VVolume 17, Number 3

oices&iews

A newsletter from the PennsylvAniA BAr AssociAtion commission on women in the Profession

Summer 2012

Gearing up for a busy WIP yearBy Mary Kate Coleman, co-editor

I hope this message finds you enjoy-ing your summer. I enjoy the June, July and August months. Like school children, who have a break

from the hectic pace of the school year and look forward to summer vacation, I look forward to the end of the “bar” year. While I love my extra-curricular activities, it seems like May is crazy-busy with the wrapping up of the end of the year bar association activities and events. June is when I can slow down a bit, work in my yard, and sit on the porch and visit with my neighbors. Whether you are enjoying a “stayca-tion,” taking a trip away from home or planning a vacation for later in the year, I hope you are enjoying the nice weather and are able to slow down a bit over the summer months.

Soon we will start gearing up for a new PBA Commission on Women in the Profession (WIP) year. I will continue to work on the newsletter with Shira Goodman this year. As always, we would like to hear from

you with suggestions or items for the newsletter. Also, I am looking forward to the Fall Retreat at the beautiful Hotel Hershey. I went to the retreat last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. I left feeling refreshed and re-energized, and I did not even take advantage of the spa facility! It was just wonderful being in the company of such other fabulous members of the WIP!

The other thing that I will be working on this year is the Annual Conference. I will be co-chairing the event with Bobbi Jacobs-Meadway. As usual, the WIP Annual Conference takes place during the PBA Annual Meeting scheduled for May 8-10, 2013. The WIP Annual Conference, which is a full-day event with Continuing Legal Education programs and a luncheon with a keynote speaker, is scheduled on May 9, 2013. But, the really exciting news is that it will take place in Pittsburgh next year! So, please mark your calendars now and plan to attend. I look forward to helping to plan the event with Bobbi and welcoming non-

Pittsburghers to my hometown.

We will need help in planning the event, and if you would like to work on the event, especially those of you who also hail from Pittsburgh or western Pennsylvania, please email me at mkcoleman@rhwrlaw.com or Bobbi at rjacobsmeadway@eckertseamans.com. If you are not from Pittsburgh, but are planning to come here next May, I am available to assist you if you have any questions about the area or what to do while you are here.

So, enjoy the rest of your summer and please come back relaxed and ready for another exciting WIP year!

WIP Leadership ...................................................2Save the Dates: WIP Fall Retreat ............................2From the chairs ...................................................3WIP Diversity Survey, Part 1 ..................................4 Annual Conference recap and photos ....................5-6Words of wisdom from the WIP Award winners ........7Commission works toward equal justice in Pa. ..........7Jane Leslie Dalton receives Sandra Day O’Connor Award from Philadelphia Bar Association ..............8The necessity of clarity and brevity in legal writing ....9Part I: Jewish debtor-creditor law: Does it permit the filing for bankruptcy in the U.S. Courts? ............11Report of At-Large Woman Governor .....................14Commission members in the news........................15

In this ISSUE

PBA Commission on Women in the Profession Leadership

Co-ChairS: Jane L. Dalton, Lisa M. BenzieCo-ViCe ChairS: Roberta Jacobs-Meadway, Nancy ConradSeCretary: Karoline MehalchickaSSiStant SeCretary: Mary Kate ColemantreaSurer: Ellen Bailey

SubCommitteeS

annual ConferenCe: Roberta Jacobs-Meadway, Mary Kate Coleman

awardS: Anne N. John, Kathleen D. Wilkinson, Judge Susan Peikes Gantman CommuniCationS: Mary Kate Coleman,

Shira J. GoodmandiVerSity: Jacqueline Martinez,

Elisabeth S. Shuster GoVernanCe: Sara A. Austin,

Phyllis Horn EpsteinleGiSlatiVe: Alexis L. Barbieri,

Kathy M. Manderino memberShip: Sarah Yerger, Shelly Goldner, Amy CocomentorinG: Jennifer Riley,

Jessica Ann Priselacmidyear meetinGS: Kathryn L. Harrison, Andrea Tuominen, Elizabeth SimcoxnominationS: Judge Donetta W. Ambrose,

Melinda Ghilardi promotion of women:

Karoline Mehalchick, Lynn Rzonca

publiC SerViCe: Lisa M. Watson, Kristen SinisiQuality of life: Ellen Delores Bailey, Cara Groupreport Card: Maria Feely,

Renee C. Mattei Myersretreat 2012: Karoline Mehalchick,

Sara AustinmemberS-at-larGe: Phyllis Horn Epstein,

Roberta D. Liebenberg, Penina K. Lieber

board of GoVernorS liaiSon: Melinda Ghilardi

newSletter editorS: Shira J. Goodman,Mary Kate Coleman

pba newSletter liaiSon: Amy Kennpba Staff liaiSon: Pam Kance

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

The editors of Voices and Views encourage our membership to contribute articles and announcements, including articles on your area of practice,

topics relating to women and the law, book reviews, save the date notices, members in the news and photos of members at events.

Submission deadline: Winter 2013 Edition: Nov. 30, 2012

Please send information,news and articles to:

Shira J. Goodman Mary Kate Coleman Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts Riley Hewitt Witte & Romano PCThree Pkwy 650 Washington Road1601 Cherry St., Ste 1320 Suite 300Philadelphia, PA 19102-1399 Pittsburgh, PA 15228-2702Phone: (215) 569-1150 Phone: (412) 341-9300Fax: (215) 569-9153 Fax: (412) 341-9177Email: goodman@pmconline.org Email: MKColeman@rhwrlaw.com

Voices and Views Editorial Board also Alexa Stephanie Antanavage, Mary-Kate Breslin, Kate Williams Ericsson, Jody Roselle, Stephanie Jayma Spencer, Stephanie D. Taylor, Lisa M. Watson, Jennifer Lauren Weidler.

2

3

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

From the chairsBy Jane Leslie Dalton and Lisa Benzie, co-chairs, PBA Commission on Women in the Profession

We are excited to write our first “From the chairs” column for the Sum-mer 2012 issue of Voices & Views. We have been busy this spring and sum-mer – calling, meeting and discussing to assemble the best Executive Council to lead the PBA Commission on Wom-en in the Profession (WIP) this year. We are grateful to the many WIP members who accepted the challenge to lead our committees, and we are pleased that the work of our committees is already underway. We also thank the members who were unable to accept our invita-tion to serve due to other personal and professional commitments, and we en-courage them to remain active commit-tee members.

We urge all WIP members to vol-unteer for at least one committee or project that interests them. Working on a committee or project allows you to connect with one another on matters of mutual interest and engenders enthu-siasm for all WIP projects. We always need new committee members. It is never too late to get involved. Contact

us to let us know of your interest, and we will put you in touch with the ap-propriate people.

WIP is also looking for new mem-bers. There are approximately 7,200 female members of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. It would be wonderful if all of them were WIP members. Just think of the influence a 7,200-member-strong WIP would have and the sup-port its members could provide one an-other. Tell your colleagues and friends about the Commission. Invite them to attend one of our programs or meet-ings. This year, we are continuing to permit non-WIP members to attend an event or program to see if they want to join the WIP.

This year’s WIP Annual Retreat will be held on Nov. 2-3 at the beautiful Hotel Hershey. The theme for the pro-gram is “Satisfaction: What Is It and How to Get It.” Co-chairs Sara Austin and Karoline Mehalchick have planned an exciting and informative weekend for us. They realize that as lawyers we strive for successful careers and posi-tive results for our clients. Often we are not satisfied with the results – “some-thing” is missing in our personal lives or our careers are not what we thought they would be. The retreat offers the

opportunity to learn what it means to be satisfied personally and how to keep your clients satisfied throughout your representation. As an added bonus, the retreat offers a wonderful opportunity to revitalize and to connect and net-work with other women lawyers in the relaxed setting of The Hotel Hershey.

Our first meeting of the full Com-mission for this year will be held on Saturday morning, Nov. 3, at the re-treat. The next meeting of the full Com-mission will be on Jan. 8, 2013. Details on locations in Harrisburg, Philadel-phia and Pittsburgh will be sent to Commission members by email. If you are unable to attend one of the group locations, you can also participate by telephone from your office or other re-mote location.

Although May 2013 seems like a long way off, Annual Conference Co-Chairs Bobbi Jacobs-Meadway and Mary Kate Coleman have already start-ed the planning process for another ter-rific conference. This event will be held on Thursday, May 9, at the Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh Downtown in Pitts-burgh.

With the help of every WIP mem-ber, we are looking forward to another wonderful year at the WIP.

WANTED:Women lawyers in search of a mentor relationshipPBA WIP presents the LINK MENTORING PROGRAM

We’re looking to match women attorneys seeking advice about career development, leader-ship, networking and work-life balance with those who have wisdom to share. Please join the

program as a mentor, a mentee, or both — we all can learn from each other. For more information and to join the program, go to

www.pabar.org/public/committees/womenprf/Membership/ mentoringprogram.asp

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

4

WIP Diversity Survey, Part 1By Dolly Shuster, co-chair, WIP Diversity Committee

On June 13, the Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession (WIP) sent out a diversity survey to all WIP members and each female member of the PBA for whom we had a verifiable email address – a total of 5,500 people. Although the original response deadline for the survey was June 30, the survey has remained open in order to maximize the responses. It will continue to remain open for two weeks after the publication of this article, until Friday, Aug. 24, in hopes that after reading this article, those of you who have not yet responded will decide to take the survey. As of July 18, there were 1,195 hits on the survey and 685 replies, a response/participation ratio of approximately 12.5 percent.

The WIP Diversity Committee defines diversity “to include, but not be limited to, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, marital status, geography (city, small towns, rural), and work environment (large, small and mid-size firms, sole practitioners, government lawyers, in-house counsel, judiciary, part time, full time).”

The mission of the WIP Diversity Committee is “to explore ways to encourage women of all backgrounds to join and be active in the WIP and the PBA and to meet their unique needs in the profession. … to create a culture within the WIP and the PBA that effectively values diversity and fosters inclusion … and to promote the full and equal participation of women of all backgrounds in the WIP, the PBA, the legal profession and the justice system in general.” The Diversity Committee decided that the best way to begin

to fulfill its mission was through a diversity survey.

The survey asks participants to provide demographic information about themselves and solicits input about the extent to which female attorneys face challenges to full participation and success in the PBA or legal profession based on their “diversity” as broadly defined in the mission statement noted above. This survey will provide an important baseline of information to the WIP and the Diversity Committee for

developing strategies and programs to address the needs of the WIP membership and assist in improving the diversity of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, specifically, and the legal profession, more broadly.

We are still dealing with the raw data and hope that more people will respond. Therefore, I do not want to state in this article how people responded to questions concerning their perceptions of equality, opportunity, etc., for advancement in the PBA and in the legal profession in general. However, a preliminary review of the responses to date reveals that many respondents think that we can and should do more to: (1) improve WIP’s outreach and women lawyers’ awareness of WIP’s existence, goals and the ways that it benefits women lawyers; (2) enhance the diversity of the PBA and the bar, in general; (3) improve opportunities for participation in WIP, the PBA and the bar, in general, by women from various regions of the

state, especially the rural areas, those from solo or small practices, and by women with caregiver responsibilities; and (4) provide substantive strategies for overcoming barriers to success in the legal profession based on race, gender and sexual orientation.

The survey provided those who responded by June 30 with the opportunity to enter their names into a drawing to win full registration at this year’s Women in the Profession Fall Retreat on Nov. 2-3, including Friday night accommodations at The

Hotel Hershey. The anonymity of the survey responses of the participants was protected. CONGRATULATIONS to Nina Margusity Yentzer, a practicing family lawyer from Chester County, who gave us permission to announce her as the winner of the drawing. Nina will definitely be in the mood to enjoy the theme of the retreat – “Satisfaction – What It Is and How to Get It.”

As I said at the beginning of this article, we will keep the survey open for two more weeks, until Friday, Aug. 24. The survey should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Please, for your own sake, and for the sake of all of the women practicing law in Pennsylvania, click on the following link and take this survey. If you previously viewed the survey, but did not fill it out, you can go back and complete the survey. The survey link is http://www.pabar.org/polls/wip/wipdiversitysurvey.asp.

Although the original response deadline for the survey was June 30, the survey has remained open in order

to maximize the responses.

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

5

Annual Conference recapBy Andrea B. Tuominen

Inspiration, personal and profes-sional growth and perseverance were underlying themes of the Pennsylva-nia Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession’s Annual Conference on May 9 at the Lancaster Marriott.

The conference opened with a business and breakfast meeting during which the Commission’s 15 committees provided status reports on their vari-ous activities and initiatives. A high-light of these updates was the release of the 2012 Annual Report Card, pro-viding statistics on the roles of women in the legal profession, profiling three WIP members who are also judges, and awarding five firms special recognition on WIP’s Honor Roll for their contri-butions to the advancement of women lawyers. The report card is posted at http://www.pabar.org/pdf/2012%20PBA%20WIP%20ReportCard18FINAL.pdf.

The morning Continuing Legal Ed-ucation (CLE) sessions focused on how accomplished women have navigated their way in politics and profit/not-for-profit board service. The panels were extremely engaging and lively, provid-ing practical advice and an overview of the ethical issues for women lawyers who wish to chart such a course. Our experts on the path to elective office were Abbe Fletman, state Rep. Kate Harper, state Superior Court Judge Anne Lazarus and Bridget Montgom-ery. Teaching us how to break into the boardroom were Kathy Jaffari, Bobbi Liebenberg and Judith Mondre.

Always a capstone of the annual conference is the keynote speaker and the presentation of the Alpern and Norton awards at the luncheon. We were incredibly fortunate this year to witness the moving story of Betty Anne Waters, who, after her brother was sen-tenced to life imprisonment without parole, worked to successfully exoner-ate him over an 18-year period. Those in attendance were riveted by Waters’ story of persistence and determina-tion as she recounted an unimagina-

ble series of injustices that lead to her brother’s conviction. She called upon us to always remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice every-where.”

With many members of the Penn-sylvania judiciary, colleagues, fam-ily and friends present, Judge Susan Peikes Gantman received the presti-gious Anne X. Alpern Award for her demonstrated excellence in the legal profession and significant professional impact on women in the law. Receiving the Lynette Norton Award was Mary Cushing Doherty, in recognition of her excellence as a litigator and devotion to mentoring female lawyers.

The afternoon CLE sessions con-tinued to explore the themes of service and leadership in our communities. Exploring opportunities associated with bar association and pro bono ser-vice were four talented attorneys who represented a broad spectrum of the le-gal profession: Rachel Branson, Jenni-fer Clarke, Sharon López and Beverly Rampaul. Wrapping up the program-

ming was a frank exchange of ideas, experiences and tips on how to move beyond “just” the “practice” of law to seize opportunities for leadership and fulfillment — with a session by Widen-er University School of Law Dean Lin-da Ammons, Lynn Marks, Rasheedah Phillips and Kathleen Wilkinson.

Everyone then moved to a recep-tion where we were able to recap the

At the PBA Commission on Women in the Profession’s Annual Conference are (from left) Lynette Norton Award winner Mary Cushing Doherty of High Swartz LLP, then-WIP Co-Chair Melinda C. Ghilardi, keynote speaker Betty Anne Waters and WIP Co-Chair Jane Leslie Dalton. In the photo below, Anne X. Alpern Award winner Judge Susan Peikes Gantman (left) is pictured with WIP Awards Subcommittee co-chair Kathleen D. Wilkinson.

(Continued on Page 6)

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

6

Annual Conference recap(Continued from Page 5)

day’s events and lessons with old friends and new acquaintances. As I drove home from Lancaster that eve-ning, I was grateful for the opportu-nity to reflect on the conference and to have collaborated with my wonderful co-chair, Bobbi Jacobs-Meadway, to in-spire, interact and celebrate with our fellow WIP members.

Scenes from the WIP Annual Conference

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

7

Words of wisdom from the WIP Award winnersBy Shira J. Goodman

During this year’s Women in the Profession Annual Meeting, the WIP awarded two prestigious awards. Judge Susan Peikes Gantman received the Anne X. Alpern Award and Mary Cushing Doherty received the Lynette Norton Award. Upon accepting the awards, Gantman and Doherty each offered brief remarks that were packed with good counsel and wisdom for those assembled. What follows are some of the highlights.

Both Gantman and Doherty noted how fitting it was that they received their awards together. As Montgom-ery County lawyers, they had sup-ported each other’s practices earlier in their careers. Also, Doherty nomi-nated Gantman for the Anne X. Alpern Award and was especially honored to share the day with her.

Gantman told us, “Everyone who is successful in her career, family and community, has had the help and sup-port of other people. Surround yourself with people who WILL you to succeed, who make YOUR success THEIR suc-cess.”

Gantman also ticked off several les-sons that women have learned in their efforts to succeed in the profession. Here are a few:

We learn the value of sisterhood.We learn that women working to-

gether in the name of justice and equal-ity can obtain any position.

Golda Meir taught: “Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life. Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

Doherty focused on mentoring, noting that every time we mentor oth-ers, we learn. She emphasized that we can mentor and be mentored by older

and younger people, and she thanked all those other lawyers who have taught her and expanded her ideas.

The Lynette Norton Award rec-ognizes excellence in litigation, and Doherty noted how proud she was as a family lawyer to receive the honor. She says this helps to demonstrate to other litigators that family lawyers are “real litigators.”

Both awardees thanked their fami-lies, colleagues and mentors. In a mov-ing tribute to her recently departed husband Jim Doherty, Mary Doherty introduced all the members of his fam-ily and noted how each of them em-bodied one of Jim’s special attributes.

Each year, one of the highlights of the Annual Meeting is the presentation of these awards. For those of us in the audience, it is an opportunity to see ex-amples of excellence and to gain some wisdom and inspiration. This year was no exception.

Shira Goodman is the deputy director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a nonprofit court reform organization, and the co-editor of Voices & Views.

Doherty Gantman

Commission works toward equal justice in Pa.Copyright 2012, Philadelphia Bar Association. Used with permission.

By Suzanne Almeida

Inequities in Pennsylvania’s justice system and the work of the Pennsylva-nia Interbranch Commission on Gen-der, Racial and Ethnic Fairness (also known as the Pennsylvania Commis-sion for Justice) to correct them were the topics of a May 1 CLE program pre-sented by the Women’s Rights Com-mittee.

The program featured a panel of speakers from the Commission for Fairness: Lisette M. McCormick, the Commission’s executive director; Lynn A. Marks, executive director of Penn-

sylvanians for Modern Courts and co-chair of the Commission; and Kathleen D. Wilkinson, chancellor-elect of the Philadelphia Bar Association and a member of the Commission.

Panel members discussed a variety of topics, including sex trafficking, jury diversification, the availability of inter-preters and second parent adoptions for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgen-der couples.

Marks gave a brief overview of the history and mission of the commission. The blueprint for its work is the 2003 Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Gender and Racial Bias in the Justice System. The final re-port included 173 recommendations to the Supreme Court, the executive and/

or legislative branches. In 2005, the three branches created the Interbranch Commission to work on implementing the Report’s recommendations. Each branch appoints eight members who meet quarterly. Its substantive work is conducted through committees in six program areas.

McCormick discussed the commis-sion’s work combating sex trafficking of women and children. Unfortunately, the law enforcement response is often to prosecute the victim rather than the traffickers or pimps. This exists partly because police and prosecutors are unaware of laws that can be used to prosecute the real offenders. To combat this problem, the commission held a

(Continued on Page 10)

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

8

Jane Leslie Dalton receives Sandra Day O’Connor Award from Philadelphia Bar Association

By Melinda C. Ghilardi, Immediate Past PBA WIP Co-Chair

Jane Leslie Dalton, co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Commis-sion on Women in the Profession, re-ceived the 2012 Sandra Day O’Connor Award from the Philadelphia Bar As-sociation on June 26 at the Quarterly Meeting and Luncheon. Dalton is of counsel at Duane Morris LLP and a former chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, as well as former chair of its Board of Governors and former co-chair of its Women in the Profession Committee. Dalton has been a mem-ber of the PBA WIP since 1999, and is in her second year as co-chair. For the past 10 years, she has been a delegate from Zone One to the PBA House of Delegates. Also, she is the vice chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Insurance Fund and Trust Fund.

The Sandra Day O’Connor Award is conferred annually on a woman at-torney who has demonstrated superior legal talent, achieved significant legal accomplishments and has furthered the advancement of women in both the profession and the community. The Philadelphia Bar Association’s Women in the Profession Committee established the award in 1993 to recog-nize the important contributions that

women attorneys in Philadelphia have made to the legal profession. That year, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presented the first award to a PBA WIP member, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Norma L. Shapiro.

Dalton joined Duane Morris in 1971 and went on to become its first woman partner. She was also part of a team that started Duane Morris’ success-ful Women’s Initiative Program. She is a member of the Defense Research Institute and the National Association of College and University Attorneys. Additionally, she is a member of the Section of Litigation and the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Amer-ican Bar Association.

Last year, the Philadelphia Bar As-sociation presented Dalton with the Dennis Replansky Memorial Award, which recognized her superior legal talent and professionalism, unique con-tributions to and significant achieve-ments in both Philadelphia business law community and civic causes, as well as her mentoring of young attor-neys. Dalton was one of the 2005 Re-cipients of the Women of Distinction Award, sponsored by the National As-sociation of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) and the Philadelphia Busi-ness Journal, based on her commitment to professional excellence and com-munity involvement. The Sandra Day

O’Connor Award is testament to Dal-ton’s commitment to mentor, promote and advance other women lawyers.

In addition to Judge Shapiro, Dal-ton was joined at the luncheon by for-mer O’Connor Award recipient and PBA WIP member Bobbi Liebenberg. Her family, including her husband and all four of her children, PBA Executive Director Barry Simpson and Deputy Executive Director Fran O’Rourke, as well as many PBA WIP members, were present to celebrate this honor with her. We are very proud that Jane is one of our co-chairs, as we, too, are the ben-eficiaries of her wise counsel and ev-erlasting friendship. Congratulations, Jane!

Jane Leslie Dalton

WIP member directoryThe directory of the members of the Commission on Women in the Profession is available on the PBA Web

site, www.pabar.org. You can reach the directory from the home page by entering your PBA membership number to log in to the members-only area, clicking on “Committees/Commissions” at the upper left and then clicking on the “Women in the Profession Commission” button. On the WIP page, click on the “Membership” button. The online WIP directory lists everything that appeared in the hard copy, including indices by county and area of concentration.

If you are not yet in the directory, you can simply fill out the form online. The button for the form is on the same Web page as the WIP directory. If possible, also send your photograph in digital format to patricia.graybill@pabar.org.

The directory is a great source for referrals to hundreds of women lawyers skilled in every area of the law. These women are also available to answer questions you might have about practice in other areas of the common-wealth. This network of friends can be of immeasurable help in enhancing your satisfaction with and success in the law.

9

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

The necessity of clarity and brevity in legal writingEditor’s note: This article was originally published in JURIST (jurist.org). Available at http://jurist.org/sidebar/2011/12/michael-eakin-legal-writing.php.

By J. Michael Eakin, associate justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Writing skills have fallen victim to texting, email shorthand and the acro-nyms of social media. Spellcheck and automatic grammatical suggestions make us lazy writers. All of this, btw, may be fine for your bff, but it is not so good in court. LOL.

Particularly in the appellate world, writing is what matters most. The writ-ten brief is the first exposure a judge has to the case. It is the primary tool of advocacy — sometimes it is the only advocacy the judge gets. For better or worse, your pleadings and briefs go to people that read and write for a living, people who will be discerning and less tolerant of poor writing.

While there is a marked difference between opinions and briefs, lawyers can still take something from judicial writing. An opinion is an explanation, an exposition of the reasoning that led to the decision. While judges are gratified if everyone agrees with the opinion, agreement is not its goal. The writing styles reflected in opinions are as varied as judges themselves, but re-main relatively constant in that explan-atory objective.

A brief should not be a minor law review article or treatise, nor a tome designed to impress the client or the opposition. Neither is it wholly ex-planatory. A brief is a persuasive writ-ing designed to help the judicial read-er agree with a proposed result. The writer absolutely wants the reader to agree — that is the very objective of the brief. Despite these different purposes between opinions and briefs, there are traits from good judicial writing that the advocate can apply to most any le-gal writing.

The central attribute of good legal writing is clarity. An opinion explains its rationale to bench and bar and es-tablishes guideposts for future cases

— it is of little help if the opinion is oblique. Likewise, if a brief is not clear, its purpose is not met. A court wants to ascertain the precise issue and the logic that leads to the correct result. If a sen-tence has to be reread to be understood, the reader is frustrated. Such writing is not clear enough. It is of no use if the reader cannot be sure what you mean, or cannot tell if you mean A or B.

Simple words are most clear and least confusing. If $50 words have a place, it is a small place. A good writer uses “after” instead of “subsequent to,” and “because” instead of “in light of the fact that.” Understanding is also promoted by using names or roles, not abstractions. “Party of the first part” has no place in a brief, and call-ing someone “the appellant” tells the reader only that this person lost in the previous round.

Clarity is advanced by concise writing — “brief” is not a misnomer. The average sentence has 17 words — make that a ceiling, not a floor. You may explain in detail at some point, but there should first be a condensed version that allows comprehension of what you are going to explain. More words lead to more vagaries, creating more latitude for different readers to understand your meaning differently.

The good opinion and the good brief both allow the reader to grasp the matter early. A helpful exercise: write several sentences about the subject, then rewrite the same sentences us-ing 20 percent less words. This is par-ticularly worthwhile if you can shorten your statement of the issues — less truly is more there. Framing the issue is crucial, but trying to squeeze your argument into that framing is normally a bad idea.

Judges do not want to read what they already know. Do not start a brief with Marbury v. Madison; history les-sons and odes to the Constitution are as helpful as telling a motorist asking directions how the car was invented. While opinions sometimes trace the development of the law, opinions have a different purpose. A brief should get to the point. Do not write about the ir-relevant — if the issue concerns jury in-

structions, the court does not want the dates of all the pretrial motions.

Wordiness is perhaps the biggest sin of legal writing, and judges are not immune. Most of my editing of rough drafts from clerks involves deletion of words, adjectives, sentences and whole paragraphs. If I could edit briefs, I would chop a quarter of nearly all of them, and three quarters of some. If you cannot write succinctly, you are in trouble.

Concise writing should strive to eliminate redundancy, exaggeration, verbosity, hyperbole and redundancy. Limit introductory phrases (“I should like to point out that...”), redundancies (“the reason was because...”), string cites and long block quotes. Footnotes should be minimized because they in-terrupt the reader. The use of “and/or” is an ambiguity on its face — which do you mean? Finally, a personal pet peeve — after writing a number, do not put numerals in parentheses. A judge who reads “twenty-five” does not need an added “(25)” to comprehend the number.

Cousin to wordiness is overstate-ment, the next biggest sin. Words that may light up a jury argument will not work in a brief. Calling the case a tragedy of epic proportions is going to evoke only a dismissive chuckle from a judge who sees and reads of bad things all the time. Hyperbole is annoying and almost condescending.

Write in English — not Latin, not

J. Michael Eakin

(Continued on Page 10)

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

10

legalese. You are not writing to impress the reader with your erudition; you are writing to persuade. You paid a lot of money to learn big legal words, but so did the reader. Your writing should not be in slang, but it should avoid preten-tious and ceremonial language.

Specialization in the practice of law creates jargon. Clear writing mini-mizes that jargon and its neighbor, the acronym, as much as possible. These terms are often awkward for readers who may not be fluent in that specialty. Shorthand is counterproductive if the reader has to stop to translate it.

Metaphors and analogies can be good tools, but be sure they are apt and understandable. Do not say “fig leaf” if you mean “olive branch” — both are biblical, but they evoke very different visuals. As someone pointed out, even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed. Again, understanding is the goal, and a well-conceived analogy can evoke helpful pictures in the reader’s mind.

Civility of tone is mandatory. You

can be firm and zealous, and take issue with your opponent, but there is little to be gained by castigating the other side — if it is apparent they deserve it, you do not need to do so; if it is not ap-parent, you will be seen as whining and bitter. We are professionals and should not be treating our work as ice hockey in business suits. Write as a profession-al, not a scorched earth advocate.

Finally, proofread for typos and for content. Opinions are vetted by many, which is not always the case with briefs. Have non-lawyers read for com-prehension — if civilians do not under-stand what you are talking about, it is not clear enough. Too many errors — typographical or contextual — bespeak sloppiness and may give rise to a pre-sumption that your reasoning may be sloppy as well. It also shows a certain disregard for the product given the court, and disregard can indicate dis-respect.

A typo will not cost you the case, but it will distract a professional read-er, which hampers your persuasive efforts, and a significant mistake may find its way to my PowerPoint pre-sentation on “What NOT to do on Ap-peal.” That is something you want to avoid!

Courts just want to be right — to the advocate that means, of course, your result. If you want to guide the court there, craft your brief with an eye toward your distinct purpose and max-imize that which is important to the reader.

Justice J. Michael Eakin was elected to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 2001, after serving six years on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In November, he was retained for another 10-year term in a statewide election. He served three terms as District Attorney of Cumberland County from 1984 to 1995, served as president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys As-sociation from 1992 to 1993, and was that organization’s Education Chair for nine years. In 1970, he received an undergradu-ate degree from Franklin & Marshall Col-lege, and received his law degree from the Dickinson School of Law in 1975.

Suggested citation: J. Michael Ea-kin, The Necessity of Clarity and Brev-ity in Legal Writing, JURIST - Sidebar, Dec. 29, 2011, http://jurist.org/side-bar/2011/12/michael-eakin-legal-writing.php.

The necessity of clarity, brevity in legal writing(Continued from Page 9)

comprehensive training on trafficking laws and works in coalition with other groups across Pennsylvania.

McCormick also discussed several Criminal Justice Committee projects including juvenile life without parole; a study of the death penalty; and fol-low-up on a 2011 commission report on the critical problems of indigent defense. Pennsylvania is the only state that spends no state money on the de-fense of low-income people in criminal cases.

The commission’s chair of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Rights Committee, Helen E. Casale, discussed its primary focus of normal-

izing procedures for second parent adoptions for same-sex couples and has submitted a proposed rule to the Orphan’s Court Rules Committee. It is also working to make Family Courts the sole venue for all litigation related to the dissolution of same-sex mar-riages.

McCormick explained that the fo-cus of the Interpreter Services Commit-tee is increasing access to interpreter services for litigants with limited pro-ficiency. The three main initiatives in-clude a Shadow Program that allows fledgling interpreters to shadow certi-fied interpreters, a focus on recruiting interpreters outside Philadelphia, and working with the Language Access Task Force of the Philadelphia Bar As-sociation.

Wilkinson spoke on the work of the Equal Opportunity and Diversity

Committee, which is focused on ensur-ing that diversity is a consideration in court appointments and employment. The committee has submitted pro-posed amendments to the Pennsylva-nia Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit-ing discrimination and harassment by judges and court employees.

Lastly, Marks spoke about the ef-forts of the Jury Service Committee to increase diversity on juries and encour-aging people to serve. The committee is conducting meetings across the state to collect data on the racial and ethnic makeup of juries since little data is available.

Suzanne Almeida is a law clerk with Penn-sylvanians for Modern Courts, a non-par-tisan, nonprofit organization.

Commission works toward equal justice in Pa.(Continued from Page 7)

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

11

Part I: Jewish debtor-creditor law: Does it permit the filing for bankruptcy in the U.S. Courts?1

By Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker

From a Jewish law perspective, “halacha” (Jewish law) must be applied in the first instance to a dispute involv-ing Jews.2 Business disputes within the Jewish community are, therefore, generally governed by Jewish law, and they are correspondingly required to be adjudicated by a Jewish court (beit din). However, there is room for appli-cation of secular/civil law to a Jewish dispute. U.S. debtor-creditor and bank-ruptcy law may arguably be invoked under the precepts of dina demalchuta dina (the law of the land is the law) and minhag socharim (merchants’ practice). Further, many of the policies and sub-stantive provisions comprising both Jewish and U.S. debtor-creditor/bank-ruptcy law are similar. Together, these concepts provide credible support for application of such civil law to a Jewish debtor with Jewish creditors as consis-tent with halacha.

In this context, a basic question that arises is whether a Jew may file for bankruptcy protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and obtain a dis-charge of debts owed to a Jewish credi-tor. While there is no halachic equiva-lent to a bankruptcy discharge, there are Jewish laws and concepts that can be applied to resolve this issue.

Under Jewish law, the Torah re-quires a debtor to repay a debt in per-petuity. This obligation is a mitsvat asei (positive biblical commandment) based on a verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:36, which states:

You shall have scales of justice, stones of justice, dry and liquid measures of justice; I am Hashem, your G-d, who took you out of the land of Egypt.

While this verse does not clearly state in its pshat (plain meaning) that a debt must be repaid, it is read into the

verse by the oral tradition. This law ap-pears to be creditor-friendly.

The Torah also clearly provides for the shmita (sabbatical) year, which op-erates to automatically cancel debts every seven years. In Dvarim (Deuter-onomy) 15:1-2, the Torah states:

At the end of every seven years, you shall grant remission (shmi-ta) of debts. And this is how the remission is to be done: every creditor must give up the right to repayment of what s/he has given her/his friend; s/he cannot require her/his friend or brother/sis-ter to repay; because a general remission has been ordered by G-d.

This debt forgiveness applies to un-secured loans and does not apply to se-cured debt, unsecured trade debt, wag-es, damages, return of usury, thieves’ debts, judgment debts (even with re-spect to unsecured loans), debts not collectable prior to the shmita year and debts turned over to rabbinic courts for collection. This law appears to be debtor-friendly, although arguably its purpose is to acknowledge that all in this world belongs to G-d. This is evi-denced by the fact that it applies to all debtors, whether poor or rich. Regard-less, the shmita law does provide relief to debtors, despite the positive com-mandment to repay debts. This is fur-ther supported by the verse that warns the creditor not to refrain from lending immediately prior to the shmita year. In fact, the term “shmita” is derived from the root “shamat,” that also forms the basis for the modern Hebrew term for a bankrupt or insolvent entity, known as a “shamtan.”

The Torah includes many other laws that favor the debtor. For example, a creditor is prohibited from entering the debtor’s home to take collateral and

must wait outside for the debtor to pro-vide it, cannot take a debtor’s essential possessions as collateral and must re-turn the collateral by sundown. A cred-itor is also prohibited from pursuing collection activity from a debtor who cannot repay, and a debtor’s food and tools of her/his trade cannot be taken in repayment of a debt. In addition, a creditor is not permitted to talk with a debtor under certain circumstances, to avoid embarrassment. The Torah abso-lutely prohibits involuntary servitude as a form of debt repayment. Servitude is biblically imposed only on a theft-re-lated debt, and like a loan, servitude is extinguished by the shmita year. More-over, even if a servant decides to stay after the shmita year, the servitude is ultimately abolished by the yovel (ju-bilee) year. The freedom provided by the Jubilee year was considered so im-portant to those who founded the U.S. laws that the biblical verse about this year from Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:10 – “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all inhabitants thereof” – is inscribed in the Liberty Bell in Phila-delphia.

Other prophylactic provisions pro-tecting the poor include the require-ment that an impoverished day worker be paid her/his wages on that same day. If an employer owes money to an employee in the form of wages or dam-ages, the employee-creditor can seize the employer’s property on the con-dition that the employee immediately justify her/his claim in court.

The most well-known of protec-tive measures for borrowing debtors is the Torah’s prohibition on the charging of interest among Jews. Nevertheless, in order to encourage the making of loans and thereby provide assistance to debtors in need, a rabbinic construct, known as heter iska (permissive edict regarding business matters) was insti-tuted to effectively permit the charging of interest among Jews through an in-vestment construct. Loans are favored over charity, as permitting a debtor to

(Continued on Page 12)

independently flourish. In fact, lending money is considered a greater mitzvah (namely, fulfillment of a higher level biblical commandment) than giving charity. To further protect all parties, especially the needy and weaker bor-rower, the rabbinic authorities insti-tuted the requirements of witnessing or documentation, even when the loan is entered into between honest friends.

Similarly, in order to further en-courage creditors to lend money, the rabbinic authorities enacted a construct called prosbul, which constitutes a sym-bolic transfer of power to collect a pri-vate debt to the beit din or public do-main, so that the debt collection would be exempt from being extinguished by the shmita year. Ironically, this rabbinic measure – which, like the permissive interest provision of heter iska, was en-acted on behalf of debtors – counteracts the Torah provision for the discharge of debts through shmita.

In addition to shmita, there are oth-er non-bankruptcy sources in Jewish law supporting the discharge of debt among Jews. The concept of yeush (de-spair) has been applied to debts, with different opinions as to its viability. Where a person believes that s/he will not recover a lost object, this consti-tutes the legal concept of yeush. If the object is found after yeush takes place, it belongs to the finder. Arguably, if a creditor believes that s/he will not be repaid, this constitutes yeush over the satisfaction of the debt obligation, which legal entitlement is thereby nul-lified in the same manner that owner-ship of an object is nullified by yeush. For example, if an apple is lost, and the owner despairs of ever finding it, even if s/he finds it the next day, the apple belongs to the person who found it in the interim. Similarly, if a credi-tor despairs of ever getting paid, yeush should apply to release the debt (back to the debtor).

Rabbi Yosef Caro, the author of the Shulchan Aruch (the Code of Jew-ish Law which codifies the legal pre-cepts discussed in the Talmud, Mishna and related rabbinic writings) holds

that yeush does not per se discharge a debt. Most rabbinic authorities appear to agree that the mere fact that a debtor appears to have become impoverished does not cause yeush. Rabbi Moshe Is-serlis (known as the Rama, whose com-mentary to the Shulchan Aruch is fol-lowed by Ashkenazi Jews) explains that, although lenders are always aware of the fact that a debt may not be repaid, it cannot be said that via this knowledge, all creditors despair of repayment. On the other hand, the Rama (among oth-ers) also holds that where circumstanc-es would lead any reasonable creditor to despair, such as where the debtor’s fields are ruined by floods, yeush is at-tributed to the creditor, and the debt is thus discharged.

In contrast, a third school of thought is reflected by the Imrei Bina (Rabbi Meir Auerbach), a more contemporary rab-binic authority, who holds that a debt is generally discharged whenever the creditor despairs of repayment, even if this despair results from the mere fact of the debtor having been rendered impoverished. The only exception is if the yeush results from a debtor’s inten-tionally wrongful act, such as the mere refusal to repay. Therefore, as noted by Professor Steven Resnicoff, applying the yeush concept to a Jewish creditor of a Jewish debtor who files under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the creditor might despair of ever being repaid, as a result of the fact that the debtor’s debts are being discharged as against non-Jewish creditors, and the debtor is receiving a fresh start under the civil law. On the other hand, if there is no halachic discharge between the Jewish debtor and creditor, the creditor might still hope to be repaid after the debtor’s civil discharge, thus obviating any yeush.

Another concept supporting the application of civil bankruptcy law among Jews, is the halachic principle of dina demalchuta dina (the law of the land is the law). This principle implies the obligation of Jews to follow local civil monetary regulations in Jewish courts. The Rama and modern-day authori-ties apply this principle broadly to all matters of civil regulation. However, it does not apply where the civil law vio-lates halacha. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, among others, appears to have accept-

ed this broad definition of this princi-ple and, on such basis, also approved the bankruptcy arrangement made in a case involving a Swiss corporation.

A bankruptcy arrangement is also supported by the concept of minhag socharim (merchants’ practice) another halachic principle, which asserts that contractors informally condition their agreements according to established civil commercial practice. As dis-cussed, one may assume that a lender understands that a debtor may declare bankruptcy and not repay the debt. In fact, most loan documents include bankruptcy as a default under the agreement. A 16th-century tshuva (Jew-ish law response) records a case where objecting lenders were forced to agree to a discharge agreement with the ma-jority of the creditors. This decision appears to have been limited to a case where the debtor is impoverished with no means to repay.

In keeping with the concepts of dina demalchuta dina and minhag socharim, if one examines the policies and provi-sions of U.S. bankruptcy law, one can find concepts that are similar to those provided by Jewish law.

The two fundamental policies un-derlying the U.S. bankruptcy law are to provide a “fresh start” for debtors, but also a fair distribution to creditors according to their order of priority as provided by law, and pro rata among those of the same rank. This policy dif-fers from Jewish law in that there is a fairer balance between the interests of debtors and creditors. Of course, the very fact of discharge weighs in favor of the debtor. Under Jewish law, the balance tips more in favor of the credi-tor in the first instance, with the burden of repayment attaching to the debtor. However, the repayment obligation is counter-balanced by the reprieve pro-vided by shmita, which is then negated by prosbul, but ultimately brought into line with civil law by dina demalchuta dina and minhag socharim. U.S. bank-ruptcy law provides for the interests of both parties and is designed to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy system by debtors and creditors alike.

Part II of this article, which will ap-

12

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

Part I: Jewish debtor- creditor law(Continued from Page 11)

(Continued on Page 13)

pear in the next issue of Voices & Views, will provide an overview and compari-son of U.S. bankruptcy law to Jewish debtor-creditor law.

Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker of E. Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker LLC is a member of the PBA Commission on Women in the Profes-sion and focuses her practice in the areas of corporate and bankruptcy law. Her firm is a certified WBE, servicing Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.

1 Copyright © 2012 by E. Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker, Esquire. All rights reserved. Reprinted with the permis-sion of the Brandeis Law Society with some revisions and without footnotes to achieve brevity. This edition of the newsletter contains the first half of this article, which focuses on Jewish debt-or-creditor law; the second half will be printed in the next edition of this news-letter and will discuss U.S. bankruptcy law.

2 I would like to thank Rabbi Margot Stein, a co-panelist at a Continuing Le-gal Education course on this topic, for her assistance in providing me with a

large portion of the Jewish sources that form the basis for this article. In ad-dition, I would like to specifically ac-knowledge two articles by Steven H. Resnicoff, professor, DePaul Univer-sity College of Law, which were very helpful in the drafting of this article, namely, Bankruptcy Law - A Viable Hala-chic Option? XXIV Journal of Halacha & Contemporary Society 5 (Fall 1992) and Viewpoint: A Jewish Law Perspective on the Propriety of Discharging Personal Debts, Bankruptcy Court Decisions: Weekly News and Comment (Feb. 3, 1998). Resnicoff also has rabbinic ordi-nation.

13

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

Part I: Jewish debtor- creditor law(Continued from Page 12)

Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE EDITORIAL POLICY

Voices & Views is a publication of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) Commission on Women in the Profession and is published by the Communications Committee three times per year. The purpose of the publica-tion is to facilitate communication among the membership of the Commission on topics and events of general interest to women lawyers. The editors of Voices & Views reserve the right to accept or reject any submission and to edit any submission to ensure its suitability for publication, its adherence to the Mission Statement of the Commu-nications Committee and its furtherance of the objectives of the Commission on Women in the Profession.

The articles and reports contained in Voices & Views reflect the views of the writer and do not necessarily represent the position of the Commission, the editors of Voices & Views, or the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

MISSION STATEMENT

It is the mission of the PBA WIP Communications Committee to foster improved communication among its members in the furtherance of the goals of the Commission. To this end, the publication, Voices & Views, pro-vides a forum for professional and open exchange among the WIP membership on all issues related to women and the law. Voices & Views shall be utilized for the following purposes:

• To publicize opportunities and events that may be of interest to the WIP membership;• To provide information to the membership on topics that may be of general interest to women lawyers;• To reach a wider audience and increase the visibility of the Commission;• To inform the WIP membership of the projects and goals of the Commission; and• To share information with the WIP membership regarding accomplishments of the members, other

women lawyers and public figures.

14

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

PBA Board of Governors Retreat and Reorganization Meeting

Report of At-Large Woman Governor

By Melinda C. Ghilardi, PBA At-Large Woman Governor

On June 21, I officially began the first of my three years as the at-large woman governor on the Pennsylvania Bar Association Board of Governors. I am very excited to serve as the rep-resentative of women in the PBA on the Board of Gover-nors. I follow in the footsteps of my predecessors including Cheryl L. Young, retired state Rep. Kathy Manderino, Peni-na Lieber and former Penn-sylvania Supreme Court Jus-tice Cynthia Baldwin.

There was little business to be transacted at our reor-ganization meeting in Cape May, N.J. The board liaison assign-ments were distributed. I am assigned to the Commission on Women in the Profession (of course) and the Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities Committee. Additionally, I have been designated to serve on three board committees, including the Executive Committee (for the fourth quarter), Finance Committee, chaired by our very own Phyllis Horn Epstein, and Nominating Committee, where I will

be joined by WIP members Renee My-ers and Lisa Watson. I am learning that there are WIP members everywhere in the PBA!

The board also reappointed all committees, an action required by the PBA bylaws, and considered appoint-ments to the Pennsylvania Bar Insur-

ance and Trust Fund as well as the PABAR-PAC. WIP Co-Chair Jane Dalton was ap-pointed vice chair of the trust for a two-year term. We also approved a recommendation presented by the PBA Work-ers’ Compensation Section to give section delegates in the House the right to vote and to appeal the ruling of the chair. The WIP Executive

Council discussed this recommenda-tion at its April meeting and decided not to take a position on the matter. Fi-nally, we discussed a recommendation introduced by the PBA Military and Veterans Affairs Committee to approve a resolution in support of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Armed Forces Law to urge Congress not to pass H.R. 3435, the Sexual As-sault Training Oversight and Preven-tion Act (the “STOP Act”). The board

postponed voting on this recommen-dation until its July meeting in order to gather further information.

In addition to the reorganization meeting, I attended an orientation for new board members conducted by WIP member and Past PBA President Gretchen Mundorff; a review of board members responsibilities conducted by WIP member and PBA Secretary Peni-na Lieber and PBA Zone Two Gover-nor Bill Scott; and a session on leader-ship and group dynamics, led by Capt. William Kelly, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard Training Base in Cape May, and Roy Steinberg, execu-tive director of the Cape May Stage.

My stay in Cape May ended with a light lunch at the home of PBA Presi-dent Tom Wilkinson and his wife, Kathleen Wilkinson, a WIP member and chancellor-elect of the Philadel-phia Bar Association.

The board met again on July 27 in conjunction with the PBA Young Law-yers Division Summer Meeting/New Admittee Conference. I plan to update you on the details of that meeting in the next issue of Voices & Views. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions about the Board of Governors.

Member Benefit: EducationDo you know?

Continuing Legal Education — Through the PBA’s partnership with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI), CLE is offered to members at substantial savings. Courses are made available throughout the year at a variety of convenient locations and online. Members receive discount coupons to attend PBI CLE seminars.

Commission members in the newsPhyllis Horn Epstein of Epstein, Shapiro & Epstein PC spoke at a seminar on June 4 sponsored by the National Business Institute on the subject of non-profit organization m a n a g e m e n t and the receipt of donations in the form of cash, artwork and other property. The impact of Sarbanes Oxley on non-profit management and internal policy making was discussed along with guidance on developing investment policy. In addition, on May 22, Epstein spoke at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s seminar titled, “The Family of Laws,” highlighting the tax aspects of a family law practice. Epstein spoke about the tax implications of filing joint or separate returns, the tax impact of alimony and property transfers and the potential for tax liability for separated and divorced couples.

***

The Center for Women in Law at the University of Texas School of Law recently announced that Roberta D. Liebenberg has been selected to serve as one of the center’s inaugural Leaders-In-Residence.

Liebenberg is a senior partner at Fine, Kaplan and Black in Philadelphia, where she focuses her practice on class actions, antitrust and complex commercial litigation. Liebenberg has held leadership roles in numerous organizations focused on the advancement of women in the legal profession and played a key leadership role in countless national initiatives. From 2008-2011, Liebenberg served as chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, whose first chair was

Hillary Rodham Clinton. Under her leadership, the Commission focused a spotlight on how implicit bias affects every aspect of a woman lawyer’s career by presenting several CLE webinars on this important topic and providing implicit bias training to law firms. In addition, the Commission held a Women in Law Leadership Academy to provide young women lawyers with the skills needed to become leaders in the profession.

The Leaders-in-Residence Pro-gram seeks to integrate women of national and local prominence into the Center for Women in Law and to expand the center’s reach and prominence in the legal community. In collaboration with the executive director, Leaders-in-Residence will develop and implement one or more new programs for the center, serve as representatives of the center at national events and conferences, and strengthen relationships between national leaders and the center.

Voices & Views Summer 2012Voices & Views

Copyright© 2012 by the pbA Commission on Women in the profession.15

Mark your calendars for these upcoming PBA eventsWorkers’ Compensation Law Section Fall Meeting

Sept. 13-14Hershey Lodge, Hershey

7th Annual Diversity SummitOct. 26

Omni William Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh

Commission on Women in the Profession Fall Retreat

Nov. 2-3The Hotel Hershey, Hershey

Board of Governors MeetingNov. 14

Holiday Inn East, Harrisburg

Committee/Section DayNov. 15

Holiday Inn East, Harrisburg

House of Delegates MeetingNov. 16

Sheraton Harrisburg Hershey Hotel, Harrisburg

Family Law Section Winter MeetingJan. 18-20, 2013

The Westin Convention Center, Pittsburgh

Midyear MeetingJan. 30-Feb. 3, 2013

Westin St. Maarten Dawn Beach Resort & Spa, Phillipsburg, St. Maarten

Conference of County Bar LeadersFeb. 21-23, 2013

The Nittany Lion Inn, State College

Committee/Section DayApril 11, 2013

Radisson Hotel Harrisburg, Camp Hill