Blog Viewer

Thanks for your comments, Kristi and Amy! Kristi, I agree that these issues are not germane to Big Law. I love hearing your thoughts, and I'll definitely look for that YWCA report!

I really appreciate your comment Kristi! Your thoughts seem like it would be great for your own blog on this topic. And Stephanie, thanks for your blog post on this topic.

Wonderful post, Stephanie, thank you.
In 2012, the YWCA Great Lakes Bay Region published a report entitled the "Economic Status of Women in the GLB Region." We're using the data collected in the report as a baseline, and to continually seek ways to elevate women from poverty and empower women through improved health & wellness, education and career opportunities, increased participation in politics, and reduced exposure to crime and violence. What I've noticed through my intimate involvement in this conversation is that there are aspects of the wage gap and the women's equality issue, in all fields, that we are not willing to put in writing. We'll talk about them in small groups or behind closed doors, though, where we feel we can trust each other. We're not supposed to admit that there are real differences between men and women that play a part in the ways we professionally manifest our strengths and weaknesses and that might - just maybe - be legitimate reasons for women's choice to leave the active practice of Big Law (and other traditionally male-dominated professions).
More than a few women lawyers I talk to say they hate the competitiveness, gamesmanship, and adversarial nature of private practice; the attitudes of opposing counsel, abusive clients, and disgruntled court staff. I, like you, enjoy the intellectual challenge, the continuous learning opportunity, research and writing, strategizing, and networking with other intelligent, passionate advocates. But even in "Small Law" there are things about private practice that are wholly disturbing and, perhaps even more significantly, fail to provide a sense of purpose for me in my work. I would be willing to guess that all intelligent women, more than men, need a true guiding sense of purpose in their daily lives. I would risk a generalization that women, more than men, need to accomplish projects, GET STUFF DONE, and private law practice is simply plagued with too much obstructionism and bureaucracy for women to feel satisfactory accomplishments. The bullying - a very real, gender-neutral thing in our practice - isn't worth it. I'd also ask this question: how many women lawyers say that their keen, accurate sense of intuition is ignored at work, leading to a feeling of inadequacy and loss of self-worth?
Perhaps our feminine strengths - I'm not afraid to put a gender label on them - really can be employed more effectively in places other than Big Law or private practice in general. Non-profits, hospitals, education, government - what about the satisfaction of women lawyers in those jobs? Work-life balance is not the only issue. A passionate, intelligent woman - a women lawyer - will sacrifice her family time if it means doing something she truly believes is useful and meaningful in her work. We will gladly work long, late hours, weekends, holidays, if it means doing something important for our clients or our communities. There is an altruistic craving that comes from knowing what we know about the justice system and that craving is rarely satiated.
But the qualitative part of this conversation is not measurable in statistics and it is too scary to think that further inquiry might result in the admission that women really are different than our male counterparts. Are the surveys asking the "right" questions? Is it really a "good" goal to try to elevate more women to equity partner in Big Firms? Or can more women better serve the needs of the legal world by using their talents in other places? Who are we to judge the unique decisions of other women professionals? Is statistical "equality" even something we should be seeking to achieve? Let’s stop using statistics as a measuring stick, and bring the real questions out in the open. Let’s make the conversation more holistic and maybe then we’ll see what really needs to change in the legal profession.