ABA Journal is reporting on the gender-charged ads recently rolled out by the all-female firm, Schroder Joseph & Associates LLP. The Buffalo, N.Y.-based boutique firm is now knee-deep in a gender stereotype controversy. Their response is of the "Can't you take a joke?" variety:

The "Ever Argue With a Woman?" ad is not intended to take jabs at men, [name partner Ginger] Schroder says. Critics are "taking themselves way too seriously. It was meant to be fun and thought-provoking; it's not meant to engender national debate on gender stereotypes."

The ads were created by account executive Jennifer Dowdell of Business First magazine to aid the law firm's branding effort. All use the same color background and the same photos of those who work at the firm: three partners, one associate and one of counsel, and three paralegals. Men have worked at the firm as law clerks, but so far none who have been offered jobs there has accepted.

The firm has so far received positive feedback from clients and others who think the ads are funny, Schroder says.

The first ad in the series reads: "Labor Pains? Talk to us. (We're women ... We get it.)" A second ad reads: "Sexual Harassment, Performance Issues, Discrimination, Dismissals and Disputes ... (All in a day's work for us.)"

A new ad scheduled to run reads: "Advice, Protection, Guidance and Support ... When it comes to our clients, let's just say our maternal instincts take over."

Schroder says the ads are proof that lawyers can laugh at themselves. "A lot of people say lawyers don't have a sense of humor," she says. "I think that's wrong."

If you don't think it's funny, you don't have a sense of humor. Good reasoning.

We get most of the female stereotypes the firm employs, but "performance issues" may be more appropriate for the ad campaign of an all-male firm.

Firm's 'Ever Argue With a Woman?' Ad Provokes Debate on Stereotypes [ABA Journal]
All-female Buffalo law firm accentuates the feminine in its ads [Buffalo News]

There was some ambiguity about the professional fate of Robert Somma, the Boston-based bankruptcy judge who was arrested for drunk driving while wearing a black cocktail dress, fishnet stockings, and high heels. At first he said he was resigning. But after a groundswell of support, Judge Somma reconsidered his resignation.

We were hoping for his return. Sadly, it looks like that won't be happening. From the Boston Globe:

US Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Somma, who resigned after his arrest on a drunken driving charge in February and then tried to rescind his resignation, will not be coming back, federal court officials said this afternoon.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Judge Robert Somma have agreed that he will not resume service on the United States Bankruptcy Court for Massachusetts but is leaving to pursue other endeavors," the Office of the Circuit Executive said in a one-paragraph statement.

We wonder: Was Judge Somma strong-armed into staying away from the bench, by those killjoys on the First Circuit? Stay tuned. Somma's lawyer, Robert Carpenter, told the Globe that "we may have our own statement to come out next week."

As for those "other endeavors," we're curious. Will he become a widely acclaimed drag performer? Or move to Florida and become a television judge? Or maybe combine the two, and become America's first cross-dressing TV judge?

P.S. We're all in favor of drag performance. In fact, we've been described as "the blogging equivalent of a very talented drag queen" -- one of our favorite compliments ever.

After drunken driving arrest, bankruptcy judge agrees to leave [Boston Globe]
Somma: On the Bench or Off? [Legal Blog Watch]

That's the title of our latest column for the New York Observer, which reflects upon recent television and film portrayals of women litigators.

It touches upon some of the same themes highlighted in Amy Kolz's excellent American Lawyer article from last year, but it's more focused on fictional female litigators, as opposed to real-life ones. Here's how it starts:

Whatever happened to Ally McBeal? If recent movies and television shows are any guide, the life of a female lawyer has gotten a lot less pleasant since the carefree, charmingly neurotic days of dancing babies and bathroom kisses. But today's portrayals may be more accurate, and certainly more critically acclaimed.

Last January, Glenn Close won a Golden Globe for her compelling performance as Patty Hewes, a fearsome and wildly successful plaintiff's lawyer, on the addictive TV show Damages. The following month, Tilda Swinton snagged an Oscar for stepping into the pumps of Karen Crowder, a hard-charging in-house litigator, in Michael Clayton.

In March, Julianna Margulies (of ER) returned to television as aggressive defense lawyer Elizabeth Canterbury, the title character of Canterbury's Law. Even Katey Sagal, who embodied the famously vulgar Peggy Bundy on Married With Children, reincarnated herself this year as Marci Klein, the sleek, powerful, and ruthless founding partner of the law firm on Eli Stone.

You can read the full column over here.

Farewell, Ally McBeal; Enter the Litigatrix [New York Observer]

Researchers at the University of Calgary have conducted a sociological study of 670 attorneys working in law firms to measure the impact of having children on work productivity. The researchers spend a good amount of time raving about billable hours, which made measuring productivity a breeze for them. Yay for billable hours!

We do not think it is groundbreaking news that mothers are less productive than non-mothers (measured in terms of billable hours). The results regarding fathers are interesting, though:

The results suggest that mothers with school-aged children are less productive than non-mothers, whereas fathers with preschool-aged children are more productive than non-fathers. While time spent on household and childcare tasks significantly reduces women’s productivity, we find little support for the benefits of family resources or working in a family-friendly firm for women. Rather, fathers seem to benefit more: family resources are positively related to their productivity and family-friendly benefits allow them more time for leisure.

The study finds that family-friendly firm policies are more beneficial for men than for women. We hear the frustrated sighs of women echoing through cyberspace.

This unexpected finding, however, may be a boon for female attorneys without children:

One surprising finding is that childless women may be more productive than women with children and their male colleagues (with or without children).

The moral of the story for law firms: hire more childless women.

Disclaimer: We note that this study was conducted in the Great White North. We still think it's relevant, though.

Parenthood and productivity: A study of demands, resources and family-friendly firms [ScienceDirect via TaxProf Blog]
The Impact of Children on Lawyer Productivity [Legal Blog Watch]

Ladies, if you want to make partner, consider Dorsey & Whitney. The Project for Attorney Retention has just released a report (PDF) on the number of women among this year's new partners at 77 firms.

Props to Dorsey & Whitney and Ropes and Gray. Here's why:

At a dozen firms, 50% or more of the new partners were women: Dorsey & Whitney (10 of 15 new partners are female, for 71%), Ropes & Gray (7 of 10 new partners are female, for 70%), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (4 of 6 new partners are female, for 67%), Blackwell Sanders (8 of 12 new partners are female, for 67%), Cravath, Swaine & Moore (2 of 3 new partners are female, for 67%), Crowell & Moring (4 of 7 new partners are female, for 57%), DLA Piper (15 of 28 new partners are female, for 54%), Reed Smith (14 of 26 new partners are female, for 54%), Arnold & Porter (2 of 4 new partners are female, for 50%), Cadwalader (1 of 2 new partners is female, for 50%), Shearman & Sterling (3 of 6 new partners are female, for 50%), and Womble Carlyle (4 of 8 new partners are female, for 50%).

Women made up less than half of the new partners at the other 65 firms surveyed.

Some firms are in serious gender equality hot water. Here's the list of shame:

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein did not make a single female partner (0 of 8 new partners were female). For others, only one or two women lawyers were awarded the brass ring: Orrick (1 of 13 new partners is female, for 8%), Proskauer Rose (1 of 11 new partners is female, for 9%), Nixon Peabody (1 of 11 new partners is female, for 9%), Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (1 of 11 new partners is female, for 9%), Baker & Daniels (1 of 9 new partners is female, for 11%), Vinson & Elkins (1 of 9 new partners is female, for 11%), Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge (1 of 9 new partners is female), Akin Gump (2 of 15 new partners are female, for 13%), Milbank (1 of 8 new partners is female, for 13%), White & Case (1 of 7 new partners is female, for 14%), and Gibson Dunn (2 of 13 new partners are female, for 15%).

Three firms have had nearly all-dude partner classes for four years running: Akin Gump, Fried Frank, and Vinson & Elkins. For those of you flirting with a career move from lawyering to screenplay-writing, think: Charlize Theron fighting her way to partnership at Fried Frank, à la North Country.

Law Firms' New Partners Still Mostly Male: New Partner Classes 2005-2008 [Project for Attorney Retention]

Or at least his robes. A quick update on a recent Judge of the Day, from Robert Ambrogi over at Legal Blog Watch:

By all accounts, Robert Somma had been a top-notch U.S. bankruptcy judge since his appointment to the bench in 2004 and a top-notch bankruptcy practitioner for many years before that. The sense of many in the Boston area is that the 63-year-old's retirement Friday from his $158,000-a-year bench seat is a tragedy....

A footnote to this story is that a legal-blogger may have contributed to the judge's decision to resign.

No, not us! By the time we got to the story, it had been all over the news. Also, for the record, we fully support transvestism.

More after the jump.

There are reasons to read the New Hampshire Union Leader even after primary season is over. Check out this great article:

A Boston-based federal judge wore a black cocktail dress, fish-net stockings and high heels when police arrested him for drunk driving after he rear-ended a pickup truck last week, sources said.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Somma, 63, struck a plea deal with the city Wednesday in which he pleaded no contest to a first-offense misdemeanor driving while intoxicated charge in Manchester District Court. In exchange, the judge agreed to pay $600 in fines and penalties and a 12-month license suspension....

The arresting officer made no mention of the judge's attire in the written report police provided to the media other than to note the judge "had a difficult time locating his license in his purse."

Two sources confirmed Somma was wearing a cocktail dress, women's hose and high heels when his Mercedes-Benz E320 sedan struck a pickup truck stopped at a red light on Elm Street about 11:29 p.m. on Feb. 6.

Whatever floats your boat, Your Honor. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Arrested judge wore dress, women's hosiery [New Hampshire Union Leader]

Although many tipsters emailed us about it, we never wrote about this buzz-generating Wall Street Journal article, reporting on how many older lawyers are displeased by the overly informal, even sloppy attire of their younger colleagues. We didn't write about it earlier because we felt preempted: the piece received lots of online attention, from such widely read outlets as the ABA Journal and the WSJ Law Blog, where it generated heavy comment traffic.

But now we have a new angle on it. Focus on these portions of Christina Binkley's WSJ article:

[Winston & Strawn D.C. managing partner Thomas Mills] says he is partial to well-fitted Brioni suits for himself. He notes that the going rate for new associates in New York, Los Angeles and Washington is $160,000 a year -- enough to buy suits while paying down school loans. Yet all too often, associates show up at work in jeans -- attire that he doesn't condone "unless it's moving day."

Winston & Strawn brought in a personal shopper from a local department store last year to address associates on how to shop and dress for work. Mr. Mills says that when some associates do make an effort to dress up, they seem to base their look on Hollywood. "You get the TV-woman lawyer look with skirts 12 inches above the knee and very tight blouses," he says. "They have trouble sitting and getting into taxis."

These remarks apparently didn't go over too well back at Winston:

W&S DC office's managing partner comes off as a total a**. His comments re: his custom suits are one thing. But his comments re: the way women in the office dress have created a stir....

People are seriously pissed, particularly the women. Man comes off as a total pig.... Read the article, you'll see why.

This is prime ATL material. Firm has called impromptu associates meeting for 9:30 Monday, no topic given. But the guess is it is damage control.

The guess was correct. More about the meeting, after the jump.

The story of Cordero v. Epstein -- the lawsuit filed by an aspiring model against prominent Wall Street financier Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that he took advantage of her when she was underage -- gets weirder by the day.

The New York Post reported that the model, Maximilia Cordero, was actually born a man -- one Maximillian Cordero, b. 1983. Cordero then sued the Post, filing as an exhibit with the court a birth certificate showing she was born a female. A number of you questioned the document's authenticity, pointing out various irregularities. And such skepticism made sense: Cordero, despite filing the birth certificate with the court, is not including the Post's claim that she's a transsexual in her lawsuit.

But even if it may not be the gravamen of her complaint, Cordero still wants you to know she's not a tranny. From a statement that William Unroch, her lawyer / roommate / possible ex-boyfriend, sent to the Daily Intelligencer (via Gawker):

Ms. Cordero will be happy to attend a televised nude settlement conference or celebrity charity benefit nude tea party with Rupert Murdoch and Lucifer Carne [a reference to Post reporter Lucy Carne] if the NY Post feels this would clear up the matter. Both Ms Cordero and Mr. Murdoch can appear nude and state their positions on this matter of grave public concern.

Hmm... Time for an ATL field trip?

More insanity, after the jump.

We're confused. And we're guessing we're not alone.

We have provided extensive coverage of Cordero v. Epstein, in which model Maximilia Cordero alleges that high-profile financier Jeffrey Epstein took advantage of her when she was underage. To add to the suit's salaciousness, the New York Post previously claimed that Maximila Cordero was born a man -- to wit, Maximillian Cordero (b. 1983).

Now Cordero has turned around and sued the Post. She has filed an exhibit with the court casting doubt on the Post's claim that she was born a man -- but oddly enough, she's not raising the gender issue in her lawsuit. From DealBreaker:

Cordero and her lawyer (and alleged sometime boyfriend) William Unroch have filed a lawsuit against the Post, claiming it engaged in a smear campaign coordinated with Epstein’s flack Howard Rubenstein (who is also the publicist for the Post).

Radar has all the dirt, but here’s the dirtiest bit:

"Conspicuously absent from the accusations is the Post's revelation that Cordero was born a man. A source tells Radar that the initial filing of the suit by Unroch includes as an exhibit a birth certificate, which showed Cordero being born Maximilia Cordero, a woman. Reached by phone this weekend, Unroch (with Cordero commenting loudly in the background but declining to come to the phone), called the Post's behavior 'outrageous' but refused to address Cordero's birth gender or the authenticity of the birth certificate originally filed. 'She's a woman,' Unroch tells Radar. So, why not go after the Post's gender claims?

'It's a slam dunk case whether she was born a cat, a dog, or a space alien,' Unroch says."

You can see why we're confused. And our confusion has only grown since someone sent us a copy of the exhibit mentioned by Radar -- namely, a birth certificate showing that Maximillia Josephine Cordero, born on November 15, 1982, was born a "Female."

You can check out the birth certificate for yourself -- please note, we take no position on its authenticity -- after the jump.

Epstein's Accuser Accuses Page Six Of 'Raping' 'Her' All Over Again [DealBreaker]
Epstein's Accuser Sics Law Dog On Page Six [Radar / Fresh Intelligence]

She probably wouldn't be very happy with her law firm. From the Minority Law Journal:

[N]owadays most associates don't plan on spending their entire legal career at one law firm. But some associates are more likely to head for the exits than others. Nearly half of all white male midlevel associates say that they expect to be working at their current firm in five years, according to our Minority Experience Study. Just over 40 percent of minority male midlevels said the same. Of the minority female midlevels, though, fewer than a third planned to stay put.

Minority women seem to have more reason to want to leave big firms, according to our findings. [The study] showed women of color experiencing less satisfaction and more obstacles at large firms than their peers, including men of color.

You can read the full article -- replete with numerous quotes from "diversity advisers, "diversity consultants" and "diversity officers" -- over here.

P.S. Yes, the Wanda Sykes reference is pretty random. We just think that she is hilarious, and we try to mention her at every opportunity. We also think she bears an uncanny resemblance to one of our favorite jurists, Judge Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Cir.; see photo at right).

P.P.S. And have you seen -- or rather, heard -- Wanda Sykes in the new Applebee's ads? The restaurant chain has hired her to serve as the voice for their new "spokesapple." Genius.

Why Are Minority Female Associates Leaving Law Firms? [Minority Law Journal]

We are not easily offended, nor are we very politically correct. Sometimes we write things that upset or antagonize people (sometimes intentionally, and sometimes not).

But this discussion of women lawyers, while certainly provocative, is a bit too inflammatory for our taste. We won't post excerpts here (because finding a portion that isn't offensive is difficult).

It's generating discussion and making the rounds by email, however, and people have brought it to our attention. We're passing it along for your consideration, so you can see what all the fuss is about. But please keep in mind that we agree with Jeff Jarvis's linking philosophy: “A link is not necessarily an endorsement, but a way to say ‘you go judge for yourself.’”

What A Girl’s Job Tells You [Roissy in DC]

Maximilian Cordero believes the second time is a charm -- with respect to (1) a gender and (2) suing rich guys. From DealBreaker:

In the grand tradition of trying to turn the (real or imaginary) sexual assault you suffered at the hands of a creepy old guy into stocks and bonds, everyone knows you don’t start at the top of the food chain. You get a few starter suits under your belt first, THEN you go to the top. Got to walk before you can run, got to allege “he put his hand on my knee and I didn’t like it” before you allege “he jerked off into a towel while I stood there awkwardly, and I think there might’ve been a purple vibrator in there, too” (those are just for instances).

A few years ago, Maximilia née Maximilian Cordero filed a $10 million lawsuit that accused her former lawyer, Glen Gentile, of statutory rape and endangering the welfare of a minor 2002, when she was “under the age of 17” (representing Cordero was her new—at the time—boyfriend/attorney, William Unroch).

Unfortunately, the case got thrown out when the court informed Cordero (yes, it informed her) that in 2002, she was over the age of 17, and, actually almost 19. For her part, Cordero said that she was “shocked” to find out how old she was.

As Barbie (née Ken) might say, "Math is hard! (And so am I.)"

(You can read the complete post over at DealBreaker.)

Jeffrey Epstein Accuser Attempting To Get It Right Second Time Around [DealBreaker]

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Cordero v. Epstein
Cordero v. Epstein: She's a Man, Man!

When we recently wrote about the case of Cordero v. Epstein, in which model Maximilia Cordero alleges that high-profile financier Jeffrey Epstein took advantage of her when she was underage, one of you wondered: "[H]ow many of [Cordero lawyer William] Unroch's models do you think are really trannies?"

One possible answer: at least one. Namely, Maximilia Cordero herself -- who allegedly was “born Maximillian Cordero in 1983.”

Read the original Dealbreaker post, which has a wealth of other details, over here.

For What It's Worth, Jeffrey Epstein Has Been Known To Spend A Lot Of Time In Scotland [DealBreaker]

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Cordero v. Epstein

Andrew Bruck takes a question at Wednesday's press conference.

Every now and then, we leave our apartment. We did so on Wednesday, to attend the press conference of Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession, where the organization unveiled its law firm diversity rankings (accessible here; Los Angles Times article here).

It was quite informative. For those of you who might be interested -- and we're guessing there are a number of you, judging from the robust commentary on our earlier post -- read more, after the jump.

Are you concerned about diversity (or the lack thereof) at America's top law firms? Have you been wishing for a handy resource that would rank the Biglaw shops by their performance on diversity metrics, as well as other measures, such as billable hours and pro bono work?

Well, you're in luck. Later today, Building a Better Legal Profession will be issuing just such a report. Here's a blurb for their upcoming press conference:

Over one-third of all large law firms in Manhattan don't have a single African-American partner. Nearly half of all large law firms in Washington, D.C. don't have a single Hispanic partner. One firm doesn't have a single LGBT partner or associate in either office. On October 10, find out who.

Building a Better Legal Profession, a national grassroots coalition of law students, will release its first report on the status of the legal profession. The groundbreaking study compares the largest law firms in each of the top six legal markets (New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Northern California, and Southern California) by various metrics. The report ranks firms by billable hours, pro bono participation, and demographic diversity (percentages of partners and associates who are female, African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and LGBT).

On hand at the press conference will be statements of support from Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, and Prof. Deborah Rhode, former chair of the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession. Media: Please contact Andrew Bruck or Prof. Michele Landis Dauber for more information and sample rankings.

To get a sense of the rankings, click here (PDF), for a report card showing how D.C.'s top law firms stack up on diversity, or here (PDF), for the New York law firm diversity rankings.

The leading firm for diversity in Washington (with an overall grade of B+; almost all the firms earn C's or worse): Nixon Peabody! Remember, they hired lots of minorities to sing their theme song (mp3).

For those of you here in D.C., consider attending today's press conference (we'll be there):

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 -- 12:30 p.m.
National Press Club
13th floor, Zenger Room
529 14th St. NW
Washington, DC

Very exciting. Congratulations and thanks to Building a Better Legal Profession!

Law Students Building A Better Legal Profession [official website]
Diversity Report Card: D.C. [PDF]
Report on Big Law Firms [National Press Club]

We continue our series profiling the perks or fringe benefits of life at a large law firm. This one may be the breast one yet. From a (male) tipster:

A friend of mine ran across this Simpson Thatcher perk: "The Firm maintains a lactation room for new mothers in each of its New York, Los Angeles and Palo Alto offices to facilitate their transition back to work."

I have a hard time seeing candidates asking about it during interviews, so I thought I'd pass it along. I'm not a chauvinist or anything! I just have a childish sense of humor...

You're not alone. We'd note that this perk may have broader appeal than our correspondent might think. See here.

Also, we'd suggest to STB that they regularly sweep their lactation rooms for spycams. Remember this guy?

Update: Jeez, some of you are oversensitive. With respect to the photo, here's what happened. To avoid copyright issues -- hello, Nixon Peabody! -- we use pictures primarily from royalty-free, stock photography sites. People upload pics to these sites that they allow others to use for free.

Our favorite such website, to which we have contributed many photos of our own, is stock.xchng. For this post, we went to stock.xchng and ran a search for "breastfeed." The pic we used was one of three images that came up. That's all.

Flexible Working Arrangements [Simpson Thacher & Bartlett]
Male lactation [Wikipedia]

This email exchange, between two law students at Washington University Law, took place late last month. It's reminiscent of that Greenberg Traurig email exchange from the other day -- which, in our book, is high praise.

Some background, from our tipster:

I'm an avid reader of ATL. Although I don't see much law school coverage on your site, I thought you might find this email string between a couple Washington University in St. Louis law students amusing.

Note that the email string starts as a solicitation sent to the entire school, marketing a washer/dryer for sale. The proceeding communications are also copied to the ENTIRE school of law (including professors, deans, etc.).

Check it out, after the jump.

A tipster drew our attention to this Craigslist posting, to which he appended a single line of commentary: "Discriminatory? Ha Ha."

It seems that only the title of the posting implicates motherhood. The main body of the listing refers to the candidate as "he or she," and the job responsibilities do not require a maternal figure. E.g., breastfeeding the CEO is not required.

Moms Wanted - General Counsel, Part time/flexible hours (Midtown East) [craigslist]

Lawyers aren't known for being the most stylish of professionals. So Cleary Gottlieb brought a fashion magazine editor in for a luncheon talk, to give some fashion and style pointers. From Jezebel:

[A] recent slide show by an unidentified Glamour editor on the "Dos and Don'ts of Corporate Fashion" at a New York law firm shed some light on the topic, according to this month's American Lawyer magazine.

"First slide up: an African American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the 'Glamour' editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How truly dreadful! The style maven said it was 'shocking' that some people still think it 'appropriate' to wear those hairstyles at the office. 'No offense,' she sniffed, but those 'political' hairstyles really have to go."

Not surprisingly, such un-PC sentiments didn't go over too well at Cleary:

The story ends happily, with the law firm Cleary Gottlieb's managing partner Mark Walker, who wasn't at the lady luncheon, sending everyone an email pointing out the stupidty of the Glamour editor and of fashion magazines and yeah pretty much all the things we here at Jezebel hold so near and reviled.

So whose bright idea was it to bring in the Glamour editor anyway?

If you're at Cleary Gottlieb and have more details on this episode, please email us. Thanks.

'Glamour' Editor To Lady Lawyers: Being Black Is Kinda A Corporate "Don't" [Jezebel]