Related Posts
I can’t help it. Love me for who I am.
More Posts
Rising Star
What does this even mean?!
How’s the job market?
Additional Posts in Big Law
Subject Expert
Enthusiast
When did you receive your signing bonus?
Stealth layoffs at CWT confirmed.
Mentor
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Mentor
Great question. My perception is no, biglaw and many many lawyers outside biglaw only know of one model for a lawyer, and the fact that it excludes woman (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard men talk about a woman’s commitment to the firm) and people of color (“I just don’t see him/her at the country club developing business”) doesn’t dawn on them. It is a huge task to bring these ideas to firm management because it will be met with resistance.
Mentor
I think it is both, OP. It may not be overt racism/sexism like some KKK person, but when white male
partners from privileged backgrounds consistently choose white male associates from privileged backgrounds as their “go to” people, what else is that but bias? They always have s 100 reasons why they choose that guy, but really?
And yes the economic model favors a worker who can devote 24/7 to the firm which means someone is at home taking care of life for the worker. When I was starting out, the only female successful partners in my biglaw firm were childless. It didn’t take a genius to figure that out.
But I think this can change if the 40 + year olds and younger make that happen. Or if some more enlightened older folks step up.
I left biglaw many years ago because I didn’t want to become one of those who thought the system was ok. I’ve been in small firms where we could design our own economic model and promote balance and thus more diversity.
At my firm, I am frustrated by the expectation (including among many women) that since I am male, it is fine for me to work absurd hours and have crazy availability, even though I have children.
Yes, for the particular issue of family life and the structural barriers law firms throw up, it absolutely harms women and men, in different ways. Women get short shrifted on career ops and overburdened with family responsibilities, men have their relationships with their families undermined and the structural inequity in their relationship reinforced.
My post wasn't to suggest men don't suffer from this, too. I was more focusing, as an example, of how social expectations, gender roles, and law firms combine to screw women in particularly distinct ways, as an analogy for how similar forces and structures make biglaw inhospitable for other minority groups, too.
Biglaw partners definitely think the lack of gender balance and lack of diversity in the partnership is everyone else’s fault but their own. At both of the law firms I worked at, associates routinely asked firm leadership what they were doing re inclusivity at town halls and the like. Here are a few answers we heard back: “You tell us what we should do;” “There were two promising black and women associates I really wanted to promote to partner. I even invited them to
my house. But they wanted to go to government what could I do;” and “when a white male associates gets feedback, he thinks ok. When a minority associate gets feedback, he takes it personally.”
The recent protests happened after I left biglaw. Last I heard, some of my old firms are trying to improve things by tying mentorship of diverse associates to partner compensation.
(cont.) how to make biglaw less unforgiving? Do firm leaders actually consider whether the way we do things inherently makes it difficult to have a diverse profession?
Apologies for the extremely open ended question, but it has been on my mind lately and the conversation today really had me chewing on this.
I think that consideration is absolutely something that can be seen in some a more advanced/sophisticated diversity programs/initiatives. That's exactly the concern that motivates the expansion of parental leave for men and women, flexible work schedules, health and family care benefits, no? I once heard about how rather than doing a more traditionally male recruiting event (I think it was golf) a firm got tickets to Hamilton as a more gender neutral activity that would attract men and women. I think it's a bit harder to identify these types of initiatives tackling the institutional obstacles for POC attorneys because frankly the legal community hasn't given it enough push yet. Other than regularly celebrating diversity events (bringing in speakers on specific topics regarding Black history month or Asian Pacific heritage, etc.), most work seems to be focused on the initial steps to get more diverse attorneys in the firm (ex recruiting) and not necessarily to keep them around and mitigate the isolating institutional obstacles that come up in the profession.
Caveat of course that part of the reason the parental leave and similar initiatives get traction is because they can equally benefit men, so it's probably not entirely to break down some of the institutional barriers, but it's some indication that this is an issue that management is paying attention to.
Arguably, the current model works perfectly well for law firms. Partners need a large base of hungry, hard working, high billing junior associates, and in a highly leveraged (i.e. profitable) firm, that tapers off as one approaches partnership. A certain level of attrition is therefore not only inevitable, but desirable.
I changed careers from the military. In both the military and in law, female friends chose to downgrade their careers (take easier postings, or leave entirely) in favour of child-rearing. Good luck to them. In neither case (military or law firms) did that really matter to the employer: attrition is part of the design for both organisations (the military needs more lieutenants than generals, as law firms need more associates than partners).
Same point with racial diversity: arguably it’s merely a political goal masquerading as a business metric (the so-called ‘social science’ on diversity benefiting businesses is dubious at best, and the better argument seems to be that it’s merely motivated reasoning).
In light of the above, arguably current law firms structures reflect firms’ logical choices. Those firms hiring and retaining merely on merit, profitability potential and client drivers = “big law”. Those firms choosing to carve their own niche, for ‘social justice’ or whatever = non-big law. Why attempt to force the same model onto demonstrably successful firms? If people want to do things differently, they can start their own firm.
In summary, my suggestion is that many partners *don’t* care about diversity, and - more controversially but arguably objectively justifiably - that’s fine, it’s their business to run as they wish, and the current model works just fine, thanks. Obviously, no one in their right mind would say this out loud for fear of being lynched by the Woke Police Twitter mob, though. Why am I wrong (not ‘morally’, in $$$ terms from managing partners’ perspectives)?