Credit: MJgraphics/Shutterstock.com

Contradictions abound in Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women." The 1868 loosely autobiographical novel, often given the descriptive "much loved," focuses on four upper-middle class sisters coming of age in New England just before, during and just after the American Civil War. Not themselves considered wealthy, they fret over dresses, dances, male friendships, and when each will marry and whom. Counter to this stereotypical narrative, though, run contrary themes of a search for female independence and nontraditional gender roles. In particular, Jo (modeled after the author) publishes mystery and adventure stories (under a male nom de plume), rejects a highly eligible suitor and yearns to explore a wider philosophical and geographical world. Alcott, of course, was an ardent feminist, abolitionist, and suffragette, who out of principle never married. The 1994 movie adaptation of the novel has one character say that Jo should have been a lawyer. She was not.

More than 150 years later, the 2019 ABA report on why senior women "leave the law," "Walking Out the Door," comes down to an unsettling answer: The practice of law in large firms involving "big" cases and transactions remains a male-dominated profession. Senior women disproportionately leave Big Law, it turns out, not because they are not excellent lawyers or because they dislike the law, but because women confront societal, biological and peer pressures that men do not. Women reported enduring professional, financial and personal insults and indignities solely "because of their gender." "Death by a thousand cuts" is an oft-repeated characterization.

The ABA report analyzed hard survey data on job numbers, attitudes, and perceptions delving into a persistent, obvious phenomenon: Despite women graduating from law school and entering Big Law in numbers about equal to, if not greater than, their male counterparts, women gradually leave large firms disproportionately. They less frequently are selected as managing partner, or sit on management or compensation committees, or first-chair trials in major litigation. They receive lower levels of compensation, less client-generation credit, and are less acknowledgement for their work. They not only report lower levels of satisfaction with all aspects of the job, but they have remarkably lower perceptions of how women generally are doing—it is startling that managing partners believe women are doing better and are more satisfied than do men or, even more so, women themselves.

One finding not unrelated to gender role stereotypes is that women need to reach a critical mass at the higher levels of firms before significant numerical progress is made. For example, one woman on the compensation committee has little effect on making opportunities and compensation more equitable. But achieving more than a token female on the committee requires breaking through status quo career patterns, where women taking pregnancy leave or facing other "family care" responsibilities are not penalized by slipping down the career hierarchy. The term unconscious bias comes up repeatedly in describing how those in control maintain that control.

As with "Little Women," the contradictions abound. Women are said to leave the law because of the pressure to bill more hours or generate more new business, but they also disproportionately desire greater freedom regarding child rearing and family care. A female spouse is expected to defer to the male's career choices—to move with the man so he can take advantage of a new job opportunity, or to leave the office early to provide "support" to children or other family. Marketing pressures require lawyers to engage clients after hours or on weekends, but the female spouse is expected to accept family responsibilities during those times. One shocking statistic: the overwhelming majority of women report facing pressure to leave work to attend to family issues, while only 1% of men reported the same. Women are slotted into gender stereotypical subject areas such as trusts and estates, matrimonial-family law or appellate work, rather than the "rough and tumble" of antitrust, securities or M&A.

Just as law large firms have been slower to deal with the disparities, so also the suggested solution to the problem is less than satisfying. Do more. Do better. And try harder. Set targets and a strategy to meet those targets, as many large firms have done. Study and update relevant data to determine whether progress is being made. Leadership must step up. "Own" the business case for diversity. Develop the critical mass noted above. Assess existing policies against the first strategy, setting goals. Strengthen implicit bias and gender discrimination education and protocols. Increase lateral hiring of women. And provide resources to relieve pressures from family obligations.

Of these recommendations, it is hard to know which is most critical, but it does seem that some have unintended consequences. Developing transparent, written compensation criteria is far better than having one person make the decisions on dividing profits, but rigid formulas that do not take into account factors that hinder female advancement enforce the status quo. Likewise, concentrating equity partnership in fewer and fewer hands likely makes it harder to include women in the "club." Increasing lateral hiring of senior women is merely "robbing Peter to pay Paul," unless the market is signaled that women, as women, are a more valued commodity.

At least two additional ABA reports are anticipated based on the same data. We hope they provide more context to answer the "why" question. In particular, we note that only people who remained at large firms were asked why senior women leave. Those who left must be included in the questioning. And the report must determine and analyze where these senior women went. If they went disproportionately to the bench or to high corporate or governmental positions, that is a sign of progress in the larger legal community. Indeed, these women may be part of a more senior cohort of women who return to private practice once their tenure is up. We look forward to more discussion and thought.