Ipse Dixit


Jordana Goodman on Authorship Credit and the Gender Gap

Season 1, Ep. 759

In this episode, Jordana Goodman, Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor at the Boston University School of Law, discusses her new article Ms. Attribution: How Authorship Credit Contributes to the Gender Gap.  She argues that misattribution in the authorship of legal work disparately impacts underrepresented members of the legal profession, with a focus on women in patent law.  In her article, Professor Goodman reports empirical findings from a large novel dataset of agency actions and responses during the patent examination process in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  She also addresses the larger professional and cultural implications of these findings and proposes reforms.  Professor Goodman’s article is forthcoming in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology and is available on SSRN.  She is on Twitter at @Jordi_Goodman.

This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor in the School of Law and Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University.  Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors.

Disclosure:  Professors Goodman and Vishnubhakat are now collaborating on a follow-up paper that explores the gender gap among attorneys in administrative patent litigation before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

More Episodes


Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted byBrian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at@brianlfrye.