power, you know, that controls our lives. And there was that statistic where he had to divorce 72% of the women, you know, standard of living goes way down, I heard the statistics I want you to know, from a man and 42% of men's standards living goes way up. What Listen, when a woman is busy trying to scrounge around, you know, to feed her kids, that woman cannot become one of the politically empowered. And I really think that we have an obligation to be concerned, you know, about that economic aspect, not to the exclusion of all else. But I think that should be sort of a major concern about and I'm going to now say something that bothers me a great deal that many of our younger women are not sensitized or conservative. I'll give you a little four story. When I first came to the appellate division. We get a report before a case before we hear argument on a case. And this was a matrimonial where the man was making 100,000 Every left of the woman went back to work making 20,000 She's never going to make much more, but she gave up 25 years of her life to raising the family. And the judge for role talked about how wonderful she wasn't, he gave up everything is better. And the bottom line was he gave her 200 hours a week until the youngest Child was emancipated. That was five years hence when she would be 54 years old. And there was this young woman writes it up to affirm. So I call her and I said, the Justice body with Rose, because Don't you think she should be recompense for what she gave up and never killed me like I was sort of from Mars. I said, not all women are like us professionals, we have an obligation to be concerned about those of our sisters who are in a less, you know, favorable economic position. I tell you, candidly, I did not convince him, I convinced the poor guys on my bench. And that was when I was young women really have to look to a little bit of history and realize that for any of us to become empowered, it means that the broad mass of women must be viable, in an economic sense Unknown Speaker 1:16:05 that we're talking about. Unknown Speaker 1:16:09 I was wondering if you're concerned or recognize that women can go into certain areas of law like that. Unknown Speaker 1:16:20 I don't actually think that that's true. I just did a program for the ad and litigation section for 600 Women's litigators around the country. And it was the largest program Ambion litigation section had ever done. In all of its history. We're seeing a I teach civil procedure. One of the things we're seeing is an enormous number of people now in law schools, women and law schools now teaching civil procedure, one, because so many of them have had litigation backgrounds, and when they come into law, teaching several years out of practice, they are natural people to teach civil procedure. I frankly think that people should do what they want, and what you are excited about and turns you on and gives you a sense of passion in life, whatever that is, is what you should do. I'm not I see, you know, in in at both Brooklyn and Harford I have to say, in general, the women students tend to be stronger, they tend to be the stars of the moot court program, they tend to be the stores of the Law Review. I think that, you know, that, you know, there are opportunities there no question, the wives of litigators are harder. And, you know, certainly what we see is that, you know, more women, I mean, that perhaps this is not the most effective thing to say to some of you who are now here thinking about going to law school. But I have to say, there is no question that the satisfaction rate of women, who are both lawyers, generally, and also of women, lawyers, who are in litigation is very high. And I think partially that is because I wouldn't say women generally, but I think many women coming into law, have aspirations for the law, to have a meaning in our lives, to do good with law, and to have an integrated professional and human life in the law, which frequently does not tend to be borne out by people's experience. I think also, we're seeing, frankly, dramatic changes in the legal profession these days, where you have very different attitudes towards the legal profession than you did, I think, you know, in certain ways 20 years ago. So I don't think the problems are so much going into particular areas, I think the problems are very much deeper sort of problems about, you know, trying to find oneself and make a career for oneself, that is really authentic to who one is, and that is satisfying and meaningful, productive and whatever. And I think those are problems that exist now, but maybe more true for women because our aspirations are higher, because the opportunities are fewer, because gender discrimination is still obviously a severe and profound problem. But I don't think it's so much related to, you know, which part of which area you go into. Carol, you agree? I do, actually, because I think you know, another horror story I have when I started law school, the dean, really women who were admitted to the law school, almost over his dead body, but not quite. He was still around every year he would invite all the women who were very few of us anyway to his home for a cocktail party, beginning of all the first year women had to go by yourself, because the command before and after. After our rubber chicken, he sat us all around and this was apparently a yearly event and said, Well, why did you come to law school and went around and I haven't told him Gonna ask this question. Mike contracts professor, my contracts professors that are Would you please mention that so I, you know, we came around and all the women really that it was it was, I guess very typical of that, you know, he wanted to, you know, help children are they you know, there was a lot of the Family Law kind of feeling going on. And you came around to me and I had really gone to law school because I got out of college with an English major, and, you know, I couldn't type. So, really, that's why I went to law school when I said, Well, I had heard that you were going to ask this question. He was most upset about that, Where'd you hear that? I should have gotten the name contracts. We're not copying the professor. But so I said, I really didn't know I wasn't quite sure why I had come to law school. And he assured me that the mark of a good lawyer was that he could think of a good reason for anything. Unknown Speaker 1:21:06 So I remember that very differently through the years. I don't think I don't think necessarily that women are going into a couple of certainly, I did. And I think I went into public law. For that reason, we did not have role models. To the extent that we did have role models, they were in the public sector. There was a lot, I think, more discrimination in terms of hiring by the firms was a lot of problems with that. What is happening now, it seems to me as I speak to my niece, who's just getting out of law school and going to a big firm, and she wants to be a great litigator, but she also wants to have children. And that, that biological imperative, or that biological truth that this happens, and then what happens to your career, and what happens to your career as a litigator, which is like a 20 hour a day job is a very difficult when they make and may cause a lot of career choices among women. Unknown Speaker 1:22:19 In that regard, we recognize the fact that serious problem, you know, wanting to have a goal. Listen, when I had a baby, I had three children the most time I ever took three weeks, because I worked for a judge at that time. And I mean, when I had my second baby, call me four hours later, how do you feel by the way? Do you remember that case? I mean, no, no, that was it. And I accepted that because that's the way it was, I was very happy to be in had the opportunity to do that. But no one should have to do that we should be able to balance live. So there is a movement afoot. As a matter of fact, we started in our bar association committee to have part time flex time, shared time, the recognition that women at work, man, in some instances want to participate, continuing their legal career, but being able to combine it with whether having a family having to take care of an aging parent, some go out and write a book. And for him on the court system, we've instituted that we have put chairs on Lifetime part time, so that you can continue with so that when those problems are over, you go into the main screen, you can still make partner, you can still you know, reach your portfolio fulfillment. So that's also a project we hope you will work in when you get into, you know, a position to do something about Unknown Speaker 1:23:44 Hello, let me just say one thing, that it's very, very important, there's no question about it. And it's, it is happening in many places, this part time, flex time thing that he's talking about. One of the things that's also happening is because of much of the work now, at least in some firms is compute, you know, is largely, you know, computer based, this kind of, you know, communication meeting could be at home and communication with the office, whatever. The problem is, it's all women who are doing this. And I mean, 20 years ago, I worked on litigating a case that established this kind of policy, parental leave policy for the New York City Board of Education. And I think that in the 20 years since that policy has been in effect, there are something like 15 men who have taken advantage of it. So it's a very we're talking about accommodation policies, that yes, in certain ways or making it easier for women. But what we're not talking about is that the balance of power in terms of these responsibilities has shifted. And what that to me is the larger problem that's obviously not I mean, I that has nothing to do with the strategy of doing this because obviously it's strategy of making it available to everybody is the right strategy. It's just that in the actual implementation of it, we're just seeing, what we're seeing is, in many settings, women making these kinds of accommodations, and frequently in private law settings, really losing it. I mean, you see a whole host of in private law settings now of counsel position, money track positions. You see, I mean, there is definitely, the combination has definitely had one consequences for men, it doesn't mean that they're not important things to argue for. They're critically important. But it's just that they reflect the ongoing lack of change in the balance of power, as to within family life, etc. That's not going to be legislated by this. Unknown Speaker 1:25:48 Well, that's the half empty half full syndrome, right. What it does is it permits women who do you want to have a family do other things to continue in the mainstream. Many of the firm's sibs attacker, as a matter of fact, once you get back into the mainstream, where your obligations are, you know, you can come back full time, you that are on the partner track. Unknown Speaker 1:26:11 You know, let me tell you something about the pregnancy, the numbers of disparate claims under pregnancy discrimination. Over the last five years since these provisions have been in effect, have dramatically increased. So what you're seeing is, and I've had at least 10 students this year, call me up and tell me these stories, they went on leave, they were told that they were going to be able to come back what happened was when they came back firms that they were downsizing, or they weren't going to have faith that had to be technically reinstated into their position. But they were reinstated into it in such a way that it was clear that their access in terms of ongoing partnership has potential. So there are a lot of compliance problems. Yeah, Unknown Speaker 1:26:54 part of this is unfortunately, Vietnam. Yeah, this came at the very time when the economic torture chain was the Unknown Speaker 1:27:01 hardest rupture of professions. So so, you know, I'm not in any sense, saying that they're not important. It is your right that the glass half empty, and both are true. Unknown Speaker 1:27:15 Yes, please, both judges what effect if any, on your discretionary decision making the areas, in fact finding where the jury is not involved in that, in that area of discretion? Generally, what, what impact does it have on you the interrelationship of attorney in your in your trial court? Unknown Speaker 1:27:40 I don't. I really can't, you know, I mean, maybe if I like slept on it for a few days, I might think of it. I had been thinking a lot lately, because in New York County, there's been a grown up affair. Tradition of incivility a part of the defense for aggression, it's, it goes in waves. And there was a time when it was very popular to do that. And then it went away for a while, and now it's back. And, you know, people like coming in, they're, like, incredible. And I told them was that, that, that if I ever write a book about my experiences, a trial that I was going to give me? I mean, people just don't, you know, act like they've never any matters at all, much less important matters. And I was sort of wondering, I had a lawyer make an application the other day, just wonderful. So nice. So pleasant. And I said, No, that's a thing application. I've heard many, many times before. And it's this, you know, it's, it's, you know, no defendant ever wants to be sentenced. They don't want to go upstate. They always want, you know, they haven't seen their mom for about 30 years, but all of a sudden, they must. But he was so nice. It's so close. It is so well spoken. That I felt terrible. I don't know whether that answers your question at all. I mean, that is closest I can. That's been Unknown Speaker 1:29:25 me the city job. I meant the interaction of attorney client. In the setting, I don't understand. Unknown Speaker 1:29:37 To the extent people have been by osmosis or by direct concentration, and the ability to focus on one's body language is being used between attorney and client, what effect that has on Unknown Speaker 1:29:49 whether there's a negative relationship, is that what you're asking Unknown Speaker 1:29:53 anything positive or negative or anything in between? What What's the key Educational bond the link the as mouthpiece. And I don't Unknown Speaker 1:30:06 mean that the if you talk about the ability of the attorney to communicate to the court, that's one thing. Just observing the relationship between attorney and client. Yes, Unknown Speaker 1:30:18 I think it's extremely important if we have a cultural bias of women as carers as nurturers if they have only particular types of clients, because of the market choosing men, for the most part, the poor are living living litigators. If there is there for communication of that relationship of attorney and client to start with, and it does have an impact on your discretionary decision making, I think it's something that should be discussed. I think it's something that should be addressed. Unknown Speaker 1:30:49 I don't. I mean, I have a case it's on fire before me now. And there was a woman attorney and a male attorney and a male defendant on trial. A woman I've seen this before. She's tried cases before we before, she's very hands and she touches her client, she should have conference, she'll bend down and do that. I hate that. I just hate that. I'm not No, I'm not that. That's not my thing at all. I think my friends. So therefore, when I see it with clients in the courtroom, I just want to say Unknown Speaker 1:31:32 I don't like it. I don't think that that has to do with my being a woman or man or anything? I don't know. I get I don't I don't any decision, but I don't know, no terrible, I would argue actually, that your sensitivity to that may be related to gender. So we have the sense that I think that since that is very frequently something that happens to women that unwanted touching, and a kind of, you know, intervention of physical boundary is a very common experience of, you know, sort of intimacy that women have that that and a general sensitivity to body language. I think that those actually maybe something that you are more sensitive to another judge like me, I don't know, I don't think I can't, I don't know. I just don't do realize Unknown Speaker 1:32:21 that if the judge perceives that the client has no respect for the Unknown Speaker 1:32:26 lawyer or that or that the lawyer is abusing the client as Unknown Speaker 1:32:30 well, from the latter part of what she said. I think she was trying to focus it differently than if the client had no respect for the lawyer and sort of, you know, deprecating to the lawyer that might affect the finder of fact, in mind, is that what you're talking Unknown Speaker 1:32:46 about is one aspect of it. I mean, the whole panoply of possible messages that are being given to you as as someone who has discretion in terms of decision making? Well, if I could, Unknown Speaker 1:32:58 I mean, in the capacity that I was in this law clerk in the federal court that I mentioned before, I have to say there was a situation that that was before the judge that I'm sitting for where it was clear through this trial. I, I think both the judge bought and certainly that there was just an awful relationship between the lawyer and client in the sense that, you know, it seemed like were wasn't talking to the client at all about decisions that were coming up with making snap judgments in ways that were arguably not purely strategically mandated. It was an incredibly frustrating experience, which we talked about a lot, actually, because it felt like, you know, obviously, it was not the appropriate role of the judge at that point to take the client, that's fine. Say, Hey, wait a minute here. You know, this might not be a terrific situation for you. But it was it was very, very hard to watch. And, and it was very hard to watch. Not, you know, there was nothing what that really one could do in that situation. But I can't think that I mean, in terms of the decisions that actually had to be made in that case, both evidentiary and in terms of instructions and whatever. I mean, I don't think wasted conversation. I don't think that it came up, but it was very, there was an awful, awful situation. Unknown Speaker 1:34:24 matrimonial situation and in a criminal situation, to the extent there is there's that power and in the discretionary earning, how much difference does the femaleness of the attorney have with respect to the client in terms of in terms of the impact on me? Unknown Speaker 1:34:44 I don't I mean, I don't know I must say that I don't think it has had an effect on me and I as you're talking about it, I'm thinking of both the woman who's on trial people now in her last trial, and another woman attorney with a bail point Although I don't think that made a difference, also very sort of when she was Summing up, she went behind a client, and she touched him on the shoulders. And I kind of sat there and said, Am I going to stop? Or am I going to like just not? Right. And I think it had an effect on the jury in a way that was positive for the client. And I would say it brought out the sympathies, the human this the carrying this of the jurors. Now, many jurors, particularly in New York County, I don't know how it is that side of New York are women. There's I think even more than 51%. So that may have, you know, that may bring out certain traditional roles or traditional sympathy feelings, which but that's not, you know, that's not what you're likely to get from a judge's findings, effectively, notwithstanding our careful instructions, more likely to get back to the jury. Unknown Speaker 1:35:58 I don't think that the candor of the lawyer, quite gender has any impact. Perhaps the skill of lawyer, you know, is very significant in how the ultimate case, you know, breaks down as it should. And sometimes the children's, the only time we can really get involved is if he is ineffective assistance of counsel, when they tell you that's pretty tough to, you know, establish, notwithstanding that no frequently, that the ability of one counsel is so much superior, I'm happy to say we have a great many women appellate counsel, and we had one day we had two sensational one on the rule against perpetuities. A real Unknown Speaker 1:36:52 and the other was a criminal case, a criminal defense lawyer, and you'll hear a pin drop during both arguments. While we walk out those days. I was a junior judge that I trailed with the in the Middle East, the door closed. I said, Yeah, I got to admit them to pass arguments today. Were by women. Absolutely. They will, you know, read the essay, both of them were so you know, terrific. Yeah, I just I was listening to what you're saying. And I had one further comment on what a weird woman could possibly bring into a judge stick ship in an area that neither of you are involved in that much or that practicing. But civil court, we have an awful lot of landlord tenant cases, we have an awful lot of cases, well over half, I would say whether one side doesn't have representation with the landlord tenant, most of the tenants don't have representation. And if the tenant defaults, a lot of the judges there's a table, which means by the next week, there's a warrant on their door. And if they missed it, for some reason, you have some comes running in and whatever. I never allow that. Because I think you know, someone who's not a lawyer, their job is not to be important. So maybe they have a sick child, which often happens, and maybe they just couldn't get out of the job. Maybe they're stuck on the subway, or maybe they're making things up. But a lot of times people have real problems you and I make everybody come in and 90% of the time, the tech comes in that next day, works everything out, and people are taking care of the case I was very proud of and I think I handled it with compassion and strength. At the same time. One woman had been not paying her rent and delay. She was a woman, I would say her 40s or 50s, who was a legal secretary, she'd gotten sick. And she didn't have the right kind of coverage, I guess. So she wasn't able to pay her rent. But she was really working. And she had no husband. She had no children. She had no immediate family. And the last thing I want is for this woman to end up not having a home. I mean, I couldn't see any benefit to society. The other side, I couldn't see that it's fair that the landlord should provide free housing because somebody has a problem. So what did you do? Well, I made the lawyer came in, I yelled at her because she used to make these orders to shuffle a stop the eviction, and then she wouldn't show up in court. And it would start again. And I got on the phone and I said you must come in. And I commentator she said I'll lose my job. As you come in right around your lunchtime, I'll stay a little late. Well, as the lawyers say, would have to come in and I worked with her, fortunately had a nice lawyer on the other side. And he said to me, if we finally got all the money paid on the air coming every couple of weeks, right around through lunchtime, she saved the money. She didn't spend it. But we save the house. You know, we saved her her tenancy. And the lawyer said No, she wasn't one of the most sympathetic people because what what, you know, what benefit would it be to have this woman out? I mean, the landlord would never want to collect his money from the woman living out on the street. So you try to balance you know, trying to take care of those situations. We have a lot of that A lot of people because of the economics don't have their jobs, they don't have certain things. So people are, I try to work with it. And I try to remember that there's a human being behind the judgment that you, you know that you are order. And I think that's an important thing. I was very proud of what he did in the lawyer when he comes in and reminds me about that, oh, you know, something happened, she fell behind, but he took care of her. Because, you know, we wanted to work with her. And these are things where, you know, I feel like I can have a little difference. I think it's important because you can't necessarily change the world overnight, you can make individual differences. And that's an area in our court in civil court, certainly where we can get Bob, but I mean, I wouldn't let her not come in, so that she couldn't do that. But you know, we we try to work with her. And I flipped that combination takes a lot more effort than saying, it's about five minutes, that has meant about four hours over the course of time. But I think that that's part of what our job is not everybody sees the same way. I'm not saying other men don't, I don't want to make that comment. But I know I feel very passionately for a lot of these people that come up, and they have real problems as children, they have sicknesses, and that's something that I think some of us want to bring to it, and we will be difficult. And we'll be talking, we'll work it out. But we'll take the time to work. And that's just sort of an addition to what Unknown Speaker 1:41:22 I like. I'm happy to like to see the Justice temper diversionary thing, but then I just wonder as Judge, are you overstepping your bounds to become also the client lawyer? It's like, where's that? Where's that line? Unknown Speaker 1:41:39 I'm confused? Well, I don't think I handed frequently the tenants will say, can I ask you a question? I said, I can't be your lawyer. But I can try to help to make the resolution see the landlord, if he throws around, he's never going to collect the money from her isn't gonna run around and get it. So it field work with me and we work together can be done. I don't think I give them legal advice. That's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to resolve the situation. And in our court, where there are so many pros days, sometimes check this explain things a little bit, in a different way, when somebody is not represented, Unknown Speaker 1:42:15 can I just also pick up on what you're saying, which is just so that you understand this just generally sort of a general feed, which is real, very relevant to this discussion of judging. Now that the traditional notion of judges as entirely important or trying to be totally impartial, and not be involved in affirmative resolution not being managers or whatever, is very much challenged by the exigencies of what the court system is like now. So that that notion which you're right is the traditional stereotype of, you know, the judge as impartial arbiter, the, to the adversary, system, etc. In many, many courts not only win more tenant in the federal courts, now, the judges basically are managers. And they are, you know, in the agent orange case, just, you know, we have the situation of, you know, the judge bringing all the parties in and basically forcing them to be in the courthouse all weekend to basically resolve the case, this happens very, very commonly. And it is just a reality of the way in which judging is changing as compared to the traditional Unknown Speaker 1:43:20 lot of people were, like, I know, in class, when we're discussing case, half of class was like you stepping over his back. Yeah. And I didn't know whether Unknown Speaker 1:43:28 it's a good question. But it is a, it is something that the reality of judging, and many, many aspects of the changes in the legal profession in the adversarial context generally are changing. So that this kind of managerial judging is going on all the time, Unknown Speaker 1:43:44 I would use a different word, facilitating what's the purpose of a judge where the whole court proceeding to reach a conclusion or resolution, if you can do it by way of settlement, which is basically what Barbara did, that's a way of accommodating both sides in a most effective way. If you've got a trial, that's a harsh result, there can only be one winner and one loser. So a judge should seek to facilitate iPaaS means within the bounds of judicial strictures to reach an accommodation or resolution to these 10 possible that they were both parties. And the other side, it was perfectly agreeable. Unknown Speaker 1:44:23 I should say also, I mean, I think it relates to something that I said about, I can't imagine a society without judges, but but it doesn't necessarily mean the image that we have in our society of what a judge is meant. I have a lot of problems with this sort of, you know, the the judge and the, you know, the bathrooms and all that sort of thing. I mean, my understanding is that these came down from the, you know, from the, the priests who were the original judges that they you know, that's why we were rowers or some judges wear robes to separate themselves and to show this separate separateness of function. Whereas what is now happening with the incredible caseload that we handle is that we do not have a separateness of function, we have a very funny function, because you know, on the one hand, in a civil case, and in a criminal case, you spend a lot of time and energy trying to settle the case. And then if the case doesn't get settled, you are in the role of saying, all right, you want to go to trial fine, and stepping back and saying, you will get a fair trial in my courtroom, even though I told you when this happens in my courtroom all the time, even though I told you 10 minutes ago, that it's a strong case. And, you know, you really ought to plead guilty. And it's a great offer, you know, when you're an idiot for not pleading guilty, like you're going to get a fair trial and a fair sentence in my courtroom. And that's a bizarre kind of thing that is very, very bizarre. And you can imagine a long evolution to that if this was the Supreme Court only fairly recently in our history, said that it was in fact permissible for judges to participate in that way. And there was a Judicial Conference. Certainly in my career, there was some question about whether it was appropriate for judges to participate in that fashion. And, you know, so it's fairly recent, that that's been said that judges do participate in it. And so what still hangs on is the idea of the judges sort of sweeping into the courtroom when everybody is there, either having settled or not settled the case, that simply is not is simply not true and a more of the function. It just isn't. That's just not how it happens. I mean, just to give you an example of how far this has gone, it's not just that this is happening in what we're talking about here in terms of trial courts, not in the appellate division in the New York state court system, but in the Second Circuit, there is there is a required in this, which is the appellate court for the Federal Court for the Southern District, you are now required to meet basically in a free of POA. Can't We? Do you have this? Yes, that one we did. Yeah. Yeah. But it's not the judges who are doing it? No, although Unknown Speaker 1:47:28 sometimes we'll have an application individual joke. That's application. In Bulgarian case, I think there's a difference between the civil and criminal case, you have to be much more circumspect. In a criminal case. And a step on the civil side, you have much more leeway to operate within the consensus of the lawyers, if they see that a judge is moving in case towards settlement and they want to settle it. They're very happy to cooperate in whatever way possible, I'll sometimes get an application for a day, and I listened to what they're talking about. I said, well put that aside. Why don't we try and settle this case? You know, why did you do this was never happy to do that. Because while you do want to reach a resolution and clients that the judge can help, that's fine. Don't shoot. Unknown Speaker 1:48:12 What about Unknown Speaker 1:48:13 proposition that? You say like, in some cases, you feel Unknown Speaker 1:48:16 more comfortable? You were permitted to feel more Unknown Speaker 1:48:19 permitted? But also, I mean, I'm gathering you do you think that it makes more sense? What about it? If it's trying to progress into criminal? Well, Unknown Speaker 1:48:30 it's, she's talking about faith that starts and ends in the criminal side. Unknown Speaker 1:48:35 Oh, you mean, if the trend were to progress into the criminal side, and the appeal level or? Or its trial? It does. On the trial level, it happens on the criminal happens all the time that there is there were huge numbers of cases in which the prosecutor says, Well, I want this plea, and I want this sentence is unfair. Unknown Speaker 1:48:56 And people are, like, people be like, well, you know, the richest lawyer wins out. And and that's not working. Unknown Speaker 1:49:05 I don't think that's at all. I don't think that's I mean, on the criminal side, there aren't that many rich lawyers in any event. mean there wasn't that much of you know, that kind of thing going on. But really, most most of the huge majority of lawyers on the criminal side are signed in any event. So it's not really a question of that. But but we are a very activist court, particularly in New York City. State, probably less Unknown Speaker 1:49:35 update. So it depends upon the judge report. Unknown Speaker 1:49:39 Since a number of us are law students are hopeful. Can you talk a little bit about traditional functions in your court and what you're looking for and what you're looking for. I'm afraid of ageism when I graduated really Unknown Speaker 1:49:55 well, record, see we don't really have the luxury of changing law clerks too often, because we are such a high volume court that to start each year to an offense, quote, unquote, break in somebody new on the procedural aspects would be very onerous on the judge. We're very busy. You know, we're getting out decisions and what happened. I sent on 20 cases a month. Now, I really don't have time to be a teacher. So when you get a football club, you want to keep that real quick, long term with 20 years of the same guy. Yeah, Unknown Speaker 1:50:30 that's a very different system. Very difficult to really. Unknown Speaker 1:50:34 Yeah, yeah. What we call works too to the judge. And they are, I mean, it's a term career. Right? So I made a change. I took on a 40 year old woman who had a second this was her second career. So no, I don't think there's any problem about that many of the judges will. But there are very few openings for that at the state system. Unknown Speaker 1:50:59 And that's different than what you're talking about, which is, you know, one or two years, clerkships state level or the federal level or Unknown Speaker 1:51:07 whatever. The other reality is this year, and I'm a civil court judge, I'm not even in Supreme Court. I have several interns working for me this semester. And they've all graduated law school that they haven't gotten to be scary. So right now, anybody who's really looking would have their pick. I know for me, who's in a trial court, and I'm sure for Judge elements, and anyone really good writing skills is very crucial, because we just have to keep getting acquisition. Yeah, somebody does research and gives me something that's terribly written. I'm not signing my name on it. So then I have to rewrite everything. You know, I think writing skills are real, real important for any of us, you know, anybody who wants a judicial clerkship, because that's a lot of what you do Unknown Speaker 1:51:53 writing an animal. research skills are crucial, Unknown Speaker 1:51:57 right? Barbara was herself a clerk to the third fine woman judge. And I learned from Jack Heller. Now one funny thing is, we're the worst people to work we've done here, so now you're ready. But I learned from jello Renan the person I went away, Unknown Speaker 1:52:17 no master, like a former slave has Unknown Speaker 1:52:21 done it yourself. So you know, we know exactly what you want. You want to be just like, yeah. But I was okay. Unknown Speaker 1:52:31 I'm curious if you could preside over the Glenridge rate trial? Or any woman if it hasn't been a woman judge presiding? With a harsher sentence on? Unknown Speaker 1:52:43 It? I don't I really well, first of all, it's very difficult to speak of what kind of sentence you would impose in a foreign jurisdiction? Because I don't, the sentencing laws of New Jersey are completely strange to me. I think I think that there is, you know, the case that I referred to about the date rape case that I'm one, I remember at that time discussing them a lot with, with my friends about, you know, the trouble that I had with it. And as loose as it was before date, rape was like, a real, like something that we accepted as happening, really. And, you know, I had a little problem with the criminal system leading the society. In other words, if the society wasn't really saying that something was wrong, then it shouldn't be a crime. And I have something of the same problem in the Glenridge case. I don't want to be misunderstood, saying that, Oh, you know, boys are boys. And what they did was just lovely. Because I don't think any of us in this room believes that. And And I'm not suggesting that. But I think that you, you know, you have your waiting. I don't think this is a woman's issue with this particular case, you're weighing a societal problem that we have, we somehow get adults, or almost adults or verge of adult who are the people who somehow have no empathy, who somehow have no feeling of responsibility, even the boys who left left and did not get somebody to stop this. So, you know, it makes your skin crawl to think that this can happen. And yeah, there were these people there are these people in California where, you know, they're getting points and Daddy says, My son, he's so handsome. They can't keep their hands off him. Right? We live in a very weird society. And so I don't want to guess a woman I wouldn't have a great deal of difficulty saying what am I I could do with these boys who did this terribly evil thing. Unknown Speaker 1:55:07 Right, but why not? You know, that skewed from our society? Unknown Speaker 1:55:13 You know, do I leave by giving them the maximum sentence? Or do I somehow try to work out something else? And I don't I don't see that as a woman judge male issue. I don't think the judge was unsympathetic at all. In that case, at least newspaper to the, to the prosecution. Unknown Speaker 1:55:35 Well, the only thing is, you know, our fallback always is Gee, I don't know what the whole record was. I didn't sit to the trial. And the one thing we certainly do know that what you read in the press is not necessarily what happened in that courtroom. We can all speak from personal experience with that I've read about trials I presided over relationship. So that format, Unknown Speaker 1:56:02 I wanted to expand on what you were talking about, in these cases where there was some sort of like criminal activity, but it's rather, you know, the it's not clear, there's not a clear law. So there's not much like this, that there's these boys. There was nothing. You know, we were so murky, and what do you do with with people that have clearly overstepped their sort of human boundaries, as far as they were convicted? I'm saying that the fact that these boys were acting much like I'm saying that is not necessarily something that has happened in the past over to this extent, well, they want to do with credit people that have done criminal activity, but you don't sentencing is what I'm asking about. i Unknown Speaker 1:56:53 Well, that's, that's another three weeks seven, but But I hit it. I mean, I don't I didn't mean to say and I think it's kind of an important point, you know, from a feminist point of view. I mean, the problem that I had, when I was doing my appeal 20 years ago, 1520 years ago was, does the criminal law, you know, is the criminal law and appropriate vehicle to change our society? And I was sort of, you know, at that point to what she I don't really think so it shouldn't, because a crime is supposed to be an offense against General Loris. But the use of the criminal law in this area has educated enormously and work credibly, more than anything else, the use of few criminal cases, a few well publicized criminal cases of the date rape area, have done any miss things for our societal attitudes. So I, you know, I was wrong in saying, Well, no, it shouldn't, because it worked. So well. I mean, philosophically, I could defend my position. But practically, I was Unknown Speaker 1:57:57 absolutely wrong, though, you would not have known that then. Unknown Speaker 1:58:01 Well, I didn't know that then. No, I'm not, you know, like being a May a cop. But I'm just saying that the criminal law did work very effectively in that regard, before the judge with now sentencing, these you know, I mean, I hesitate to say nice things about them, because they did such a horrible thing. But basically, they come from decent families that came, you know, went through school, etc, etc. And then they did this disgusting thing. And there is there is this tension, you know, plus the philosophical problem that I spoke up. Unknown Speaker 1:58:34 And, oh, wait, may I just say this, Carol, if they didn't come from such great homes, they didn't have the opportunity that these kids did, and they did it. They would be impassable worsens? I don't I don't understand, you know, your sentencing philosophy on that? Well, no, Unknown Speaker 1:58:55 no, I suppose that, that I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I mean, it it is, it is part of the prejudice that's built into the system. And I remember, I remember having a conversation like this would lead Polsky about a disparate sentence to defendants on the same case and middle class defendant got probation and not middle class defendant got state time, and that was the defendant, I have the well, different people differently situated, have different access to rehabilitation programs and so forth. And I didn't find that satisfactory, then and I'm just getting old and I forgot. And I see about to the appellate court. Let me just say one thing of that just so that you're clear me, you know, this tension that we're talking about here between the war making more reform dimension of law, right, the way in which Carol suggesting that that individual case cannot be local isolation now in retrospect, because of the broader impact that has, that is always the tension about walk. On one hand it's not just criminal law says something because It says the state versus an individual civil law Think about, for example, the agent orange cases, or dalkon shield case or the new breast implant cases or whatever, which have an enormous impact in terms of shaping public attitudes in general and reforming the system generally. And yet one is always operating in any legal context, individual components, one is always making individual effects on terminations and balancing the role of that individual determination against that broader and more record possibility. Well, that is attention and hear a dialectic and wallboard making it in judicial decision making and Law Reform generally, and how it is balanced and weighed by individual judges. How it is balanced by lawyers arguing on behalf is always a very contextual termination. Yep. Unknown Speaker 2:00:52 I wanted to ask I don't I guess the answer the strung out misled, are the standards for women to become judges much, much higher than what's in the document? For example, I guess I'm thinking Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court experienced at the same time, I'm someone who I guess I can call me with a model that is currently in the Court of Appeals in the Bronx or something. And she's that she was a public defender for like, 30 years. I'm not sure exactly like she was appointed. Who was Unknown Speaker 2:01:30 wonderful. Yeah, she's a Court of Claims judge is an active Supreme Court. She's wonderful. She's, yeah, she's wonderful. I let me say this, when you say are the standards high, basically, those official standards that you have to be a job, a lawyer for 10 years, etc, are the same for pool person who are required to judge here, there are elected judges and appointed judges, let's take the elected for a moment in different jurisdiction. They are nominated differently. Some are the pure political process. In the end, unfortunately. In fact, she went to was appointed. In New York County, for example, we have wonderful screening panels. And I think that very significant because New York County has had an inordinately large number, thank god of women who have been elected to the bench because what the screening panel does, is they're entitled to give to the political leaders, three names for every vacancy. Last year, when there were two vacancies in the civil court. They gave them six women, there were two years after two years. That's right. So that meant those two seats, were going to be filled by women, because you have this screening panel in upstate New York, where you have just a pure political process, women do not fare so well. But they're learning too, because now they're getting into the political process. So basically, it's not that the official criteria are different for women, but they may be applied differently by the nominating procedure or by, you know, the appointing power. To put Unknown Speaker 2:03:15 it crudely, Unknown Speaker 2:03:16 I think that you can assume that anyone who gets into a position of power in this country is probably more highly qualified than I don't think women have the right to be mediocre. And yet, there were judges in Unknown Speaker 2:03:34 the National Association of Women judges this year in Unknown Speaker 2:03:36 San Diego, and we were at one of the seminars, and it was about stress and whatever. And they said, Well, you know, women, you submit them ahead of everything. And obviously, everybody here is an overachiever, because you're all women judges, and that's what they were elected to. But there is a common did that, well, maybe Unknown Speaker 2:03:52 we'll get to a point where we don't all have to be the best ones. You know, we're like, Well, how do you do with the meds? We don't always have to be as you know, as overly qualified or highly qualified, because that's what most of the women feel. I just want to continue with something you said, because I thought it was so important. One of the first things I remember thinking when I started law school was, I thought law would have to be clear, black and white. This is the loss of this is what you do. So have you know, and the first thing you learn is it's me, there's so much discretion, nothing's clear. And as a judge, we're following laws. I mean, in each case, whether I have a personal injury case or contract case or landlord tenant case, there were a lot, but different issues come up or a lawyer comes up with a creative idea or you're presented with something that I don't think it fits into that category. I think it quite fit fits into that category. So I have an opportunity to sort of argue we have certain discretion and slowly although we're not our function is not to make the law. That's what the legislature does. Were sometimes able to right decision even on a trial level, not just on a pallet level, that creates a new concept that now somebody The African fall or somebody one of the people is very green they can go to the appellate courts and they can reverse it or change