Male partners question 'hypocritical backlash' over men-only events as women set out grim reality of City networking
Male and female partners air their views as part of Legal Week's Big Question survey on corporate events
February 01, 2018 at 04:49 AM
5 minute read
In the wake of last week's Presidents Club scandal, we surveyed more than 250 partners to find out their views on the issues around male-focused corporate events and whether they think law firms should be doing more to make networking activities more inclusive.
The results highlight significant differences in how men and women perceive the problem. The strength of feeling among women about the need for change was overwhelming, with 97% saying law firms need to try harder to make corporate networking activities more inclusive.
However, many male respondents insisted there is no issue to address, with more than 50% saying the profession does not have a problem with corporate events being too focused on men.
Here are some of the anonymous responses we received from male lawyers:
- "I find this outrage absolutely hypocritical – did no hen party ever hire a male stripper? I would disapprove of that, but have no objection in a free society to whatever other people want to do."
- "The industry is full of female-only events. These events outnumber male-only events by more than five to one. Law firms organise female-only events all the time and never organise male-only events as they are afraid of criticism. There is a stereotypical perception that only men misbehave in men-only events. Women actually on average misbehave much more than men in their events and nobody comments on that."
- "Society is getting too judgmental and uptight. Relax. Let people enjoy themselves. Women are adults. They can make their own minds what they will and will not do, and it's patronising and infantilising to act as if they need protection from the big bad men. Have you ever seen a pack of women at a hen night with a male stripper? It makes most men look like prudes."
- "If men-only events are to be banned, then women-only events must also be banned. On the same basis, if men-only groups or associations are not permitted, women-only groups and associations should also not be permitted."
- "Unfortunately, it seems that people cannot see this in proportion. The Presidents Club dinner was an event which everyone involved has attended voluntarily, and are free to leave, at which there were some problems caused by a few people who drank too much and behaved very badly. Most people there didn't see or hear any of the alleged behaviour reported on by journalists, who went there in search of a story and were no doubt determined to come away with one. But if I was invited by a client to a football match where a few drunken fans misbehaved, should I be admonished or lose my job? I don't see the difference. Yes, it appears this was a tasteless event, but so is a Britney Spears concert (and she sings in her underwear)."
In contrast, some of the comments from female survey respondents highlight the scale of the problem still facing women in law when it comes to networking events
- "I have not only been taken to strip clubs – I have been taken to bars full of prostitutes, I have had friends who have been assaulted, and when I was a young lawyer my partner encouraged me to go and 'have breakfast' at a client's hotel after a late signing – the client evidently thought I was the signing bonus. When will we hear #metoo in the law firms? I have absolutely had enough."
- "I have been to events where the men went on to a strip club. I was invited along but declined to go. The issue of male-only events is the tip of a huge iceberg: there is a massive and pervasive issue in the legal profession around gender pay discrepancies, and a lack of women in management roles. Women are not visible in positions of power and so the climate of discrimination and harassment is not called out. Male law firm leaders seem completely unwilling to take the issue seriously. When we discussed the Presidents Club scandal, many of my male partners could not understand what the issue was. We have come to accept these types of events as being part of corporate life in the City."
- "Strip clubs are a big no – having been to one as a trainee and a newly qualified lawyer and ending up in a cab crying about how awful it was, I believe this should definitely not be a form of corporate entertainment."
- "My personal career highlight was being told by the bar steward at a golf club where my firm was holding a partners golf day that I could not go into the bar where my fellow partners were having pre-dinner drinks. It was a male-only bar. As one of only two female golfing partners, we were allowed to have a drink in the lounge – on our own. No one thought to check in advance and no one challenged it. Biggest irony – I was the winner of the event!"
- "Alcohol plays a crucial role in predominantly male events, and more often than not leads to behaviour we would not normally tolerate in any other setting. Events become very blokey and are a real turn-off for other guests. I know that many firms turn a blind eye to poor behaviour in the name of networking. If a valuable client behaves badly, so what?"
- "Events such as the President's Club highlight the sheer disrespect that the majority of men have for women, whether or not they claim to believe in equality. Get them in a room together where women are perceived to be in a subservient role and the men are out to impress each other and they behave like a testosterone-fuelled pack of wolves. This behaviour is rife."
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 AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Cracking Canada: How International Law Firms Penetrate the Country's Legal Market
6 minute readHong Kong IPO Market Shows Signs of Slow but Steady Recovery
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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