The Pregnant Lawyer: A Comedy of Errors in the Courtroom
By Simone Di Meo | November 16, 2024
Ah, the classic conundrum, “family or career?” A dilemma as old as time, or at least as old as the
primordial goo from which we all sprang. In today’s episode of “Let’s Put the Fun in Dysfunctional,”
the Court of Venice is giving us its best courtroom drama—complete with a pregnant lawyer, a
high-minded magistrate, and a dash of maternity mayhem!
Recently, President Salvatore Laganà made quite the splash, asserting that a freelancer—because let’s
be honest, who else would choose to be both perpetually overworked and underpaid?—would be better off
confined to her home, presumably brewing herbal tea and contemplating her life choices instead of
cultivating any career ambitions. Bravo, Salvatore! Nothing screams progress like a little
old-fashioned advice wrapped in a judge’s robe.
Imagine the scene—our hero, a pregnant lawyer, is facing off against two defendants. But wait!
She can’t make it because, lo and behold, she’s pregnant! And what’s the wise decision?
According to Laganà, it’s not about understanding her impossible situation; instead, it’s about
throwing her under the proverbial bus, and not even a cushy one at that. “No postponement for you!”
he quips, perhaps while waving a magical gavel that turns empathy into dust.
Now, enter Alexandro Maria Tirelli, our knight in shiny armor—of law! Tirelli, president of the
Criminal Chambers of European and International Law, swoops in to sound the alarm bells. He claims
this decision is a direct assault on “the rights of the lawyer” and essentially a masterclass in
turning motherhood into a disgraceful liability.
I mean, who knew being pregnant could be a “deficit”? As if her belly wasn’t already taking up
enough room in the courtroom—what’s next, Laganà? We start weighing women before they can serve?
“Sorry ma’am, you’re a pound over… that’s double jeopardy in our books!”
Tirelli makes a solid point here. The law doesn’t discriminate against pregnant lawyers taking on
cases. Where Laganà seems to think that motherhood is like a ‘get out of jail free’ card for
ambition, Tirelli argues it’s quite the opposite. It transforms maternity into a reason not to go
to work. What’s next? Shall we ask pregnant women to wear a badge saying “Handle with care” before
they step into the office?
And let’s take a second to unravel Laganà’s “simple” justification regarding the court processes.
He’s treating complex legal cases like they’re just arranging gym schedules. While he’s at it, he
should be handing out gold stars for effort. “Congratulations on your pregnancy, now here’s a
sticker for participating in life!”
In reality, we can see that demanding a substitute lawyer during such pivotal moments in court
is like hoping for a good latte from a vending machine. It might happen, but let’s not hold our
breath! Tirelli hits home, reminding everyone that a hasty decision like this tramples on the right
to defense and goes against the very principles we’ve erected our legal system on.
And while we’re at it, can we discuss the term “maternity protection”? Not optional, but mandatory—
kind of like that one friend who keeps texting you about their new keto lifestyle! Ladies are
professionals too, you know. We’ve got the talent, the brains, and clearly, we can multitask our way
through both court and crèche.
So, as we sit back and watch this delightful courtroom farce unravel, let’s keep one thing in mind:
it’s high time we treated professional women with the respect they deserve. Perhaps Salvatore should
swap his robe for a diaper bag and do a little bit of home study. After all, it’s 2024, and the only
thing that should be taking a maternity leave is outdated thinking!
November 16, 2024
In today’s society, celebrated for its commitment to equal opportunities and the empowering notion of “girl power,” a contentious debate has emerged surrounding the challenges faced by pregnant freelancers. Critics contend that, rather than striving for career advancement during pregnancy, such individuals might find greater solace in embracing their role at home. This brings to light an age-old dilemma that many women grapple with: should they prioritize family over career ambitions? Highlighting this ongoing struggle, Salvatore Laganà, the president of the Court of Venice, referenced “consolidated jurisprudence from the Court of Cassation” while discussing a recent case where a pregnant lawyer’s request to postpone a hearing was denied. This ruling, reported by Libero, resulted in two defendants appearing in court without legal representation during a decisive hearing, illustrating how systemic issues can impact individual rights and justice.
Lawyer Alexandro Maria Tirelli, who presides over the Criminal Chambers of European and International Law, passionately defends the rights of legal professionals, particularly emphasizing the importance of maternity and equality. Tirelli argues that nothing in existing laws restricts a pregnant lawyer from fulfilling professional roles, asserting that any suggestion otherwise constitutes both discrimination and a violation of constitutional tenets. He further criticizes the suggestion that the lawyer could have seamlessly appointed a replacement, stressing that such a move would neglect the gravity of the situation. “The appointment of lawyer Tartara was made specifically for a pivotal moment in the trial, and the notion of substituting her without proper context is fundamentally illogical,” Tirelli stated vehemently.
Tirelli strongly rebuffs the claims made by Laganà regarding the “simplicity” of the case, viewing them as indicative of a narrow perspective that fails to respect the complexities inherent in legal proceedings. He asserts that the criminal procedure code does not differentiate between simple and complex cases, and judges should refrain from making such subjective assessments. He posits that requiring a substitute attorney, who may lack adequate knowledge of the case file, to participate in a critical hearing amounts to a serious breach of the right to defense. “Fundamentally, if something is not explicitly prohibited, it is lawful; this principle is the bedrock of our legal system,” Tirelli elaborated. He emphasizes that illegitimate impediment is a legal protection designed to preserve the integrity of defense and by extension, the trial itself. A modest postponement would not have compromised the essence of the proceedings or impacted the statute of limitations, yet the ruling undermines core values such as fairness and justice.
Now, the responsibility shifts to the CSM (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) to evaluate whether action against the magistrate is warranted. Tirelli condemns the entire situation as indicative of a deeper issue: an insidious attack on the dignity of the legal profession, particularly for women within it. He questions, “What has become of moderation, empathy, active listening and emotional neutrality in this situation?” indicating the essential qualities a judge must possess seem to have been disregarded in this case. “A magistrate must serve the law faithfully as an enforcer and not distort it arbitrarily,” Tirelli concludes with gravity. “Maternity protection is a legal obligation, not a discretionary right.” Thus, while the spirit of “girl power” thrives, it appears to have boundaries that should not be crossed.
What are the systemic changes needed to support pregnant professionals in the legal field?
W perspective that fails to recognize the complexities of legal practice and the challenges faced by pregnant professionals. He poignantly points out that demanding a substitute lawyer for a critical hearing is not just impractical; it undermines the very essence of legal representation and the right to effective defense.
The ripple effects of Laganà’s ruling are significant. It raises questions about the treatment of women in the legal profession and reflects a broader societal tendency to marginalize the experiences of pregnant professionals. Tirelli’s defense is more than just a clarion call for the rights of lawyers; it is a rallying cry for justice, equality, and recognition of women’s multifaceted roles in both the family sphere and the professional realm.
As Laganà and Tirelli engage in this courtroom drama, the question remains: how can society better support women who navigate the often tumultuous waters of career and motherhood? Can maternity not be regarded as an inconvenient detour but rather embraced as a legitimate part of the professional landscape? To this end, it is crucial that we foster a cultural shift that values and protects the contributions of mothers in the workplace.
As we observe this unfolding situation, let’s remember that a commitment to progress is not merely words but actions. It is high time that the legal system—and indeed, all professions—recognize and uphold the rights of those who are pregnant. Both women and men must work together to dismantle the outdated perceptions that hinder not only individual careers but also societal advancement as a whole.
as we move forward into 2024, let’s take this opportunity to advocate for the change we wish to see. Supporting working mothers, creating inclusive environments, and challenging unjust norms should be at the forefront of our collective agenda. The ideals of equality and empowerment should not just remain slogans but become lived realities for every professional, regardless of their circumstances.
Ending Notes
Let’s raise our voices for the rights of professional women and commit to innovation in the workplace that embraces rather than stigmatizes motherhood. Because at the end of the day, achieving true equality means recognizing that every individual—be they a lawyer, freelancer, or any profession—deserves support, understanding, and the freedom to thrive both at work and at home.
