When will Ropes & Gray correct the gender imbalance in its junior partner ranks and make more men partner?

I'm surprised to hear this from GD&C.

Thanks for the great article, KH.

THe real news is the number of TRANSGENDER partners -- NONE!

Amen to that

I could make more lickin anus's than partners at most of these firms!

Ex-Emporer Club girl

has it occured to anyone there are less qualified women available to make partner?!

TTT firms make less female partners -- SHOCKING@!

This is meaningless without the numbers of male/female up for partner and the the number of male/female that could have been up for partner.

It is meangingless no matter what -- and UNimportant

I think this proves once and for all: men are better suited for partnership in today's legal environment. Feminism (pick a wave) was a failure and set us back 30 years behind muslim and european countries.

Why props to the firms that discriminate against men? And how about a comparison of hours? It would not be an absolute measure but at least a decent indicator.

3:54, it's "fewer" - not "less."

what are the chances of 08 grads having their offers revoked?

What should really shock people is the numbers of people making partner regardless of sex.

STB - 6 people
Shearman - 6
CWT - 2

There are 500+ law firms with typically 1st classes of 50+ people. So given attrition through class years you have about 1 in 25 chance last year at CWT.

"I'm surprised to hear this from GD&C."

You mean the firm that famously offered Justice O'Connor a job as a legal secretary after her graduation from Stanford? Yeah, shocking.

Layoffs? Anyone? EAPD? It's Friday afternoon, what's the Word?

love this post--thanks for it.

Milbank seems to be falling apart! No work, no female partners, what's next?

Who cares -- most women who actually work hard make partner while most men who actually work hard don't. problem is that most women don't work hard. those that do make partner. does anyone really think that firms are going to pass over qualified women for partner so they can be skewed in the media for it? on the other hand, pass over a qualified white guy, who cares, he only has a family to feed and has busted his butt for 8 years, but whatever, no help on the NALP form from him.

I like this chick. Thanks Lat.

4:09: The tiniest violins are playing their saddest little songs just for you.

wonder if the firms like dorsey and simpson that have done well have implemented AA plans

At least with the glass ceiling you can see up skirts...

4:09: You're totally right. The world sucks right now for educated white men. Geesh! I' mean, it's not like the good ol' days when you could go to work, climb the corporate ladder, harrass your secretary, take 3-martini lunches, play golf in the afternoon and make partner by 30. What is this world coming to? Women don't need to make partner, they need to be at home raising their kids. Next thing you know, those uppity women are going to think they can be president or something!

Honest question... when you look at partner ranks, which sex is more likely to be represented in the "doesn't belong in partnership" group

EAPD layoffs???

These are the problems that happen when you lawyers start trying to do math. Let's count the holes:

1. These numbers are meaningless without knowing the male/female breakdown in the pool of partner candidates. E.g. if 75% of the people up for partner were male, it shouldn't be a problem that 75% of the new partners were male.

2. A lot of these sample sizes are too small to conclude anything

3. One sample size that wouldn't be too small would be a total breakdown across all firms surveyed. Of course, the article leaves that out, probably because it would destroy whatever trend the author is trying to demonstrate.

I could go on but this post is getting too long. Bottom line: stick with law. If you're like most lawyers, you gave up math in early college if not high school.

4:18: how clever and original. How would you like it if your sense of entitlement was eroded by some made-up group of "has nots" that decides what you "have" should be theirs. You would likely be bitching up a storm. People rail against inequality -- whether they are gaining or losing something in the equation. Harkening back to 1950's does not advance the debate and shows your intellect to be that of the level of "woman".

10/15 is 66.66%, not 71%.

I am a female associate, and will be up for partner in the next couple years. I think that most of the men that are in my group will make it, and I will not (absent a helping hand). The reason is I am more likely to skip out to take care of a sick child or loved one. I am more likely to be compassionate towards junior associates and strive for a work life balance. I have to help my husband (who is wheelchair bound) with ordinary daily tasks in the morning and evening. I am a great attorney with adoring clients -- but I cannot give 110% to the firm like many of my male counterparts. If someone is willing to sacrifice everything to get ahead -- the firm should pick them -- it would be unfair to pick me over a deserving man --based on sex. It is actually silly and poor business. I would be content with of counsel role -- like many women are opting for. Of counsel gives the woman many of the same responsibilities and work without the billing pressures.

AMEN to that, 4:21.

I would love to find a woman that could make partner and let me live in Westchester as a stay-at-home dad. Unfortunately that trade-off was not made available when firms opted for AA programs to advance women. How much feminity survives a woman's rise through a law firm? These "women" are usually hard-drinking, ball busters that you would not want to see naked.... which is why I chose public service.

E. Spitzer

Re: EAPD layoffs, look at the comments on the earlier post. It seems there were layoffs but not in the numbers predicted.

Several have commented on the "meaninglessness" of the numbers. If all women associates see is that no women make partner, how many will stick around for the decision. Creating an environment that is hostile for women so that they leave prior to a partnership decision is just as bad as not making them partner in the year that they are up for it. You can measure attrition along the way or in the final step. In eitehr case it gets you to the same end point. Women leave at a far higher rate than do men. Clearly, something is broken.

ps. 4:20, your call for "math" is a bit trite and completely irrelevant. If you do dispute the analysis, that is one thing, but in points 1 and 3 you assume that you already know the answer, and in point 2 you make a baselss assertion on sample size. You are an idiot. Go back to high school.

Um, 4:20 (snicker), just because the analysis has statistical holes doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Even without knowing the sex of the candidate pool, we know at least one of the following is likely true: (1) the firm is less likely to extend partnership to women, (2) the firm hires fewer female associates, (3) women don't tend to remain at the firm. See, the data is useful!

Further, the sample sizes aren't too small. A sample size of 30+ is ideal for the result to have optimal power, but the results are still statistically significant.

Conclusion, you are dumb.

4:18,

Amen, I second that. Stupid NALP.
Q: Why don't women need drivers' licenses?
A: There are no roads between the kitchen and the bedroom.

Looks like not everyone is a winner at Nixon Peabody

Should firms change?

If the typical woman wants to take time to have a kid or two -- and raise them-- should the FIRM have to change to accomodate them? How is that fair to the male who works LONG hours, and never gets materinity leave.

The problem with women and firms is maternity leave. If a woman forgoes child-birth/rearing, she is more likely than any man to make partner. If you are a lesbian woman, with no interest in children, you have a 100% chance of making partner if you want it.

Power to my sisters!

"For those of you flirting with a career move from lawyering to screenplay-writing, think: Charlize Theron fighting her way to partnership at Fried Frank, à la North Country."

1. Law firms and iron mines are probably more similar than you might think.

2. Is it any surprise that a firm named "Fried Frank" is a sausage-fest?

Equity = I do 75% of the work, you do 25% - I get 3/4ths of pie you get 1/4th

Equality = I do 75% of the work, you do 25% - we each get 1/2.

If you have kids and have to leave at 3:30 and want time off for child rearing and whatever, then you don't get to be partner. Period.

Should there be efforts made to have more fat or ugly people made partner? Because there is data to suggest that those people systematically earn less money too. Of course, plenty of people get fat once they become partner.

4:34 -- you are a COMPLETE MORON... sitting in air conditioned office pushing paper is not even REMOTELY comparable to mining. You make 5-10 times as much as the average miner (that has not been laid off), pay no union dues, have no real threat of serious injury at work, have no massive threat of being outsourced or mine closing. You are not at the whim of a declining (auto, industrial) US industries. You do not have clueless managment that have never done your jobs (usually partners started as associates). You are not hampered with safety issues that don't protect you, and unprotected by the remainder of lapses. I am so upset I can barely type. I was a FOURTH generation miner and opted for law school after a few years underground. YOU ARE A MORON--with hands as soft as a baby's bottom! I would like to put a pick axe (no we don't use these anymore) through your keyboard!

Total chick post. Grow up.

4:25, underneath all the greed, politicized complaining, and mindless allgeiances to identity politics is the much more important question of what makes a good person. Assuming what you said is true, you certainly qualify. It seems to me like you're doing more good in the world than someone who cranks out 2100 billables alongside 100 pro bono hours.

4:25, pretending that you're serious and not a dude smurfing, do you really think all those guys "give 110%" and that your firm treats their time off like your time off? Think again. Probably if one of the guys goes to his kid's softball game, he's seen as a hero, whereas if you go to take care of your husband, oh no, mommy track for you, you're not a team player. Been there, done that, assholes will always find an excuse to pretend they're shutting you out on merit.

4:20: I agree the numbers would be more meaningful if we knew the male/female breakdown in the partner pool, but the numbers presented here are far from meaningless. Even if there are few females in the candidate pool, that, too, says something to me about the firm.

As an associate and mother of a small child, I would like to be in that pool someday. I work hard. I am not the top biller at the firm, but I do bill a significant amount, and, more importantly, I do good work. So far, my firm has enabled me to leave the office at an hour when my child is still awake and spend some time with him before he goes to bed. Then I log back on and work from home. This is the only way I have been able to bill as many hours as I do. And I believe this is the reason that the quality of my work is so high--because I am happy that I can work it out with both my family and my career.

The bottom line is that if the firm couldn't be flexible enough for me to make it work as a mom and a hardworking associate, I wouldn't stick around long enough to be in that candidate pool of potential partners. So, in my view, when a firm does not have a good-sized pool of female associates up for partner, they don't get a pass for not making more female partners. Rather, they deserve to be on a different list of shame.

4:39, what, you couldn't cut it in the hole for more than "a few years?" You, Zoolander, are a disgrace to your family.

4:32, I agree totally. In the good old days, you could slap a female employee at work and it was a compliment. Now, it's a lawsuit.

Q. Why don't women need watches?
A. There's a clock on top of the stove.

You really can't explain some of those numbers without sex discrimination. Enough said.

"good" does not get paid... in fact the "good" are the public servants and they get nothing... only the greedy and those that can take what is rightfully theirs will be paid. The rest will be reading "the Secret", typing blogs, and whining about identity politics.

I have your equity...now lick my balls!

I think we're focusing on the symptoms instead of the real problem. As other posters have said, you can't blame a firm for choosing the associates who are willing to sacrifice everything (i.e., their families) to slave away at the firm to make partner. But, you can blame society for expecting and encouraging males to be the ones to sacrifice their families for their careers, while expecting and encouraging females to be the ones to sacrifice their careers for their families. The result, as is clear from this thread, is that each group resents the other and an individual who chooses not to follow that path is mocked. I wish that we could encourage and expect both genders to share in both aspects of life equally. Yes, men have babies and family obligations, too, and women have career aspirations, too. Why we can't realize this and work it out is beyond me...

How do these folks know who is going to make parnter at K&E this year? They claim the 2008 numbers reflect only 2008 effective dates for partnership.

K&E non-share partner class is elevated effective October 1 (says so right on the press release, available on the website). Making fundamental mistakes like that causes me to question all of the data.

There are a lot of ex-Steelworkers and Miners at Penn Law -- that is steel/mining country up in the Nittany!

er. whoever is complaining about maternity leave. some biglaw firms have paternity leave that is equal to maternity leave, even though guys don't go through labor. and statistically, a majority of women do not use the full extent of their maternity leave.

Look, I love this blog. I am a trader at a bulge-bracket bank. There are ZERO women on my trading desk. We have tried for years -- but women simply cannot hack the stress and hours. There ARE women on the floor that have survived -- but these "women" are HARD, and tougher than most men. They cuss like sailors, exude power, and will slap you with their cock. The younger girls better be hot, if they hope for anyone to notice. Bottom-line: Firms are low stress environments, and lawyers are bigger sissies, and risk averse -- your typical male associate wets his pants when he accidently gets off the elevator on the trading floor. I for one would prefer my attorneys be female -- so start hiring females and making them partner. HAHAH that is hilarious -- I can make lawyers jump through hoops during the day and their entire CAREER! Most bankers find a cute young lawyer and marry her and take her off career track.

Stats like this have no meaning. You need to compare it with How many women vs. men are there that are eligible/considered for partner????

Out of all the eligible/considered women for partner, who deserves it?

How many women/men are there at a firm?

What's the ratio of women/men who are lawyers?

4:32 - your math skillz leave a lot to be desired. Without more information than what is posted above it is impossible to determine statistical significance. You would need to know the makeup of the candidates considered - and even that would be dodgy to use in making the point, since it would be impossible to control for people that were considered only because of their gender. Furthermore, your three possibilities are not the only ones - rendering even those conclusions invalid. This could be an outlier year (a real statistical test would tell you that). There are of course other possibilities, but i'll leave it there - your skillz are such, i'm sure you can figure out some others...

4:39 - no real threat of serious injury at work? You should see the paper cut I got yesterday. It started to heal today, but it's still kine of red around the cut.

4:39 - no real threat of serious injury at work? You should see the paper cut I got yesterday. It started to heal today, but it's still kind of red around the cut.

um, 4:51, do "some" biglaw firms really have paternity leave equal to maternity leave? Really? Well that's great. However, the overwhelming majority don't.

Further, both maternity AND paternity leave should be eliminated. Either extended, paid leave should be granted to everyone for any reason, or no one should get it.

4:51: You think there is a SINGLE partner made up this year ... that took PATERNITY LEAVE for more than two weeks? Or worked half-time (or no time) leading up to pregnancy or after birth to recover?! Or came back bloated and obese?!

Paternity leave is a FOOLS ERRAND! Pick it over partnership. Your kids will ruin your career -- men are finding this "trap" that women have known all along. Why do you think the French stopped having kids?! They are enlightened!

4:54,

you're either an awesome troll or a cartoon of a human being.

454 is every JD/MBA I know that went to bank over law firm. I hate my life.

Wow, I am by no stretch of the imagination a feminist (I could care less about these numbers, for instance), but this is a ridiculous string of comments. Who are all these angry, self-righteous male lawyers? I don't ever want to work with them. Further, I find it hilarious that these same guys are probably all pro-women/pro-equality in public and yet are willing to be totally insulting and rude and barbaric anonymously. It's telling, because I know for damn sure that I never encounter statements like these in actual conversations with the men I work with. Bottom line: you are all pathetic. If you feel this way, have the hutzpah to actually voice these opinions rather spew petty insults on a website.

Oh, and Piesplitting - that never happens. Women who can't work the requried number of hours go part-time and don't make as much money.

Secondly, what you are all forgetting is that the reason so many women have more child rearing responsibilities than you do is because they are married to workaholic, misogynistic crazy people like all of you, who refuse to pitch in and do their fair share.

The work style that men have become accustomed to over the years (i.e., sacrificing personal life and family life for thier career) isn't the only successful model out there. A person can be smart, work hard, and add value to a firm even if they don't bill 70 hours a week.

Does penis size effect a (male) partnership prospect?

4:54 - I'm in the same job as you - we have ONE woman on my desk, and she scares me a lot. Strangely, I have never been harrassed by her - but have seen her send off countless female interns in tears in the time i've been here. Kind of like I feel after watching my stock price move impossibly further every day from my option strike...

5:01 could use a little "shocker"...

shock the shocked

It would be interesting to see a study done on the average billable hours worked by childless women associates versus childless male associates. Based on my unscientific observations that would really help us understand the gender discrepancy in partnership decisions.

5:01 is a fake troll -- half the woman-hating comments are posted by women on this board. Women are more catty and abusive than men. Men are so beat-down and wimpy nowadays... get real!

a REAL woman.

4:21 you are a sad little man, and obviously not a very smart one. Is your sense of entitlement being eroded by women making partner, or your actual entitlements? Unless you have actually been passed over by a woman whose work quality is sub-par to yours, then only your perception of your entitlements is in danger of erosion.

As for the "made up group of 'has nots'" - I think you mean "have nots" and the last time I checked, women are real and not made up.

And your comment, -- Harkening back to 1950's does not advance the debate and shows your intellect to be that of the level of "woman". -- advances the the debate quite a bit, so I stand corrected!

5:02 - not sure what you are trying to say there, tough guy.

4:57, on second thought, you're right.

where is anonymouse when we need her - she'd straighten you turds out...

what this board needs is more sockpuppets argueing with themselves...

I think 5:02 I was referring to the "shocker" -- a popular technique used during sex, involving the penetration of various holes using a unique combination of fingers. You sometimes see college cheerleaders making reference to the hand gesture before commercial breaks. I suspect it was a reference to the further debasement of women, and yet another set back to any remnant of a feminist movement decimated by a disgraced govenor and his celebrated prostitute.

Can we continue this discussion at a midtown bar?

SHOCKED - maybe this is why you are so stressed! A shocker is when someone puts his or her pinkey in your butt and his or her middle 3 finers in your delecate flower. He or she will then stimulate your quivering clit with his or her thumb. The result is pleasure

We need a gender-neutral pronoun just as badly as SHOCKED needs a shocker!

See - I knew she would know...

Jelly donut?

514: I just mouth puked... too much detail for a "law blog". I am going to have to find some sweet heart to "toss my salad" while I "shock" her!!! The things I have learned this week...

with sprinkles!

5:12: how about at the board of ETHICS. except, that is downtown!

Cleveland Steamer?

Dirty Sanchez?

"I'm surprised to hear this from GD&C."

The Gibson numbers are off by a bit, but even by these numbers, the class in 2006 was 2/3 women. Small sample size problem.

Ah, that's mature. I hope, for the sake of humanity, that whoever posted that is twelve.

More likely, and sadly, you are an attorney, and have an edumacation and everything.

Hot Lunch...

What about a Superman? Where the guy creams all over his partner's back and then uses the manglue to stick a sheet on it. Hilarity ensues!

small sample size problem eh? hm. so size really does matter?

"A person can be smart, work hard, and add value to a firm even if they don't bill 70 hours a week."

Sure they can. They just don't add sufficient value to make them a partner. Large NYC law firms do not exist to provide a balanced existance; they exist to make as much money for the partners as they possibly can. If you want balance, try a different firm.

5:20 just made me laugh so hard I burst a blood vessel in my eye ball...

Whatever sexual activities I do or don't engage in should not be the subject of debate here. If I knew who you were, I'd slap you upside the head. But wait - that's why you give yourself permission to be such an asshead. Because this is anonymous.

Also, I'd guess the people giving sexual activities moronic nicknames are likely the ones NOT engaging in said sexual activities.

THERE ARE NEW PICS OF SPITZER WOMAN ON NYPOST!!! SEMI NUDE!

For the sake of men (or women, if that's her thing) everywhere, I hope and pray that "shocked" is just trolling.

Interesting that someone complaining about anonymous posters choses to remain anonymous herself.

shocked - you're right we shouldn't be debating your sex life here. Kash, can you start a separate thread on shocked's sex life, please?

Shocked - you desperately need ATM.

"Dorsey & Whitney (10 of 15 new partners are female, for 71%),"

Who taught you math?

SHOCKED - why so much resistence to the shocker? Are you afraid of your vagina? And why so much anger? Obvisously, were you to slap me upside the head, I would press charges. Finally, there are plenty of perfectly valid arguments and insults at your disposal aside from suggesting that I don't get laid. I do, so the argument just makes you look like you're projecting.

Finally, I'm having trouble finding a partner for a serious, long term relationship. Do you have any ideas why?

First, who are you people? I'd seriously like to know. I hope you are some smelly perverts living in your mothers' basements and not people I will ever have to actually work with.

As for being a troll, I'm just someone who browses this website to check on news about my firm, who happened to catch a glimpse of the crap being posted here, and was disgusted. I've never commented on this site, but I was seriously offended by some of this stuff. Not even as a woman, just as a person with some dignity and class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the troll label usually reserved for people who post offensive and childish things? Not people who actually have something to say? I can't imagine that the purpose of this blog is to stir up comments like those above.
5:31 - what should I do, post my name and address? I'd say every single thing I've said here to anyone who asked me; I'm not purposely hiding. I don't even think I've said anything outrageous. My point was that if these are actually professionals posting this nonesense, they'd never have the balls to say these things in a real life conversation.
Again, I'm absolutely not a hardened feminist. I'm actually a conservative, and like to think I can take a joke and not get too riled up about these women's issues. But I gotta say, I've never encountered anything like what's posted above. I don't know if that says something about men, or lawyers, or what, but it really bothered me and I said something. So if that makes me a troll, I'm a troll.

What about the over representation of African Americans in basketball? Must be racism right? Get real. Working in biglaw sucks. These partnership numbers, alone, are meaningless for showing a lack of diversity.

4:47 thank you for one of the only sane comments i have ever read on this website

also, does anyone really think this isn't true?:

"Secondly, what you are all forgetting is that the reason so many women have more child rearing responsibilities than you do is because they are married to workaholic, misogynistic crazy people like all of you, who refuse to pitch in and do their fair share."

you think most ambitious women actually choose to jump off the career path to look after their kids, or are pressured to bc of societal expectations and the way that child leaves are structured?

also, does anyone really think this isn't true?:

"Secondly, what you are all forgetting is that the reason so many women have more child rearing responsibilities than you do is because they are married to workaholic, misogynistic crazy people like all of you, who refuse to pitch in and do their fair share."

you think most ambitious women actually choose to jump off the career path to look after their kids, or are pressured to bc of societal expectations and the way that child leaves are structured?

hottie guest-blogger to comment c******fuck!

um, SHOCKED, we are highly educated, biglaw attorneys making hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. So no basements for me.

Personally, I don't give a fuck how disgusted you are. I imagine, however, that you thrive on disgust given that you are a conservative. So you're welcome.

5:54, child leaves are structured differently from adult leaves?

Yup, shocked is too over the top to not be posting in jest, hoping to get a rise out of someone (i.e., she's a troll).

Women in the workplace are often less valuable economic units due to the near-universal desire to have children and then care for them. This takes away hours, which decreases profitability. It's not sexist; it's realist. Get over it and stop whining ladies.

Equality of opportuntity shouldn't be confused with a guarantee of equality of result.

Shocked - I am a lawyer, am way more successful and intelligent than you, and I think you should be fired immediately because you are way too uptight and sheltered to deal with the businessmen that we represent...you belong in academia, where you can muse about these things all day long...grow up, if you can't handle the posts on this blog, you are not qualified to work in biglaw...and women who work less hours and do not bring in business should absolutely never make partner over a man who works more hours and brings in more business...

5:56 - you certainly are being hostile. And why? What is your problem? I expressed an opinion about the topic at hand and someone started spewing out offensive comments about my sex life. I have a reason to be pissed - because I don't think that was called for. What's your reason?

Of course you don't give a fuck about how disgusted I am. I'd venture to say that you probably don't give a fuck about much besides your bank accounts and ego.

And thank you for giving us all information about what you make every year - I gained so much respect for you right there. You must be a really worthwhile human being.

And with that, I'll let all you winners carry on wtihout me. It's a warm Friday in Chicago and I've got much more interesting things to do than sit here and bicker with this insecure man-child.

Why would anyone be pissed about what anonymous people say about his or her sex life?

oh, right, Shocked would.

Girls at my high school used to get promoted because of bullshit affirmative action programs all the time. It was no big deal.

To Bankers-that-read-this-site:
Re: your lack of skillz forecasting the fiscal, I hope you ea $hit and die.
Now it costs me $3 to fill up.

Why can't women just admit that they are inferior?

Very few women are willing to make the sacrifices it takes to become and remain a partner at a big law firm, relative to men.

Disparity explained. Move along.

4:54 - I'll jump through any hoops you would like, for $500/hour.

8:34, 4:54 is halfway up the page. If you can't make a timely comment, then just chillax. He's not reading this anymore.

it seems like the traits that make a successful lawyer are paranoia, emotional detachment, adversarialness, competitiveness, aggression, and a desire to do analytical mind numbing work.

maybe women don't have those traits as much?

9:35 - I think you have confused lawyers with spies.

Um, why do traders read this blog? Get back to work!

6:44 it only costs you $3 to fill up. That is one small tank.

The best thing about feminism for guys is that professional men can now respectably spend time with the kids. Anyone who choses partnership over spending time with his/her kids is a fn idiot. I can't claim to know whether it is possible to make partner and be a real family man. As an associate, it is pretty hard to find interesting work, stay on the payroll and fulfill the work responsibilities to support the family, and fight to have time to spend with them. It might be even harder as a partner. But I can always get another job if I have to (even if it pays less, etc). But I will never have this time back. And I certainly don't want my kids raised by speedo guy.

Most female partners at my BigLaw firm are total **tches. I hope firms continue to make fewer and fewer female partners. Once she is no longer young, hot, and nice, she should be moved to secretary.

Well making partner is all going to seem so silly as the economy crumbles. I wonder if "trader" above is about to be laid off?

Guys, you don't make partner as a reward for 8 to 10 years of hard work as an associate. Do you really think that is how it works? You make partner because the firm thinks you have a chance of being a big time rain maker. Now often the firm is wrong. But still they are hoping that you will continue to bill 2,500 hours and do client development as a partner. Women, in general, do not seem as interested in making a lot of money. That is just my experience with the women associates I know. So are they really going to be cranking out the billable hours for the 15 years or so it takes to become a real leader in their field?
Most of the big firms have enough data that they can tell you on the first day an associate walks in what the difference in expected profitability is between a male associate and a female associate. (Keep in mind, that number is most influenced by the number of years before you depart, not the number of hours you bill in any given year.) They also can tell you what the difference in billable hour generation there is between their male partners and female partners. I suspect that women don't do well in either comparison. As associates because turnover by female associates is sooner on average than for the guys. And as partners because the women with social skills get married and don't focus on their careers as much. Now, the women without social skills bill huge hours (all they have are cats waiting for them at home, so why go there), but they aren't able to get new clients very well.
All generalizations. I'd love to see more female partners and I'd like to see the profession more aligned to female needs. But that means taking a different approach to profitability. And that will take some industry changes.