ILNews

DTCI: Can women in the legal profession really beat the odds?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-thompson-stacyAlthough the number of women in American law schools is equal to or surpasses the number of men, the number of women climbing the ladder and holding top positions at law firms and corporations is still far less than the number of men. According to the latest survey by the National Association of Women Lawyers, the percentage of women equity partners at the nation’s 200 largest law firms has remained largely unchanged at 15 percent since NAWL began its survey in 2006.

In the April 24, 2013, edition of the Indiana Lawyer, five of the 14 “Up and Coming Lawyers” were women. However, only one of the 15 “Distinguished Barristers” was a woman. When Judy L. Woods, Distinguished Barrister, was asked what bugs her in life or law, she responded, “Persistent prejudice and lack of diversity. We still have a long way to go in law and life before there is gender equality.”

Women have certainly made strides in the legal profession and the workplace at large. In spite of obstacles, some women do reach the top levels. So, what are these obstacles and what does it take to overcome them? What can firms do to retain valuable women attorneys?

Research has shown that the greatest barrier to advancement for women attorneys is the work-family conflict. A woman attorney who is pregnant should never have to hear that the partners in her firm consider her maternity leave the equivalent of a male attorney’s six-week vacation. A woman attorney who is on partnership track should not have to worry that one of the things being considered is whether she is going to have children or more children.

Women often leave law firms because of pressures related to family and workplaces that do not support a balanced life. While some firms talk about the importance of life balance, their actions do not support their words. Although some firms offer a flexible work schedule, choosing such a schedule will hurt the woman’s opportunities for advancement. Many women attorneys think they have to choose between career advancement and family. Others have found no role models in their firm to assure them that they can successfully do both.

In candid conversations, women attorneys who have become partners indicated their success hinged on a team atmosphere, flexible schedules and on having women role models ahead of them as partners in their firm. They emphasized that balancing work and life is very difficult and that anyone who says it is easy to raise a family and have a full-time career is telling less than the truth. These women also demonstrated a can-do attitude and a commitment to resolve the issues of balancing work and personal life. While meeting every need is sometimes impossible, these women continue to find solutions that work for themselves and their families.

Because the majority of law students are now women, law firms face a challenge in retaining and motivating talented women attorneys. If senior partners believe in and value a system based on meritocracy, they will create the conditions that foster such an environment. Law firm management must not only speak gender equality, it must practice it. Firms invest a great deal in new attorney development, and the loss of key talent is a huge expense.

A true meritocracy requires both law firms and individuals to do their parts. Creativity in addressing issues of concern to women will certainly have an effect on a firm’s return on its investment. As the longest practicing woman attorney in Indiana, Phyllis Gratz Poff has been applauded by her peers for the example she has set. With a commitment from the legal community to master the necessary attitudes and skills, the next generation of women attorneys can be fully represented in the top ranks of the legal profession. I certainly can’t imagine that we would all not be better off with a few more like Phyllis Gratz Poff. (Read more about Phyllis Poff online at the Indiana Lawyer's website.

__________

Stacy Thompson is a partner in Clendening Johnson & Bohrer and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The new civil rights movement
    John, we do have to move with the times. Here is the new civil rights struggle sister, er, brother, er brister .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
  • huh?
    I see a lot of women selected for advancement by big law. Not that they aren't qualified, they are usually fantastic. I see a lot of small and solo type women lawyers doing great too. Fussing about gender inequities in law however-- that's yesterday's issue. Funny sounding to those men among us who had law school classes packed 2:1 with ladies. The question is over-wrought however well intentioned. PS men have plenty of choices between career and family too. That is life. You got to have values and allocate your time resources accordingly. People who won't put time into family can whine about the unfairness of it all but they won't have the family their to pay them back once they retire. Some payback on time invested comes in nonpecuniary forms.
  • Kathleen leads us onward
    But John, thanks to Obamacare you can now purchase an insurance plan that will pay for your hysterectomy, so we are making progress.
  • Wishful Thinking
    There will never be gender equality in the legal profession. Male attorneys do not equally share in the benefits of the profession, why would woman expect to do so? As a retired attorney, after practicing Law in California for 30 years, I never expected that I could or would break into the top tier of the profession. That is reserved for the Elite Harvard Graduates (just look at the make up of the Supreme Court) and anyone that thinks they can do so is just kidding themselves. Ironically, for the most part, when I took on a case, it was against a firm dominated by those Elites. You do not last 30 years if you consistently lose cases..:) Coming from a middle class family, and being the first attorney therein, I am proud of my achievements. I made life better for a few people and never surrendered to the status quo, no I'm not rich, but I sleep nights.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

    2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

    3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

    4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

    5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

    ADVERTISEMENT