What's in a Name? Female Judges and Masculine Names

A paper published this month by two economics researchers found that female lawyers with masculine-sounding names have a better chance of becoming judges. Changing one's name from Sue to Cameron increases the chances of reaching the bench by a factor of 3, the authors found. Changing it from Sue to Bruce makes that a factor of 5.

The paper tests the Portia hypothesis, named for the character in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice who disguises herself as a man in order to win a court case as an attorney's apprentice. The study was conducted in South Carolina, where some judges are elected. Judicial elections are notorious for flying under the radar, so many judges are chosen based on their name on a ballot, and this study suggests that it's helpful in these blind elections to have a man's name.

A preliminary version of the paper is available here. (PDF)

There are plenty of other studies out there on the power of a name. This paper references a 2007 study showing that immigrants to Sweden who change their names to sound Swedish make more money. The authors of Freakonomics have famously hypothesized that children given uniquely African-American names are more likely to struggle in life (but they suggest that a name in this case is an indicator of future difficulties, not a cause).

Men still dominate the legal profession, but that's changing. In 1980, just 8% of lawyers in the U.S. were women. in 2003, that was up to 30%. Law schools today are about 50-50. Hopefully this means the next generation will move us toward more gender-equal courtrooms. As I wrote recently, seven of Obama's first 17 judicial appointments have been women (41%), while 78% of George W. Bush's appointments were men. (And Obama's seven female appointees are named Sonia, Beverly, Jane, Irene, Barbara, Dolly and Jacqueline - so there was no Portia effect here.)

via Ryan Sager at True/Slant and Tax Prof blog