'Death by a Thousand Cuts': Why Are Women Leaving Big Law?
A survey of more than 1,200 senior attorneys found that women leave Big Law because of law firm operational policies and implicit bias.
November 14, 2019 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Many experienced women attorneys in Big Law love what they do, but often they leave firms because they're dissatisfied with how their firm operates and treats them, according to a report by ALM Intelligence and the American Bar Association.
"Walking Out the Door: The Facts, Figures and Future of Experienced Women Lawyers in Private Practice," is the result of a study by the ABA and ALM Intelligence, the research arm of ALM, that surveyed nearly 1,300 attorneys in the 500 largest firms in the United States. They found that more than 90% of men and women reported satisfaction in the substantive aspects of their practice such as intellectual challenge and level of responsibility. But it found large gender gaps when respondents were asked about their firm's operational policies, including opportunities for advancement and workplace diversity.
The study found that only 50% of women are satisfied with the recognition of their work as opposed to 70% of men. About 45% of women surveyed said they're satisfied with their opportunities for advancement, while 69% of men reported satisfaction.
Women also reported high levels of overt gender discrimination. For example, 82% of women reported they have been mistaken for a low-level employee based on their gender.
Taken as a whole, the study suggests that women leave Big Law because of a systematic culture of bias, said study co-author Roberta Liebenberg, a senior partner at Fine, Kaplan and Black.
"I call those findings death by a thousand cuts," Liebenberg said. "It's not one thing, but an accumulation of experiences they believe are different because of their gender."
The study surveyed 1,262 attorneys and managing partners with at least 15 years of experience among 500 of the largest U.S. firms. Of the respondents, 70% were women and 30% were men. Half of those surveyed were equity partners with the remaining respondents evenly distributed between non-equity partners and lawyers who were of counsel. Only 28 managing partners responded to the survey.
While women account for between 45% and 50% of law school graduating classes, they accounted for only 20% of law firm equity partners in 2018, indicating a high attrition rate for women attorneys.
But when survey respondents were asked how well their firm was doing in the advancement and promotion of women attorneys, 88% of men said that gender diversity is widely acknowledged as a firm priority. But only 54% of women said this was the case. And although 79% of men said their firms have succeeded in promoting women into equity partnership, just 48% of women stated their firms had succeeded in doing so.
"The data suggests that firms may not understand how their own people are viewing the policy and practices that they are implementing with respect to advancing women," said study co-author Stephanie Scharf, a partner with the women-owned firm Scharf Banks Marmor and chair of the ABA's commission on women in the profession.
These disparities between lived experience and perception are why Scharf and Liebenberg believe that many firms need to analyze their own diversity data. They also should look at their origination and compensation structures, as much of the dissatisfaction that arises from these can easily be remedied, they said.
The study recommends that firms move away from an opaque "black box" compensation system to a more open model, or provide business development opportunities to men and women equally.
"If women are not getting the business development opportunities, they aren't getting the business," said Liebenberg. "If they aren't getting the business, they aren't getting the origination credit which affects compensation."
The report puts forth seven solutions, including developing a strategy, setting hard targets, assessing the impact of firm diversity policies and affirming firm leadership's commitment to gender diversity.
The full report can be downloaded for free on ALM's website.
Similar Stories:
Is Lateral Hiring a Diversity Blindspot for Big Law?
IP Firm Creates Incubator to Launch Minority- and Women-Owned Law Firms
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
© 2025 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 All12-Partner Team 'Surprises' Atlanta Firm’s Leaders With Exit to Launch New Reed Smith Office
4 minute readAfter Breakaway From FisherBroyles, Pierson Ferdinand Bills $75M in First Year
5 minute readWells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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