A lot of ink has been spilled over women’s march into the legal profession that began in earnest in the early 1970s. Since the baby boomerettes made their initial foray into testosterone-dominated law offices about forty years ago, the number of female attorneys has jumped from 3-30%. And yet, women today make up a paltry 17% of the partnership pool, and firms are hemorrhaging female attorneys at an unprecedented rate. 

 

The horizon looks rather dim for Gen Y women who are starting to map out their legal careers. Female law students browsing the latest facebook may take comfort in the fact that at least half of their classmates are women. Some might even expect to see a comparable number of female partners roaming the halls of their new firm. Unfortunately, firms have failed to promote and retain talented women for decades, and so it’s hard to chalk up the dearth of female success stories to a “pipeline problem.” After a generation of women blazed a trail across the threshold of the legal profession, why are so many women still locked out of the upper echelon of law firms? And what pressure can students and young attorneys bring to bear on the profession so as to push law firms into the twenty-first century?

 

 

In the 1980s, women barely had one foot on the corporate law firm ladder when increased competition triggered a significant shift in the legal profession that stymied their progress toward partnership. Firms that had previously depended on a steady stream of work from loyal corporate clients suddenly found themselves vying with other firms to keep their old clients and foster relationships with new ones. As business development became a major concern, firms sought out the rainmakers, or those attorneys with networking skills who could bring in new clients. Attorneys who had made it to partner the old-fashioned way—through consistent, high quality work—also faced pressure to build their books of business. But unlike new associates, they already had a plush, comfortable seat at the table. 

 

Firms began urging all new associates to learn the ropes of business development early on, but rainmaking posed a particular challenge for women who had just reached the bottom rung of the law firm hierarchy. Their male counterparts could rely on a century-old boys’ club, but women had little access to senior mentors. Since associates depend on mentors who can introduce them to valuable clients and go to bat for them during the review process, women without connections had a much harder time securing substantive work or promotion.   

 

 

When female law students start obsessing over the 3L “baby window,” you know there’s a problem with the legal career track. Associates in corporate law firms are generally expected to trudge through about eight years of fierce billable hours before becoming eligible for partner. From about year five on, associates are under stricter review, and so there’s even more pressure to rack up face time at the firm.   

 

With a J.D. in hand at the age of twenty-five, even the youngest (and childless) female grads with brass ring aspirations cannot plan on having a family until they reach thirty-five. As a twenty-six-year-old 1L hoping to have a family and a successful career, I’m beginning to realize that something has got to give. Breaking down the door of the lock-step, up-or-out law firm may have been the conquest of our mothers’ generation, but Gen Y law students and associates have a new law firm structure on our hands.

 

Because firms are locked in a race for higher profits per partner as a measure of their prestige, they have become adept at squeezing attorneys out of their partnership ranks. The “of counsel,” “special counsel,” “senior associates,” “income partners,” and “non-equity partners” may enjoy an array of exciting new titles, but they rarely have a vote on firm matters, they are kept from the spoils when the books close at the end of the year, and their jobs are less secure. While these “options” have been set forth as providing women with greater “choice,” women approaching their mid-thirties who are steered to a non-equity parking lot might beg to differ. 

 

Instead of new titles, both women and men are seeking a new structure that is amenable to their aspirations as lawyers and family members. If feeling entitled to a career and a family makes us the “entitlement generation,” then we may as well embrace that moniker.

 

           

After a generation of women made their way through the legal profession, a Gen Y female associate with four years of college, a couple years of work experience, and three years of professional school under her belt might expect to find a professional working environment free of college antics on her first day of work. For Skadden associates staring down their first BigLaw billable year, the bar must have been drastically lowered the day they clicked on a link to a new blawg called skaddeninsider.com and saw their photos under the headline “Hottest Female Associate Contest.” 

 

If we take the female associate facing (1) lower prospects of finding a mentor (2) a ten year wait after having missed the 3L “baby window” (3) a part-time policy that no one has ever actually used (4) an office filled with male partners and female “of counsel” and non-equity partners and throw in (5) an anonymous law firm blog dedicated to turning new female associates into pin-ups, it’s easy to understand why firms are “hemorrhaging” female associates.

Billables:

 

Instead of pushing for higher salaries, which is translated as increased billable hours, less mentoring, and lower promotional prospects, why not trade a little cash for some quality time?

 

Part time, flex time:

 

Firms may tout their “tailor made” part-time policies but attorneys rarely take advantage of them because they are forced to come forward with their own scheduling needs. Attorneys are more likely to take advantage of concrete part-time policies.

 

Students should know which firms have promoted associates to partner while on part-time.

Emphasize to firms that both men and women are equally concerned about work-life balance.

 

Mentoring:

 

Not all female associates are seeking a female mentor. Also, given the fact that only one in five partners is female, they should not be expected to forego business development in order to usher in new associates. 

 

There seems to be some discomfort among male partners regarding mentoring female associates. This could be a holdover from the discomfort with women in the profession in general, and I am curious as to how female associates feel about it.

 

Maternity/Paternity Leave:

 

I was happy to find a maternity leave ranking on abovethelaw.com. Maybe this is a sign that students and associates are not focused only on the salary rankings.