Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:12:13.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women Lawyers before the Supreme Court of Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2011

Erin B. Kaheny ,
John J. Szmer  and
Tammy A. Sarver
Erin B. Kaheny*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
John J. Szmer*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Tammy A. Sarver*
Affiliation:
Benedictine University
*
Erin B. Kaheny, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, phone: (414) 229-6560, fax: (414) 229-5021, [email protected]
John J. Szmer, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, phone: (704) 687-3941, fax: (704) 687-3497, [email protected]
Tammy A. Sarver, Department of Political Science, Benedictine University, 5700 College Road, Lisle, IL 60532, phone: (630) 829-6473, fax: (630) 829-6231, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Recent work by Szmer, Sarver, and Kaheny (2010) exploring US Supreme Court decision making has suggested that lawyer gender might play a role in influencing judicial voting behaviour. Specifically, while women lawyers were not revealed to have a more difficult time winning cases before the US Supreme Court, the study did suggest they face a tougher challenge in gaining support from the more conservative justices on that bench. Here, we test whether women lawyers face similar challenges before the SCC. Our findings do not reveal any disadvantage for litigation teams with larger proportions of women and, in most instances, such teams have an advantage. Specifically, in our model of civil rights and liberties votes, litigation team gender had no bearing on individual SCC justice decisions. However, in a pooled model of all issues combined and in separate models of criminal and economic votes, SCC justices were more likely to side with litigation teams with larger proportions of women lawyers.

Résumé. Une étude récente de Szmer, Sarver et Kaheny (2010) explore la manière dont la Cour suprême des États-Unis prend ses décisions, suggérant que le sexe des avocats pourrait avoir une influence sur le comportement décisionnel des juges. Plus spécifiquement, bien que les avocates n'aient pas plus de difficulté que leurs collègues masculins à gagner leurs procès à la Cour suprême des États-Unis, l'étude suggère que leur plus grand défi est d'obtenir le soutien des juges plus traditionnels de cette cour. Dans le présent article, nous cherchons à déterminer si les avocates canadiennes font face à un défi semblable à la Cour suprême du Canada. Les résultats de notre étude ne révèlent aucun désavantage pour les équipes d'avocats comprenant plus de femmes et dans la plupart des cas, ces équipes bénéficient même d'un avantage. Plus précisement, dans notre modèle décisionnel en matière de droits et libertés civiles, le sexe des membres des équipes d'avocats n'avait aucune incidence sur les décisions individuelles des juges de la Cour suprême du Canada. Cependant, dans un modèle commun réunissant tous les types de dossiers et dans des modèles séparés pour les décisions sur des dossiers criminels et financiers, les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada étaient plus enclins à prendre parti pour des équipes comportant une plus grande proportion d'avocates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 83 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association (ABA), Commission on Women in the Profession. 2007. A Current Glance at Women in the Law. www.abanet.org/women/CurrentGlanceStatistics2007.pdf (25 April 2008).Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee and Martin, Andrew D.. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockman, Joan. 1993. “A Difference without a Distinction.” Canadian Journal of Law & Society 8 (1): 149–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Bar Association (CBA). 1993. Touchstones for Change: Equality, Diversity and Accountability: Report of the Canadian Bar Association Task Force on Gender Equality in the Legal Profession. Ottawa ON: Canadian Bar Association.Google Scholar
Carli, Linda L. 1989. “Gender Differences in Interaction Style and Influence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (4): 565–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, Pamela. 2008. “The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Influence of Parties Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (3): 468–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, J.M. and Jacobs, R.R.. 1985. “The Effect of Working with Women on Male Attitudes Toward Female Firefighters.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 6: 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Farhang, Sean and Wawro, Gregory. 2004. “Institutional Dynamics on the US Courts of Appeals: Minority Representation under Panel Decision Making.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 20 (2): 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S.T. 1982. “Schema-Triggered Affect: Applications to Social Perception.” In Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Clark, M.S. and Fiske, S.T.. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. 2004. Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada. Vancouver BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. and Krutz, Glen S.. 2002. “Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(4): 811–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, David K. and Stager, D.A.. 1990. “Intertemporal Market Effect on Gender Earnings Differentials: Lawyers in Canada, 1970–1980.” Applied Economics 21 (8): 1101–28.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9(1): 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Ian, Baar, Carl, McCormick, Peter, Szablowski, George and Thomas, Martin. 1998. Final Appeal: Decision-making in Canadian Courts of Appeal. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co.Google Scholar
Gryski, Gerard, Main, Eleanor C. and Dixon, William J.. 1986. “Models of State High Court Decision Making in Sex Discrimination Cases.” Journal of Politics 48 (1): 143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haire, Susan Brodie, Lindquist, Stefanie A. and Hartley, Roger. 1999. “Attorney Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decisionmaking in the US Courts of Appeals.” Law and Society Review 33 (3): 667–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslett, Beth, Geis, Florence L. and Carter, Mae R.. 1992. The Organizational Woman: Power and Paradox. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Haynie, Stacia. 2003. “Judicial Decisionmaking and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division.” Law and Society Review 37(3): 635–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L., Sheehan, Reginald, Songer, Donald R., and Tate, C. Neal. 1999. “Collaborative Research: Fitting More Pieces into the Puzzle of Judicial Behavior: a Multi-Country Data Base and Program of Research.” National Science Foundation, SES-9975323.Google Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. 2006. “Judicial Interview Process: Opening Remarks to Ad Hoc Committee on Supreme Court Appointment.” February 27. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/scc-csc/sp-dis.html (30 October 2008).Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., Wahlbeck, Paul J. and Spriggs, James F. II 2006. “The Influence of Oral Arguments on the US Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977a. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977b. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 965–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Fiona M. and Brockman, Joan. 2000. “Barriers to Gender Equality in the Canadian Legal Establishment.” Feminist Legal Studies 8 (2): 169–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, Maria Pabon. 2008. “The Future of Women in the Legal Profession: Recognizing the Challenges Ahead by Reviewing Current Trends.” Hastings Women's Law Journal 19 (1): 53–103.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard E. 1994. “Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of Norwegian Voters.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (2): 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAtee, Andrea and McGuire, Kevin T.. 2007. “Lawyers, Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review 41: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 1993. “Party Capability Theory and Appellate Success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949–1992.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 3: 535–40.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter and Job, Twyla. 1993. “Do Women Judges Make a Difference? An Analysis by Appeal Court Data.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 8 (1): 135–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1998. “Explaining Executive Success on the US Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (2): 505–26.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 2000. “Lobbyists, Revolving Doors and the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Politics 16 (1): 113–37.Google Scholar
Nelson, Mary Stuart. 2004. “The Effect of Attorney Gender on Jury Perception and Decision-Making.” Law and Psychology Review 28 (1): 177–94.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E. and Ross, Lee. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Noonan, Mary C., Corcoran, Mary E. and Courant, Paul N.. 2005. “Pay Differences Among the Highly Trained: Cohort Differences in the Sex Gap in Lawyers' Earnings.” Social Forces 84 (2): 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L., and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 1998. “Dimensions of Attitudes Underlying Search and Seizure Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31 (4): 767–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L., and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Paludi, M.A. and Strayer, L.A.. 1985. “What's in an Author's Name? Differential Evaluations of Performance as a Function of Author's Name.” Sex Roles 12 (3–4): 353–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peresie, Jennifer L. 2005. “Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Yale Law Journal 114 (7): 1759–90.Google Scholar
Powell, Gary N. 1993. Women and Men in Management. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah L. 2002. “Gender and the Profession: The No-Problem Problem.” Hofstra Law Review 30 (5): 1001–13.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jennifer. 2000. “Representative Decision Making on the Federal Bench: Clinton's District Court Appointees.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (1): 137–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William and Songer, Donald R.. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 2008. The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Underdogs and Upperdogs on the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., Davis, Sue and Haire, Susan. 1994. “A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Politics 56 (2): 425–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W.. 2007. “Judicial Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada: Updating the Personal Attribute Model.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 911–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John J., Johnson, Susan W. and Sarver, Tammy A.. 2007. “Does the Lawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Law and Society Review 41 (2): 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John J., Sarver, Tammy A. and Kaheny, Erin B.. 2010. “Have We Come a Long Way Baby? Female Attorneys before the United States Supreme Court.” Politics and Gender 6: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal, Haynie, Stacia L., Sheehan, Reginald, and Songer, Donald R.. 2002. “Collaborative Research: Extending a Multi-Country Database and Program of Research.” National Science Foundation, SES-0137349.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E. and Crocker, Jennifer. 1981. “Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing.” In Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 1, ed. Higgins, E. Tory, Herman, C. Peter and Zanna, Mark P.. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1999. “Roundtable: The Cognitive Bases of Gender Bias.” Brooklyn Law Review 65: 1037–61.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 2005. “Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia.” Hypatia 20 (3): 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Western Law Career Services Office. 2005. Clerkship Handbook for Western Law Students. http://www.law.uwo.ca/info-current/cso/2005Clerkship.htm (3 March 2010).Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew W. and Ostberg, C.L.. 2007. “Gender Differences in the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.” Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago IL.Google Scholar