In a recent case of gender bias in Continuous Legal Education (CLE) training, Maine-licensed attorneys experienced difficulty in having their programs approved for Harassment and Discrimination (H&D) credit. The programs dealt with discrimination against women and mothers in the courtroom, one of them presented by ABA Past-President Paulette Brown, discussing COVID trends that adversely affect and bias against ‘law moms.’ Despite addressing harassment and discrimination issues, which are fitting to Maine’s new H&D training requirements, legal associates found themselves in a dilemma as their programming application was denied by the Maine Board of Board Overseers. These contrary actions from the board signaled a discriminatory narrative that dismisses the experiences of women and mothers in the courtroom, suggesting that they do not constitute legal problems to be addressed in the profession.
Harassment and Discrimination CLE requirements are a relatively new development in the legal industry, with the goal of improving the practice for those privileged enough to be lawyers. To date, states joining Maine with this requirement include California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. These mandatory continuing education credits aim to address systemic discrimination in the legal industry and provide teachable methods for identifying problems and potential solutions.
Regrettably, the recent decision by the Maine Board of Overseers reflects an underlying bias that dismisses the struggles of women, especially mothers, in the legal profession. Such dismissals are not only disheartening but also contribute to a broader institutional discrimination issue that needs immediate attention. As suggested in a Harvard Business Review article, companies often wrongly assume that unspoken caregiving challenges are not an issue, thereby devaluing the struggles of women and mothers in the profession.
The lessons from these events bring light to the need for a more inclusive, diverse, and accepting legal space. Firms and boards must be more conscious about biases and engage in active steps to dismantle systemic barriers to gender equality in the profession.
For more information, the original article can be found here.