At 14 Law Firms, Partner Promotions in 2008 Didn’t Include Women

bg
Feb 25, 2009 8:02 PM CST

Before condemning these firms outright for not making any women partners this year, there are a couple of holes in this story.  (1) How many women were eligible for partner this year at these firms?  If you don’t have any eligible women, you haven’t excluded anyone.  (2) How many women were, in fact, offered partnership at these firms but declined?  It is not outside the realm of possibility that not everyone who is offered a partnership takes it.  This is especially true since compensation changes drastically.  In the current economic climate of partner equity contributions, you might have more income and job security as a valued senior associate and waiting another year or two for partnership.

Flag this comment

Bill Dugan
Feb 26, 2009 9:39 PM CST

I can’t shed a tear here.  Who said the women passed over were any good?  If, as I suspect, they were not, there should be no need to elevate them to partner.  Period.

Flag this comment

Aarse
Feb 27, 2009 5:47 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

cj
Feb 27, 2009 7:29 AM CST

This is a stupid report.  Glad to see the ABA is still pandering.

Flag this comment

Lena
Feb 27, 2009 8:13 AM CST

Less than a quarter of the top 100 firms had acceptable partner-promotion rates for women, who comprise 50% of the population and 50% of graduating law students at top schools for many years.  77% of firms promote men over women as a matter of course.  The only thing that’s lazy about this reporting is to say that 23 out of 100 firms promoting at least 50% women is ‘the other end of the spectrum.’  The actual other end of the spectrum would be if 77% of law firm partners were all women!

Flag this comment

Nathan
Feb 27, 2009 8:42 AM CST

The fact that a firm, for example, has no women in a class of three is not statistically significant, and is not particularly illuminating.  If the same firm has the same statistic five years in a row it may be both statistically significant and indicative of discriminatory animus.  Out of the over 800 new partners in the firms reporting, less than a quarter were women.  That fact, in and of itself, is quite an indictment of the legal industry.  For the past 20 years, and perhaps closer to 30 years, half of the law school graduates have been women.  In my experience as a former hiring partner, there is no lack of qualified women to hire.  As a class, women are equally capable attorneys.  Those attorneys who think otherwise do so at their peril.  I have heard no legitimate non-discriminatory reason articulated for this disparity.  The real story here is that the partnership promotion rates reported by law firms demonstrate that, in aggregate, law firms engage in systemic discrimination based on gender.

Flag this comment

Doode
Feb 27, 2009 9:11 AM CST

14 Law Firms surveyed did not include women in their 2008 partner promotions. 
Flip side:
“86 Percent Of BigLaw Firms Surveyed Included Women in Their 2008 Partner Promotions”.

Flag this comment

Leo
Feb 27, 2009 9:51 AM CST

I’m a third year student right now, so I don’t have experience in big law.  However, I know someone who went to HLS and worked in big law for a couple years.  Like many other people, she didn’t like the hours and left.  She said that it is much easier for women to leave because there is less pressure on them to stay in big law to support families and luxurious lifestyles.  Women feel free to quit and go something else, even not practice law. 

There is more pressure on men, though, due to family/spousal obligations to stay in big law and work their way up.  For those of you who have worked in big law, what has been your experience?  Also, aren’t there other options to being promoted to partner, such as starting your own practice or going elsewhere?  Why should firms be obligated to promote anyone to partner?  If women believe sex discrimination exists in big law firms, why don’t they organize and create their own big law firms?

Flag this comment

Barbara Res
Feb 27, 2009 10:02 AM CST

If you were around in the early seventies, as I was, you would have heard all the silly excuses and assumptions about women in other professions that we see in #15 and #16 used as reasons for not hiring at all and not letting into law school, medical school and engineering school.
Fast forward 20 years and, Sick of the BS, we probably wont have to worry about score cards.  Just like nobody talks about how many blacks play baseball these days.
As for the women, we are still descendents of Jackie Robinson in our own way.  Let’s not let these turkeys brand us with the old cliches.

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 10:08 AM CST

Nathan proclaims his version of reality, “Those attorneys who think otherwise do so at their peril.  I have heard no legitimate non-discriminatory reason articulated for this disparity.  The real story here is that the partnership promotion rates reported by law firms demonstrate that, in aggregate, law firms engage in systemic discrimination based on gender.”

And what, we’re supposed to take that as jeebus’ gospel ‘cuz yew sez so?

Yes, “as a class, women are equally capable attorneys.” That does not mean that they (or anyone other class) are going to make partner in statistically equal numbers in comparison to any other class because there are a number of significant other criteria for choosing who makes partner, in which, even among members of the same class, they are NOT equal.

Far from it.

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 10:13 AM CST

Jose makes a good point in the first post, when he says “Must have bad women lawyers at that firm.”

You see, for those of you that think it’s OK to make sweeping and unfounded generalizations like “Well, there aren’t 50% women, so there must be discrimination,” Jose is doing the same thing. He’s just making a negative generalization.

So, if you think such comments are OK when they reflect a positive aspect, then they’re OK when they reflect a negative aspect too.

Yep. Must have been a bunch of bad women lawyers at those firms.

I mean, right?

Flag this comment

Barbara Res
Feb 27, 2009 10:44 AM CST

Ken - we are not talking about equal numbers, we are talking about 5 to 1.  Read my other post.
You said it best.
People are not “equal,” they are not interchangeable, they never have been, and they never will be.
As long as you believe this, we will live in a society dominated by the while male heterosexual norm.
Jose - AGAIN I must pont out that if the numbers were 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 I would not be posting these remarks.  I would say “we are making progress” 
As for C - Yes this is what they told me in 1971 when I got my engineering degree and couldnt take out a credit card because I was married and a potential “mother”.  All you are doing is forcing nurturing fathers back into the stereotypes they are trying to reject.
And I am self employed - I work at my computer all day and night when I am not at a hearing or mediation - its my hobby.
So I am happy to engage anyone of you who wishes to expand his horizons. (or hers)

Flag this comment

JME
Feb 27, 2009 10:49 AM CST

So, let’s say I have 10 associates eligible for partner.  I have a staff member blind code them, so I have no idea names, sex, age, etc.  I want to promote 2.  they are evenly divided male/female, gay/ straight, white/minority.  The two I select turn out to both be straight white males.  Is there a case here for discrimination?  Or just fodder for a pointless suit by one who did not get selected?

Flag this comment

Barbara Res
Feb 27, 2009 10:57 AM CST

JME
This is not about 10 lawyers.  When you have small numbers statistics go out the window, you know that.
That is why many laws are applied differently to small businesses and privately owned residences.
There were 987 partnerships awarded.  160 of these were women.
Nothing you do can change the facts.  If women were half the pool there should be 493. If they are 1 third of the pool there should be 329. 
You guys have to wake up and stop being so defensive.

Flag this comment

C
Feb 27, 2009 11:22 AM CST

Barbara said @ 24 “All you are doing is forcing nurturing fathers back into the stereotypes they are trying to reject.”

I happen to be a father, and I consider myself to be a nurturing one. My wife is a nurturing mother who has done very well professionally. She took a year off from her job to take care of our first child who was born this summer, depending on me to pass the bar exam, get admitted and get a job. I’ve done the first two, but I am sorry to say that I have been out of work for months since the firm I was working at went under in December. My wife didn’t want to have to go back to work because she wanted to stay home with our child, but she may now have to.

I’m a sensitive a guy who grown up with liberal parents and liberal arts education. I consider myself a Feminist. But it is eating me up inside that I don’t have a job to provide for my family. Sure, you could say I’m just enforcing a stereotype. But that’s the stereotype I live with everyday when she tells her friends on the phone that I’m still looking for work. I would feel a whole lot more “nurturing” if I had a job to provide for my family’s future, where we could rule out the scenario where both of us had to go back to work and we had to put our child in some hellhole daycare center.

I appreciate that the sexism that has dominated our society is still a reality for many. Just look at Lilly Ledbetter. But right now, under our current economic conditions, I also understand that firms have to do what is necessary to survive. That means promoting the people who are willing to put in the hours.

Like I said before, we don’t have enough data to know why these particular women weren’t promoted. If it was because they were women then heads should roll. If it was because they didn’t want to put in 80 hour weeks like all the other associates trying to make partner, then I would say it’s just “good” business. We don’t know.

Flag this comment

Barbara Res
Feb 27, 2009 11:47 AM CST

Like many men, some women are not willing to work so many hours.  When I started out in the construction industry in the 70’s I worked 6 and sometimes 7 days a week and believe me there was not fancy salary.  I was hellbent and I did what I had to do.
No woman goes into a law firm without understanding what is expected of her.  The ones who want to work fewer hours, etc. are not on the partner track. 
No matter how you slice it, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this not to involve discrimination.
As for personal choices, we all make them.  My husband worked at home when my kids were little and I was running all over the world.  I gave up a lot of “me time” to do what I wanted to do.  Others I know, gave up careers, or gave up luxuries, or gave up marriages.  We all make choices.  That is the point.  That we be given the opportunities to choose and not have a perception or stereotype determine what choices are available.
I hope you find a job soon, but I am sure you will eventually.  You will probably not remember the few months you were out of work as vividly as you will remember first steps, first recitals, big games, school proms - all things you will share with your kids.

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 12:13 PM CST

Barbara Res wrote, “Ken - we are not talking about equal numbers, we are talking about 5 to 1.”

It doesn’t matter what the ratio is. 1 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1. Given that people are not equal, you cannot determine what the ratio “should” be or whether it’s to your liking or not. If the criteria are rational, like I said, billable hours, rainmaking, experience, likability, ability, years at the firm, and on and on and on, then the ratio doesn’t matter. It could be 1 to 5, 1 to 10, or whatever.

“Read my other post. You said it best. “People are not ‘equal,’ they are not interchangeable, they never have been, and they never will be.”
As long as you believe this, we will live in a society dominated by the while male heterosexual norm.”

You are entitled to believe that final statement all you wish, however, it is not true simply because you happened to state that it is. I personally couldn’t care less what the ratio is because I understand how statistics work. You have demonstrated that you have not because you seem to think that generally equal ratios in law school graduation somehow translates to similar numbers on the partnership track.

The numbers are only equal in law school because the admissions boards are actively seeking admit based on gender numbers, and simply refuse to use sterilized applications with no identifying characteristics? Why? Because then the ratios won’t be what they want.

Lawyers are promoted to partner for a number of rational reasons, and since they are individuals, those reasons vary among those under consideration. That variance alone is enough to explain whatever disparities you dislike in the aggregate statistics because law firms do not promote aggregate statistics—they promote individuals.

Individuals, that, like I said, are not equal. Someone out to run the numbers on partners in these firms from Cooley vs. those from Buffalo vs. those from Harvard. Is that irrational discrimination too?

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 12:20 PM CST

Barbara Res notes “Why are you all stepping around my comments about blacks and jews.
Take this comment: ‘But people aren’t equal. Here, the most likely issue, as always, is billable hours. Now, add into that, rainmaking, experience, likability, ability, years at the firm, and on and on and on, and it quickly becomes clear that there is no reason whatsoever one should assume that gender ratios should be equal,’ and apply it to black lawyers or Jewish lawyers. Get the drift? Why do people still think it is ok to stereotype and discriminate against women with impunity?”

You don’t seem to be reading my posts very carefully. I’m not referring to women to the exclusion of all others. I couldn’t care less what the gender ratio is. What the race ratio is. What the religion ratio is. What the transgendered tree-hugger ratio is because they don’t matter as long as the criteria for promotion (billable hours, rainmaking, experience, likability, ability, years at the firm, and on and on and on) is applied equally there is no reason, other than your expectations, that there will be equal ratios of any class as compared to any other class.

Sheesh you need a statistics class.

“I WANT it to be that way, so it should be that way and the only reason it isn’t the way I want it is discrimination!!” >foot stomp<

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 12:26 PM CST

Barbara Res continues with glaring errors:

“That is why many laws are applied differently to small businesses and privately owned residences. There were 987 partnerships awarded.  160 of these were women. Nothing you do can change the facts.  If women were half the pool there should be 493. If they are 1 third of the pool there should be 329.”

Again, this is only true if every single aspect of every single person in the pool, other than gender were the same. That was not the case. For every single one of them, their billable hours, rainmaking, experience, likability, ability, years at the firm, and on and on and on, we all different. Since they were a different, then there is no reason to suggest or assume that the outcome would fall somewhere along gender, racial, religious, or any or non-relevant class distinction you happen to want to see.

In other words there’s only “discrimination” because the aggregate numbers didn’t happen to play out the way you would have really wanted them to.

Keep wringing those hands.

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 12:31 PM CST

Nathan blows it again too. “If a firm hires disproportionately few women, and then makes it difficult for those women to stay - say be less favorable assignments - then there will be many fewer women than men up for partnership.  Indeed, the fact that some very successful, very prestigious, law firms are promoting women to partnership at the 50% rate would demonstrate that gender bias exists at the firms who are not promoting women to the partner level.  Again, that bias may be manifested much earlier in their career than the partnership decision.”

What it actually means that some firms actually are using gender to discriminate against some individuals in order to make sure their aggregate numbers look the way they want them to look. Why? Because given all the reasons already mentioned, there’s no real reason to think there should be somewhat equal ration among any particular class du jour.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Feb 27, 2009 12:33 PM CST

It is also completely possible that women might be disproportionately deciding, for whatever reason, that they don’t want to become partners in these firms.  The fact that an individual woman decides women as a class should be statistically represented among partners does not mean that women as a class agree.

Flag this comment

C
Feb 27, 2009 12:44 PM CST

I still don’t think it’s impossible. But I agree that alarm bells should be ringing. I also see why Barbara is so disturbed about the tone of some of the comments on this page.

Flag this comment

tom
Feb 27, 2009 2:16 PM CST

you make partner based on production not on your sex.  if you want to earn based on your gender - go join a brothel

Flag this comment

silencedogood
Feb 27, 2009 3:04 PM CST

Barbara Res,

If your logic is consistent then perhaps the senior associates at Farella Braun should sue—the lone new partner there is female, therefore that firm MUST be discriminating against its male attorneys.  Perhaps the same applies at Cravath which had a 17% deviation in favor of women from this 50-50 ideal you hold firms to. 

Let’s be real though, it is normal to have deviation and as people have pointed out ad nauseum above, other factors are at play.  You are keen to point out bar passage rates, but that is the same thing as saying there is a roughly 50-50 male/female ratio of practicing attorneys.  So what.  It does nothing to address those points. 

A more relevant stat would be the rate at which women disproportionately leave the profession, take extended time off from the profession,  or choose to work part time all of which hinder partnership rates.  I don’t have the current stat, but there are plenty of ABA articles on this topic—which you would expect the author to have access to.

If you bear that in mind it is then strange that most of the other firms listed had an exact 50-50 ratio which would seem to be an exceedingly uniform, and thus artificial, result.  Hmm, maybe people should start banging the discrimination drum there too?  Surely if we assume discrimination unless disproved then that is required here, right?

Its too bad there can’t be a resolution of any of these questions though as there is nowhere near the level of information necessary to support even the mildest of conclusions.  While the article itself doesn’t make any, the headline is clearly inflammatory in its implied meaning. 

Certainly there is no basis for a serious accusation such as an industry wide conspiracy to discriminate against women, unless of course you consider assumptions a firm foundation. 

You and many of the other posters took that bait and ran full force with it.  That is irresponsible on the part of the ABA.

Flag this comment

Ken Hunlenton
Feb 27, 2009 3:19 PM CST

“C” contributed nothing with his comment, “I still don’t think it’s impossible. But I agree that alarm bells should be ringing. I also see why Barbara is so disturbed about the tone of some of the comments on this page.”

That’s OK, C, because a lot of us are so disturbed about the tone of some of the comments on this page by people who agree with Barbara too.

I’m wringing my hands as we speak.

“Won’t somebody pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese think of the children!”—C, as Helen Lovejoy.

Flag this comment