Meet Shelley Smith, a City Solicitor With 200 Pairs of Shoes

Women in the Law

Meet Shelley Smith, a City Solicitor With 200 Pairs of Shoes

Posted Sep 2, 2008, 01:22 pm CST
By Martha Neil

It's not easy being in the shoes of Shelley Smith, who has served as Philadelphia's city solicitor for the past eight months.

For one thing, they're size 11, and she's got 200 pairs—50 of them ready for action in a closet in her municipal office. For another, she's got a tough job to do: "Smith, 43, a Villanova Law School graduate with a penchant for quoting Fred Flintstone, commands a $60 million-a-year department that includes 152 lawyers and 173 support staff," the Philadelphia Inquirer reports in a lengthy column. Although Smith is new to the city solicitor position, she has worked in the office for 13 years and, immediately prior to taking the helm, was an in-house lawyer at Peco Energy.

At one point, the city solicitor's office had some 30,000 open cases. Among them, Smith's oversight responsibility includes, to name just one high-profile case, a grand jury report finding that the city's Department of Human Services isn't doing enough to protect the city's 28,000 or so at-risk children. Its investigation was sparked by the controversial case of two parents who are accused of killing their disabled teenage daughter, Danieal Kelly, through neglect.

Meanwhile, she also earns her $175,000 annual salary by hiring the right attorneys—they start at $49,000, so finding them can be a challenge—overseeing labor contracts and avoiding unnecessary political battles.

So to make life a bit simpler, she comes into the office in flats and, once she carries a pair of dress shoes to match her outfit into work, leaves it there at the end of the day.

A large part of her role is being a cheerleader, she says, and, while she loves her job, she needs to use her time efficiently to be effective.

"I feel passionate about what I do," she tells the newspaper, which notes that she didn't make the squad back in the day when she was a high school student. "This is an easy cheerleading assignment, even for someone like me, who wasn't peppy enough to put on a short skirt, wave pom-poms in the air, and do splits."

Updated at 12:26 p.m. to clarify that the profile of Smith appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Veronica Zolina - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 45 minutes ago

Oh, great. You profile a high-powered woman attorney, and the focus of the piece ends up on shoes and cheerleading. Nicely done. Nothing about how her career path lended her in this position, or her proudest achievements, or mistakes she wishes she could undo, or career advice for other women - but lots and lots of fluff about cheerleading and shoes. With the legal industry’s track record in retaining and promoting women, you should be proud of this piece of (ahem) journalism.
Posted by Veronica Zolina - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 44 minutes ago

Sorry, that should be “landed,“ not “lended.“
Posted by Salaam Bhatti - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 20 hours, 44 minutes ago

I have no idea why I just read this article. I could have read a page in my casebook instead.
Posted by Pat Roberts - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 43 minutes ago

I can’t see how this qualifies as news, let alone one of the “Top 10 Stories of the Week”
Posted by Maureen - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes ago

Agreed - why is the lead-in about her shoes? Who cares except for those with a double standard of women in the profession? I would expect your next article featuring a male attorney to discuss how many suits he has and in what colors.

The cheerleading reference was also in poor taste. This article does nothing to help female attorneys rise above the stereotypes. And it is an unfair portrayal of a dedicated public servant.
Posted by Cindy McCain II - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 4 minutes ago

I want to learn more about her shoes; for instance, does she wear Prada, what are her favorite pumps, does she wear high heels into court, and what are her most expensive ones? As far as the other comments, shoes are the most important accessory a lawyer wears into court, so the focus of the article is refreshingly pertinent to the practice of law. How many times have you noticed an opponent’s shoes in court, and the scuffed up or too-worn shoes that detract from his/her presentation??? Juries and Judges notice such “inconsequential” things! Great story.
Posted by Kim - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 46 minutes ago

Gee, do we wonder why women practioners are disgusted with how they are treated in this profession? This so-called journal should be embarrassed - I’m fully certain that any portrait of a senior male public official would neither include a shoe count, nor any references to cheerleading. If this poor excuse for writing made the final cut, what kind of trash didn’t make it into the journal?
Posted by Jennifer - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 46 minutes ago

I keep stewing over this article. I bet the Philadelphia City Attorney was initially honored to be the subject of a piece in this supposedly professional journal under the heading “Women in the Law”. Imagine her humiliation now! Ms. Neil, raise your standards a bit. Surely you had other quotes from and information about Ms. Smith that you could have used. Alternatively, if there really is nothing more interesting about this woman than her shoes, perhaps you could have exercised some better judgment and manners and picked a different woman to feature.
Posted by Marea de Nice LaFond - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 45 minutes ago

OK, so I have to admit that I clicked on the article because, frankly, I didn’t think it was possible to amass that many size 11 shoes. (How shallow of me.)

Then I read the comments, and I have to admit I agreed. I was appalled by the seemingly overt chauvenism oozing through the article.

But would I have read the article had Ms. Neil (or her publisher) chosen a different headline? Probably not. So score one for the “grab.“
I would have liked, however, to read more information about Ms. Smith’s professional accomplishments - and how many hundreds of thousands of people’s lives have obviously benefitted from her work.

Its important to note: just because we’re lawyers (or law students, in my case), doesn’t mean we have to pretend we’re not WOMEN. It’s OK to talk about shoes and girly stuff - but Ms. Neil should have developed the article further. n. :>)
Posted by Marea de Nice LaFond - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 42 minutes ago

Cheers to Ms. McCain (II) - judges, OP’s and clients all pay close attention to the “trivial stuff” - so it’s not so trivial after all!
Posted by Monster Feet - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 17 minutes ago

Size 11 shoes? Holy crap batman, she’s an amazon. Maybe the story should have focused on how tall she is, what size pantyhose she wears, how many toe rings or tattoos she has. All those things would have been equally inane and inappropriate. Martha Neil must write for a small town elementary school paper.
Posted by Nichole - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 36 minutes ago

How condescending. Is this what “Women in the Law” is all about? More about her actual career history and how she came into a public service role would have been a lot more interesting and useful. I don’t have a problem with mentioning the shoes as a “something-not-everyone-knows-about-me” line, but to make it the main point? Come on! We deserve better than that.
Posted by Daniel Kelber - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 16 hours, 47 minutes ago

This is possibly the most offensive thing I’ve seen in an ABA newsletter. What in the world do the number of shoes Ms. Smith has is relevant to the job she performs. This is pure misogynistic crap.
Posted by Bill - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 16 hours, 26 minutes ago

This sentence upsets me: “Meanwhile, she also earns her $175,000 annual salary by hiring the right attorneys—they start at $49,000, so finding them can be a challenge.“ Is the author implying that it is difficult to find attorneys who will accept a mere $49,000? If so, I can show her scores of recent law school graduates who have been unemployed for a year or more who would jump at that salary - as well as plenty of employed lawyers who are making significnatly less than that. There was recently a craigslist posting offering $10/hr for a licensed attorney! Typical wildly misleading ABA garbage.
Posted by Kay Bee - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 39 minutes ago

Honestly, I am disappointed at the level of depth—really, the lack thereof—in all of these ABA stories. There are already gossipy law blogs out there—if we want to read them, we will. Meanwhile, the organization that is always asking me for money in return for the “benefits” it can offer should be offering content that is relevant to the practice of law and work-life balance. If Ms. Smith’s shoe collection was amassed as a result of embezzling funds, then *maybe* that merits a story like this. But the heading “Women in the Law” merits an insightful look into Ms. Smith’s career, as the other posters here have explained.
Posted by sb - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 37 minutes ago

Holy cow, people, lighten up. #1: Ms. Smith made the comment about being a “cheerleader;“ and #2: The public interest story is about a querky woman who runs a high-profile city solicitor’s office, owns 200 pairs of shoes, and wears a size 11; that’s different enough to warrant writing an article about. Magazines are not just about “news,“ as many of you have complained. They have the occasional “Wow, that’s kind of interesting” story, a/k/a public interest. So I leave off with what I started with, which is: for Pete’s sake, lighten up!
Posted by sb - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 31 minutes ago

Oh, and I forgot this comment, so I’m adding it, so excuse me from the bottom of my heart.

If she was a man, it would be just as interesting, except you wouldn’t have ... um ... whatever the male equivalent of “feminist” is complaining about the focus of the article being on his ties or shoes or the fact that he views his job as “babysitting” or “catherding.“ Lighten up.

And Bill, try living in Philadelphia on $49k; it may be OK for Possum’s Creek, or wherever you think you can live on less than that.
Posted by Tom McCan - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 26 minutes ago

Where does a civil servant get the money to own 200 pairs of shoes?
Posted by Mr. Shumaker - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours ago

If my memory serves me correctly, a woman’s size 11 is the same as a man’s size 8, so her feet are not too large.
Posted by Foot Locker Sales Assoc. - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 38 minutes ago

A woman’s size 11 is the same as a man’s size 9 1/2.
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 34 minutes ago

I agree this article should NOT have focused on her shoes. It is not important, nor her shoe size. What is important is that she is a leader. Do articles about MEN focus on the size of their JOCKSTRAPS? I think not. I never read an article about a man lawyer and his private parts. This typifies why WOMEN are treated like dainties and are NOT respected for their minds, just their BODIES. I would never let an article be written about my body.
Posted by Norm Wright - 2 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 52 minutes ago

While I tend to agree with SB that maybe people missed the light-hearted point of the article, it was apparently authored by a woman, it does strike me that there had to be more relevant things to write about this City Administrator.

As a father who is a proud parent of a daughter at a fine school in Philly, I hope there are better things for her to look forward to than stocking shoes in her closet. Baseball caps for one.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Women in the Law