Honorable Dalila Lyons:
That is where the women have made the most impact because that's where they most differ in the rulings from the men.
Sonya Palmer:
The perspective is not isolated, right? That their experience, their struggles are represented within the courtroom, within the legal system.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
The benefits of having a diverse background that women bring to is unquestionably beneficial to society as a whole. And no question about that, and to the litigants.
Sonya Palmer:
For the eighth consecutive year, women outnumbered men in law schools across the nation. Yet this wave of change has not reached the shores of power. Women hold just 25% of seats at the table as board members and managing partners, but the tides are turning. Women in law are no longer weakly waiting for an invitation. They are boldly striking out, creating a future where success is defined on their own terms, and law firms fit into their lives, 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 at Rankings, the SEO agency supporting you in claiming your rightful place at the top. 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 a professional skill, but as a life-changing art form. We'll sit down with an extraordinary array of women who've mastered the negotiation table in various arenas. A former judge, a federal trade commission attorney who's also competed on MasterChef, skilled mediators and experts in title IX and workplace disputes. These trailblazers share how they advocate for justice in the courtroom and 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 Lyons balancing personal ambitions with professional demands. Let's meet today's guest. In the world of law where tradition often reigns supreme, change can be as subtle as it is powerful. Today we're diving into a conversation that's at the heart of this change. Meet Honorable Dalila Lyons, former judge in LA whose career reads like a roadmap of progress in the legal world. From being the first in her family to attend college to ascending to the bench of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Judge Lyons has taken numerous strides from one milestone to the next in the ongoing evolution of the legal profession, marking the gradual but steady advance of women in law. After 18 years in the bench, Dalila stepped into the world of private mediation, bringing her unique perspective to a field that's rapidly reshaping how we approach conflict resolution. We'll explore the evolving landscape of the legal profession through Dalila's eyes and delve into the rising tide of women in judiciary roles. Unpack the power of so-called soft skills in negotiation and examine how diversity on the bench is transforming our justice system. Let's dive in.
Who is Ret. Judge Dalila C. Lyons? From LA Superior Court to private mediation in dispute resolution.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I grew up in a large family. None of my siblings went to college or frankly even high school. I had a wonderful family, wonderful upbringing in Southern California. So I was privileged to have a very rich family 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 and what inspired me to even go to college because I didn't know frankly any relatives who had gone to college. But I was very much motivated by learning. I was curious about what my friends in high school were doing.
So I was very much an explorer, if you may, of what is that world of college and what is that world of law school. I always kind of challenge myself and enjoy the challenge of being the first. That's not a new thing to me of being the first in my family to go to college, being the first female 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 really had 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 the first in your family. Did you have anyone else that sort of guided you, helped you navigate law school or even just the beginning of your career?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I had friends, not relatives, because none of my relatives had gone to law school at that point. I was fortunate to have friends who I considered my mentors, if you will, and in different facets that would guide me through the career. And I think that was what I would call pivotal in my career development, is to rely on the nature and the goodness of good people who were willing to help. And that goes a long way to somebody who didn't even know what an SAT was because their parents didn't take an SAT. Small acts of kindness that would guide me in the direction of succeeding, if you may, in the different areas of my career was amazing.
Sonya Palmer:
I love that. I wonder if you're going to be a pioneer, if you're going to be first, if friends and peers might be even more influential than mentors or people who feel like they've done it ahead of you, if you have peers that can push you. So I love that. And then looking back on your journey as a young lawyer, what area of law did you practice?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I was in civil litigation. I did general business commercial litigation when I first got out of law school with a big national law firm. And I did general business defense litigation and then I did entertainment litigation, representation of either talent or studios, producers, directors, writers, that was litigation as well. And then I was with the office of the county council where I did government litigation.
So I've had kind of the public and the private background as an attorney all in the litigation aspects. So I'm a litigator by nature and given the diverse kind of cases that I handle from entertainment to civil rights and government to banking institutions, it's very easy for me to adapt to any kind of case.
Sonya Palmer:
So then what made you want to be a judge and how did that decision making process happen?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Interestingly enough, my decision to become a judge is not like a lot of people think, "Oh, I always wanted to be a judge since I was five years old." No, being a judge was way beyond my dreams. So it was so unobtainable that it would be ludicrous for me in my socioeconomic status and my background to even think of that. It was so far out of reach of my realm of experiences, I never thought of it, never thought I could do it. It was just a crazy thing. So being an attorney was the ultimate dream because that was way outside my dreaming capacity, if you may. After practicing in Los Angeles for almost 20 years and litigating and going to court.
And as I said in the beginning, I'm always curious to what'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's something else I can take a crack at." So yes, I was inspired by other judges, but I think what drove me to really be really interested in it is my innate sense of justice since I was in high school. I just kind of knew that was who I was, what made me, what drove me, what motivated me, and in each trajectory of my career, that was kind of my guiding force without me even knowing that that's the way I was going.
So I think it was just a genuine sense of having access to justice for everybody, me being part of that and also the challenge, like if they could do it, I could do it. So it was inspirational from some of my colleagues 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 other judges who have always thought of it. To me, it was very late in my career that because it was something that was so unobtainable according to my realm of experience, I never thought about it until the very end.
How the increasing presence of women judges is impacting the judiciary and the administration of justice.
Sonya Palmer:
California's judiciary is changing. As of December 31st, 2022, women occupied approximately 40% of the state's judicial seats. A notable shift from just a few decades ago. But numbers only tell part of the story. The real impact lies in how this increased representation affects the administration of justice, the perception of the legal system and the experiences of those who interact with it. Dalila's own career has spanned this period of transformation. Her insights offer a firsthand perspective on the significance of this progress and its implications for the future of our judiciary.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
How has the influence of female judges in the country have influenced not only the justice system but our community, our world? So I think it'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 women being judges? Why is it only 7% increase?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Well, that's a very good question. As you know in California, the large majority of judges are appointed by the governor. Very few are elected. So the question is why is it that the governor really has not appointed more because that is the appointing authority for judges. Governor Newsom is quite proud of the fact that he has appointed, I believe his latest number 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 out several months ago. So over 50% of his appointments have been female.
As far as obstacles, I think it's the same obstacles that we 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 also have, which we all suffer from, the imposter syndrome. Like, "Oh my god, I could never do that." Which I'm a prime example of that and I did. So I think the same obstacles that one would attribute to any other powerful position are the same as in becoming judges. We are trying so hard to recruit women and to diversify the bench in California so that you don't see those obstacles. I was very passionate when I was on the bench.
I just retired last year of sharing my journey so that other women and minorities who never thought of the career like I did, could see that because I never talked to a judge outside the context of a courtroom when I was an attorney. I didn't know you could do that. Of course, not an ex-party situation, but at a bar function. So I think the obstacles are unfortunately the same that every woman faces in ascending to a position of power.
Sonya Palmer:
There's data that's easily, not easily collected, but it's a little bit more structured where you have male-female judges and then there's a verdict. What you wrote about, you can see that the disparity is not maybe what people think that it is. There's less of a guess there that women are going to be so much different or men are going to be so much different. So that you'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 a recent article I wrote about whether women or men judge differently. And I basically reviewed studies that had studied that because I wanted empirical evidence of is there really any difference? And you're absolutely correct. The bottom line, at the end of the day, it came out that mostly men and women judge the same. The interesting thing about the studies is that they may have gotten to the same decision in a different method because of the different skills that the women have. Not all, but generally some have one particular skill versus the other. So that was a very interesting study that show that.
Sonya Palmer:
You've written that women's decisions on the bench are having and will continue to have a deep and longstanding impact on both the profession and the general public. Can you elaborate on some of the specific ways in which you believe women judges are shaping the law and the legal profession?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think the way in which they're shaping the law is let's assume that based on the studies concluded that for the most part men and women judges came out to the same result. But the one exception the studies find, I think that was the New York Times study. I reviewed so many, I'm not sure which one it was. Where it was an employment discrimination cases. And according to the studies, that is where the women have made the most impact because that's where they most differ in the rulings from the men. So I think that the specifics of how women have generally impacted society is in those decisions where 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 Justice Ginsburg? They're adding their perspective, their experience so much enrich the decision-making process. I think that and most importantly, at a minimum, it's at least the general public's confidence in the judiciary that the decision maker understands, if not understands, as some of them have experienced that particular conduct that they're discussing in the case.
That is so amazing for the public to understand that when... Because judges deal with resolving conflict and if the litigant feels and understands that the judge is really understanding what they're talking about, they have much more confidence in the justice system. And that's what I think women have brought to the justice system. The ability for the litigants to instill more confidence in the system to know that that decision maker, the judge, has had that experience, at least understands that experience so that they 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 judges as everyone carries with them their own experience and views that shape the way that they see the world. So this ties directly into what we were just talking about how do you think the unique perspectives and life experiences that women bring to the bench have positively influenced the judiciary and the administration of justice?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think in the same way we discussed earlier, it is often said that judges are like umpires. They just call balls and strikes. A lot of people use that analogy, but people have to understand that judges are human too. As much as absolutely the law and the facts should drive the result, the rich tapestry of that judge's experiences can enhance that decision-making process so that you bring different experiences, different backgrounds, different perspectives. The end result is for the just result to be made, the ruling 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 specific damage or issue, that they at least understood it and it is pivotal to make sure that those rich experiences that women and other members of the judiciary bring, to me, it just enriches the justice system and the confidence that the litigants have in them.
Sonya Palmer:
Going back to what you originally said, why law even interested you? Injustice, right? Injustice and what we're talking about now with some of the data and what you've seen yourself, is that women lawyers tend to be more collaborative. And if you can get the fairness, if everyone subscribes to that is then rehabilitation more likely. If it feels fair even to everyone in the room that they all came to this decision versus a judge just dictating it, how much more likely is that then to be a success? So I think that's really important.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
It is very, very important, especially because you're building... Even as a mediator or trying to resolve a dispute, your job is making sure that people have a stake in what they decided. That they are part of the decision-making process. And you're part of the decision-making process if the decision-maker understood your issue.
Why women in the legal profession still face challenges and barriers, particularly in achieving leadership positions.
Sonya Palmer:
Despite progress, women still remain underrepresented in the judiciary, particularly at higher levels of the court system. Why do you believe it's important to continue striving for greater representation of women on the bench? And what benefits do you think this will bring the legal system as 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 the bench. When will there be enough? When there's nine? There were nine men forever, and nobody complained about, "Oh my God, there's only nine men." 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 background that women bring to is unquestionably beneficial to society as a whole. And no question about that and to the litigants.
Sonya Palmer:
A hundred percent. For the women listening who are interested in becoming judges, what advice or tips do you have for them?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Reputation. Reputation. Reputation. In order to be a judge, 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 you conduct yourself in a professional, courteous, civil manner with opposing counsel, with the judge because when they are seeking to appoint you, they will do all those background checks. As a judge, we will get letters after letters of questionnaires for attorneys for applying.
It's so important to make sure your reputation is intact and nothing could be better than just doing a great job and being a great member of the bar so that your reputation is not tarnished and the governor will consider you a worthy appointment. So reputation, reputation, reputation.
Sonya Palmer:
After dedicating nearly two decades to the Los Angeles Superior Court bench, Dalila made a significant transition. She stepped away from her role as judge to embrace a new challenge in private mediation. This shift represents more than just a changing title. It's a transformation and approach environment, and day-to-day responsibilities. It's a move that intrigues many in the legal profession.
Sparking questions about the motivations behind such a career evolution. What compels a seasoned judge to leave the structured world of the courtroom for the more fluid realm of private mediation? What unique insights does a former judge bring to the mediation table? And how does this transition reflect broader trends in alternative dispute resolution? Dalila shares her insights.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
The fact that it came so natural to me and it was something that I could be my true genuine self during a mediation. When you are on the bench, you are a judge. You won't even recognize me as the judge versus a mediation because I'm so different in the sense that I'm very formal on the bench as it should be. The court requires a certain decorum that the judges have to abide with. In a mediation, my job is completely different, is to help and understand and listen to the parties and facilitate an agreement. That's a very different skill set that frankly I didn't know I had until I started settling cases while I was a judge.
I did mandatory settlement conferences for three years prior to becoming a judge. And now when I retired, it was a natural transition for me to do basically exactly the same thing I was doing. Settling cases as a mandatory settlement judge and now as a mediator facilitating the dialogue. I'm a 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 very informal in mediations because I need to understand the party, I need to relate to them, they need to understand me.
So you use different skillset, completely different skillset. As a judge, you don't have to be a people person. You're there to listen to the evidence and make the ruling, end of story. As a mediator, you use different skillset, which I love the fact that that helps me build bridges so that people can resolve their dispute on their own.
Sonya Palmer:
Beautiful. Building trust with parties is critical for effective mediation. How do you go about establishing that rapport and credibility?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I start out with basically getting the litigants getting to know me and me getting to know them. Building the rapport and the trust is critical. Because if they trust you as the mediator, that I'm there as a neutral, I'm not there as an advocate. I often say, "I don't care if this case settles for $20 million or $20 as long as it settles so that you two litigants have had input into shaping and customizing the agreement that you want to reach." So I think just by being myself, and I think that's what has made me so much enjoy the mediation process that I was myself.
I was not Judge Lyons, I was Dalila Corral Lyons talking to them on one-on-one. And that was surprising to me how comfortable and how effective it was just to be myself. So that was surprising and unusual and different in transitioning from the bench of a very formal process to chatting with the litigants. And I love that.
Sonya Palmer:
A relief probably to kind of just step into something that feels a little bit more comfortable, more like you. And then you talked about building trust because confidentiality is a key aspect of private mediation. I like what you said about just getting to know them and that can help put parties comfortable with the sensitive information. Does that also have an impact on the mediation process?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Absolutely. Confidentiality is secret in mediations and there is a very robust group of statutes in California dealing with confidentiality. I mean, the confidentiality even starts before the mediation starts. It starts at the pre-mediation conference. In fact, it starts when the litigant contacts the mediator to see they want to mediate the class. So I think it's very important that what happens in mediation stays in mediation basically. It's important for them to understand that this is their day for they 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 in the paper the next day, and that it's not going to be shared with the other side unless of course the parties agree to sharing that information. So I think that's why the litigants feel comfortable, I hope, in a mediation because they know that whatever they're sharing with the mediator is confidential and that it 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 to agreement. Are there key differences in facilitating?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
With regards to involuntary mediations, I think you're mostly 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 go and try to settle this case. They're ordered. So they have no choice to go to the mandatory settlement conference. Whereas a mediation, private mediations are voluntary because a judge cannot order a litigant to go pay for a mediator to resolve a dispute because private mediations is for a fee. So the pivotal difference, in fact, I wrote an article on that too, the differences between MSCs and mediations, and in addition to the key difference of the confidentiality of how it applies to one and not the other is really that.
That in doing a voluntary mediation, it's more likely to settle because both parties have volunteered and they say, "We want both meet." Whereas if the judge orders you, you have no choice. You have to follow the judge's order. And sometimes when they appear at a mandatory, mandatory is the key word, settlement conference, they may not want to be there. They may not be ready to settle for sometimes very good reasons. They need to take a key deposition, they are missing a report, they're missing some information and they may not be ready. So the key difference is the party's ability and readiness to settle or not settle.
However, sometimes even when the parties don't think they're ready because, "Oh, we really can't resolve it until we take this other 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's explore to see if you could settle without that information." And a lot of times it does. A lot of times you can't because you absolutely need that information. So that's the key difference. And I prefer that there be voluntary so that they're of course have more willingness to settle.
Sonya Palmer:
Your strong people skills and tenacity allow you to read the room during settlement conferences and mediations carefully. Can you walk us through your process for assessing the dynamics between parties and identifying the core issues at stake?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Very good question, because the dynamics between the parties can sometimes just drive the mediation. There may be legal issues, there may be factual issues, but if there's dynamics of relationship issues between the parties, it's not going to go anywhere. So my process of assessing the 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, the real motivation of the parties. Why did they really sue each other? And not only why, most importantly, what is driving their motivation to either try the case or settle the case.
And sometimes it has nothing to do with the disputed issue. It has to do with something else. So my goal is to get to that something else that is motivating the party so that I can understand how to help them shape and customize that agreement to that motivation that is really not in the pleadings. You'll never find that really in the complaint or the answer. It's something that I have to, by talking to the parties, understand what is really motivating them. A lot of times if you have disputes between businesses, it could appear to be even like a sibling's or spouse's fighting because of what they did 10 years ago.
They're still holding a grudge. So I think it's important to get to that key and work with that. And that takes time to develop and understand because it's trust. People are not going to tell mediators are very delicate, sensitive issues, but that is really what's driving the reason for settling or not settling.
Sonya Palmer:
Sometimes is it even subconscious? Do they even know why they're there? And can a good mediator understand that and reveal it?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Excellent point. I agree a hundred percent. Sometimes they themselves don't understand why they really don't want to do XYZ, and you got to... I kind of play psychiatrist a lot of times too.
Sonya Palmer:
There's a lot of emotion which can cloud so much. So that makes sense. Someone that can cut through it.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Exactly, the emotion can cloud it. And sometimes they don't know why they are being clouded. It's basically a lot of discussion and exploring with them to try to get to the bottom of their reasoning for wanting to have settled this way or that way, other than money of course. A lot of times money is not even the issue or the amount, they want to feel that they have 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 subjective feeling that hopefully the settlement will give them peace of mind so they can move on.
How women’s soft skills—active listening, emotional intelligence, collaboration—drive better outcomes in negotiation and mediation.
Sonya Palmer:
Yes. And research has shown that women tend to excel in soft skills like active listening, emotional intelligence, the collaborative problem solving to get to the root of those things. Have you seen these skills play out in your own work? I mean that's kind of exactly what we're talking about, these soft skills that women tend to have.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Right. And that was from one of the studies I reviewed when 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 would have them. But this particular study shows that women were more successful in doing those types of cases and because of the soft skills that they call generally assigned to women, which again, I emphasize is not necessarily a female trait, but when they say the data tends to show that their ability to think like a woman can produce very positive outcomes in the legal process.
But what does that really mean? I think it's... If anybody, men or female have the skills of being able to build consensus and fostering relationships, cooperative approach, they can get to end the result the same as any anybody else. So it's important. And I have seen those skills and I often use them. That's not all only going to judges, that's attributable to how teachers, police officers, a lot of times female police officers de-escalate a situation whereas a male may escalate it. They bring different elements to the situation.
Sonya Palmer:
It's not necessarily a female approach. It's a new approach that women tend to use more often.
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
Yes. Very well put.
Sonya Palmer:
As more women enter the fields of alternative dispute resolution, 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 way that 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 it gives the litigant more options. Let's say as an attorney you have a case where you say you have a particular client that says this client really would benefit from the soft skills that women have because of the particular personality or issues. It's wonderful as an attorney to have a market full of mediators or a lot of mediators that have skills that would be perfect fit for your particular case.
So I think it's wonderful for the legal profession, for the litigant, and most importantly for society as a whole because you have women who will bring those skills to help resolve disputes. And the question, a lot of the... UN uses a lot of women negotiators for negotiating a peace because they tend to have a better outcome.
Sonya Palmer:
Excellent. One final thing as we wrap up. I like to look to the future. What gives you the greatest hope and optimism for the future of women in the legal industry?
Honorable Dalila Lyons:
I think what gives me the greatest hope is that we are making improvements, that things are getting better. I remember when I first started as an attorney, 1984, things were quite different then. I have seen some changes and for improvement, not enough, but I think we're in the right direction. I like to attend and listen to younger, more junior attorneys, and I was not happy that they're still complaining about the same things I was when I was an attorney. So things have changed. On the other hand, things have not changed.
I'm hoping that with the education of the bar and learning about each other and about the benefits of women in the legal profession will make the legal profession a better profession, a more robust profession. A profession that has been enriched by the beautiful tapestry of the backgrounds that 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 no one attended college to become a respected judge exemplifies the power of curiosity and determination. The importance of diversity in the judiciary cannot be overstated. Women judges bring unique perspectives that enrich our justice system, increasing public confidences as litigants feel truly heard and understood. We've seen how women's soft skills, active listening, emotional intelligence, and collaborative problem solving are proving to be powerful assets in negotiation and mediation.
These abilities, while not exclusive to women, are reshaping how we approach conflict resolution. As more women enter alternative dispute resolution, they're not just filling roles, they're transforming them. Their presence provides more options for litigants and attorneys ensuring a better fit for each unique case. The legal landscape is evolving and women are at the forefront of this change. While challenges remain, the future is bright with 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 practice area, negotiating your promotion, or aspiring to leadership roles, you're part of a larger movement reshaping the legal profession. If you found this content insightful, inspiring, or it just made you smile, please share this episode with a trailblazer in your life. For more about Dalila, check out our show notes. While you're there, please use a review or a five star rating. It really helps others discover the show. And I'll see you next week on LawHer, where we'll shed light on how another of the brightest and boldest women in the legal industry climbed to the top of her field.
Until next time, stay inspired, stay empowered, and keep making waves in the legal industry. You've got this.
