Contact Info

SOUTH BAY OFFICE

1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Tel: (310) 702-4182
Fax: (310) 725-0911
E-mail: Laura L. Thatcher

VALLEY OFFICE

9108 Balboa Blvd. #535
Northridge, CA 91325
Tel: (310) 706-4182
Fax: (310) 356-3149
E-mail: Sarah Jane Robinson

Subscribe

Posts Tagged ‘Legal News’

You’ve Come A Long Way Baby, Or Have You?: Thoughts on Women in the Legal Profession

This month marks several milestones in the history of women in the legal profession.  On July 7, 1981 President Ronald Regan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to be the first female Supreme Court Justice.  This week, the senate is conducting  hearings to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the third female Supreme Court Justice in history. And today I officially and formally open the doors of my solo practice, The Law Offices of Laura L.Thatcher.  So, in honor of these milestones, I thought it an appropriate time to share my thoughts on women in the law.

When I went to law school in the 1990s, at least half of my graduating class were women.  It seemed to me at the time that there was, and should be, no difference between my male colleagues and myself.  What a remarkable difference from Justice O’Conner’s experience.   Although Justice O’Connor graduated third in a class of 102 from Stanford Law School in 1952, no law firm in California was willing to hire her as a lawyer due to her gender, although one firm did offer her a position as a legal secretary!

Although my experience as a new lawyer coming out of law school was far different from Justice O’Connor’s, I still faced challenges due to my gender. My first job  as an associate attorney was working for a small law firm. Of the three partners, one was a woman and three of the four associates were female. Great, I thought, I’ll certainly find a fantastic mentoring experience here.  This was not the case.  The partner had risen through the ranks of male dominated firms and learned through hazing and trials by fire.  My partner thought that if she had to do it, so should I.  (I should note that I did  find a fantastic fellow female associate at that firm who did mentor me through the challenges of my first year of practice).

I recently read an interesting article by Patricia Gillette regarding the “Dorothy Principle” named after the leadership qualities possessed by Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.   http://tiny.cc/r5gHI Although women are natural leaders, we do not take enough credit for our leadership skills or our accomplishments or ask for promotion when deserved. Therefore, we are often overlooked when it comes to career advancements or assignments to key cases for prominent clients. It seems that females in the legal profession (and probably throughout all walks of life) do ourselves a disservice.  Those in positions of authority are often reluctant or non-existent mentors and we often fail to promote our own accomplishments.  We also continue to face prejudice from our male counterparts.

Even President Obama has added fuel to this fiery problem.  In seeking a nominee for the Supreme Court, he announced that empathy is one of the qualities which would be a litmus test for his nomination.  His pick for a nominee – 2ndDistrict Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  Judge Sotomayer has received criticism because of this empathy standard. However, as the New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote:  “People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.” http://tiny.cc/yf1Ht

The saddest comment of all came courtesy of G. Gordon Liddy who said on his radio broadcast:  “Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.”  Do I need to say anything more than this is simply inappropriate and offensive?

Where has this brief discourse brought us?  Back to the Law Offices of Laura L. Thatcher.  Women and men, while equally capable and skilled, are simply different.  When I set out to create my own firm, I recognized that I have to be true to myself.  One of the most basic qualities is that I am a woman; a mother, a wife and a daughter – in other words my family ties are part of what defines me.  Another defining, timely, quality is empathy.  The fact that I am an attorney is also very descriptive of who I am.  Given these qualities the type of firm I wanted became very clear.

The Law Offices of Laura L. Thatcher was founded on the principle that my community is an extension of my friends, family and neighbors. As such, I strive to provide quality legal representation as if each of my clients are friends, family and neighbors whether I have known you for years or we have only just met for an initial interview.  Please contact me if you have any legal concerns, from prenuptial agreements to estate planning to litigation, I’m happy to help and provide an empathetic ear to your problems.  I can be reached at (310) 725-0972 or lthatcher@lltlaw.net

California Court of Appeals Holds Social Networking Sites Immune from Civil Suits Arising Out of Sexual Assultof Minor User

A California Court of Appeals recently held that social networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook are immune from civil liability.  In the case of Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (filed June 30, 2009, Second District, Div. Eight,Cite as B205643O), the California Appellate Court, Second District, ruled that the social networking website could not held liable when a minor is sexually assaulted by an adult she met on its social networking website.


This decision is based on the Federal Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) which holds provides that it is the policy of the United States to promote the development of the internet and of interactive computer services and to preserve the “vibrant and competitive” free market which exists on the internet.  To that end, the law provides immunity from civil liability to internet providers who make content or information from third parties available on their site.  In order to take advantage of this immunity the MySpace, the social networking site in question, must estable three elements:  1) that the MySpace was in “interactive computer service provider”, 2) that MySpace did not provide information content, and that 3) the plaintiff (party seeking relief) was attempting to hold MySpace liable for information from a third party user of the social networking site.

In Doe v. MySpace, Inc., several teenaged girls between the ages of 13 and 15 were sexually assulted by adult men that they met on MySpace.  Although several of the male assultants were criminally prosecuted, the girls and their parents sought civil restitution from the social networking site.  The girls and their parents (“the claimants”) claim that MySpace should have done a better job of preventing underage girls from joining the site and should have instituted better safety protocols to prevent the adults from contacting the underage girls.

While the site technically limits its members to individuals who are 14 and over, there is nothing to prevent a member from lying about their age.    MySpace issues it users a privacy statement and safety protocols, it also provides parents with similiar information regarding the privacy of their minor children.  In addition, MySpace blocks searches of the accounts of members who are under 15.  Finally the MySpace Terms of Use Agreement prohibits users from soliciting personal information from members who are younger than 18.

The Appellate Court determined that, in accordance with the Federal Communications Decency Act, MySpace did not act as an “indepent publisher” of information, but rather was limited to providing access to content provided by third party users.  Thus, MySpace, and similiar social networking sites, are immune from civil liability arising out of contact made between minor account holders and other adult account holders.

From a public policy standpoint, I think that this decision makes sense.  The purpose of the law is to allow as much freedom of speech on the internet as decency allows.  To make social networking sites liable for the actions of their users would potentially discourage such sites from continuing to provide open access for those users who use them with only good intentions.  And I for one, enjoy being able to contact long lost friends through such sites, and to keep in touch with others who aren’t so long lost, but that I do not see on a daily basis.

Feel free to let me know what you think about this decision!