Biglaw

Biglaw Partner Accuses Small-Firm Litigator Of Using Pregnancy To Delay Trial

No, a woman would not carry a pregnancy to term and bring a child into this world in a sick effort to delay a case.

By  
on

‘Stay in there, kid. I need to litigate this case first because my opposing counsel sucks.’

Women in the legal profession regularly face discrimination simply because they’re women, but when those women work as litigators, that bias can take an undue turn. As we’ve noted time and again, basic human courtesy gets tossed to the wind when women lawyers become pregnant, especially when a trial is afoot. Do you recall the time when a trial attorney was forced to bring her newborn to court because a judge said her maternity leave was “no good cause” for a continuance? Or perhaps you remember the time a litigator with a high-risk pregnancy was “shouted at and insulted” over the mere prospect of a trial adjournment? To be quite frank, it is an embarrassment to the legal profession that women continue to be treated in this way.

One state is trying to combat this perpetual issue with a proposal for parental-leave continuances. In Florida, although judges would still have the final say, a new rule would create a presumption that pregnant lawyers should get continuances as needed. Hopefully, this much-needed rule will be approved, but until that happens, we’ll still have Biglaw partners like Paul T. Reid of Shook Hardy & Bacon essentially accusing a woman of getting pregnant to delay trial in a case that’s been ongoing for years.

Please note the UPDATE below.

Christen Luikart of Murphy Anderson is due in October, and a product liability trial she’s been lead counsel on is set for the same month. Luikart asked for a continuance to accommodate the final weeks of her pregnancy and the birth of her child, and Reid, of course, objected — and boy, did he object. Not only did he say in his opposition that her parental leave wasn’t a “compelling circumstance” for a continuance, but you should check out the transcript from their appearance in court.

Not only did Reid compare Luikart’s pregnancy to an illness and suggest that she pass the case on to another attorney at her firm, but he alluded to the fact that she may have gotten pregnant in an attempt to further delay the proceedings. Reid says that his critics are taking his words out of context, but in any context, they are abhorrent. No, a pregnancy is not like an illness. No, a woman should not be forced to have a pregnancy turned into a career stumbling block by handing off years of her hard work to a colleague. No, a woman would not carry a pregnancy to term and bring a child into this world in a sick effort to delay a case.

These thoughts and legal theories are absolutely, positively INSANE, and women who are leading the discussion regarding discrimination against pregnant attorneys in the Florida court system could not agree more. From the Daily Business Review:

Sponsored

“The problem is it’s not just Ms. Luikart. It’s a trend,” [Jennifer Shoaf] Richardson, [associate at Jackson Lewis in Jacksonville and president of the Florida Association of Women Lawyers] said. “One, in implying that women would get pregnant or time their pregnancies to interfere with a trial date, which is completely ridiculous and absurd. And two, a common reaction is to diminish the role of women in a trial.”

Deborah Baker-Egozi, partner at Greenspoon Marder and member of the Florida Bar of Governors, had a similar reaction.

“I’m disgusted by what happened to this woman,” Baker-Egozi said.

Thanks to the wisdom of Palm Beach Circuit Judge Cymonie Rowe, Luikart will receive a continuance until January 2019. “I don’t believe Ms. Luikart got pregnant in response to this case. I do believe that Ms. Luikart is entitled to have some time to deliver her child and take care of her child before coming back to resume her duties as an attorney.” Until more judges are as compassionate, the court system needs to do something to ensure that pregnant attorneys are not subjected to this treatment.

Women litigators’ pregnancies should be celebrated and supported. Women have taken the bar exam while in labor. Women have given birth at their law firms. Childbirth is one of the most difficult things a woman will ever have to go through — it shouldn’t be made more difficult by the profession they’ve labored to be a part of.

UPDATE (3:45 p.m.): Paul Reid’s bio no longer appears on Shook Hardy’s website and he has been suspended pending further review by management. Here is a statement from Hildy Sastre, the firm’s Miami administrative managing partner:

As attorneys, we zealously advocate for our clients every day in court; but we expect our lawyers to do so in an appropriate and respectful manner. The statements made by Mr. Reid do not reflect the supportive and inclusive culture that Shook, Hardy & Bacon is committed to championing for our clients, staff and lawyers, opposing parties and counsel and others involved in the legal process. Mr. Reid’s comments are directly at odds with Shook’s advocacy on these issues, and our firm chair suspended Mr. Reid today upon learning of the situation, pending further review by firm management. We will use this situation as an additional opportunity to educate our lawyers and staff and foster a continued dialogue on diversity and inclusion. Shook fully supports the proposed rule under consideration by the Florida Supreme Court to create a presumption that pregnant lawyers should get three-month continuances in their cases and other initiatives reflecting fair and respectful treatment of others.

Sponsored

Female Attorneys Fuming After Miami Lawyer Opposed a Pregnant Lead Attorney’s Request for Continuance [Daily Business Review]

Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Topics

, , , , , , , , , ,