Still Needing a Room of Our Own?

Several years ago, two new publications premiered aimed at women in the legal professions. One was the wittily named, "Sue Magazine," edited by Chere Estrin. The second was "Women Legal," an off-shoot of the more Euro-focused Managing Partner Magazine. Our firm subscribed to both, as I'm sure many did, and I know our female lawyers enjoyed reading the early issues.

I struggle to keep up with my non-essential reading (and my essential reading, and my bed time reading, and my children's bed time stories . . .), and Sue and Women Legal fell by the wayside. Recently, I learned that both have folded. My first reaction to this news was a slight sadness, seasoned with the happier thought that most likely these magazines failed because their parochial focus had become an anachronism by their late '00s launch.

A "Google" search to discover their fate gave me no answers.

(Full disclosure, "sue magazine" is an entertaining search if you like reading about kate-middleton-nude-photo-gate. Aand who doesn't? . . . )

But the on-topic results did somewhat temper my initial upbeat assessment. To the best of my googling ability, one of the last cyber traces of Sue, is the following cynical exchange, from "Overlawyered.com":

"Sue Magazine, for women in litigation" by WALTER OLSON on NOVEMBER 3, 2008

We didn’t make this up. Really, we didn’t. Well-known Loyola lawprof Laurie Levenson is listed among those involved. . . . 

More: AmLaw Litigation Daily suggests some spinoffs, including 'Pat: For Women in Sexual Harassment Litigation.'"

Really?! Heavy sigh . . .

Working at Home

These are the days I like best. Early spring, cool in the morning with a mist that clings to daffodils. Before settling down to work, with my papers and computer, sprawled across the bed, I always walk through the garden, admiring each new plant and the promise of harvests to come. I visit my chickens, and take a few minutes to savor them as they peck and fuss and hunt for food.

In an hour, I will be on a conference call with opposing counsel in a multi-hundred million dollar case. He's a New York lawyer in every sense--the good and the bad--and he cannot imagine the setting in which his call finds me. It makes me smile, the contrast between the obstructionist arrogance that is my life, and this bucolic setting that is also my life.

Working at home is one of the reasons I can do what I do. When I am not traveling, I work at home several days a week. Working at home saves me two hours in a car each day; it lets me pick my daughter up from baseball; it means I can help my son with his multiplication tables. Forget "part time," alternate work schedules and technology that allow remote work are critical to the long-term success of big firm lawyers who are also mothers. But how many firms allow it?

In our case, when I was diversity coordinator, we implemented an "alternative work policy," that allows many types of non-traditional work structures, including working from home. So far, though, most of the lawyers who really work from home--consistently, successfully and no questions asked--are like me, so senior, that we don't need policies, we just do it. I suppose that's the way it will always be: first, you have to prove yourself. And I suppose, too, that even the option and the capability are progress. After all, most of the lawyers in my firm who work from home are male, and having a "policy" that the men use too, well, that's the quickest route I know to long-term acceptance.

Not So Bad After All . . .

Wow! Breaking news: the Saudi government is poised to allow Saudi women to argue cases in court and to set up their own law firms. This follows a move a year ago which permitted women to work for (male) law firms in a paralegal-type role.

On the one hand, you go girls! On the other hand, it certainlly puts my daily "struggles" in perspective.

And yet, I wonder. They will face so many challenges which I cannot even imagine, but perhaps not the challenge that defines my life: being female in a male law firm. Perhaps, by having their own firms, they will succeed more quickly and more definitely (at least in their permitted niche which is, of course, representing women in family law matters) than we have.

Here's a great quote from today's Saudi Gazette:  "Most Saudi women lawyers are graduates of foreign universities, such as those in the United States, UK and Egypt, because no university in the Kingdom offers law courses for women. 'Based on their educational background, many Saudi women lawyers are good and we therefore expect a good performance from them,' Audhali said."

To which I say, "Amen."

Some more links for the curious:

Times of India article
Arabian Business article
LA Times blog
International Law Society article from 2009 re women in paralegal roles
Saudi Gazette article from 2009 re women in paralegal roles

Counting the Types - Part II

The great irony of diversity initiatives is that they revolve around the counting of the types. How many women, men, African-Americans, out lesbians, Latinas? And because it is one thing we can chart--the easy metric--it threatens to swamp all other considerations. The numbers do matter--I cannot deny that--because almost all law firms large enough to have "diversity coordinator" also have a legacy of being controlled by straight, white, males, and the purpose of the diversity initiative is to change that long time legacy. 


In my view, though, the key to the last sentence is "time." A powerful diversity initiative involves cultural change (more on the features of a good diversity initiative some other time). A powerful diversity initiative does NOT entail making hiring decisions that tear apart the fabric of the firm: specifically changing to a lateral-based model of partner-hiring, rather than growing ones own partners


A very significant majority of the partners and senior partners at my firm have been with us since they were young lawyers, even summer associates. It is a part of our culture--a really, really good part of our culture--that lawyers who join our firm, make it their professional home. Firms where lawyers stay for an entire career are endangered species, but we are one of the few. We have thirty and forty year partners who were summer associates together. I have been with the firm almost twenty years--straight from a federal clerkship--and am both a senior "insider" and, in some groups, a "newbie." We are partners in the very old school sense: friends and comrades.


While I would like to change some things about my firm's culture to make it easier for women and minorities to succeed, that partners-in-arms quality is what makes us extraordinary, as lawyers and as a business. As a practical matter, that culture is achieved by hiring young. When we hire a summer associate or first year, we see a future partner. With only rare exceptions, our partners are not laterals, they come up through the ranks.


Of course, that means that the diversity initiative will take time to "filter up." In our case as a result of a strong diversity program, our recent hires--young laterals and summer associates--reflect the diversity of the schools we visit and the recruits we seek. At the more junior levels, our associate population significantly exceeds the norms of other firms for numbers of women and minorities.


That all sounds good, right? So why am I frustrated? I'm frustrated because many of our well-meaning clients require us to fill out annual diversity surveys, which often determine whether we can continue to receive assignments from these large corporations. And the surveys are uniformly myopic, whether in form or in implementation. They care about only one thing: numbers. In my view, that focus guarantees failure in the long run, because hiring is less than half of the diversity picture; retention is the rest. And retention is about who you are and how you're making sure that the diverse lawyers you hire will stay. Retention is about firm culture.


Most of the forms we receive are nothing more than that: "Dear Law Firm Administrator: Please report how many male partners, female partners, Hispanic partners, female associates . . . ." Others are more sophisticated (some of my partners say "intrusive"): "How much money did your law firm contribute to pipeline programs this year?" "What programs do you have in place to encourage openly gay or lesbian associates?" "How does your diversity initiative influence your recruiting?" [These are not real quotes.]


But at the end of the day, it's only the numbers that matter. Even with the few companies who ask the right (viz., intrusive) questions, we are told. "Ok fine, you're doing all the right things, but we will not be able to continue to retain you because you have too many white male partners. The numbers have to be different before next year's survey." The implicit message is either, "Fire those guys!" (That can't be what we're meant to do . . .) Or "Run out and hire a bunch of minority and female laterals you don't know so that you can report them next year. Sure, you'll have lots of turn over and instability, but at least you'll have the numbers for next year's boxes."


We are not told: "Wow, what innovative programs (true)! What a tremendous job you are doing diversifying your associate ranks. Look at all those women poised to make partner in the next few years. Stay the course!"


In short, the people who most want the change are the ones who are now standing in its way, incentivizing firms to doctor their numbers and penalizing the firms working toward long term, real cultural change.

Unequal Pay

I began this blog, in part, to talk about my life as the chief diversity officer of a mid-sized (70-100 lawyer, multi-city) law firm. As of December 31, 2009, I resigned from this post. I will keep writing all the same. With or without the "badge," my passion for the problem will not wane. After all, this is my life.

Why did I resign? Interestingly, though it was an unwelcome shock to my firm's governing body, and though I have since discussed transitional issues with each of its members, not a single leader of my law firm asked me that question.

Perhaps they know, and knowing me, they know that if they ask, I will tell them, and the one thing they do not want to know, is the answer to the question, why did I suddenly quit.

But the answer is not a secret: I resigned because I suddenly realized that the job had become my own personal glass ceiling. My firm had asked me to take on the role because it knew I had the passion, commitment and talent to imagine and direct a cutting edge diversity initiative. Somewhat reluctantly (because I suspected this day might come) I did what I was asked (women so often do - ironically, we are the archetypical "good soldiers"), and I succeeded beyond my own expectations. I even succeeded, I think, beyond the firm's.

But in the end, the firm was unwilling to value my work. Sure, they patted me on the back, and praised me, and said, "wow, this is incredible." But in a law firm, that's not "value," that's spin. Law firms know only one way to value their partners' contributions: money. If it matters, you'll see it in your pay check at the end of the year. It's crass, but it's unambiguous.

As I've learned, a CDO has two options: wear the badge, schedule monthly committee meetings, and continue to bill the same hours as in the past; or leap into the role, like a case assignment -- or like the critically important business development project it is -- and give it the time it needs and deserves. I'm not much into "badges," so I took the second course.

It's the classic problem. Unequal pay for equal work. Women and minorities are typically the people tasked to lead the diversity program. Everyone agrees that program is a core "business development" program, but at the end of the year, when it comes time to divide the profits, golf counts, diversity doesn't.

Question:  When will the position be properly paid?

Answer:  When it's filled by a straight, white male.

P.S. My replacement is female, and she too, will be expected somehow to run one of the firm's most significant and far-reaching programs, innovating all the while, without missing more than a handful of billable hours. She's a marvelous woman and an incredibly hard worker. If anyone can do it, she can.

God speed!

The Laws of Men and Women in the Workplace: Part III

And last, but not least, the rules of social engagement:

10.   Make sure to include women lawyers in social invitations (especially when on the road: drinks, dinner, etc.) to the same extent that you would/do their male counterparts. And generally, think of them as lawyers and colleagues, not as women. (Naturally, this rule does not extend to inappropriate jokes, venues, etc.. There, the rule is, if you wouldn't do it with a woman present, don't do it in business at all. Corollary: Don't apologize if you swear in front of a woman, unless you would apologize to a man in the same circumstances. This is an outdated concept that assumes women are not fit for the rugged business world.)

The work/social boundary is a particularly tricky issue because business and social rules are in conflict and there is no consensus on how to interleave them. For example, it is a business norm for the junior person to hold the door/carry the bags for the senior person, and it is a social norm for the man to do these same things for the woman. Because there is no consensus on how to handle these matters, no matter what you do, someone will consider you rude or be offended. You may find it easiest to navigate these rules differently with different women. When in doubt, however (or if the navigating gets too hard), err on the side of business rules in a business setting. If you give offense, at least it will be for rudeness, not for sexism or perceived discrimination.
          As for greetings, stick with shaking hands unless you know the woman quite well and know she is comfortable with a kiss-on-the-cheek/hug approach. Better to be too cold than too familiar when it's work.

I have spent years struggling with these issues and norms. I used to bristle every time a man I worked for/with did something like open a car door for me or offer to carry my suitcase. Now that I'm more self-confident and know my partners and friends better, I find I have different rules for different people. With some, I will allow it because I know it is intended as a courtesy and is not meant to diminish me, but with people I do not know so well, I still insist on business, not social rules when I am working.

The Laws of Men and Women in the Workplace - Part II

More observations. For numbers 1 - 3 1/2, see my prior post: The Laws of Men and Women in the Workplace - Part I

4.   Respect people's schedules and non-work lives. Plan to accomplish work, whenever possible, during relatively normal business hours. All of us in this line of work understand that we will have to work a lot of nights and weekends, that we have to be available at odd hours, and that we will have to miss family time, vacations, and other personal commitments from time to time. That's part of our reality. But there are times when it is unavoidably necessary, and times when its simply a matter of one person's scheduling priorities being deemed more valuable than another's. Save the crazy hours for when it is truly necessary, based on extreme deadlines and court/client-imposed obligations, not based on poor planning of other lawyers whose nights and weekends are free. This is important to everyone-not just women-but women are often particularly sensitive about commenting on it because they are concerned (justly) that complaints will be perceived as whining or as evidence that women are not able to survive in our workplace.

Consider the following examples:

• How many times have you heard someone embrace both of the following parallel but inconsistent thoughts: (a) "Let's not schedule the meetings for Thursday afternoons because Joe is coaching his son's soccer team this fall. He's sgreat with the kids." And (b) "Jane couldn't make it. I think her daughter has a ballet recital or something. Who knows? Let's just go ahead without her."
• How many times has someone convened a meeting at 4:30, rather than 3:30, simply because they lost track of time and had to go to the gym at lunch, without considering that day-care may have a 5:30 pick-up deadline?

One way to make clear to everyone that family and vacations and personal commitments are important is to be open about one's own. For example, don't just say, "I'll be out of pocket that day" (because you're embarrassed or worry you'll be judged for what you're going to be doing). Say, "I'm sorry. We can't do it Wednesday unless absolutely necessary because I promised my daughter I'd help her move." Be open about your other commitments. By doing so, you validate everyone else's complicated life and make it possible for us all to navigate each other's priorities more effectively.


         5.    Keep in mind that women tend to carry around huge loads of guilt. When we work full time, it is perceived as selfish and a "choice" we have made to the detriment of our children, lovers, etc.. We are constantly battling against that. We feel that we are failing everyone by not having enough time for anyone. For many women, if that burden becomes too great, work will be the first thing we will give up because that is the "correct" societal choice to make and we will be praised for it. As a result, it's important not to add to the guilt load of women associates. 

         6.   Don't make choices for a woman based on what you think she would want. Let her make them herself. For example, don't assume that someone will not want to work on a particular matter because it involves a lot of travel. If you want her to work on it, ask her. Give her the right to make that decision herself.


7. Do not assume that women will get along well with other women simply because we are all, well, women. Sometimes we like each other and sometimes we're incredibly hard on and competitive with each other. Women often get along better with men, particularly women who have succeeded in male institutions.

Counting the Types - Part I

As a Diversity Coordinator, this resonated. More on the counting of the types later.

http://kenliu.name/simplicitas/2009/10/27/law-firm-demographics-or-why-john-grisham-has-no-idea-what-hes-talking-about/

Time

I'm paid - and to a significant extent, evaluated - by the minute. Or to be more precise, by the six-minute increment. At work, I account for my time in tenths of hours. Typically, people who do the type of work I do are expected to write up and "bill" at least 1850-2000 hours per year. Considerably more to rank near the top in billings. On the surface, that doesn't sound like so much. Over fifty weeks (allowing two weeks vacation), 2000 hours equates to forty hours per week, or eight hours per business day.

In practice, however, it's far more. Billable hours are the time submitted on a bill to a client, and it is a rare day when eight hours in the office nets even seven hours of billable time. Ethical lawyers don't bill for lunch, chit-chatting with their secretary, trips to the rest room, talking with their daughter's school on the phone, sending out the bills and paying vendors, writing articles for publication, managing the office, training younger lawyers, business development, or being diversity coordinator. Yet most of these activities must take place for the business to function, and all of them have to take place for life to function. In short, to bill eight hours takes at least ten in the office, maybe eleven or twelve.

Viewed from that perspective, working into the night and many weekends is the norm for most lawyers.

Ironically, the hardest time to bill is often the most harried. There are blocks of time--writing a lengthy court submission, trying a case--that easily translate to long hours. But those are the fun times for a lawyer. The hard days are the days when five different cases each have small crises. There are umpteen phone calls to clients and 238 separate emails to read and delete in between harried hallway conferences about the best strategy for responding to the newest demand.

You look up and it is eight o-clock. You've been glued to the phone and computer screen for twelve hours, and without realizing it, you skipped lunch. You'll be late home for dinner; your spouse will be angry and the children too exhausted to tell you about their days. But when you sit down to account for those hard-worked, hard-earned hours, they just don't add up.

Six minutes for this email exchange; twelve minutes for that call; half an hour here. Six maybe seven hours all told if you search that harried memory. You moved so fast and did so much the only thing you had no time to do was count the time. Where ever did it go?

Today was one of those days.