Robbie Kaplan: #TimesUp on Gender Inequality in the Legal Profession
Roberta Kaplan, who recently left Big Law to start her own litigation boutique, takes aim at the findings highlighted in a recent article by The American Lawyer on male clients disfavoring working with female lawyers.
February 06, 2018 at 11:31 AM
4 minute read
As a girl growing up in Cleveland, Ohio, I loved to talk. When I was three years old, for example, my mother, in a letter to her younger brother who was then serving in the Peace Corps in India, wrote: “You have to converse with her to appreciate it… if she lets you get a word in, that is.” Another letter from my Grandma Belle recounts: “I asked her to please stop talking for fifteen minutes,” to which I apparently responded: “I really can't Grandma, I'm a big talker.” I wanted to become a lawyer because I had heard somewhere that lawyers actually got paid to talk a lot.
That's why it was so disheartening to read an article in American Lawyer titled “Male Clients Disfavor Women Partners.” The article notes that “male clients are choosing women to lead their work at a rate that's even below the national percentage of female equity partners,” which is 19 percent. This is despite the fact, as the author aptly notes, that research shows “mixed gender teams significantly outperform single-sex teams on all industry-recognized key performance indicators.”
What is even more disheartening (not to mention exhausting) is that it feels like we keep having the very same conversation over and over again. Reading this article made me feel like I was the Bill Murray character in some bizarre, anti-feminist version of the movie “Groundhog Day.” In fact, in 1988—the year I graduated from college—none other than Hillary Clinton served as the inaugural chair of the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. In that position, she released a then-groundbreaking report documenting the lack of advancement opportunities for female lawyers.
But thirty years later, and despite the fact that women make up more than 50 percent of law school graduates (and have for years), not much has changed. The statistics paint a bleak portrait of our profession: according to a recent report by the New York State Bar Association, women represent only 25 percent of lead counsel roles in all types of cases. The most striking disparity appears in complex commercial cases: women's representation as lead counsel shrinks from 31 percent in one-party cases to 26 percent in two-party cases to just 19 percent in cases involving five or more parties. In other words, at every level and every court—federal and state, trial and appellate, criminal and civil—it is clear that women are not getting the chance to talk.
The problem here is one of access, not substance. Clients are best served by lawyers who will fight on their behalf, regardless of how they look, love or pray. The best lawyers really listen to what their clients have to say, take their clients' issues to heart, and then help to solve their clients' problems in creative and efficient ways. These, of course, are not gender-specific qualities.
At Kaplan & Company, we defend companies like T-Mobile and Airbnb, and we defend clients like Melanie Kohler, the woman sued by Hollywood producer Brett Ratner for defamation. We sue counterparties in connection with complicated real estate ventures, and we sue the Nazis and white supremacists responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. And the gender, ethnicity, or religion of our lawyers makes zero difference to the skills, commitment and work product we bring to the table.
In her new book, “Women & Power: A Manifesto,” the eminent classical scholar Mary Beard observes that the “mechanisms that silence women, that refuse to take them seriously and that sever them … from the centres of power” are “deeply embedded” in Western culture. But even though it's very clear how deeply these attitudes are entrenched, we cannot be like Bill Murray, still having this very same conversation 30 years from now. Time is, quite literally, up. As per usual, my Grandma Belle was 100 percent correct—there is nothing wrong with being a girl who really, really likes to talk. Time's Up.
Robbie Kaplan can be followed on Twitter @kaplanrobbie.
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 AllNo 'Gray Area' In Lawyers' Oversight of Investigators, Commentator Argues
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
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