By Lynn Stafford
This article is personal. It acknowledges a debt to people who would be astonished to think I might owe them anything at all. I have been a civil litigator in Portland for 25 years, with a practice emphasizing complex commercial cases. The nature of my practice requires me to deal with, and confront, accountants, entrepreneurs, bankers, developers, insurers, engineers, and, of course, other attorneys, all under conditions in which both the stakes and the stresses are very high indeed. Whether they are clients, experts or adversaries, most (but no longer “all”) of these are men. When I returned to my native Portland in 1982, there were damn few women who stood up in a courtroom and argued on behalf of strong men and multimillion-dollar institutions about high-risk disputes and complex business transactions gone wrong.
This is not a claim to being a pioneer. By the early eighties, women regularly, if perhaps still infrequently, appeared in court and were performing as well as their male counterparts at trial. Several were prosecutors or public defenders, others litigated as part of their divorce practices, and still others tried personal injury cases. So, women were not discouraged (at least actively) from going to court. But, whether they were assumed to be unable to understand in-depth business transactions, or whether the perception lingered that women lacked facility with numbers and balance sheets, the fact remains: in the early eighties, you could count on your fingers the women who were engaged as lead attorneys in complex commercial litigation.
This article acknowledges my gratitude to some of the women who were the notable exceptions to the general rule. By their professionalism, dedication and talent, they demonstrated to me, to other women, and – crucially – to the predominantly male movers and shakers in the commercial world, that women could vie on an equal footing with men in a courtroom on a complex commercial matter. The following represent those particular women who showed me the way:
One instance stands out in my mind as both a revelation and a turning point for my career. In 1983, I went to see the closing arguments in a trial before Judge Panner. Barrie Herbold, of the newly formed Markowitz & Herbold, argued for the plaintiff. Joyce Harpole, from Stoel Rives, argued for the defendant. Plaintiff had held an exclusive distributing contract with the defendant company and the case involved plaintiff’s claim that defendant had breached that agreement. It was not an easy case to explain to a jury, in terms of either liability or damages. I watched as first Barrie and then Joyce argued their version of the case to the jury. I was impressed by their professionalism. They argued cogently, logically, convincingly. They demonstrated complete command of the facts and total facility with the concepts of the case. And the jury listened intently. Missing completely from the case was any hint that the gender of the two opposing attorneys was in any way a factor for the jury.
I realized that two women of my age had not only gained the confidence of their clients to try a complex commercial transaction, but had demonstrated conclusively by their professionalism that such confidence was fully justified. I knew I wanted the opportunity to do the same, and Barrie and Joyce had provided the inspiration as well as the belief that I could do it. These two fine trailblazers are both deceased now. It breaks my heart, not least because they will have missed my expression of appreciation and gratitude.
I practiced law in Vermont before coming home to Oregon. At the time (1979-1982), Vermont had no women judges at all. Almost out of a sense of duty – to compensate for this glaring omission - I seriously considered going on the bench as a career path. On my return to Oregon, however, I saw that I would not be obligated to blaze that trail here. One of my first appearances was before Judge Liz Perris. She impressed me so much, with a seriousness of purpose and natural authority, underscored by the incredible scope of her knowledge of the Bankruptcy Code. That I never really considered a judicial career again is at least in part a testament to my confidence in the level of professionalism and knowledge demonstrated not only by Judge Perris but also by the many other women who occupy the bench here in Oregon, at all levels. I would not think, for example, of writing a brief on the subject of personal jurisdiction without pulling out Justice Susan Graber’s opinion in State ex rel. Circus Circus Reno, Inc. v. Pope, 317 Or 151, 854 P2d 461 (1993). It’s all there. Her 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions reflect the same insightful and compelling analysis of the law that made Circus Circus such an established precedent.
There are others who probably don’t even know how strong an impression they made on me. Pam Jacklin showed me that you could be a serious full-time lawyer and still have time to make a significant contribution to the community. She sat in my office (I doubt she recalls this) and told me that even if I didn’t have time to participate in outside chartable activities at the time, there were many causes that could benefit from the legal advice. Sally Landauer proved by example that devotion to family and a serious legal practice were not mutually exclusive. By carving out a niche in Trusts and Estates early in her career, she managed successfully to work four days a week at a time when it was hard for women lawyers to be taken seriously unless they billed 2000 hours a year.
Carol Emory, first a client and then a friend, is an outstanding example of what a woman lawyer can do by herself. Without the support of a big law firm or the backing of an experienced mentor, she has established an excellent reputation as an international lawyer totally on her own. An office in Beijing, for goodness sake!
So many other female lawyers critical to the development of women in law remain unnamed, a glaring omission. But, as I said, this is a personal tribute and note of thanks to the individual women who touched my life and influenced my career. Their careers have not really paralleled mine or one another’s, but they share the common element of success and fulfillment in a field of law which, if not off limits, was heretofore certainly of limited access to women. They may not have been the very first women to venture into these realms of male domination, but they were among the early arrivals, when the paths were not clearly delineated, when their acceptance was still tentative. I have followed, close on their heels, unimpeded by the obstacles they encountered and thrust aside, and ever grateful for their pioneering efforts, their inspiration, and their shining example.
Thank you one and all.
This article appeared in the June 2006 issue of Multnomah Lawyer. Lynn Stafford was a shareholder with Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf until she retired from practice in 2008.
Related Practice Areas:
Business and Commercial Litigation
