Two Women Attorneys and Country Practice


TWO WOMEN ATTORNEYS
AND COUNTRY PRACTICE
Nina W. Tarr*

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Project

Legal theorists who believe there is an "ethic of care" which imbues a
female problem-solving methodology have asked whether the entry of
women into the legal profession will change the nature of law practice.'
Feminist scholars have contrasted "female methodology" to traditional legal
problem solving and defined the former as taking into account the context
of the problem rather than relying on formal procedure and rules; being con-
scious of the ongoing relationships of the parties rather than simply rely-
ing on a rights-based analysis; and being holistic in developing creative
solutions rather than assuming polar results. There is debate over the cause
of the ethic of care,2 whether it is universally applicable to women other than

* Nina W. Tarr, Associate Professor of Law and Clinical Director, Washburn
University School of Law. The author would like to thank the women who are the
subject of this article, whose willingness to participate made this possible.

She would also like to thank Stuart Tarr who continually challenged her to see
the value of this project, Kathy Kirk who kept the project going by doing research
and being enthusiastic, and Elizabeth Fischer who tirelessly read, typed, con-
tributed, and typed some more. Finally, she thanks the many colleagues and
friends who read drafts and provided encouragement and insight.

See, e.g., James C. Foster, Antigones in the Bar: Women Lawyers as Reluctant
Adversaries, 10 Legal Stud. F. 287 (1986); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Excluded
Voices: New Voices in the Legal Profession Making New Voices in Law, 42 U.
Miami L. Rev. 29 (1987); Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Portia in a Different Voice:
Speculations on a Woman's Lawyering Process, 1 Berkeley Women's L.J. 39 (1985);
Joan C. Williams, Deconstructing Gender, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 797, 802 (1989) [here-
inafter Williams, Gender], where she interprets Carol Gilligan to have said,
"Women are portrayed as nurturers, defined by their relationships and focused on
contextual thinking; men are depicted as abstract thinkers, defined by individual
achievement. We should listen to women's 'voice,' argue Gilligan and her followers,
because women's culture offers the basis for a transformation of our society, a trans-
formation based on the womanly values of responsibility, connection, selfless-
ness, and caring, rather than on separation, autonomy, and hierarchy."

2 See, e.g., Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State:
Toward Feminist Jurisprudence, 8 Signs 635 (1985); Robin L. West, Jurisprudence
and Gender, 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1988); Williams, Gender, supra note 1.



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

white, middle-class, heterosexual women,3 and whether it is in women's
best interest to advocate that an ethic of care exists.4 This last question aris-
es because the ethic of care assumes that female is different from-male, and
some theorists fear "different" connotes "inferior."

In July 1990, at the first annual meeting for Women Attorneys in the State
of Kansas, I met Jennie and Mary, then the only two women practicing law
in Flinthills, a community of about seven thousand people in rural Kansas.5

Their experiences in this setting, detailed below, provide empirical infor-
mation for the theoretical debate around difference and the female ethic of
care in the practice of law. The women's experiences support an "out-
sider" theory of difference,6 particularly in the "choices" they perceive
themselves to have made and their visions of their roles in the community.

As I visited7 with Jennie and Mary, I realized that legal feminist schol-
ars have not examined the lives of women practicing in small towns.8

' See, e.g., Patricia A. Cain, Feminist Jurisprudence: Grounding the Theories,
4 Berkeley Women's L.J. 191-214 (1989/1990); Angela P. Harris, Race and
Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 581 (1990).

' See, e.g., Leslie Bender, From Gender Difference to Feminist Solidarity:
Using Carol Gilligan and an Ethic of Care in Law, 15 Vt. L. Rev. 1 (1990); Cynthia
Fuchs Epstein, Faulty Framework: Consequence of the Difference Model for
Women in the Law, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 309 (1990); Williams, Gender, supra note
1, at 802-03.

- The names of people and places have been changed at the request of the two
lawyers about whom this article is written. The substituted names have historical
significance. Jennie Kellogg was the name of the first woman to be admitted to the
bar to practice law in Kansas. She was admitted in 1881. Ms. Kellogg acted as
Assistant Attorney General from 1891-93. Karen Berger Morello, The Invisible Bar:
The Woman Lawyer in America, 1638 to the Present 37 (1986); Robert W. Richmond,
Requisite Learning and Good Moral Character: A History of the Kansas Bench and
Bar 96-98 (1982). Her name was substituted for the woman in the article who began
practicing first.

Mary Clynen Lease, who practiced law in Kansas in the late 1800s was a well-
known, extremely talented orator who spoke in support of causes such as women's
suffrage, the populist movement, labor reform, and temperance. She was called the
"Wichita Cyclone," the "Ironjawed Woman of Kansas," and the "Red Dragon." Id.
at 119. It is said that Mary Lease never took a fee for her services because "she
believed lawyers had a special duty to help the poor and work for social justice."
Id. at 120. Mary Lease's name was substituted for the other woman about whom
this article is written.

6 See, e.g., Joan C. Williams, Dissolving the Sameness/Difference Debate: A
Post-Modern Path Beyond Essentialism in Feminist and Critical Race Theory, 1991
Duke L.J. 296, 306-08 [hereinafter Williams, Dissolving]. See discussion infra part
I.B.

, Rather than talking, meeting, discussing, negotiating, or even arguing about
a topic, people in Kansas "visit" about it.

I See, e.g., Bender, supra note 4, at 1-3 nn. 2-3.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

Studies on women lawyers have focused mainly on women from presti-
gious law schools and large law firms.9 Researchers have implicitly
assumed that conclusions from research on urban law firm practice can be
applied to all lawyers. In her article calling for research on the way women
practice law, Carrie Menkel-Meadow notes that the current research fre-
quently reflects a rigid concept of gender.0 For example, there is a preoc-
cupation with how effectively women balance large law firm practice and
family life as if these are the only competing dynamics." This focus on the
large law firm career assumes that it equals success and that assimilation
into this exclusive framework is the goal of all "real" lawyers. 2 Thus
these studies remain products of a limited world view based on a "con-
ventional male-constructed," capitalist, heterosexual sociology.3

B. Outsider Theory

Joan C. Williams has critiqued the "feminism of difference" as being a
regression to a ninteenth-century theory of domesticity which works to the
disadvantage of women. She argues that although theorists try to be

I See, e.g., Jill Abramson & Barbara Franklin, Where They Are Now: The
Story of the Women of Harvard Law 1974 (1986) (describing the experiences of
women who graduated from Harvard in 1974, and discussing the structure of the
firms, parenting, burning out, climbing to the top, and alternative careers); Women
Lawyers: Perspectives on Success (Emily Couric ed., 1985) (a series of articles
about women lawyers written by the lawyers themselves, and covering firms,
legal aid, public interest, etc., but nothing on small town practice). See also David
Chambers, Accommodation and Satisfaction: Women and Men Lawyers and the
Balance of Work and Family, 14 Law & Soc. Inquiry 251 (1989) (studying graduates
from Michigan Law School). See generally Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Women in
Law (1981); Gender and Law Project, Gender, Legal Education, and the Legal
Profession: An Empirical Study of Stanford Law Students and Graduates, 40 Stan.
L. Rev. 1209 (1988); Linda Liefland, Career Patterns of Male and Female Lawyers,
35 Buff. L. Rev. 601 (1986); Leona M. Vogt, From Law School to Career: Where Do
Graduates Go and What Do They Do? (1986) (prepared for Harvard Law School
Program on the Legal Profession).

In the last few years, a number of state commissions have generated studies on
the status of women lawyers in the profession. See Gender Fairness Report, 61 J. Kan.
B. Ass'n 35 (1992). As part of their studies, the commissions took testimony from
individuals and their stories were absorbed into the whole. This article provides a
different perspective because it focuses on the individuals, not the general trends.

10 Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow, Exploring a Research Agenda of the Feminization
of the Legal Profession: Theories of Gender and Social Change, 14 Law & Soc.
Inquiry 289, 295-96, 298 (1989) [hereinafter Menkel-Meadow, Exploring].

" See, e.g., Chambers, supra note 9.
12 Menkel-Meadow, Exploring, supra note 10, at 307.
13 Id.

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and law

selective in what aspects of the traditional stereotypes of women they
adopt, gender stereotypes marginalize women. She suggests that, "'rela-
tional feminism' is better understood as a critique of possessive individ-
ualism than as a description of what men and women are actually like." 4

She concludes that the "kernel of truth in Gilligan's voices, then, is that
Gilligan provides a description of gender differences related to men's and
women's different roles with respect to wage labor and child care under the
current gender regime."'5

Citing EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 16 and using the concept of the
"mommy track," Williams explains how women who appear to have made
choices are actually limited by cultural hegemony.7 She says, "To put it
bluntly, women's rich emotional relationships in their disempowered
sphere and the seductive compliments of domesticity-particularly, the
notion that women were more moral than men-encouraged women to
'choose' their own repression."8 She calls for the debate to be refocused
away from the question of equality or difference theory and toward the goal
of deinstitutionalizing gender.'

14 Williams, Gender, supra note 1, at 806-13.
Id. at 841.

16 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff'd, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988).
Williams, Gender, supra note 1, at 828-31. The complexity of the forces

forming the person from without and controlling their questions and under-
standing of their context is the result of the process of cultural hegemony. Part of
the reason Jennie and Mary are not fully cognizant of their outsider status is
because of the effectiveness of dominant cultural hegemony. This concept is clear-
ly described by Steven Watts in the introduction of his book, The Republic Reborn,
when he explains,

First offered by Antonio Gramsci and later developed by a number of
English and American historical theorists, this concept refers to the way
in which dominant class values, organizations, and definitions of reality
seem to attract "spontaneous" loyalty rather than simply being imposed
on society through brute force. Its proponents contend that ruling groups
achieve and maintain social power not so much through economic intim-
idation or police strength-although this is indeed part of the picture-but
rather through successfully prescribing the conventional wisdom of a
society, defining its criteria of success, and establishing the acceptable
boundaries of discourse. The great danger of this scheme lies in a tendency
to oversimplify ....

Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America,
1790-1820 XIX-XX (1987).

See also Barbara Yngvesson, Inventing Law in Local Settings: Rethinking
Popular Legal Culture, 98 Yale L.J. 1689-93 (1989).

"a Williams, Gender, supra note 1, at 830.
19 Id. at 837-45.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

In her recent article, Professor Williams examines the application of
what is becoming known as "outsider's jurisprudence" to the same-
ness/difference debate."

This reformulation of difference, which we could call post-modern
difference, avoids essentialism because it refuses to concede that
race, gender, or indeed, any given category-will always be deter-
minative. It allows us to argue that, although race and gender may
prove determinative in some particular context, this is a far cry from
reified "minority perspective" or women's voice that determines
how a given individual will react in every situation .... A post-
modern approach to difference highlights that each person is
embedded in a matrix of social and psychological factors that
interact in different contexts. Essentialism dissolves before the
notion of shifting, constantly reconfigured self, shaped but not
determined by membership in sets of social categories that crys-
tallize power relations in America.2

She concludes that,

[plost-modern difference also begins from the notion that a
myriad of possible categories are applicable to any individual....
This analysis helps us to understand that sameness and difference
are not arguments about the essential nature of human beings.
Instead they are questions that stem from the fact that 'neutral'
standards systematically disadvantage outsiders .... 2

Williams goes on to explain how narratives can provide a vehicle for
understanding differences without the traps of stereotypes. This method-
ology requires careful consideration as to what is the appropriate cate-
gory in a particular study; care that the descriptions of differences are
not too broad in scope; and particular caution when the descriptions
sound like stereotypes.' Jennie and Mary exemplify Professor Williams'
theories because they are simultaneously the same as and different from
the various groups in which they would appear to fit, such as women,
lawyers, and members of a rural community. They sense that they are out-
siders but are uncertain why. As Williams predicted, their stories are use-
ful vehicles for understanding how they are outsiders who belong.

Williams, Dissolving, supra note 6.
21 Id. at 307-08.
" Id. at 323.

Id. at 320-32.

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

C. The Rural Practice of Law

The scant research on rural practice has failed to examine the issue of
whether gender affects the individual lawyer's experiences. For example,
sociologist Donald Landon's studies of rural practice in Missouri ignore
whether women lawyers were having the same experiences as men.,
Landon interviewed 201 lawyers in 116 communities in rural Missouri
between July 1982 and March 1983. None of the communities had more
than 20,000 residents.

Landon concluded that the dichotomy between rural and urban prac-
tice was a continuum in which the largest communities differ from the medi-
um-sized ones about as much as the medium differ from the smallest.,' He
found that in the small towns, Irlelationships are more likely to be person-
to-person and based on friendship than to be status-to-status and based on
function. In his work setting the country lawyer toils in a world small in
scale and infused with familiarity."2' The lawyers Landon interviewed
reported that their practices were different from those of urban lawyers not
in content, but in the manner of their practice and the character of their pro-
fessional relationships. One substantial difference was that rural lawyers
had a higher proportion of individual clients.'

Landon noted that one of the most defining characteristics of the rural
lawyer was the complexity of multi-interest relationships in which they
were engaged. The lawyers had multiple roles in the community, so they
interacted with their clients in a number of arenas such as church, school,
civic organizations, and family. Attorneys were also farmers, real estate
developers, landlords, bank directors, or shop owners. Within the legal

24 Donald D. Landon, Country Lawyers: The Impact of Context on Professional
Practice (1990); Donald D. Landon, Clients, Colleagues and Community: The Shaping
of a Zealous Advocacy in a Country Law Practice, 1985 Am. B. Found. Res. J. 81 (1985)
[hereinafter Landon, Country]; Donald D. Landon, LaSalle Street and Main Street: The
Role of Context in Structuring Law Practice, 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 213 (1988).

Also ignoring questions of gender are Yngvesson's quantitative analysis of the
role of the clerk and informality in court proceedings in western Massachusetts and
Daniels' research into the differences between rural and urban trial courts in
Illinois. Barbara Yngvesson, Making Law at the Doorway: The Clerk, the Court, and
the Construction of Community in a New England Town, 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 409
(1988); Stephen Daniels, Civil Litigation in Illinois Trial Courts: An Exploration of
Rural-Urban Differences, 4 Law & Pol'y Q. 190 (1982).

1 Landon, Country, supra note 24, at 85.
21 Id.

Id. at 85-86.
Id. at 94.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

profession, lawyers had multiple jobs such as city attorney, private prac-
titioner, judge, city council person, mayor, etc. These multi-interest rela-
tionships resulted in

considerable emotional investment. Continual encounters with
others are virtually assured, and therefore the motivations that
apply to each interactional situation tend to narrow down to those
that will make the next encounter comfortable. This attention to ami-
ability appears to be a necessary adjustment to the inevitability of
future encounter.... [Clountry practice is primarily practice for peo-
ple. Thus the country lawyer deals constantly with the sources of
public opinion: his clients are people, not abstract entities."

Landon found that most country lawyers faced the paradox that the
community generally assumes that the work of lawyers is trying cases; rural
lawyers have to establish their reputations through trial work. Yet, more
cases in the rural communities than in urban areas were settled by nego-
tiation," and the general sentiment was that litigation was the last resort.3 1

In addition, rural attorneys spent more time "hand holding" with their
clients, and they were generally accessible to their clients without appoint-
ments. A considerable amount of their work was "general counseling" on
family problems, moral dilemmas, and business difficulties. They were, to
use Landon's term, "helpers. "32

The lawyers' multi-interest relationships created strains because clients
expected complete loyalty and were suspicious of the lawyers' relationships
with other lawyers or with other members of the community. Keeping
the professional and the private relationships separate could be difficult,
and there were perceived difficulties keeping lawyer-client communications
confidential." The community was aware of long-standing rivalries and
loyalties between lawyers and understood that the relationships of the
lawyers could affect their representation of their clients.3

Landon found that rural lawyers were constantly under observation,
and word-of-mouth was the only advertisement needed. Any success or
mistake was immediately public. Thus, the community regulated what was
acceptable. Attorneys had to be conscious of the community's reaction to
the cases they handled and how they resolved them. Those who digressed

Id. at 86-89.
Id. at 89-91.

31 Id. at 98.
3 Id. at 92.

Id. at 95.
-' Id. at 106.

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

by trying to be cunning or overly zealous were seen as outsiders and their
actions closely scrutinized.'

In sum, Landon found:

This informality and courtesy characteristic of country practice is
essentially professional interaction based on the norm of reciproc-
ity. It expects attorneys to be cooperative rather than contentious;
trustworthy, not tricky; reasonable, not radical. The constant inter-
action between the members of a relatively small group of private
practitioners who can greatly complicate one another's work
appears to transform professional relationships. In place of the
strong, zealous, partisan relationship of opposing counsel implied
in the professional code and governed by a host of technical rules,
country practice involves more the person-to-person collegial rela-
tionships that are guided by sentiment, not written rules, and that
accommodate the self-interests unique to practitioners in small
settings. The essential identity among colleagues is personal rather
than formally professional. The country practitioner claims that
efficiency results-less gets litigated, more gets solved. And the
professional community remains intact.

Landon's work provided a second backdrop for examining Mary's
and Jennie's experiences.

D. Methodology

I initially hesitated to begin this project because I was uncertain
whether it would produce anything which would be of value over and
above a narrative description of two individuals' experiences. I was curi-
ous about these women's lives because of my roles as a teacher training stu-
dents to become rural lawyers, as a woman who practices law, as a scholar
fascinated by the application of theory to reality, and as a person who had
met two interesting individuals. Since both women were willing to par-
ticipate in the project, I decided it would be valuable for me to get to
know them whether or not a written product resulted. The more I visited
with them and the more I read the literature, devoid of mention of rural
practice, the more worthwhile the project appeared.

My years as a woman lawyer and law professor who shares some of
Mary's and Jennie's multiple roles aided me in this project. I am a daugh-
ter, a mother, and a wife who feels a part of many communities. I have prac-
ticed law for over ten years in a variety of settings, so I understand the

Id. at 99, 102.
Id. at 109.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

terminology the women used and the issues they raised. I, too, am a
female in a male-dominated profession and have felt what these women
articulated to me.

In August 1990, I met individually with Jennie and Mary to get their
stories. I drove to Flinthills, saw each woman in her office, and had a small
tour of the community. I was fairly open about what topics we would cover
because I wanted to see what issues they raised. I saw them separately so
they would not influence one another at our first interview. I was not sur-
prised to discover they had spent time before my arrival wondering why
I was bothering with this project and expressing concern whether it would
have disastrous personal results. With hesitation, they each saw me. I
obtained parallel biographical information from each woman about her
extended family, how she came to practice law in Flinthills, and the setting
in which she worked. I took extensive notes during the conversations and
then dictated memoranda for later reference.

A month or so later, all three of us met after we read To Kill a Mockingbird
by Harper Lee.' In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch takes a professionally
risky position by zealously advocating for a black man, Tom Robinson, who
was accused of raping a white woman. The facts revealed during the trial
make it clear that Robinson had not tried to rape the woman and was, in
fact, the victim. By zealously defending Robinson, Atticus challenges the
community's prejudices and values. As women, Jennie and Mary do not
fully measure up to the community's shared notion of a "lawyer." The
novel, therefore, seemed a useful vehicle for examining community accep-
tance of unaccommodating lawyers.

I hoped that after considering the ethical dilemmas in the fictionalized
small town, Jennie and Mary would feel comfortable discussing whether
similar dilemmas arose in their real community. I wondered whether
they would identify with Atticus Finch. He was an accessible model for me
to use for comparison, and the town depicted in the novel provided a
contrast to the Flinthills community. Harper Lee, the daughter of a small-
town lawyer, provided another voice in this dialogue.

As it turned out, we did not spend much time discussing the novel per
se. We discussed Mary's and Jennie's sense of their community and their
roles as lawyers and professionals within that community. Reading the
book stimulated their thoughts about their reality and values.

Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (1960). For discussions of To Kill a
Mockingbird, see Thomas L. Shaffer, Legal Ethics and the Good Client, 36 Cath. U.
L. Rev. 319, 327 (1987); Thomas L. Shaffer, The Legal Ethics of Belonging, 49 Ohio
St. L.J. 703, 719 (1988).

19921



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

In anticipation of our third meeting, we read Landon's article on the rural
practice of law.- I had no intention of duplicating Landon's research by
interviewing all of the attorneys in Flinthills. Rather, I wanted to see if the
article was a valid reflection of the women's perception of rural practice so
that I could compare their experiences. I initially hesitated to have them read
the piece because I was concerned that the article would taint the validity of
what they were saying to me. Nevertheless, by this time we had developed
a good rapport, and they were making every effort to be as honest as possible.
I believe the article was extremely useful for my intended purpose.

After spending many hours interviewing Mary and Jennie and getting
to know them, I became self-conscious about writing this article. I felt close
to them as people, and I disliked the feeling that I was studying them as if
they were guinea pigs. They had trusted me with a depth of knowledge I
felt inadequate to communicate. I wanted to validate their experiences and
to communicate their love and deep loyalty for their community. At the
same time, I saw their feelings of frustration and powerlessness, which
demanded that their choices and their community be reported critically. A
similar dilemma faces anyone who chooses this kind of research. Narratives
are a rich source for knowing, but they carry incredible risks and costs.

As I wrote various drafts of this article, I sent them to Mary and Jennie for
comments and feedback. Each suggested ways in which my depictions failed
to reflect what she wanted to communicate, and I have tried to incorporate
those suggestions. Neither woman has asked for a change in analysis.

II. CHOICES OR ILLUSIONS?

A. Going to Law School

Jennie

Jennie grew up on a Kansas farm with two brothers and one sister. Her
mother went to college to become a schoolteacher and her father to study
agricultural management. Jennie said it was unusual to have two college
educated parents on a farm when she was growing up.39 Her family

Landon, Country, supra note 24.
Jennie said that her family still lived near her original hometown. Her

father was born there, but her mother moved there as a freshman in high school.
Her father's history was different from that of most farmers because he did not grow
up on a farm. Her paternal grandfather had been an entrepreneur and invested in
the land. Jennie's father obtained a degree in agriculture and worked for the gov-
ernment before beginning to farm. His mother did not work outside the home.

Jennie's maternal grandfather was an oil pumper, which meant he helped
maintain the oil fields. Her maternal grandmother was a schoolteacher. Her

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

assumed that Jennie would go to college, but expected her to major in some-
thing "practical" like home economics or elementary education. Her fam-
ily frowned upon all other majors. Jennie went into education, but contrary
to her parents' wishes, majored in secondary education and social studies.
An old friend recently told Jennie that even in high school she hoped to be
a lawyer-a hope Jennie herself did not remember.

After graduating from college in 1971, Jennie taught out-of-state for
about seven years in an isolated community of two thousand. Since it was
a wealthy period for the area, she had a fairly free rein to develop her cur-
riculum. Although the students were good and she enjoyed the experience,
she realized one day as she was coloring Superman for a bulletin board that
she deeply wanted to do something else. Her brother-in-law was in law
school at the University of Kansas, and Jennie called him to find out how
she could get into law school. He explained that she needed to take the Law
School Admission Test, which she did. She applied to the only two law
schools in Kansas; it never occurred to her to consider out-of-state schools.
She chose the University of Kansas because it was less expensive, and in
1978 entered law school.

Her most vivid memory of law school is surprise at how competitive
and employment-oriented the students were. When she entered law
school she never considered orienting her education toward a specific
job, but from the first day her peers were concerned about study aids, get-
ting a job, and billable hours. Jennie had never heard of such things. She
felt that everybody else was prepared for the experience while she had no
idea what was going to happen.4

Jennie did not worry too much about employment, but nevertheless,
after her second year, she found herself clerking at one of the larger law
firms in Wichita. The firm had never had a woman attorney and probably
had only one other woman law clerk. When she returned to school in the
fall, the firm had not offered her a permanent associate position, but she was

mother, who was also trained as a schoolteacher, worked as a teacher before her chil-
dren were born. When all of Jennie's siblings were in school, her mother began sub-
stitute teaching.

Jennie is the third of four children: the eldest, a sister; then an older brother;
Jennie; and a younger brother. All of her siblings went to college and her sister has
a master's degree in education.

Jennie's feelings of being an "outsider" are common to many women and peo-
ple of color. See, e.g., Ann Scales, Surviving Legal De-Education: An Outsider's
Guide, 15 Vt. L. Rev. 139 (1990). Jennie also felt "different" because she perceived
herself as older than the average student.

19921



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

not concerned. She had been told by one of the partners that their process
required the unanimous partner approval of any appointment. Since
some of the partners had sons who might be interested in joining the firm,
their sons would be given priority.

Early in the fall of her third year, the Dean informed Jennie that he had
given her name to some Kansas City law firms because the law school was
concerned that the Wichita firm where she had clerked had a history of sex
discrimination. He warned her that she probably would not be given a per-
manent associate position there because she was a woman. This revelation
came as a big surprise to Jennie, whose consciousness had not been "raised"
to consider sex discrimination as a dynamic. Later that fall, she did receive
and accept an offer of a permanent position from the Wichita firm, where
she worked after law school.

Mary

Mary grew up in Flinthills. Her father's family emigrated from Ireland
to Flinthills three or four generations ago. Her mother's family was from
Denver, Miami, and then Kansas City. Her parents met while her father was
in Kansas City at dental school. They were married and then her father
joined the military. Her mother worked as Mary's father's dental assistant.
Mary's mother had spent her life doing a great deal of volunteer work in
Flinthills, especially with the historical society. Her father was one of
approximately seven dentists in Flinthills.

Mary has one sister five years her senior. Her sister is married and has
one daughter. She lives in a suburb of Kansas City and is extremely con-
servative and religious. Mary and her sister were raised in the Methodist
church, but Mary no longer participates in institutionalized religion.

Mary attended the University of Kansas as an undergraduate where she
majored in speech communications and human relations. She entered
law school at Washburn University of Topeka directly from undergradu-
ate school. Mary chose Washburn because Jim, an old family friend and the
family's lawyer, recommended it. She perceived Washburn to be a more
practical institution than the University of Kansas.

B. Getting to Flinthills

Jennie

While attending law school, Jennie became reacquainted with Joe, a
Flinthills farmer whom she had met in college. They began dating and
decided to marry. She was unable to get a job in Flinthills right after

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

school so she went to the firm in Wichita. 4' While at the Wichita firm, Jennie
worked with one partner who did oil and gas leases, and for another
senior partner as a junior litigation associate. She did motion practice and
frequently wrote briefs.

Eventually Jennie was able to get a job with a law firm in Flinthills that
had represented her husband's family for a number of generations. The
firm's historical connection with Joe's family made it a natural place for her
to work. Jennie was offered the job and joined what became a three-per-
son firm. There were six law firms in town, some of which were solo prac-
titioners. The largest firm had four members.

Mary

When Mary completed law school, she moved to Boulder, Colorado,
to prepare for the bar exam. She chose Colorado because she had always
vacationed there and loved all of the outdoor activities that were available.
She did not pass the bar the first time but stayed in Boulder to take it suc-
cessfully the second time. She lived in Boulder for the next seven years.

Mary wanted to work as an assistant county attorney, but it was
impossible to find a position. She liked criminal work because it seemed
more creative. She thought prosecuting was more appealing because the
prosecutor has control over what crimes to charge and which creative
solutions to choose.

When she could not find a job as an assistant prosecutor, Mary joined
two partners practicing in a Denver suburb. They added two more asso-
ciates, but one of the partners left. She began on a salary, but her com-
pensation was changed to commission because the firm was having
financial difficulties. The firm did a small general practice, including
criminal defense work and business collections. Mary frequently accept-
ed court appointments and juvenile cases, which the others in the firm did
not want to do.

She eventually became dissatisfied with the firm's financial situation
and joined a downtown Denver branch of a national chain of law offices.
She remembered the chain's system as oriented around quotas and mak-
ing money. She felt constantly tested and under a tremendous amount of
pressure to meet required numerical goals. She received mixed messages
from various managers in the company about her performance. Because
of the office schedule she often worked nights and weekends, which was

" She remembers that during the first round of interviews in Flinthills, she met
with a firm's senior partner who told her that, although he had never thought he
would hire a woman, "she wasn't half bad and not as bitchy as he had thought."

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

particularly difficult because she was commuting between Boulder and
downtown Denver. She felt that the managing attorney in the office was
taking in more cases than he could ethically handle and then leaving her
the clean-up job.

In the winter of 1986, Mary's grandfather died and left a substantial
amount of property that he and her father had jointly managed. When Mary
visited Flinthills over Christmas, she was extremely dissatisfied with her
work situation at the chain. Mary's parents encouraged her to consider
moving back to practice in Flinthills so that she could assist her father in
managing the family property. Mary's sister was not interested or active
in the family's business.

Meanwhile, Jim, one of the main litigators in Flinthills and the old fam-
ily friend who had advised Mary to attend Washburn, lost a junior partner
and wanted someone to join the firm. He made Mary feel that she would
be a valued member of his firm and strongly encouraged her to come
back to Flinthills. The combination of her distaste for her current job at the
chain, family pressure, and the positive encouragement from Jim made her
decide to move back to Flinthills. She moved in February 1987.

C. The Job

Jennie

On October 31, 1983, Jennie began her practice in Flinthills. She began
as an associate and did not discuss with the partners how or when she might
become a partner. In retrospect, she was so pleased to get a job in the place
where she wanted to be that she did not inquire into either what kind of
work she would be doing or what her formal relationship to the firm
would be. In our talks, she said it was a mistake not to articulate her
employment expectations because this oversight later caused problems.

In the beginning of her practice in Flinthills, Jennie did some small
estate planning and land contracts, read many abstracts, and learned to do
oil and gas leases. She referred to their practice as an "office practice,"
which also did a few divorces and domestic cases. One area that she par-
ticularly liked was adoptions; she had handled around five. Jennie
explained that the real bread and butter for a firm in rural Kansas is estate
planning. At one point, Nate, the originator of the firm, had a practice of
not charging for drafting wills. The unspoken understanding was that the
client would return to the firm for any legal work and, ultimately, the
firm would probate the estate. The law firm made its money on the per-
centage allowed from the probate.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

Jennie said that she did not receive formal training from her new part-
ners, but her informal training came primarily from Nate. He would
assign cases to her and explain what he would have done with them. She
could drop in his office and get ideas from him and did so on a regular basis.
She regrets that they failed to spend more time together sharing ideas
about how to practice.

Jennie was interested in doing litigation. In March 1984, she took
advantage of an opportunity to become city attorney, a job she could hold
while continuing to be an associate at her firm. Jennie's predecessor at the
firm, Max, had also been a city attorney. When Max left their firm to go
work with a judge, he was obliged to give up his position as city attorney.
Consequently, it was assumed that the city attorney position was left with
Jennie's firm, and since Jennie filled Max's slot, she had an advantage
getting the assignment. At the time she applied, one other person want-
ed the job, but according to Jennie, "No one liked him so they gave it to me."

Jennie loves being city attorney. As city attorney she begins every day
in the courtroom. Usually she is out within the hour but sometimes is there
for the whole morning. The daily municipal court sessions are unusual; in
many places in Kansas, municipal court meets only once a week. The
municipal court judge in Flinthills is also different from judges in other
counties because he is a lawyer; in some areas the judges are lay people. The
Flinthills municipal court judge runs the court with more formal procedure
than even some of the district courts in other parts of the state. All mis-
demeanors, assaults, and batteries go through the municipal court. Jennie
has three to five trials a month of varying complexity. She feels the job has
helped her to learn to become a better trial lawyer.

In addition to prosecuting, as city attorney Jennie advises the city
manager. Jennie feels this city manager relies on her much more than the
previous city manager relied on Max because Jennie is involved in a lot of
the city commission's decision making. For example, when Flinthills was
preparing to hire a new chief of police, Jennie planned the entire process.
She attends at least two city commission meetings a month.

Every year Jennie has to be reappointed, but this process has never been
controversial. There have been some changes in the commissioners but they
consistently want her in the job. This support pleases her; she loves work-
ing with the personnel in the city and finds the trial work enjoyable.
Moreover, she said, the work is much more varied than the oil and gas
leases and estate planning that she would otherwise be doing. Because she
enjoys the work so much, she has never sought to increase the hourly rate
she negotiated when she became city attorney more than seven years ago.

19921



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

In November 1988, Jennie was also elected to the position of county
attorney for Flinthills County. One of her major concerns when consider-
ing the position was that she did not want to give up her city attorney
position. Jennie came to the county position in a somewhat fortuitous
fashion. When she first came to Flinthills, she assisted the county attorney
on a fairly regular basis by taking care of his cases when he was away or
sick. When the county attorney left permanently, the local Republican Party
recommended that Gerry, another local attorney, step in as county attorney.
Gerry was not happy with the criminal prosecution component of the
position because he felt it created too many conflicts of interest for his busi-
ness. When the time came for someone to apply for the county attorney
position, no one registered as a candidate. Jennie was at the municipal court
building talking to the city manager and he suggested that she apply. As
the only candidate, she was elected.

Jennie took office in January 1989. She has been pleased with the
structure whereby she does the criminal prosecutions while Gerry acts as
"county counselor." The county counselor is the attorney for the county
commission and is a more political job. Jennie enjoys focusing on the crim-
inal work without the political complications. She is responsible for such
matters as the Child in Need of Care cases, mental commitments, and crim-
inal prosecutions. The income she earns as county attorney goes to the firm.

In January 1989, Jennie also became a partner. Her initial failure to dis-
cuss her employment relationship had been making her uncomfortable. She
was angry that she had not been made a partner; her male predecessor had
come to the firm with less experience and had been made a partner more
quickly than she. Moreover, he made a higher salary after two years than
she was making after four.

Before becoming county attorney, Jennie was dissatisfied with her
job; she felt it was boring and she had few clients of her own coming in. She
speculated that Nate was reluctant to make her a partner because he had
been very hurt when Jennie's predecessor, Max, left. The critical dynam-
ic in the law firm is loyalty, and the firm's members were nervous about
making a commitment to her. This concern for loyalty finally worked to
her advantage because they gave her a partnership when they became afraid
she would otherwise leave. I

By the time of our interview, she was trying to work out a more com-
plex partnership agreement but found herself hesitant. She believed her
reluctance was based on her concern about committing herself to a par-
ticular system. Somehow, she feared if everyone signed a written agree-
ment, flexibility would be lost.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

Mary

Mary felt obligated to join Jim's firm when she went to practice in
Flinthills because he was her family's lawyer. Like Jennie, Mary did not dis-
cuss with Jim either her formal relationship to the firm or what work she
would be doing. Jim assigns her such cases as domestic disputes, collec-
tions, and juvenile and criminal appointments. Jim did not train her
because, other than the collections work, he did not have much experience
in these areas of the law.

In 1987, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the county courts could
not force all local lawyers to do indigent public defender work." Flinthills
County revamped its system of having everyone on an appointment list and
decided on a public defender position to represent all indigent defen-
dants. No one in town was interested in the work, and Mary reluctantly took
the position as part of her caseload in the firm.

Mary was dissatisfied with her work situation. Jim's son, Michael, had
returned from law school the previous year, and the firm consisted of Jim,
Michael, Mary, and Jim's wife, who was the office administrator. The
firm decisions were made within the family, and Mary felt shut out. The
clients likely to have lucrative, interesting cases were steered to Michael.
Mary felt helpless to change the situation. She had never discussed part-
nership and was unsure whether she would be given a partner position in
the near future; still, she seemed confident that at some point Jim would
feel compelled to give her a partnership option.

Mary did not feel that Jim had asked her to come to the firm to fill a slot
only until his son was available. Although he "used her" for doing cases
in which he was not interested, he could not use her simply to substitute
until his son was available. Such a practice would be frowned on by the
community. By encouraging her to return to Flinthills and to join his
practice, Jim made a commitment to her, either personally or by commu-
nity expectations. The commitment included employment, but not nec-
essarily power in the firm or financial satisfaction.

Mary found Flinthills stifling. Her work was routine and sometimes
even distasteful. She did not enjoy doing criminal defense work because
she felt no control over the clients or the cases. She was compelled to take
what came into the office and to do the best she could with it. She faced
the dilemma of how to remedy the situation.

As months passed between our interviews another issue material-
ized for Mary; it became uncertain whether or not she was going to continue
as public defender. She feared Jim had jeopardized his relationships with

42 State v. Smith, 747 P.2d 816 (Kan. 1987).

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

the county commissioners. Jim had had the contract for the public defend-
er for some time, but felt the firm was not being paid enough. He asked the
county commissioners for more money for the contract, and when they
refused to pay that much, he refused to negotiate. Consequently, the
county commissioners had asked for bids to see what other law firms
were willing to take as payment for being the public defender. Some
firms from out-of-county had put in bids.

Mary felt Jim was asking for too much and had not considered the con-
sequences to Mary should they lose the contract. He consulted her in
passing, but only superficially; he had already made up his mind what he
thought was right and had involved himself in a power struggle with the
county commissioners. Mary felt disempowered because she was the one
who did the work and her practice would suffer should the firm lose the
public defender work. Despite the ethical dilemmas the job raised and her
dislike of some of the clients, during this conversation Mary said she liked
her work as a public defender because of the opportunity to work with
Jennie as the prosecutor.

In Flinthills, the dynamics of power and money seemed to play out in
what "choices" the women had regarding cases and clients they got.43 The

4 See Menkel-Meadow, Exploring, supra note 10, at 304 (examining occupa-
tional segregation within the practice of law). See also Paul W. Mattesich & Cheryl
W. Heilman, Does Gender Make a Difference? 9 Law & Ineq. J. 59, 112 (1990)
(study on gender differences in the legal profession addressing the relationship of
gender to both the procurement of jobs and work assignments).

Historically, women were considered too dainty to take on the rigors of the
courtroom. Early women lawyers were often the helpmates of their husbands. They
were the "office" lawyers while the men practiced in the public, legitimate forum:
the courtroom. Menkel-Meadow, Exploring, supra note 10, at 302. See also
Morello, supra note 5, at 15; Richmond, supra note 5, at 99. The growing number
of women in the profession has made conditions better, although women are still
not equal "playing partners." Deborah Graham, It's Getting Better Slowly, 72
A.B.A. J. 54 (1986). Another legitimate forum for early women lawyers was in social
reform movements which specifically addressed such "women's issues" as pro-
tective legislation and juvenile justice. Menkel-Meadow, Exploring, supra note 10,
at 303, calls for "a richer examination of women professionals historically," includ-
ing how early woman legal professionals conceived of themselves, what questions
they were interested in, and how these issues differ, if at all, from the current inter-
ests of women professionals.

Women later moved into criminal practice on both the prosecution and defense
sides. Id. at 310. Menkel-Meadow assumes this is because early entrants in the field
were particularly "talented, aggressive and motivated." Id. Sex discrimination in
the private sector, economics, and social prejudices more than likely shaped this
movement. Public sector positions, such as prosecutor jobs, opened up to women
before private sector jobs, presumably because government employers were pres-
sured to hire women. Likewise, where public defender positions were government

[Vol. 2:1



19921 Country Practice

most lucrative, historically stable, and socially acceptable legal work was
probate, oil and gas leases, and farm leases. Jennie became the city and
county attorney almost by default because the male lawyers thought

those positions interfered with their time or presented conflicts which
made it difficult to continue with lucrative business. Even her county attor-
ney job was bifurcated, unlike in other small counties, because a male
lawyer retained the work he perceived would not conflict with his private
practice.

Mary was explicitly brought in to do the "less appealing work":
"petty" criminal appointments, collections, and divorces. As soon as the
district judge could no longer force all of the lawyers in the county to do
public defender work, no one wanted to be on the list. The county need-
ed a public defender and since Mary needed clients, she "chose" to take the
job." Although Jim apparently had a reputation for being the "collections"
lawyer in town, he had shifted that distasteful job to Mary. The domestic
cases or divorces were seen as an unpleasant by-product of representing
otherwise lucrative clients in their business dealings. Those cases, too, were

shifted to Mary. She recognized that she could not access more interesting,
better paying, or more powerful clients because of the sphere in which she
practiced.

D. Life Outside of Work

Jennie

At the time of the interviews, Jennie is in her early forties. Joe, Jennie's
husband, is one year older than she. He attended Kansas State University
and has a degree in agricultural mechanics. After college, he went into the
Peace Corps because he was not getting along with his father and felt he
could not yet begin working on the farm. After returning from the Peace
Corps, he worked as a field representative for the Farm Bureau, a large
multi-service farmer organization. Eventually, Joe's mother helped him

jobs, they were more accessible to women. Where there is no public defender, court
appointments for indigents were one place that women, who might be having
trouble getting clients, had a ready-made group of consumers. Court appointments
paid notoriously less than the private billing rate, and for many men, representing
indigent criminal defendants was socially unacceptable.

An argument can be made that generally the "new kid" on the block becomes
the public defender. Such may sometimes be the dynamic, but note that when
Michael came to town, his father made sure he got the felonies (which are more com-
plex and interesting) and the lucrative clients.



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

reconcile with his father and he joined the farm. Joe's father continues to
farm with him. Jennie and Joe have a son who was born in 1987.1

Their farm is actually north of Flinthills in another county. Many of
Joe's large, extended family live nearby. Joe's great-grandfather was one
of the founders of the local Lutheran church. Although Jennie was raised
a Methodist, she was strongly encouraged to convert to the Lutheran
church before she married Joe. She felt it was a significant shift in her own
religious beliefs because she previously did not have such strong reli-
gious convictions. Their church is associated with the Missouri Synod.
Jennie regularly attends church and said it is the center of her social life.
There are about one hundred families in the church, and Jennie said it is
hard to distinguish whom she knows from church and whom she knows
from family relationships because the overlap is so high. She is active in
planning church dinners and in working with the missionary groups,
while Joe is active on the church board. Jennie is also involved with some
other county and city organizations both in Flinthills and in another town
near the farm, but she doesn't socialize with the people from work or
from the town near the farm. The people on the land next to Joe and Jennie
grew up with Joe when their fathers farmed the contiguous properties. Joe
and the neighboring man have always been good friends, and they all
attend the same church. This immediate and extended family and church
make up Jennie's social life.

Jennie reported that she has "a really good schedule." She arrives at
work around 9:00 a.m. and leaves between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. She has about
a twenty-two mile drive which takes her around thirty minutes. Every other
Monday she has a city commission meeting until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Only
rarely is she called in the middle of the night for county attorney duties. She
occasionally takes work home and once or twice a month works on a
weekend.

Mary

At the time of the interviews, Mary is in her mid-thirties. She lives very
close to work in a house she rents from her folks. Outside of work, she is
active in an organization that does fundraising for community projects and
is on the board of a program for troubled children. She attends local bar
association meetings, which are primarily focused on social activities,

I During our first meeting Jennie mentioned her son in passing but did not dis-
cuss parenthood much. I did not push the topic because I was curious whether it
would naturally emerge. When I subsequently spoke with Jennie, she told me she
had someone come to the house to care for him. So much of the literature on women
as professionals focuses on the "juggling" of parenting and working, but this
problem simply did not seem to be an issue for her.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

continuing legal education programs, Law Day, and decisions about issues
such as books in the county law library.

Mary also spends a large part of her time away from work assisting in
maintaining her family property. She said that she is more immersed in the
physical maintenance-mowing lawns and feeding horses-than she is in
the business aspects. She sees her parents for dinner on Sundays, but
otherwise she spends her weekends going to Wichita to shop, to eat out, and
to enjoy various forms of entertainment.

III. MARY AND JENNIE IN RELATION TO THEIR COMMUNITY

While Landon's research does not focus specifically on women's expe-
riences in country practice, several of his observations are relevant to
Jennie's and Mary's law careers in Flinthills. The rural lawyer's focus on
relationships and a person-to-person approach to problem solving, as
well as an emphasis on complex, multi-level relationships and roles are both
themes that arise in Mary's and Jennie's stories. The difficulties in keep-
ing professional and private relationships separate and the public nature
of many private matters were also evident in our talks. Landon noted in
his research that informality and reasonableness are expected of lawyers
in country practice. While on one hand this can make for easier problem
solving, this method of practice may also serve to suppress outside or
incongruous lawyers. These issues and others arise when looking at the
Flinthills community and its perceptions of lawyers; at the community's
relationship to Jennie and Mary as female lawyers; at Jennie's and Mary's
relationships to other lawyers in Flinthills and to each other; and at their
perceptions of themselves.

A. The Community's Perception of a Lawyer

The conversation about Mary and Jennie's relationship to their com-
munity began with a discussion of To Kill a Mockingbird."6 I asked whether
Atticus could be reelected if the events in the novel had taken place in
Flinthills. Mary confidently said that Flinthills voters would never have
reelected Atticus to the legislature after he had defended Tom Robinson.
She said there was no respect in the community for what lawyers must do
in their job. She felt there was little respect for her position as Public
Defender.

Jennie felt that people in the community would accept that Atticus, or
someone similar, had been appointed to defend an unappealing case.

I Lee, supra note 37.

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

Nevertheless, she agreed that the community would not have accepted the
actual defense; they would have expected something more superficial.
Jennie agreed that it probably would have been difficult for Atticus to be
reelected. She noted, however, that readers get only a glimpse of Atticus
in the book. For example, the incident in which he shoots the rabid dog
shows that the community knew Atticus was an excellent marksman and
capable of violence despite his controlled exterior. From Jennie's per-
spective, the community would know and look at someone like Atticus as
a whole, not simply focus on the single incident to judge him. Mary, on the
other hand, felt that a single incident could seriously damage the com-
munity's view of an individual.

In the course of one of our talks, Mary analogized the novel to a situ-
ation in which she found herself immediately after she arrived in Flinthills,
one that reminded her of the power of a small community's opinion and
anger. The community was divided about whether a prison should be locat-
ed in town. One side wanted the prison because it provided revenues and
jobs. This was a period of economic depression so the potential for jobs was
extremely appealing. The other side did not want the prison; they were con-
cerned about security and being labeled a "prison town." Jennie said,
laughingly, that in their state of misinformation, people were also concerned
about AIDS. They thought perhaps the prisoners would have AIDS which
the workers could contract. She agreed that it was a very emotional issue
for the community.

A large town meeting was called, and Jim was hired by some clients to
give a speech opposing the prison. A very vocal majority wanted the
prison, but Jim represented the small group who did not want it.

According to Mary, Jim had a Colorado vacation planned, so, giving
her one day as notice, he informed her that she was to give the speech on
behalf of these clients. Mary had just arrived and felt that she was jeop-
ardizing her entire career by speaking on behalf of these clients. She was
particularly concerned because she did not feel a part of the community,
as she had been gone for seventeen years. She perceived that Jennie, the
lawyers in the county, the judges-everyone-was on the other side.
Nevertheless, she had no choice and felt she was finished in the commu-
nity. She remembered that Jennie was very nice to her, which was impor-
tant because she felt as if she needed good relations with the people with
whom she was going to work. Mary felt she had no choice about giving the
presentation because her boss had told her to do so and the firm had an obli-
gation to the clients. Jennie agreed that Mary did not have a choice.

Jennie remembered that in attempting to avoid moral and emotional
arguments, Mary argued the procedural point that the county and city
should not have made a decision without eliciting public opinion. Jennie's

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

memory was that Mary dealt with the crisis in a "professional
manner."

Mary recalled that the next day the newspaper published an edito-
rial that said that she was a disgrace to the profession for having made
the speech. Mary remembered her horrible discomfort as she speculated
as to who had read the editorial and believed it. According to the edi-
torial, she was a disgrace because she had threatened a lawsuit against
the city. Using the threat of a lawsuit to the community was, according
to the editorial, usurpation.

If Jim had given the speech, Mary admitted, the reporter may have
criticized him as well. However, since Jim was more a part of the com-
munity, it would have been more appropriate for him to comment on its
economics.

In retrospect, Mary was not sure whether there were repercussions
from the position she took. She did not feel that other lawyers treated
her any differently, and she could not tell whether this incident affect-
ed clients. She said it was particularly significant to her because she had
returned to Flinthills to reintegrate into the community.

Jennie was puzzled that the prosecutor in To Kill a Mockingbird
didn't simply dismiss the case. He behaved professionally at the trial,
but he should have realized there was no probable cause and dismissed
the case. She seemed very angry that he had followed the expectation
of the community that he prosecute the allegations, even though the pros-
ecution was wrong. She also thought the judge made an error. It
appeared from the book that the judge thought the best chance for Tom
was to appoint Atticus, but in fact he should have dismissed the charges.

When questioned whether community pressure ever affected their
professional judgments, Jennie said, "I don't think I would have done
anything any differently, but I agonize over it." In other words, she lived
up to her own expectations of professional responsibility but was still
very conscious of community pressures and had to think about possible
repercussions before she acted. Jennie gave as an example a case in which
a man from Oklahoma came into the county and purchased hay with
checks that ultimately bounced. It turned out that the man owed about
$20,000 to farmers in Flinthills County. The man returned to Oklahoma
leaving a number of bad checks in other Kansas counties. The various
county attorneys agreed to share the expenses of extradition, but Jennie
was supposed to be the lawyer who took care of the actual work. It took
her a year to have this man extradited back to Kansas.

In the meantime, while the man was in jail, his wife came into the
county and paid cash to the farmers who had been cheated. In exchange,
the farmers put pressure on Jennie to drop the charges. In fact, the

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

judge called Jennie to his office and asked her to drop the charges because
the money had been reimbursed to the local farmers. The judge went so
far as to say to her, "You have to take care of your own in this county."

Jennie explained to the judge that other counties were involved and it
had taken a year to have this man extradited. She told him that the defen-
dant had written more than $100,000 worth of bad checks in Kansas.
Given that information, the judge agreed that Jennie should proceed and
dropped his pressure. Jennie told the story as an illustration of how she had
to stand up for what she thought was her professional duty even though
the community felt the problem had been taken care of and that she should
have let the issue go.

Mary commented that judges frequently have ex parte conversations
with clients and lawyers; the ex parte discussion with Jennie about the
case was not at all unusual. Jennie agreed and said parties or involved indi-
viduals frequently call the judge without even talking to the lawyer. They
discuss the case with the judge directly and can create a tremendous
amount of confusion. Another example of such informality was a recent
Child in Need of Care case. The father in that case bypassed Mary, who was
responsible for the child as the guardian ad litem, and simply talked to the
judge. "Everybody knows everybody in the case so it seemed unnecessary
to use formal channels. We shortcut it maybe more than we ought to."

Jennie noted that small towns do tend to regulate themselves in terms
of ethical issues. There is no formal Bench and Bar Committee in Flinthills,47

and when a problem arises an ad hoc committee of the senior lawyers
forms. For example, a couple of years ago an attorney appeared to have too
many cases with too much work, and he was failing to practice in a pro-
fessional manner. An ad hoc committee formed, called him in, and told him
what he needed to do to avoid losing his license. Unfortunately, the man
was unable to pull himself together enough to take care of his cases.
Ultimately his license was suspended.

Mary had the impression that some clients took their cases out of
town to avoid what they thought was too much camaraderie among the
lawyers. For instance, if a couple had a particularly difficult divorce, they

17 In Kansas, when a complaint is filed with the Board of Professional
Responsibility, a Bench and Bar Committee will investigate. Kan. Sup. C. Rules
207-210 (1991) (Discipline of Attorneys).

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

would take it to another lawyer outside the county. Some lawyers worked
in a wider geographic area, so they were not so preoccupied with what peo-
ple in town, including other lawyers and potential clients, thought.

Mary noted that in a small town there was an intimacy, a closeness
among people that she never felt in the bigger city. This intimacy created
an accountability factor. From her experience, ethics were likely to slide
in a big city. The discussion turned to this apparent inconsistency. Both
Mary and Jennie felt that ethics were likely to slide in a big city and that the
self-regulating accountability of the small town resulted in a more "ethi-
cal practice." Nevertheless, they acknowledged that the ex parte commu-
nications between lawyers, judges, and clients would be seen as extremely
"unethical" in a larger community.

Jennie was concerned that at some point things would become so
competitive that these ex parte communications could become a problem.
To illustrate, Jennie described a case she and Mary had worked on involv-
ing a fifteen-year-old who was "going off the deep end." He broke win-
dows, almost ran over a pregnant woman, and was "into sort of satanic
stuff." Jennie was really concerned about him. His parents were in a ter-
rible divorce and neither was stable or able to parent him. "He was kicked
out of school and we all felt we had to do something. I was prosecuting him
and Mary was his attorney. We all agreed that he needed to be sent to the
Youth Center, where he could go to school and have somebody watching
out for him. We knew that all we had to do was get him convicted of both
a juvenile charge and a Child in Need of Care, and then we could get him
into the juvenile center and keep him there."

Since Mary, the judge, and Jennie all thought they knew what was best
for this young man, they negotiated an agreement whereby Jennie dropped
one of the numerous juvenile charges and Mary pled him to a juvenile
offender and Child in Need of Care on a truancy charge. Despite the con-
sensus that he needed help, Jennie felt they had "railroaded" him. Mary
pointed out that there were no choices; he was truant and there were no
defenses. He had committed the crimes and she saw no way of getting him
off. She felt comfortable as an advocate because the plea agreement was
all he could have hoped for and this way he would receive care.

We discussed a potential conflict of interest in the same case. Jennie had
been approached by the child's father to represent him in a divorce. Jennie
said that normally if a potential conflict arises in her position as county
attorney, she refers the county case over to Gerry, who is also lawyer for the
county. When the father came in, Jennie explained the potential conflict and
suggested he go elsewhere. "The man," Jennie said, "went around the cor-
ner of the office and hired my partner. He wanted someone in the firm to
represent him."

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

Jennie said family loyalties were a critical component to the relation-
ships between law firms and families in the community. However, when
she was called upon to prosecute a family member of someone in her
firm, the experience did not create a serious conflict; however, she noted
that she has not yet been called upon to prosecute anything "horrible."

Sometimes a family member of a defendant stops into the firm and
Jennie must explain that, as the prosecutor, she cannot advise the person
about defending a criminal defendant. Even if the family members use the
firm for civil work, they tend to understand the different roles that Jennie
must play. She said the prosecutor is seen as a "good guy," and people
understand the nature of her job.

B. Community Perception of Them as Women Lawyers

In looking at themselves as women lawyers in a system that is most-
ly male, both Mary and Jennie noted ways they were treated differently and
ways in which their outsider status becomes more apparent as a result of
being female. Responding to the question of what the community expects
of them as women lawyers, Jennie said she felt she is expected to be
involved in a lot of community activities simply "because I am the lawyer."
"There is an expectation that I am qualified to do all kinds of things, but
then the person equivocates by saying, 'Well, you must be busy.' There is
an assumption that I know everything about women and law issues. For
example, the school calls two or three times a year to see if I will come and
speak. This is partially because I used to be a teacher and when I first
arrived I did Law Day."

Jennie said, "A long time ago I asked myself if [being a woman] made
a difference. There were days I felt like things were happening to me
because I was a woman, and I just felt sorry for myself. We all fall into this
stereotype. For example, one day Gerry was so excited about winning some
unimportant little motion, he came out of court and tweaked me on the
nose. I felt like he treated me like a kid, and I always wondered afterwards
if he took me seriously."

Mary thought about this difference in terms of her office, where she
feels different because she is a woman. She said, "I don't participate in some
of the guys' stuff that the other lawyers do, and that makes me left out.
Moreover, Jim says some really sexist things. He says some things I can't
believe. I feel like I'm treated well in my office, except that I have no voice.
On the other hand, the men who preceded me in my position also had a
problem with Jim." Jennie said, "Face it, Mary. Jim is one of the most sex-
ist men or lawyers in town." Mary conceded, "Maybe so."

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

Jennie went on to tell me that, "One time Jim told me I couldn't under-
stand custody cases because I didn't have any kids. And, my partner
once told me that Jim doesn't think that women should practice law."
Mary acknowledged that Jim and his son Michael were very sexist. For
example, they have told Mary that Jennie should not prosecute domestic
abuse cases, because those are private situations which should not involve
the law. They believe this is true even in extremely violent cases. Mary was
clearly chagrined at that view. Jennie did note that Jim seems to be chang-
ing, or at least she is changing. In the past, she had absolutely "no time for
him," but in the last couple of years, she has actually enjoyed working with
him on some cases.

Mary added, "We do hear stereotype kinds of things. I can't even talk
about them." When pressed, she said that she hears that women who are
being aggressive must be having their period.

When I asked them why they had gone to the meeting for Kansas
women lawyers last summer, Jennie said she thought the conference would
be interesting when she saw the flyer. Seeing the flyer caused her to
rethink the nagging question of whether being a woman makes a difference.
She thought it would be good to go and to get some validation. She
thought there should be more discussion about what everyone is afraid to
talk about: whether it makes a difference to be a woman. Mary said she
went to the conference because Jennie went. She wanted to connect with
some other women and she wanted the one-on-one contact. She did not per-
ceive that, among her various problems, being a woman was her biggest
concern.

Both women agreed that being a woman lawyer can be a very isolat-
ing experience. They are perceived as "different" from other women
because lawyers are seen as aggressive. Lawyering is different from the
usual jobs associated with women because of its adversarial nature. Jennie
explained, "Some women assume that I am very career oriented. Some
women look at me and realize I am an educated person, and they take that
as a personal insult. Or they turn to me as a leader when they don't know
the answer for something. Sometimes I feel threatened, but I want the
presumption of the authority." Jennie admitted that she liked the fact that
people perceive her to have both power and authority. She felt it is different
to be a woman lawyer in Flinthills because people still find it an unusual
phenomenon. Mary noted that Flinthills has many women CPAs; however,
they both felt a little bit like oddities as women lawyers. Jennie laughingly
said her husband always introduces her as the county attorney. She said
that bothers her; it is not the identity she wants to have upon first meeting
someone.

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

Mary said she does not like being introduced as an attorney either. It
makes her feel used. "I don't like to even bring it up. I am so strange
because I am single, I am a lawyer, and I do criminal defense. Other
women can't figure out what they have in common with me." The other
reason she does not like being introduced as a lawyer is that she
frequently feels people want to receive free legal advice or to tell her
about their problems. Yet she admitted that sometimes clients come to her
because they believe she will be more caring, and some people just want
a woman lawyer.

C. Their Relationships to Other Lawyers

One recurring theme in our talks was the tension between the informal
problem-solving approach preferred by many Flinthills lawyers and the
underlying rigidity characterizing many legal interactions. While there is
an expectation in Flinthills that one be personal and affable, there is also
a preexisting hierarchy within the profession that cannot be ignored. Mary
said that her personal relationship with Jennie has not been strained by
trials, but noted that all the lawyers in town have to work together.
According to her, in a community this size, they have to make an effort to
respect the job that each person is doing and there seems to be a consen-
sus among the attorneys not to "personalize" professional behavior. She
felt that trying to avoid personalizing the professional creates a different
kind of stress. "Getting along" takes its own kind of emotional toll.

We then discussed whether a more formal system would help lawyers
who are less powerful. Jennie seemed uncertain whether formalism is
empowering: "For example, male lawyers in town really use the 'old boy'
network so if I have to put something into the formal process, I feel like I
will really be railroaded. And it would be my fault because I haven't
worked the informal process effectively. I see it as failure to have to use the
formal system." While Jennie sounded as if she felt she must avoid for-
malism, Mary said that she really respects Jennie for fighting when nec-
essary, sticking to her arguments, and not conceding easily.

Jennie acknowledged that she likes the informal process when it works
for her. When it fails, she is angry that she did not use a more formal sys-
tem. She went on to say that sometimes the judge solves so much out of
court that going to court becomes pointless; the conclusion is foregone.
Jennie explained how she copes with lawyers and judges with whom she
is having a problem. She said, "I don't cope. I don't confront the problem."
To illustrate, Jennie said she had been having a problem with Lee, a judge
who is also a lawyer in town. She said he is "a real SOB." Every morning
at 9:00 a.m. she has to go to municipal court where Lee is the judge. He

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

always arrives fifteen to twenty minutes late and then wants to drink cof-
fee. One morning, Jennie reported, "I had another appearance at 10:00 a.m.
and two or three lawyers and cops were in the room waiting for Lee. I said,
'God damn it. Where is he?' Lee came in and everyone said, 'We were just
discussing you.'" She acknowledged that she complained to others but did
not confront Lee about his annoying behavior.

Jennie reported that the public categorizes all lawyers. For example,
the public expects Lee always to win because he is a big, overpowering man,
but he is not always ethical. She cannot discuss anything with Lee because
he does not care what she thinks. Sometimes in court, others make an
opposing argument or motion, and Lee does not even ask Jennie for her
argument. She stopped talking to Lee, even though they have to see each
other every morning. Municipal court is easy; what is hard is if she has a
case against him. She went on to say:

Lee is a very jovial type, but he can be intimidating and he intim-
idates me. I make matters worse by not playing his game. I don't
like to play his game of shooting the breeze, talking sports, etcetera,
before you can get him to work. For some reason I accept that in
others but not in him. I just get tired. I guess I feel it is a waste of
professional time. But people in the community are in the com-
munity, and I must get along. So sometimes I feel I should just stop
bucking him. He can be pleasant and he could make my life eas-
ier. Lee is just a strange person to me. He comes across as if
everything in his life is so perfect, and I would like to see him be
more vulnerable. Maybe that's my problem in dealing with him.

Mary commented, "Lee is more courteous to me, but I only see him once
a week; I don't see him every day of my life. He is opinionated, and he has
already made up his mind when you see him."

Jennie noted that Lee feels, and she said she agreed somewhat, that
there should be a "good old boy" system. It is good to do something for
someone, give them a break on a ticket, if it is the right person. Lee pres-
sures Jennie to accommodate out-of-town lawyers because he wants those
lawyers to be happy in Flinthills. Lee does a lot of work with and against
lawyers from out-of-town, and he thinks it important that they have a good
experience in Flinthills so that he gets more business. As an illustration,
Jennie described prosecuting a man who was not eligible for diversion."

' In Kansas, under limited circumstances, a person charged with Driving
Under the Influence (DUI) can participate in a Diversion Program, which focuses on
rehabilitation and education rather than punishment. They can then keep the DUI
conviction off of their record. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2907-22-2910 (1988 & Supp. 1991).

1992]



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

Lee, in his capacity as the municipal court judge, pressured Jennie to put
the man on diversion. Jennie continually sent the diversion agreement to
the man to sign, but he never did.

Jennie said she is afraid to give up her civil practice to do exclusively
criminal work because she is not sure if she could reestablish a civil prac-
tice once she abandoned it. She admitted that the different roles she must
play affect her handling of cases. She recognized that, both consciously and
unconsciously, she gives breaks to people she is prosecuting if they are peo-
ple she has to deal with regularly. She was not sure if the pressures are per-
sonal or economic. She illustrated this problem with a case in which she
had to make decisions about prosecuting two men whose families go to her
church. She struggled with the dilemma and made every effort to come to
a principled decision.

Mary reported that she has a problem with another judge, John. John
seems "burned out" and frequently will not let Mary make arguments on
behalf of her clients. As defense counsel, Mary feels she has to make the
arguments that her clients expect, but the judge cuts her off.

Advocacy can be difficult when everyone is expected to get along.
Jennie commented that sometimes clients feel cheated because they want
a courtroom battle, but the attorneys all try to resolve issues outside the
courtroom. The expectation within the legal community is that things
should be discussed and worked out. Mary speculated that sometimes
attorneys do not want to work things out because they want their fees.
Without completely disagreeing with Mary, Jennie said that most attorneys
are concerned about the public perception of lawyers and try to over-
come the view that lawyers just want to litigate. Moreover, most clients
understand the uncertainty of courtroom decision making.

The judges also pressure attorneys to settle cases. Jennie described a
case in which a man went to Gerry, another lawyer in town, for a divorce.
Gerry put together a settlement agreement which the husband brought to
the wife and asked her to sign. The wife recognized that the settlement was
not fair and went to see Jennie. Jennie said that she agreed that the terms
were not fair so she tried to negotiate with Gerry. Gerry unreasonably
refused to negotiate. He acted as if the case had already been settled on his
terms. Jennie speculated that Gerry appeared to be unreasonable in his
unwillingness to even talk because the husband would not come in to see
Gerry in order to discuss negotiations.

On the day of the trial all of the parties appeared for court. The
judge's clerk called the lawyers into the judge's chambers, where the
judge said, "Let's talk. Can't this be settled?" The lawyers reported to the
judge that whatever was at issue could not be settled, so the judge said,

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

"Let's just sell everything." There was no discussion about having a trial.
The judge sent the lawyers and their clients home and ultimately the
clients settled the case, dividing the property between themselves.

Mary said that she also had a case in which the lawyer would not nego-
tiate. The judge pressured the lawyer into negotiating by threatening a trial.
The fear of going to trial caused the other lawyer to negotiate. Jennie spec-
ulated that the judges know the lawyers in town and what pressures them
into negotiating or settling cases.

According to Jennie, sometimes lawyers use the formal rules as a
power play in order to establish some boundaries. If things get too adver-
sarial to negotiate, they turn to the judge. They both agreed that Flinthills
lawyers are not afraid of litigating, it is just seen as a last resort. Clients'
expectations seem contradictory; they want a strong fighter but they also
want a fighter who doesn't end up litigating.

D. Their Relationship to One Another

When the interviews began, Mary and Jennie did not socialize with each
other outside their professional relationship. They both belonged to civic
groups which did charity fundraising in the community, so they saw each
other at those meetings. Otherwise, they sometimes went to lunch to dis-
cuss a case, but they had never met just for a personal activity.

At the time of the interviews, Mary and Jennie did the bulk of the crim-
inal work in Flinthills County. At our first meeting, Mary reported that it
was extremely satisfying to work with Jennie as the prosecutor. She said
their relationship is based on the understanding that there will be no
manipulation or lying. They openly discuss the strengths and weakness-
es of their cases, and Jennie ensures that Mary has access to all information
to which she is entitled as the defendant's lawyer. Mary said Jennie is cre-
ative in trying to find alternative resolutions to their cases.

Mary felt that her relationship with Jennie helps rather than hurts
her as an advocate. She never volunteers things that would hurt her
client, but feels that by working creatively with Jennie, she is frequently able
to save the client the cost of pointless motions and unnecessary trials.
When the county pays Mary to do public defender work, criminal defen-
dants must compensate the county for her fees. So it is in the client's
financial interest to minimize the attorney's expenses.

There were numerous times when Jennie and Mary were unable to
negotiate and trials became necessary. From Mary's perspective, they
both approached this contingency professionally and had no hard feelings.
When a case had to be tried, they did it as advocates within the system.

19921



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

During later discussions, Jennie reported that she felt she and Mary
"personalized"; they work with each other more than with other lawyers
in town and they know how to deal with each other on a "personal level."
Jennie said that most of the time they can influence each other. Mary
knows what Jennie wants to hear. "If Mary wants to negotiate a good deal
for her client, she knows what information I am interested in," said Jennie.
"The other lawyers in the community do not always tell me the right
things about their clients so that I know how to make a deal." Both Mary
and Jennie agreed that they are more likely to discuss the facts and con-
sequences of cases with each other instead of just posturing.

Mary stressed her previous comment, that she feels that she reaches
much better solutions working with Jennie; they trust each other and
exchange information so they can negotiate better. As Mary said, "I
wouldn't deal with others in the same way as I deal with Jennie; I never give
her any information that will hurt my client, but I trust Jennie not to hurt
my client. That trust does not exist with everybody else."

Jennie laughed and said,

Mary can do me better than I can do myself.... I used to be "the new
kid on the block" and could play the role of not knowing what
was going on. Now Mary comes in and is the newer kid on the
block. The fatherly judges in town look out for the newer person.

They always work things out with each other, partially out of habit from
frequently being on opposite sides, but also from working on the same side.
In the Child in Need of Care cases that Jennie prosecutes, Mary is usually
the guardian ad litem for the child. The judge does not appoint a lawyer for
the parents, unless the parental rights might be terminated.

Jennie noted, "I am not intimidated by Mary. There are some who
intimidate me. I am harsher than Mary. I don't like to be humiliated or
embarrassed."

Each woman perceived the other to have an easier role in the criminal
justice system. The following exchange about Atticus Finch made this ten-
sion apparent:

Mary [referring to the defendant Tom]: I would feel lucky to have
a person with a limp arm. Somebody who could win and to whom
you could be dedicated.

Jennie: Atticus had an easy role. Being a defense lawyer is easier.
All the defense has to worry about is the defendant. So there is no
concern about justice and truth. [Looking at Mary] Your role is
easier.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

Mary: Well, what about sleeping with what I have to do. Sleeping
with myself with all the creeps I have to represent.

Jennie: Well, you shouldn't worry if they're guilty or innocent.

Mary: I envy Atticus because he knew what the truth was. He had
the luxury of defending somebody who was innocent.

Jennie saw her job as much more difficult because she is responsible for
deciding when and what to prosecute. Mary felt the defense lawyer is at
a disadvantage because she has no control over what is charged. She
must take whatever undesirable client comes into her office and try to do
something with his or her case. Mary envied Jennie's control and respon-
sibility. Jennie envied the simplicity of Mary's job.

E. Their Perceptions of Themselves

Mary went on to say, "My problem with being a lawyer is that I wish
I did not let things affect me personally. I cannot always stay objective. For
example, I get upset when I shouldn't." The conversation shifted back to
Atticus Finch. Mary said, "He did not personalize the situation. Except
when he was at the jail, he didn't personalize what had happened. He acted
so professionally and didn't even put down the people who were attack-
ing him." She added, "He is a role model."

They considered their strengths and weaknesses in the courtroom.
Mary said, "I'm not experienced enough. I wish I were taller and more
imposing, and then I would not have to use my intellect so much."

Jennie said, "I don't really know. My cross-examination is not very
good. I usually don't ask very much except when a defendant takes the
stand." Mary's perception of Jennie was different, and she seemed
impressed that Jennie could be very confrontational. Jennie commented,
"I do better on direct than cross. I plan my direct exam better than my cross,
and sometimes I get lost on cross-examination. My cross can be too dis-
jointed."

Mary said, "I just ask a few questions on cross-examination. I don't
want to ask anything extra because I am afraid." She continued, "When we
do a juvenile case, we work as a team. I am briefer, I can paint the picture."

Jennie admitted she likes her private practice more now that she has
become the county attorney. When she was only doing private practice, she
had too many concerns about where the next client was going to come from.
When she was working with one client, she was worried whether she
would get more. Consequently, she was not able to relax and enjoy her

19921



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

clients or to work as hard on the cases as she would have liked. Mary
agreed that the public defender work keeps her from worrying so much
about business. The guaranteed income also helps a lot. Although she is
not concerned about losing her job for economic reasons, personal pride
makes her wish she had more clients.

Flinthills does not have any liberal lawyers such as an Atticus Finch
who take on the cases of the downtrodden and the poor. Mary said she
would like more controversial cases; she would like to be able to choose peo-
ple and issues and ideals. Jennie also said she would like to do things that
were more controversial. She noted, 'I get worked up about things and they
stay with me. I get preoccupied and I can't put them aside. What upsets
me most is letting myself get pushed around by others." Mary reacted by
saying, "I don't dwell on things."

Jennie said that what bothers her most-and she was embarrassed by
it-is that she used to know all of this "scholarly stuff" but she no longer
uses it. She learned the rules of civil procedure and evidence when she went
to law school, and at that time she thought she would make use of these
things. When she first began practicing she wrote briefs and had some cre-
ative thoughts on the issues. When I interviewed her, though, she felt
embarrassed because she did not use this knowledge. She also perceived
herself as not being as much of a lawyer because she did not feel as if she
were working on those "big cases where a lot is at stake." Mary asked her
if she felt she was not making the headlines, and Jennie said that was a good
way of wording it. She was not sure if this feeling of inadequacy or embar-
rassment came from her own internal expectations or from societal expec-
tations about what a "real" lawyer is.

Mary strongly disagreed with Jennie's perceptions. She said, "You are
a real lawyer. You are in the headlines. You're dealing with people's
lives and you have an incredible impact." She told Jennie that if one com-
pares the stress and the consequences of Jennie's work as the county attor-
ney with the work of "big lawyers," Jennie's work is much more significant.
This is why she has so much respect for what Jennie does.

Mary said if she were writing the article she would tell people that there
are many positives about her work: she thinks it is fun; it is good to have
an impact on individuals' lives; it is satisfying to help others, even if it is
only counseling them; she is proud that she has the tools to help people
because of her legal training.

Mary noted that sometimes she does not feel like a lawyer, especially
when she is feeling powerless. The lack of a formal system means she can-
not control what is going on. She does not feel that she has the input she
should. From Jennie and Mary's viewpoints, if they at least have partici-
pated in the discussion, they feel like real lawyers.

[Vol. 2:1



Country Practice

Some clients expect emotional energy from their lawyer. The women
agreed the emotionalism must stay on a "professional" level and not dete-
riorate into personal fights among the lawyers. Mary admitted that if
she thinks her emotionalism is taking time, she cuts her fee so the client does
not pay for her "inefficiency."

As the interviews wound down, Jennie and Mary admitted that this
project served as their therapy. It stimulated them to talk. Jennie said,
"Sometimes I feel so ineffective. I am too emotionally involved in cases.
My husband sometimes thinks I'm unhappy on my job, but it's not that I'm
unhappy. I just wish I could detach. I feel that it is emotionally draining
and it's not what it's supposed to be." Mary said, "I don't like compro-
mising myself professionally."

The understanding of law, process, and formality which they were
taught in law school are not the skills Mary and Jennie apply as lawyers. The
system in which they work calls upon all of their interpersonal skills: know-
ing the people; negotiating; and working through problems. Jennie admit-
ted she has internalized a view that lawyers use their intellects to apply rules,
law, and formal procedure. She felt inadequate because she does not do those
things. She is very good at using interpersonal skills to function in the infor-
mal environment of her local practice, but it takes an incredible emotional
toll. Moreover, she does not necessarily value those skills.

IV. CONCLUSION

One thing apparent in Jennie's and Mary's stories is that who they are as
outsiders raises far more complex issues than the essentialist theory that
they are "women" in a predominantly male-gendered profession. They may
have more in common with the male lawyers in their community than with
female lawyers in a metropolitan area. Then again, they probably have a very
different experience of law practice from a similarly situated man in Flinthills.

Jennie and Mary do seem to be outsiders in Flinthills, and the opera-
tion of "neutral" rules such as informality have disadvantageous results for
them in some cases. Whatever conclusions we might draw about their rela-
tionships to the community and to other lawyers in Flinthills, it seems
apparent that their perception of their choices and the reality of their
choices is limited by their gender. They have achieved much success in their
community; they are well respected and are on an equal footing with male
lawyers in many regards. Yet, they still find themselves vulnerable to
being disempowered by their colleagues, their community, other women,
and people outside the community."'

For example, they are disempowered by the essentialists who ignore the exis-
tence of women practicing in rural areas. See supra note 8 and accompanying text.

19921



Columbia Journal of Gender and Law

Despite some of these observations, there is apparent change. The
emerging female culture, in society as a whole and in their community as
a microcosm, embraces Mary and Jennie so they are no longer so far "out-
side" as they might have been in the past. They are part of an "emerging
hegemony" in that when they went to the meeting for women lawyers in
Kansas, they were able to ask questions which never came to their minds

before, and they agreed to be part of this project because they can see the
value in sharing their personal experiences with others.

On a different level, the legal profession has a dominant and a resid-
ual cultural hegemony of its own. The dominant cultural hegemony is
reflected in the formal rules of evidence and procedure, a rights-based anal-
ysis, and polar results where one party wins and the other party loses. The
way the legal profession is practiced in Flinthills is "outside" the dominant
model in that a contextualized, relational, principle-based decision-mak-
ing system, a "female" model, so to speak, already exists. This model is
"residual" in that it stems from an earlier era of American society, when
legal education was not so highly stratified and structured. Yet the lawyers
in Flinthills were trained in law schools which play a critical role in main-
taining the dominant formal culture of law.50 These lawyers bring their for-
mal version of legal education and lawyering to their community. Finally,

the practice of law is changing as more women become lawyers. Jennie's
and Mary's mere existence as lawyers in Flinthills is evidence that Flinthills
is not immune to those changes.

EPILOGUE

As I am finishing this article, Mary has left Flinthills. She has taken a
job as an assistant prosecutor in a city in Colorado. It was with much
ambivalence that she left Flinthills.

Jennie continues to enjoy her life and work in Flinthills. She tells me
that a new woman is starting to work in another firm in town and that Jim
has advertised to replace Mary.

For an examination of law schools' role in maintaining the dominant cultures
of law, see, e.g., Stewart Macaulay, Popular Legal Culture: An Introduction, 98 Yale
L.J. 1545 (1989).

[Vol. 2:1