An empirical analysis of the perceived effectiveness and credibility of women trial lawyers

Abstract

A group of 188 undergraduate students at the University of Arizona read three vignettes depicting a lawyer's performance at trial. The types of cases presented at trial were rape, sex discrimination, family law (divorce and child support), murder, narcotics, contracts, paternity, prostitution, and insanity. Some of the subjects read a case presented by lawyer John McKay, while others read the same case presented by lawyer Joan McKay. A multivariate analysis of variance revealed no significant differences in the perceived effectiveness and credibility of the trial lawyers, with male and female attorneys rated equally competent. The results were most encouraging for women entering the profession of law, and showed that bright undergraduate college freshmen now perceive women attorneys without sexism and with credibility.