DOCSLIB.ORG

Video Interview Transcript: Justice Shirley Hufstedler [Shirley Hufstedler 6036.Doc] David Knight: You Have to Be Able to Get on Audio Level at the Same Time

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Shirley Hufstedler [Shirley_Hufstedler_6036.doc] David Knight: You have to be able to get on audio level at the same time. Dennis Perluss: All right, it’s Dennis Perluss, P-E-R-L-U-S-S. David Knight: And your title? Dennis Perluss: I am the Presiding Justice of Division Seven of the Second Appellate District of the state Court of Appeal. David Knight: Excellent. All right. I’ll change my setting here. And Justice Hufstedler, we are ready anytime you are to give us your name; and spell your name and your title when on the bench. Shirley Hufstedler: Well, I’ll tell you my title on the state court system. My name is Shirley Hufstedler. I was a justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five. David Knight: Great. And how is your last name spelled, please? Shirley Hufstedler: H-U-F as in Frank, S-T-E-D-L-E-R. David Knight: Super. We are ready to go any time. Dennis Perluss: All right. We're here. It’s Tuesday afternoon, April 17, 2007, and this is part of the Appellate Court Legacy Project oral histories. The interview is of Shirley Hufstedler, who among other things was a justice of Division Five of the Second Appellate District. I was fortunate enough to be a law clerk for Judge Hufstedler when she was Judge Hufstedler on the Ninth Circuit and thereafter was her partner in the practice of law for a number of years. Why don't we start at the beginning, if we can, and have you tell me a little bit about your childhood growing up, where you were and the like? Shirley Hufstedler: Well, I was born in Denver, Colorado. My father and his partner owned one of the largest construction firms in Colorado; but when the Great Depression came around, there wasn’t enough work for a major construction company to be doing. So he and his partner bid on major projects all across the West. The net result was that I spent only one year, in the first grade, in the same state, let alone in the same school; we moved every year. So it gave me a good opportunity to see how other people were doing in other states. It always takes a period of adjustment, of course; but I found that I could adjust just fine and did. It also gave me an opportunity to learn how other people live in other communities, and I discovered something wonderful: I Transcribed by Tech-Synergy; proofread by Lisa Crystal Page 1 of 15 California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Shirley Hufstedler [Shirley_Hufstedler_6036.doc] was never in anyplace at all which did not have a public library. So I got to stay in public libraries a lot, and of course I got to learn how to get along with all kinds of people, because it was necessary. I don't recommend it as a way of life, but I can say you do learn a lot. Dennis Perluss: Where did you graduate from high school? What state were you in at that point? Shirley Hufstedler: By that time I was in New Mexico, and I graduated from Albuquerque High School. Dennis Perluss: And did you go straight to college thereafter? Shirley Hufstedler: Yes, I did; I went to University of New Mexico, which was in the same community in which I lived, Albuquerque. Dennis Perluss: And graduated from there, I take it? Shirley Hufstedler: Yes, I graduated with a degree in business administration at the roaring old age of 19 years old. Dennis Perluss: I suspect you didn’t go straight to law school at that point. Shirley Hufstedler: No, I went to work in a motion-picture studio for a pair of movie stars, Paulette Goddard and Burgess Meredith, who were married to each other at the time. I got acquainted with Burgess because he was doing a film with Ernie Pyle and Ernie Pyle was a close friend of mine, though I got acquainted with Burgess Meredith in New Mexico when he was there visiting with Ernie. And he offered me a job if I was going to come to the West Coast. And I had other job offers through other people that I knew; but the plain truth of it was, they were going to pay me a great deal more money for being an executive secretary than anybody else who was going to hire me. I wanted to save the money to go to law school, so that’s what I did. Dennis Perluss: When did you start to think that you might like to go to law school or become a lawyer? Shirley Hufstedler: I was still an undergraduate. I took business-law courses and I did well at those and I thought they were entertaining, and the other options available to females at the time were underwhelming. Dennis Perluss: Did you know lawyers? Did you have lawyers in your family or among your good friends? Shirley Hufstedler: No. My father had a lawyer and I knew him very slightly, but I never knew any other lawyers. Transcribed by Tech-Synergy; proofread by Lisa Crystal Page 2 of 15 California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Shirley Hufstedler [Shirley_Hufstedler_6036.doc] Dennis Perluss: How long a period was there between when you graduated from the University of New Mexico and started law school? Shirley Hufstedler: One year. Dennis Perluss: And you went to which law school at that point? Shirley Hufstedler: Stanford Law School. [00:05:00] Dennis Perluss: How big a class was your entry class? Shirley Hufstedler: That was the largest class ever graduated from Stanford, because it was the first class that entered after the Second World War. Almost every student there was a veteran, many of whom were on their final military leave when they entered law school; and I can't give you the numbers, but it was something like 200. They ran double sessions. Dennis Perluss: Yeah. So it was the fall of 1946? Shirley Hufstedler: Correct. And of course, that class was older than most classes are that go to law school, because the average age was 26 years old. Dennis Perluss: Approximately how many women were in the class? Shirley Hufstedler: It wasn’t approximate; there were exactly five of us in the first instance and three of them dropped out—not because they were academically disqualified, but they decided they didn’t like it. So there were two of us who graduated from Stanford Law School in 1949. Dennis Perluss: At that point in 1949 when you graduated, were there more women in the younger classes? Shirley Hufstedler: No. There were about the same number. Going to law school was not really on the menu of hopes for many young women at that time. Dennis Perluss: Were there difficulties that, at least in retrospect, you could attribute to being one of a very few number of women at the law school? Shirley Hufstedler: Yes, because at that time no law firm would hire a female. There were some law firms that hired a few women during the Second World War because the men were at war. None of those, as far as I am aware of, were ever made a partner in any of the law firms that hired them, and no one would hire me. The situation hadn’t changed a bit. Transcribed by Tech-Synergy; proofread by Lisa Crystal Page 3 of 15 California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Shirley Hufstedler [Shirley_Hufstedler_6036.doc] Two years later, when Sandra Day O'Connor graduated from Stanford with about the same academic and other record that I had, nobody would hire her, either. She developed her own practice, and I developed mine. Dennis Perluss: Did you actually interview with any law firms, or would they not even— Shirley Hufstedler: They wouldn’t even invite me for an interview. Dennis Perluss: I know the answer to this question; but for purposes of history, how did you meet Seth and what is the story? Shirley Hufstedler: We were law-school classmates, and we were both officers of Volume I, Number 1, of the Stanford Law Review, and we also shared the same small office. Needless to say, we got acquainted, particularly because we found no way in which we could have any dating experience with each other until after midnight. So it was a rather unusual courtship. But we decided we got along just fine, and after we graduated from law school we got married in August of 1949. Dennis Perluss: You were going to law school in Northern California. How did you end up practicing in Los Angeles? Shirley Hufstedler: Well, I was interested in practicing in San Francisco, but I was not committed to it at all; but it just seemed to both of us there were far more opportunities for young lawyers in Los Angeles at that time than there were in San Francisco. So we moved to Los Angeles. He, by the way, had no difficulty getting a job. He was first in the class, and he was male. Dennis Perluss: What did you do to try to establish your own practice outside of the law-firm environment? Shirley Hufstedler: Well, in the first place, I had the names of some of the Stanford law graduates. One of them was a man by the name of J. E. Simpson, an excellent lawyer; and I interviewed with him and he just gave me some legal memoranda to do, and very shortly thereafter I graduated to doing briefs for him.
Recommended publications
  • 1/5/79-Not Submitted] [CF O/A 548]

    1/5/79-Not Submitted] [CF O/A 548]

    [1/5/79-Not Submitted] [CF O/A 548] Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: [1/5/79- Not Submitted]; Container 102 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf THE WHITE HOUSE WASHIN'GTON Date: 5 January 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR ACTION: FOR INFORMATION: TIM KRAFT THE VICE PRESIDENT ARNIE MILLER ZBIG BRZEZINSKI STU EIZENSTAT JACK WATSON FROM: Rick Hutcheson, Staff Secretary SUBJECT: DUNCAN/CARSWELL/KREPS MEMO, "DIRECTOR OF THE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS" ,,,rM .....~,.s.J ~ hi.,. ~============~' I~ YOUR R,ESPONSE MUST BE DELIVERED ~ TO THE STAFF SECR·ETARY BY: TIME: 12:00 PM DAY: MONDAY DATE: 8 JANUARY 1979 ACTION REQUESTED: _x_ Your comments Other: STAFF RESPONSE: __ I concur. __ No comment. Please note other comments below: PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED. If you have any questions or if you anticipate a delay in submitting the required material, please telephone the Staff Secretary immediately. (Telephone, 7052) THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON. D. C. 20301· 5 January l979 The President The Whi.te House Washington, D. C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: The Ethics in Government Act of 19·78 created an Office o·f Government Ethics headed by a Director to be appointed by you. We regard this as a ·critical appointment because the new dire.ctor will be responsible for the initial, · precedent-se.tting series of rulings that will implement the sweeping provisions of the Act. If these rulings are not clear, fair ancl sensitive to practical impacts, we will be fac.ed with a truly enormous problem in recruiting and retaining during this Administration able people who do not wish to devote their careers.
  • Otto Kaus and the Crocodile

    Otto Kaus and the Crocodile

    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 30 Number 3 Article 11 4-1-1997 Otto Kaus and the Crocodile Gerald F. Uelmen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerald F. Uelmen, Otto Kaus and the Crocodile, 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 971 (1997). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol30/iss3/11 This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OTTO KAUS AND THE CROCODILE GeraldF Uelmen* Otto Kaus loved lawyers. Not every judge does. Every judge should, though. Once judges stop loving lawyers, they become very sure of themselves. When judges become very sure of them- selves they stop being good judges. Judges who are sure of them- selves have little use for lawyers. Piero Calamandrei, in Eulogy of Judges,' speaks with great eloquence of the relationship between judges and lawyers: There are times in the career of every lawyer when, for- getting the niceties of the codes, the arts of oratory, the technique of debating, unconscious of... robes.., of the judges, he turns to the judges, looking into their eyes as into the eyes of an equal, and speaks to them in the sim- ple words a man uses to convince his fellow man of the truth.
  • California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Harry Brauer [Harry Brauer 6060.Doc]

    California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Harry Brauer [Harry Brauer 6060.Doc]

    California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Harry Brauer [Harry_Brauer_6060.doc] David Knight: Name, and give me your title, Justice McAdams. Richard McAdams: It‘s Richard McAdams, M-C-A-D-A-M-S, Associate Justice of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. David Knight: And Justice Brauer? Harry Brauer: Harry Brauer, Associate Justice, Retired, Sixth District. David Knight: All right, I‘m ready anytime. Richard McAdams: In 2005 we celebrated the Centennial of the California Courts of Appeal; and as a part of this commemoration, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, under the leadership of the Chief Justice, instituted the California Appellate Court Legacy Project. The purpose of this project is to create an oral history of the appellate courts in our state through the voices and conversations with the retired justices throughout California. My name is Richard McAdams. I‘m an Associate Justice with the Sixth District Court of Appeal situated in San Jose. Today, it is my pleasure to have a conversation with Retired Justice Harry Brauer, retired from the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Harry Brauer: Obviously you don‘t have to introduce yourself to me, as we have both served in Santa Cruz. Richard McAdams: We spent many years together in your courtroom; and then as a colleague, when I was in municipal court, you were in superior court in Santa Cruz, and we have some history together. And today we get a chance to have a great conversation, everything about you: the immigrant experience, to talk about that; your rich educational background; your over 50 years in the legal community; and of course your reputation as an avid hiker and a mountain climber.
  • View Full Article

    View Full Article

    ARTICLE JACOBINS AT JUSTICE: THE (FAILED) CLASS ACTION REVOLUTION OF 1978 AND THE PUZZLE OF AMERICAN PROCEDURAL POLITICAL ECONOMY DAVID FREEMAN ENGSTROM† In 1978, top DOJ officials in the Carter Administration floated a revolutionary proposal that would have remade the consumer class action and, with it, the relationship of litigation and administration in the American regulatory state. At the proposal’s core was a “public action” for widespread small-damages claims that sought to replace Rule 23 with a hybrid public-private enforcement model. Similar to the False Claims Act, this new mechanism would have granted private plaintiffs the power to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and recover a finder’s fee if successful, but it also gave the DOJ substantial screening authority and control over such actions, including the ability to take over suits or dismiss them outright. Despite months of shuttle diplomacy among interest groups, a pair of bills in Congress, and full-scale committee hearings, this creative blend of private initiative and public oversight soon fizzled. Yet the story of the proposal’s rise and fall nonetheless provides a venue for wider reflection about American civil procedure and the political economy that produces it. Indeed, the failed revolution of 1978 reveals a contingent moment when the American litigation system was splintering into the pluralistic, chaotic one we now take for granted, including hard-charging state attorneys general, a federal administrative state with litigation authority independent of the DOJ, and a sophisticated and politically potent plaintiffs’ bar. In retrospect, the proposal may have been the last best chance to counter the centrifugal tendencies of an American state that was progressively empowering ever more institutional actors within the litigation system.
  • Women Judges: a Preface to Their History, 14 Golden Gate U

    Women Judges: a Preface to Their History, 14 Golden Gate U

    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 14 Issue 3 Women's Law Forum - Symposium Issue: Article 7 National Association of Women Judges January 1984 Women Judges: A Preface to Their iH story Beverly B. Cook Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Beverly B. Cook, Women Judges: A Preface to Their History, 14 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1984). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol14/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cook: Women Judges WOMEN JUDGES: A PREFACE TO THEIR HISTORY Beverly B. Cook* Only a preface can be written to the history of women on the bench in the United States. Since 1870 women gradually have desegregated every kind and level of court from Justice of the Peace to the United States Supreme Court. l However, the degree of integration has remained token for over one hundred years.2 Women held as of 1983 only 6% of the attorney judge­ ships, a percentage which is disproportionate to the 13 % in practice, the 38 % in law school, and the majority status of women as citizens.3 Women will exceed tokenism in the courts only if three simultaneous conditions take place - an increase in the number of judicial positions to be filled; an increase in the * B.A.
  • CALTECH NEWS PUB LIS H E D for a L U M N I a N D F R Len D S 0 F the CAL I FO R N I a INS TIT UTE of Tee H N 0 LOG Y

    CALTECH NEWS PUB LIS H E D for a L U M N I a N D F R Len D S 0 F the CAL I FO R N I a INS TIT UTE of Tee H N 0 LOG Y

    VOLUME 9, NUMBER B, NOVEMBER 1975 CALTECH NEWS PUB LIS H E D FOR A L U M N I A N D F R lEN D S 0 F THE CAL I FO R N I A INS TIT UTE OF TEe H N 0 LOG Y First Kenan Judge Shirley Hufstedler Professor: named to Caltech Board Harry B. Gray The nation's highest ranking as in education, Judge Hufstedler has woman judge, U. S. Circuit Judge often affirmed her belief that there is Dr. Harry B. Gray, 39, Caltech Shirley Hufstedler of the Ninth Cir­ nothing in the daily lives of individu­ chemistry professor for the past ten cuit Court of Appeals, has been als that is not touched by the law and years, has been named the first Wil­ elected to the CaItech Board of Trust­ the processes of justice. liam R. Kenan, Jr. Professor. ees, according to an announcement Describing herself as inde­ "The selection of Harry Gray as the by R. Stanton Avery, chairman. pendent-minded, she has said, "I've first occupant of this chair is a tribute The second woman in U. S. history participated in the women's rights re­ to both his charismatic qualities as a to reach that level in the judiciary, naissance all my life. I have always teacher and to his leadership in scien­ Judge Hufstedler has served in her believed that all human beings, in­ tific research," said President Harold present position since 1968. Prior to cluding women, should have oppor­ Brown in announcing the appoint­ that, she was a justice of California's tunities to make the best of their ment.
  • Jerry's Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty

    Jerry's Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty

    California Supreme Court Historical Society 2010 Student Writing Competition Second Place Entry “Jerry’s Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty: 1977-1982” Joseph Makhluf Graduate Student in History California State University, Northridge Jerry’s Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty: 1977-1982 On February 12, 1977, California Governor Jerry Brown nominated Rose Elizabeth Bird as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, making her the first female member of the Court.1 Along with Bird, Brown appointed Wiley W. Manuel as the first African American to serve on the Court.2 The Los Angeles Times wrote, “They are outstanding persons. They deserve confirmation. They bring the promise of new dimensions, new vitality, new qualities to a court already recognized as among the best.”3 Robert Pack wrote for the Los Angeles Times that with their nominations, “A genuine social revolution is taking place in Sacramento—bloodless, quiet and little discussed.”4 He further claimed, “Governor Edmund Brown Jr., not quite a thousand days in office, is slowly transferring power from the white, male elite groups where it has traditionally resided to the broader citizenry in California.”5 As of August 1, 1977, of 1,862 appointments by Governor Brown, 575 appointments went to women, 182 to Chicanos, 141 to blacks, 53 to Asians, 28 to American Indians, and nine to Filipinos, and he also appointed 65 consumer representatives to various boards and commissions. Jerry Brown‟s appointment of Rose Bird as the first female chief justice was immediately controversial, and she became the target of attacks from conservative groups who criticized her for being soft on crime.
  • CSCHS Newsletter Spring/Summer 2016

    CSCHS Newsletter Spring/Summer 2016

    The Lucas Years 1987–1996 chapter Six | By Bob Egelko* he morning after the November 1986 election, employers, set new standards for Californians’ privacy “it was as if a scythe had cut through the Court,” rights and for discrimination suits by business custom- Trecalled Peter Belton, Justice Stanley Mosk’s ers, placed new limits on local taxing authority under longtime head of chambers and staff attorney. “People Proposition 13, preserved state judges’ power to interpret were walking around looking like they’d been hit by a ton criminal defendants’ constitutional rights, shielded pri- of bricks.” Three months later, the shell-shocked Court vate arbitrators from judicial review, and upheld a leg- gained a new leader when Malcolm M. Lucas became islative term-limits initiative. He charted a new course California’s 26th chief justice, and the first in modern for the Court on the death penalty, leaving the existing times to have been put in office by the people. case law mostly intact but regularly upholding death sen- The 59-year-old former federal judge had been nomi- tences with a broad application of the doctrine of “harm- nated as chief justice in January by Governor George Deu- less error,” all the while struggling to reduce the Court’s kmejian, his former law partner, who had first appointed mounting backlog of capital appeals. him to the Court in 1984. But Lucas owed his elevation In all, Lucas wrote 152 majority opinions as chief to the voters, who had denied new terms in November justice, more than anyone else on the Court during the to Chief Justice Rose same period, and dissented in less than five percent Bird and Justices Cruz of the cases, the lowest rate on the Court.
  • In Memory of Shirley Mount Hufstedler

    In Memory of Shirley Mount Hufstedler

    Stanford Law Review Volume 69 March 2017 In Memory of Shirley Mount Hufstedler Ruth Bader Ginsburg* I appreciate this opportunity to recall the most Honorable Shirley Mount Hufstedler, a woman whose bright mind was well matched by her caring heart. Shirley Hufstedler had several careers in or involving the law—skilled practitioner, sage judge at trial and on appeal, fine teacher, perceptive scholar, and innovative member of the President’s cabinet at the birth of a new department. In each of these roles, her performance sparkled with intelligence and humanity. She was the best among lawyers and judges, the most dedicated, the least self-regarding. The example she set inspired other women, legions of them, to aspire to, and achieve, satisfying lives in the law. The future Judge Hufstedler graduated at the top of her 1949 class at Stanford Law School, where she cofounded the Stanford Law Review. According to her classmate, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Shirley’s notes were in great demand as aids in preparing for exams. After a decade of private practice, Shirley served a term as Special Legal Consultant to the Attorney General of California in the complex Colorado River litigation, a case long pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Hufstedler’s judicial career began with her appointment to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1961, a judgeship to which she was elected the following year. In 1966, she was appointed to the California Court of Appeal. Two years later, in 1968, President Johnson appointed her to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda

    Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda

    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2002 Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda Mary Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Changing the Face of the Law: How Women's Advocacy Groups Put Women on the Federal Judicial Appointments Agenda Mary L. Clark* Given the significant involvement of women judges and members of women's advocacy groups in the Women, Justice, and Authority conference, I thought it fitting to pursue some legal history for this occasion on the impact of women's advocacy groups on women's judicial appointments, looking in particular at Article III judgeships. Like Linda Kerber, I focus here on the transformative moment of the 1970s, specifically the years of the Carter presidency, 1977-81, when women's advocacy groups first exercised significant influence over women's federal judicial appointments. Before Carter, only eight women had been named to Article III courts of general jurisdiction.1 During Carter's one term, forty women were appointed-a 500% increase. This article addresses how and why this occurred, and what lessons we can learn from it. Visiting Associate Professor, Washington College of Law, American University. 1. These first eight were: Name Court Appointing President Year Confirmed 1. Florence Ellinwood Allen 6"' Cir. Roosevelt 1934 2. Bumita Shelton Matthews D.D.C.
  • March 2003, Vol.26, No.1 / $3.00

    March 2003, Vol.26, No.1 / $3.00

    SPECIAL 125th BIRTHDAY ISSUE MARCH 2003, VOL.26, NO.1 / $3.00 - 125 Years - LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION INSIDE The face of the legal profession: legendary trials, increasing diversity, legal landmarks, leading the way in serving the public, and more. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL... especially in insurance protection! Aon Insurance Solutions Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association • High quality insurance plans designed for your professional and personal needs • Comprehensive risk management program • Personalized attention from your local broker/administrator • Attorneys’ Advantage® • Homeowners Insurance Professional Liability Insurance • Auto Insurance • Businessowners Insurance • Life Insurance • Workers Compensation Insurance • Small Commercial Auto Insurance • Health Insurance • Personal Umbrella Liability Insurance • Long Term Care Insurance For more information on any Aon Insurance Solutions product or to complete a no-obligation application for quotation visit us online. Visit www.aonsolutions.com/ais6 Call 800-634-9177 • Fax 800-977-1112 CA License #0795465 4B0AQ002 Let’s Celebrate the Soul in Solo Other lawyers say you’re a maverick. Maybe they have you figured right: You go your own way, make your own decisions — blaze your own law practice. lexisONE® likes your style. It’s why we offer LexisNexis™ research priced by the day, week or month for solos. With our research pack- ages, you’re free to access the LexisNexis research tools and materials you need, for the times you need them. Access: • LexisNexis™ Enhanced Case Law • Annotated Rules and Statutes • Shepard’s® Citations Service • Public Records • Administrative Materials • Journals and Law Reviews • News • Matthew Bender® Analytic Content • Expert Witness Directories • Verdicts and Settlements The price won’t hold you back.
  • Do Women Judges Speak in a Different Voice? Sometimes, Some Women Judges Do

    Do Women Judges Speak in a Different Voice? Sometimes, Some Women Judges Do

    DO WOMEN JUDGES SPEAK "IN A DIFFERENT VOICE?" CAROL GILLIGAN, FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY, AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT Sue Davis* INTRODUCTION Feminist legal theory challenges the fundamental principles of Amer- ican law by uncovering the profound implications of the fact that the legal system was constructed, and until recently, interpreted and administered by and for men. Feminists have not only criticized specific judicial deci- sions and proposed legal reforms,1 they have gone further to question the fundamental concepts and methods of law.2 Feminist jurisprudence reaf- firms the conclusions of the legal realists and the Critical Legal Studies movement that law is neither neutral nor objective but serves to reinforce the dominant power structure. Feminist legal theory emphasizes the ex- tent to which the patriarchal character of that power structure shapes the law and in so doing, makes the domination of women "seem a feature of life, not a one-sided construct imposed by force for the advantage of a dominant group."3 Is it possible that as increasing numbers of women * Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware. The author wishes to thank Sandra Harding, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Valerie Hahns and Judy Baer for their helpful comments and suggestions. 1. See, e.g., CATHARINE MACKINNON, FEMINISM UNMODIFIED: DISCOURSES ON LIFE AND LAW (1987); Frances Olsen, Statutory Rape: A Feminist Critique of Rights, 63 TEXAS L. REV. 387 (1984); SUSAN ESTRICH, REAL RAPE (1987). 2. See, e.g., Martha Minow, The Supreme Court 1986 Term: Foreword:JusticeEn- gendered, 101 HARV. L. REV. 10 (1987); Ann C.