Go back to this issue index page
March/April 2007

FROM THE EDITOR


By MICHELLE HOOGENDAM CASH
Pemberton Legal Search

Everyday Role Models

I can remember exactly when I decided to become a lawyer. It was the summer after I finished the 6th grade. I was watching the Democratic National Convention on television, and Barbara Jordan was giving the keynote address. I was glued to the set. I do not remember having a party affiliation or really caring one way or the other about whether the Democrats or Republicans won the election. Instead, I vividly remember thinking that Barbara Jordan – a woman – was holding a position of respect, authority, and power in our country. That fact struck me to the core. If she could go to law school and become a leader in our nation, then so could I! At that moment, I decided to become a lawyer.

Today, we see female and African American justices on the United States Supreme Court. The Speaker of the House is a woman, and the Attorney General is a Hispanic lawyer from Texas. Legitimate contenders for the presidential nomination include a woman and an African American. Beyond government, people of color and women are holding positions of leadership and authority. Sixth graders today can see more possibilities than I could have imagined.

In the legal workplace, young lawyers who see successful lawyers of color and women working for their employers will believe that they also have a shot at success in that environment. If not, then they may doubt whether they can thrive there and may leave to pursue their goals elsewhere. Employers that ensure inclusiveness and empower individual lawyers to achieve their goals will be a step ahead in the competitive race for talent.

In this special issue of The Houston Lawyer, we focus on issues relating to diversity and in-house practice. Kate McCormick’s article, “The Evolution of Workplace Diversity,” discusses practical and legal issues surrounding workplace diversity initiatives. Gender Fairness Committee Co-Chair Debra Baker’s article entitled “Gender Fairness – Four Years Later,” looks at issues discussed by leaders of law firms and corporate legal departments four years after employers signed the HBA’s Gender Fairness Statement. Ken McKay and Mark Chavez examine the issue of attorney-client privilege as it relates to in-house lawyers in their article entitled “Does Membership have its Privileges? Attorney-Client Privilege Issues Unique to In-House Counsel.” 

We also are pleased to include a roundtable conversation among five Houston in-house lawyers: Carolyn Benton Aiman of Shell Oil Company, Sarah McConnell, recently of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Steven Meisgeier of El Paso Corporation, Arturo Michel from the City of Houston, and Kwame Satchell with Chevron. These attorneys provide a candid perspective on issues related to in-house practice and diversity.

Our final feature is a diversity resources list, which identifies national and local bar associations and other web-based resources on diversity issues.

Finally, I would like to thank editorial board member Tamara Stiner, who served as a guest co-editor for this issue. Her assistance on this issue was invaluable.

 

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

Mr. Kaplan’s letter [published in the January-February 2007 issue, p.8] argues that eBay is “revolutionary” because it renders uncertain inventors’ “constitutionally-based right to exclude,” which he believes is grounded in Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. That is an interesting point, but I do not think that it is one that was before the Supreme Court in eBayeBay was, at bottom, a case of statutory construction. The Supreme Court decided whether the Patent Act’s provision that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity” meant that Congress intended that the traditional four-part test for permanent injunctions would apply, and whether general rules either favoring or disfavoring injunctions in certain kinds of patent cases were consistent with what Congress intended. As mentioned in the article, over the last 60 years, the Supreme Court has similarly construed the remedial provisions of several other statutes to determine if Congress intended to override the traditional equitable requirements for injunctions. Seen in this light, eBay was not revolutionary, but fairly routine.

The point I think Mr. Kaplan makes is broader: whether the Patent Act’s language invoking equity’s discretion to grant or deny injunctions unconstitutionally limits the rights set forth in Article I, § 8.  In my view, eBay’s limited statutory holding does not appear to preclude such an argument from being raised in a future case.

Thomas L. Casagrande
Howrey LLP

 


< BACK TO TOP >