|
Click here to
go to the Up to PAR weblog
What's new?
What's in the news? What's going on behind the scenes at
PAR?
What is your experience? What do you think? What
work/life issues are interesting you right now?
Talk back to us at weblog@pardc.org.
Please indicate if your feedback is confidential; otherwise, we
might include some or all of it in a future blog entry.
ARCHIVE
April 28, 2006
Got Kids? Savvy Clients Care
Some
female clients are all business - apparently, this is considered
news because of their gender. In "Got
Kids? These Clients Don't Care," (Kellie Schmitt, The
Recorder, April 26, 2006), two female in-house attorneys were
quoted as saying that they want their female outside counsel to
give them 100% of their attention and to refrain from discussing
their kids. One of them harshly says that she doesn't care if
an attorney has a family crisis, she just wants the work the attorney
is doing for her to get done. After all, she says, outside counsel
are just commodities that she wants to be able to call at home
or during a soccer game or whenever, and she doesn't care about
having a relationship with them.
So,
should female attorneys in law firms go back to the days of trying
to hide their personal lives and trying to pretend that they share
the same privileged status as men who have wives taking care of
the home front?
Not
a chance. First, these client comments have to be put in perspective.
One of the in-house counsel attempts to explain her impatience
with attorney mothers by saying she came of age in the law when
it wasn't cool to have kids. PAR's Joan Williams responds in the
article that there is "'a generation gap between baby boomers
who played by the old rules and Gen X men and women who want to
establish new rules.'" Research and experience show this
is clearly the case.
Moreover,
these clients represent a minority view. Most clients want long-standing
and stable relationships with their outside counsel. As PAR heard
again and again in its Better
on Balance? study, in-house attorneys are fed up with
high attrition in law firms because of the loss of historical
perspective, institutional knowledge, and personal relationships
when an attorney leaves and the effort and expense involved in
getting new attorneys up to speed. In-house attorneys support
lawyers in law firms having balanced lives and try to respect
their time outside the office, because they realize that to do
otherwise is to help open the exit door for them. In other words,
savvy clients who want to maximize efficiency and minimize costs
in their outside legal work try not to exacerbate the pressures
that force law firm attorneys to leave.
Let's
not be mad at these clients because they aren't acting "nice"
and "warm" the way stereotypes of women dictate they
should. Let's be mad at them instead for treating other human
beings as mere commodities that have to respond to snapping fingers
night and day. Let's be mad at them for undermining attorneys'
attempts to achieve work/life balance and for making life outside
law firms look more attractive. Let's be mad at them for treating
women differently from men (if, as we suspect, they are - would
the tell a male attorney who had a heart attack that they didn't
care and they just want their work to get done?).
And
let's just realize that some women, like some men, are all business
and treat them accordingly without letting their constricted views
spill over into our other relationships.
March 31, 2006
New Partner Classes: Good News and Bad News
It is time once again to look at the new partner classes at law
firms (U.S. offices only) and see how the women are doing. The
good news is that an increasing number of firms have new partner
classes that are 25 - 33% female. The bad news is that those percentages
are still smaller than the percentage of women entering firms
(close to 50% of new associates are female at most firms), and
too many firms still have new partner classes with few or no women
attorneys. Remember, this is not a pipeline issue: since 1985,
law schools have been graduating classes that are 40% or more
female, and women and men enter law firms as new associates in
roughly equal numbers. If the women aren't staying at the firms
long enough to make partner, the issue isn't the pipeline but
rather the culture at the law firms.
So, who is doing more than talk when it comes to advancing women
attorneys? Here is a list first of firms that are to be commended
for their efforts:
Top honors go to Gibson
Dunn (4 of 6 new partners are female, for 66%); Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe (5 of 9 new partners are female, for
55%), Thelen, Reid & Priest (4 of 8 new partners are female,
for 50%), Thompson & Knight (5 of 10 new partners are female,
for 50%), and Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky (2 of 4
new partners are female, for 50%, and both of the new female partners
have worked alternative schedules).
Reed
Smith: 10 of 24 new partners are female
Cleary,
Gottlieb: 2 of 5 new partners are female
Venable:
5 of 12 new partners are female
DLA
Piper: 13 of 34 new partners are female
Weil,
Gotschal: 4 of 10 new partners are female
Baker
Botts: 4 of 10 new partners are female
Bryan
Cave: 4 of 10 new partners are female
Cadwalader:
2 of 5 new partners are female
Baker
Hostetler: 9 of 22 new partners are female
Arent
Fox: 6 of 14 new partners are female
Also rans
for the commendable efforts list:
McGuire
Woods: 5 of 14 new partners are female
Howrey
Simon: 5 of 13 new partners are female
And
who is still just wringing their hands, bemoaning the fact that
there just aren't any women in their firms ready to be promoted
to partnership?
Womble
Carlyle: 0 of 9 new partners are women
White
& Case: 0 of 9 new partners are women
Holland
and Hart: 0 of 4 new partners are women
Shearman
& Sterling: 0 of 4 new partners are women
Chadbourne:
0 of 2 new partners are women
Dewey
Ballantine: 0 of 4 new partners are women
Also
having trouble finding qualified women:
Fulbright
& Jaworsky: 1 of 9 new partners is female
Shook,
Hardy, and Bacon: 1 of 12 new partners is female
Haynes
& Boone: 1 of 10 new partners is female
Milbank:
1 of 7 new partners is female
Drinker
Biddle: 1 of 7 new partners is female
Dechert:
2 of 12 new partners are female
As
always, let me know any encouraging or discouraging partner class
news we should include in this space.
March 19, 2006
Worth reading: "Why
Do So Few Women Reach The Top at Big Law Firms?" by Timothy
O'Brien, New York Times.
March 10, 2006
The third session of the WBA Initiative on Advancement and Retention
of Women, held on March 7th, focused on what is working in the
D.C. legal community to retain and promote women. Representatives
of Deloitte and several local law firms discussed successful programs,
including: assignment systems that eliminated the free market
system and "hey, you" tasking, which can disadvantage
women; holding supervisors (partners) accountable for attrition
through their compensation; sponsoring events for women to develop
relationships and get business; trainings; putting women on teams
that try to get new business; ensuring management committees have
women members; reduced hours schedules that allow for advancement;
mentoring; and women's support groups.
More to come at the next session on April 3rd. Contact the WBA
for information about how you can attend.
March 6, 2006
If you think work/life balance is easier in-house, consider this
case that is going to trial this week:
Eileen Coyne Clark suffered, in a rather extreme
version, the same type of employment discrimination that many
mothers face. Clark was the in-house employment counsel and the
VP for Human Resources at AmerisourceBergen, and an exemplary
employee with an excellent performance record. The atmosphere
at AmerisourceBergen was swirling with anti-woman and anti-mother
comments. One high-level executive questioned Clark about her
ability to do her job with two small children. When Clark became
pregnant with her third child, another executive advised her to
keep it a secret. When the secret could no longer be kept, Clark
was told by the General Counsel that she "could not do this"
and that she should take a two-year leave of absence and return
when her children were older. When she took her maternity leave
(at the same time caring for a son who was diagnosed with epilepsy),
she worked part-time from home and was pressured to return from
leave early. When she returned, she was subjected to hostility
and repeated questions about her ability to do her work and to
travel – even though she was fully capable of performing all her
tasks. When Clark pointed out to an executive that a man with
children was not similarly questioned about his ability to combine
work and family, he said, "that’s the point, he's a man and
he has a wife."
But it gets worse. Because the executive did not
think a mother could work at a high level job, he demoted Clark.
She declined to take the demotion and was fired. She was not given
a severance package, she was fired just before a large raise and
new bonus structure were to kick in, and she found out she had
been paid less than comparably situated men all along.
Amazingly, the company does not deny much of this,
but rather bleats ineffectively that Clark misunderstood the comments.
In their motion for summary judgment, it seems to rely only on
the defense that Clark quit – and the bizarre claim that, as employment
law counsel, Clark was responsible for compliance with the laws
that she now claims the company violated.
The case is Clark v. AmerisourceBergen, in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case documents are available
on PACER. From a legal standpoint, this case may not be groundbreaking:
the courts have already recognized repeatedly that taking personnel
actions based on stereotypes of mothers as employees is illegal
(Nevada v. Hibbs, Back v. Hastings on Hudson, Lust v. Sealy, Sivieri
v. Massachusetts, 2003 Mass. Super. LEXIS 201, etc.). But I predict
a groundbreaking verdict.
February 17, 2006
The second session of the WBA's Initiative on Advancement and
Retention of Women was terrific.
Panelists recounted their own experiences with struggling to
advance. Some of the obstacles noted: lack of mentors and role
models; policies and programs prevented from becoming fully effective
by the horizontal nature of law firms that requires many bosses
(partners) to be committed to the policies and programs; biases
against attorneys who work reduced hours (e.g., the perception
that they are not fully committed to the firm or to the practice
of law); lack of challenging assignments that lead to advancement;
lack of self-promotion among women; and misperceptions by women
about law firm culture (e.g., the myth of meritocracy, pipeline
myth).
The WBA is compiling summaries of the sessions; for more information,
contact the WBA.
January 20, 2006
The Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia is making
news with its Initiative on the Advancement and Retention of Women.
Under the leadership of President Karen Lockwood, the WBA is bringing
together the legal community in D.C. to discuss in an open and
collegial atmosphere the obstacles women face in law firms that
prevent them from advancing. The first of four discussions was
held on January 6th and featured current research about women
and work from Brande Stellings of Catalyst, Ellen Ostrow of LawyersLifeCoach.com,
and from our own Joan Williams and Cynthia Calvert. A few nuggets
from the session:
*A key reason women leave law firms is dissatisfaction with their
advancement opportunities. Women and men start out with the same
level of ambition, but when they don't get recognized for their
achievements or don't see opportunities for advancement, their
ambition starts to wane.
*Unexamined biases underlie everyday interactions between people.
Some of these operate as a barrier to advancement for women (for
example, the same behavior in a man and a woman may be viewed
as appropriately assertive for the man but inappropriately aggressive
for the woman; a man who talks about his accomplishments is viewed
as knowing his own worth while a woman who does the same is a
braggart; if a man is talking on the phone, a passerby may assume
that he is negotiating a deal, but if a woman is talking on the
phone, a passerby may assume she is gossiping; men's accomplishments
are attributed to their skill, but women's accomplishments are
attributed to luck; a man is promoted based on his potential,
but a woman is promoted based on her achievements; etc.). Over
time, these biases can limit opportunities given to women. The
good news is that once we become aware of these unexamined biases,
we can dramatically reduce their potency.
*Many women leave law firms because they feel pushed out by lack
of recognition, isolation, limited opportunities for meaningful
experiences, and criticism if they don't conform to gender stereotypes.
Well attended and well received, the discussion forms the basis
for the future sessions identifying obstacles, celebrating best
practices, and crafting solutions. The Initiative will conclude
with a report to be issued at the WBA's annual dinner on May 16th.
This is a terrific initiative that promises to provide more than
the usual answers. Watch this space for progress reports.
November 30, 2005
Kudos once again to Kirkpatrick
& Lockhart Nicholson Graham! Last year, we congratulated
the firm for creating a
position for a "Director of Professional and Personal Life
Integration," which clearly showed the firm's commitment
to helping its attorneys achieve work/life balance.
Now
the firm has gone a step -- a leap, really -- further and created
a new Balanced Hours program. Following PAR best practices as
set forth in Solving
the Part-Time Puzzle and PAR's Balanced
Hours report, the firm undertook an assessment of its needs,
created a balanced hour policy to address those needs, and is
implementing the program with the express intent of not letting
the policy sit unused on a shelf. The policy includes reduced
hours and telecommuting, which are available to all attorneys
who show they can get their work done on an alternative schedule.
More details about the policy can be found in the firm's
press release.
Driving K&LNG's new program is the realization that balanced
hours are about client service. Balanced hours allow firms to
attract and retain top legal talent, which is essential to good
service. More importantly, balanced hours programs recognize the
need to address client dissatisfaction with turnover in their
outside counsel. Clients have repeatedly expressed to PAR their
frustration with constant turnover in firms; they feel the time
and effort they spend to establish relationships with outside
counsel and get them up to speed on their business is wasted,
and they are upset by the loss of institutional knowledge and
continuity when outside counsel leave their firms. By proactively
taking steps to reduce attrition, firms strengthen their relationships
with their clients.
We'll ask K&LNG for a status report on the implementation
of its new program -- watch this space for updates.
February 22, 2005
The percentage of women being promoted to partner continues
to be dismal.
I just finished
looking at lists of the new partner classes at some of the leading
firms in the country, and they aren't pretty. Despite the fact
that most of the firms made the same number of partners as last
year or more, most of them made fewer women partners.
Out of the 25
or so firms we looked at last year, 14 had new partner classes
this year with a lower percentage of female partners, six had
a higher percentage of female partners, two stayed the same, and
the rest did not make their lists of new partners readily available.
Here's a run-down
of the new partner classes (U.S. only), with a few additional
firms thrown in:
Arnold &
Porter: 0 of 5 new partners are women
Swidler Berlin:
0 of 6 new partners are women
Cadwalader:
0 of 2 new partners are women
Akin Gump: 1
of 16 new partners are women
Dechert: 1 of
12 new partners are women
Pillsbury Winthrop:
1 of 12 new partners are women
Fulbright &
Jaworsky: 1 of 9 new partners are women
Patton Boggs:
1 of 8 new partners are women
White &
Case: 2 of 13 new partners are women
Baker Botts:
2 of 14 new partners are women
Foley &
Lardner: 4 of 24 new partners are women
King & Spalding:
4 of 20 new partners are women
Mayer Brown:
5 of 24 new partners are women
Latham &
Watkins: 7 of 26 new partners are women
O'Melveny: 4
of 16 new partners are women (a huge increase over last year's
0 out of 12)
Kilpatrick Stockton:
4 of 15 new partners are women
Bryan Cave:
4 of 16 new partners are women
Womble Carlyle:
3 of 12 new partners are women
Dickstein Shapiro:
1 of 4 new partners are women
McDermott Will:
9 of 35 new partners are women
Bingham McCutcheon:
5 of 17 new partners are women
Squire Sanders:
2 of 7 new partners are women
DLA Piper Rudnick:
10 of 34 new partners are women (Last year, Piper earned special
mention for its class of 10 women and 6 men, and for promoting
part-time associates to partner.)
Kirkland: 18
of 59 new partners are women
Morrison &
Foerster: 6 of 19 new partners are women
Hogan &
Hartson: 7 of 21 new partners are women
Venable: 3 of
9 new partners are women
Duane Morris:
4 of 12 new partners are women
Chadbourne &
Parke: 1 of 3 new partners are women
Paul
Hastings: 5 of 13 new
partners are women
Winston &
Strawn: 6 of 16 new partners are women
Arent Fox: 2
of 5 new partners are women
Cleary Gottlieb:
2 of 5 new partners are women
Gibson Dunn:
3 of 7 new partners are women
Steptoe: 6 of
14 new partners are women
Holland
& Hart: 3 of 6 new
partners are women
Holland
& Knight: 13 of 25 new
partners are women
So,
this year, hats go off to Holland & Knight and Holland &
Hart, the only two firms to have new partner classes that are
half women.
Meredith
Hobbs reported in the New York
Lawyer today that at Alston and Bird, 12 of the 13 new partners
this year are white males. Hobbs's article, "Minorities
Are Few Among New Partners in the New South," includes
quotes from attorneys who blame the low number of new women partners
on retention difficulties. Hmmm... I think I've heard that one
somewhere before.
As
always, please let me know about firms I missed. How many women
were in the new partner class at your firm this year? And more
importantly, how many of the new partners were part-time? I would
love to have some "good news" stories to share in this
space.
February
17, 2005
Part-time
usage rates at law firms are rising, slowly but surely. Today's
Work and Family column in the Wall
Street Journal notes several encouraging examples ("Workin'
9 to 2: Taking Steps to Make Part-Time Job Setups More Palatable"
by Sue Shellenbarger, February 17, 2005, page D1).
While
NALP statistics put the overall percentage of attorneys working
part-time at 3.9%
annually, firms that have worked to implement non-stigmatized
part-time policies along the lines of those recommended by PAR
have considerably higher usage rates. According to Ms. Shellenbarger,
Hogan & Hartson has a
national usage rate of 8.1% (it appears from information provided
to NALP that the D.C. office last year had a usage rate in the
12% range). Although the usage rate at Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr is not much higher than the
national average - Ms. Shellenbarger puts it at 4.2%, the firm,
like Hogan, has some men and a significant number of partners
working part-time.
Ms.
Shellenbarger's column focuses on the PAR
Usability Test, which measures whether a firm's part-time
program is a viable option for attorneys who want to work fewer
hours. Traditionally, firms had part-time programs but attorneys
were reluctant to use them because they stymied their careers.
A traditional firm that took the PAR Usability Test would find
a low usage rate, no men working part-time, part-time attorneys
who were working full-time hours for part-time pay and part-timers
who quit the firm soon after reducing their hours. As firms improve
their part-time programs and eliminate the problems that stigmatize
part-time, the PAR Usability Test should allow the firms to measure
their progress in these areas.
One
minor correction to Ms. Shellenbarger's column: she says that
a usage rate of 3% or less shows that a part-time program is flawed.
Given that the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that around 20%
of business and professional workers worked part-time in 2004,
3% is way too low. For most firms, a usage rate below 6% shows
serious problems, and a firm should not feel it can rest on its
laurels until its usage rate is above 10%.
If
you're thinking now that no firm can remain profitable with that
many part-time attorneys, our response to you is that no firm
can remain profitable in the long term unless it has that many
part-time attorneys. We discuss the floodgates myth and the myth
of unprofitability in our book, Solving
the Part-Time Puzzle: The Law Firm's Guide to Balanced Hours
(NALP 2004).
February
10, 2005
Last
summer, I wrote in this space about mothers suing law firms for
discrimination. Just recently, a mother won a significant victory
against her employer-law firm.
Dawn
Gallina sued Mintz Levin for gender discrimination, sexual harassment,
retaliation, and violation of the Equal Pay Act. The suit stemmed
from Gallina's employment in the Reston, Virginia office of Mintz
Levin. When the managing partner of the office (a man who was
known to say that pregnant women cannot make partner) learned
she had a child, he began to treat her harshly. He called her
names and told her that women were not as committed to the workplace.
Gallina
complained to the head office in Boston. Thereafter, her troubles
only intensified: she was told she had embarrassed the Reston
office; she was informed that she was not perceived as committed
as the other attorneys in the office; and she was told she had
to choose between being a successful attorney and a successful
mommy. She received very negative performance reviews from her
supervisors in Reston and, despite the fact that her performance
reviews from her supervisors in other offices were very good,
she was terminated.
A
jury found she had been retaliated against for making a complaint
of discrimination and awarded her $190,000 in damages and $330,000
in back pay. The court dismissed her claim for punitive damages.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and reversed
the dismissal of the punitive damages claim in a decision issued
last week. The case is now back before the district court for
a determination of punitive damages. Stay tuned...
Gallina
v. Mintz Levin, Case no. 03-1947 (4th Cir. 2/2/05)
January
31, 2005
Cynthia
spoke last Friday at the American Intellectual Property Law Association's
Mid-Winter Institute in Orlando. The audience clearly demonstrated
the point that it is not only mothers, and not only associates,
who want to reduce their hours. During the presentation and afterward,
a number of attorneys -- including partners -- spoke about their
need to reduce their hours to care for aging parents or to pursue
interests outside the law after spending several decades practicing
at warp speed. It was very moving to listen to the frustration
and pain in the attorney's voices as they described juggling competing
demands, feeling trapped in full-time schedules, and suffering
snide comments from colleagues.
PAR
has long recommended that part-time policies be available to all
attorneys who can show how they can contribute to the firm on
a reduced-hours basis. This "universal application"
allows firms to meet the needs of all its attorneys and, just
as importantly, works to reduce the stigma that has traditionally
been attached to cutting one's hours.
October 1, 2004
Our book is finally out!
The book is Solving the Part-Time Puzzle: The Law Firm's Guide
to Balanced Hours by Joan C. Williams and Cynthia Thomas Calvert
(NALP 2004).
The book is a step-by-step plan for law firms to use to create
part-time programs that will attract and retain the best talent.
The chapters include:
*Profitability from Part-Time Programs
*The Myth of Unprofitability
*Laying the Foundation for a Balanced Hours Program
*Making the Policy Work on a Firm Level
*Making the Policy Work on an Individual Level
The book includes a FAQ section, a model policy, an attrition
cost worksheet, a sample questionnaire, and more.
While the audience for the book is law firm partners and administrators,
associates may find it useful as well. The book addresses many
issues that law firm attorneys have found to be obstacles to effective
part-time programs, such as overhead, backlash, and client reactions.
Having information of this sort would be very useful for an attorney
planning to make a proposal for a part-time schedule.
The book can be purchased at the NALP
bookstore.
We are already at work on our second book, which is for attorneys
who are working part-time. Its focus is on maintaining your career
momentum on reduced hours. Topics covered include: understanding
the unwritten rules of your workplace; managing your image; handling
clients; creative business development; and part-time pitfalls
to avoid. The book will also have examples of attorneys who have
succeeded in their careers on a part-time schedule.
We are very interested in readers' reaction to the book. Please
let us know what you think!
September
21, 2004
Hats
off to Kirkpatrick and Lockhart!
The
firm has created a position for a "Director of Professional
and Personal Life Integration." Jeannine Rupp, an organizational
and social psychologist, "will lead the firm in further developing
a corporate culture and policies that promote and sustain a healthy
integration of professional and personal responsibilities,"
according to a press release on the firm's website.
The
firm has begun a Professional and Personal Life Integration Initiative,
which by itself is worthy of congratulations. What impresses more,
however, is that the firm appears to be aiming at the root causes
of attrition and attorney dissatisfaction rather than applying
a paper-policy bandage. The initiative is firmwide, recognizes
that the need for balance exists for men as well as women, and
seemingly has support from the top echelons of the firm. The press
release continues: "Rupp will work closely with K&L’s
CDO, the firm’s Chief Officer for Recruitment and Development,
and the firm’s Management Committee to identify, understand, and
improve working practices, assumptions and structures that may
serve as barriers to PPLI." [Don't you love it? Balance is
moving mainstream and now has its own initials! PPLI!] The focus
on "assumptions" and "structures" is very
exciting, and indicates a true commitment to making change.
And,
as PAR has reported elsewhere, clients can be counted on to support
these types of initiatives. It works to their benefit, of course
-- longer and more stable relationships with their attorneys,
more institutional knowledge, more productive attorneys, more
cost savings. K&L reports that DuPont General Counsel Stacey
Mobley approves: “The appointment of Jeannine Rupp as Director
of Professional and Personal Life Integration at K&L reflects
the firm's recognition of the long-term significance of this issue
to the legal profession. At a time when the demands on lawyers,
both men and women are at their highest, it’s critical that law
firms find new ways to support their growth, help them balance
their lives and provide superior client service. We applaud K&L
for taking this step and look forward to hearing more about changes
and successes in this significant area.”
We
applaud K&L, too. If your firm has, or is considering creating,
a similar position, please drop
us a line. If you are a K&L attorney, please let us know
how the initiative is going.
August
27, 2004
Mothers
suing law firms?
PAR
is part of the Program on
WorkLife Law (WLL) at American University Washington College
of Law. WLL is a research and advocacy center that seeks to eliminate
employment discrimination against caregivers such as parents and
adult children of aging parents.
One
of WLL's projects involves providing technical guidance for attorneys
whose clients have been discriminated against because of their
status as caregivers. Employers have, for example:
·
refused to hire or promote caregivers based on the assumption
that they will not be dedicated workers;
· created a hostile work environment for caregivers to
force them to leave their jobs, and
· imposed job requirements or restrictions on caregivers
that are not imposed on other workers.
As
part of the research that goes into providing guidance, WLL has
begun collecting cases in which female attorneys have sued their
firms because they have been discriminated against after they
became mothers.
A
typical pattern is this: a young female associate joins a large
firm and does extremely well. She receives excellent evaluations
and bonuses, and is told that she is on the partnership track.
She then has a child. Although she returns to work full-time and
produces the same high quality work, she finds that she is no
longer given high-profile assignments, her supervising attorneys
become more critical of her, and suggestions are made that she
think about finding another job.
What
is going on? WLL Director Joan Williams examined such phenomena
in her book Unbending
Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It
(Oxford University Press 2000). Essentially, once a woman moves
from the highly-regarded ranks of business people to the lowly-regarded
ranks of mothers, colleagues and supervisors make assumptions
about how she should or will act and treat her accordingly. If
they think she should stay home with her children, they may remove
her from cases that require travel or long hours, and may even
suggest to her that she quit. If they think she will work fewer
hours or be less productive, they may remove her from high profile
cases and scrutinize her hours and her work. In addition, some
supervisors or colleagues feel resentment, betrayal, and even
hostility toward attorney mothers and may act on these feelings
by making the work environment for these attorneys miserable.
Some
attorney mothers have sued their firms when they have been on
the receiving end of this type of treatment. Reported cases include:
Sigmon v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimp, 901 F. Supp. 667
(S.D.N.Y. 1995) and Ilhardt v. Sara Lee Corp., 118 F.3d 1151 (7th
Cir. 1997). Media reports include "Lawsuit
sets precedent against misperception of working moms,"
by Diane E. Lewis, Boston Globe, 06/18/2000, "Motherhood
at the Firm," by John Council, Texas Lawyer, 04/01/2004,
"Passed Over" by Angela Ward, Texas Lawyer, 8/2/1999,
"Lawyer Accuses Firm of Pregnancy Bias," by Kimberly
Blanton, Boston Globe, 03/13/2003.
If
you know cases that have been filed by female attorneys against
their law firms for discrimination that occurred after they became
mothers,
please let us know. We are putting together an article about
these cases and would appreciate the additional information.
July 15, 2004
Male attorneys want work/life balance, too.
That shouldn't be a news flash -- PAR has been
talking about it since 2000, and a Catalyst survey in 2001 reported
that nearly as many male attorneys as female attorneys report
struggling to juggle work and personal lives.
But work/life balance for male attorneys continues
to be a rare enough concept that reporters write about it when
they find it. The most recent article is a column by Chicago Daily
Tribune columnist Carol Kleiman ("Family
life for lawyers not against law"; free registration
required to read). Ms. Kleiman discusses three male attorneys
who wanted to spend more time with their families. The first left
the law and became a psychotherapist and the second decided to
reduce his hours at his firm. The third male attorney found balance
by leaving his firm and going in-house to a job share as an associate
general counsel. (For a discussion of the pros and cons of going
in-house to find balance and for more information about job shares,
see PAR's Corporate Counsel report: Better
on Balance?)
The fact is that if firms want to cut attrition
-- something that clients are demanding and cost cutters are requiring
-- they have to provide part-time programs that are available
to everyone. Not just parents, not just women, but everyone. Universal
availability not only allows firms to retain the attorneys who
would otherwise leave but also works to stem resentment that occurs
in firms that limit part-time to certain populations. Another
benefit of universal availability is that it can also reduce the
stigma attached to part-time. If everyone can work part-time,
part-time is no longer a dead-end mommy track.
Firm management often reacts to this concept fearfully.
If a firm offers non-stigmatized part-time work to everyone, how
can the firm continue to operate?
(I often chuckle inwardly when I hear that --
isn't it an admission that we all want to work fewer hours?)
But I know it is a serious question. Fortunately,
experience shows us that not everyone will want to work part-time.
Even in the firms with the best part-time programs, usage tops
out at around 14% for associates and 11% for partners. Those figures
are below the national averages for professionals as a whole --
the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that approximately 16%
of professionals work part-time. There may be many reasons for
this, including: 1) lawyers are usually Type A personalities who
won't want to reduce their hours; 2) lawyers may not want to give
up the money to reduce their hours; and 3) if lawyers do reduce
their hours, it will probably be for a period of months or years
and not the rest of their careers so it is unlikely everyone will
work part-time at the same time.
The floodgates issue came up at a panel I was
on at The National Institute for Women in Law Firms in Virginia
this week. A chairman of a prominent firm said "I can't have
300 lawyers working part-time in my firm!" Fortunately for
him, time ran out before I could respond. In addition to saying
what is in the preceding paragraph, I would likely have asked
him "Why not?" After all, in the 1960s, attorneys who
billed 1300 hours per year were considered full-time. Today, there
are small and medium firms in which attorneys do not bill more
than 1750 or 1800 hours per year -- and they are certainly still
operating.
Large law firm economics obviously drive the chairman's
concern, but it is worth thinking outside the box a bit and daydreaming
seriously about how law can be practiced in fewer hours per year.
If large law firms saved a million dollars a year in reduced attrition
costs, the partners would still receive the same income even if
the firm generated a million dollars less per year because everyone
worked fewer hours. That's one thought.
And that is what these men in Carol Kleiman's
column are saying -- they want to trade money for a balanced life.
Balanced lives is not a women's issue or a mommies' issue. If
enough men and women want time over money, how we practice law
will change. We may not go back to billing 1300 hours per year,
but wouldn't it be nice to go back to a less stressful and more
collegial way of practice?
July 1, 2004
Our
book is close to publication -- the page proofs are on my desk
right now. We've ditched the boring working title, and the book
is entitled Solving the Part-Time Puzzle: The Law Firm's Guide
to Balanced Hours. It is being published by NALP,
so watch this space and NALP's website for availability.
The
book is written for law firms that want to have effective part-time
programs that are recruiting and retention tools. It is a step-by-step
how-to book, with examples and sample forms. Some of the topics
covered include the business reasons for implementing a good part-time
program, why part-time programs are profitable for law firms,
how to prevent stigma, clients' views on part-time attorneys,
and the best way to implement a part-time program to ensure success.
A
second book is in the works, the book for attorneys who are working
part-time. It addresses how to be an effective professional on
a balanced hours schedule. The book has many examples of attorneys
who advanced their careers while working shorter hours, and is
filled with practical advice from them and experts on legal career
management. If you have any words of wisdom or stories about your
reduced hour work experience that you'd like us to consider including
in the book, please drop
me a line.
June
29, 2004
As
you may have read in the American Lawyer or the Legal Times, Shell
Oil is insisting on diversity in the outside law firms it hires
("Courting Shell," by Nathan Koppel, American Lawyer,
June 24, 2004, available on law.com).
Shell Oil isn't the only large corporation to ask firms to report
on the number of minority and female attorneys they have -- DuPont,
Bank of America, and others do so as well. In fact, as reported
in the article, more than 500 general counsel signed a statement
drafted by BellSouth that says corporations should consider a
firm's commitment to diversity when choosing outside counsel.
Shell is serious about its commitment to diversity: it requires
firms to report the race, gender, and ethnicity of all the attorneys
who bill it for services, and reviews the invoices to make sure
that minorities and women are not performing just routine tasks.
It also holds diversity and retention seminars for its outside
counsel, and issues a yearly report card that ranks the diversity
efforts of each of its outside firms.
PAR
has discussed extensively the business reasons for firms to have
good, non-stigmatized part-time policies, and the article about
Shell is an exclamation point to the discussion. Firms won't have
many high-level minority and female attorneys to satisfy clients'
diversity demands if inflexible schedules and high billable hour
requirements drive them away.
The
next step is for large corporations to include alternative work
schedules in their diversity programs. What would happen if they
required law firms to report not just race, gender, and ethnicity
of attorneys, but also whether they are working reduced hours?
What if corporate clients gave preference in hiring to law firms
that have effective part-time programs, low attrition, and high
usage rates of alternative work schedules? It could happen in
our life time...
June
28, 2004
Sorry
for the long break between entries -- thanks for sticking with
us. My technical ineptitude made it so we couldn't update the
site after it was revamped. But I think we've got it all figured
out now.
PAR
has been gathering evidence that things are starting to get better
for attorneys who work reduced hours. We are getting reports from
attorneys and from law firms that part-time associates and counsel
are being promoted to partner, and we have heard from several
part-time attorneys that they are receiving good, high quality
assignments and a lot of client contact. The changes are slow
and small -- I don't want to discount the many stories we've also
received about attorneys languishing in "of counsel"
tiers because their firms won't promote part-timers to partner,
and about part-time attorneys who suffer negative reviews, offensive
comments, and dead-end work. Still, even small changes have to
be celebrated.
This
week the Daily Record in Baltimore, Maryland, published a story
that included several examples of attorneys who have successfully
reduced their hours and advanced their careers. ("Law Firms
Doing More to Retain Employees By Helping Them with Their Everyday
Lives," by Alisa Bralove, The Daily Record, June 25, 2004);
the article can be found on LexisNexis.)
Yes, I am quoted in the article, but the real reason the article
is of interest is its focus on how part-time schedules can work
well. Piper Rudnick is cited as a good example of a firm with
programs to help attorneys balance their professional and personal
obligations; notably, one-third of the firm's partners are women.
(And as we reported in this space back in February, 10 of Piper's
16 new partners this year are female, and three of the 10 worked
alternative schedules.) Comments in the article from John B. Frisch,
chair of Miles & Stockbridge, point out the admirable objective
of the firm to use flexible alternative work schedules that are
individually tailored to the needs of attorneys to maintain long-term
relationships with its attorneys. Change is in the wind!
March 8, 2004
Last week, we
mailed questionnaires to the largest law firms in D.C. The questionnaires
ask about the firms' part-time programs, usage rate by gender
and classification (partner, counsel, etc.), and promotion of
part-time associates and counsel to partner, among other things.
The results
are starting to come in, and they are fascinating.
First, we are
seeing more males working part-time than we expected. Our expectations
were based on our 2001 law firm study, Balanced
Hours, in which we found very low male participation in part-time
programs. If you have read our report, you'll know the importance
PAR places on part-time policies being available to male attorneys.
This is a very encouraging sign.
Second, more
firms are promoting part-time associates and counsel to partner.
This is also extremely positive. At the time of our Balanced Hours
report, many firms removed part-time attorneys from partnership
tracks altogether, a practice that discouraged attorneys from
working part-time and forced them to leave law firms if they wanted
to reduce their hours.
We will be updating
The Scoop as we get responses back from
firms, and we will write a summary of the questionnaire responses
to update the part-time picture for D.C. firms. Watch this space
for more information!
February 26, 2004
The Atlanta
study mentioned in January 20th's entry is now available on line:
It's
About Time: Part-Time Policies and Practices in Atlanta Law Firms
by the Georgia Association of Women Lawyers, the Atlanta Bar Association
Women in the Profession Committee, and the Georgia Commission
on Women. I highly recommend reading it, particularly Section
V, Data Analysis, which has applicability to all firms regardless
of their size or location. It provides information about the economics
of part-time, the value of good part-time programs to firms, the
impact on clients, and much more, and sets out a number of best
practices that firms can adopt.
February 25, 2004
There are many
business reasons for law firms and corporate law departments to
seek to retain valued attorneys through effective programs that
help them balance work and life. A new study by Catalyst
adds another: corporations that have the highest number of
women in senior management (note: this study is not about lawyers)
perform the best financially. The
Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity
is available for a free download. An executive
summary and a FAQ
are also available.
The study says
that the companies with the highest representation of women on
their senior management teams had a 35-percent higher return on
equity and a 34-percent higher total return to shareholders than
companies with the lowest women's representation.
Catalyst cautions
that the study shows a connection, not causation. It suggests,
Catalyst says, that gender diversity may be a key characteristic
of high performing companies and that moving women up through
the ranks of management may be a key business strategy.
PAR has identified
other business reasons for law firms and corporate law departments
to retain valued attorneys, including women. For law firms, these
include reduced attrition costs, improved business development
from clients that want diverse legal teams, and improved recruiting.
For both law firms and law departments, additional reasons are
better client service and relationships, enhanced reputations,
and increased productivity.
So, if Catalyst
studied law firms, would its findings be similar? Would the firms
with the best part-time policies, the highest retention rates, or
the largest number of senior women be the firms with the highest
profits per partner, or the highest gross revenues? It sounds like
a study waiting to be done.
February 16, 2004
Our weblog isn't
going to be updated quite as frequently these next two weeks as
we concentrate on redesigning our website. Please bear with
us.
As part of the redesign,
our weblog has a new name: "Up to PAR." Let
us know what you think of it!
February 12, 2004
We've begun
the process of updating our website, particularly the information
relating to part-time programs at D.C. firms. We are compiling
not only the 'official' line from the firms (i.e., their part-time
policy as it exists on paper) but also the actual practices of
the firms (i.e., what it is really like to work part-time there).
A questionnaire is going out to D.C. firms next week, and we have
begun contacting attorneys at all levels in firms by email and
telephone to talk about their experiences with part-time work.
The information we receive will go in The Scoop as we receive
it.
If you want
to discuss part-time work at your firm (either from personal experience
or observation), please drop us a line. We will keep your identity
confidential. Your help is critical! Information is power: law
students and attorneys who are looking to move laterally can make
better informed choices if you tell them what it is really like
at your firm, and law firms will have a greater incentive to improve
their part-time practices as information about what their part-time
programs are really like becomes known.
Already, we
are seeing that the part-time picture is brighter now than it
was four years ago when we began our first law firm study. More
firms are promoting part-time associates and counsel to partner
-- we just learned that three of the ten women who were just made
partner at Piper Rudnick work less than full-time, for example.
More men are starting to work part-time, too. Piper again is a
great example; look at its information in The Scoop to see how
many male associates, counsels, and partners are on reduced schedules.
We would love
to hear from more men who are working part-time. If you are a
part-time male attorney or if you know someone who is, please
email us!
We've also begun
a facelift for our site. Look for a new design in a couple of weeks.
February 9, 2004
My mailbox is
running over with email following the article about this blog
in the ABA
Journal eReport. Thank you all for writing in -- if you haven't
received a personal response from me yet, you will soon.
Thanks to my
email correspondents, here is some more news about the gender
composition of the latest partnership classes at some of the major
firms:
Sidley Austin
Brown & Wood: 25 new partners, 7 female;
Fulbright &
Jaworski: 13 new partners, 3 female;
Howrey Simon:
15 new partners, 4 female;
Sedgwick, Detert,
Moran & Arnold: 8 new partners, 1 female.
Kudos to:
Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads: 4 new partners, 2 female;
Arent, Fox:
5 new partners, 2 female.
Major kudos
to Piper Rudnick, which to my knowledge has the new partner class
with the largest percentage of female partners of any major firm
in the country (I'd love to be wrong -- if you know of a firm
with a higher percentage, please write to me):
Piper Rudnick:
16 new partners, 10 female. Awesome! See the firm's press
release, which notes that in June of 2002, the firm began
a five-year diversity initiative. If anyone wants to comment on
how the initiative is going, please drop me a line.
My mail also included
several notes about O'Melveny. If you read the ABA Journal eReport
article, you probably saw that OMM responded to our posting of the
fact all 12 of its partners this year were male. Last year, the
firm said, of 13 new partners, 6 were female. Several of my correspondents
noted that OMM initiated a two-tiered system for partners, equity
and non-equity, shortly before making those new partners. They questioned
how many, if any, of the female partners were made equity partners.
Would anyone at OMM care to respond?
February 5, 2004
PAR's fundamental
message is that one should not have to choose between being a
successful professional and a fulfilled human being -- whether
the fulfillment comes from parenthood, volunteerism, religious
involvement, or whatever.
But too many
attorneys still view professional success and personal fulfillment
as opposing objectives that they must choose between.
Most recent
case in point: a female lawyer opining on the recent UK case in
which two other female lawyers were found to have been discriminated
against, passed over for senior partnership in their firms because
they were female.
In a recent
article in Legal Week, a leading UK publication, Jones
Day partner Janene Waudby was quoted as saying 'It is often the
case that the point when women are close to making partner is
also the point they want to have kids and it is choice they have
to make.' (See 'The
Big Question: Firms braced for rise in claims after Sinclair Roche
sex ruling') Maybe she was misquoted, and she was merely trying
to describe the unfortunate culture of many firms that do force
attorneys to make such regrettable decisions.
Unlikely, though.
As one woman who wrote to PAR recently about work/life issues
for attorneys observed, too many attorneys just accept the current
culture at firms as the way things are, and the way things will
always be. As long as we continue to buy into the fiction that
choices have to be made -- particularly the choice for women between
having children and being partners -- we will have to make choices.
I have to take
a minute to discuss this Sinclair Roche case. The phenomenal amount
of damages at stake -- almost £7 million -- is enough to make
it noteworthy. But the facts are noteworthy, too. The two women
lawyers who sued were both junior partners who were denied promotion
to senior partners. Both were excellent lawyers, with outstanding
credentials and performance reviews and were among the top 25%
partners in fee generation. Both were also mothers. The employment
tribunal found that they had been denied the more desirable referrals,
subjected to a discriminatory firm culture that covered up complaints
of sexual harassment, and had been designated for demotion to
associates once the firm completed its merger with another firm.
One Sinclair partner said, "The firm should sack you all
and get in better-looking recruits than you old bags." One
of the lawyers was told she was not promoted because it was 'inconceivable
that a man will take orders from a woman.' The discriminatory
culture at the firm was pervasive and explicit. In one meeting,
it was agreed that the ideal candidate for a job opening would
be 'preferably married, no children, white male.' Since the firm
started in 1934, only one woman had been made senior partner.
The tribunal found that both of the plaintiffs would have progressed
easily if they had been men. (See ' £7
million last laugh for a law firm's 'old bags',')
Even more disturbing
is an article about the case that describes discrimination against
women lawyers in the UK as commonplace. (The article is 'What
Women Want,' that appeared online at www.lawgazette.co.uk,
but is apparently no longer available.) The article said the type
of situation faced by the Sinclair Roche lawyers was 'just another
day in the office for many women in the profession.' Here are
some examples:
- When
one woman lawyer announced her engagement, she immediately found
she was no longer invited to client receptions.
- Women
lawyers have gone on maternity leave, only to come back and
find that they no longer have a desk or clients.
- One
woman lawyer said she has been in meetings with her male boss
and other men in which the other lawyers have not introduced
themselves to her because they assumed she was a secretary.
(I can relate to this one -- on my first day at my law firm
as I was being taken around and introduced to everyone, I was
asked whose secretary I was.)
It sounds like some
other UK firms should prepare to make big payouts.
February 2, 2004
I am predicting
that 2004 is going to be a year that sees a lot of attorneys leaving
their firms, and that a lot of the departures will be, in large
part, an attempt to escape the long hours firms demand.
I don't have
a crystal ball, but the economic pressures that kept attorneys
in their jobs and/or that prevented attorneys from reducing their
hours seem to be abating. PAR heard from attorneys in the
past couple of years that they felt unable to approach their firms
with proposals for part-time work because the firms were looking
for reasons to cut attorneys from their payrolls and they could
not afford to damage their reputations with their firms.
Similarly, some attorneys who were working part-time told us they
had returned to full-time work, either because their firms required
them to or because they thought they saw the writing on the walls
that said attorneys had to be full-time superstars to stay employed.
With the improving
economy, these attorneys may no longer feel so vulnerable, and
the pent-up stress and frustration caused by working longer hours
may well move them to action.
I don't expect
this exodus to be all female. As PAR has repeatedly written
and studies have shown, male attorneys are feeling nearly as much
as stress about juggling work and life as female attorneys.
They may not be as vocal about their reasons for leaving as female
attorneys, but males tell researchers like us that the reason
jobs in the government, law schools, and corporations look good
to them is their desire to work fewer hours.
If firms want
to keep their valued attorneys, now would be a good time for them
to take a long, hard look at their alternative work policies to
see how they can be strengthened so attorneys feel comfortable
using them and will be able to stay at their firms. One
place to start is PAR's Usability
Test. Another thing firms can do is to survey their
associates using a consultant or a questionnaire.
Are you or your
colleagues thinking of leaving your firm or asking for an alternative
work schedule? If so, drop
me a line!
January 23, 2004
The list of
partnership decisions in my last post must have hit a nerve (thanks
for all the suggestions of additional firm partnership decisions).
Here is the gender breakdown of the new partnership classes at
a few more firms:
- Cadwalader:
9 new partners, 1 female;
- Bryan Cave:
17 new partners, 3 female;
- McDermott Will:
32 new partners in the U.S., 8 female;
- Akin Gump:
15 new partners, 3 female;
- Dechert: 7
new partners, 1 female;
- Mayer Brown:
26 new partners, 7 female;
- Paul Hastings:
11 new partners, 2 female.
But here are some
brighter spots:
- Venable: 5
new partners, 3 female;
- Patton Boggs:
8 new partners, 4 female;
- Womble Carlyle:
12 new partners, 6 female;
- Chadbourne
& Parke: 4 new partners, 2 female.
Winston &
Strawn says in its press release that it has its largest class
of new partners ever, at 35. It appears that 7 are female,
but it is possible that a couple more are female. If you
know the gender breakdown of this class, please drop me a line.
January 22, 2004
Did you follow
the recent partnership decisions of the major law firms?
It is surprising, and discouraging, to see how many of the new
partner classes are all male or nearly all male. Some examples
of the partnership classes that became effective 1/1/04:
Contrast this
with the following, which is much more encouraging:
Know of other
discouraging or encouraging partnership classes? Drop me
a line.
--Cynthia
Cynthia@pardc.org
January 20, 2004
I've just finished
reading a new report about part-time work at law firms in Atlanta.
A joint effort of the Women in the Profession Committee of the
Atlanta Bar Association and the Georgia Commission on Women, the
report provides an in-depth look at the practices and attitudes
of Atlanta law firms with respect to reduced hours based on a
survey of the leading firms. It also provides a detailed
look at the business case for providing good part-time programs
and discusses some of the obstacles firms and attorneys face when
creating such programs.
Joan and I were
pleased to be asked to write the preface to the report.
We were also very pleased to see how the authors of the report
used PAR's 2001 law firm report as a starting point and extended
and expanded upon PAR's work. The report will be available
to the public in early February; look here for a link to an online
copy.
January 13, 2004
"Will you
be able to balance your duties as a single mother of twins with
your duties as a Broward judge?" That's what a public defender
says she was asked during interviews to fill Florida bench vacancies.
She is one of a number of candidates who are complaining about
questions posed by judicial nomination commission members appointed
by Gov. Jeb Bush.
That quote comes
from an article appearing on law.com today ("Not Taken on
Faith," by Julie Kay, reprinted from the Miami Daily Business
Review; available at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1073667920028).
The husband
of another Broward judicial candidate told the Review he
was contacted by a different member of the panel that was screening
potential judges and asked whether his wife could balance motherhood
and judicial service.
The article isn't
about discrimination against women attorneys, or against parents
in general, but is noteworthy for showing how pervasive such discrimination
still is.
January 9, 2004
As of yesterday,
PAR's new report, "Better on Balance," has been downloaded
almost 4,000 times in the last month. In addition, hundreds
of copies have been mailed out. General counsel and human
resources professionals at major companies have received them,
as have some law schools, law firms, bar associations, work/life
professionals, and individual attorneys.
We still have
some hard copies of the report left. Copies may be requested
by emailing your snail mail address to PAR at reportrequest@pardc.org.
Please allow two to three weeks for your copy to arrive.
December 30, 2003
Thanks for checking
out our weblog. PAR has so many new projects going on that we're
going to try to keep our friends and colleagues up to date through
regular weblog entries. Please check back often...
In case you missed it, here are a few of the things that happened
recently:
PAR's parent organization, the Program on Gender, Work and Family,
has changed its name to the Program on WorkLife Law (WLL). The
new name better reflects the mission and activities of the program.
To learn more about it, go to its website, www.worklifelaw.org.
PAR published its latest report earlier this month. "Better
on Balance? The Corporate Counsel Work/Life Report" is available
for free from PAR's website, http://www.pardc.org. A limited number
of hard copies are available and can be obtained by emailing PAR
at reportrequest@pardc.org.
WLL, and therefore PAR, has a new program director. Mary Still,
a sociologist from Cornell University, is researching work/life
issues and managing the day-to-day operations of the program.
PAR's co-directors, Joan Williams and Cynthia Calvert, have presented
at several conferences this fall and continue to work with law
firms and lawyers on issues relating to work/life balance. Their
book about creating effective part-time programs at law firms
will be published next year by NALP, and they have begun work
on a new book for lawyers who want to work part-time without derailing
their careers.
As the new year begins and new projects get underway, we'll keep
you informed. Thanks for reading!
|
