Women Lawyers--Back on Track

Legal Bits and Bytes--The Many Benenfits of a Remote Office

In this video I discuss how a remote office/flexible work schedule can actually be beneficial for both the employee and the employer in times of illness. And, just to clarify my goals in creating these videos--I try to do them in one take and interruptions in the form of people smaller than myself, aka my offspring, occassionally occur. So, for example, when I appear to "shush" the camera in this video, rest assured, that's not the case!

What Everyone Else Is Saying

Here's what others in the blogosphere have to say about the intersection of women, the law and sexism:

The good:

• Ms. JD contemplates the reality of being a lawyer with a uterus:  Legal recruiter answers the question: will taking maternity leave in my first few years as an associate derail my career?

• An interesting conversation continues over at the Lawyer Coach Blog:  Rainmaking for women lawyers - the best start is an early start

• The Wall Street Journal Blog, The Juggle, offers up an interesting post on the Obamas and how this dual lawyer power couple juggles evertghing:  The Obamas’ Supercharged Juggle

The bad:

• Ann Althouse's demeaning reduction of Heather Mills' role to that of a "poor girl."  The comments are less than stellar as well.

• Via the ABA Law Journal, Skadden, the sleeping giant of BigLaw, rose up and put a stop to the sexist hotties contest being held by the Skadden Insider Blog.  God forbid the male associates should be raked over the coals just like the women associates were.

The ugly:

• Some of the comments following this Above the Law post: Time for Winston Women To Go Burqa Shopping?

When Women Rule

Thanks to David Lat for the tip on Facebook regarding this intriguing New York Times op-ed by Nicholas Kristof, When Women Rule.  Generally, I post just sexcerpts of an article, but this one deserves to be read in its entirety.  It's that good. 

I've italicized my favorite parts:

*****

When Women Rule

While no woman has been president of the United States — yet — the world does have several thousand years’ worth of experience with female leaders. And I have to acknowledge it: Their historical record puts men’s to shame.

A notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. Granted, I’m neglecting the likes of Bloody Mary, but it’s still true that those women who climbed to power in monarchies had an astonishingly high success rate.

Research by political psychologists points to possible explanations. Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era? Margaret Thatcher was a transformative figure, but women have been mediocre prime ministers or presidents in countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Often, they haven’t even addressed the urgent needs of women in those countries.

I have a pet theory about what’s going on.

In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.

In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.

In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.

This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.

The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.

“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.

Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.

Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.

Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected. That seemed to result from simple prejudice. Professor Duflo asked villagers to listen to a speech, identical except that it was given by a man in some cases and by a woman in others. Villagers gave the speech much lower marks when it was given by a woman.

Such prejudices can be overridden after voters actually see female leaders in action. While the first ones received dismal evaluations, the second round of female leaders in the villages were rated the same as men. “Exposure reduces prejudice,” Professor Duflo suggested.

Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.

Rainmaking for women lawyers – the best start is an early start

From The Lawyers Weekly comes more wisdom from the other side of the border--Rainmaking for women lawyers – the best start is an early start--an article that explores ways that women can bring in lotsa dough.  Of course, we're required to do so on the same playing field that is oh-so-familiar to the men, but completely foreign to us. 

So, while I agree with the premise of the article, I find it a bit offensive that women should have to strategize and create unique ways in which to navigate the world so familiar to men.  Rather than making efforts to change the business environment of law firms to keep up with the way the world is today, BigLaw seems content to languish in antiquity, thus requiring those of us who don't fit the mold of white  lawyers from the mid-twentieth century to contort ourselves in a bizarre attempt to become that which we are not.

And, the concept that we simply must make time to do so despite unreasonable pressures to bill ridiculous numbers of hours is unrealistic, at best.  There are only so many hours in the day, and people have obligations outside of the office that require their attention.

From the article:

There’s a dominant model of the rainmaker in our law firms. We can all describe him. He’s extroverted. He likes to talk. He’s a bit egotistical but keeps it in check. He’s always out and about networking, attending events, and talking business. Our law firms have always depended on guys like him to bring in the clients and keep the engines stoked with new files and new work. Rainmakers like this account for about 10 per cent of our lawyers. What about the others who don’t fit the mould?

Many young women lawyers measuring themselves against this model quickly determine “that’s not me...” 

In order to put Rapport Talk to work for business development it is important to become more intentional about managing your relationships. Make a list of the people most important to your success. In the business context this will include your clients, contacts, and partners at the firm. It also includes your legal secretary and other integral support staff. How are you nurturing these important relationships? Who is missing that could make a difference? Do you have a mentor? Do you need to build up your network of contacts in certain strategic areas?

You wouldn’t go to the store without your grocery list, so don’t go to work Monday morning without your Connect With list.  This is a list of the people who you want to connect with over the coming week. It may be an email to set up a coffee date. Or an article clipped and sent over. One litigator I know developed this habit when she was a mother with two young children. Over the years her network of relationships expanded, deepened and now provides an abundant source of work for herself and her colleagues.

Don’t let time pressures keep you from taking action. Business development time is about investing in your future. The purpose of planning and action lists is to ensure that the time you do invest is wisely spent. You are busy. That means you have to be strategic. It doesn’t mean you should opt out.

Is Balance Easier to Find Across the Border?

This flu-ridden blogger greatly appreciates the warm welcome that this blog has received across the blogosphere thus far from Simple Justice, FP Legal Post, Real Lawyers Have Blogs, Deliberations, and The Legal Ease Blog.

It's also so nice to read comments from those of you who've already found this blog to be helpful in some way.  That really was my overall goal in creating this blog.

And, back to the topic at hand, from the archives of one of my other blogs, Sui Generis, comes the following post:

******

Is Balance Easier to Find Across the Border?

After the 2004 elections, I briefly considered a move to Canada, but eventually discarded the idea as I slowly emerged from my post-election depression.  But, when I came across this article, I again wondered, ever-so-briefly, if a permanent trip across the border was in order.  Sadly, however, it turns out that our Canadian counterparts seem to be in the same boat as we are when it comes to work/life balance, so I guess I'll stay put for now.

The article describes the results of a study which concluded that in order to attract and retain new hires, Canadian law firms needed to redefine their concept of a "successful" lawyer.  The article provided some interesting statistics and echoed many of my own opinions regarding the current legal workplace model:

The cost of replacing a young "associate" lawyer, one who is not yet a partner, is $315,000 in separation costs, recruitment and training, the study said.

The second report revealed that nearly two-thirds of all lawyers, male and female, have difficulty balancing their work and family life. And, given a choice, many would opt for a firm that valued family and personal time, they said.

In this third report, Catalyst examined lawyers' attitudes and perceptions toward their firms' efforts to address work-life balance. Its conclusions suggest the profession has some tough work ahead of it.

"Lawyer culture" is based on the assumption the lawyer has a non-working spouse or partner who is looking after the family, Catalyst noted. The road to a partnership in a large law firm is paved with long hours and little personal time, the agency also said.

Of course every time I read an article that describes the increasing dissatisfaction of both genders with the inflexibility of legal employers, I feel a bit let down since it always seems to be all talk and no action. The results of any number of studies indicate that turnover due to dissatisfaction is high, but nothing ever seems to come of it.   While everyone outside the legal profession has a strong grasp on the economic impact of high attrition rates, lawyers in the upper ranks turn a blind eye to it.

The "old school" outlook reigns supreme no matter what the cost and gnarly old lawyers sitting high atop their thrones at the peak of the legal pecking order stubbornly refuse to change the legal employment landscape since "that's the way it's always been done."   What they can't seem to comprehend is that it's not being done that way anymore, despite their repeated and adamant assertions to the contrary.

Many entry level attorneys, both men and women, have working spouses.  And, once you throw a kid into the mix, it's inordinately more complicated and costly than it was in the "good ol' days"  And if you have 2 kids or even 3--it's a whole new ballgame.  Prepare to juggle 15 things at once while riding a unicycle.  Trust me, it ain't pretty.

Eventually, the legal culture is going to have to change since, without the support of the worker bees at its foundation, it will collapse and the king will come tumbling down from his throne.  Not a pretty picture, dear ruler.  So, buck up and make the change--sooner rather than later.  We'll be waiting.

What Everyone Else Is Saying

Here's what others in the blogosphere have to say about the intersection of women, the law and sexism:

The good:

• From JDBliss, a great post about the other half and balance:  More Fathers Seeking Satisfying Balance Between Family Life and Work

• A great summary of an article about language and sexism--and, say it ain't so!--the law, from Feminist Law Professors: Language and Sexism

• Via Deliberations, comes this intriguing post about how we, as women, can be our own worst enemies:  When Women Judge Women

• The Legal Ease Blog discusses something that important for practicing and non-practicing attorneys, and in my opinion, especially women attorneys--stay in the loop:  Do Something! Stay in Contact

• Jordon Furlong, who happens to be a member of the other half, sums up the problem with law firms and the gender discussion quite nicely over at Law21: Women, law firms and semantics

The bad:

• Ann Althouse explains why sexist language isn't really sexist language since we use it so much in our society: NBC wimped out over "pimped out."

What Women Lawyers Really Think of Each Other

Via the ABA Journal Blog I learned of an interesting article From the ABA Jounral Magazine summarizing a study of women lawyers' perceptions of each other:  What Women Lawyers Really Think of Each Other.  Some interesting findings from the article:

Female supervisors age 40 and over who said gender mattered to them preferred working with women. About 80 percent said female lawyers take direction better, take constructive criticism better (59 percent) and have more discretion (79 percent).

But younger female attorneys who are following in the footsteps of that trailblazing generation don’t hold their older colleagues in such high regard. Among female lawyers under 40 who thought gender matters, 58 percent said male supervisors give better direction, give more constructive criticism (56 percent) and are better at keeping confidential information private (64 percent)...

Why do opinions about the role of gender in the workplace depend on the age of the female attorney? Some experts cite generational tension: Female lawyers entering the profession often don’t want to make the same personal sacrifices as their predecessors, and they question whether such sacrifices are even necessary to succeed. Senior women may not understand this mindset, much less realize that the playing field has changed, experts suggest. And that can block useful dialogue...

Women can be one another’s best advocates, but senior women lawyers need to understand that younger women can build careers differently, says Deborah Epstein Henry, an attorney who advises law firms on the retention and promotion of female lawyers. And younger women, Henry says, need to think about how they can have better relationships with senior female lawyers.

“They don’t have to be a role model in every capacity, but the junior women can select different things from different people,” Henry says...“I really do believe that women need to move away from placing judgment on other women,” she says, “and accept more diversity among ourselves.”

Balance and the Law

A regular feature of this blog will be posts from the archives of one of my other blogs, Sui Generis. 

My very first work-life balance post from November of 2006 follows.  This post provides a bit of background regarding my own "story" and viewpoint.  Links to the articles discussed can be found in the original post.

******

Balance and the Law

After much thought, I've decided to add a new feature to Sui Generis and will be posting approximately once per week regarding the issue of balance.   I'll preface the title of each post with the word "Balance" so that those of you with no interest in this particular issue can skip over those posts.  And, I'll be adding a section to my sidebar that includes links to blogs and other resources on the issue of balance.

I've decided to focus on this issue since it's been on the forefront of my mind since 2003 when I left the law firm where I worked as an associate.  I'd been there for nearly four years, following my stint at the Public Defender's Office, even though  I'd never envisioned myself in a law firm.  And yet there I was--and if I was going to work in a law firm for my entire life, that firm was the one for me.  It was full of great lawyers, and more importantly, good people.

But, it wasn't the right fit for me.  I wasn't happy.  I felt trapped, claustrophobic.  I couldn't put my finger on it, although I knew that work/life balance had something to do with it--but that wasn't the sole problem.

I had one child at that time and planned to have at least one more.   Although I could litigate and procreate, I had the sneaking suspicion that something had to give--either the quality of my work or my marriage and family.  And, assuming that I even had a choice,I wasn't willing to choose between one or the other.

But that wasn't the only issue.  I also felt as if my creative side was dying a slow death, almost as if a part of my brain was shutting down.  The law was suffocating me.  I'd entered law school with a strong Type A personality to begin with and Lady Law warped it into something nearly unrecognizable and unbearable.  I didn't like who I'd become.  I wanted out.

So, my husband, a nurse, who had been the primary caregiver for our daughter, stepped up to the plate and I took a time out on the bench and tried to figure out where I wanted to go with my professional life.  Eventually I determined that it wasn't the practice of law that I had issues with--it was the way that I was practicing it.

I realized that I needed to return to law on my own terms.  I missed the law and the lawyers that I'd come to know over the years.  I missed logical thinking and legal writing.  I missed a part of me that I'd essentially abandoned in 2003.   So, just about one year ago, I opened up shop as a contract attorney and started this blog.   And, I began to think about the legal field and work/life balance.  A lot.

I realized that the law can be all encompassing.  It's always been that way, hence the saying "the law is a jealous mistress."  And attempting to balance one's chosen career with other non-legal obligations such as the demands of family life can be a delicate and difficult balancing act for both male and female lawyers.  The legal field, especially the private sector, has been far slower to respond in any meaningful way to the requests of lawyers for accommodation and flexibility than other fields such as accounting and medicine.  And as a result there has been a growing dissension amongst the ranks of lawyers--especially younger lawyers.  Many are simply leaving  law firms in search of greener pastures.  That's a lot of lost talent.

As I stated in this post a few months ago:

As I see it, it's not a feminist issue.  It's a societal issue.  Professional couples are taking a hard look at their lives and, by virtue of their advanced educational levels, are in a position to make choices that will allow them to improve the quality of their family's life.  In other words, women and men with advanced degrees have more choices available to them as a result of their education and work experience.

Legal employers are slowly but surely beginning to notice the effects of their refusal to bend to the demands of a new generation of lawyers.  And they're finally beginning to try to appear as if they're making attempts to change as is evidenced by this press release from the legal giant Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP.  The JD Bliss blog had this to say about the news:

(E)ven the hardest working, white shoe firms are starting to come around to the need to boost retention rates by offering flexible working arrangements. In this vein, Weil Gotshal announced last week that it named 20 new partners - two of whom are "Flex-Time Partners," a new partnership category formed for new partners making a long-term career choice to work on a flexible schedule. The "Flex-Time Partner" title is available to both women and men entering the partnership.

At first glance, this press release may not seem like much.  But, it's the first step, albeit a small one.  I predict that eventually legal employers will have to change, since the market will demand it and they'll have no future if they don't.   So, the moral of today's little balance tidbit is:  You can't run a law office without a bunch of entry level lawyers doing all the grunt work now, can you?

Maybe, just maybe, legal employers are figuring that one out on their own

There's no crying in--politics?

One of my favorite blogs, Quizlaw, got me thinking about crying with this post: That’s It — We’re Done Hillary.  Apparently, Hillary teared up again on the campaign trail. And that act cost her a vote, as Dustin explains in his post:

Goddamnit, Hillary. The weepy gimmickry will work once, but twice? That’s just sad. It’s akin to Bush raising the terror alert every goddamn time an election was imminent. It’s pathetic. Is this what you’re going to do in the White House every time your poll numbers drop? Cry? You just lost a vote, Hillary.

I bet a lot of people out there feel the same way.  But, is it rationale?  I'm not so sure that it is.

Guys cry all the time--big guys, macho guys, important guys, manly men--and they get away with it.  Prime example, Plaxico Burress cried like a baby during the post-game interview last night.  I turned to my husband and he immediately jumped to his defense--it's the pinnacle of his career, it's everything he's ever worked for, he's tired.  And, no joke, my 6'2" husband had tears in his eyes.

Over a football game!  C'mon guys. 

Here are more guys crying:  here (big manly football player Terrell Owens), here (soccer players), and here (Mitt Romney, Bill Clinton).

And speaking of men crying, head on over to your local Mormon church on any given Sunday (get the cute football reference?).  My husband's family is Mormon, and I've never seen to many grown men cry as I have during Sunday services. 

So, I ask you.  What gives?  Why can't Hillary tear up?  Why does it cost her votes?

Like Plaxico, she was most assuredly dead tired.  Like Terrell, she was most definitely disappointed with her showing in recent polls.  And, this is everything she's ever worked for.  You bet she's emotional.

I dare you  political pundits out there.  Call Terrell and Plaxico crybabies--to their faces.  Double dare smack down!

Oh, and I should add that I'm leaning toward Obama right now, primarily because of his vote on Iraq. 

Judge reprimanded for racial remarks

I'd call 'em sexist as well.  It's a two-fer.  From the Yahoo article, Judge reprimanded for racial remarks:

A county judge was reprimanded for calling three black female lawyers "the Supremes" in court and advising the defendant to get "an experienced male attorney."

Washington County Circuit Judge W. Kennedy Boone has acknowledged that his comments suggested racial and sexual bias. In his written response to a complaint, Boone said he was trying to protect the three public defenders from representing a difficult defendant.