chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

ARTICLE

To My Former Self: Advice I Wish I Had When Starting My Career as a Litigator

Gabriela Chambi and Shreya Patel

Summary

  • Despite cultural norms encouraging silence and deference, it's essential for minority women litigators to speak up, advocate for their clients, and share their unique perspectives to contribute effectively in the legal field.
  • Litigation requires constant adaptation, and the ability to embrace change strengthens one's effectiveness and creativity in handling dynamic legal challenges.
  • Confidence is crucial for success in litigation; keeping your head down won't lead to excellence.
  • Embracing confidence allows you to advocate strongly for your clients and navigate the legal profession successfully.
To My Former Self: Advice I Wish I Had When Starting My Career as a Litigator
FatCamera via Getty Images

We are two minority women litigation attorneys—one Latina and one South Asian—who didn’t work with anyone that looked like us when we started our litigation careers. We both come from rich, colorful, and diverse cultures and backgrounds, which doesn’t quite fit into what the quintessential litigator looks like. Our cultures taught us to listen more and only provide our input or opinion when asked, give deference to those older than us, and keep our heads down because we should be grateful to have a job (and keep that job). These cultural values meant submitting to our white, usually male, colleagues when we graduated from law school and began our careers as litigators. Now, having practiced for over six years, we have three pieces of advice that we wish we could tell our younger selves: use your voice, adapt to change, and be confident. 

To be a good litigator, you need to use your voice. Although litigation entails listening to your client, you also need to be the voice for your client. You have to tell your client’s story and advocate for your client in the courtroom, with opposing counsel, and even in strategy meetings with others on your team. This requires using your voice to give your input and opinion. The client is relying on you to get it right. You don’t wait for the partner, judge, or opposing counsel to ask for your opinion (even though our Indian and Bolivian families would tell us the opposite) because, frankly, that won’t usually happen. You’ll be questioned on whether you will be able to survive as a litigator if you can’t speak up on your own terms. It’s not easy to flip a switch and become the most vocal person in the room, especially when our background has already greatly influenced the type of presence and voice that we have. But we have since realized that our respect for elders, particularly in big law, must be balanced with advocacy. You’re not just advocating for the client; you are also advocating for yourself (which can be the most difficult part). There are a lot of conversations, meetings, and strategy that happen outside of the courtroom and in the office (or, in today’s world, via Zoom) where we have learned and continue to learn that we need to use our voice. We may not be the ones talking the most at a meeting, but we keep our client and client’s goals in mind to use our voice and speak up when needed. And using our voice often leads to finding solutions because our cultural backgrounds provide different perspectives and ideas that cultivate creative decisions. Your voice matters, too.

You also need to be able to adapt to change—constant change. Our Bolivian and Indian cultures fight hard against change and strive to keep traditions alive. The traditional way is the only way—an unspoken mantra in our families. But you can’t control the world around you; you can’t even always control your client. That is litigation. You can control only what you do, what you say, and what you write. So be precise with what you say (to your client and opposing counsel) and with what information you gather from your client. As we’ve all been warned before, watch what you write in your correspondence because you never know what will become an exhibit to the court. With litigation, there is always a moving target, and you have to be prepared to change your strategy and your thoughts constantly to reach that target. While our cultural backgrounds may dictate otherwise, our ability to lean into our new “homes” after our move to the United States, or elsewhere, is what strengthens our ability to adapt to change and turns that adaptability into an asset.

The last piece of advice we would tell our innocent young lawyer minds is that you can’t be excellent with your head kept low. Yes, you can be grateful for the opportunity to work at the firm of your dreams, but that doesn’t mean you should sacrifice being confident. You can’t see what is ahead of you if you always keep your head down, right? Learning the facts, working on telling a persuasive story, and knowing your clients’ goals do not matter much if you do not have the confidence to advocate for them. It is not just about drafting a well-pleaded complaint with all the facts you learned from your client interview. It’s also about being able to discuss with the partner and client the weak spots that will likely appear in a motion to dismiss. This is the type of excellence that comes with confidence.  

To this day, we continue to have the instinct to follow the rules and teachings of our cultures that say we need to be quiet and listen and to wait to be heard. We constantly remind ourselves that to be an excellent litigator, we need to modify those values. Instead, we actively shift our mindset to focus on using our voice, adapt to changes, and exude confidence. And while this is not easy to do and won’t happen overnight, it is an opportunity to build yourself into the type of litigator you want to be—not necessarily replicating the litigator stereotype but using your cultural background and what you have learned to be stronger litigators who are breaking the mold. The legal world belongs to everyone, not just a select few.

The views expressed herein are solely the personal views of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. treasury or any other government agency.

    Authors