Downturn Will Make Firms More Hospitable for Women, Partner Argues

B. McLeod
Apr 28, 2009 7:37 AM CST

Whatever she’s drinking, I’d like a double.

B. McLeod’s predictions are that: 1) all “associates” will be treated like even cheaper fungible commodities; 2) the billable hour will stay (although rates may well come down); and, 3) the bases of firms’ promotional decisions will not change, and the firms will not care about accommodating whatever “associates” are trying to do with the 6-10 hours a day they are not in the office.

They will be assimilated (or burned out and discarded).  Resistance is futile.

Flag this comment

P. Bryson
Apr 28, 2009 9:13 AM CST

By what logic does work-life balance become more important to firms when the job market causes employees to have less bargaining power? Again, this is another person taking this opportunity to “predict” that the changes that have been advocated for a long time will come now.

In that vein, I’ll repeat my prediction that a large and prestigious law firm will hire me @ $200,000/yr with a 500 billable hour requirement in the next 3 months.

Flag this comment

Bill Dugan
Apr 28, 2009 9:59 AM CST

I DISAGREE.  Women are the first to go in a downturn since they have no portable business and want to work less hours then men (generally, that is). 

When times are tough, firms cannot afford to be stylish.  That is why minority hiring is also likely to suffer. 

If the person can pull his own weight, fine.  If not, cut ‘em loose.

Flag this comment

Kazoo
Apr 28, 2009 10:13 AM CST

She also predicts that the economy will cause “big-Law” to open offices on Mars! Lets adjust her tinfoil helmet and gently take her to someplace soft and warm.

Flag this comment

For the xx chromosome (JAG CWP) in Ohio
Apr 28, 2009 11:21 AM CST

RANT - VENT MODE ON, but reduced from FLANK to FULL

IMO, females should be required to earn a law degree (after ps-12, not after 12-16), prior to dating or marriage.

And males should be taxed beginning with birth to support those initial three years of education (it ain’t gonna stop at three!).

1. Females would be ABLE to answer the question asked (which does not necessarily mean that they WILL so answer).

2. When we dear husbands/lovers/boyfriends/dates ask where they want to dine out, they will tell us so, and not start with the infinite answer of where they do NOT want to go.

My dear son asked his dear Ph.D. wife a simple question prompting a 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) I’m uncertain, answer.

Pause—perception of arrested blood flow to brain, with consequential full cerebral arrest—more pause.

Fearing that I would die of old age, I volunteered, our ears are programmed for the “s” of yes, the “o” of no.

We could have gone on with a “I don’t know,” “I’m uncertain,” “Why do you ask?” “Good question, let me run it past my attorney,” etc.

As I recall we did get a response, but it was none of the above.

We need MORE women lawyers in society, business, politics, marriages, relationships, etc.

Nothing is sexier than a female who can handle a semi-colon (”;”) a compound sentence or nested parentheses in an IF-THEN-ELSE state without, eyes clouding, tearing, acquiring a 1000-mile stare, etc.

Compare the ratio of male to female :
    Ponzi schemers;
    Clones of “I don’t recall” former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales;
    Clones of the late former Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer, father of the Palmer Raids (05 March 1919-04 March 1921)
    Clones of the late former Maryland Governor and US Vice-President Spiro Theodore Agnew;
    Attorneys opining that wall slamming is o.k.;
    Attorneys opining that HOH-boarding is o.k.;
    Soverign Leaders starting wars;
    etc., as infinitum!

JADOG, CWP

RANT - VENT MODE OFF

Flag this comment

JJ
Apr 28, 2009 1:42 PM CST

Fail.

Flag this comment