Do Masculine Names Help Female Lawyers Become Judges? Evidence from South Carolina

Patrick A. McLaughlin ()

American Law and Economics Review, 2009, vol. 11, issue 1, pages 112-133

Abstract: This paper provides the first empirical test of the Portia Hypothesis: Females with masculine monikers are more successful in legal careers. Utilizing South Carolina microdata, we look for correlation between an individual's advancement to a judgeship and his-her name's masculinity, which we construct from the joint empirical distribution of names and gender in the state's entire population of registered voters. We find robust evidence that nominally masculine females are favored over other females. Hence, our results support the Portia Hypothesis. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2009

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aler/ahp008 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:11:y:2009:i:1:p:112-133

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.oup.co.uk/journals

Access Statistics for this article

American Law and Economics Review is edited by Hon. Richard A. Posner

More articles in American Law and Economics Review from Oxford University Press
Address: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Series data maintained by Christopher F. Baum ().