Firm’s ‘Ever Argue With a Woman?’ Ad Provokes Debate on Stereotypes

Legal Marketing & Consulting

Firm’s ‘Ever Argue With a Woman?’ Ad Provokes Debate on Stereotypes

Posted Jun 2, 2008, 06:28 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Updated: Do men and women argue differently? And does that make a difference in the way they work as lawyers?

That’s the suggestion of an ad by a women-owned Buffalo, N.Y., law firm that is attracting notice. Its headline: “Ever Argue With a Woman?”

The ad touts the strengths of the lawyers at Schroder Joseph Associates. Across the bottom of the ad are photos of the eight women, both lawyers and paralegals, who work at the firm. It is one of several in a campaign focusing on Schroder Joseph's representation of employers on matters of employee benefits, labor and employment.

“Five of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies cannot be wrong,” the ad says. “When they need to win their cases they rely on Schroder Joseph & Associates.”

Name partner Ginger Schroder tells ABAJournal.com that the firm hopes to generate attention with its humorous ads. "They're meant to create buzz about our practice," she says.

The AdRants blog asserts that the "argue" ad highlights differences in the way men and women fight. “Ever notice how women, when in conflict with another, or with a man for that matter, discuss the issue at great length until every last feeling is expressed?” the blog says. “Ever notice how men, when in conflict with another (but not a woman), just punch each other, offer up a fist bump or brush it off with a 'no worries, dude?' "

The blog goes on to say that men are always out to win, while women are more predisposed to discussion and compromise, an important quality when it comes to setting legal cases.

Legal Blog Watch, on the other hand, wonders if the ad is really that effective, since it reinforces gender stereotypes for some readers. The blog says the ad apparently had that effect on AdRants, which relied on the ad to “jump to the conclusion that female lawyers are more likely to settle a case.”

The “Ever Argue With a Woman?” ad is not intended to take jabs at men, Schroder says. Critics are “taking themselves way too seriously. It was meant to be fun and thought-provoking; it’s not meant to engender national debate on gender stereotypes.”

The ads were created by account executive Jennifer Dowdell of Business First magazine to aid the law firm’s branding effort. All use the same color background and the same photos of those who work at the firm: three partners, one associate and one of counsel, and three paralegals. Men have worked at the firm as law clerks, but so far none who have been offered jobs there has accepted.

The firm has so far received positive feedback from clients and others who think the ads are funny, Schroder says.

The first ad in the series reads: “Labor Pains? Talk to us. (We’re women … We get it.)” A second ad reads: “Sexual Harassment, Performance Issues, Discrimination, Dismissals and Disputes … (All in a day’s work for us.)”

A new ad scheduled to run reads: “Advice, Protection, Guidance and Support … When it comes to our clients, let’s just say our maternal instincts take over.”

Schroder says the ads are proof that lawyers can laugh at themselves. “A lot of people say lawyers don’t have a sense of humor,” she says. “I think that’s wrong.”

Corrected at 8:48 a.m. to say that the photos of the women at the law firm include lawyers and employees. Updated at 9:10 a.m. to include comments from Schroder.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by I-get-it-but... - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago

These are clever, eye-catching ads. But I don’t think the firm can brush off all criticism by saying that they are meant to be “fun,” not to “engender national debate on gender stereotypes.” Since the ads invoke gender stereotypes (e.g., re behavior of men and women in settlement negotiations), they open up a discussion of whether those stereotypes are harmful.
Posted by Bill - 4 months, 1 week, 10 hours, 22 minutes ago

They can get away with it because they’re women, and it’s OK for women to stereotype men. But if a male-dominated law firm made those types of stereotyping and generalizing comments, there would be outrage - OUTRAGE! Because, y’know - men are pigs.
Posted by I disagree - 4 months, 1 week, 9 hours, 10 minutes ago

Comment #1 seems to be a bit too willing to endulge in analysis over a clearly humorous advertisement. Look, it is an advertisement. It is intended to get your attention. In any litigation, stereotypes aren’t checked at the door, by witnesses, or their lawyers. Heck, even the judges forget to leave such baggage at home. Women face this, and the reality is it isn’t going anywhere. No, it is not right. And of course these women aren’t condoning it. I think the first comment is a bit absurd.
Posted by Carlos C. Alsina Batista - 4 months, 1 week, 8 hours, 34 minutes ago

I completely agree with Comment Number 1 and consider Comment Number 2’s criticism a bit misguided. Regardless of whatever stereotypes affect the perception of judges, lawyers or non-lawyers, their use as advertising gimmicks is just a bit distasteful. I seriously doubt that whichever traits the women personnel at Joseph Schroeder Associates have which may the object of stereotypes, is the actual source of their success. For such reason, regardless of its humorous purpose, the argument is demeaning as to their actual professional capabilities.
Plus, if you open the door for stereotypical “good traits” a person may perceive in women, how would you then refute a stereotypical comment expressing that “the personnel in such firm will be completely inefficient during a few days every month”, an utterly preposterous perception for which the door would be open, based on the same logic as the advertisement.
Posted by Frank London - 4 months, 1 week, 7 hours, 55 minutes ago

With all due respect, the ad is inappropriate. Playing up the gender difference for the benefit of a group of women should then open the door to men doing the same thing. Could you imagine the outrage of “Men work harder and don’t take time off for childbirth.” or “How many women play pro football ... women are weak.” Sexism is sexism and humor is just a veil to excuse it.
Posted by Ann Riley - 4 months, 1 week, 6 hours, 25 minutes ago

Wow, talk about taking themselves a bit too seriously. Frank, if one of the many male-dominated firms wanted to risk an advertising campaign along the lines you suggested, then let them reap the whirlwind. Any firm can showcase what makes it uniquely qualified to meet clients’ needs. I suspect that what gnaws at those who find this particular ad campaign troubling is that at the core of any stereotype, you often find a kernel of truth. That is what makes the ads effective, and well, pretty darn funny.
Posted by John G - 4 months, 1 week, 6 hours, 17 minutes ago

I think Comment 1 is right that the ads will raise questions of gender stereotypes whether the advertising law firm wants that debate or not. But that’s a different question than whether the ads themselves are offensive. As a man, I don’t find them offensive - but I would tell my prospective clients not to take them too seriously either, because there are lots of qualities that go to successful dispute resolution, and women don’t have a monopoly on even the ‘human(e)’ ones… On balance, good for the firm for leveraging their membership. No doubt there are still potential clients out there who would wonder if an all-woman firm was competent (’can they get jobs in a real firm?’) The ads at least say Think again!
Posted by Craig Martin - 4 months, 1 week, 5 hours, 37 minutes ago

Initially, I thought, what would people say if an all male firm ran similar adds, but after reading the article, I found myself chuckling at the cleverness of the ads. And, ads are supposed to make you think and remember, so this is probably well done. I agree with Comment Number 6, however, that good legal skills are not gender specific, but effort and hard work specific and no group has a monoply on that. As such, I say its great to see the diversification of the legal work force.
Posted by Carlos C. Alsina Batista - 4 months, 1 week, 5 hours, 22 minutes ago

Ann:

Although I understand your criticism on Comment Number 4, my Comment 3 above was not whether men may emphasize stereotypical traits to advertise superiority, but that it is incorrect to engage in any advertising based on gender as to a profession which qualifying attributes have nothing to do with gender.
I think the point should be well taken that such “kernel of truth” argument works both ways on any stereotypical figure. You cannot play the game of stereotypes to emphasize the convenient traits while avoiding the inconvenient stereotypes. It is logistically flawed to begin with, because avoiding rotten stereotyping would require a double standard, similar to a woman trying to take advantage of a “ladies first” chivalrous courtesy, while avoiding a special treatment from the same person that would assume ladies must always go first.
Posted by Frank Shostack - 4 months, 1 week, 5 hours, 22 minutes ago

The sad truth is that women or anyone else who is not a white male can play the gender/racist card, because they can “get away with it”. Funny? - perhaps. Effective? - who cares? Professional - I think not.
Posted by NN - 4 months, 1 week, 3 hours, 36 minutes ago

The reality is that selecting a service provider - whether it is a lawyer, doctor, etc. is all about personal preference. And part of that preference may be whether a man or woman will better meet your needs. The ads simply remind us what choice is all about.
Posted by Ty - 4 months, 1 week, 3 hours, 21 minutes ago

Carlos,

Give it up. As any married man will tell you, arguing with a woman is an exercise in futility because women aren’t bound by the rules of logic.

On the other hand, maybe I’m wrong.

I’ll check with my wife and let you now what she feels I should think later. . .
Posted by Mother Goose - 4 months, 1 week, 3 hours, 10 minutes ago

Regardles of the professional appropriateness of the ads - which is nil, the basis of the advertising - that women will look at all issues of an argument and are more likly to discuss and compromise - is belied by Schroeder’s glib brush off of any criticism.
THere is no question that the ads if they are deemed appropriate, should logically allow for a two way street for gender stereotyping - but then again logical, unemotional argument is not a woman’s strong point. Sorry that was an awful stereotype Just wanted to see if other ladies were really ready to have it both ways.
And by the way does ths mean that the firm must now discriminate against otherwise qualified male canditates in order for the firm to remain consistent with its advertising?
I sense a good lawsuit for some other firm in Buffalo.
Posted by Luther Martin - 4 months, 1 week, 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

Does New York have an equal rights amendment in its State Constitution?
If so it ought to apply to the application of disciplinary rules concerning RUle 7.1.c and especially 8.4(e) - if applicable in NY
Posted by Ethan S. Burger / Итан Свирский-Бур - 4 months, 1 week, 2 hours, 23 minutes ago

Greetings:

As Larry Summers’ tenure at Harvard shows, political correctness is destroying candor and the analytical process.

As far as I know, most linguists and psychologists will tell you that it is not without consequence that men’s and women’s brains are different, there manner of speech is different as well. While there will always be a nature vs. nurture debate, anyone who has raised children of different sexes will tell you that in most cases gender plays a role in behavior and personality. I think most people who have bothered to notice will observe that women speak with more qualifiers than men. Will often make statements with an intonation that suggests they are asking a question, etc. Man will often speak in absolutes until pressed. Such behavior can be unlearned, and environment such as law school, law firms and courts will no doubt play a role, but to live in denial and fear that there may be legal consequences even when there is no discriminatory intent is not a good situation.
Posted by nichole - 4 months, 1 week, 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

I think they’re funny. (Yes, it implies that women will more likely settle an employment law case, but an overwhelming majority settle anyway.) I’ve seen hundreds of male attorney ads featuring them as pitbulls, tough, etc. Ethnically diverse firms tout their “strength in diversity.” We should all use our strengths, whatever they may be, for the client’s benefit.
Posted by meathead - 4 months, 1 week, 33 minutes ago

#3,8 Carlos....why are you fighting with a woman. Didn’t you read the ad?...Dude!

I find that the posts are generally following a gender split. The women believe the ads are funny and clever (and they are) and the men are upset that they can’t use similar funny ads to the detriment of women (what’s good for the goose...) and they should be able to do so. Therefore, the ads are open to criticisms as leveled by #1, 4 and 9. And no, I’m not a white male.
Posted by XYZ - 4 months, 6 days, 23 hours, 43 minutes ago

Political correctness and it’s progeny have gone way too far. Seems these ads might help - or hurt - a female only law firm. It’s their business. Of course, if a law firm that only employed men drew attention to that fact, the next thing the partners knew a Gloria ***** type would be braying about discrimination of some sort.
Posted by Bysi - 4 months, 6 days, 23 hours, 6 minutes ago

I wonder if Mrs. Schroder would brush off the inverse of her ad so quickly (i.e., a poster of all males with a male cliche statement). I doubt it.
Posted by woman paralegal - 4 months, 6 days, 20 hours, 26 minutes ago

Yes, it is funny, but it is also a great marketing idea. Women plaintiffs often feel that men simply don’t “get it.” If these women are looking for a lawyer for sex or age discrimination issues, the defendant may be a man. So if they’ve been burned badly already, it makes a certain kind of sense that they would turn to an “undrstanding” woman, which is what these ads emphasize. Guys, I suggest you start marketing a more “touchy feely” approach!
Posted by Marie Bonacci - 4 months, 6 days, 18 hours, 24 minutes ago

"The sad truth” #9, is that we have all lost the ability to laugh at ourselves. It seems as if everthing is a percieved slight or insult. We have carried political correctness beyond a healthy point. We are not happier people because of it, we are sadder. We see people trying to insult us at every turn. I think these ads are charming, funny and just the kind of light hearted poke at ourselves that has been lacking since the PC police showed up. I wish these ladies and thier clients well.
Posted by Mary M. - 4 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 34 minutes ago

Are the ads funny?--Yes. Attention grabbing?--Yes. The ads did what they were meant to do. Get attention for the law firm. But are they professional?--NO! Here, they are skirting the fine line between professionalism & gender bias. (pun intended)
Posted by M. B. - 4 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

I think the ads are very catchy and clever. That said, I’m surprised they are permitted under the state’s rules for lawyer advertisements. There’s no doubt that the ad does at least recognize (if not condone) gender stereotypes, which would seem contrary to the policies behind the rules of professional conduct. Having said that, I also tend to think most of the limits on legal advertising go too far in the name of “protecting the public.” Still, I’m surprised the bar hasn’t complained about an ad using stereotypes to say “We’re better than you are” even in jest.
Posted by RP - 4 months, 4 days, 9 hours, 5 minutes ago

What I’m curious about it the idea of a “women-only” law firm. That would seem to be treading on some thin Title VII ice.
Posted by Greg Gordillo - 4 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 8 minutes ago

Good luck to that firm WHEN they are the defendant in the sex discrimination suit that their first disgruntled male employee files.
Posted by DMatthiasCoyle - 4 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

19

This firm represents employers, not employees.

As far as a Title VII suit goes, well, they have made offers to males to work there as lawyers. . .

“Men have worked at the firm as law clerks, but so far none who have been offered jobs there has accepted.”

Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by JM - 4 months, 2 days, 7 hours, 39 minutes ago

So very interesting. It does what it is supposed to. It draws attention to them. And so very tongue in cheek. Nothing requires ads to be staid and dry and boring.

The ads are pretty funny when you consider they DEFEND employers against all the thing some posters have critcized them for in their ads. They represented a school who fired a teacher in her tenure year. She claimed gender discrimination.

Good thing none of you ever saw the “who do the big boys call” ad.

It may not be a comfortable place for men to work, but most law firms aren’t comfortable places for women to work. Personally, I would love to work in their office (having been in it) and so would my spouse. One thing I have noticed about their working environment is the mutual respect for everyone in the office and the respect for their clients.

I know that two of the partners, Rogan and Ginger, both came from large firms, so their abilities are not really in question.

And if you think those tongue in cheek ads are unprofessional, then how about this one (since they do ERISA too)

We’re friend with benefits (law),
Posted by SB - 4 months, 2 days, 7 hours, 31 minutes ago

They are fantastic ads, and they fulfill their purpose. How often do you see firms touting their “diversity”? Firms resort to using the makeup of their workforce as a selling point all the time.
In regards to Title VII - the firm isn’t an employer within the meaning of the statute because of their size. Any labor lawyer worth their salt, including the members of SJA, knows that.
Posted by Bill - 4 months, 1 day, 5 hours, 25 minutes ago

Forget the ad. What about the makeup of the firm? So we don’t need Diversity after all?
Posted by Sarah Ashley - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 58 minutes ago

What are you all a bunch of lawyers? Argueing issues that have been and will continued to be arqued for years? Lets all think, what was it....oh an ADVERTISEMENT!!!! And thats what it did. It got us talking, taking time out of our busy lives to even comment! So congrats to them the ones were conversing about.

It dosnt make them good lawyers or classy maybe they are maybe they are not. The fact is, in this day in age sex sells baby! ;)

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Marketing & Consulting