While the impact of an attorney's sex has been examined with respect to trial court processes (e.g., jury decision making), no one has previously studied its effects on appellate court decision making. In this article, we argue that the application of gender schemas by some justices results in a devaluing of the arguments made by women litigators. Our findings suggest that women orally arguing attorneys are less likely to receive a favorable vote by a justice than are the male counsel they oppose and that conservative justices are more likely than their liberal counterparts to vote against litigants represented by female counsel at oral argument. This suggests that the ideology of elites influences whether they apply gender schemas in a negative fashion. We also find that justices are more likely to side with female lawyers in women's issues cases, indicating that the justices' perceptions of female lawyer expertise are enhanced in those cases. These findings persist The authors would like to thank Marc Rosenblum, Kenneth Manning, and Brad Wright for the helpful comments on various versions of the manuscript, though any limitations in the article are purely the responsibility of the authors.

This article examines the impact of lawyer capability on the decisionmaking of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Extending prior attorney capability studies of U.S. judicial decisionmaking, we test three lawyer variables: prior litigation experience, litigation team size, and Queen's Counsel designation. We find that the first two variables have a statistically significant and positive relationship with the SCC's decisions in non‐reference‐question cases from 1988 to 2000. Moreover, this relationship persists even after controlling for party capability, issue area, and judicial policy preferences.

American and Canadian scholars have found significant evidence of gender bias in the legal system, including the legal profession~ABA, 2007; studying lawyer gender bias in the US have recently inquired as to whether gender bias against women lawyers has crept into the decisional processes of the US Supreme Court~USSCT!. Specifically, a study conducted by Szmer and colleagues~2010! indicates that women lawyers are not disadvantaged in finding success on case outcomes but does suggest that conservative justices are less likely to side with parties represented by women attorneys. On the other hand, the study also concluded that the justices are more likely to side with the position advocated by women lawyers in cases raising "women's issues"~Szmer et al., 2010: 27!. Acknowledgments: We wish to thank Frank Collucci and the anonymous reviewers for CJPS for their comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript and Donald Songer for providing much of the data employed in the study. We also thank Jacqueline Baldwin for providing a French translation of the abstract.

No abstract

Objective: Gender disparities in litigation task assignment are not limited to the trial court context; they are present in even the highest of courts in the United States. We explore and seek to explain the gendered patterns of participation by lawyers arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Methods: After quantitatively describing participation by female attorneys in Supreme Court litigation, we use logistic regression and fractional logit, respectively, to identify factors that influence the degree to which women deliver oral arguments and participate in writing litigant briefs. Results: Descriptively, we find that male attorneys present more oral arguments than female attorneys, and most litigant briefs are written by male-dominated teams. In fact, more than a third of the briefs are only signed by men. In multivariate analyses of Supreme Court oral arguments and briefs, we find that women are more likely to argue and sign briefs on issues in which they are stereotypically perceived as more competent (women's issues) and less likely to participate in issue areas where they are perceived to be less competent, like economic issues. Similarly, women are less likely to orally argue in complex cases. Conclusion: While occupational segregation and other factors may play a role, the participation of female attorneys in this forum is likely driven, in part, by stereotyped assessments of their competency.Just how far have women come in the legal profession? A 2009 article used the 1970s feminist t-shirt slogan, "I haven't come a long way, and I'm not a baby," to describe the gender diversity of elite law firms (Barker 2009). While some had approached gender parity, other firms lagged. Overall, the glass ceiling was firmly in place: There were four male partners for every one female partner (Barker 2009). This pattern persists even after controlling for relevant factors like billable hours, time out from the workforce, parttime status, and productivity (Rhode 2017, p. 77;Sterling and Reichman 2016).Even more recently, a Forbes article described alarming findings published in a 2018 report by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Commission on Women in the Profession and the Minority Corporate