Move over Marie Claire and Elle, Sue’s coming to town
Back in August, we reported that a magazine for female litigators was in the works. They were in the naming phase at the time, and we tried to help them out by surveying you about the worst of their proposed names, including such gems as “Chill,” “Woman Litigator,” and “Spirit, The Magazine for Women in e-Discovery.” Almost half of the voters chose “Trial Mama” as the worst of the worst.
Well, in that post, we asked you all to suggest better titles. And it seems the magazine mavens were listening. They have embraced the suggestion proffered by commentator #33 on that thread, and named the magazine “Sue, For Women In Litigation.”
Kudos to us for calling them out on terrible title ideas and kudos to you, anonymous ATL reader, for naming a new magazine. It launches January 2009, and will be published bimonthly. The magazine promises “stories of remarkable individuals along with expert advice, cutting-edge data and emerging trends to help readers gain more recognition, more equity and opportunity in the legal workplace.”
The mission of “Sue” after the jump.
Here’s the mission statement from the publisher’s press release:
Sue’s time has come. A record number of women hold top positions in the litigation field such as lawyers, litigation support professionals, technology experts, vendors, paralegals, e-discovery counsel and more. Thousands have fantastic careers. There are 370,000 women lawyers, 300,000 paralegals of whom 85% are women, and an unknown number in litigation support and vendors. A newly formed association, Women in e-Discovery, reports 1,0000 members joined in just one year. Women in litigation are excelling in other areas too - from e-discovery to education, business, legal vendors, politics and the arts. They wield millions of dollars in buying power and account for significant revenue-generating positions in almost all law firms.
Cha-ching. Advertisers, do you hear that?
Even with such progress, stumbling blocks remain. Think of the gender discrepancy in wages: women lawyers get paid only 77% of what their male counterparts earn. In a female dominated field, paralegals earn only 93% of what men earn for the same job. Perhaps the biggest hurdle has to do with our own internal struggle-with issues like life balance and, yes, power.
Perhaps the Sue folks will follow the money and launch another magazine tapping the male legal audience. We’d recommend naming it “Briefs, For Men in Litigation.”
Earlier: Naming a magazine for female attorneys: Chill out, Trial Mama?
(60) Comments
Comments
PPPhirsTTT (AGDG)
What a stupid magazine. Can't wait for it to crash and burn.
1,0000 members?
Ummmm....name pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
"Sue's time has come."
Oh boy.
"Even with such progress, stumbling blocks remain. Think of the gender discrepancy in wages: women lawyers get paid only 77% of what their male counterparts earn."
Here we go again...
I wish my firm was decorated with strange yellow chairs!
I wish my firm was decorated with strange yellow chairs!
I sware you could post this same article on the Onion's website and I'd believe it was a spoof--girl's just want to have funds? Come on.
A Boy Named Sue
An Elie named Crisco
A GULC by any other name is still a GULC.
Guys in my high school used to get sued by women all the time. It was no big deal.
"Move over" isn't right. One set of magazines deal with lazy housewives who have babies to get out of work, and this magazine deals with lazy female litigators who have babies to get out of work. Wait....
#33 Should sue for IP infringement.
How many is 1,0000?
Are there any magazines for fat, big haired female lawyers from Texas?
Hopefully it will have some tasteful tips on wearing pastel colored pantsuits and how best to cry in one's office without attracting too much attention.
Where's that guy from Sullivan & Cromwell that was profiled in ATL last week when we need him...
Is it unethical for a female attorney to bleed all over opponent's counsel and get away with just because she is female?
How about P.M.S, aka
pm sue
Please let there be a swimsuit issue. Wait. Please make sure there is no swimsuit issue.
With a name like Sue, I suppose their masthead will lack anyone named Ruth.
i read the title and thought it said move over Elie. dang.
"Angry Red Pony"
I think it's actually called "suc", it just has an overactive serif problem.
I think it's actually called "suc", it just has an overactive serif problem.
Seriously, who will read this shit? If they have a joke page, I have a suggestion:
Why is PMS called PMS? Because mad cow disease was taken.
PRICELESS!
#19 FTW.
Front page article:
"Finding Love as a Mean, Overweight, Pasty, Boring Attorney"
Front page article:
"Finding Love as a Mean, Overweight, Pasty, Boring Attorney"
You all sound like prissy little boys who have had your butts kicked by one too many female litigators before...
Women suck as litigators, they are driven only by emotion and are easy to manipulate. Also, women in general are less intelligent and less analytical than men. They are more stupidly trusting too.
I love it when I see a woman on the other side, I know that I will have a much higher chance of victory.
Future Articles:
"Relationship Quiz: How well do you know your co-counsel?"
"OMG: The Spring Pantsuit Collection"
"Sex Positions: Sometimes it's fun to hit your head on the glass ceiling!"
"Q&A: When is sleeping with the judge acceptable?"
Walking the thin pink line? It should be the fine pink line. You can walk a fine line, but not a thin red line. Idiots.
Those feminazis are at it again
KKKash
29 - Article #3 made me close my door to really enjoy the laugh. Am I supporting bigotry?
Will it have a schedule for when the train on the mommy track leaves?
Prediction: this will not sell a single copy.
Are you attacking the magazine or women lawyers?
Will it have a schedule for when the train on the mommy track leaves?
Are you attacking the magazine or women lawyers?
Women suck as litigators and in general are less intelligent and less analytical than men.
I love it when I see a woman on the other side, I know that I will have a much higher chance of victory.
Go home and bake me a pie, woman.
why do women attys insist on wearing those hideous pantsuits? many professional women wear skirts that look very smart and sexy, without being inappropriate. Maybe the magazine should include some style tips.
The woman on the cover-- pantsuit! the magazine is doomed.
39, on the other hand, I've seen some legs coming out of skirt suits that would really have been better kept under pants.
Also, women can look sexy in pansuits. See Robin Tunney in the Mentalist or Anna Torv in Fringe.
So far, 38 women haters posting....Note to Sue: Great idea. We love it. The only contribution to society these hate mongers can make is their reminder to the rest of us that there are plenty of losers out there. Go for it. You'll be an outstanding success.
So far, 38 women haters posting....Note to Sue: Great idea. We love it. The only contribution to society these hate mongers can make is their reminder to the rest of us that there are plenty of losers out there. Go for it. You'll be an outstanding success.
42, who's "we"? I'm a woman attorney and I think it is a worthless idea. Speak for yourself.
Okay, I feel bad about my post on #29.
Tomorrow, I will repent by voting a woman into the VP slot.
-- #29
All this magazine does is reinforce the idea that women aren't able to cut it in the workplace and need special help and special attention to deal with their special issues.
"A record number of women hold top positions in the litigation field such as lawyers, litigation support professionals, technology experts, vendors, paralegals, e-discovery counsel and more. Thousands have fantastic careers."
This statement pretty much says it all. Record numbers of women are in the above-listed fields. But only thousands have fantastic careers. Maybe that's because litigation support professionals, technology experts, vendors, and e-discovery counsel are not fantastic careers. And if a magazine thinks it can speak to all of those idiots in the same sentence as it speaks to a female practice group head at a biglaw firm, it's smoking something strong. And why exactly would a ttt back-office b!tch want to read about her sucky life in a magazine anyhow?
Other Future Articles:
"Using Sex Appeal to Get Ahead"
"Lawyer Hot--How A Law Firm 9 Equals a Regular 5"
Other Future Articles:
"I Will Eat My Own Children to Make Partner--Will You?"
"Paralegals, Friends or Foes"
I find it interesting that the article supposedly being commented on is really being used by so many posters as an excuse to vent some clearly pathological issues with professional women. So far its been lamented that (1) women are lawyers; (2) women have babies (sorry nature!); (3) some women care enough about their babies to take time off from work to raise them because their deadbeat husbands wont (shout out to all of you posters with daddy issues!); and (4) women are attractive and don't show off their legs, or are not attractive but do. None of these "issues" has anything to do with the merits of the magazine. I guess one question I would have is, if women are "lazy" for deciding to care for their family, does that make you a "hard worker" for neglecting yours? While I'd like to say "you idiots will never amount to anything," the truth is you are the prime candidates for partner in BigLaw, complete with a cuckholding wife, kids with coke habits that hate you, and the hyperbolic sense of self-importance that comes with megalomania and money. Well that sounds appealing, doesn't it?
Wow, whoever says we don't need feminism needs to read these invigorate comments pronto.
The magazine's defenders would come off better if they would spell and grammar check their posts.
Just sayin'.
52: Yeah, especially here with the grammar nazis out. But, the point is still there.
Erm, so much for the law being above petty prejudices. Some of the commenters here are ridiculously misogynist. Seriously, this is embarrassing.
Contributing editor perhaps? http://www.sullivanandcromwell.com/lawyers/detail.aspx?attorney=140
I am for equal pay for equal work, but can we please drop the "women make __ % what men do" line? It is misleading. If someone goes part time (like 3 of the 5 female attorneys I am currently on cases with) while I am putting in overtime, I will gain more experience and contribute more to the firm, and therefore deserve more compensation.
I am not bashing anyone for having kids or wanting to work a reduced schedule to be with them. It is a choice that people should have, and law firms should accomodate that. But I reject the notion that the people who make (and benefit from) that choice deserve as much $$ as I do.
Please find a better metric and I am on board. Until then, statements like these insult everyone's ingelligence and alienate potential supporters.
#52 - That's because the defenders are probably the publishers.
My favorite title is still "Clitigator"!!!
I am a paralegal in MI and for one am sick of receiving magazine offers, seminar offers, book offers, etc. from these folks (Estrin Legal Ed) - my inbox is flooded with this crap. They also publish Know and it's so refreshing to see they have changed up the article topics with yet another "The 10 Most ......" feature. PUHLEASE!
Not that anyone probably cares but after hearing so much negative stuff about this organization on some of the paralegal boards I did a bit of checking on them. Apparently they are running their "company" from an apartment in California - just 2 people and allegedly took money from some folks including one of Know's former owners. May or may not be true but where there's smoke there's usually fire. It's a good thing they KNOW so many attorneys.
Interesting that the post regarding this "publisher's" three back to back bankruptcies has been removed. Freedom of speech???