Can Remote Access Help Firms Make Female Partners?
There are firms that want to make more female partners (and minority partners for that matter), but honestly do not know how to make that happen. Retaining top female associates through a couple of years of around 3,000 billable hours is just difficult, especially if those women want to have a family.
Over on the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones explores the female partner problem facing Clifford Chance:
The issue was the topic of an interesting article this week in the UK’s The Lawyer. The focus of the article was Clifford Chance, which has pledged to increase its percentage of female partners to 30 percent.As the Lawyer reports, however, “the firm has a long way to go.” Currently, only 15 percent of its partnership is female.
The Lawyer article explains that there is no quick fix to the problem:
“There’s no one thing that will solve the problem,” says Childs. “There’s no quick fix. It’s a long-term goal that we’re very focused on. It’s something that all firms face and there are many ways you can approach it.”Aggressively pursuing a dramatic increase in female partners is problematic, Childs argues. Firms need to find creative ways to change their cultures and encourage females to strive for partnership.
Give Clifford Chance some credit here. You aren’t going to fix this issue without confronting it head on.
While firms contemplate their cultural impediments to dramatic growth in female partnership , Patricia Gillette — who is a partner at Orrick — sees one simple change that could make eating the hours a little easier for all attorneys.
Writing for Am Law Daily, Gillette wants to see firms embrace remote access as a way to help attorneys balance their work with their personal lives:
[T]he President quite often takes time out of his work day for “family time.” Then he returns to work later in evening.Women lawyers—albeit without the support on the homefront the President has—have been doing this for years: Interrupting their work day to insert “family time” and then finishing work later. But this down time in the traditional work day often puts these lawyers in the category of part-time attorneys or requires an agreed upon “alternative work schedule,” both of which carry the stigma of not being committed.
Having the ability to work from home can allow a person to efficiently switch between professional responsibilities and domestic chores. As Gillette explains, this is something women and men should be clamoring for:
However, in our new world where technology enables nearly everything, it is time for law firm leaders to acknowledge and embrace the fact that employees can access information and provide good counsel from almost anywhere. And that makes working remotely viable for anyone, regardless of gender. Gen Yers grew up with this virtual reality and as they become a larger proportion of our workforce, they will expect different work structures and work spaces.
When you think of law firm traditions that are outmoded (like perhaps, lavish summer programs) is there really a more dated concept than “face time”?
Not everybody will chose to work remotely (personally, I don’t like writing while my dog is flinging tennis balls in my direction). But there are very few business reasons for law firms to keep people tied to a desk downtown.
Remote Control [Am Law Daily]
Childs: percentage of female partners at CC is ‘not good enough’ [The Lawyer]
More Female Partners: A Noble Goal, but How to Get There? [WSJ Law Blog]
(163) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
hai #1
hai #2
Why do we need to force the situation to make female partners? How has diversity in the work force really effected your ability to bill clients? Affirmative action, whether based on gender or race, disadvantages the productive members of society.
Haha.. Female partners = oxymoron
I've got a plan: since women's brains have only about 40% of the capacity men's brains possess, slash female billable hour requirements by a proportionate amount. In addition to increasing the number of female partners, this plan will also help prevent clients from having to pay for hours where women were spazzing out on the rag or babbling incoherent female nonsense.
All women are dilatory, inane, and certainly penurious
Everyone favors gender equality and balancein the work place. Consider the fact that women will soon make up the majority of law school graduates. Thus, law firms need to enforce "facetime" requirements and discourage flexible workplace arrangements so that women are periodically forced out. This alone will maintain the balance between men and women at law firms. Without these rigid policies, male partners would become rare in the legal profession over time.
5 = best comment ever.
It seems to me that the fact that woman can compete with men, but with "only about 40% of the capacity," speaks far worse of men than it does of women. Do men need more brain mass than women just to be equal?
I think 3's got it right. There aren't many female partners because they aren't willing to make the commitment men have been making for decades. If you want to crap out a kid, that's your choice. But don't come bitching when you can't get partner because of it.
I'm sorry. In what sense is there a "problem" here? If the firm wants face time, that's its prerogative. Women associates come in knowing what it takes to become partner. They either go for it or they don't. The ones who go for it meet with an apparently sympathetic audience.
woman here, and I have to admit that I think "remote access" is BS. If you need "remote access" in order to watch your kids, then you're not focused on your job. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Well, at least you shouldn't be able to.
I think 9 might be a bit to slow to grasp the situation. But don't worry 9. There's plenty of kitchen for you to clean, and you don't need to be smart to do it.
"Without these rigid policies, male partners would become rare in the legal profession over time. "
The white male partners will always find a way to come out on top, and to promote more white pale partners.
ya gotta do 'em in the butt. in da butt!
If more female associates would do anal, they'd have fewer unplanned children. That would allow them to go to work rather than staying home.
More anal = more female partners
What what?
If face time is "dated" and useless, why not outsource everything?
Additionally, family time should only delay a partnership track, not eliminate it. After a certain age kids do not need to be supervised 24/7. Get them involved in athletics, and they'll be gone just as long as you during the school year. After they can drive, you just need to know where they are; you don't need to be with them (nor do they want you with them).
Finally, why is it so horrible that some women have to give up any thoughts of making partner if they decide to have children? Parents should sacrifice for their children; mother and father. Women know what they are getting into. I know plenty of men who have given up certain jobs in order to spend more time with their children.
Wow. If there was ever a reason to stop reading ATL, the comments on this post have provided at least 10 good ones.
Actually 13 might be a bit to slow to grasp the situation. But don't worry 13. There's plenty of lawns to mow, and you don't need to be smart to do it.
Technology doesn't enable nearly everything. It doesn't enable good working relationships, for example.
If you create a class of people with special privileges, it means the people who don't have them -- who have to do such quaint things as showing up for work -- will have more dumped on them. Enough is enough. A quarters of a year's salary for having each baby and doing nothing for the firm is enough.
This post is addressed to Commenter #6:
While many women are dilatory, and an even greater number are inane, they are not unusually penurious as they have become quiet proficient at saddling up to hideous but obscenely wealthy men.
If more females gave me remote access to their ass, we would not have the asspounding problem that you see here today.
Foncusius
16 and 22 take the cake on this one.
1 - 11 = men . . . looks remarkably similar to the female - male ratio among law firm partners. Amazing!
I think most readers of ATL are quite simply incapable of discussing these topics intelligently. A post about remote access for female lawyers becomes an invitation to denigrate women. If the people making such comments are lawyers themselves, or even law students, then the profession is in terrible shape.
amen, 19
Another theme on here is clients billing about the billable hour (which as we all know encourages padding and outright fraud). I'd be skeptical about what I was getting for billed time with a baby crying or a little kid running around. (And yes, I know there are also distractions in the office, but they can generally be shut out.)
"More anal = more female partners"
Greatest. Comment. Ever.
Back when I was fratting it up in Ithaca, many of the frat-loving DGs, Kappas (and the occasional Pi Phi) would grant me "remote access" all the time. It was no big deal.
CORNELL FRAT STUD
Is @22 the Walrus?
20 isn't even smart enough to come up with an original insult. Instead, she borrowed most of 13's awesome manly insult.
Men > women
1969: "Let me work! I can do this job every bit as well as you can!"
2009: "Holy shit this is hard. Can you make this easier for me?"
16 wins
26 - I'm in excellent shape.
19- AMEN
not coming back to ATL
I am pounding my secretary in her ass right now!
Sheep Nailer
thank you, 26.
You know people, some men actually want to play a role in raising their children. Just a thought.
Remote access is the wave of the future for a number of reasons, not the least of which work-life balance.
Female anger is the weathervane of truth.
Dick Masterson
That is the perfect position for throat fucking.
UVA Stud
JaKe, it is really lame when your shtick has typos. ...."quiet proficient," doesn't "quite" make sense. You are a pussy, and I'm guessing a 1L. Summers were probably spent in Cape May, NJ, rather than Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard. Daddy must have told you how you should become a lawyer like his more affluent, influential friends. Suck it, and keep studying for that Contracts exam, kiddo!
As for the post, this doesn't really help anyone. "Remote Access" to your kids should be the priority. Make partner, make babies, find an au pair. Done.
"Make" female partners?
Is Mystal engaging in a bit of unwitting double entendre here?
Amen #33. I thought I was the only one who noticed that!
18: the comment about face time being dated is certainly inane. I knew Elie had written this article when I read it.
33 = ftw!
For a corporate attorney (especially finance), there is almost no reason to come to the office. If you have a good printer, scanner, etc., you can do everything from home, and I mean EVERYTHING. And, considering the amount of time you sit around waiting for stuff, being able to work from home would be great, and just as effective.
This post is addressed to Commenter #41:
As one of six people of consequence on ATL, I do not have the time to re-read or edit my posts before submitting them. As such, please forgive my typo. I am, however, glad that you are able to apply your elementary editing skills to my posts. Perhaps this will lead to a secratorial position at my preeminent peer law firm.
I summer in Dewey Beach.
Killer
33 wins the prize. And this is not limited to law firms.
female partners are WAY too old for Roman Polanski
26 has it. acting out on the internet is pretty common among men with a paralyzing fear of loss of privilege, even when that loss is nowhere near impending.
Hey JaKe, what kind of lawyer doesn't have a secretary to proof read? I know! One who isn't a lawyer and probably will never be referred to as being "of consequence," except by some ATL TTTrolls. Hahahaha and you made another typo!
JaKe doesn't have a secretary!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha
Dear Women who want to make partner,
Shut the fuck up and work.
-Partner
#46 -- you can't effectively supervise another lawyer working from home on a routine basis. You need to come in to do that.
People who work from home all the time create a lot of busy work for the people working under them. It's fine for secretaries, especially if their time isn't billed to clients. It's another thing for lawyers.
Hey, Cornell Frat Stud -- your horizons were too limited. The ladies at AEPhi and SDT would have treated you right, and there were no "holes" barred at IC, Cortland and Wells
I am a woman with a 4.0 at a T-10, and I have always said that things that make a firm a "good place to work for women" are the firms where the female lawyers don't put work first, and hence not a place where I want to work. If a woman isn't willing to sacrifice the time and parts of her life to make partner, she shouldn't make it, pure and simple. If she wants to have kids, so be it, just don't expect accommodation so that others have to pick up the slack left because you need to leave early (again!) because your kid is sick/needs to be picked up from school, etc.
in my opinion, fewer women become partner for several reasons:
1) even today, in most relationships, the bulk of the "child care - household" responsibilities will end up falling to the woman, regardless of whether both the husband and the wife work. maybe it just starts from the beginning because women are the ones nursing the babies and it all just fall into place from there. but look at any man who is a partner working 80 hour weeks, and i would bet 9 out of 10 times his wife is a SAHM. if more husbands were open to that, women would probably be able to balance work enough to make partner. [not to say that some men aren't willing to be stay at homes; but the simple reality is that both parents cannot work 14 hour days and raise a family unless you BOTH plan to never see your kids. something has to give.]
2) maybe women just don't seek the praise and prestige of partnership as much as men. thus it's not that women can't do it because it is difficult, as 33 so charmingly stated, but they just don't want to. women may be able to find fulfillment in things other than money (family, friends, relationships, etc) more easily than men. but i'm no pscyhologist.
with either of these reasons though, there's no reason for firms or any work places to try to maneuver women into partnership positions. instead it would make sense for these workplaces to provide the same options to men and women that would allow flexibility for family-time (and by the way, that does not mean flex time. sorry. being able to work 10 hour days, with a 2 hour break to give your kid a bath and put him to bed, then back for another 4 hours of work does not allow anyone to adequately spend time with the fam).
Quick answer to the headline: No.
"20 isn't even smart enough to come up with an original insult. Instead, she borrowed most of 13's awesome manly insult. "
Because no one has ever made a joke about a woman being in a kitchen, right?
56 is ugly and will devote her entire life to her career. Sounds like a good plan.
54: I actually disagree. On any given deal, I almost never have face to face interactions with those more senior or junior than I. Almost everything we do is over email, even if that involves a simple PDF with changes, which we'll hash out over the phone. Effective supervision can very easily be done at home, because supervision is rarely done in person anyway. Granted, if someone is either on my floor or close, I may come by to chat, but it's not necessary, just a way to remain social.
I think the point is not that women lawyers want the partner track to become easier, I think it's that firms want to convince women to stay on the track.
I know plenty of women who started at big law firms with every intention of quitting in 3-4 years to do something else (have kids, find a job with better life balance, whatever). It's not that they didn't have the ability to make partner, it's that they *never* had any intention of staying with the firm for very long.
Don't act like women are suddenly shocked around year 5-6 that working at a law firm is hard - they're not. They knew the entire time what they were getting into, and most of them simply planned an exit strategy years in advance. Oh, and guess what - men do the same thing, just in fewer numbers because men aren't usually the primary child caregiver.
If law firms want to change the current partner gender ratio situation, that's fine, but don't pretend that it's because a bunch of female associates started whining for it. They didn't.
I am the dude with the hungry ass in the last stall to the right, and I have always said that things that make restrooms a "good place to work for hungry asses" are the ones where the men just jump right in, and hence not a place where I want to work. If a man isn't willing to sacrifice the time and the bills in his wallet to be my partner, he shouldn't be, pure and simple. If he wants to have butt sex, so be it, just don't expect hand relief so that I have to rinse off the mess you left because you need to leave early (again!) because your kid is sick/needs to be picked up from school, etc.
16 really is clever. Like comment of the year clever.
Dear ATL,
You've just lost another female reader. You've allowed your site to become a forum for women-bashing. That's your choice. But don't try to present yourselves as representing the interests of the legal world.
I'm done with this site for good. I'm sure even daring to comment will invite a million comments about how I'm a bitch/dumb/etc. Go for it, I won't be here to read it.
S
Jesus Christ, 3000 hours billed?
who does that?
Jesus Christ, 3000 hours billed?
who does that?
It takes a special kind of person to make partner...namely one who sacrifices everything.
Being a "mom," taking time out for family, etc. does not mesh. I'm so sick of these firms attempting to lower the bar in the name of "diversity" so they can pack their ranks with a bunch of women and show off how progressive and PC they are.
65, don't kid yourself. You'll be back here tomorrow reading the same old ATL shit as usual.
65 - Not sure I see all the ridiculous woman-bashing you're talking about. Seems pretty tame sans a few exceptions.
Seriously, grow a pair.
Samwell, I am speechless.
Remote access is great for all lawyers, but its not the answer for this particular problem. I hate face time usual BS that goes along with it. But I'll readily acknowledge that I am always more productive at the office than at home. Anyone who has them knows kids (at least younger ones) are a consistent distraction at home. I've found that I can't effectively practice law while trying to keep an eye on my kids when working from home. And I can't shortchange clients like that. Maybe some lawyers can work like that, but I'm not one of them.
Productivity requirements, as opposed to location requirements, is the real issue here.
There's no "work-life balance" only a series of work-life choices you make every day, and the consequences that result.
68,
If nothing else just to be contrarian. What about other large companies? There are at least marginally more female senior executives at Fortune 500 companies. (20% ish as opposed to 12-15% in biglaw)
If we set aside the fact that firm culture expects obscene hours, what's intrinsically different between the two?
I am all for doing everything we can, including remote access and alternate work arrangements, to keep female attorneys in the practice. If it weren't for them, I would have to cheat with a bunch of gaggling secretaries who don't know how to keep their mouth shut and threaten sexual harassment lawsuits.
The comments on this thread show that states are not doing enough to examine the moral character of its bar applicants. The downright vulgarity displayed here is shameful and disgusting. It amazes me what people will write when you can do so "anonymously" -- although I bet most of you did not realize that nothing on the net is anonymous and your IP address -- hence, you -- can be connected to all your comments.
MEN--Don't fall for this crap!
We have a competitive advantage over women because we show up to work.
Why in the world would we give that up? Because we're stupid? Are they offering to be first to war in exchange? I think not.
Ah, 2nd year associate Republicans. So funny!
who are the morons that comment on this board? i would love to watch those responsible for the offensive comments to defend their comments to a their own male or female supervising attorneys
i summered at a firm where male AND female associates AND partners, using a remote access program, regularly worked from home for part or all of the day.
no one is suggesting that remote access enables you to watch the kids and work at the same time. it does enable you to leave the office at 3pm to pick your kids up from school, take them home, make dinner put them to bed at 8pm and then log another 4, 5, even 6 hours of work in your home office. that sounds painful, but many associates and partners of both sexes do this on a regular basis. i also have gotten the emails (not blackberry emails) with briefing revisions at 5am from the partner that's been up since 4am in his home office. all of this is done with remote access. many firms already use this system and will use it even more in the future.
Right on, 79!
picture above - symbolizing acrobatic difficulty of balancing between work and life?
76 = racist
Please post her IP address at once.
WOW. These comments are amazing. I thought this kind of bashing was kept on reserve for racial posts.
There should be a post on the rise of homosexuality in the legal profession, since clearly you all hate women.
54, how bad are you at your job that I have to supervise you in person? Most of what you're doing requires drafting or reviewing on a computer - we can talk about that and not be in the same room. If you need me, call me or email me. In fact, the only reason I really need to see you in person is to allow you to listen in on a conference call where I can't announce you - and even then, I can make that happen by dialing you in remotely, and then making you sit there on mute. Otherwise, I'd just invite you to the conference call like a big boy who can shut up and listen.
I work remotely almost 50% of the time. That probably doesn't work for a junior associate, because they don't know their @ss from their elbow, so they can't handle being 5 feet away from someone who actually knows what they're doing. I put in far longer hours than the 9-6'ers, my hours are high, my work is excellent, and my clients adore me. I've built up my credibility as a remote worker. I don't ask for explicit permission to work remotely because I don't work for a firm that can't understand technology and because I've more than proven myself to the firm and my clients. But I'm sure if I drafted up a written proposal asking to work 50% from home, some minion would freak out, because they have to assume that everyone is some 24-year old jerkoff who will just "bill" 8 hours daily at home watching ESPN and gaming. The trick to the Gen X/Y revolution will be to do good work on time, be in the office when it's necessary to be there, make strong connections with colleagues and clients, and make the accommodations that work for you while fully meeting your clients' needs. But, no, I don't have a kid.
83- Most men do. Why? Mostly because women think it's fun to like assholes and because women nag.
Stop that behavior and we'll talk.
This is addressed to all of the inane, dilatory shrews commenting on this thread:
Perhaps if you were from a preeminent peer family you could have attended a proper finishing school and spent your life indulging in the luxuries of older, more successful men. Instead, in a fit of wanting society to see you as more than a pretty face and a nice rack, you've shackled yourself to a life of premature wrinkling, mousey hair, unflattering attire, and a pointlessly futile future. Enjoy striving for that pathetic 5-series and week in Milan. I'll be sure to care what you think from the comfort of my Park Avenue condo. Or better yet, from the deck of Partner's new yacht.
16 FTW
86 - yeah, but you have to f- a wrinkly old guy. Ew.
Hey JaKe, what kind of lawyer doesn't have a secretary to proof read? I know! One who isn't a lawyer and probably will never be referred to as being "of consequence," except by some ATL TTTrolls. Hahahaha and you made another typo!
JaKe doesn't have a secretary!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha
#52,
Your position is flawed. What kind of lawyer has his secretary proofread blog comments? I find my secretary's time is much better spent on more pressing matters, such as picking up my dry cleaning or occasionally serving an afternoon stress relief.
I actually agree with 56 (and I'm not ugly, thanks).
As a female law student who does not want children, I'd rather go to work for a firm that is bad on "women's" (ie, mothers') issues. I don't want to be unfairly pegged as a breeder who is going to start popping out kids 3 years into employment, and if it weren't so socially unacceptable to willingly go childless ("Why do you hate children?!?! Your biological clock will start ticking soon, don't worry!"), I'd use it as a selling point in interviews.
77, are you suggesting that even one of you li'l wimpy boys would entertain "going to war"? Please. Leave fighting our wars to the real men and women of this country.
Male or female, you know what you are getting into when you start practicing law. As a female who has been doing this around the clock for 4 years, nothing ticks me off more than someone trying to "lighten" my load or give me a break because I am a girl.
I knew what I was getting into when I started and I know how to get out if I don't like it.
56, 90 and 92 = the reason why I didn't marry a lawyer. You three suck.
83,
Years of experience have taught me that being mean to women gets me laid. Women hate nice guys, and they soak their panties for assholes. When I look at this thread, I see a host of players perfecting their game. You, Ms. 83, are a player hater.
I too will never visit the ATL site again. The comment thread to this article should have been turned off long ago. This is gender bashing of the worst kind. As evidenced here, ATL is no longer a forum for intelligent discourse. These comments are truly low.
Female in-house attorney here. I’ve been a reader of ATL since an associate, and this is the first time I’ve been compelled to post.
(1) It’s business kids. Get used to it. My company, and our customers, will hire vendors with diverse ranks, including law firms, before a less diverse vendor. It's corporate policy for many of us, and if you've worked in a corporate gig you know policy rules. Therefore, consider the issue carefully and intelligently, as the diversity of your firm, or lack thereof, may impact your job security some day. We spend in excess of $10M on outside counsel each year, presuming no litigation at all. Guess which firms get the business? And two years ago we disengaged $5M of business from a firm where our lead partner happened to make derogatory and offensive comments about female opposing counsel having only to do with her gender. Our (male) GC thought it reflected poor judgment, character, not to mention simple human decency, and fired that firm largely as a result. Business and other attorneys care about gender regardless of whether you do.
(2) Associates and partners that believe to the even the slightest degree that women do not have the intelligence, competence, dedication, or balls to perform the job haven't experienced the real world, and frankly should be talking about their opinions with a qualified shrink rather than strangers on a message board. Lawyering isn’t just about knowing the law, which demonstrably both men and women do; it’s also about listening, patience, good judgment, ethical behavior, common sense, all the crap you should have learned in the school yard. All qualities I’ve known female attorneys to possess to an equal, if not better, degree than males. No attorney needs to be in an office chair as opposed to in front of a high chair to demonstrate those qualties. And let's not assume that because the legal profession has traditionally been dominated by males that it’s traditional male qualities that make a good attorney. Similar arguments were made for nurses and teachers 50 years ago. As our social and business worlds continually mature and change, so must attorneys.
(3) But to the point of the post: all firms would be wise to consider the reason for women leaving the ranks if they want to maintain what little corporate business is left. And as a general matter I suspect it’s not about any lack of women’s dedication. If it was in fact a lack of dedication, I know just as many male associates as female who find the existing bill-bill-bill model undesirable and unfulfilling; they are equally “undedicated” and would gladly jump ship if the opportunity arose. The difference, I suspect, to 57’s point, is that to a degree females don’t feel any particular need to maintain the façade, to maintain or obtain a pimp car or apartment. That’s not a lack of dedication women’s part; that’s a lack of submission to what have become unreasonable expectations imposed on BOTH genders in return for little job security, low pay to hours worked ratio, etc. Twenty five years ago the average billable expectation was around 1400 hours for what amounts to more pay, accounting for costs of living and inflation. So…perhaps one might say it’s the men who lack balls for staying. From how I see it, many women at least have acknowledged the broken system and stepped away. Judging from the comments here, some of the male posters aren’t just bending over for it, they’re giving it a hearty post-pounding handshake.
96 - you're my hero.
Based on personal experience, I know that Clifford Chance is not a good place for men. They were the UK firm that advised Sir Denis Eton-Hogg of Polymer Records to pull the sexy album cover for "Smell the Glove," where originally we had a greased, naked woman on all fours wearing a dog collar and leash and having a black glove shoved in her face to sniff. The album would have been a commercial success with that cover, and we would have enjoyed a healthy U.S. tour instead of numerous cancellations and dismal ticket sales.
Ugh, that's another annoying thing. Companies that worship at the altar of diversity at the *potential* cost of not hiring the most competent counsel available. Way to maximize shareholder value there.
99--it has been proven that enhancing diversity increases shareholder value. Look it up.
Hi,
I am nice old Fillipino lady and David Lat's mom too. I never read such crap before like this blog. This website so over, so sad. David, time for you settle down with nice Fillipino girl. No more date man for you David, no spend time with man. It make you head sick. You no have judgment no more about blog, because sleep too many man.
-Mom
"cost of not hiring the most competent counsel available"
? - Ever been to a trial with an all male team on one side and a gender balanced team on the other? Ever drawn a jury that 2/3 female?
It's business, as 96 says, but it's also theatrics and anyone who thinks the most "competent" counsel doesn't incorporate more than the ability to (insert whatever female attorneys don't do well here) without considering the business and theatrical side of it is a dope.
As long as PPPs are the only thing that matters, these discussions are irrelevant. Billing rate x hours is the only thing that matters, and if you cannot bill like a goddamn freak, then you are near worthless in the eyes of a law firm.
This is basic economics, and in a rather Marxist sense, the economic truth renders all of the blither about sexuality/diversity/my feelings/etc. completely irrelevant or at best, representative of a transaction in which a firm exchanges diversity PR for increased revenue potential.
For the same reason, when law firms and corporations say "diversity," they only mean "profitable diversity." Like the kind you see in stock photography. Not real diversity, as in genuinely different kinds of people with differences that you bring to the workplace. You're a fungible billing/receivables unit, and whether that total billable/receivables number is printed in white, black, red, or yellow ink doesn't matter -- all that matters is the total number. In that sense, law firms really are color/gender blind.
96, thank you.
96
On your (3), if you're the primary provider for your family (whether you are a male or a female), the choices you mention aren't as easy as you are making them out to be. Sure, a lot of people would love to leave the rat race, but we also want to be good providers too. That's a choice every lawyer makes. But I don't see how that leads you to conclude that one sex is somehow more enlightened than the other when it comes to making those choices.
I don't know what your situation is. If you're not the primary provider for your family, then I'd suggest you walk a mile in someone else's shoes first. That's not meant to be a gender-based comment either because I recognize both men and woman can fill that role today. If you are the primary provider, congrats for having the gumption to get out of this racket and do something productive with your life.
Why would anyone outside the leisure classes want to have kids? It sounds like a miserable life, working and raising a family simultaneously.
101 - hahaha well done
105, pay off your loans, don't marry a woman who expects gucci, a BMW and 5000 sqf house. Guys trap themselves in the game by wanting it all when you can't have it unless you sacrafice.
61 and 84: sure, if you're a senior partner supervising a competent senior associate, the remote relationship can work well. When I was at a global firm, I developed relationships with people in overseas offices who I never met. But as I think you're acknowledging 84, that doesn't work for junior associates who don't know their ass from their elbow. How bad do I have to be, 84, at my job that you can't supervise me over the phone? As bad as most junior associates, probably. If your attitude is just "f--- them," then you're not helping with training junior associates. They're also probably running up excess billables while you're home working in your bathrobe. It's just good to have, in office, meetings -- the productive kind, not the meandering kind.
Anyway, you say "be in the office when it's necessary to be there." If everything can be done remotely, why would it ever be necessary to be there? My only point is that, a lot of the time, it's necessary to be there. I don't think #79 -- the intelligent proponent of remote access -- would disagree. I think it's implicit in what she's saying.
Children get in the way. That's why my mommy and daddy went with the hybrid tough love family planning package.
Broader acceptance of working by remote access will promote diversity, all right. But it won't be privileged white American women (or men) who benefit from it. Once you say no one really needs to be in the office since we can all do so-called "good work" remotely, you are opening the door in a big way to outsourcing to India and other non-US countries. All you will need in the fancy home office in the US will be a small cadre of rainmakers and a few staff types to help them delegate assignments to remote foreign locations.
61 and 84: sure, if you're a senior partner supervising a competent senior associate, the remote relationship can work well. When I was at a global firm, I developed relationships with people in overseas offices who I never met. But as I think you're acknowledging 84, that doesn't work for junior associates who don't know their ass from their elbow. How bad do I have to be, 84, at my job that you can't supervise me over the phone? As bad as most junior associates, probably. If your attitude is just "f--- them," then you're not helping with training junior associates. They're also probably running up excess billables while you're home working in your bathrobe. It's just good to have, in office, meetings -- the productive kind, not the meandering kind.
Anyway, you say "be in the office when it's necessary to be there." If everything can be done remotely, why would it ever be necessary to be there? My only point is that, a lot of the time, it's necessary to be there. I don't think #79 -- the intelligent proponent of remote access -- would disagree. I think it's implicit in what she's saying.
There is a woman income partner at my chicago-based DC firm that the firm has accommodated to keep her. The practice head likes her even though many others don't so he lets her work from the UVA area. Associates don't like working for her because she does not give clear instructions, she works odd hours, she does not have access to all the materials she needs because they are in DC. This makes it hard to be supervised by her because you cannot get answers to questions in the same way you could if you could walk to her office, can't reach her because she is at her daughter's soccer game, or is too scattered to focus. So accommodating her disadvantages those of us that need to learn from her.
The other problem is that the firm lets her do it but has declined other requests, including from men. They play favorites because she is the pet of the practice group head.
I agree that firms should find ways to keep valued attorneys but if you allow people flexibility, you have to allow it for anyone that asks and the person getting that benefit needs to go the extra mile to make up for the inconvenience they cause to everyone else. Unfortunately, this partner does not have a clue how bad she is.
108,
I agree some guys have to have a trophy everything and get handcuffed to that lifestyle. They do it to themselves. But that certainly doesn't describe every male lawyer.
And, don't kid yourself. I see women lawyers getting "handcuffed" too.
105
114, I agree and reiterate that you need to pay off debt so that you stay at big law by choice. The women I know, including myself, planned to pay the debt off so they would have the option to leave when they had kids. This is true even for my friends that are partners. Law firm life is very hard, but rewarding when you are the one deciding to stay.
Female '09 grad here.
Two things I will never understand -
1. why you men like back door entry
2. why anyone (male or female) would want to be a partner and bill 2-3,000 hours a year. I have always enjoyed working out, having time to clean my home, cooking, occasionally doing fun things, and sleeping 8 hours a night. I don't think I could do that working at a big law firm. That (and many other reasons) are why I work for the government. If I want to have kids in the future, I'll have to take time off work for a while, but I would rather be a good mother who makes a little (or no) money than one that hires a nanny to raise my children because I don't have time to spend with them. And don't kid yourself. Even if you worked from home, you still would not be able to spend the real quality time with your kids that they need. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And that's not such a bad thing. Why are so many women obsessed with being "super woman"? No one ever said you had to be the perfect woman and do everything a man does at the same time. We don't ask men to do everything men do - and we don't expect it. So why do we pressure ourselves (or let society pressure us) into thinking we have to do it all?
That being said - if you don't want to have kids, if you don't care to feel well rested and in shape - be a partner. But I will always feel sorry for you, knowing that while you may have more money in your bank account than I do, I likely have more happiness and balance in mine. (Sorry to get so cheesy).
Female '09 grad here.
Two things I will never understand -
1. why you men like back door entry
2. why anyone (male or female) would want to be a partner and bill 2-3,000 hours a year. I have always enjoyed working out, having time to clean my home, cooking, occasionally doing fun things, and sleeping 8 hours a night. I don't think I could do that working at a big law firm. That (and many other reasons) are why I work for the government. If I want to have kids in the future, I'll have to take time off work for a while, but I would rather be a good mother who makes a little (or no) money than one that hires a nanny to raise my children because I don't have time to spend with them. And don't kid yourself. Even if you worked from home, you still would not be able to spend the real quality time with your kids that they need. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And that's not such a bad thing. Why are so many women obsessed with being "super woman"? No one ever said you had to be the perfect woman and do everything a man does at the same time. We don't ask men to do everything men do - and we don't expect it. So why do we pressure ourselves (or let society pressure us) into thinking we have to do it all?
That being said - if you don't want to have kids, if you don't care to feel well rested and in shape - be a partner. But I will always feel sorry for you, knowing that while you may have more money in your bank account than I do, I likely have more happiness and balance in mine. (Sorry to get so cheesy).
116, don't you think to some extent that it is easier for women to make choices like the one you did? What does your husband do?
"...the point is not that women lawyers want the partner track to become easier, I think it's that firms want to convince women to stay on the track."
thank you 96.
most women arent clamoring for accommodation. they've planned to bail all along. it's firms who are asking their star female associates why they're leaving, and what can be done to keep them. unfortunately, hardly any are sticking around.
if face time isn't necessary, men who plan to stay at firms should be clamoring for productivity-based requirements. don't you see that you would be helping all associates, yourselves included, if you made firm life more practical and productive? if firms can afford to accommodate people who want more family time, they should also be equally able to accommodate people who want more personal time. join the cause--it benefits you, too.
61 and 84: sure, if you're a senior partner supervising a competent senior associate, the remote relationship can work well. (In that case, there isn’t a lot of real supervision.) When I was at a global firm, I developed relationships with people in overseas offices who I never met. But as I think you're acknowledging, 84, that doesn't work for junior associates who don't know their ass from their elbow. How bad do I have to be, 84, at my job that you can't supervise me over the phone? As bad as most junior associates, probably. If your attitude is just "f--- them," then you're not helping with training junior associates. They're also probably running up excess billables while you're home working in your bathrobe. It's just good to have in office meetings -- the productive kind, not the meandering kind. Anyway, you say "be in the office when it's necessary to be there." If everything can be done remotely, why would it ever be necessary to be there? My one basic point is that, a lot of the time, it's necessary to be there. I don't think #79 -- the intelligent proponent of remote access technology -- would disagree. I think it's implicit in what she's saying.
116 here. Yes, to some extent it is - because this is how the world has been going on for years - Men provide, women (may) help to provide some, but mostly work in the home. I am not married. Which means - right now I only need to make enough money to take care of myself and my dog. And if I get married, it will be to someone who has a job, and even if he doesn't make a lot, 2 incomes for one home for a while and smart savings can go a long way. I drive an older pickup truck and carry a (fake) prada. If you aren't obsessed with huge houses, new cars, etc. you will find living life much easier.
105 - I would actually say that the answer depends on what your values are and what your definition of "providing" for your family is. Some breadwinners are satisfied with $60,000/year. For others that would barely cover their own lunch budget, much less their Long Island wives' and kids'.
But make no mistake - even when you have a family you have choices. I'm not suggesting they're easy for men or for women. I think, however, that in many cases women are simply more comfortable with less prestige and less money if it means a happier personal life. And this is generally true even if she's the breadwinner, and her self-worth doesn't take a beating for it. Obviously I'm generalizing and there are exceptions, but I don't think most men share the same experience, which I also don't think is surprising. Much of the disconnect can be blamed at least partly on our cultural forces and respective socializations (i.e. men socialized in a win-lose paradigm; girls socialized in a paradigm that values "experiences" over winning or losing).
I don't think I'm saying anything new from any scientific or social standpoint. What is surprising is that while clients caught on to the benefits of applying these science and sociology principles in their businesses ages ago, firms and their employees (perhaps some commenters here?) stilI look around wide-eyed and scratching their heads like, "who just put poop in the punch bowl?"
122 is correct. For many women, the ego fullfiling attraction of being a partner is not enough to counter the crap that many equity partners pile on to their associates. I kept a lot going for my partner but he could never understand why being him had no appeal for me. I left and am much happier not dealing with his big head and bad temper.
Guys in my high school used to remotely access women all the time. It was no big deal.
122 and 123 are very right - and it partially explains the wage gap as well as the leadership gap between the genders. While there are many ambitious women, many of us will reach a point where the trophy at the end of this rat race just doesn't look that appealing. (The whole, the prize for the pie-eating contest is more pie, thing.) Maybe that's a product of gender conditioning or something more innate in men, but at a certain point, I probably won't care about this pissing contest. I've been doing it for 7 years very well, but partnership is no holy grail to me. Yes, a partner may make over a million, but if s/he has to be on call 24/7, constantly stressed, constantly beholden to someone else, never able to disengage, and buying the forgiveness of their friends and loved ones for the time they aren't able to spend with them - then is it worth it? I've lived that life for the last 7 years and I'm darn sure that it's not attractive to me for the next 30. Not to me. And if I'm not top 0.01% income, I'm okay with that. My self worth isn't caught up in that. On my death bed, I won't wish I'd worked more or that I'd worked harder for some large corporation, and I'll actually probably regret a lot the time that I did spend working.
109: 84 here. Your supposition is that partners and senior associates who are in the office have time or the inclination to teach junior associates. If you were in a firm like that, congrats. And if you had partners stopping by just to check in on associates to see that they were not running up a bill, you have partners with too much time on their hands. I assure you that with my warm, fuzzy female heart and sensibilities, I devote far more time to associate development, training, mentoring and being a sounding board for other peoples' assignments, but some of it is in person and some of it is by phone.
But I take your point that that doesn't work for everyone, but if it does work for you and you can meet your obligations to all your constituencies, then remote working is an option. I usually get more work done at home than at work - there's no socializing and no getting called into a BS meeting or into a partner's office while he takes 3 client calls while you're sitting there. Conference calls go more quickly than the in-person meeting. And I don't lose time on a commute. I agree - there are some things that must be done in person, and I do come in to the office a lot. But while some people really have to work outside of their home to get their work done or really connect with people, many don't.
116-
You can have it all--- clean house, happy home, kids, and make partner. It is not about being super woman, it is about having a goal and making it happen.
I decide what I want and I figure out how to make it happen. I love what I do for a living, and I am darn good at it. That doesn't mean that I won't be able to be a good mom to my kids. If you want something bad enough, you figure out a way.
-92
What about disabled associates? Do you think they shouldn't be accommodated? I think I know the answer to that. You're all scum.
fuckin Skanks.
It is surprising that no one has commented on #14's inane comments.
To be fair, I believe that society has redistributed wealth "early and often" in favor of the white male.
That said, it is a bit silly to suggest that only white males have come out on top in the past 20 years. It simply is not true. Many of my minority friends, and female friends are, to be honest, doing quite well for themselves.
I believe in affirmative action. I believe it helps. I believe that it helps redistribute wealth toward a system where minority groups are treated more fairly, even if the system shuts some other people out in the cold.
The white male who is successful, then, has jumped through some hoops in his day, and has probably shown some real talent. The same is true for the female, or the minority success story.
So good luck everyone...it's a jungle out there!
The Torah instructs against the female law partner. The ancient hebrews would not approve. The ancient hebrews would also be sad that the United States has an anti-semite as president.
92 and 116: your self-congratulatory attitude is proof positive of a not-so-subtle desire to overcompensate for a number of deficiencies. You probably have a few self-mutilating habits that you aren't very concious of, but they are a way in which you express the real loathing you have for yourself. Looking in the mirror hurts. Which is why you don't care to go outside the office very much. Or to be in a brightly lit environment generally, where the toll of the 24-7 pounding that you take would be readily apparent. Skin with a sickly greenish tint. Bags under your eyes. Cellulite on your sagging behind, from sitting in a chair for so long and from eating the seamless-web supplied menu. This despite not eating very much at all and being a bit of an anorexic bitch.
When was the last time you got laid? A month ago? Two? Never?
If I had a nickel for every male associate that took paternity leave in the past two years, I'd have at least $5.00. You know why? Because spending time with your newborn, whether you gave birth to it or not, is FUCKING GREAT and your obligation if you partook in creating him or her.
I've run deadline from hell projects from home for month-long stretches. You know why? Because FUCKING RUSH HOUR sucks and it drains sometimes 4 billable hours from my day. AND if you want me to pull 15 hour days for weeks on end b/c you staffed my project with 20 associates who haven't figured out how large cases work, and you still want to hold me accountable for everything that transpires before our deadline is met, then please let me do it from the comfort of my dining room table.
92 and 90- stop hating yourself. Just because you have a vagina doesn't mean you're going to be "pegged" as a breeder.
It makes me sad when a female counsel/associate/partner almost apologetically tells me they go home at 5 so they can be there to put their child to bed and then they fire up their work computer to finish off the day. You know what? You should put your kid to bed. Shit, you should even read him/her a story. If you have a husband, he should be there, too. Yes. The demands of working at a large law firm or in the legal profession in general are steep...but just because you're paid 6 figures doesn't mean you cannot leave the office for a couple hours to act like a fucking parent.
and 56- PLEASE. I receive emails from female partners/counsel into the wee hours of the morning because their kid was sick and they had to be offline for most of the day. I don't know what firms some of you work for, but at my firm, women who have children, because they are afforded the option of flexibility, usually work HARDER and LONGER than women who don't have children...out of guilt.
I was hoping for some insightful responses to this article. Instead, I stopped reading by comment #10.
Why is it that racist and otherwise offensive postings are moderated and/or removed on this site, but this sexist crap is acceptable? The coat hanger "jokes," the "law school hot" remarks, and the countless "women are stupid baby making machines" messages garner no backlash whatsoever. They get a free pass, time and time and time again. Racist jokes are at the very least get called out for what they are, but these sexist rants seem to be the ATL equivalent of "cool." Racism is off limits, but shitting all over women, eh, that's hilarious and oh so macho! I have a pretty liberal sense of humor - the raunchier and more irreverent the better. I just don't think these remarks are even remotely funny or amusing. [And btw - ladies - how about speaking up for christ's sake?!]
For the record, ATL, I would wager that at least half your readership is female, and I can assure you that wading through these kinds of comments discourages a large number of those women from taking this site seriously or from visiting it at all. This site represents nothing more than a frat house mentality in my mind.
Guys - I would also wager a guess that this need for name calling and insulting your female colleagues stems in no small part from the fact that you couldn't get laid BEFORE law school....and you can't get laid AFTER law school either. So, you revert to kindergarten (or maybe you never really left the playground) and tell us we're ugly, dumb, and you don't wanna play in the sandbox with us, neh nene neh...
Let me just preemptively state - this isn't a case of hurt feelings because "none of the boys like me." Yes, I am "law school hot." I also happen to be real world hot. My anger stems from the fact that "intelligent" men think it's funny to denigrate our character and our abilities for sport. If we're a stay at home mom, you tell us we're lazy and stupid and unambitious. If we work just as hard as you and earn a JD and then put in the same ridiculous hours at the firm, you still treat you like a lazy, stupid, unambitious women who are secretly desperate to pop out babies. We just can't win with you guys. THAT is why it's important to create more female partners - so we can start to change it from within.
I was hoping for some insightful responses to this article. Instead, I stopped reading by comment #10.
Why is it that racist and otherwise offensive postings are moderated and/or removed on this site, but this sexist crap is acceptable? The coat hanger "jokes," the "law school hot" remarks, and the countless "women are stupid baby making machines" messages garner no backlash whatsoever. They get a free pass, time and time and time again. Racist jokes are at the very least get called out for what they are, but these sexist rants seem to be the ATL equivalent of "cool." Racism is off limits, but shitting all over women, eh, that's hilarious and oh so macho! I have a pretty liberal sense of humor - the raunchier and more irreverent the better. I just don't think these remarks are even remotely funny or amusing. [And btw - ladies - how about speaking up for christ's sake?!]
For the record, ATL, I would wager that at least half your readership is female, and I can assure you that wading through these kinds of comments discourages a large number of those women from taking this site seriously or from visiting it at all. This site represents nothing more than a frat house mentality in my mind.
Guys - I would also wager a guess that this need for name calling and insulting your female colleagues stems in no small part from the fact that you couldn't get laid BEFORE law school....and you can't get laid AFTER law school either. So, you revert to kindergarten (or maybe you never really left the playground) and tell us we're ugly, dumb, and you don't wanna play in the sandbox with us, neh nene neh...
Let me just preemptively state - this isn't a case of hurt feelings because "none of the boys like me." Yes, I am "law school hot." I also happen to be real world hot. My anger stems from the fact that "intelligent" men think it's funny to denigrate our character and our abilities for sport. If we're a stay at home mom, you tell us we're lazy and stupid and unambitious. If we work just as hard as you and earn a JD and then put in the same ridiculous hours at the firm, you still treat us like lazy, stupid, unambitious women who are secretly desperate to pop out babies. We just can't win with you guys. THAT is why it's important to create more female partners - so we can start to change it from within.
135/136 -- if you stopped reading after comment 10 -- how were you able to offer your opinion on so many other comments/rude remarks made from posts 11 through 134? Ah, yes, another lying wind bag, human shipwreck of a lawyer who lacks all social skills.
135, without pictures your post is meaningless.
136 -- nothing like responding to name calling and kindergarten remarks by saying "You can't get laid". Strong argument. (You may consider dropping out of law school now and saving yourself some cash).
137 - 136 here - because I read this site regularly, and these kinds of comments are pretty much an everyday occurrence. But thanks for proving my point yet again with your last sentence there.
And now that I have gone back and scrolled through the posts after #10 - to 96 and the various other commenters who did object - thank you.
84/126 -- I don't think we're really disagreeing. My disagreement was with the original post ("technology enables nearly everything", "face time" is an outdated concept, etc.). There's obviously no problem with the way you work from home, or the way #79 does. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender either. Good luck.
84: I can assure that that if you continue your remote working after having a child, your conduct will be pathologized accordingly, even if nothing's changed. That' s the problem with the equation of remote working with retaining female lawyers. I'm a lawyer and a mother and that equation makes me very uncomfortable. When I returned to BIGLAW after my first child, most of my colleagues simply presumed I was part-time - I wasn't. I left BIGLAW about six months later for a different practice area that happened to have saner hours- the result of a job search I'd actually commenced before having a child. I left BIGLAW because it was fucking boring, but to this day my colleagues presume that I left b/c I wanted to be on the "mommy track." Again, untrue. Naturally, my husband (also a lawyer) faced none of this.
It's damn near impossible to get out from under being a mother (now that I have two, even more so) in the law and you have to work extra-hard and seem extra-committed to combat that misperception. Having droves of female lawyers agitate for remote access specifically for child-rearing is a double-edged sword, as far as I'm concerned.
Some good posts here. I have to agree with those that say the reason more women aren't partners is because they don't want to be, when the price is 15 hour workdays 7 days a week and on-call nearly 24/7.
Why do lawfirms require this of any partner? As another poster pointed out (96 I think), billable hours used to be 1400 a year. Before we had blackberries and computers, when you went home from work, you were practically "cut off" from the firm. Yeah, people still took work home, but it was rare to do so every single day and work all night long. When women joined the lawfirm ranks, it was with this mold.
But as technology improved, lawfirms (and clients) started demanding more and more. Near constant availability and longer work hours. Men have accepted it, but that is usually because they have women to fall back on for the child and home care. But women, who don't usually have anyone to 'fall back' on, don't accept this and that's why they leave.
Maybe if society could step back a bit, not be so greedy and demanding, realize that no one aboslutely needs an extra $100,000 or $500,000 in your bank account to be happy, maybe we could go back to the time of 1400 billable hours (or hell, even 1800 would be an improvement). Of course, this would also require lawschools (and the ABA) to get a grip on tuition costs. But if billable hour requirements were reduced, more of our current crop of out of work attorneys could work and be productive too, maybe everyone could be happier and more women would be partners.
How can a Hebrew man gaze upon a beautiful Jewess if she is working from home? The point of a woman according to the Torah is provide the man with sexual pleasure.
100, I can refute your post with a simple example.
Assume your company has a very specific patent issue, one that really goes to the heart of your business. There is a firm out there that is the recognized clear-cut expert in this particular matter. In fact, it has been in the news for three recent high-profile successes, all of which are closely related to the issue you are facing. Now assume that this firm is 100% lily white with no female partners or even associates.
Are you telling me that as GC of this company you are going to choose another firm just because the experts in the area are not exhibiting proper diversity? When the future of your company is at stake? How are you maximizing shareholder value? And, do you value keeping your job? Because as CEO, I would fire you on the spot for making that decision.
Women in the workplace is ruining the American family. Men are emasculated - even if they will not admit it and women are haggard and angry all the time because they should be in the home nurturing. Like AA, the social experiment failed. As Ron Burgundy says, it's science.
122,
I guess I can buy that. Although I think that is going to start to change for men in this generation. I think a lot younger male attorneys see what a sham "partnership" is and what miserable assholes the boomer generation partners usually are.
105
142: don't you have to work "extra hard" because raising a kid is in itself time consuming? (even with a spouse and a nanny) Are you actually working extra hard for the firm? You say "nothing's changed", but that seems either ridiculous or you're a very bad mother. The misperception you describe doesn't seem to me like a misperception at all. If a person is really putting in the work -- for the firm -- people generally will recognize it. If a person isn't, the people who are will be pissed off. This is just human nature. People want to be treated fairly, and it's unfair for people to do more work and receive the same rewards. (Of course if law firms want to do this, it's their legal right, just as it's the right of employees to leave these law firms.)
142: Nothing's changed with respect to my performance or the time put in. We have a nanny who puts in long hours and is well-compensated for it. If that makes me a "very bad mother", so be it. By "extra hard" I meant that as a mother I've found that there is a presumption that I'll drop everything for childcare - a presumption that I've witnessed time and again doesn't apply to my husband or other fathers I work with.
My point is that, in my experience, once I became a mother it was a done deal in my colleagues' eyes, regardless of my actions.
Hmmm ... I haven't seen that. I'm not saying you're wrong about your case or that you're lying. I just don't think that's the general perception or generally the way it works.
How many roses per hour do most female partners bill?
Maybe there are actually significant differences between the firms within "Biglaw." After all nobody can work at more than one or two or three of them. (And no more than a couple of groups within each one.) And everyone's limited by his or her own experiences.
S*cking and f*cking has been a good career path for female attorneys JD
90% of female attorneys are b&tc#s. They have a chip on the shoulder and since they never played sports they don't understand competition. they take it personally
I am a female attorney in BigLaw and have a toddler at home. I work the infamous reduced hour schedule and I realize that it carries a stigma. I know I won't make partner within the normal timeframe and maybe not ever. Fine. But my kid is my priority so it works for me. I still get to do challenging work and have a paycheck.
Also, 154, I was a collegiate athlete, so I get competition. I just don't care about it any more. Raising another human being is more important to me than the pettiness of law firm politics.
155, I pray you are in the 10%.
155, thank you for saying what needed to be said. There is nothing more valuable to society than properly raising a family. That's a bigger accomplishment than anything 100 partners who ignore their families can produce.
105/147: Just fyi -- the partners who preceded the boomer partners were even bigger assholes. Who do you think served as their role models? And don't kid yourself -- the Gen X/Y partners will be major assholes as well. Degree of assholishness is correlated to the nature of the job, the oversized ego of the successful assholes, and the huge pay check.
155,
The following questions are the crux of the matter.
Do you acknowledge that as someone who does not make the same sacrifice, put in the same hours, etc. as your full-time working peers (men and women) that you do not deserve to make partner "on time" or ever?
Or do you think that your partnership opportunities should be the same as those who are not on the reduced hour schedule. If this is your position, I'd be interested in learning your thoughts (or other's thoughts) on why you are entitloed to the same opportunities.
My thoughts - Equal work, equal pay, equal opportunities is what all desrve. But your post seems to advocate (at least until you reached the point of not caring anymore) for reduced work, equal pay?, equal opportunities.
My guess is, that as a reduced work employee, you are compensated at a much higher rate per hour than your full time peers. Is that fair? Do you get a bonus too?
Remote access is good for everyone. It is particularly valuable when people come into the office sick - they should be sent home. There is no excuse for coming into work sick and spreading your germs if one has adequate remote access.
Occasionally, it is permissible to gave a female attorney according to the Torah. First, she must be easy on the eyes. Second, she can not be a b&^tch.
159, you must work at McDermott where they have a memo that says that women that have more than two kids will have their partnership delayed. I know of no male associates who suffered that penalty but females routinely get deferred.
116 here...
92/127 -- In my mind, that would make you superwoman. Congratulations. You probably perform much better than I do on a lesser amount of sleep. So, in all seriousness - Congrats. Personally, I know that I could not put in partner-type hours and have any other kind of life. But if you can, that's awesome.
132 -- I think your post was directed more to 92 than myself. I refuse to take a 24/7 pounding. And for the record, my ass if fabulous.
Part of what I admire about my women colleagues is they all seem to believe that the have a right to be happy. It might mean that they don't stay at the firm, but they seem to be able to let all that go, I feel bad for guys sometimes because you keep up with the Jones and perpetuate your own misery. It is like crying or wasting time at the beauty parlor -- you have no idea what great things you are missing.
/s/ A woman equity partner at a large firm who stayed because she likes it and feels free to leave whenever she wants.