What are your thoughts on the retaining women in corporate law practice?I don't disagree with this. Role models in positions of power who people can identify with are always important. I agree that if women who would otherwise become corporate partners at law firms are being deterred for some reason, it's a bad thing. And maybe, because of the lack of opportunity, role models, whatever, women don't see making partner in the corporate department of a large firm as a viable option and don't give it as much consideration as they do other career paths. I'm sure that's true for some women.
I am very aware of the lack of female partners in corporate law, and it has been getting progressively worse.
Recruiting and retaining more female partners is one way to help remedy the issue. Many female associates become corporate lawyers, but they often choose to go in-house or leave the legal profession after a few years. If the leadership had more women, more women would likely be hired and more women would stay. Seeing women in positions of power helps attorneys visualize a successful career path as a female corporate partner.
But frankly, maybe most women see what life as a corporate partner in a large law firm is like and decide they don't want that. If you're an American woman in a position to become a corporate partner, you probably have a financial choice about whether to work, and you certainly have societal approval of choosing not to work. So you choose to work, but you're conscious that you're making a trade-off against your family. As a result, you actively seek balance. Life as a corporate partner does not give you that, so you consider alternatives.
On the other hand, if you're an American man in a position to become a corporate partner, you may have a financial choice about whether to work, but you certainly don't have anyone telling you that working is a choice or that staying home is a valid choice. You may think about work-life balance, but when other people talk about balance, it's often in the context of "women's issues." Even though you may want more time with your family, your job at the large law firm doesn't permit it, and that's just the way it is.
I'm generalizing, of course. But I do think that women are more likely to pursue nontraditional paths, and specifically paths that are less likely to lead to traditional positions of power, because we see our careers as our choice. In contrast, men are more likely to see their careers as their duty and maybe even their primary purpose, so they are more focused on traditional success and power.
I have met many a male partner or senior associate who says he wishes he had more time with his kids, but it's just not possible. And I have met many a female partner or senior associate -- well, scratch that "many," because the majority of female partners and senior associates I know are childless, but let's talk about the ones with kids -- who has taken a part-time position or left law firm life to find a more flexible arrangement. Every female associate I know with kids has at least thought about part-time, while the male associates don't even consider it. I think it's because the women have permission to think about and search for work-life balance, but the men for the most part don't, at least not yet.
Interesting... This is some good food for thought. The issue's been on my mind a lot lately, since I'm going into my 3L year and also talking a lot with my husband about starting a family.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny because my firm has a LOT of female partners for a big firm. They're in all departments and about half have kids. But it's the female partners with kids that help me realize that, given the choice, I would never want to be a partner in a big law firm. It's pretty apparent they have no semblance of a "normal" family life and they all seem so much less personable than the male partners, (in my mind) because they are always trying to present a certain persona. I'm not sure what the answer is to improving the ratio of female partners, but I think you're right about why most women choose not to follow the partnership track.
ReplyDeleteIs it true that a greater proportion of women made partner when monster shoulder pads were in vogue?
ReplyDeleteOr maybe just an urban myth? ;-)
I agree with all of your points. I think the major problem is that working part-time and being a partner is still not accepted in large law firms. Yeah, most firms offer this option, but it's still looked down upon when people turn to part-time.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see a shift in large law firms where positions such as mine (non-partnership track associates) are more widely available. I like the flexibility of my job and the understanding that I'm not paid or expected to work 80 hours a week. I don't want to be a partner of a large firm, but I do like working for a large law firm and like the fact that my position doesn't require working towards a certain number of billables each year and making partner some day.
LEO: It seems like being a litigation partner affords you a little more balance -- there are set schedules and deadlines, and even though they change often, you're not going to suddenly have a hearing at 6 a.m. In the corporate world, on the other hand, I've gotten calls on a Friday night saying the deal is supposed to close by Monday. I don't know how typical my firm is, but we have lots of female litigation partners (I don't think 50% though) but very few female corporate partners.
ReplyDeleteDownsized Attorney (maybe you should change your name now?), I agree -- the non-partnership track sounds like a good solution, if people on that track aren't looked down upon or treated unfairly. At my firm, I know of at least one person who made partner while working part-time, and offhand I can think of at least four partners who are part-time and one who worked part-time for many years while her kids were small. All women, of course.
Interesting comment, but I am not sure I agree that an American woman in a position to become a corporate partner probably has a financial choice about whether to work or where that data/idea comes from? Most of the female attorneys I know work out of financial necessity. It concerns me a bit that people assume that working mothers probably have a choice, when that I doubt that is the case.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail on the head there. I do think that a large part of the lack of women in partner positions is that at least many women feel they have a choice either to work less hours, work in a less demanding environment, or even not work at all. To have more woman partners would mean providing a different environment within a firm that would allow the women on a partner track to fill their duties as moms as well.
ReplyDeleteI for one as a single mom don't have the choice of not working. And I also do have a duty to take care of my kids, and there is no way that I could for example work 60-70 (or more) hours per week, no matter what kind of track that would put me on.