Law Firms
Ex-Associate Who Sued WolfBlock Says Firm Had Revolving Door for Women
Posted Mar 26, 2009 6:02 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A former associate who made new legal ground when she sued WolfBlock for sex discrimination some 20 years ago says the culture at the firm’s Philadelphia office never changed.
The law firm, formerly known as Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, voted to dissolve this week, prompting reporter calls to Nancy Ezold, whose bias suit because the first to go to trial for a law firm’s decision to deny partnership to a woman, the American Lawyer reports. Ezold lost the case on appeal.
Ezold told the publication about a revolving door for women lawyers at the firm’s Philadelphia office. “I can't speak for the firm's other offices because I don't know those people, but I looked at the firm's Philadelphia office and there is not a single woman who was a partner or associate at WolfBlock in Philadelphia when I was there who remains with the firm,” she said.
Am Law asked Ezold if the women were forced out. She replied: “Something happens to them. Attorney after attorney that were there when I was there and who are still there—they're all men. Some firms certainly have understood and accepted the quality and intellect of female attorneys and other firms like WolfBlock have not. The culture that resulted in my case was never repudiated by the firm. And therein lies the problem.”
Ezold now practices employment discrimination law at her own five-lawyer firm. She said she is noticing that law firms have fewer equity partners and more nonequity partners—and she sees possible bias in the figures. “If you look at these nonequity partners, a whole lot more are women than men,” she said.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Mar 26, 2009 7:19 AM CST
Gender-related manners have been in flux (and sometimes called into question) the last few decades. As a consequence, a fellow never really knows, in any given setting, whether opening a door for a lady may be expected, or may actually give offense. The revolving door is really the perfect solution to this problem, as it neatly removes the issue.
Flag this comment
Anonymous
Mar 26, 2009 7:48 AM CST
Sadly, things have not changed all that much for women since Ms. Ezold battled with WolfBlock. The old white men have just become more sneaky about it. They outwardly support women but once a woman makes “nonequity” partner, that support slowly vanishes. No more inviting the woman to important lunches, certainly no sharing of clients. And there is no support for her rainmaking attempts because that is non-billable time taken away from billed time (the only time that really matters). Slowly, the female non-equity partner realizes that she is stuck. She is no longer an associate “workhorse” who is merely making money for the firm. She is required to make rain, but without support or mentoring from elder partners in the firm. She finally sees the writing on the wall, that without any support she will never make equity partner and must find a way out of the firm. That, my friends, is the way the world works for females today. Think twice about going to law school, ladies.
Flag this comment
Joanne Stocker
Mar 26, 2009 9:12 AM CST
Damned shame that these law firms didn’t learn any lessons. The attitude and behavior in the article still exist but most firms work hard to give the appearance of equality. Go solo ladies. Ezold may have lost on appeal, but she’s getting the last laugh.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Mar 26, 2009 12:31 PM CST
@#2: Why does it matter that they’re “white”—are you being racist?
Also, it’s odd that you’re discouraging women to go to law school; shouldn’t you encourage the opposite? I might have to send this article to Ellen.
Flag this comment
Judith
Mar 26, 2009 2:02 PM CST
Contrary to Ms Ezold’s grandiose, self-serving notions, she was no heroine of the women’s movement. In fact, justice was indeed done by the Third Circuit when it unanimously found that the firm’s decision not to admit her to the partnership did not constitute sex discrimination. The extensive evidence relied upon in the Court’s comprehensive opinion (983 F.2d 509) showed that even Ezold’s partnership proponents(all men, by the way)uniformly acknowledged her deficiencies in legal analytical ability, which was the firm’s most important partnership criterion. Also, there was one other woman partnership candidate at the same time, and that woman was admitted to the partnership, while a male candidate, like Ezold, was passed over. Ezold’s comment in the American Lawyer interview that the dissolution of the firm and the resulting unemployment of scores of people who joined the firm long after she quit makes her feel that “justice was finally done” speaks volumes as to her true character.
Flag this comment
Dirty LAWndry
Mar 26, 2009 2:05 PM CST
Let’s see….the woman who sued Wolf Block and lost on appeal now has her own thriving practice while Wolf Block was forced to resolve due to the economy….what a nice dose of karma!!
Flag this comment
Joanne Stocker
Mar 26, 2009 2:43 PM CST
“...showed that even Ezold’s partnership proponents(all men, by the way)uniformly acknowledged her deficiencies in legal analytical ability, which was the firm’s most important partnership criterion.” Really? Legal analytical ability was htge most important partnership criterion? Doubtful. The ability to bring in business is what separates the men from the boys, so to speak. It is generally well known that the the deficient legal analysis excuse was pretextual.
Flag this comment
attorney
Mar 26, 2009 2:43 PM CST
#4, I don’t think #2 is being racist by pointing out the obvious; old white men are running large law firms.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 26, 2009 3:46 PM CST
Into the ground.
Flag this comment
Fan
Mar 26, 2009 6:22 PM CST
Always good for a laugh, B. McLeod. Keep it up!
Flag this comment
barbara res
Mar 26, 2009 11:36 PM CST
without reading the cases and perhaps the arguments and transcripts, I cannot say whether there was discrimination at play, but I can say one thing from personal experience that is undeniably true.
Just because the court says you lose, doesn’t mean you were wrong. She didnt prove discrimination, but it doesnt mean she was not discriminated against.
Going solo is not the answer. Women need to go to the firms and sue if they believe they are victims of discrimination.
The more suits that are initiated, the more people are forced to look at what they are doing. Sooner or later, things will start to change. Brown v. Board wasnt built in a day.
Flag this comment
Judith
Mar 27, 2009 10:27 AM CST
Joanne, you really should take an hour to read the Third Circuit’s very comprehensive opinion before making wholly unsubstantiated assertions such as “It is generally well known that the deficient legal analysis excuse was pretextual.” To save you some time, here are a few pertinent excerpts from the Court of Appeals’ unanimous opinion, which withstood both a rehearing petition and a certiorari petition. 983 F.2d at 524-25( ” the district court first substituted its own general standard for the qualities Wolf believed were essential to law firm partnership. Then, applying its own incorrect standard of comparison, the district court did not realize that a comparison of Ezold’s legal analytic ability with that of the successful males could not support a finding of pretext. Overall, Ezold’s evaluations in that category were not as good as that of even the least capable male associate who was offered a partnership position.”); id. at 532-33(“Even Ezold’s strongest supporters acknowledged the shortcomings in her legal analytical ability…These contemporaneous criticisms support Wolf’s contention that the final consensus among its partners that Ezold did not, in the perception of the firm, possess the legal analytical capacity requisite to becoming a partner, and not her sex, was the reason for denying her a partnership position.”). Ezold lost her case because there was no evidence to support her claim of discrimination, and it does not help the cause of gender equality to act as if the Court of Appeal’s decision and the extensive evidence cited in support of its holding really don’t matter simply because the plaintiff was a woman and she was denied the partnership she sought. Unfortunately, there have been other law firms and corporations that have discriminated against women lawyers, and those are the women who deserve our empathy and support. Ezold’s 20-year effort to claim victimhood just doesn’t wash .
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.