The Curious Case of Lidia Poët
Lidia Poët, the first woman in Italy to be admitted to legal practice, is not only the subject of a Netflix series but also the focus of a research paper by Roberto Isibor (Bocconi University) and Bojan Spaić (University of Belgrade). The paper "When legal interpretation is not about Language. The curious case of Lidia Poët", published in the Journal of Argumentation in Context, focuses on the legal arguments used by Italy’s top court in the late 19th century to exclude Poët from the profession of lawyer, despite the fact that she had met all legal requirements for admission.
Lidia Poët, born on 26 August 1855, into a Protestant family in the small village of Traverse in the Germanasca Valley, after graduating in law from the University of Turin in 1881 with a thesis on women’s voting rights, began practicing law and passed all the necessary exams to become a lawyer. However, despite the initial approval of the Turin Bar Council, her case sparked heated public and legal debate.
Isibor and Spaić’s research explores the various arguments used by the Court to justify its decision to exclude women from legal practice. The authors point out how the Court relied on linguistic and systematic arguments that were seemingly neutral but were actually influenced by gender bias.
Linguistic arguments: The court argued that the term “lawyer” (“avvocato”) in the legal text was used in the masculine, implying that women were not included in the definition; the authors dispute this interpretation, pointing out that the choice of the masculine form was a linguistic convention rather than a true normative exclusion.
Systematic arguments: The court held that the legal profession was a public office, from which women were excluded by law; the paper opposes this view, showing how systematic interpretation was actually a cover to justify discrimination based on social preconceptions and not on rigorous legal analysis.
Natural and historical arguments: The Court also resorted to arguments based on a purported “naturalness” of gender differences, arguing that women, by their “nature”, were not suited to legal practice; the authors show how these arguments are rooted in a historical and social context that saw women as inferior, rather than a real consideration of individual capabilities.
Isibor and Spaić’s study is not limited to a historical analysis of the case, but also offers critical reflection on interpretive practices in law. The authors argue that linguistic and systematic arguments often mask substantive views that influence normative decisions. This case, therefore, not only illuminates the path of Lidia Poët, but also raises important questions about interpretive justice and the biases that can influence legal decisions.
Isibor and Spaić’s research reveals how court decisions can be influenced by social and cultural biases, not just formal legal arguments. The story of Lidia Poët thus becomes an egregious example of how legal interpretations can be used to perpetuate gender inequality. This academic insight not only enriches historical understanding, but also offers contemporary insights into how law can be used as a tool for social inclusion or exclusion.
