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
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

    2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

    3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

    4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

    5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

    ADVERTISEMENT