Every morning, I scan a number of web sites to learn what has transpired during the hours in which I’ve slept. One site I consistently check is www.abovethelaw.com, a self-described legal tabloid committed to providing news, gossip, and colorful commentary on law firms and the legal profession. A recent posting is worthy of additional discussion.

 

Early Friday morning, I read a posting by Elie Mystal, “Biglaw Women: Do You Even Know How to Use Make-Up?” Mystal criticized the NY City Bar for issuing invitations (the program has since been cancelled) to a program, “Dressing for Success: Fashion Sense for the Workplace.” The target audience included NYC’s women lawyers.

 

Mystal quoted a number of “tipsters” who were decidedly opposed to the event. In his reportage, he seems not to have found any women lawyers who looked forward to participating in the program, though a later site posting did quote some who expressed disappointment upon learning of the seminar’s cancelation.

 

My concern regarding the thoroughness and fairness of Mystal’s reporting is minor in comparison to my concern about additional commentary the website editor included in his posting. Near the end of the posting, Mystal wrote:

 

 

Now, for all I know, Mr. Mystal, a law school graduate and one-time employee of a top NYC law firm, is an authentic gentleman. However, his choice of language, in particular the reference to his anatomical parts, served only to further coarsen the nature of the discussion. It was gratuitous and unnecessary.

 

Furthermore, his comments that some professional women could “use a little help,” should leave us all wondering whether or not we’ve made any progress since television’s Mad Men era. Most of us had hoped and believed that we had made great strides. It would appear, however, the editor’s of abovethelaw.com have not evolved. For additional proof, consider the site’s announcement of new associate editor Kashmir Hill, who apparently was awarded the position because: “[S]he promised us a photo with more skin in exchange for a promotion—and delivered.”

 

I hope that lawyers and other observers of “biglaw” will continue to critically examine the profession. Thoughtful critique may lead to improvement of a profession that has long been esteemed.

 

But please, Mr. Mystal, please refrain from further coarsening the discussion. If anything, members of our profession should seek to elevate debate.