The search for meaning: are women just not rewarded by a life in law?
High-performing women lawyers are finding partnership isn't always for them
March 07, 2018 at 12:20 AM
4 minute read
You are probably as fatigued as I am about this topic: why are women still lagging behind men at law firms?
For many years, I've looked for explanations: is it simple sexism? The dearth of role models and mentors? The clash of work and family? Are women too complacent? Too bitchy? Are they wearing the wrong shoes?
My assumption has been women want the brass ring of partnership, but hit hurdles along the way. What I haven't explored as much is this: maybe women just aren't interested. I've seen this first-hand; not only from women on the ascent, but also those who've made partner and want out.
Simply put, women aren't enamoured with Big Law, and they're bolting - leaving in greater numbers as they move up in seniority. According to the American Bar Association, women over 40 represent 41% of lawyers at law firms, and only 27% are women over 50.
Are women dropping out because law firms are still de facto boys' clubs? Or is it something else – such as a different conception of a satisfying career?
The distinction can be fuzzy. "It's difficult to say, but I think the two go hand in hand," says Kate Hooker, a former Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft associate who's now senior counsel at startup Greenhouse Software. "There were so few women in leadership that I didn't see what my own path would be."
It seems that women are keeping their eyes open for other gigs. "There are several pivotal moments," says career coach Elena Deutsch (pictured), who runs Women Interested in Leaving Law. She says women tend to explore their options after the third year and at the seventh or eighth year, "when they're seasoned but still young enough to try something new." These moments continue, she says: "Women in their 50s see 20 years ahead of them and want to do something with more meaning."
The hypocrisy of saying we'll support you, then turning around and saying you didn't reach 80% – that was the last straw
It doesn't help that firms sometimes turn young women off, even when they think they're doing the right thing. Alix Devendra says she had every intention of returning to work at Nixon Peabody in San Francisco after her pregnancy. The firm encouraged her to go on an 80% schedule, but put her on notice a month later that she wasn't reaching her mark. She quit the next day. "I didn't like the tone, subtext, culture," she says. "The hypocrisy of saying we'll support you, then turning around and saying you didn't reach 80% – that was the last straw."
Stacie Collier, an employment law partner in Devendra's group at Nixon Peabody says, "We were incredibly disappointed to see her leave," She adds, "We tried to help her, and I'm sorry that she didn't feel supported. She was someone we wanted to retain - high potential and really smart." Collier says the firm now has a parental ramp-up programme whereby associates are paid 100% of their salary for 80% work.
Despite getting all the signals she was likely to make partner, one former associate at a big Los Angeles firm quit in her eighth year. "I worked all the time," she says. "If I had seen a path to a reasonable lifestyle, I might have stayed." She says she had burned out on firm life: "I'm good at my job, but I didn't find meaning in it."
Indeed, "meaning" is what women often say they want - and what's lacking at big law firms. "I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm doing it at a very high level, but is this what I want to do for the next 20?" asks one female partner at an top 100 US law firm. "What's so rewarding about slaving away for clients who think they own you?"
It seems women want more – and not just money - than law firms are offering them. Consultant Melissa McClenaghan Martin, a former Fried Frank associate, says women want meaning and they find it "through business development, and deep client or sponsor relationships."
But it's tougher for women to develop those relationships than it is for men. Somewhere along the line, Martin says, women are taking themselves off the partnership track. "It happens because there are more reasons for women to opt out than there are to opt in."
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 All'I Was Getting Straight Nos From Absolutely Everyone': How a Tetraplegic Linklaters Lawyer Defied All Odds
6 minute readUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
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