In transactional practice, credibility is often established before the negotiation even begins. The conference room fills. Introductions are exchanged. Business cards slide across the table. In those first moments, the participants in a deal quietly assess one another—who represents whom, who holds decision-making authority, and who will ultimately guide the direction of the negotiation.

For many women transactional lawyers, this moment carries an additional layer of complexity. These early assessments are rarely neutral. Studies have shown that implicit assumptions about authority and expertise can influence how individuals are perceived in leadership and negotiation settings, especially for women.[1] Similar dynamics have been observed within the legal profession, especially in roles that require establishing authority in traditionally male-dominated environments.

Transactional practice is no exception. Even as women have become increasingly visible throughout the legal profession, subtle assumptions about authority and leadership can still surface at the negotiation table. A woman lawyer leading a transaction may still encounter moments—often brief and unspoken—where her role is not immediately recognized or is quietly tested.

These moments are rarely overt. They may appear in small interactions: questions directed to a male colleague instead of the woman leading the transaction, assumptions about who holds decision-making authority, or subtle shifts in tone once roles become clear. Individually, these moments may seem minor, but over time they illustrate how credibility in professional settings is often shaped not only by expertise, but also by the expectations others bring to the room.

These dynamics do not prevent women from leading successful transactions, but they can influence how credibility is established and maintained throughout the life of a deal. Over time, many women transactional lawyers often develop ways of navigating these dynamics. For many women transactional lawyers, credibility is therefore built through legal expertise, but also through a form of professional labor that is far less visible: the relational and strategic work that keeps transactions moving forward. This work includes managing relationships among parties, anticipating points of tension, and guiding negotiations toward workable solutions.

Organizational research has increasingly described this type of effort as “relational” or “invisible” labor—work that supports collaboration and effective outcomes but is often undervalued in formal performance metrics and attributed to luck.[2] In transactional practice, this work becomes a powerful tool for building credibility and effectiveness in negotiations and is frequently central to whether a deal succeeds.

Establishing Authority at the Negotiation Table

Transactional lawyers do not advocate before juries or judges. Our advocacy occurs through negotiation—through the careful structuring of agreements and the steady process of guiding a deal from concept to closing.

In this setting, credibility is foundational. Clients and opposing counsel look for signals about who understands the issues, who is directing the strategy, and who can resolve the inevitable challenges as they arise.

Research on gender and negotiation has found that women are often evaluated differently than men when demonstrating authority.[3] Behaviors that are perceived as confident and effective in male counterparts may be interpreted differently when exhibited by women, creating a narrower range of behaviors that are consistently received as authoritative. For example, assertive negotiation tactics that are viewed as decisive when used by male attorneys may be interpreted as overly aggressive when used by women, while collaborative approaches are not always credited as authoritative, even when they produce effective outcomes.

Within transactional practice, these dynamics can influence how women lawyers establish credibility at the outset of a negotiation.

As a female transactional lawyer still in the earlier stages of my career, I have occasionally made small strategic choices to keep the focus on the substance of the deal rather than on perceptions about who I am. For example, I often keep my camera off during initial video negotiations so that the conversation centers on my understanding of the transaction and the strategy I am advancing for my client rather than opposing counsel’s perception of my authority based on how I look. My goal is simple: I want opposing counsel to evaluate my credibility based on preparation, judgment, and the quality of the negotiation—not on assumptions about my age or gender.

While these dynamics can present challenges, they also highlight an important aspect of transactional practice: credibility is not established through a single moment, but through the consistent demonstration of judgment, preparation, and the ability to guide a transaction forward. For many women, that demonstration often includes relational choices that keep negotiations focused, productive, and moving toward resolution.

The Invisible Work of Moving a Deal Forward

Every transaction involves more than the terms written into an agreement. People shape deals—clients with competing priorities, business partners navigating risk, lenders balancing financial considerations, and opposing counsel working toward solutions within their own priorities, constraints, and communication styles.

For many women lawyers, these relational skills become an important part of establishing credibility within transactional practice. The ability to guide conversations, maintain constructive dialogue, and build trust among parties can transform the dynamic of a negotiation.

Research in negotiation theory has long recognized that complex, multi-party negotiations depend not only on technical expertise but also on the ability to manage relationships and maintain trust among participants.[4] Transactional lawyers frequently perform this work in ways that are difficult to quantify. It may involve identifying and addressing points of friction before they escalate, reframing issues to facilitate agreement, or sustaining constructive dialogue among parties with competing interests. The most effective transactional lawyers combine technical expertise with the ability to manage the human dynamics of a deal.

Women professionals are often more likely to be asked to perform—and to accept—this work because it can serve as a powerful mechanism for building credibility. Many women transactional lawyers develop strong capabilities in this area, in part because navigating the legal profession has required careful attention to how authority is perceived and exercised.

Despite its importance, however, this work is not always recognized in the same way as more visible aspects of legal performance.

Transactional Practice and the Limits of Traditional Metrics

The legal profession has long relied on measurable indicators—billable hours, collections, and client originations—to evaluate performance and determine advancement. These metrics provide important benchmarks for productivity and financial contribution. At the same time, they do not always capture the full scope of contributions required for effective legal practice.

In transactional work, this gap can be particularly pronounced. Transactions rarely progress in a straight line from initial agreement to closing. Instead, they involve ongoing conversations among clients, lenders, business partners, and opposing counsel, each bringing different priorities, timelines, and risk tolerances to the negotiation.

Moving a deal forward often requires careful coordination and the ability to maintain productive working relationships among parties whose interests do not always align. Much of this effort falls outside the traditional metrics used to evaluate legal performance. This relational and strategic work is less visible than drafting documents or recording billable hours, even though it can significantly influence whether a transaction ultimately succeeds.

The lawyer who recognizes a point of tension early and reframes the conversation may prevent a negotiation from breaking down entirely. Similarly, the ability to build trust among negotiating parties can allow discussions to move forward when positions initially appear far apart.

For women lawyers, who are often more likely to engage in or be asked to perform this relational work, the disconnect between contribution and recognition can be especially noticeable. This collaborative, relationship-centered work supports credibility and authority, but is less consistently reflected in formal systems of evaluation. Within transactional practice, this dynamic can mean that some of the most important contributions to a successful deal remain largely invisible within the profession’s traditional measures of success.

Owning a small law firm brings these dynamics into particularly sharp focus. Relational work—the conversations that keep negotiations productive, the strategic concessions that build trust, and the effort required to keep parties aligned—is not always easy to quantify for clients. Clients understandably focus on results. Accordingly, I have found it helpful to discuss these dynamics early in a representation and explain how relationship-building can help secure more efficient and effective outcomes. When clients understand that this work often helps resolve disputes before they escalate and keeps negotiations moving forward, they are far more likely to recognize its value.

Recognizing the Work Behind the Work

Because these contributions are rarely reflected in traditional performance measures, women often must establish credibility through work that is simultaneously essential and undervalued. These forms of professional judgment frequently shape whether negotiations remain productive and whether agreements can ultimately be reached.

For many women transactional lawyers, this dynamic can feel particularly familiar. Establishing credibility in negotiations often requires not only legal expertise but also the relational leadership that keeps discussions constructive and focused on problem solving. These contributions are not ancillary to transactional practice. They are often central to the success of the deal itself and necessary for women to establish credibility within a negotiation.

Recognizing this dimension of legal practice does not diminish the importance of technical expertise. On the contrary, the most effective transactional lawyers combine deep legal knowledge with the ability to navigate complex human dynamics. Negotiations frequently involve competing interests, shifting priorities, and moments of uncertainty. Lawyers who can guide both the legal and relational aspects of these conversations provide an essential form of leadership within the deal process.

When relational and strategic labor is acknowledged as a core component of effective negotiation—and of how credibility is earned—the profession can better recognize the full scope of leadership required to close complex transactions. Expanding the profession’s understanding of what constitutes valuable legal work can therefore benefit not only women lawyers but transactional practice more broadly and encourage lawyers of all backgrounds to develop the full range of skills required to bring complex transactions to completion.

Fully recognizing credibility in transactional practice requires firms and clients to look beyond traditional metrics and intentionally value the relational and strategic work that often determines whether complex deals succeed. Making this work visible in evaluation and advancement more accurately reflects how transactions are actually brought to completion.

For many women lawyers practicing today, these forms of leadership have long been part of how credibility is established and maintained within transactional practice. As the profession continues to evolve, recognizing this work more fully will not only support the advancement of women lawyers—it will strengthen the practice of transactional law itself.

Sarah Ford is an attorney and owner of a small law firm focusing on corporate and real estate transactions. Her practice includes representing developers, investors, and businesses in complex transactional matters. She is a member of Idaho Women Lawyers and the Idaho State Bar.

[1] Michelle Russen, Mary Dawson, & Juan M. Madera, Think Leader, Think Man? The Role of Implicit Bias, Status-Legitimizing Beliefs, and Gender in Hospitality Leadership Discrimination, 62 J. Hosp. & Tourism Mgmt. 321 (2025).

[2] Joan C. Williams & Rachel Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work, 29–34 (N.Y.U. Press 2014).

[3] Id. at 59-75.

[4] Roger Fisher, William Ury & Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 23–42 (2d ed. 2011).