We definitely get a lot of questions about our decision to represent women only and, because it’s unusual, we get it! One of the first questions we get – often when a man inadvertently calls our office – is “Isn’t that discrimination?”
What they mean isn’t to really ask whether it is discrimination; by definition, it is. To discriminate is, by definition, to use discretion. Right? We discriminate in the sense that we use our discretion in deciding whether to take a particular case or represent a particular client. Though there are women whose cases we may choose not to take, for one reason or another, we always choose not to represent men. In that sense, it is discrimination.
The question isn’t, though, whether it is or isn’t discrimination. The question is are we legally allowed to do it. While we can’t discriminate, for example, on the basis of sex when it comes to someone applying to work with us, we can discriminate when it comes to whether we will take a case or represent a client.
There’s nothing in our state bar code of conduct or the Virginia Code or the Constitution or whatever other legal authority you want to cite that prevents us – attorneys, all attorneys, any attorney – from deciding what cases to take and which clients to represent. We choose to represent women exclusively.
What does it mean to represent women only?
It’s kind of a big decision! We know, for example, simply by virtue of doing this work that things that might be possible for other attorneys – like judgeships, Guardian ad litem work, and more – will not be professional avenues that are available to us.
We do it, though, because the mission is important to us. Because we see the need.
If you asked each of us in turn – attorneys, paralegals, and support staff – we would probably all have different answers. I don’t want to speak out of turn by answering for someone else.
I will say, though, that for myself, conviction was something that came about gradually. I was quickly surprised, though, at how much domestic violence existed and at the ways that many husbands – even the seemingly “good” guys in my community that I knew – went out of their way to keep their wives burdened by the ever-increasing domestic labor. The ways they kept her small and vulnerable. The lengths they’d go to exploit her weaknesses, usually through her children.
To me, it’s a problem on a macro level – the fact that there is little to no mandated paid maternity (or paternity leave), that we can’t afford access to childcare, that there’s a wage gap that increases when a woman has children, etc – that becomes a bigger problem on a micro level, within women’s actual homes. When women are forced to choose between paying for childcare and working a job, and then penalized for it when it comes time to divorce. When women are kept in lesser paying but more flexible jobs, while their husbands succeed, and then struggling to navigate the spousal support she needs. When women are so much more likely, post-divorce, to live in poverty. There are a million issues, but, to me, it has screamed that women-only representation is the path for me.
It’s also a question of making arguments. How can I advocate on Monday for a victim of domestic violence and on Tuesday for a perpetrator? The lines are too blurry; the support too conditional. I couldn’t do it. I won’t do it. And, so, here I am.
But why the outrage about women only?
It’s interesting. In my immediate area, there are two men only law firms. A friend of mine from childhood used to work at one of those firms. She told me how funny it was that she’d see the comments on our page about discrimination, and why we wouldn’t offer the same services for fathers, etc., but she never saw anything like that on their end.
There are many men-only resources, advocates, attorneys, and groups. And it’s true. In my searches, I’ve not seen the same scathing commentary about the decision to represent, educate, or support men exclusively that we experience representing women exclusively.
Why? Well, I think, in general, it is safer to be a man-only advocate. Men have, generally, more money and more power in society, compared to many women. So it’s safe. It’s easy. And, hey, it pays the bills.
But there isn’t the same level of support for women-exclusive representation. Why? I think it comes down to the fact that it’s threatening to our larger systemic structure. We’re not kind to women as a society. We have impossibly high standards, especially for wives and mothers. We put women on a pedestal when they’re self-sacrificing, but we’re quick to condemn when they don’t live up to impossible standards.
In short, it’s a tough gig. And not everyone supports it. But that’s not why it’s not valuable. It’s why the work is invaluable and why it’s so important to me, at least, to do it.
Not everyone has to like it. In fact, I think that’s often the case when you do the right thing for the right reasons. It’s not easy. It’s not popular. It challenges other people who are tempted to take the easy way out. It doesn’t scream, “Pick me!”
But, in short, and to summarize:
Yes, we are allowed to represent women only.
Yes, we are allowed to decide, even amongst women, what cases and which clients we will accept.
Yes, we can exclude men.
No, the Virginia Code does not disallow this. Neither does our state ethics code of conduct. (See also: men only firms.)
But, also, if this bothers you, maybe ask yourself why. You might learn something.
For more information, to request a copy of one of our books for Virginia women facing a divorce or custody case, to schedule a consultation, or to register for an upcoming seminar, visit our website at hoflaw.com or give us a call at 757-425-5200.