Motherhood Isn't the Culprit for Big Law's Gender Equity Failures
Women lawyers shouldn't be viewed as moms first when it comes to the workplace.
July 05, 2018 at 03:11 PM
4 minute read
Enough with nuance and complicated explanations. In three words or less, tell me the reason women lag behind men in attaining equity partnership and status in Big Law.
In my experience, men—almost always—blame “motherhood” or “work/life balance.” And women? They point the finger at “bro culture” or, simply, men.
So while women are telling men that the culture overall needs fixing, men are saying biology is destiny. “The work is incredibly demanding, and it's damn hard when you're also a mom,” explains a male litigator about the dearth of female star trial lawyers. He adds, “And I have the utmost respect for mothers. It's the coolest job in the world!”
It's nice he thinks being a mommy is cool, but that attitude isn't helping women's careers. The belief that women prioritize family more than men persists, as Catherine Tinsley and Robin Ely recently wrote in The Harvard Business Review, though “research simply does not support that notion.” The result is that women's careers get stunted. “Mothers are often expected, indeed encouraged, to ratchet back at work,” reports HBR, and “are rerouted into less taxing roles and given less 'demanding' (read: lower-status, less career-enhancing) clients.”
But isn't it true that women with demanding careers and children have it extra hard? Don't some women want alternatives to the partnership track? Absolutely. But women say the bigger problem is the male ethos of the workplace.
“Men who think they are being sympathetic by lightening the load of pregnant women and new moms are doing them a huge disservice,” a Big Law female partner says.
“It's a myth that all women are so focused on their families that they are putting their careers in the back seat,” says a female senior in-house counsel. “Most women I know are not complaining about children. They are complaining about title, advancement and pay.” She adds, “I have full-time nannies and housekeepers around the clock. I don't know where the vacuum cleaner is. I've racked up thousands of frequent-flyer miles because I go anywhere, anytime, for work. And I don't feel guilty!”
The focus on juggling home and family ignores systemic prejudices. “I have extraordinarily talented and productive female partners who have never married and have no kids and are not rewarded to the same extent as men with similarly-situated practices,” says the Am Law 100 partner.
Entrenched beliefs about gender roles are as old as the hills, says Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan & Company. “It's not isolated only to the legal profession,” she says. “For the same reasons that far too many men—and women—have a hard time seeing a woman as president, they have difficulty seeing women as running law firms, trial or deal teams.”
Emphasizing differences between the sexes, warns the HBR article, results in “well-meaning but largely ineffectual interventions” focused on “'fixing' women or accommodating them”—which, I think, describes some of the Band-Aid programs at firms, like mommy career tracks, assertiveness training and work/life balance coaching. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that; it's just that they largely miss the mark on curing gender inequity.
The solution, of course, is complicated. The HBR article says institutions need “to fix the conditions that undermine women and reinforce gender stereotypes.” It advocates “questioning assumptions and proactively changing conditions” so that women have the opportunity to shine.
All fine suggestions, but how many firms will start digging into their corporate soul to lift women? “Leadership fails them,” says Kirkland & Ellis partner Michael Williams. “Leadership needs to do more to recognize and invest in their trajectories.”
In the meantime, stop telling women how daunting it must be to be both a lawyer and a mom. How much male sensitivity can a girl take?
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected].
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 AllMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Elite Boutiques Competing More With Big Law Bonuses, With Several Going Above Market
9 minute readClifford Chance Further Modifies Lockstep to Better Reward Top Performers
2 minute readTrending Stories
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