Sued for Gender Bias, but Named to the 'Best Law Firms for Women' List
How did embattled Ogletree Deakins land on a list that touts firms' fair and inclusive cultures for female attorneys?
August 07, 2018 at 02:37 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Talk about awkward timing! Guess which firm is on the 2018 Working Mother and ABA Journal's “Best Law Firms for Women” list? Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, the labor and employment firm that's now facing a $300 million gender bias suit.
I have no idea how the case will shake out, but I'm willing to bet that some of Ogletree's female lawyers—current and former—are balking (or barfing) at the “best” label. The complaint, filed earlier this year, alleges that the firm “pays its male shareholders approximately $110,000 more than its female shareholders, in target compensation and bonus alone.” Plus, there's been a steady exodus of female partners out of Ogletree (10 have left since January, when the case was filed, according to ALM Intelligence).
And just a few days ago, the firm took the unusual step of singling out one of the plaintiffs, Tracy Warren, a former partner who's now at Buchalter, for criticism. “Ms. Warren was terminated from the firm following a client complaint of unprofessional and unethical conduct. Following an investigation by both the firm and outside counsel, Ms. Warren was expelled on a vote of the equity shareholders,” said the firm in a statement to Law.com. (The firm did not name the client nor the outside counsel for the investigation.)
“Unprofessional.” “Unethical.” “Expelled.” Ouch. Not exactly a sign that all's well with the womenfolk on the farm.
So how does a firm with these troubled relations with women get on that “Best Law Firms for Women” list? Well, it starts with a self-selective process in which the firm nominates itself. (This is true for many “best” lists.) According to Meredith Bodgas, editor-in-chief of Working Mother, firms that make the cut “are remarkable for their long-term commitment to retaining and promoting women lawyers,” adding that all these firms “provide flexible work arrangements and 57 percent of them offer sponsorship programs for high-potential women lawyers.”
While all 60 firms on that list might provide awesome flexible work arrangements, I'm not so clear how that “long-term commitment to retaining and promoting women lawyers” is measured. Several firms on that list show female equity rates that are well-below the current 19 percent national average, including Kirkland & Ellis (15 percent), Vinson & Elkins (14 percent), Dechert (14 percent) and Lowenstein Sandler (14 percent)—to name a handful. Are these stellar examples of long-term commitments to retaining/promoting women? Or are they more indicative of long-term problems?
But let's get back to Ogletree. When I asked for comment, a firm spokesperson directed me to its press release, which touts the firm's women's initiative and how it supports female lawyers in three key areas: “Power (identification and attainment of leadership positions), access (access to meaningful internal and external development opportunities), and results (maximizing professional success and fulfillment).”
David Sanford, who's representing the female plaintiffs in the suit against Ogletree, isn't impressed. He emailed me: “Ogletree can attempt to hide behind vacuous lists and ineffectual task forces, but the lawsuit will shine a spotlight on the gender differences in pay.”
Nor is Sanford impressed with the Working Mother list: “Working Mother also put a major pharmaceutical company on their top list of companies for working women in 2010,” alluding to a big case his firm tried that year against Novartis for gender discrimination that resulted in a $253 million verdict against the company.
As for Working Mother, a spokesman had this to say about Ogletree's inclusion: “We would remove a firm if there was a certified class action or if there was a settlement indicating discrimination. This has not been certified yet as a class action.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I can practically visualize the folks at Working Mother tiptoeing away from this honoree.
My hunch: Ogletree won't be on next year's list.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 3Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250