From as early on as I can remember, my mother told my three sisters and me that we could be anything we wanted—except lawyers. She should have known better.

She was a lawyer herself, one who practiced during a time when the field was male-dominated and women were treated quite terribly. That statement is not based solely on family lore. She graduated from law school in 1982, and each day I walked to lunch during my three years at Villanova Law, I passed her photo in the class composite.

She loved law school. It was the practice of law she found abhorrent. She practiced asbestos defense litigation during its heyday and was traumatized by the treatment she received from the bar. It was not a single bad actor. It was the profession.

She recalls leading depositions with a dozen male attorneys constantly interrupting her. “Are you going to cry?” “Is this a joke?” “Do you need a break?” They rolled their eyes at the precision of her questioning, precision that would have been admired had it come from a male colleague.

She was bullied, plain and simple. She worked hard, earned a JD and passed the bar. But the profession did not welcome her as it did her male colleagues.

To describe my mother, I borrow from Edna St. Vincent Millay: “The courage that my mother had / Went with her, and is with her still: / Rock from New England quarried; / Now granite in a granite hill.”

My mother is granite, steady in a way that instills confidence that even in crisis, things will hold. She often quotes Churchill: “If you’re going through hell, keep going.” Only a woman who endured years of harassment while simply trying to do her job, at times pregnant, at all times in stockings and heels, could quote that line without irony.

Her stories were not exaggerations or isolated memories. They reflected patterns later recognized by the Supreme Court. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the court held that discrimination based on gender stereotyping violates Title VII. Ann Hopkins was denied partnership after being told she needed to walk, talk and dress “more femininely.” Professionalism was measured against a male template, and deviation carried consequences.

Accounts from women lawyers and judges who entered the profession in the 1970s and 1980s tell the same story: interruptions, mockery, tone policing and penalties for the very assertiveness praised in men. These narratives are not footnotes to legal history. They are its architecture.

Perhaps because of my mother’s experience, I grew up keenly aware of injustice and instinctively protective of those harmed by unchecked power. I never let fear stop me from speaking up. I inherited that from her.

Her worst nightmare came true anyway. I became a lawyer.

I entered the profession through the same practice area that drove her out. And along the way, I absorbed a quiet, persistent belief: I was not cut out for this work.

I did not fit the stereotype of a “real lawyer.” I am conflict-avoidant. I dislike performative aggression. My instinct is to build and connect, not dominate. I do not sharpen my elbows for sport. I never walk into a room wanting to win. I walk in wanting to understand.

Because the profession still worships the myth of the combative courtroom warrior, I assumed my temperament was a defect. I thought I was a good actor, able to put on the armor for the day and shed it afterward. I joked about it whenever someone asked what I did for a living. “A lawyer,” I’d say, then laugh. “I know. What was I thinking?”

For nearly a decade, I believed I was miscast. When I succeeded, I credited luck, preparation, caffeine or favorable facts. I looked confident. Inside, I was anything but.

It was only recently, after a year of upheaval and forced clarity, that I realized the truth. I wasn’t a bad lawyer. I didn’t actually know what good lawyering was supposed to be.

The realization came by exclusion. Lawyering is not about conflict. It is about clarity. It is not about aggression. It is about translation.

It is the ability to walk into someone’s most overwhelming moment and say, “I see what’s happening. Let me help you make sense of it.” It is telling a frightened child, “You are not alone. Your voice matters. I will make sure it is heard.” That is power. That is the sacred part of the profession.

Lawyers do not win because we shout the loudest. We win because we listen hardest. Because we turn chaos into roadmaps. Because we give words to people who do not yet have them.

My proudest moments are not courtroom victories. They are listening to an 8-year-old explain where he wants to live. They are sitting with a teenager, drawing the courtroom with a crayon so it feels less terrifying. They are stopping proceedings to make sure a client’s name is pronounced correctly because if we are deciding someone’s future, we should at least be able to say their name.

I learned something else the profession rarely teaches: Lawyering is not a zero-sum game. The best outcomes do not come from crushing an opponent. They come from clarity, so that everyone can leave with stability, resolution and dignity.

The law is not a win-lose sport because the fight is not ours. A lawyer obsessed with personal victory edges toward ethical failure. Our rules are explicit: We are agents of our clients, not avatars of our egos.

Advocacy is not the opposite of lawyering. It is the highest form of it.

Somewhere along the way, the profession divorced “lawyer” from “advocate,” as if one fights while the other feels. That split has cost us dearly. Empathy does not dilute precision. Curiosity is not weakness. The most effective lawyers are not the ones who enjoy the taste of blood. They are the ones who get the job done without anyone getting hurt.

The best lawyering I have done, whether in courtrooms, classrooms or quiet high-stakes rooms, came from the traits I once thought disqualified me: empathy, pattern recognition, restraint and the refusal to speak over people already afraid.

When I stopped performing the caricature I thought I had to be, everything aligned. I listened more carefully. I spoke more precisely. I built instead of burned. I won, not by fighting harder, but by understanding deeper.

Another mother-lawyer once said to the Supreme Court, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” Then-ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg referenced that quote in 1973 from 19th century abolitionist and women’s rights advocate Sarah Moore Grimké. My mother lived it 10 years later.

I came of age in a profession shaped by the women who endured that era. I realize now that my own uncertainty as a lawyer was less about ability than about inheriting a myth that never fit.

After years of doubt, here is the truth: I spent a decade believing I was a bad lawyer when I was, in fact, quite good at lawyering. The deeper revelation is this: The best lawyer I know is the one who raised me.

Angela B. Ryan is a lawyer, a mother of four and a former adjunct law professor at Villanova University, where she taught about children and the law. She writes about the intersection of law, motherhood and professional culture.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”