‘Hot Attorney’ Website is Iced

Law Firms

Posted Jul 8, 2008, 10:17 am CDT
By Martha Neil

A "Hot Attorney" website that featured photos and biographical information about attractive young women attorneys at major law firms has been taken down, after it caught the attention of the media, including Above the Law.

"Marketed as a kind of 'hottie hall of fame,' " it gathered information from websites of law firms such as Cozen O'Connor, DLA Piper, K&L Gates and Latham & Watkins and posted it in categories including "HotAtty Supreme Court," reports the National Law Journal.

Some women featured on the site didn't know about it until contacted by a NLJ reporter. Among them: Abby Sacunas, who works in the Philadelphia office of Cozen O'Connor, described the site as "demeaning and sexist."

She was also unhappy to discover that a Google search for her name brought up her "Hot Attorney" listing along with her firm profile at Cozen O'Connor, and says she intends to bring the issue up with human resources.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by the law - 3 months, 4 days, 10 hours, 53 minutes ago

FACISTS!!!
Posted by associate - 3 months, 4 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago

So how many of you have now googled Abby Sacunas, and is Cozen O’Connor’s site still up?

Just an observation, but her commenting on this probably made the issue more notable than just letting it pass by.
Posted by dude - 3 months, 4 days, 57 minutes ago

When Sacunas gets a little older, she’ll be bragging about being chosen for the website.
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 3 months, 1 day, 18 hours, 59 minutes ago

UGH! It is important that this sex-based blog/website/whatever not be glorified. And you guys are wrong. Women don’t need a website to tell them if they are HOT. These women have accomplished more than 98% of other women, by virtue of their law degrees and bar memberships. They need NOT be objectivized for their good looks by sleazy men (# 2 and 3 above are so typical). I don’t personally know any of these women, but they should be applauded for their legal skills. What type of MEN have time to put together a website of HOT women associates? It is a shame that he doesn’t spend his time on productive legal work. I think he should take note of the legal accomplishements of all women lawyers and leave the pictures behind. These women, unfortunately, will now just be thought of as meat, and that’s TOTALLY WRONG. These attorneys should be viewed as women; not for being physically attractive, but for being able to get their in such a sexist envirnonment and do their jobs with these disgusting men leering at them. We ARE J.D.’s AND members of the bar, and that means we have met legal old farts license to leer at us, grope us or anything else. We wan to practice law. Please think of us as lawyers, that’s what we are. Thank you.
Posted by Scott - 3 months, 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes ago

Last time I looked, a U.S. Citizen still had the right to say anything --- even offensive things (and this includes ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’ things) --- even if it was wrong, immoral, disgusting, sexist, racist or homophobic.

The fact that the website in question was tasteless, possibly sexist, certainly offensive is not a valid grounds for squelching its expression, unless we all want to agree to live in a society where we have no freedom of speech.

It is about time that lawyers start defending our constitution, even to the point of defending people who’s expressions of speech disgust us, instead of trying to limit what everyone says to only those things which do not offend anyone and which track the party line as to what is acceptable.

Feel free to be offended and incensed by this website. Don’t use your personal disdain for its vulgarity to undermine the foundations upon which this Country is based.
Posted by lawstudent - 3 months, 1 day, 17 hours, 25 minutes ago

I wanted to address Scott’s comment.

I think he is absolutely correct that litigation should be used as a tool to defend our civil liberties instead of chilling people from participating in perfectly legal behavior, however offensive we may find find that behavior to be.

Nonetheless, if the operators of this blog were using photographs of these attorney’s in a way which they were not legally permitted to, there was probably a legitimate threat of a lawsuit. There clearly isn’t anything wrong with filing a lawsuit for legitimate reasons even though you may also have ulterior motives for doing so.
Posted by lawassociate - 3 months, 1 day, 17 hours, 15 minutes ago

Why is this associate upset that her Cozen law firm profile comes up as a Google hit? My profile for my firm comes up as a Google hit, and it doesn’t really bother me. It’s information that’s available on a publicly accessible website, so I don’t mind that it comes up on Google. Am I missing something here?
Posted by Gatsby - 3 months, 1 day, 17 hours, 10 minutes ago

Wait? Abby’s supposed to be hot? She looks like a muppit. Sorry, but she does. I’m glad they shut down the site...it’s inaccurate.
Posted by BC - 3 months, 1 day, 17 hours, 2 minutes ago

law associate - she is not upset her name popped up with her firm profile, she’s upset that in conjuncture wi th her firm profile the “Hot Attorney” profile came up as well. So anyone who wanted to find her as an attorney would not only see the normal firm site, but the offensive one as well.

On a side note...while I am not agreeing with or codoning the website, it is kind of funny and ridiculous that someone had enough time on their hand to go look at all the firms profiles and rate the women who work there. We used to do stuff like that in highschool...but come on, the people who did this are adults with WAY too much time on their hands.
Posted by esquiress - 3 months, 1 day, 16 hours, 27 minutes ago

I just want to address Scott’s comment also:

Are you an attorney? No where in the article did I read that the government ordered the website to be removed...seems like the do*cheb*gs who put it up decided to take it down by their own accord, or were so ordered by their superiors. Even if the web hosting company removed it without the owners’ consent, this STILL wouldn’t be a Constitutional issue. Honestly.

I don’t see government involvement anywhere here (or even any statutory violations), and that therefore, leaves it outside the scope of any debate about free speech or the Constitutional rights of do*cheb*gs. You sound like either a 1L who isn’t going to make it to 2L, or a college undergrad who took one pre-law class and thinks he knows what he’s talking about.
Posted by ironstone - 3 months, 1 day, 16 hours, 8 minutes ago

When there are statistics in any quote, I always return to Mark Twain… There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Women lawyers do not necessarily accomplish more than 98% of all other women. What a slanted view of jobs and accomplishments.
If you can, argue the law, if you cannot argue the facts, and if all else fails, know the judge.
Sexism in law shows against both sexes. Lawyers are human like most other people, although I have heard them compared with many members of the animal kingdom.
As an older law student, I appreciate a cute young lawyer or law student and have watched young lawyers develop just like other segments of the population.
What disturbs me most about the legal profession is the sense that they want to be above the law, and above all other human activities.
The quote should not be War is Hell.. but possibly Law is hell.
Posted by I'm not really here - 3 months, 1 day, 16 hours, 4 minutes ago

At least the judicial hottie page is still up. If I weren’t male and straight, I could fall in love with Alex Kozinski. http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2004/06/courthouse_foru.html
Posted by jpg594 - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 56 minutes ago

Are 2% of women attorneys?
Posted by jpg594 - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 53 minutes ago

Oh yeah, and get the f back to work.
Posted by JNT - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 42 minutes ago

This website sounds like a great idea! Too bad it got nixed. Eye candy sells just as much as intelligence.
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 33 minutes ago

I think it’s a sad reflection on our profession, one that’s *supposed* to be filled with rational, intelligent people, that many of the posters here are condoning sexism and objectification of our colleagues.
I realize that for most of you, it’s your insecurity expressing itself. You look around law schools and realize that the majority of students are female, that many of the brightest students are female, and that because you can’t compete with them as an equal, intellectually, you’ll instead try to take them down a peg by treating them as a piece of eye candy instead of a person.
Frankly, if you’re this terrified of dealing with intelligent people on their level, you’re probably in the wrong field.
Posted by JFK - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 30 minutes ago

The article should have provided a link to a chached version of the website. (For purely scientific reasons, I’d want to see what all the fuss was about.)
Posted by chuck - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 25 minutes ago

Gatsby post #8, you’re way off base - she doesn’t look at all like a muppit. She’s totally hot. I agree with JFK, this website needs to be analyzed.
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 21 minutes ago

Please, chuck, JFK, you guys are unable to find porn anywhere else online? Are you really that computer-illiterate?
Or, as I said above, is this not about checking out hotties, but really about trying to assert power over your female colleagues with the better grades?
Posted by KSM - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 15 minutes ago

I think Dan has it all wrong. Lawyers are human beings. Men generally ogle women. Women do the same, but usually with far greater tact (i.e. they make greater use of mirrors and other reflective surfaces - a hint my girlfriend actually passed along). Therefore, nobody should be shocked that websites like the one above have existed or will continue to exist. Quite honestly, women need to get over themselves. Law school is NOT the real world, and there is not a vast conspiracy to keep women oppressed. This is the 00s, not the 60s, and women are welcome and appreciated in the workplace. Do men still check them out - OF COURSE. Because that is what ALL men do. I’m sure the opposite is true, but women tend to be far more discrete about it. I just think that’s the way we’re programmed. If the ladies above are so shocked and saddened by this basic life fact, then I recommend they band together and start a predominantly female law firm. Part time schedules and maternity leave for everyone. Enjoy!
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 11 minutes ago

Really, KSM, you’re so controlled by evolution that you can’t possibly restrain yourself? Your intellectual capacity is so inadequate that you can’t be as equally discrete as women? While I would have given you more credit, I’ll have to accept your estimation of your own abilities.
Posted by Jarrod - 3 months, 1 day, 15 hours, 7 minutes ago

Ellen like many guys who have read these comments I can understand your concern for the comments being made. Unfortunately it is impossible to overlook some clear, but perfectly natural, biases you have. The 98% comment I know is in regard to a University study done about three years ago on “what are the most difficult professions to get into”, so that I can understand. However being smart, nay ... being successful does not earn us lawyers (male or female), some new right to privacy. On the other hand, like Mr Brad Pitt who’s name you and I both carelessly throw about (though he may not want it), success means that our privacy will pushed to its limits.
What I will agree with you in saying, surely we can find better things to do with our time, than invade the privacy of our colleagues. But Ellen, I find your justification for why women in the law should be treated differently, not as a fight against sexism, but an expression of elitism. If you want to fight for the rights of women not to be objectified.... Fight for all women not just the 2% to which you belong.
Posted by energy guy - 3 months, 1 day, 14 hours, 45 minutes ago

I agree with JPG594: Who is billing right now??? Set your offense aside and make more money for the partners at your firm!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They need additional vacation homes along with their mansions . . .
Posted by Dude Attorney - 3 months, 1 day, 14 hours, 14 minutes ago

Everyone against this site needs to lighten up. The same women who are offended by their inclusion in this site are sometimes the same ones that use their looks, bodies whatever in cases/situations that they have. If you don’t think “Hotties” use their attractive assets in negotiations, client promotion and trials, your mislead. It is human nature to put your best foot forward and give the perception of excellence. I have witnessed women in all facets of business use their looks to be successful and there’s nothing wrong with that. People want to work with, associate with and deal with attractive successful people, whether right or wrong, that’s how it goes. Turn on the tube tonight and check any TV show, not a lot of troll women appearing there.
Posted by 3L - 3 months, 1 day, 14 hours, 13 minutes ago

I just finished my PR class this summer and noticed that nobody mentioned that this sort of website, much like the “ambulance chaser” ads, puts a tarnish on the profession. I don’t really have an opinion on the website, but I note that the profession has a bad public image to begin with, and I can’t imagine that this really enhances its appearance of professionalism.
Posted by Muppet - 3 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 59 minutes ago

Did Jarrod really use “nay” in a sentence? Verily Jerrod harken ye back to Subway! Godspeed!
Hate to be the judge reading your pleadings and motions.
Posted by X - 3 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 38 minutes ago

#21 - The very basic point that KSM was making is that men admiring the looks of women is a fundamental aspect of human nature—it’s nothing new and will never change. This has nothing to do with intellect. ALL human beings are subject to these impusles. KSM was merely pointing out how men and women tend to engage in this behavior in different ways.

As Dude Attorney says, the reality is that female attorneys who others consider “hot” generally have no problem with this and very often use it to their advantage.

The site seemed fairly harmless to me—I really wish I had gotten the chance to check it out!
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 3 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 33 minutes ago

Ms. Barshevsky’s comments (#4) suggest that she perceives her self as a lawyer and only a lawyer, and not also as a woman—and that’s how she wants others to perceive her.

That’s too bad. People like her, of either gender, tend to have very lonely and limited lives, followed by burnout and regret.
Posted by EC - 3 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

hmmm, really? not the least bit flattered? In law school, the guys had a top 10 list—I would have been more offended to be off it than on it. The website may have been sexist but like “dude” above speculates, she will be bragging some day.
Posted by Aging and Not so Thrilled - 3 months, 1 day, 13 hours, 3 minutes ago

If some kind soul would post a 40+ hottie list and place me on it, I would be delighted and probably add it to my firm resume. Kidding aside, it’s pleasant to be objectified when you’re established and have clients but not so much when you’re young and trying to make a reputation for yourself (preferably one as good lawyer, not a hottie), and so I get where these young women are coming from.
Posted by Diamond Jim - 3 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 48 minutes ago

Does this mean we should abandon our firm’s wet T-shirt contest that we have for female associates? We do not post those on our firm web site but perhaps we should re-visit that issue.
Posted by jdp - 3 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 36 minutes ago

All of the complaints seem to flow from the assumption that a woman can’t be BOTH smart AND hot, that if you are one you can’t be the other. Celebrating one doesn’t mean disrespecting, disregarding, or denying the other.
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 33 minutes ago

"All of the complaints seem to flow from the assumption that a woman can’t be BOTH smart AND hot, that if you are one you can’t be the other.”
Did the website list GPAs, honors, or other awards? Nope. This was about just being hot, and did disregard the other.
Posted by mfargis - 3 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 27 minutes ago

We all know that obtaining a JD and passing one or more Bar exams are no guarantee of maturity, good character, diligence or even native intelligence. Having said this, it is my experience that “hot” young female attorneys work very hard to prove that they are good lawyers and their looks are irrelevant. And if I have to watch someone work hard, it might as well be someone easy to look at.
Posted by jdp - 3 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 26 minutes ago

Did the website say they had low GPAs, no honors, and no other awards, or did you assume that yourself? “It was just about being hot”—you supplied the negative inferences, not the website operator.
Posted by lom - 3 months, 1 day, 12 hours, 16 minutes ago

One thing that bothers me about American culture is that we are so caught up on having the “right” (and the forum) to behave in almost any way we please, that the controlling norms in our culture are those of poor taste and disregard for the person hood and dignity of other people.

Yeah, sure, it’s neither illegal nor unconstitutional to be demeaning, vulgar, and rude in most venues and senses, but that doesn’t mean that as a culture we should so freely flaunt and exercise those expressions of our freedom....

it truly saddens me that just as a culture, there are so many of us that choose to act in poor taste and be so exploitative of the dignity of others.

The point that sexual urges are natural is well taken...however, exploiting those urges and feelings at the expense of others in such a public way is just gross and senseless.

Guess what guys, women often have urges to put up websites with your photos and sexual stats (length, girth, methods, technique, timing), and law firm...I’m sure most of you though, are glad that we generally don’t make a practice of it.
Posted by anonymous - 3 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 55 minutes ago

A Google search using the website still turns up all the names and blurbs. Whoever ordered the web operators to disable, ought to contact Google too.
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 40 minutes ago

jdp, as pointed out by #37, you can find cached copies of the site online, and no, they don’t list honors, GPAs, or other awards. Just current firm and prior law school. So, would you like to respond to my substantive point, or just back out quietly?
Posted by Anonymous - 3 months, 1 day, 11 hours, 39 minutes ago

What’s wrong with being hot? We need to embrace our power and potency as being hot women - its a compliment, not an insult ladies… unless you’re ugly and didn’t make the website I guess…
Posted by jdp - 3 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 39 minutes ago

Dan, why would I back away quietly when you keep making my point? The website doesn’t say anything about GPA, honors or awards. It is utterly silent on that point. Are you still arguing that because they DO make reference to physical appearance, they MUST be disparaging the mental capabilities of these women? (Which is, of course, my point-- your assumption that recognizing one inherently implies that the other is lacking.)
Or are “hotness” and capability so strongly linked that they must always be mentioned together? You don’t see awards and honors on the “hot fireman” calendars, either… should we assume that these guys are unqualified as firemen?
Or are you suggesting that “hotness” depends on GPA? I guess it is subjective…
Posted by Dan - 3 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 28 minutes ago

jdp, you said “celebrating one doesn’t mean disrespecting, disregarding, or denying the other,” and I pointed out that they certainly do disregard ‘the other’. Stop backpedaling.
Posted by MJ - 3 months, 1 day, 9 hours, 27 minutes ago

I agree with #18...she’s pretty HOT!!! I want to be her client.
Posted by Female Attorney - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 58 minutes ago

I don’t think the issue is so much that the women have a problem with being “hot”, it’s the danger than she will be taken less seriously when objectified in this way.

Be honest, if you were the person responsible for selecting an attorney for your company to handle the company’s legal affiars, and YOUR JOB depended on it, you might think twice about selecting a lawyer who, when googled, came up on the “Hot Lawyer” site.

And anonynous @ 39, it’s not an insult to be thought of as “hot” but you don’t want to be soley defined by that and you definitley don’t want your client thinking about that website when you are trying to conduct business.

I agree with #36. If women created a website that guys considered to be demeaning, I’m sure the guys would cry foul. How ‘bout it guys? Anyone want to be on a website called “Arrogant Sexist Male Attorneys With Small Privates”? Any takers? Anyone?
Posted by jdp - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 55 minutes ago

If I understand argument correctly, referring to a woman in terms of attractiveness without listing her academic achievements is an insult? It is just not possible to assume that an attractive woman also has intellectual capacity? That if proof of academic qualifications are not attached, the only reasonable assumption is that she doesn’t have any? Or is there some other way to get to arguing that discussing only attractiveness brings the person’s intellectual capacity into disregard?
Just for fun, turn it around and argue it the other way. If we talk solely about someone’s intellectual capacities, are we insulting their appearance?
Posted by Mr. Manimal, Esquire - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 36 minutes ago

How do I apply to get my picture on the HotAtty site?? As a balding, hairy backed, middle aged sexy transaction guy with a body honed by years of piloting my desk and lifting closing binders, I think I’ve earned a right to share my mojo with all of you. Please ladies, one at a time - there’s plenty of Mr. Manimal for everybody.
One more thing: it’s muppet, not muppit.
Posted by Female Attorney - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 19 minutes ago

jdp, the problem is that women are objectified sexually in a way that men aren’t. Do you really think that a website called Brilliant Women Attorneys would have gotten a lot of hits?

Remember, women in this day and age still earn less than a man for the same work and it isn’t because they aren’t just as hard-working, intelligent, and capable.
Posted by wmg - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 6 minutes ago

Sacunas needs to lay off the tanning bed...#43, your last argument is apples to oranges - it was a Hot Attorney site, not Anal Retentive Cat Lover Attorney website
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 3 months, 1 day, 8 hours, 4 minutes ago

Most of the women lawyers I’ve known over the years—successful or otherwise—don’t have to worry much about appearing on “hottie” lists after several years of practice—that is, unless there’s a cadre of website creators out there turned on by women in dark suits with HIllary Clinton-style backsides from endless 14-16 hour days in their desk chairs.
Posted by Brian Griffin - 3 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 50 minutes ago

Female Attorney, first you ask, “Anyone want to be on a website called “Arrogant Sexist Male Attorneys With Small Privates”?” Do you honestly feel this is a fair comparison to the “Hot Attorney” website? Although some may find it demeaning, being labeled “hot” is nonetheless undeniably complimentary. On the other hand, apart from a small subset of freaks on Craigslist, I doubt many people would feel complimented by inclusion on the website you propose.

Second, you ask “Do you really think that a website called Brilliant Women Attorneys would have gotten a lot of hits?” So what’s your point? Are you suggesting that a website called Brilliant Male Attorneys would get more hits? Both have got to be the most snore-inducing ideas for websites I’ve ever heard.

You conclude by stating that “women in this day and age still earn less than a man for the same work and it isn’t because they aren’t just as hard-working, intelligent, and capable.” In general, you are correct. However, in this particual instance, if you employ the type of flawed logic in your legal practice that you have used in this forum, I would suggest that something other than your gender may be contributing to your comparatively low salary.
Posted by Commenter - 3 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 49 minutes ago

Why are these women getting all bent out of shape? Just because men identify certain women as hot or sexy does not “objectify” them, it simply identifies a pleasurable observable characteristic. You funny little muffins need to take a deep breath and chill out.
Posted by Female Attorney - 3 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 11 minutes ago

Brian, I won’t stoop to making personal attacks as you did regarding the “low salary”. My bank account is quite full and happy thank you, but that is the exception and not the rule in most industries.

This is merely a discussion of points to consider. What I am suggesting (and if I wanted to try to be insulting like you did, here is the point where I would suggest you take your head out of your @ss in order to try to understand the point I was making) is that you will never see a “Brilliant” site because, as you pointed out, it would be boring, but mostly TO MEN. I think many women would be proud to be on “Brilliant” site. All I am suggesting, as a point for those who do not understand why a woman would be upset about the “Hot” site, is that one should try to understand the issues that women face regarding gender that men do not face.

If a woman is offended by the website, she has a right to be. Just because you don’t understand or agree with her taking offense doesn’t make it less offensive to her. I compared “Hot” and “Small Privates” to illustrate the level of offense a woman might take. Just because you think it is a compliment to be on the “Hot” website doesn’t mean a woman is wrong for not feeling complimented.

Women, unlike men, are often taken less seriously because of how attractive they are. For example, how many men do you know that are ever criticized for dressing “too provacatively?”

No one wants to have their photos placed on the world wide web, without permission, in order to be sexually objectified and scrutinized. Why else would it matter if the woman was “hot” unless it was about sex? Like #36 said, “The point that sexual urges are natural is well taken...however, exploiting those urges and feelings at the expense of others in such a public way is just gross and senseless.”
Posted by jdp - 3 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 11 minutes ago

Female attorney: #1 Are you claiming that men aren’t objectified sexually, or just that it’s done differently? And yes, I do think that a website called Brilliant Women Attorneys would get a lot of hits… from people looking for attorneys. Finally, remember that short men also earn less than tall men, and that isn’t because they aren’t just as hard-working, intelligent, and capable, either. I fully accept the proposition that a woman can look attractive, be hard-working, intelligent, and capable, and even be underpaid, all at the same time. Saying that a woman looks attractive just is not at all the same as saying that she is lazy, stupid, and/or incapable. It’s just a genetic fact, the same as a man’s height.

Now, you say that men don’t get the same kind of treatment, and I think that’s true. Most men look better in a suit than they do in casual clothing. Since you equate “looks better” with lazy, stupid, and incapable, obviously wearing a suit to meet with clients or (shudder) to court is a major blunder. And every time a woman wears a flattering skirt suit, she’s just convincing the partners to take her off the fast track…
We all are given different tools for dealing with the world, some are smarter, some are better looking by contemporary standards; there are a variety of mental and physical attributes that can give advantages and disadvantages. You have the ones you have, and you don’t have the ones you don’t. Men and women are treated differently in a wide variety of circumstances. I’ll give you men are often unfairly paid more for substantially similar work if you give me men lose far more contested child custody cases than they win; women are judged by appearance more often (and not just by men!) but this doesn’t change my point.
Seriously, if you lose a client because you are (or aren’t) on the “hot attorneys” website, isn’t that a client you didn’t want to work for anyway? If you are a hard-working, intelligent, and capable attorney, isn’t your work going to speak for itself, and aren’t the kind of clients you do want going to find you because “hard-working”, “Intelligent”, and “capable” are important and “hot” isn’t?
Posted by Jerrod - 3 months, 1 day, 7 hours, 9 minutes ago

Ye, verily and forsooth. Whatsoever hath transpired?
Posted by Female Attorney - 3 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 58 minutes ago

jdp, the point is that if a woman doesn’t want to be on that website, she shouldn’t have to be. It may not be a compliment to her for whatever reason and if she feels that could be demeaning to her or detrimental to her career, no one should have the right to post her picture on a site such as “Hot.”
Posted by Dan K. - 3 months, 1 day, 2 hours, 30 minutes ago

Are you kidding?

If the biggest problem in your life is that you are so physically attractive people list you on a website of hot people in your profession, PLEASE switch lives with me.

Oh, boo-hoo, life is so rough for me because I’m gorgeous, it’s so tough having men do things for me for so much as a wink… waaaaah…

Nothing like cranky feminists to ruin a little bit of good clean fun.
Posted by dude - 3 months, 1 day, 59 minutes ago

Sleazy men?!! That’s laughable. One of the main reasons that women, especially those approaching middle-age-dom, have plastic surgery is because men stop looking at them!

“You know I was a hottie back in the day” is akin to “I used to have all the ladies back in the day.”
Posted by just wondering... - 3 months, 15 hours, 6 minutes ago

Did I miss something or has everyone just assumed that 1) the people who created this “hottie” website were MEN; and 2) those men were ATTORNEYS???

What if it was a woman or women who created the site? Or… What if it was a female atty who created the site? What if it was Abby (aka “the Muppet")??? Now do any observations change?
Posted by Lance - 3 months, 6 hours, 57 minutes ago

For any hot female attorney offended by those male comments and the Hot Attorney website, I am here for you and ready to listen to your complaints. Before I became attorney, my 11th grade chemistry teacher once told me that it was better to be talked about than not at all. For the most part, that is still true.
Posted by Dudette - 2 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 24 minutes ago

All comments considered, Ernie the Hot Attorney doesn’t look so “hot” to me. See posting at: http://ihearttech.typepad.com/photos/mississppi_bar_conf/jackson_032.html
Posted by dbomb - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 56 minutes ago

Men are either ugly or they’re not, and there’s not much they can do to change it. You (men) don’t get cover-up, extensions, lip gloss, mascara, so you’re pretty much stuck if you’re damn ugly. Even your hair, there’s not much you can do with a short hair style, and hair won’t cover up your face anyway.
Point being, women have had to find other things to love about men for generations as a result. And that is why men enjoy being recognized for their humor, intelligence, and skills (wink wink).
We women can truly have it all. Any woman can be made beautiful with all the aforementioned objects. That’s what makes make-over shows so fun. And for years, attractiveness was the only valuable thing a woman could offer. Or subservience.
I say, admire me. I’m hot, I’m smart - sing your praise from the mountain tops. But also know that I’m batting my eyes at the Judge during some sweet-lipped, grammatically-correct, persuasive legal diatribe while you’re checking out my butt.
And, #57, imagine you’re trying to create a psychological profile to catch a serial killer. Revisit your log of profiles/stereotypes and review the psychologicial description under “Man.” Do you want to go with the dead on match? Or do you want to go with the much looser match identifying a “Woman” killer? Or maybe you want to challenge society’s stereotypes by charging a “Lesbian” with the crime? Especially considering that “Man” teaches these ways to his sons and friends who eagerly adopt them as their own, and then they sit together drinking beer and boast about their latest demonstrations of these ways. “Man” is pretty much confessing to the crime on this one. I suggest you give up your search for another killer.
Posted by Al Veoli - 2 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 42 minutes ago

This is fraud. There is no such thing as a REALLY hot female attorney. If they were really hot, they never would have needed to go on to law school to earn a living. The same goes for guys. There is no such thing as a real beefcake lawyer. Just cheep imitations. If you want hot, look at the movies.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Law Firms