What Katie Holmes’ Split from Tom Cruise Can Teach Us

On June 28, actress Katie Holmes allegedly “blindsided” actor Tom Cruise, her husband of five-and-a-half years, by filing for divorce.  Cruise was filming a new movie in Iceland when Holmes filed her divorce papers in New York, where she and their daughter Suri had been living. 

What made this story even more dramatic was the incredibly calculated way in which Holmes is rumored to have plotted her departure and her filing.  Most media (gossip) reports claim that weeks (if not months) prior to June 28, Holmes set the wheels in motion, using pay-as-you-go cell phones to contact attorneys, cutting off ties with joint friends, firing staff that Cruise had hired, and renting a new apartment in New York City in her name only, allegedly telling Cruise that the new apartment had certain features that allowed for more privacy, even as she allegedly was professing her love for Cruise during phone calls with him.  (Stories can be found here, here, here, here, and here, undoubtedly among many other places.)

Why Holmes chose New York rather than California as the venue for her filing could be due to one, or both, of two possible reasons, as speculated by a number of legal sources, none of whom are connected with the Holmes-Cruise case.  First, filings in California are public, while filings in New York are sealed (and Holmes purportedly petitioned for an anonymous caption).  This would allow the couple privacy as they worked through the unraveling of their marriage. Second, it was widely speculated that custody of Holmes’ and Cruise’s daughter would be an issue.  Holmes requested sole legal custody, a move many thought occurred because Holmes (raised a Catholic) wanted to remove the influence of Scientology (Cruise’s professed religion) from Suri’s life, and a New York court is more likely than a California court to grant sole custody where parents cannot agree on child rearing issues.     

Holmes and Cruise settled their divorce in 11 days and though little has been officially released about the terms, most reports agree that Holmes with have primary custody of Suri in New York and Cruise will have liberal visitation rights.  Thereafter, Holmes and Cruise released a joint statement professing their commitment to work together as parents for their daughter’s best interests.   

So, what’s there left to talk about?

What I keep coming back to again and again was not that Holmes decided to end her marriage, but how she went about doing it. 

Continue ReadingWhat Katie Holmes’ Split from Tom Cruise Can Teach Us

Women Are Still Relatively New in the Legal Profession

Recent posts by Judi McMullen and Melissa Greipp have focused on issues confronted by women in the legal profession today, and the current issue of the National Law Journal reports that in large law firms, women still account for just of 15% of equity partners.

Although women currently (as of 2011) make up 31% of all lawyers in the United States and 47% of all students at ABA-accredited law schools, the presence of large number of women in the profession is still a relatively recent phenomenon.

There have been women in the American legal profession since the 1870’s, but their numbers were miniscule until after 1945.

In the fall of 1947, women accounted for only 3.3% of law students. (The number, not surprisingly had been higher during World War II, but that was because of the dramatic drop in the number of male law students during the war.) Although the percentage declined to 2.8% in 1948 and 1949, it began to grow after that and actually reached 4.1% (1362 of 31,197) in 1952, when 4.9% of all first year law students were women.

However, the number (not just the percentage) of woman attending law school began to decline again after 1952, as traditional notions of gender-appropriate occupations were reasserted during the Cold War Era. By 1956, the percentage of women dropped to a post-1950 low of 3.0%.

Although the number increased after that, the increase was extremely modest, and the 1952 figure of 4.9% of all law students was not reached again until 1968. Although the number of female law students increased from 1061 in 1956, to 2759 in 1967, the number of male students grew from 34,177 to 58,315 during the same period.

It was in the fall of 1968 that law school enrollments first reflected the impact of the Women’s Movement. For the 1968-69 academic year, the number of female first year law students jumped from 1179 to 1742, and the percentage of all law students who were female hopped up to 6.0%. Significantly, for the first time in the decade of the 1960’s, the number of males entering law school actually declined as an absolute number between 1967 and 1968.

The number of female students increased dramatically after that, passing the “10% of all law students” mark in 1972, the 20% barrier in 1974; and the 30% level in 1978. The largest single-year jump (in percentage terms) came between 1972 and 1973, when the number of first year female law students rose from 15.7% to 20.2% of the total, and the overall number of female law student rose from 12.1% to 16.0%. (Also, in 1972, the last all-male law school, Washington and Lee, first opened it doors to female students.)

The number of women in law school as a percentage of the whole continued to increase after 1978, although the rate of increase slowed. In 1985, women made up 40% of all law students for the first time; and in 1987, the percentage went permanently over that mark.

The percentage of women peaked at 49.0% in 2001 and 2002, and has declined slightly over the course of the past decade. During the 2011-12 academic year, women made up 46.7% of law students.

There were female students at the Milwaukee Law School in the 1890’s, and when Marquette took over the Milwaukee Law School in 1908, there were several women in the evening law program. Unfortunately, the law school does not have records of the number of female law students in its student body in individual years, but those figures could be reconstructed from the records of the University Registrar. However, the existing evidence suggests that Marquette’s pattern has generally tracked that of other ABA accredited law schools.

Note: All of the statements above that refer to “law schools,” refer actually refer only to ABA-accredited law schools. Outside of California, the vast majority of American law schools are ABA-accredited. In 1947, the number of ABA-accredited law schools was 111; by 2011, it was 201.

Continue ReadingWomen Are Still Relatively New in the Legal Profession

State v. Stevens: Reaffirming Blum on No Precedential Value of Overruled Court of Appeals Cases – With a Caveat

Precedent and authority are concepts with which students become familiar early in law school and grow to appreciate even more in practice. Law students learn to look to details such as jurisdiction, court hierarchy, status of a decision as published or unpublished, dates of decisions, and subsequent treatment and build on these foundations to evaluate precedential value and weight of authority. Students and legal researchers in Wisconsin had to rethink some of what had been considered established principles regarding precedent after the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced in Blum that court of appeals decisions that it overruled retained no precedential value absent an express statement that portions of a decision were left intact. Today, the court in State v. Stevens reaffirmed the holding in Blum, but did so with the caveat that courts may have to determine whether an opinion was really intended to overrule all of a decision or only a portion thereof when applying the rule retroactively.

In Blum v. 1st Auto Casualty & Insurance Co., 2010 WI 78, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78, a decision issued two years ago tomorrow, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held “that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.”¶ 42. The court discussed several public policy and practical considerations that it deemed would be served by this “bright-line rule nullifying the precedential value of an overruled court of appeals decision.” ¶ 51. The court viewed the rule as one that would help eliminate confusion that had grown regarding precedential value of reversed and overruled opinions and that “clarifies the law for the public as a whole.” ¶ 55.

Continue ReadingState v. Stevens: Reaffirming Blum on No Precedential Value of Overruled Court of Appeals Cases – With a Caveat