Honorable Dalila Lyons:
That is where the women have made the most impact becausethat's where they most differ in the rulings from the men.
Sonya Palmer:
The perspective is not isolated, right? That theirexperience, their struggles are represented within the courtroom, within thelegal system.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
The benefits of having a diverse background that womenbring to is unquestionably beneficial to society as a whole. And no questionabout that, and to the litigants.
Sonya Palmer:
For the eighth consecutive year, women outnumbered men inlaw schools across the nation. Yet this wave of change has not reached theshores of power. Women hold just 25% of seats at the table as board members andmanaging partners, but the tides are turning. Women in law are no longer weaklywaiting for an invitation. They are boldly striking out, creating a futurewhere success is defined on their own terms, and law firms fit into theirlives, not the other way around. As this new generation of trailblazers rises,we stand with them, ready to amplify their voices and fuel the transformation.This is LawHer.
I am Sonya Palmer, your host and VP of Operations atRankings, the SEO agency supporting you in claiming your rightful place at thetop. We're thrilled to present the third and final miniseries of season two,the Art of Negotiation. In this series, we explore negotiation not just as aprofessional skill, but as a life-changing art form. We'll sit down with anextraordinary array of women who've mastered the negotiation table in variousarenas. A former judge, a federal trade commission attorney who's also competedon MasterChef, skilled mediators and experts in title IX and workplacedisputes. These trailblazers share how they advocate for justice in the courtroomand negotiate the lives they want outside of it.
We'll uncover strategies for high stakes settlements,techniques for navigating complex deals and insights on Honorable Dalila Lyonsbalancing personal ambitions with professional demands. Let's meet today'sguest. In the world of law where tradition often reigns supreme, change can beas subtle as it is powerful. Today we're diving into a conversation that's atthe heart of this change. Meet Honorable Dalila Lyons, former judge in LA whosecareer reads like a roadmap of progress in the legal world. From being thefirst in her family to attend college to ascending to the bench of the LosAngeles Superior Court.
Judge Lyons has taken numerous strides from one milestoneto the next in the ongoing evolution of the legal profession, marking thegradual but steady advance of women in law. After 18 years in the bench, Dalilastepped into the world of private mediation, bringing her unique perspective toa field that's rapidly reshaping how we approach conflict resolution. We'llexplore the evolving landscape of the legal profession through Dalila's eyesand delve into the rising tide of women in judiciary roles. Unpack the power ofso-called soft skills in negotiation and examine how diversity on the bench istransforming our justice system. Let's dive in.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I grew up in a large family. None of my siblings went tocollege or frankly even high school. I had a wonderful family, wonderfulupbringing in Southern California. So I was privileged to have a very richfamily in tradition and love and attention. Not in wealth, but in other means.I grew up, I would say an idyllic childhood minus the luxuries of money andwhat inspired me to even go to college because I didn't know frankly anyrelatives who had gone to college. But I was very much motivated by learning. Iwas curious about what my friends in high school were doing.
So I was very much an explorer, if you may, of what isthat world of college and what is that world of law school. I always kind ofchallenge myself and enjoy the challenge of being the first. That's not a newthing to me of being the first in my family to go to college, being the firstfemale in a law firm, being the first trial attorney, being the first, blah,blah, blah. So I think it was the sense of doing justice in the world. I reallyhad this illusion of making the world a better place to whatever I could do.
Sonya Palmer:
I think curiosity is a great attitude because you were thefirst in your family. Did you have anyone else that sort of guided you, helpedyou navigate law school or even just the beginning of your career?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I had friends, not relatives, because none of my relativeshad gone to law school at that point. I was fortunate to have friends who Iconsidered my mentors, if you will, and in different facets that would guide methrough the career. And I think that was what I would call pivotal in my careerdevelopment, is to rely on the nature and the goodness of good people who werewilling to help. And that goes a long way to somebody who didn't even know whatan SAT was because their parents didn't take an SAT. Small acts of kindnessthat would guide me in the direction of succeeding, if you may, in thedifferent areas of my career was amazing.
Sonya Palmer:
I love that. I wonder if you're going to be a pioneer, ifyou're going to be first, if friends and peers might be even more influentialthan mentors or people who feel like they've done it ahead of you, if you havepeers that can push you. So I love that. And then looking back on your journeyas a young lawyer, what area of law did you practice?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I was in civil litigation. I did general businesscommercial litigation when I first got out of law school with a big nationallaw firm. And I did general business defense litigation and then I didentertainment litigation, representation of either talent or studios,producers, directors, writers, that was litigation as well. And then I was withthe office of the county council where I did government litigation.
So I've had kind of the public and the private backgroundas an attorney all in the litigation aspects. So I'm a litigator by nature andgiven the diverse kind of cases that I handle from entertainment to civilrights and government to banking institutions, it's very easy for me to adaptto any kind of case.
Sonya Palmer:
So then what made you want to be a judge and how did thatdecision making process happen?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Interestingly enough, my decision to become a judge is notlike a lot of people think, "Oh, I always wanted to be a judge since I wasfive years old." No, being a judge was way beyond my dreams. So it was sounobtainable that it would be ludicrous for me in my socioeconomic status andmy background to even think of that. It was so far out of reach of my realm ofexperiences, I never thought of it, never thought I could do it. It was just acrazy thing. So being an attorney was the ultimate dream because that was wayoutside my dreaming capacity, if you may. After practicing in Los Angeles foralmost 20 years and litigating and going to court.
And as I said in the beginning, I'm always curious towhat's out there and seeing the judges and then some of my, at that time,colleagues in litigators become judges. I said, "Huh, maybe that'ssomething else I can take a crack at." So yes, I was inspired by otherjudges, but I think what drove me to really be really interested in it is myinnate sense of justice since I was in high school. I just kind of knew thatwas who I was, what made me, what drove me, what motivated me, and in eachtrajectory of my career, that was kind of my guiding force without me evenknowing that that's the way I was going.
So I think it was just a genuine sense of having access tojustice for everybody, me being part of that and also the challenge, like ifthey could do it, I could do it. So it was inspirational from some of mycolleagues who pushed me as well, who said, "Oh, you should apply."And it never really dawned on me until very late in my career, unlike otherjudges who have always thought of it. To me, it was very late in my career thatbecause it was something that was so unobtainable according to my realm ofexperience, I never thought about it until very end.
Sonya Palmer:
California's judiciary is changing. As of December 31st,2022, women occupied approximately 40% of the state's judicial seats. A notableshift from just a few decades ago. But numbers only tell part of the story. Thereal impact lies in how this increased representation affects theadministration of justice, the perception of the legal system and theexperiences of those who interact with it. Dalila's own career has spanned thisperiod of transformation. Her insights offer a firsthand perspective on thesignificance of this progress and its implications for the future of ourjudiciary.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
How has the influence of female judges in the country haveinfluenced not only the justice system but our community, our world? So I thinkit's a wonderful thing to have different voices, different perspectives,especially females in the justice system.
Sonya Palmer:
So 40% as of December 31st, 2022, but that's only a 7%increase since 2014. What have you seen as some of the major roadblocks to womenbeing judges? Why is it only 7% increase?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Well, that's a very good question. As you know inCalifornia, the large majority of judges are appointed by the governor. Veryfew are elected. So the question is why is it that the governor really has notappointed more because that is the appointing authority for judges. GovernorNewsom is quite proud of the fact that he has appointed, I believe his latestnumber of 2019 since he took office, 53% of his appointees are women. Actually,that's probably changed a little bit more because that statistic came outseveral months ago. So over 50% of his appointments have been female.
As far as obstacles, I think it's the same obstacles thatwe see for women ascending to positions of power that you see in every place.Could be institutional bias, it could also be the fact that some women alsohave, which we all suffer from, the imposter syndrome. Like, "Oh my god, Icould never do that." Which I'm a prime example of that and I did. So Ithink the same obstacles that one would attribute to any other powerfulposition are the same as in becoming judges. We are trying so hard to recruitwomen and to diversify the bench in California so that you don't see thoseobstacles. I was very passionate when I was on the bench.
I just retired last year of sharing my journey so thatother women and minorities who never thought of the career like I did, couldsee that because I never talked to a judge outside the context of a courtroomwhen I was an attorney. I didn't know you could do that. Of course, not anex-party situation, but at a bar function. So I think the obstacles areunfortunately the same that every woman faces in ascending to a position ofpower.
Sonya Palmer:
There's data that's easily, not easily collected, but it'sa little bit more structured where you have male-female judges and then there'sa verdict. What you wrote about, you can see that the disparity is not maybewhat people think that it is. There's less of a guess there that women are goingto be so much different or men are going to be so much different. So thatyou're able to see that. It's on paper, it's a statistic.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
It's very interesting. I think you're referring to arecent article I wrote about whether women or men judge differently. And Ibasically reviewed studies that had studied that because I wanted empiricalevidence of is there really any difference? And you're absolutely correct. Thebottom line, at the end of the day, it came out that mostly men and women judgethe same. The interesting thing about the studies is that they may have gottento the same decision in a different method because of the different skills thatthe women have. Not all, but generally some have one particular skill versusthe other. So that was a very interesting study that show that.
Sonya Palmer:
You've written that women's decisions on the bench arehaving and will continue to have a deep and longstanding impact on both theprofession and the general public. Can you elaborate on some of the specificways in which you believe women judges are shaping the law and the legalprofession?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think the way in which they're shaping the law is let'sassume that based on the studies concluded that for the most part men and womenjudges came out to the same result. But the one exception the studies find, Ithink that was the New York Times study. I reviewed so many, I'm not sure whichone it was. Where it was an employment discrimination cases. And according tothe studies, that is where the women have made the most impact because that'swhere they most differ in the rulings from the men. So I think that thespecifics of how women have generally impacted society is in those decisionswhere they would differ.
Can you imagine the difference now, if you can recall,when Justice O'Connor first became member of the US Supreme Court and JusticeGinsburg? They're adding their perspective, their experience so much enrich thedecision-making process. I think that and most importantly, at a minimum, it'sat least the general public's confidence in the judiciary that the decisionmaker understands, if not understands, as some of them have experienced thatparticular conduct that they're discussing in the case.
That is so amazing for the public to understand thatwhen... Because judges deal with resolving conflict and if the litigant feelsand understands that the judge is really understanding what they're talkingabout, they have much more confidence in the justice system. And that's what Ithink women have brought to the justice system. The ability for the litigantsto instill more confidence in the system to know that that decision maker, thejudge, has had that experience, at least understands that experience so thatthey can feel confident in the ruling.
Sonya Palmer:
Absolutely that the perspective is not isolated, right?That their experience, their struggles are represented within the courtroom,within the legal system. I think that's extremely important. Very well said.It's often said that true impartiality is an unrealistic expectation for judgesas everyone carries with them their own experience and views that shape the waythat they see the world. So this ties directly into what we were just talkingabout how do you think the unique perspectives and life experiences that womenbring to the bench have positively influenced the judiciary and theadministration of justice?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think in the same way we discussed earlier, it is oftensaid that judges are like umpires. They just call balls and strikes. A lot ofpeople use that analogy, but people have to understand that judges are humantoo. As much as absolutely the law and the facts should drive the result, therich tapestry of that judge's experiences can enhance that decision-makingprocess so that you bring different experiences, different backgrounds,different perspectives. The end result is for the just result to be made, theruling to be made and that the litigants' have confidence in the process.
It's so important to have the litigants feel confident,that they have been heard, that the judge understood what they were saying.That the judge have not experienced their specific injury or their specificdamage or issue, that they at least understood it and it is pivotal to makesure that those rich experiences that women and other members of the judiciarybring, to me, it just enriches the justice system and the confidence that thelitigants have in them.
Sonya Palmer:
Going back to what you originally said, why law eveninterested you? Injustice, right? Injustice and what we're talking about nowwith some of the data and what you've seen yourself, is that women lawyers tendto be more collaborative. And if you can get the fairness, if everyonesubscribes to that is then rehabilitation more likely. If it feels fair even toeveryone in the room that they all came to this decision versus a judge justdictating it, how much more likely is that then to be a success? So I thinkthat's really important.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
It is very, very important, especially because you'rebuilding... Even as a mediator or trying to resolve a dispute, your job ismaking sure that people have a stake in what they decided. That they are partof the decision-making process. And you're part of the decision-making processif the decision-maker understood your issue.
Sonya Palmer:
Despite progress, women still remain underrepresented inthe judiciary, particularly at higher levels of the court system. Why do youbelieve it's important to continue striving for greater representation of womenon the bench? And what benefits do you think this will bring the legal systemas a whole?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I often subscribe to Justice Ginsburg's very famous quote.Well, when will there be enough? Because I'm very big in helping diversify thebench. When will there be enough? When there's nine? There were nine menforever, and nobody complained about, "Oh my God, there's only ninemen." That was never an issue. So I don't think there should be a limit,if you may, of when, but I think the benefits of having a diverse backgroundthat women bring to is unquestionably beneficial to society as a whole. And noquestion about that and to the litigants.
Sonya Palmer:
A hundred percent. For the women listening who areinterested in becoming judges, what advice or tips do you have for them?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Reputation. Reputation. Reputation. In order to be ajudge, you have to be a very good attorney and have an excellent reputation.The governor will be appointing you hopefully, and it's so important that youconduct yourself in a professional, courteous, civil manner with opposingcounsel, with the judge because when they are seeking to appoint you, they willdo all those background checks. As a judge, we will get letters after lettersof questionnaires for attorneys for applying.
It's so important to make sure your reputation is intactand nothing could be better than just doing a great job and being a greatmember of the bar so that your reputation is not tarnished and the governorwill consider you a worthy appointment. So reputation, reputation, reputation.
Sonya Palmer:
After dedicating nearly two decades to the Los AngelesSuperior Court bench, Dalila made a significant transition. She stepped awayfrom her role as judge to embrace a new challenge in private mediation. Thisshift represents more than just a changing title. It's a transformation andapproach environment, and day-to-day responsibilities. It's a move thatintrigues many in the legal profession.
Sparking questions about the motivations behind such acareer evolution. What compels a seasoned judge to leave the structured worldof the courtroom for the more fluid realm of private mediation? What uniqueinsights does a former judge bring to the mediation table? And how does thistransition reflect broader trends in alternative dispute resolution? Dalilashares her insights.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
The fact that it came so natural to me and it wassomething that I could be my true genuine self during a mediation. When you areon the bench, you are a judge. You won't even recognize me as the judge versusa mediation because I'm so different in the sense that I'm very formal on thebench as it should be. The court requires a certain decorum that the judgeshave to abide with. In a mediation, my job is completely different, is to helpand understand and listen to the parties and facilitate an agreement. That's avery different skill set that frankly I didn't know I had until I started settlingcases while I was a judge.
I did mandatory settlement conferences for three yearsprior to becoming a judge. And now when I retired, it was a natural transitionfor me to do basically exactly the same thing I was doing. Settling cases as amandatory settlement judge and now as a mediator facilitating the dialogue. I'ma people person. And when you are doing a mediation or a settlement conference,you have to understand the people, talk to the people. I tend to be veryinformal in mediations because I need to understand the party, I need to relateto them, they need to understand me.
So you use different skillset, completely differentskillset. As a judge, you don't have to be a people person. You're there tolisten to the evidence and make the ruling, end of story. As a mediator, youuse different skillset, which I love the fact that that helps me build bridgesso that people can resolve their dispute on their own.
Sonya Palmer:
Beautiful. Building trust with parties is critical foreffective mediation. How do you go about establishing that rapport andcredibility?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I start out with basically getting the litigants gettingto know me and me getting to know them. Building the rapport and the trust iscritical. Because if they trust you as the mediator, that I'm there as aneutral, I'm not there as an advocate. I often say, "I don't care if thiscase settles for $20 million or $20 as long as it settles so that you twolitigants have had input into shaping and customizing the agreement that youwant to reach." So I think just by being myself, and I think that's whathas made me so much enjoy the mediation process that I was myself.
I was not Judge Lyons, I was Dalila Corral Lyons talkingto them on one-on-one. And that was surprising to me how comfortable and howeffective it was just to be myself. So that was surprising and unusual anddifferent in transitioning from the bench of a very formal process to chattingwith the litigants. And I love that.
Sonya Palmer:
A relief probably to kind of just step into something thatfeels a little bit more comfortable, more like you. And then you talked aboutbuilding trust because confidentiality is a key aspect of private mediation. Ilike what you said about just getting to know them and that can help putparties comfortable with the sensitive information. Does that also have animpact on the mediation process?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Absolutely. Confidentiality is secret in mediations andthere is a very robust group of statutes in California dealing withconfidentiality. I mean, the confidentiality even starts before the mediationstarts. It starts at the pre-mediation conference. In fact, it starts when thelitigant contacts the mediator to see they want to mediate the class. So Ithink it's very important that what happens in mediation stays in mediationbasically. It's important for them to understand that this is their day forthey meant to tell me very sensitive issues and that it's confidential.
It's not going to be publicized, it's not going to be inthe paper the next day, and that it's not going to be shared with the otherside unless of course the parties agree to sharing that information. So I thinkthat's why the litigants feel comfortable, I hope, in a mediation because theyknow that whatever they're sharing with the mediator is confidential and thatit will not be publicized.
Sonya Palmer:
Some mediations are voluntary and some are involuntary.Those can have a large impact on both parties' willingness to come toagreement. Are there key differences in facilitating?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
With regards to involuntary mediations, I think you'remostly referring to when the court orders them.
Sonya Palmer:
Correct.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
As opposed to when they're voluntary. Most voluntary mediations,I call them settlement conferences where the judge orders the litigants to goand try to settle this case. They're ordered. So they have no choice to go tothe mandatory settlement conference. Whereas a mediation, private mediationsare voluntary because a judge cannot order a litigant to go pay for a mediatorto resolve a dispute because private mediations is for a fee. So the pivotaldifference, in fact, I wrote an article on that too, the differences betweenMSCs and mediations, and in addition to the key difference of theconfidentiality of how it applies to one and not the other is really that.
That in doing a voluntary mediation, it's more likely tosettle because both parties have volunteered and they say, "We want bothmeet." Whereas if the judge orders you, you have no choice. You have tofollow the judge's order. And sometimes when they appear at a mandatory,mandatory is the key word, settlement conference, they may not want to bethere. They may not be ready to settle for sometimes very good reasons. Theyneed to take a key deposition, they are missing a report, they're missing someinformation and they may not be ready. So the key difference is the party'sability and readiness to settle or not settle.
However, sometimes even when the parties don't thinkthey're ready because, "Oh, we really can't resolve it until we take thisother depo." So I have settled many cases where they say, "Well,we're really not ready because we need XYZ." And I say, "Well, let'sexplore to see if you could settle without that information." And a lot oftimes it does. A lot of times you can't because you absolutely need thatinformation. So that's the key difference. And I prefer that there be voluntaryso that they're of course have more willingness to settle.
Sonya Palmer:
Your strong people skills and tenacity allow you to readthe room during settlement conferences and mediations carefully. Can you walkus through your process for assessing the dynamics between parties andidentifying the core issues at stake?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Very good question, because the dynamics between theparties can sometimes just drive the mediation. There may be legal issues,there may be factual issues, but if there's dynamics of relationship issuesbetween the parties, it's not going to go anywhere. So my process of assessingthe room temperature, if you may, in each room. That's the plaintiff's room,that's the defendant's room. I'm trying to understand, this is the key, thereal motivation of the parties. Why did they really sue each other? And notonly why, most importantly, what is driving their motivation to either try thecase or settle the case.
And sometimes it has nothing to do with the disputedissue. It has to do with something else. So my goal is to get to that somethingelse that is motivating the party so that I can understand how to help themshape and customize that agreement to that motivation that is really not in thepleadings. You'll never find that really in the complaint or the answer. It'ssomething that I have to, by talking to the parties, understand what is reallymotivating them. A lot of times if you have disputes between businesses, itcould appear to be even like a sibling's or spouse's fighting because of whatthey did 10 years ago.
They're still holding a grudge. So I think it's importantto get to that key and work with that. And that takes time to develop andunderstand because it's trust. People are not going to tell mediators are verydelicate, sensitive issues, but that is really what's driving the reason forsettling or not settling.
Sonya Palmer:
Sometimes is it even subconscious? Do they even know whythey're there? And can a good mediator understand that and reveal it?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Excellent point. I agree a hundred percent. Sometimes theythemselves don't understand why they really don't want to do XYZ, and you gotto... I kind of play psychiatrist a lot of times too.
Sonya Palmer:
There's a lot of emotion which can cloud so much. So thatmakes sense. Someone that can cut through it.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Exactly, the emotion can cloud it. And sometimes theydon't know why they are being clouded. It's basically a lot of discussion andexploring with them to try to get to the bottom of their reasoning for wantingto have settled this way or that way, other than money of course. A lot oftimes money is not even the issue or the amount, they want to feel that theyhave been, that justice occurred and that it was fair from both sides'perspective. They just want to feel that it was fair and that's subjectivefeeling that hopefully the settlement will give them peace of mind so they canmove on.
Sonya Palmer:
Yes. And research has shown that women tend to excel insoft skills like active listening, emotional intelligence, the collaborativeproblem solving to get to the root of those things. Have you seen these skillsplay out in your own work? I mean that's kind of exactly what we're talkingabout, these soft skills that women tend to have.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Right. And that was from one of the studies I reviewedwhen I wrote the article, I think the term they used was women's soft skills.And I have absolutely seen that that has played out in resolving cases,different skills of being more consensus builders, more collaborative efforts.And that doesn't mean, however, that men don't have those skills. Both wouldhave them. But this particular study shows that women were more successful indoing those types of cases and because of the soft skills that they callgenerally assigned to women, which again, I emphasize is not necessarily afemale trait, but when they say the data tends to show that their ability tothink like a woman can produce very positive outcomes in the legal process.
But what does that really mean? I think it's... Ifanybody, men or female have the skills of being able to build consensus andfostering relationships, cooperative approach, they can get to end the resultthe same as any anybody else. So it's important. And I have seen those skillsand I often use them. That's not all only going to judges, that's attributableto how teachers, police officers, a lot of times female police officersde-escalate a situation whereas a male may escalate it. They bring differentelements to the situation.
Sonya Palmer:
It's not necessarily a female approach. It's a newapproach that women tend to use more often.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Yes. Very well put.
Sonya Palmer:
As more women enter the fields of alternative disputeresolution, and I'm going to say legal in general, as more women become judges,attorneys, owners of firms, what impact do you think this will have on the waythat settlements are negotiated and the outcomes that are achieved?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think it's the same impact, as I said in the judging,and you used it in a broader term. I think it's wonderful. Bottom line is itgives the litigant more options. Let's say as an attorney you have a case whereyou say you have a particular client that says this client really would benefitfrom the soft skills that women have because of the particular personality orissues. It's wonderful as an attorney to have a market full of mediators or alot of mediators that have skills that would be perfect fit for your particularcase.
So I think it's wonderful for the legal profession, forthe litigant, and most importantly for society as a whole because you havewomen who will bring those skills to help resolve disputes. And the question, alot of the... UN uses a lot of women negotiators for negotiating a peacebecause they tend to have a better outcome.
Sonya Palmer:
Excellent. One final thing as we wrap up. I like to lookto the future. What gives you the greatest hope and optimism for the future ofwomen in the legal industry?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think what gives me the greatest hope is that we aremaking improvements, that things are getting better. I remember when I firststarted as an attorney, 1984, things were quite different then. I have seensome changes and for improvement, not enough, but I think we're in the rightdirection. I like to attend and listen to younger, more junior attorneys, and Iwas not happy that they're still complaining about the same things I was when Iwas an attorney. So things have changed. On the other hand, things have notchanged.
I'm hoping that with the education of the bar and learningabout each other and about the benefits of women in the legal profession willmake the legal profession a better profession, a more robust profession. Aprofession that has been enriched by the beautiful tapestry of the backgroundsthat women bring to the legal profession.
Sonya Palmer:
Breaking barriers isn't just about the first or the best.It's about paving the way for others. Dalila's journey from a family where noone attended college to become a respected judge exemplifies the power ofcuriosity and determination. The importance of diversity in the judiciarycannot be overstated. Women judges bring unique perspectives that enrich ourjustice system, increasing public confidences as litigants feel truly heard andunderstood. We've seen how women's soft skills, active listening, emotionalintelligence, and collaborative problem solving are proving to be powerfulassets in negotiation and mediation.
These abilities, while not exclusive to women, arereshaping how we approach conflict resolution. As more women enter alternativedispute resolution, they're not just filling roles, they're transforming them.Their presence provides more options for litigants and attorneys ensuring abetter fit for each unique case. The legal landscape is evolving and women areat the forefront of this change. While challenges remain, the future is brightwith possibility. As Dalila reminds us, progress may be slow, but it is steady.Remember, your unique experiences and perspectives are your strengths.
Whether you're breaking into a male dominated practicearea, negotiating your promotion, or aspiring to leadership roles, you're partof a larger movement reshaping the legal profession. If you found this contentinsightful, inspiring, or it just made you smile, please share this episodewith a trailblazer in your life. For more about Dalila, check out our shownotes. While you're there, please use a review or a five star rating. It reallyhelps others discover the show. And I'll see you next week on LawHer, wherewe'll shed light on how another of the brightest and boldest women in the legalindustry climbed to the top of her field.
Until next time, stay inspired, stay empowered, and keepmaking waves in the legal industry. You've got this.
