Gender and the Law

[sallyawp]

<p>Here are some exerpts from a 2006 article published by a UVA professor in sociology (who also holds a JD, among other degrees). I hope to use this thread to post additional articles that you may find interesting on issues relating to gender and the law.</p>

<p>

Law firms that have greater proportions of male partners and that value stereotypically male characteristics may be less likely to hire and promote female candidates, according to U.Va. sociology professor Elizabeth Gorman . . .

</p>

<p>

According to November 2005 data provided by the National Association for Law Placement, women comprise approximately 48 percent of law students, almost 48 percent of summer associates, and about 44 percent of associates, but only 17 percent of partners are women. In analyzing this discrepancy, Gorman said she wanted to evaluate the allocation of opportunities, including getting hired, receiving work assignments as an associate, and making partner.

</p>

<p>

Gorman identified three processes “that can tend to produce an advantage for men in obtaining opportunities.” The first process is based on individual lawyers’ decisions and self-selection, rather than firm-based choices.</p>

<p>“In other words, one reason that women might not be hired as often as men, might not get the same assignments or as good assignments as men, might not be promoted to partner at the same rate as men is that they themselves are opting not to seek those opportunities,” Gorman said. “And we do know that female associates leave law firms at a higher rate than male associates do.” </p>

<p>Women may opt not to pursue certain career paths because of “innate gender differences,” biological differences, or “strong cultural socialization.” Also, because women tend to marry men who are more educated and older than themselves, a woman’s decision to remain at home rather than in a firm simply may be a rational financial choice, according to Gorman.

</p>

<p>

For this reason Gorman chose to focus on the two processes firms control. One possibility is that men may actually be better lawyers. Because skills and abilities in legal practice extend beyond raw cognitive ability and what is learned in law school, men may excel in certain valued skills such as leadership and taking initiative.</p>

<p>“If this is the case, then maybe law firms are just being meritocratic,” Gorman said.</p>

<p>There is little evidence, however, that men have stronger skills or abilities out of school.</p>

<p>“In fact if anything, it looks the other way—in recent years women have had higher law school grades on average than men,” she said, acknowledging that men’s and women’s abilities may diverge by the time of the partnership decision.</p>

<p>The third process involves partners’ cognitive biases in perceiving and evaluating associates. According to Gorman, psychologists have identified two relevant types of biases: in-group preference and schema-based thinking. In-group thinking is an us-versus-them mentality based on characteristics including gender, race, nationality, and more. Laboratory work has found that people tend to feel more comfortable with members of their in-group, finding them more trustworthy and cooperative.</p>

<p>“If we apply that then to the law-firm context, all that suggests that partners who are men may tend to show some favoritism towards male associates,” Gorman said. “It may not be conscious, it may not be deliberate at all, it may be just at automatic feeling of being more comfortable with them, and this might be especially true if whatever opportunity is being allocated involves working together.”</p>

<p>All else being equal, in-group preference should work the same way for women, Gorman added. </p>

<p>Unlike with in-group thinking, the gender of the decision-maker probably does not matter with the second type of bias: gender schemas, which “may be negative or positive or neutral,” she said.</p>

<p>Gorman explained that people categorize the objects, people, and events around them into a template or schema “which involves abstracting from the category the core features that define that category or make it recognizable.” Schemas influence people’s perceptions of each other strongly and automatically so that observers tend to remember an individual’s characteristics that are compatible with his or her gender schema and to ignore differences.

</p>

<p>

The schemas for men and women are widely divergent. Studies have shown people generally list men’s traits as being aggressive, decisive, logical, responsible, and good leaders. In contrast, people characterize women as submissive, indecisive, good at caring for others, passive, illogical, and emotional. According to Gorman, the perceived differences are not automatically disadvantageous to women.

</p>

<p>

“Gender may still come into play because the image the employer has in mind may include certain characteristics which are also part of the male or female gender schema,” Gorman explained.</p>

<p>In a study published in the American Sociological Review, Gorman looked more deeply at law firm hiring within this context. She began by analyzing the hiring criteria listed by each firm in the NALP directory. Most firms preferred candidates with good grades and participation in law review, moot court and other activities, but often some of their other desired characteristics were stereotypically masculine. For example, one Los Angeles firm sought associates who take initiative, show a willingness to assume responsibility, are mature and have judgment, all of which are associated with the male gender schema. Very few feminine criteria were listed by firms, but friendliness, cooperativeness and verbal skill were among those sometimes included.</p>

<p>Gorman coded the criteria of 887 law firms nationwide as masculine, feminine or neutral and then looked for correlation between their gendered preferences and their hiring practices. She identified firms’ new hires by comparing their staffs listed in the Martindale-Hubbell legal directories in 1994 and 1995. By using the hires’ first names, she was able to identify how many were women and how many were men and then used regression analysis to look for correlations.</p>

<p>“I did indeed find that the greater the number of stereotypically masculine hiring criteria a firm had, the higher the proportion of men among their new hires,” Gorman said. “And conversely, the greater the number of stereotypically feminine hiring criteria they had, the greater the proportion of women among their new hires.”

</p>

<p>

Gorman also compared the gender of the hiring partner, as identified using the NALP, to trends in hiring.</p>

<p>“Consistent with the idea of in-group preference, I did find that when the hiring partner was a woman, there was a higher proportion of women among new hires than when the hiring partner was a man,” she said. “Interestingly, this effect diminished as women’s representation among firm partners increased. So as there got to be more and more women partners in a firm, either the female hiring partners were favoring women less or male hiring partners were favoring women more.”</p>

<p>She was quick to note, however, that virtually no firms in her sample had more than 28 percent of partners who were women.

</p>

<p>

One particularly significant component of gender schemas may be the perception of competence, because research has found that people generally consider men more competent than women and require stronger evidence of ability before they will conclude a woman is capable.</p>

<p>In a study that currently is under journal review, Gorman addresses how gendered perceptions of competence may play out in law firms. Employers generally must infer applicants’ abilities based on two types of observable evidence: past track records and social characteristics. The degree to which employers weigh past performance versus social characteristics is a function of how much uncertainty and discretion is involved in the job. For example, when a marathon runner finishes a race in three hours, it is reasonable to conclude the athlete can complete another race of the same distance in a similar time. But “there’s no cookbook formula for winning at litigation,” she said. </p>

<p>“My reasoning then is that when work involves more uncertainty, law firm partners who are trying to make inferences about ability are going to give less weight to performance and more weight to gender,” Gorman said.</p>

<p>Using a sample of law firms in 1995, she coded practice mixes according to three factors that tend to increase work uncertainty: variety of types of practice handled by an individual lawyer, extent to which practice calls for professional judgment and extent to which lawyers must interact with other parties.</p>

<p>“I did indeed find that when each of these forms of work uncertainty was greater, promotions were less likely to go to women,” Gorman said.</p>

<p>This was especially true of firms with higher percentages of male partners.</p>

<p>“So in other words, promotions went to women less often when a firm’s practice involved more professional judgment, but they especially went less often when there was a high level of professional judgment and a high proportion of male partners in the firm,” she said.

</p>

<p>

Gender schemas may further disadvantage women because women who try to show stereotypically male characteristics may be considered “bossy and unpleasant” by others, as many laboratory studies have suggested.

</p>

<p>

Over time, the cumulative affects of gender biases may be substantial. When partners choose not to offer certain assignments to women associates, those associates in turn are deprived of opportunities to gain skills, knowledge, and contacts that their male peers acquire. </p>

<p>“If she’s repeatedly passed over for these sorts of types of assignments, then although she and her male colleagues may be starting out at the same place at the beginning, over time they’re going to be advancing ahead of her in terms of skills, and abilities and contacts… so that by the time they reach the partnership decision, the men very likely will be better qualified than the women, and at that point the partners can say with perfect justice that if they’re promoting the men, it’s because they’re better qualified,” she said. </p>

<p>Gorman added that many women who experience this may not stay around until the partnership decisions are made anyway.</p>

<p>“The pull of the home starts to look a lot better when you realize that you’re not advancing the way your male peers are, that you’re not developing the skills that they’re developing and that your chances ultimately aren’t going to be as good as theirs,” she said.

</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>The following are some exerpts from a very influential law review article written by Lani Guinier, et. al in 1994, entitled “Becoming Gentlemen: Women’s Experiences at One Ivy League Law School”. You can find a copy of the entire article at <a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/becoming_gentlemen.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/becoming_gentlemen.pdf&lt;/a&gt; if you are interested in reading more. The study focused on students enrolled at Penn Law (though intended to be representative of top law schools) from 1987 through 1992 including academic performance date from 981 students (each class at Penn Law had between approximately 200 and 250 students), self-reported survey data from 366 students, written narratives from 104 students and interview data from 80 students. </p>

<p>

First, we find strong academic differences between graduating men and women. Despite identical entry-level credentials, this performance differential between men and women is created in the first year of law school and maintained over the next three years. By the end of their first year in law school, men are three times more likely than women to be in the top 10% of their law school class.</p>

<p>Second, we find strong attitudinal differences between women and men in year one, and yet a striking homogenization by year three. The first-year women we studied are far more critical than their first-year male peers of the social status quo, of legal education, and of themselves as students. Third-year female students, however, are less critical than their third-year male colleagues, and far less critical than their first-year female counterparts. A disproportionate number of the women we studied enter law school with commitments to public interest law, ready to fight for social justice. But their third-year female counterparts leave law school with corporate ambitions and some indications of mental health distress.</p>

<p>Third, many wome are alienated by the way the Socratic method is used in large classroom instruction, which is the dominant pedagogy for almost all first-year instruction. Women self-report much lower rates of class participation than do men for all three years of law school. Our data suggest that many women to not “engage” pedagogically with a methodology that makes them feel strange, alienated, and “delegitimated.” These women describe a dynamic in which they feel that their voices were “stolen” from them during their first year. Some complain that they can no longer recognize their former selves, which have become submerged inside what one author has called an alienated “social male.”

</p>

<p>

Even those women who do well academically report a higher degree of alienation from the Law School than their male counterparts, based in part on complaints that “women’s sexuality becomes a focus for keeping [women] in their place.” For these women, learning to think like a lawyer means learning to think and act like a man.

</p>

<p>An article in the Legal Times on March 13, 1995 by the authors of the law review article includes the following:</p>

<p>

Many students, especially many women, have simply not been socialized to thrive in the type of ritualized combat that comprises much of the legal educational method. The performance aspect of a large Socratice classroom disables some women from performing up to their potential. If no comparably significant formal learning experiences, other than large classroom Socratic teaching, ar provided, first-year women in particular are most likely to be affected. These phenomena also adversely affect some men.</p>

<p>From the reactions of their professors and the responses to their performance in all areas of the institution, some female students learn that they cannot thrive within the law school environment. For example, the perception is widespread that within the classroom, white men, more than women of all colors, are encouraged and allowed to speak more often, for longer periods of time, and with greater positive feedback from the professor and peers. When women fail to receive the same level of positive response from faculty, many experience a blow to their self-esteem.</p>

<p>Our data suggest that some women internalize the absence of positive feedback, even when the professor’s aloofness reaches across gender lines. As a result, some women come to believe that they have nothing worthwhile to contribute, becoming further alienated from the Law School and the process of legal education. Often, these women refuse to engage in discussion and opt for a strong stance of silence.

</p>

<p>

The student culture itself reinforces the low status of many women who fear they cannot measure up because they are just not as good at “playing the game” as their male peers. For these women, the moment they speak out to challenge what they perceive as sexist assumptions or offensive language, they diminish the level at which they are taken seriously.

</p>

<p>

We argue that at least some fo the learning in law school takes place outside the classroom. Our data suggest that women law students are less comfortable, in the aggregate, than men within the Law School’s informal structure. Female students are less likely than their male peers to interact with faculty outside of class. Whereas male students report that they are comfortable approaching faculty of either gender, female students apparently require friendliness “cues” before they seek out faculty after class. In addition, many female students believe male professors favor male students.

</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>According to the ABA, in 2006, the number of licensed lawyers in the U.S. as of 2006 was 1,116,967.</p>

<p>According to the ABA, in 1980, 92% of all lawyers were male and 8% were female.</p>

<p>By 1991, 80% of all lawyers were male and 20% were female.</p>

<p>As of 2000, 73% of all lawyers were male and 27% were female.</p>

<p>According to the ABA, the average age of licensed lawyers in the U.S. rose from 39 in 1980, to 41 in 1991, to 45 in 2000.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>According to a joint national study and associated publication on legal careers by the NALP Foundation and the ABA released in 2004, women and men have attended law school on a roughly 50/50 basis since 1990.</p>

<p>

[However,] the proportion of women partners in private practice has remained static since the mid-1990s.

</p>

<p>

One of the most salient findings with respect to gender is that the women . . . are earning significantly less than their male counterparts. The median salary for women is $66,000 compared to $80,000 for men. This difference is not explained by practice setting alone. In the largest law offices (251+), there is a $15,000 gap in men’s and women’s salaries.

</p>

<p>

The general pattern for lawyers is that marriage and children imply significant career sacrifices for women and career advantages for men. (The usual case is that male lawyers who are married earn more than unmarried lawyers, and married male lawyers with children earn even more.) Evidence of differential “sacrifice” is already apparent. Men . . . are more likely to be married than . . . women, and in fact relatively more . . . men are married than in a similar age cohort in the general population. While both . . . men and women are less likely to have children than their age cohort in the general population, this gap is much larger for women than for men.

</p>

[cartera45]

<p>sally - these articles remind me of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg’s experience at Harvard. Supposedly she was chided for having the audacity to take the spot in the class that should have gone to a man. She also hated the teaching methodology. It didn’t keep her from succeeding as she made law review at Harvard and then made it again at Columbia. This was done while taking care of her very ill husband, attending classes for him and taking notes for him while he was sick.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>The following comes from the Final Report of the Spcial Committee on Balanced Lives in the Law of the New York State Bar Association, dated March 7, 2008. </p>

<p>Some noted observations include:</p>

<p>In earlier generations, attorneys had more time to devote to public service and civic activities.</p>

<p>Due to busy schedules, attorneys are not able to attend to the ordinary everyday chores of private life as well as they would like.</p>

<p>“Powerlessness” over one’s schedule results in only “doing the next thing.”</p>

<p>Female attorneys, in general, have been more vocal about their discontent with the long-hours, out of necessity – many of them have more responsibility for their children and face challenges balancing the requirements of professional, civic and family roles.</p>

<p>In the past, if a female attorney had children, it was perceived to be a sign that she would be abandoning her career or would be less committed to her job at the firm. </p>

<p>Women attorneys are more scruitinized than their male counterparts, because of child-bearing and child-rearing issues.</p>

<p>Females fear that working less than fulltime will impede their success within a firm and as a result, some think that to succeed, everything needs to become secondary to their law careers.</p>

<p>Few role models in firms demonstrate that a reduced-time attorney can be as well respected as full-time attorneys.</p>

<p>Top law school status doesn’t necessarily translate into the same status for women in the profession.</p>

<p>Technology offers efficiencies and capabilities not formerly available. These tools, however, sometimes put more pressure on attorneys. </p>

<p>There is a demand for more rapid response.</p>

<p>These tools can impede an attorney’s free time and vacation. Some firms have established policies requiring attorneys to give their cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses to clients, and to return client calls within three hours. This may make for happier clients, but it puts more pressure on attorneys and sometimes intrudes into the attorney’s personal time off.</p>

<p>It seems that law practice is a very personal service – the client wants his or her attorney available 24/7/365.</p>

<p>Most law students and junior attorneys are saddled with considerable debt which requires them to forgo options which might provide for a more balanced lifestyle. These students and junior attorneys often make job choices without a genuine understanding of the costa and benefits – professionally and personally – of taking advantage of flexible and reduced-hour arrangements and the opportunities for extended leave or even regular vacation time.</p>

[hayden]

<p>sallyawp - Thank you so much for these posts, which are truly fascinating. I will have to spend some time digesting all the material you have shared. But one point did jump out at me. In #1, summarizing the results of Gorman’s study, you quote her process of identifying certain characteristics associated with females, e.g., friendliness, cooperation. Gorman then shows that firms looking for those traits tended to hire more female attorneys than firms which only cited the typically male characteristics (decisiveness, etc.). </p>

<p>However, perhaps the firms were quite aware of their objective. In other words, perhaps the firms were not truly valuing friendliness as a characteristic for a new hire, but rather were in fact seeking to hire a higher number of females that season, and therefore salted their description with terms that they themselves thought of as “female”.</p>

[marny1]

<p>Thanks Sally- the info is most interesting and will be read more thoroughly at a later time.<br>
but the idea above from hayden – “certain characteristics associated with females, eg friendliness, cooperation.”
I have had a bunch of female supervisors in my lifetime, and I wouldn’t categorize them as having those traits. I’m generalizing- but I know alot of people who prefer working for a male supervisor than a female. </p>

<p>There are too many sociological/psychological issues going on when comparing male/female attorneys, workers, supervisors etc. So I’m not going there. But I do think the new generation of women in the workforce may be better prepared than our generation and will feel more confident in their abilities. Those necessary skills may develop as more girls are partaking in group activities, be it HS sports, military or other group ventures. Sometimes the TEAM mentality that comes through when playing sports can be a very beneficial characteristic to have in the business world. </p>

<p>–again as I have stated numerous times. It is difficult for women to have it all. Most of the female attorneys I know work in Gov’t-banks-insurance companies or environments where work week hours are not ridiculous and the perks of vacation/personal time are readily available and does allow for a balance between work and family.</p>

<p>and if anyone thinks childcare is a big issue, just wait until they have to take care of their elderly parents. At least that is a gender neutral issue.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>The following are some exerpts from a report by the National Association of Women Lawyers on the Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms, dated November 2007 (based upon the 200 largest law firms in the U.S.):</p>

<p>

Representation of women in professional positions decreases at each level of promotion. Promotion at levels from junior to senior associate is not especially a problem. Wome constitute 49% of first- and second-year associates, 47% of mid-level associates, and 43% of 7th year associates. Beyond the associate level, however, there is a fall-off of women lawyers at each level of the partnership. Women go from 47% of associates to 30% of of-counsels to 26% of non-equity partners to 16% of equity partners. Thus, almost one out of two law firm associates is a woman, which approximates the law school population but at the highest level of law firm practice, equity partner, in the average firm only one out of six equity partners is a woman.

</p>

<p>

We observe generally that the difference between the substantial number of women at associate levels and the marked reduction in women in the equity ranks may have serious implications for whether and how firms can achieve gender balance. At the bottom end, newly minted lawyers – male and female alike – see few women reaching the top of the profession within their organization. There are fewer successful women role models; fewer opportunities for men and women alike to work with senior women lawyers; and fewer women to mentor more junior lawyers, male or female. The danger is also that these numbers create a self-reinforcing culture of negative expectations, that women will not proceed in large numbers into senior positions. Those women lawyers who do achieve the position of equity partner frequently find themselves in gender-imbalanced groups, which may further limit their opportunities to advance themselves and others.

</p>

<p>

While 2007 compensation for associates is roughly parallel between men and women lawyers, male of counsels earn roughly $20,000 more than females, male non-equity partners earn roughly $27,000 more than females, and male equtiy partners earn almost $90,000 more than female equity partners.

</p>

<p>

Women are six times more likely than men to work part-time. Among all firms, a median of under 2% of male attorneys work part-time while a median of 13% of female attorneys work part time. In other words, in the average firm, one in 50 male lawyers is working part-time, while one in eight women is working part-time.

</p>

<p>

If women are so much more likely than men to work on a part-time basis, there is a question about whether firms are devising part-time work policies that allow a lawyer to progress into higher levels of the firm, even if progress is not necessarily at the same rate as full-time lawyers. Questions about level of commitment may lead firms to limit their investment in women who are working part-time: for example, by denying them choice assignments, or excluding them from client development activities. If part-time work is not to become a dead-end rut that disproportionately affects junior women attorneys, firms must devise coherent policies that define part-time work as one temporary stage in the context of a full legal career.

</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>I am a big believer in women being treated equally, but the reality is that in the private practice of law, you eat what you kill. If a woman can demonstrate her abilities and bring in and sustain clients, then she won’t have any problem making money and advancing in the ranks of the legal profession. If she can’t bring in the money, then she will be forced to sit around all day complaining about how the world is not fair to her because she is a woman.</p>

<p>BTW, great job to sallyawp.</p>

[athenegoddess]

<p>wow. thanks sallyawp. reading the material was really enlightening and though it was also worrying, i think it’s great that we are more informed on this subject.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>

If she can’t bring in the money, then she will be forced to sit around all day complaining about how the world is not fair to her because she is a woman.

</p>

<p>I am incredibly offended by that remark. Yes, for someone who doesn’t bring in business to their law firm, there may be lower pay and less work. However, assuming that the differences that exist between compensation and opportunities for male versus female lawyers is due solely to the fact that men are somehow universally better than women at bringing in business is nonsense. Not only does it overgeneralize and stereotype, but that type of stereotype is exactly the problem – one of the reasons why women lawyers face barriers to success that men simply do not face. How can you possibly know, predict or guess whether any one female lawyer or any one male lawyer will successfully become a rainmaker?</p>

<p>I could tell you stories of what I and many of my female colleagues have faced at Wall Street law firms that would make you think we were living in 1958 instead of 2008. </p>

<p>I also don’t know too many lawyers, male or female, who have the time to sit around all day and complain. There just aren’t enough hours in the day.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

I am incredibly offended by that remark.

My comment was not about you or to you. I don’t know you. </p>

<p>I won’t apologize for telling the truth. Lawyers in private practice are self-contained businesses entities even when they work for big law firms. I know too many female lawyers who are not as talented as they think and are not able to bring in money to the firm, and the constant refrain is how the world is against them and often because of their gender. I also know many female lawyers who work for the same type of firms in the same type of environments, yet they don’t seem to have any problems making partner or starting their own profitable firms. What is the difference between the two groups? Money. A woman attorney who is talented and is able to generate business sets the rules and does not have to worry about what someone else thinks of her because of her gender.</p>

<p>There are so many female lawyers in private practice that many of the old stereotypes have gone by the wayside. Only female lawyers who let sexism affect them will ever suffer the consequences of sexism. And that’s the truth.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>The truth, razorsharp? So you are confident that women are not as successful as men in legal practice overall because women are simply not good at bringing in business? There couldn’t be any other factors at play?</p>

<p>Of course, your statement would mean that men and women have equal opportunities to meet and bring in clients, right? And that would also mean that being promoted up to a level where clients would take a woman (or anyone for that matter) seriously enough to want to give her their business (and where she could be the “relationship partner”) is as easy for women as it is for men?</p>

<p>Look, no one is denying that men and women who fail to bring in business will struggle to succeed at law firms. That said, failing to bring in business is hardly a female-only problem, and it is impossible to believe that female personality traits alone lead to the small percentage of successful female partners in BIGLAW. Just become some women manage to overcome the additional obstacles that women face in becoming successful partners in BIGLAW does not mean that the rest of the women are whiners. It simply means that some women leaped all of the tall hurdles placed before them and somehow made it work.</p>

<p>The reality is that even women who are very successful lawyers face obstacles that you may not appreciate. Did you not read through the study that I cited above by Lani Guinier (which was much cited in the popular press, and which withstood much scruitiny) regarding challenges faced by women at top law schools? </p>

<p>The challenges women face grow once a woman begins her career as a lawyer in BIGLAW (and perhaps this is why so many women work outside of BIGLAW, either from the beginning or after leaving their initial BIGLAW firm). From personal experience and from the experiences of many other female lawyers with whom I am acquainted, the boys club mentality often keeps us shut out. I can’t even begin to count the number of times when my male colleagues have discussed business, socialized with clients and handed out plum assignments to associates at “boys’ lunches,” out at “drinks with the guys,” and on the golf course. The women, no matter how well liked, are simply not invited most of the time. </p>

<p>In addition, in many instances, women have to approach “rainmaking” from a completely different angle than men. Women won’t be invited to or involved in many of the schmoozy, social opportunities to meet clients that men have, so they give presentations, get involved in trade and industry organizations and try to win clients in professional settings. Let’s not forget, too, that many of the potential clients (realistically, many of whom are men) out there have wives who are not thrilled when a female lawyer tries to schmooze her husband, particularly if that female lawyer is young, confident, intelligent and (gasp!) attractive. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I can’t even begin to count the number of times when an important client hit on me or one of my female colleagues or made inappropriate remarks in a business setting (I can remember one time in particular – “Where is that chick with the great legs? Why isn’t she here yet?” – referring to a mid-level female M&A associate), where the client is too important to properly chastize and where the response from the male attorneys in the room is simply a laugh with a “now, now, we know that’s not appropriate here . . .” laugh, laugh. What about all of the male lawyers at one’s own law firm who hit on the younger female associates and summer associates? That happens quite often, and makes for a very uncomfortable situation in the short and long term. </p>

<p>Furthermore, whenever a woman goes out on maternity leave the talk begins about whether she will ever come back, whether or not she has ever said a word about her intentions. As soon as a woman gets married the other lawyers often begin to take her less seriously as they watch and wait for her to get pregnant. In fact, when I was first married as a mid-level associate and returned to work from my honeymoon, I was told that a fantastic opportunity to work on a huge global public acquisition was being withheld from me because I probably needed some time to adjust to my “new life.” That was seemingly thoughtful, but I knew there was something else going on. After probing, I found out from a trusted mentor that the real concern was that I would now want to focus on starting a family, so “why not give the learning opportunity to someone else who is going to stick around?” Yes, a partner actually said that to me. I had to spend countless hours promising that I was not leaving and that I was not planning to start a family anytime soon before I was added to the deal team. These things really happen, though, unfortunately for many women, they are unable to get a real, truthful answer about why the work isn’t coming their way.</p>

<p>As far as working “part-time” (which is usually at least 40 hours a week in BIGLAW in return for a reduced paycheck), there is little question that the “mommy track” is a fast track to nowhere. I know of only one woman in NYC BIGLAW in recent years who was promoted to partner after many years working “part-time”. In fact, the occurrance was so unusual that it was covered by the mainstream local press in addition to the legal press. </p>

<p>Are there women who don’t come back to work after having children? Sure, but I remain convinced that a good number of them don’t come back because they know that any “normal” career path/partnership track they were ever on would be closed to them. </p>

<p>The old stereotypes may have been tweaked as more and more women become lawyers and the gender discrimination is much more subtle (especially in these days of repeated sexual discrimination training), but the hurdles are still there for the women to jump. The discrimination still occurs, though perhaps it is more insidious because it is veiled in legally and socially acceptable words and mannerisms. All female lawyers are affected to some extent by the consequences of these kinds of sexism. Some are successful despite it.</p>

[EEH]

<p>What about women working in Govt/non-profit/in-house, as opposed to BiGLAW? Do you think that they face a similar level of difficulty in getting to the top?</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

The truth, razorsharp? So you are confident that women are not as successful as men in legal practice overall because women are simply not good at bringing in business? There couldn’t be any other factors at play?

Of course there are women who still suffer the results of sexism. You are missing my point. My point is that the ability to bring in money trumps all sexism, racism, regionalism, favoritism, or any other ism 9 times out of 10. Law is a business and big law is a big business. And as you said, failing to bring in the business is not a female only problem. Men who fail to bring in the business also get the boot, they usually just don’t have the opportunity to blame it on sexism. 40 years ago sexism was an impediment to advancement in the legal profession. Now sexism is just an annoyance that can be overcome. Women should be looking on the bright side of things and stop making excuses for failure. </p>

<p>You mentioned the mommy track. The mommy track means less money to the firm and, thus, reduces the chance of being partner. Lawyers who want to spend a lot of time with their families should consider working in their own firms and not for big law firms with hugh overhead and threshold billing expectations. The same is true for male lawyers wanting to go on the daddy track.</p>

<p>There is nothing in this world stopping women from going out and starting their own big law firms. If a woman thinks a law firm is a sexist boys club, she can take legal action if she can establish a legal basis to do so or she can leave and start her own law firm. If a women starts her own law firm and can’t bring in any business, whose fault is that? </p>

<p>You mentioned clients hitting on female lawyers. It is not a law firm’s obligation to change the behavior of potential clients who are supposed to be adults. </p>

<p>Most rainmaking isn’t about schmoozing for clients. The best rainmakers are those who develop reputations for excellence. Most of the women lawyers I know who are very successful are often asked to present in continuing legal education seminars or to client industry groups.</p>

[MomofWildChild]

<p>I can speak to in-house. I think there are a lot fewer issues for women. HOWEVER, it depends a lot on the industry and on the “character” of your management team. I spent most of my career in what I would consider gender-neutral legal departments, including General Counsel positions. A few years ago I took a position as GC of an insurance services company which turned out to have a prehistoric management team. (The female CEO who hired me was fired my 5th day on the job) The whole concept of discrimination against ME was so foreign to me that I really couldn’t figure out what was happening, despite warnings from my HR Director (who reported to me) and my paralegal (both females). I always fit in well with my male co-workers and never had any issues because I was female and a non-golfer. THIS place, however, was simply horrifying.
My current position is in a male-dominated industry, but the respect for ALL employees is evident throughout the organization. Our legal department is 50% female, and senior management is really trying to get more females in the boardroom.</p>

[sallyawp]

<p>

Now sexism is just an annoyance that can be overcome.

</p>

<p>That attitude is exactly the problem. </p>

<p>sex·ism
–noun 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.<br>
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women. </p>

<p>How is sexism to be overcome in the law school classroom? What about on the job? While it’s nice to think that law firms are pure meritocracies, that is just not always the case. In fact, many women either fail to shine or are never given the opportunity to advance because of sexism (of course, this is not always the case).</p>

<p>One can always overcome a stereotype, but if that stereotype creates a hurdle for the stereotyped class (here, women) that doesn’t exist for others who are similarly situated, than it is not simply an annoyance or a nuisance, but an impediment and a problem. If that additional impediment prevents one in the stereotyped class from becoming as successful, in general, as others who are not part of the stereotyped class, it should be much discussed and addressed. Now, I have been fortunate that I am thick skinned when it comes to the many unfortunate sexist experiences I have had and that I have had the good fortune to have male and female mentors throughout my career who have guided and protected me. Not everyone is so fortunate. Also, just because there are examples out there of women who have “made it” does not mean that the sexism does not exist.</p>

<p>Your suggestion that women file law suits to fight against such discrimination in law firms is really not a viable option for anyone who wishes to continue her legal career. First, I assume that you know as I do that proving a pattern of discrimination is difficult, if not impossible, particularly where women are graduating from law school in approximately equal numbers to men. Second, and more obvious, is that filing a lawsuit against a large law firm, which has the resources and the know-how to keep the fight going in the courts for years and years, is a fast way to end up in serious financial trouble without anyone willing to employ a troublemaker like you. Third, attitudes like yours might pervade any jury hearing the case, and even when overwhelming evidence is presented of a problem, no redress may be found. Finally, I just think that many women silently move on, unwilling to put themselves through the public humiliation that may result from a trial where a law firm makes every effort to show how ineffective that woman was as a lawyer. I, for one, certainly wouldn’t put myself through any of it.</p>

<p>As an aside, making light of sexual harrassment by clients is really inexcusable. Sure, a law firm can’t necessarily control its clients, but it is a law firm’s (and any other employer’s, for that matter) responsibility to make certain that its employees are treated appropriately and respectfully while acting for that law firm. It is not acceptable under any circumstances for remarks with overt or more subtle sexual overtones to be made by clients about someone employed by a law firm without the law firm taking a stand to protect its lawyers. Are you seriously saying that it is okay for a client to talk about a female lawyer’s body parts in front of that female lawyer’s colleagues or superiors (if that woman is an associate)? Would it be okay for them to growl at her, to stare at her breasts or to otherwise make her uncomfortable? Where do you draw the line?</p>

<p>Moreover, how do you expect a female lawyer to function at the highest levels possible, bringing her intelligence and experience to bear on the client issues brought before her, when she is being harrassed by the very client she is attempting to help? Is she somehow supposed to be comfortable bringing in other clients when her experience is tainted by the experience that she has had with the harrassing clients? The circumstances don’t even need to be as eggregious as these – it could be as simple as being excluded every day when the guys go out to lunch, or hearing about the cocktails that the guys had Friday night after work on Monday morning when you weren’t invited. These experiences stick with you, adding up, and cumulatively coloring your experience on the job every day. Yes, you can deal with it and become successful despite it, but why should you have to live through it?</p>

<p>

The best rainmakers are those who develop reputations for excellence.

</p>

<p>While I would really love it if this were true in every circumstance, it just isn’t. The best rainmakers are often people with connections, who know the “right” people, and who meet additional “right” people through socializing with those whom they know. I can’t tell you how often my clients acquire a business where the counsel to the target business is the golfing buddy, college roommate or old friend of the family. The best rainmakers are often people who are “one of the guys,” and who learn and meet clients through those channels. Of course, you’re right that talent is also important in bringing in clients clients and then keeping those clients loyal to you through the years.</p>

<p>Now, different women may experience sexism in different ways and with different results. Some women may not be overly affected by it, letting it roll off of their backs. It doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t happen in the first place. Your assumption that women lawyers aren’t successful, and then make excuses based upon sexism for their failures to become successful is faulty at best and overtly sexist at worst. Perhaps they fail to become successful at least partly due to sexism? I’m truly sorry that you know so many whiny, undeserving women lawyers, but while there may be some women who use sexism as a crutch to explain their failures, that hardly explains the difficulties in making headway in legal careers that women seem to be facing, as related by the studies and articles I cited above and in many other similar pieces.</p>

[Greybeard]

<p>Fascinating articles, Sallyawp.</p>

<p>I’ll throw out a couple of anecdotal observations.</p>

<p>First, when I started practicing law in the mid eighties, sexism in the legal world was rampant, and blatantly obvious.</p>

<p>Nearly a quarter of a century later, my take is that it’s almost as rampant, and generally (but not always) less blatantly obvious.</p>

<p>It’s naive to assume that all disparities between the pay of men and women is a function of market forces. Part of what is pernicious about all forms of discrimination (whether based on age, race, ethnicity, class indicia, or age) is that they distort market forces. </p>

<p>My biggest issue with big law firms is that they tend to have a macho ethos about working such long hours it’s difficult to have a life outside of the law firm. It’s an environment that discourages part-time work, and discourages people from taking leaves of absence. </p>

<p>At precisely the time more women entered the legal profession, there was a bit move among law firms to lengthen the amount of time it takes to become partner. I suspect that this was not a coincidence.</p>

<p>And because of the very different demands posed by the institutions of motherhood and fatherhood (not always, but generally), women are often implicitly asked implicitly to choose between partnership in a law firm and parenthood in a way that men are not.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>sallyawp, your posts are so long and contain so many comments and assumptions unrelated to anything I said, you are pretty much arguing with yourself. </p>

<p>Sexism exists in the legal profession as it does in every other business. Women who whine and whine and whine about sexism are rarely the women who can overcome it. Life simply isn’t fair.</p>