ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Vickie - 4 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 9 minutes ago

   Puh-leezzzzzz . . . .

   Women who go to law school are, if anything, MORE ambitious than their male counterparts. 

   Read Lauren Stiller Rikleen’s book “Ending the Gauntlet” if you’d like to get a real sense of why women are impeded in their ability to rise to the top. 

   The reasons include:  (1) the fact that marriage and family INCREASES men’s salaries while DECREASING women’s; (2) the continued lack of women mentors at the highest levels; (3) simple discriminaiton; (4) the clear sense that billing 2200 hours/year won’t be worth your while because the chances of your being made an equity partner are about as high as your chances of getting pregnant after 40’ and, (5) as any associate can clearly see by observing the female equity partners in her own firm, achieving that status generally means not having children. 

   Let’s not blame OURSELVES for the largely unconcious sexism that continues to interfere with the retention and advancement of women in the private practice of law.

2. Posted by Native NewYorker - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 4 minutes ago

   If we play by different rules, those with skill and talent are more likely to find open doors instead of glass ceilings.

3. Posted by associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 31 minutes ago

   I have also known women who valued their family life and children above their careers and chosen to quit in order to maintain those priorities.  There is nothing dishonorable about putting the children you chose to bring into this world first.  This probably impacts statistics like these a whole lot more than “middle aged white men are the devil”.

4. Posted by Associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 16 hours, 54 minutes ago

   It’s a lot easier to make partner when you have a housewife to take care of the rest of your life

5. Posted by Mr honest - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 29 minutes ago

   Why is it that the pro-feminist comments are left posted but arguments from the other side are deleted? 
   The idea that feminists only desire fairness is obvious rhetoric.

6. Posted by In house counsel - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 16 minutes ago

   Unfairness is not limited to just law firms.  A true story:  when I first starting working at ABC company, a male colleague and myself started at about the same time with fairly equal backgrounds (I had an extra year of academic experience).  After a couple of years, he got married.  I was told that the promotion was going to him because he had a wife to support and I was single.  A year later he announced that they were going to have a baby.  Again I was told that he was getting another promotion because he had a family to support and I was single.  Guess who was doing all the work in the meantime?????  You tell me this is fair.

7. Posted by srs - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 57 minutes ago

   Anyone notice that the “groping” article appears right beneath this one?  But we’re creating the glass ceiling ourselves?  And no, there is nothing wrong with choosing family and motherhood over work and political office- provided it really was a choice.

8. Posted by 40 Yr Old Female Equity Partner - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 54 minutes ago

   There are certainly many factors that go into the gender gap and the true reasons remain an enigma to most attorneys.  Ambition may be part of the equation, but, it’s probably more an issue of how ambition is demonstrated (and supported) which helps men over women rather than a signficant surplus.  Studies have shown that men ask for opportunities and women expect them to be given to them, but, still want them just as much.  It’s just a cultural difference in how boys and girls are raised, and that needs to evolve.  Another part of the problem is that, whether you call it sexism or not, many men don’t bother trying to understand the reasons and have inate views of women, based on their parents’ relationships, their relationships with sisters, and their relationships with their wives that cause them to, without necessarily having the intent, disproprotionately provide key mentoring and support to the male attorneys coming up through the ranks vis a vis the women.  The only way women will acheive parity is when they are given the SAME opportunity for mentoring and support as the men (both by male and female senior attorneys) irrespective of whether they are mothers or on a reduced schedule or anything like that.  The fact is that women like me who have “made it” have simply been more fortunate to get the right developmental guidance and opportunity along the way mostly from more openminded men.  Unfortunately though, to get that experience there’s no doubt we have also had to find a way to work harder and smarter than our male peers and that is what is absolutely unfair and truly is “de jure” discrimination because we tend to get paid less for doing more work and adding more value.  No attorney should be penalized for working a reduced schedule for any purpose, however, most importantly, whether it’s a male attorney or a female attorney with responsibility for raising a child, for those attorneys who think parents should not be fully accomodated in the workplace, you should think about your own mothers.  The notion that women should be relegated to putting all of their eggs in one basket with their husband (unless they choose to do it and take that risk) is a relic of the past and lawyers must get used to the idea that talented women are here to stay and it is a good thing, not a bad thing for the law.  The best part is that men don’t need to have the full breadwinning pressure and can choose to have the same balance as women with work and family.  They too can work reduced schedules and pitch in more on the home front if they choose.  I don’t buy that reduced schedule attorneys are any less valuable than any other attorneys when they are compensated proportionately.  Attorneys at all levels contribute at different levels - whether measured by chargeable hours or business origination/responsibility.  To suggest that parent with domestic responsibilities (or any reduced schedule attorney) is less committed and of less value than the partner who doesn’t want to bother with networking time for business development is nothing but plain old sexism which mostly derives from intellectually laziness resulting in self-defeating ignorance and nothing else.  Smart lawyers should be able to do much better with these issues.

9. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 52 minutes ago

   I think this is all very unfair.  Women are generally more dedicated then men, are smarter, yet get paid less, because MEN run the law firms and the law offices (#6--the in house lady take note).  I think this is one of the FEW places women can be honest and not take it up the #@$@#$ from SEXIST men, like #5, for airing our views.  If WOMEN are to be equals, we can’t be subservient to MEN who merely want us around because we look good.  I think the women who forego children for work ultimately pay the price of spinsterdom.  No kids, but a few more dollars in the bank is not for me.  I am going to be married and have a family even if I don’t wind up a millionaire I will be happy.  And to the MEN who would deny me this happiness, all I can say to them is:  FOO on You!

10. Posted by NN - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 42 minutes ago

    So, when was the last time you heard a working mother - lawyer or not - say they had to go home to “babysit” tonight? Not likely but I can’t tell you how many times I have heard the dads make that comment. There begins the inequality. (I’m lucky, my husband is not one of those men.)

11. Posted by ND - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 34 minutes ago

    I was one women in a group of three men conducting document review on location. When counsel entered the room to welcome us, he said, “Follow me gentlemen.” Enough said.

12. Posted by 20 plus years in firm - 4 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 22 minutes ago

    There is both subtle discrimination and overt discrimination that comes with motherhood.  Having children immediately relegates women to second class status.  Well meaning partners unconsciously make decisions because they are concerned about having women work late hours due to the harm on the kids, are reluctant to have women travel or undertake assignments which are detrimental to the children.  Personally, I think this concern should be there for all parents.  But so so long as the bias affects only women, law firms are harmed as are our families.  Unfortunately, biases against working mothers are not limited to one gender. I remember talking with a childless woman partner and senior associate who remarked about another woman , “ Oh she can’t be serious about being a lawyer she has two kids”. I was was flabbergasted as I had two kids at the time and raised the point then and there.  Both had the good sense to be sheepish.

13. Posted by Marc H - 4 months, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 34 minutes ago

    Ellen Barshevsky (#9) - There are lots of very well thought-out comments in this thread, but yours are not among them.  Pay inequality does exist and the reasons for it are open to serious debate, but you are simply throwing around a bunch of unsupported accusations such as men are generally dumber than women and that women are “tak[ing] it up the #@$@#$ from SEXIST men, like #5, for airing our views.” Disagreement is what a discussion thread is all about.  Be part of the solution - not part of the problem.

14. Posted by Nicole - 4 months, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 31 minutes ago

    #10 - I’m of the mind that one cannot babysit one’s own child.  I have no problem pointing that out whenever I hear a man say that.  Of course I am in academia where such discourse is welcomed though.

15. Posted by Midwest Voice - 4 months, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 31 minutes ago

    How many men are mistaken for a court reproter? How many men call another law office only to be thought of as a paralegal without explicitly announcing oneself as an attorney multiple times? How many men show up to a bar association event with their spouse only to have several attorneys assume that their spouse is the attorney?

    How many male attorneys equally share child rearing responsibilities with their working spouse? How many male attorneys spend part of their day arranging for pediatrician appointments, or who will pick up their child from soccer practice?

    Whether it is biased perceptions within the bar, or an imbalance of obligations in the home, there are many strikes against a lot of women. I know there are quite a few male attorneys out there equally devoted to families. Unfortunately, they are in the minority.

    And #8 - very well said.

16. Posted by Young Female Attorney - 4 months, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 16 minutes ago

    In my top-tier lawschool, the women were generally more ambitious than the men, smarter, and harder-workers (though there were some men who seemed to WANT to be there). Now that I’m general counsel for a company in a male-dominated industry, I regularly deal with incompetent older male attorneys who start out thinking they can steamroll over me until I assert myself - at which point, they are flabbergasted and don’t know what to do.

    Recently, I was inquiring about a job opportunity and the owner of the firm told me that women are paid less than men because there is a discount for the anticipation that single women will get married and leave eventually and since I was young and cute that would factor into how much they would offer me. 

    I told my father, a retired lawyer, and his response was: “That’s ridiculous, last I heard they abolished slavery!”

17. Posted by Associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 23 hours, 6 minutes ago

    Want to be equity partner?  Generate your own business and no firm will discriminate against you for ANY reason.

18. Posted by Female partner - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 58 minutes ago

    #9 - your comments serve no purpose and in fact hinder the discussion.

19. Posted by Pissed off ice - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 51 minutes ago

    ambition gap?  Here we go:  blaming the victim once again!  In my office, the only other “associate” level colleague ( a tall handsome white male) earns 30% more than I do. When I asked for parity, I was shunned by senior staff who stopped talking to me for about 3 months.  Message:  live with it or leave.  Recent Supreme Court decision on pay inequality certainly didn’t help.

20. Posted by Associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 49 minutes ago

    Are you serious? This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read. Women don’t lack the “confidence” to enter into political life, they lack the self-interested, egomaniac qualities required for such an undertaking. For example, no woman would be running for president while her husband was dying of cancer, as we saw one candidate do in this election cycle.

21. Posted by Disagree with 20 - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 42 minutes ago

    I disagree with #20.  It is debatable that the candidate to whom you refer is in fact male.

22. Posted by Does Not Lack Ambition - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 37 minutes ago

    I love it when anonymous associates comment on these stories as though they have it all figured out (#’s 3 and 17). Please don’t pretend you have it all figured out since you went to law school and apparently passed the bar. None of us have all the answers--it’s just that simple.

    I am a woman. As an associate, I was president of NUMEROUS bar association groups, was actively involved in the community (always publishing my firm name), billed 1800 hours+ per year (my firms’ minimum), was named the state bar’s top young lawyer, generated my own clients, met my deadlines, was a positive person in the office and made sure I was visible to the higher ups. Rather than being praised, I was treated like the annoying little sister, showing up her brothers.

    I was never taken to client development meetings and opportunities like my male associate counterpart. I was never sent to “prime” depositions. I was never provided any sort of mentoring similar to my male associate counterparts (example: managing partner inviting all of the male associates and their families for a long weekend vacation at his cabin). 

    If asked if they were sexist, the partners would say “no!” “never” “I give everyone equal opportunity.” but the reality is that rather than trying to further develop me, they just shut me out. I can’t imagine my experience is unique and I’m pretty sure I’m not lacking in “ambition.”

23. Posted by MommyEsq - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 17 minutes ago

    I think I agree with both sides.  The gender gap exists BOTH because there is a definite glass ceiling and because some women choose to pursue jobs/careers that are not on a partnership track.  I believe I am one of them.  I purposely chose an in-houes job straight out of law school, allowing me to work 830-530 M-F with no overtime, no billable hours, and no hope of making huge amounts of money.  However, I will agree that within my company and within my previous company, ALL of the executives are men.  I believe that the company I am with now would be the kind to make me a general counsel someday (as they have offered the position to a woman in the past).  But at my previous company they refused to make a woman the GC and instead had NO GC and just called her “Corporate Counsel” while giving her all the responsibility.  It was terrible and one of the reasons I left - there was a definite limit on how far I could go there.

24. Posted by Big Law Associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 22 hours, 11 minutes ago

    1. The practice of law at large frims is greared more toward a male lifestyle than a female lifestyle.  For example, very long hours and very little family time.  Unless you’re like the transgender dude/girl in the news, men don’t give birth.  Women do.  Women even WANT to have babies, whereas most law firm partners I know have very little interest.  Big law partners often have multiple marriages and multiple mistresses.  This is the culture.  It is not pretty.  If women really want a piece of that, they are encouraged to participate more than ever before.  But something tells me that having several husbands and never having a child is not what many women want. 
    Second, this scenario changes at smaller firms.  Where the billable requirement is closer to 1500 hours, women have the opportunity to have families.  Perhaps the mid-market is a more attractive option, and I’d like to see studies comparing the recent progress of women at large firms and small to medium size firms.

25. Posted by Biglaw Associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 47 minutes ago

    In addition to overt sexism women experience on a day to day basis, one explanation for the gender gap between male and female partners is frequently over looked:  1) The years during which an associate must prove herself correspond precisely to the time in her life when she is most likely to have children (at least if she follows her doctor’s advice).  2) Large law firms openly discourage women from having children when they are junior associates.  For example, it is written into my firm’s policy that women are strongly discouraged from persuing any sort of alternative work arrangement in the first few years as an associate.  3) After following that advice to wait, the window for having children begins to narrow.  Those who are advised by their doctors not to wait have children in the later years as an associate.  Even if they worked twice as many hours as their male colleagues in anticipation of the attendant complaints by men that the men have worked harder while women are out on maternity leave, it is irrelevant because of the following:  Many big firms only review associate years 5-8 when evaluating a candidate for partnership.  What is worse, candidates are initially ranked by the hours they have worked over only those few years, rather than taking into account the harder work in the earlier years when they were discouraged from having children.  Thus, it is virtually impossible to compete even with the men who completely slacked off from years 1-4.

26. Posted by Inhouse F50 Female - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 40 minutes ago

    That the gender gap is due to lack of ambition is ludicrous and Martha Neil should be ashamed for encouraging and perpetuating this misconception.
    I agree there is a gender gap, but I know many women who like #22 generate as much or more business, and worker harder to get half as far. Just sit around an all women table at the next ABA luncheon and you’ll hear some incredible stories. It’s the Law professions dirty little secret - the good ol’boy club is alive and well. Dont try to sue because you will be labled a trouble-maker and your career will be ruined.
    The good news is that there are great, albeit less financially rewarding, opportunities inhouse - the better news is that we get to hire outside counsel. Be prepared, I always ask for partner demographic makeup! Disproportionate male / female ratio? Sorry, no business for you!  The world is not fair, but eventually every dog has their day.

27. Posted by Kathleen Kauffmann - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 36 minutes ago

    I find it particularly sad when a woman who has apparently had many opportunities to advance in her chosen field chooses to blame women attorneys for the supposed self-imposition of the “glass ceilings” which restrain their advance in the practice of law and on the bench.  The reality is that the “glass ceiling” remains firmly in place, and for the most part, women lawyers/judges simply have not risen to a level, in high enough numbers, to participate in the imposition of that ceiling.  I find myself wondering to what end the article was authored....

28. Posted by R - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 26 minutes ago

    In a related story, the Brookings Institution has reported that the reason there aren’t many blacks and Hispanics in high positions is that they aren’t “ambitious” enough…

    Puh-LEEZE. Since when did the Brookings Institution get hijacked by Rush Limbaugh?

29. Posted by UBLawJDPhD2L - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Even if there is the “ambition gap” that is referred to in this article (and my strong suspicion is that the only reason the author portrays the gender gap this way is to turn heads and generate sensationalist readership), one must ask whether this is a quesiton of nature or nurture.
    Are women biologically less ambitious than men?  I doubt it; in any case it has yet to be proven by science.  Is this alleged “ambition gap” because women are still, as a whole, recovering from the belief that we should always put our families first and careers second, so that men can put their careers first and families second?  That sounds more plausible.  How about women who were subjected (and continue to be subjected to this very day) to stereotypical attitudes put forth in abstinence-only programs, telling them that “men value achievement and women value relationships”?  There’s your ambition gap right there - tell women that they’re not supposed to value achievement when they’re in their most vulnerable developing years, and guess what - they won’t value it.
    So yes, the “ambition gap” may be there, but it also may be artificially created.  And guess what - it won’t go away in a snap.  We are undergoing what is known in academia as a “paradigm shift,” where the attitudes held most dear by society in general are slowly shifted.  It can take hundreds of years, and we’re barely scratching the surface.  All the more reason to work even harder, because if we get discouraged by the “ambition gap” and quit, things will always stay the same.

30. Posted by Associate - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 4 minutes ago

    My personal experience at a big firm, as a female associate, was that the best work seemed to go to guys and none of the women in my class were succeeding like the guys were.  My impression was that most of the top partners, who were male, prefer to work (and travel) with guys.  I doubt it’s conscious sexism but it was obvious to all the women.  There were male partners who strongly advocated for women and who bent over backwards for me, but unfortunately those were not the ones who had the clout to really get you to the top.  Just my personal experience in one firm.  I’m as ambitious as the next guy, have no family obligations—but there was no way I was going to succeed there.

31. Posted by Deborah - 4 months, 2 weeks, 21 hours, 1 minute ago

    Just to add my own personal experience to the chorus:  I recently underwent a very arduous interview process with one of the top 5 tax advisory firms in the world for a very visible senior level position.  I made it through the first two rounds of interviews with said firm’s national partners with flying colors.  At the third and final round of interviews with the new regional partner, the interview went something like this:  The partner took one look at me and said “I will tell you right now that I’m not going to hire a woman for this job.  In fact, I don’t even think that women should be out applying for jobs, but since I have to bow to affirmative action and hire girls, the most I’ll use you for is a behind the desk job.” He than went on to describe how women have destroyed the workplace, and how his son couldn’t get a scholarship to college because of all of the “under qualified girls and blacks.”

    Needless to say I withdrew my application for the position and informed human resources.  As far as I know, no disciplinary action was taken against him.

    Oh, and let’s not forget about how at my second job out of law school, I was making 30 percent less than my less qualified male colleague, and how my supervisor openly groped my breast on several occasions.  I reported this to my manager, whose response was “well, we’ve had problems with this before, but “Tim’s” been here for a while and the complaintants usually end up quitting, so....”

    So, the moral of all of this?  I DID end up quitting the associate job where I was groped, and I DID end up withdrawing my application for the senior attorney role.  I guess you could say that I lack ambition, and that’s why I’m not going to be a partner someday…

32. Posted by Mary J. Perry - 4 months, 2 weeks, 20 hours, 7 minutes ago

    To suggest or even consider that women do not advance as much in law firms due to their lack of ambition is one of the worst excuses I have ever read.  I am disappointed that the ABA Journal would even consider posting such balderdash.  As a Harvard Law School Graduate and a practitioner of law for 20 years, I have had an abundance of ambition and struggled for over 18 years at male dominated law firms where my ambition and hard work ethic (I routinely billed 3,000+ hours/year and worked 80-100 hour weeks) was simply exploited by male attorneys who profited off of my labor without providing any realistic opportunities to me for advancement within such firms.  I saw the same thing happen to numerous women and minority attorneys during this time.  Two years ago I started my own firm.  I think it is about time that the ABA and the legal profession take a candid look at the fact that the legal profession is one of the most exploitative professions for women and take the appropriate culprits to task - ie. white males who have constructed and take of advantage of the brick wall (not a glass ceiling) which continues to enrich them at the expense of numerous hard working and ambitious women in the profession.  As for women who are said to not have ambition - perhaps they are simply tired of being given document review, research, and other dead end assignments at law firms and realize much sooner than most of us that there is no point in being exploited for a few years and then be told that they do not meet the criteria (whatever it may be) for partnership and advancement within a firm.

33. Posted by AZSmallFirm - 4 months, 2 weeks, 19 hours, 31 minutes ago

    I find it interesting that not a single poster felt obliged to review the report and assess the report’s methodology or analysis.  Instead, each of the posters simply provided his or her own (largely anecdotal) beliefs about the issues presented, without ever considering the value, or lack thereof, of the evidence provided in the report.  That is both suprising and disappointing in a forum consisting largely of lawyers.  Frankly, I don’t understand why some of the posters even feel the need to defend the “open discussion” going on, given that it seems to be simply proselytizing rather than “debate.” Indeed, if your mind is already made up on the issue, why bother reading the article?

34. Posted by counselor - 4 months, 2 weeks, 18 hours, 59 minutes ago

    AZSmallFirm:

    Why bother reading the report?  One can easily discount its logical soundness (not to mention validity) by taking note of the false premises therein outlined in the ABA article.  Why make things more difficult than they need to be?  The argument is doomed to fail based its own faulty logic.

    I trust that no one here is billing for their time in responding to this piece of drivel, so why create more work for ourselves by wasting time on an unsound syllogism?

35. Posted by Ken Laska - 4 months, 2 weeks, 18 hours, 42 minutes ago

    The only thing that I care about when I hire somebody is will they give me a good honest eight hours of work for eight hours of pay.  I can care less about their sex, race, religion or whatever.

    In so far as the difference between men and women what’s the big deal.  We’ve had that difference since Adam and Eve.  Men when they want to get to point a just don’t care thay walked right through everything push everything aside and get there.  This is called the Mars direct approach.  Women on the other hand seem to weigh all the options and alternatives etc. etc. and wander about before they get to the point.  This is called the Venus wander about approach.  What difference does it make.

    In so far as the article is concerned and the author I’m just somewhat mystified as to why anybody would do this stupid study.  However the more and more I think about it the more I am reminded of a line from a James Lee Burke novel where one of the characters said “The man’s mind is as cluttered as an empty closet.  Why are you trying to make a mystery of a moron?” I think the author of this study had an empty closet upstairs, when they set about wrting this article.

    The most that I can gather about why this article was printed is probably lets see if a lead balloon flies.  It’s quite obvious that putting the lead boom up in the air has a tendency to hurt one’s toes. Duh

36. Posted by David Smythe - 4 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 14 minutes ago

    Dear Midwest:

    How many men would dare raise the concept that maybe they can have reduced hours to take care of their children, without permanently harming their promotion chances?

    Women get to do that all the time, and in fact probably have some full-time monitor at the law firm making sure that no wman is harmed by doing so.

37. Posted by Rose Stern - 4 months, 2 weeks, 15 hours, 33 minutes ago

    I am disappointed to see this article in the journal-especially since the author is a women.  Martha, might I suggest you play the part of Judas in this year’s Christmas play?  We really need to stop looking at gender, race, religion, etc.  There are fewer women at senior levels because this is a relatively new field for women - its that simple.

38. Posted by Kelly Johnson - 4 months, 2 weeks, 6 hours, 10 minutes ago

    As a woman I agree with the article whole heartedly.  Women, by and large, are less ambitious then men.  My only problem with the article is that they make it sound like a bad thing.  As far as I’m concerned, in the law firm context, men are suckers.  They work and work and work and work, why?  For the opportunity to work some more.  In the mean time, they don’t get to enjoy the house that the job allowed them to buy or the children that it allowed him to have.  I would ask, what is the point of being able to afford things that you’ll never have time to enjoy?  Frankly I think if men would be a little less ambitious, we would all be better off.  In the end, most women decide that spending time with their family and having a life outside of work is more important then earning more money and rising in the company.  This is not a bad thing!!!  Its a decision that the next generation is making more and more no matter their gender and law firms in particular are just going to have to adjust.

39. Posted by Maren Klawiter - 4 months, 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours, 48 minutes ago

    I think it’s a mistake to think of ambition as an innate and unchanging “either you have it or you don’t” sort of thing. Ambition--to be an equity partner, to get married, to become a parent, to climb Mt. Everest--is influenced by your perceptions of the structures of opportunities available to you. People shift their ambitions in some directions and away from others, in part, in response to their sense of where their ambitions are most likely to be fulfilled. Kathleen Gerson’s book, “Hard Choices” (an oldie but a goodie) is a great read on this topic, for those that are interested. mk

40. Posted by Brad - 4 months, 1 week, 6 days, 16 hours, 47 minutes ago

    It comes down to women having children and wanting A LIFE, thus pushing the firm to a lower priority.  With motherhood, how can you be SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that the firm doesn’t want to invest partnership in someone who didn’t/doesn’t bill as many hours, and/or has a lowered productivity level associated with motherhood/family? How is it so surprising that a firm might be scared that all of that might happen like it has in the past?  How is it surprising that when the firm is put secondary to family that the firm isn’t running and breaking down walls to grant someone partnership? 

    To claim some nefarious discrimination is pretty irrational, especially off just x’s and o’s statistics.  Yes, pay disparity exists… You should stand up for yourself if you get screwed.  There are many factors that lead to pay disparity, and it is unfair that a male and female billing the same hours with same experience would be paid differently.  But that is totally different conversation and is removed from the associate/partnership discussion.  Discrimination and the glass ceiling is not necessarily the cause of such a wide gap in male/female partners.  It is no secret that many women value and want a family.  It is no secret that many women (like some male counterparts) just decide after 5 years that they have different priorities than the grind of a law firm.  I don’t need to even go in specific examples there because everyone knows someone who has left the firm for family.  That choice has more to do with the disparity, not overt discrimination against women.

    As much as women may cry, if you decide to have children, it is a sacrifice you and your family makes… It is a sacrifice indeed, and I wholeheartedly respect it.  But seriously, YOU SIGNED UP FOR IT!!!!  Especially when you went to law school and choose a career in the legal field that values the churn and burn of their employees.  It is not anyone’s fault but yours if you were naive and thought you could be a partner, a mother, take vacations, work 40 hours a week and change the world all at the same time.  Life isn’t fair, and we all know the legal field is not fair.  Sure some male associates have an advantage because they have a wife at home… Unfortunately, that is THEIR situation, and that is how the gender cards were dealt.  Life isn’t perfect as much as I wish it were…

    Women undoubtedly face obstacles in the work place.  Single people also face obstacles.  People with middle of the law school class face obstacles.  People with ADD and developmental disabilities have obstacles.  Heck, even my dog faces obstacles. We are all dealt with a set of cards in life.  You can whine about your cards and demand some feel good liberal policy that only makes things worse, or you can play your cards without expecting differential treatment and finally rid yourself of that victim card you always want to bust out.  Maybe then will you quit thinking that your superhuman doing 10x more work than any male in your office.  And maybe then you’d realize such thinking is not necessarily reality and that your crappy attitude and superiority complex might truly be at fault.

41. Posted by Mom Associate - 4 months, 1 week, 5 days, 20 hours, 41 minutes ago

    Women don’t lack “ambition,” society has just taught women to have a different set of goals than men.  Until men and women equally share childrearing and housekeeping responsibilities, and bosses expect as much, this will not change. 

    I was in the Army before I went to law school, in a special unit where promotions were done in-house.  There was no testing like you have in the rest of the Army, it was all a popularity contest.  Despite the fact that women spent more time “volunteering” for additional jobs for promotion consideration, men got the promotions because “they had families to support.” I heard the Colonel openly tell a female who married after her promotion that he wasted a promotion on her because she would probably quit once she had a baby.  After I had my baby, I made sure I put in as much time as I had before, and to no avail, I was still passed over for promotion by underqualified men who’d recently had children.  It was no surpise that the token women in the top spots were childless and mostly unmarried.

    My husband, also in the military, got similar c**p when he would miss work to take our child to the doctor, etc.  His bosses would say, “Don’t you have a wife to take care of that?” Never mind both of us were working.

    I see it this way: look at how many men never make partner after doing everything the law firm wants them to do.  Making partner is a sucker’s bet for most people, and women see this a lot sooner, being accustomed to glass ceilings.  However, some women truly want to play the game while some men don’t.  The problem is that many supervisors assume that all women don’t want to play the game while all men do.

    Another problem is the few female mentors/partners/supervisors that you do see.  As few of them as there are, there are even fewer who got to the top and achieved a balanced lifestyle.  It’s depressing to see what you’ll have to become if you play the game, all the more reason to quit.

    I expect to never make partner.  I’ll still work my a** off, bill 2000+ hours a year, get all the training I can, and when the tiime comes, move on.

42. Posted by Carrie Bradshaw - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 23 hours, 20 minutes ago

    A lot of posts want to blame Mr. Big for all their career problems, but there is a Charlotte York for every Miranda Hobbs out there.  Maybe we should ask ourselves before going to law school:  Am I a Miranda, or a Charlotte?

43. Posted by Midwest #2 - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 21 hours, 47 minutes ago

    #15, you are dead on.  I have been mistaken for a paralegal/secretary, have had others in my community assume my husband is the lawyer, and have been told in a performance review that I am “intimidating because I am a ‘smart woman.’ “ I have also been labeled “arrogant” because I am ambitious and successful.  There is no ambition gap, but there is a difference in how ambitious men are perceived, versus how ambitious women are perceived, by men and women alike.  When I used to work in firms, it was very difficult to relate to the male partners and the female partners, who were very “male” in their affect and demeanor.  For my generation, that’s jarring and it’s certainly not what I wanted to turn into.  Tellingly, I finally got out of firms and am now working for myself. It’s still a boys’ club out there, unfortunately, and most especially in the legal world.

44. Posted by Prudence - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 21 hours, 38 minutes ago

    Married female law students are still (unofficially, of course) advised to remove their wedding bands several weeks before the OCI process.  And yet, our failure to reach the top is still chalked up to a lack of “ambition”?

45. Posted by Kathryn - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 18 hours, 19 minutes ago

    One thing that seems to get regularly over-looked is the double-standard regarding how ambition displayed by a woman is perceived by men. I work in-house and have heard on more than one occassion that something said by a woman was perceived to be “short” or “rude” whereas the exact same thing said by a man would not have rufled feathers (because he was simply being “concise").  The message being that it is ok for a woman to be ambitious so long as she is “really nice” about it.

46. Posted by Barbara - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 17 hours, 24 minutes ago

    Some real options for women attorneys dealing with gender discrimination (let’s at least call it what it is) include filing complaints under the new EEOC family responsibilities discrimination guidelines and/or leaving the firms and traditional employers of attorneys to start our own practices (Why do this?  Because we can! Because we want to finally practice law on our own terms. Because we have tons of ambition and are astute risk takers.) Thanks to developments in technology going solo has never been easier.  I did: www.barbaragallios.com.  Women attorneys might just be the driving force that redefines how law is practiced for the good of all, especially consumers of legal services.  We all lose when smart women leave the profession.

47. Posted by Alma Fedderer - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 18 hours, 51 minutes ago

    Agreed.  Men who are blunt and coarse are viewed as “alpha males”; type a personalities, and direct winners.  Females who act similarly are “butches”, b###ches and “in need of male attention”.  Why do we get double standard judged?  We should be able to be ourselves and not get labeled negatively.