Of the myriad articles I've written about women in Big Law, this one hit a nerve: Male clients disfavor female partners. In fact, they are one-third less likely than female clients to choose women as lead counsel.

That's the finding by legal marketing firm Acritas, which surveyed over 2,000 senior in-house counsel at $50 million-plus companies around the world.

Of course, women always suspected it's a boys' club. Yet, seeing cold, hard data support that suspicion tapped a deep-seated fear: No matter how hard they try, women face daunting odds in developing business—and that means women won't catch up with men in pay or power.

I heard from women all over the country, voicing frustration and anger that male cronyism seems as strong as ever. Some women told me they've basically given up on trying to develop business from men—either because men were unreceptive or they read the overture as some kind of sexual invitation. One young female partner at an Am Law 100 firm said to me, “It's just a waste of time. I guess I'll always be a service partner.”

All of this is disheartening because clients are supposed to be the saviors. They're supposed to be the enlightened ones who are clamoring for more women and minorities to do their work.

And, indeed, big companies have made a lot of noise about that mission. In 1999, over 500 companies signed on to the Statement of Principles, pledging to press law firms to promote women and minorities. In 2004, companies signed on to Call to Action, vowing to keep stats on law firms and “take action” if necessary. Though launched with great fanfare, these initiatives died quietly on the vine.

So, what's next? Well, how about something with more teeth: Force firms to tell the truth about compensation. Shame them into it, if necessary. Then hold them accountable until they improve. Let me get more specific:

First, firms should be totally transparent about their compensation systems and client credit allocation, starting with breakdowns about how men and women are paid (equity and nonequity partners and associates who are paid bonuses). If firms refuse to disclose this information or play games about the status of their partners, they should be outed.

Second, firms should set goals for when they plan to attain certain female equity partner percentages. Firms tout all the awesome things they're doing for female lawyers—throwing swanky networking events, Fed-Exing breast milk for nursing mothers—yet won't commit to a timetable for when they'll reach a critical percentage of female equity partners. After so much talk, you'd think firms would have the balls to take a public stance about specific targets.

Third—brace yourself—we should consider quotas. European countries set quotas for the percentage of women on the boards of their public companies, and, despite initial skepticism, the quota system has worked. So is the idea of quotas in allocating client credit so outlandish? The CEO of Acritas, Lisa Hart Shepherd, doesn't think so. She proposes that clients “apply quotas in their work allocation—giving at least one in three matters to a female lead partner—and demand gender-diverse teams.”

Will quotas fly in Big Law? Nah. It goes against a myth we hold dear: that law is a meritocracy in which the brightest rise to the top.

Quotas are so taboo that they're not even discussed. “I am not aware of people pressing for nor firms considering quotas for client credit allocation,” says Brande Stellings, a vice president at Catalyst, an organization that promotes women. “Although quotas have been around for over a decade in Europe, the topic has largely been a nonstarter in the U.S.”

As someone who's covered women in law for over 15 years and seen paltry progress, I think it's time to talk about measures that involve some strong-arming. Does this sound too Draconian? Good. That's what we need.

Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.