(844) 815-9632

FEMA

Fair Housing Act Protects LGBT Couples

The Fair Housing Act, passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, protects renters and home buyers from a variety of discrimination based on everything from sex, race, and national origin to religion, marriage status, and pregnancy. But until Wednesday of this week, no court had extended those protections to include lesbian, gay, or transgender people. That all changed when a federal court in Denver ruled that sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act includes discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, including discrimination motivated by outdated stereotypes about how men and women should act and with whom they should romantically partner. Judicial Protection Rachel Smith, a transgender woman, and her wife Tonya Smith attempted to rent a townhouse for themselves and their two children in Boulder, Colorado, but were denied, according to their lawsuit, because the landlord did not approve of their "unique relationship." In a ruling their lawyer believes is the first of its kind, the court found that LGBT renters are protected from such discrimination under federal law. "This is the first case under the Fair Housing Act dealing with gender identity where there's been liability found for discrimination based on stereotypes," Omar Gonzalez-Pagan told the Washington Post. "It demonstrates the importance of bringing these cases. Housing discrimination is a significant unreported problem" for LGBT people. Judicial Reasoning The district court's ruling mirrored one issued a day earlier by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. There, the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both courts found that sexual stereotyping is a form of sex discrimination, and therefore illegal under federal statutes that bar discrimination based on "sex." In doing so, the courts relied on a 1989 Supreme Court case holding that male partners and managers discriminated against a female employee when they said she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry" in order to advance. In the Smith's case, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore wrote, "Such stereotypical norms are no different from other stereotypes associated with women, such as the way she should dress or act (e.g., that a woman should not be overly aggressive, or should not act macho), and are products of sex stereotyping." Such sexual stereotyping is illegal under federal law, and therefore the landlord's refusal to rent to the Smith's based on their relationship violated the Fair Housing Act. Related Resources: Find Landlord-Tenant Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Can Landlords Discriminate Against Unmarried Couples? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Housing Discrimination for LGBT Couples (FindLaw's Learn About the Law) Understanding Your Rights: Housing Discrimination (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
continue reading

Federal Court: Civil Rights Act Protects Gay, Lesbian Workers From Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because it was enacted in 1964, many have wondered whether gay and lesbian workers were also protected under the law. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question this week, ruling that Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court reasoned that the statute's ban on sex discrimination also prohibited sexual orientation discrimination because, among other reasons, the discrimination is based on outdated gender stereotypes. Here's a look: Stereotypical Discrimination The plaintiff in the case, Kimberly Hively, contends that she was passed over for full-time employment at Ivy Tech Community College because she is lesbian. Her central claim, as it pertains to Title VII, is that this discrimination was based on her sex or gender -- that, had she been a man, she would not have been discriminated against for being sexually attracted to women. And the majority found it persuasive: Viewed through the lens of the gender non-conformity line of cases, Hively represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype (at least as understood in a place such as modern America, which views heterosexuality as the norm and other forms of sexuality as exceptional): she is not heterosexual ... Hively's claim is no different from the claims brought by women who were rejected for jobs in traditionally male workplaces, such as fire departments, construction, and policing. The employers in those cases were policing the boundaries of what jobs or behaviors they found acceptable for a woman (or in some cases, for a man). Essentially, Hivey was still discriminated against based on her sex in that she did not conform to stereotypes about female sexual orientation. A Definitive Decision? The court's decision is groundbreaking. Until now, the majority of courts interpreting Title VII have held that it did not cover discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. While the Second Circuit found that sexual-orientation discrimination wasn't explicitly prohibited by Title VII, it recently found that gay workers who were subject to gender stereotyping still had the right bring sex discrimination claims. The Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue, but may need to soon, giving the disagreement between circuits. For now, the Seventh Circuit's ruling applies only to its own jurisdiction: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Related Resources: Find Employment Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Seventh Circuit Holds That Title VII Forbids Anti-Gay Job Discrimination (The Washington Post) LGBT Worker Protections Missing in Mississippi and Most States (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) 5 Signs of Employment Discrimination (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Is Mooning Someone Illegal?

Perhaps you just meant it as a prank among friends. Or maybe you were really mad and meant to insult a neighbor. Does that intent matter under state laws on indecent exposure? Do your bare buttocks count as "genitals" under state statutes? Here's what you need to know about mooning and indecent exposure laws. No Ifs, Ands, or Butts Most indecent exposure laws, like California's for instance, require intent by the exposing party to sexually arouse, or sexually insult or offend. The Golden State statute broadly makes it a crime to willfully expose your genitals to someone else, motivated by a desire to sexually gratify yourself or offend or insult the other person. So if you're not trying to offend or insult someone with your bared buttocks, you're probably alright. Even if you are trying to get a rise out of someone, the law also only applies to exposing one's genitals. Most courts have ruled that showing a bare female breast is not considered exposing your genitals, thus protecting breastfeeding mothers from prosecution on indecent exposure charges. So as long as you're showing your butt, and only your butt, it generally will not constitute indecent exposure under most indecent exposure statutes, including California's. Cheeky Free Speech In 2006, a Maryland court similarly determined that indecent exposure relates only to exposure of the genitals, noting that even if mooning is a "disgusting" and "demeaning" act, it was not illegal. "If exposure of half of the buttocks constituted indecent exposure," the court held, "any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty." The Maryland court also held that mooning is a form of speech, protected by the First Amendment. Relying on a 1983 case where a woman was arrested for wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that only covered the front of her body during a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled the man could not be guilty of indecent exposure, even if the mooning took place in front of a mother and her 8-year-old daughter. Related Resources: Find Criminal Defense Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) BofA Exec Can't Moon His Boss and Keep His Job, IL Court Rules (FindLaw's Legally Weird) Foxy Brown Cleared of 'Mooning' Charges: Witness Refused to Testify (FindLaw's Celebrity Justice) State Indecent Exposure Laws (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
continue reading

Georgia Judge Who Blocked Transgender Name Changes Overruled by Appeals Court

When Rebecca Elizabeth Feldhaus and Delphine Renee Baumert attempted to legally change their names -- to Rowan Elijah Feldhaus and Andrew Norman Baumert, respectively -- they were told by a Georgia judge that their choices weren't gender-neutral enough to suit his taste. "I do not approve of changing names from male to female -- male names to obvious female names, and vice versa," Columbia County Superior Court Judge J. David Roper, said in denying Feldhaus's request. "I think it is misleading to the public and think that it is dangerous in some circumstances for one -- for the public not to know whether they're dealing with a male or a female." But an appeals court has ruled that Judge Roper abused his discretion in denying the name change petitions, and ordered that the changes be granted. Names You Can Live With Both Feldhaus and Baumert were born female but identify as male. Under Georgia law, if a person follows the proper procedure to petition for a name change, "there is nothing in the law prohibiting a person from taking or assuming another name, so long as he does not assume a name for the purpose of defrauding other persons through a mistake of identity." And in rejecting Feldhaus and Baumert's petitions, he wrote that "[n]ame changes which allow a person to assume the role of a person of the opposite sex are, in effect, a type of fraud on the general public," and that "third parties should not have to contend with the quandary, predicament, and dilemma of a person who presents as a male, but who has an obviously female name, and vice versa." Roper also said that name changes that were not to more gender-neutral names "offend the sensibilities and mores of a substantial portion of the citizens of this state." When it came to Baumert's request, Roper suggested several names he said he "can live with," including Morgan, Shannon, Shaun and Jaimie, and when Baumert rejected those options, Roper denied his petition. Sound Legal Discretion In a terse opinion, the Fourth Division Court of Appeals overruled Roper's decisions, reiterating that "a trial court's conclusions about any person's 'confusion' or 'embarrassment' was 'not a valid basis for denying' a petition for a name change," and that the only basis for denying a petition for a name change was evidence that "showed that the petitioner was acting under an 'improper motive,' such as intentionally assuming another person's name for the purpose of embarrassing that person or avoiding the petitioner's own criminal past." Absent that evidence, the appeals court ruled, Roper should not have denied the name change requests. Name and gender change petitions are becoming more common in courts, even if some judges remain resistant. If you need help with a name change or a gender change petition, or if yours has been denied, contact an experienced civil rights attorney in your area. Related Resources: Find Civil Rights Lawyers Near You (FindLaw's Lawyer Directory) Oregon Residents Can Be 'Agender' as Well as 'Non-Binary' (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) DMV Sued by Transgender Woman Over Privacy (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life) Can Parents Block Children's Gender Transitions? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
continue reading

Female owned law firms may be the ticket for more women to gain first chair experience

In early 2016 Beth Wilkinson and Alexandra Walsh left big law to open their own firm in Washington, DC with a male partner in Los Angeles, Wilkinson, Walsh, + Eskovitz. In a recent ABA article, they talked about the lack of women who have experience trying complex cases in the legal field, and their commitment to change that inequity. Wilkinson told the ABA, “[d]ue to many things, there are far fewer women with first-chair trial experience, especially in large or complex cases, and therefore it is difficult for women without that type of experience to get those opportunities.” As of December, they had 30 lawyers and were looking to hire more.  Walsh correctly noted that “[i]f you go through trials enough, you see that things don’t always go perfectly. Beth messes things up. I definitely mess thing up…It’s how you learn.” Walsh shared the story that when she was in a large firm, Wilkinson was the only one willing to let her take an active role in trial and encouraged her that she could do it.  Unfortunately, many women don’t have a Beth Wilkinson that help them gain the necessary trial experience to grow into a first chair trial lawyer. We previously blogged about a report called First Chairs at Trial: More Women Need Seats at the Table by the American Bar Foundation and the Commission on Women in the Profession. There is also a Temple University Beasley School of Law study of multidistrict ligation (MDL) appointments and gender.  Its 2016 research found that over a five-year period women made up only 15 percent of the lawyers appointed to first-tier leadership positions, and 19 percent for second-tier leadership positions.  Jaya Ramji-Nogales, a Temple law professor, oversaw the MDL study and chose these types of high profile litigation matters because they are so lucrative and so few women are appointed. Ramji-Nogales said that “[b]asically, these surveys document a phenomena that everyone knows is happening.” Wilkinson has the right attitude about trial experience and why she promotes associates around her being in court as frequently as possible, “[t]he quicker you’ve done your first witness, the easier it is to do your second witness…Every time you stand up, the stress is a little less and the confidence is better. Then you can enjoy the experience and you’re a trial lawyer.” Wilkinson and Walsh hope they can play a role in the increase of women who have first-chair trial experience. “I think you can either complain – which is what I sometimes do – or try to make a difference…[a]nd we’re trying to make a difference,” Wilkinson said. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments of both accomplished women.  I was lucky enough to gain extensive trial experience early on working as a public defender and as a member of the CJA panel.  But, gaining this necessary experience is far more challenging in the private sector because women need someone like Wilkinson to take a chance on them.  Until more women have first chair experience, landing the elusive complex case will remain only a possibility, not a probability. Thankfully we have leaders like Wilkinson and Walsh who are willing to stand up and commit to changing these statistics for good. The post Female owned law firms may be the ticket for more women to gain first chair experience appeared first on Women Criminal Defense Attorneys.
continue reading

Christina Swarns argues racial bias before U.S. Supreme Court

Christina Swarns, director of Litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. argued Buck v. Davis before the United States Supreme Court in October of this year. Buck is a case which involved the Fifth Circuit’s denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to a Texas death row inmate on his death sentence appeal based on the argument that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting a defense expert who testified that Buck’s identity as a black man increased the likelihood of his future dangerousness (likeliness of future dangerousness is a factor used in Texas courts to justify the death penalty over life in prison). It of course defies all logic why Buck’s counsel would have called a witness to provide this testimony, but such illogical and self-destructive tactics lay at the heart of Buck’s ineffective counsel argument. What made the denial of the COA so egregious was that the state of Texas had, in 2000, released a statement indicating that it would not object to death penalty appeals made on the basis of this exact expert’s testimony (notably, all of the other appeals had been based on the prosecution’s use of the “expert,” making the defense’s use of the expert all the more bewildering). Yet, during the argument before the Supreme Court the Solicitor General for Texas tried to distinguish that assurance between cases where the State called the expert versus when the defense had called the expert. That argument didn’t appear to be persuasive, as having your own attorney introduce such racially charged and damaging evidence would certainly seem to support an ineffective assistance of counsel argument. By all accounts the Justices seemed inclined to rule in Buck’s favor, with even Justice Alito commenting that the use of the testimony was “indefensible.” While the arguments and pending decision in Buck are highly relevant to those who work in the defense bar, what was also highly notable about Swarns’ argument in Buck was that it was one of very few occasions that a black woman has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the history of this country, those attorneys arguing before the Supreme Court have usually been white and usually been men. But this once highly exclusive club is changing, albeit slowly. Diversity in the highest court both on and in front of the bench continues to be an aspirational goal, and Swarns’ argument in October is a great step forward. Christina Swarns is an inspiring example to all female attorneys and attorneys of color desiring to help in the cause of justice. Swarns started out at the Legal Aid Society in Manhattan, and then began dedicating herself to death-penalty work at the capital unit of the Philadelphia Federal Community Defender’s Office. She later joined the Legal Defense Fund, first as Director of the Criminal Justice Project in 2003. In 2014, Swarms became the organization’s Director of Litigation. Swarns is considered a national expert on death penalty and race and speaks throughout the country on the issue. She was profiled in an ABA article titled Lady of Last Chance as well as in the Washington Post. In 2014, Christina was selected by the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School to be an Honorary Fellow in Residence, an honor given to an attorney who makes “significant contributions to the ends of justice at the cost of great personal risk and sacrifice.” Christina Swarns is an attorney whose ongoing dedication to living out a commitment to public service on behalf of defendants makes her a true champion of justice. The post Christina Swarns argues racial bias before U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on Women Criminal Defense Attorneys.
continue reading

Stronger, Kinder, and Gentler

As I let the results of the election sink in, one of the biggest fears that I have is that it will now be socially acceptable for people to be mean to others based on their membership in a group, whether it be women or minorities or immigrants or gays or anybody else who is not part of the white male establishment. Nobody can deny that the recent presidential election has been one of the ugliest in our lifetimes with women being called names and being publicly criticized for their appearance and for speaking out against assault and Hispanic politicians being called liars and having their judgment questioned based on their cultural heritage. I have heard people praise the Donald Trump campaign for making it okay not to be politically correct and for him saying things that others think but are afraid to say, and I fear his affirmation through the election will make such hurtful and regressive discourse even more common and tolerated than it already is. Although we can debate whether political correctness has gone too far, I think we can agree that it is not okay to vilify and hate others based on their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. So what can we as female criminal defense attorneys, who see the debilitating effects of stereotyping on a daily basis, do for the next four years? I suggest that we become stronger together to fight to make this nation kinder and gentler despite our divisions. We must speak out against hatred of all types, whether it be in the form of racial or religious profiling or gender stereotyping. We must raise our voices even louder to speak out against injustice when we see it and fight harder in our local communities to eradicate it. We must speak up publicly in and out of court when our clients have been victims of hate or are being judged in whole or in part because of their membership in a group. And when our clients are the haters, advocate for the punishment designed to rehabilitate rather than lead to recidivism by embedding the hatred even further. I also suggest that we use our economic power to make changes. We must support local women and minority-owned business (and lawyers) and boycott businesses associated with those who hate. We must spend our charitable dollars on local organizations which work to empower girls and immigrants rather than on charitable foundations which make their officers and directors richer. We must support candidates at the local level who will fight for the values we believe in. Let politicians see that we will vote with our purses as well as through the pulpit and polls. I suggest strongly that we work together to be stronger and to make this country kinder and gentler every day in our local courts and communities and that we show the public and the Government and its officials that smart, kind, strong, and gentle female criminal defense lawyers can make a difference. The post Stronger, Kinder, and Gentler appeared first on Women Criminal Defense Attorneys.
continue reading

Debevoise Launches Women’s Review

The NYC-based law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLC, or “Debevoise” for short, has taken a bold public-facing step in supporting the ongoing advancement of women in the legal profession. The 650-person firm, which is considered one of the world’s leading transactional and commercial litigation firms, recently launched the Debevoise Women’s Review, a website dedicated to promoting women in the legal and business worlds. The website will include interviews and posts centered on professional development and achievements of women in law and business, and will profile women around the world who are making a difference in their respective fields and communities, while providing support and encouragement to female professionals at all stages of their careers. The initiative’s objectives are very similar to our goals here at Women Criminal Defense Attorneys Blog, while including a broader spectrum of legal specialties and a focus on the business world. The “Letter from the Editors” holds a prominent place on the Debevoise site and states the goals of the site as follows: The Debevoise Women’s Review will spotlight topics of interest to professional women, including the achievements, initiatives and advocacy efforts of women and organizations around the world. We hope to provide a range of diverse perspectives through interviews with leading women in business; thoughtful coverage of conferences and pertinent books and articles; and reflective pieces tying in the personal experiences of Debevoise women, alumni and clients. Our goal is to continue to strengthen our community of Debevoise women while encouraging the legal and business worlds to engage in discussion and collective action around the development, retention and promotion of female professionals. The fact that such a prominent Am Law 100 firm is committing significant and sustained time and resources to supporting the professional advancement of women is a strong statement about both need and value of women in the legal profession. I hope it reflects a tipping point where law firms and the larger legal community realize that creating committees and programs aimed at supporting women aren’t just boxes to check off a diversity checklist but rather important investments in our collective future and a strong business development strategy for firms. This concept of promoting the advancement of women in law and its greater effect on legal business development has even made its way onto primetime television. If you are fan of The Good Wife like I am, you know that one of the show’s main characters, Diane Lockhart, is creating an all-female law firm and has been working to convince her male partners that this makes good business sense for all of them. Television seems to mirror current trends in our society, so although I think it’s highly doubtful that a large, global firm like Debevoise will transition to all-female partnership anytime soon, I think Debevoise’s commitment to the professional advancement of women is certainly ahead of the curve and other firms should take note. The post Debevoise Launches Women’s Review appeared first on Women Criminal Defense Attorneys.
continue reading

Was Madeleine Albright Wrong?

There has been much media attention given recently to a statement made by Secretary Madeleine Albright at a Hillary Clinton event that, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women.” This caused an angry backlash, mainly from younger women. Although it’s safe to assume that Albright didn’t mean to imply that women should face eternal damnation on the basis of their selection of a presidential candidate, it was clear she was making a point about the responsibility of women to support women. But was she wrong in the larger context about the need for women to support other women? Secretary Albright’s comment merits analysis in the criminal defense community as well, an area where women have been historically and are currently underrepresented. It is undisputed that female criminal defense attorneys face a range of unique hurdles in our profession: from questions about whether we are tough enough to represent criminals; to being forced to confront humiliating clothing practices directed at women to gain access to our incarcerated clients; to struggles generating business when most referral sources are male. Working harder or being smarter is often not enough to enable us to overcome these gender hurdles alone. Should successful female criminal defense attorneys just focus on their own careers and clients or do we owe it to other women in our profession to support them as well? Although no female criminal defense attorney should be made to feel guilty for not doing enough to help others, male or female, don’t we owe it to other women criminal defense attorneys to support them when we can? Wouldn’t we benefit from having more people who look like us, face similar challenges as us, and have common experiences as us in the courtroom defending clients with us? Can younger women really succeed in this area without the support of other women? I would argue that Secretary Albright was not wrong, neither in the words used or in the sentiment behind them. We as advocates understand that one must often be provocative to cause meaningful action to occur; indeed, to bring about action is the meaning of the term provocative. And meaningful action is needed. We must act to support one another, whether as a friend, mentor, referral source, or in countless other ways. If we don’t support each other, we will find ourselves by ourselves in a profession where community is crucial. If we don’t support each other, we risk not only a lack of advancement in the profession for ourselves and our younger female colleagues, but our own marginalization. Secretary Albright wasn’t wrong. In fact, she couldn’t be more right. Her now famous quote is not about eternal damnation- it is a call to action. She intends to provoke change for women, she intends to empower women, and she intends to harshly criticize women who refuse to support the advancement of other women. We should use Secretary Albright’s words as a reminder to those of us in this field to remain cognizant of the hurdles facing female criminal defense attorneys and to support each other however and whenever we can. And I too believe, there is a special place in hell for those of us that don’t. The post Was Madeleine Albright Wrong? appeared first on Women Criminal Defense Attorneys.
continue reading

Interview of Rebecca LeGrand, Partner at Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC

This week I had the privilege of talking to Rebecca LeGrand, a partner at Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC in Washington, DC.  She has vast experience representing individuals facing criminal charges in federal court or subject to a government investigation. Before joining Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon, Rebecca worked as a litigator at Williams & Connolly LLP and Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, where she represented both individuals and corporate clients in high-stakes civil and criminal litigation.  Rebecca also worked as a volunteer attorney at the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland, where she helped clients navigate complex sentencing issues and criminal investigations.  Rebecca graduated from Yale Law School, where she was the co-editor-in-chief of the Yale Journal of Health Policy. Her undergraduate degree is from Brown University and she has a master’s degree from Duke in evolutionary biology.  I hope you will love getting to know Rebecca as much as I did. What drew you towards a career in criminal defense? I like being on the side of the underdog, and working with individuals who desperately need someone on their side when it feels like all the powers that be have turned on them. You have your own criminal defense firm with two other partners. Can you describe your path to opening up your own firm? I was looking for a different way to practice law.  I was incredibly lucky to start my career at Williams & Connolly, which was a great place to learn how to be a litigator, but I never saw myself as a big firm person. I heard stories from the old guard about what Williams & Connolly was like when it was just starting out, and that sounded like such a great way to practice law.  The legal market is different now, but there are still a lot of clients who need zealous, smart, representation and want to (or have to) work with a smaller firm.  I wanted to create that firm, and I got incredibly lucky to find partners who shared that vision. What have been some of your proudest moments in representing clients? I’m really proud of this recent three-day evidentiary hearing where I represented a client in a post-conviction matter.  It is a female client who I believe was wrongfully convicted.  There were so many ways that the system let her down when she was tried and convicted.  Finally having a zealous advocate fight for her and share her story was so meaningful for her and her family.  That responsibility is humbling, and it’s why you do this work.  I’m also very proud of the work that I do outside the courtroom, behind the scenes.  It’s a devastating thing to be charged with a crime at all.  When I can help a client navigate an investigation to avoid criminal charges I know I’ve done something really significant to protect them and their families from that trauma. How did the presence of women mentors or lack thereof impact your career? I wish I’d done more to cultivate mentors in general when I was younger.  It’s so important to have those relationships, but it’s easy to neglect when you are juggling cases and feel like you are spending so much time keeping up with emails.  I didn’t have a lot of women to look to as mentors, and that does make it harder.  Because of that, I really appreciate the women who took time to mentor me even when I was an annoying associate and did not necessarily make it easy – I give a hat tip to Kathy Zecca on that point. There aren’t enough of us out there and we have to stick together. Of the women that you admire in the field, what do you find inspiring about them? Simply that they are putting themselves out there, even when the deck is stacked against them, and finding a way to do the work they want, and doing it well. Most important weapon in your defense arsenal? My science background.  In fact I rely on my science background in defending clients, even though I’m not working anywhere near a lab anymore. My science training taught me to approach evidence in a rigorous way.  And I really enjoy working with numbers and big data sets, which is an important skill when I’m dealing with, say, a complex financial case.  Sometimes I get to use science even more directly—like cross-examining a government expert—but I use that training in less direct ways as well to help me think about the facts of a case, and the government’s proof, or lack thereof. Best advice you ever received? ...
continue reading