Definition of "Supportive Spouse"

I recently had lunch with a young woman, just entering the profession, who wanted my advice on being-a-woman-in-the-law. I told some war stories, and we talked about clothes, and women judging women, and I gave her my usual, it-is-hard-but-it-is-possible-and-the-key-is-to-have-a-supportive-spouse (or partner or whatever) advice, and then suddenly, for the first time in the many years I have been giving this spiel, I suddenly realized what a "supportive spouse" is. Eureka!

A supportive spouse is NOT someone who thinks: "Of course, you like your job and you went to law school all those years and it's just as impotant as what I do." Nor is being a supportive spouse about the money (who doesn't need two salaries these days?). A supportive spouse is someone who simply cannot imagine you being or doing anything else: someone for whom your being a lawyer is so bound up in who and what you are, that for him (or her, I suppose, but this feels like a him conversation), just as for you, there aren't any options and you haven't made a "choice" to do this, it just is, and because it is, we have to work together to make it work.

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.

Mean Girls

Earlier this week, a teenager in a town not too far from here hanged herself after six months of bullying and cyber-tormenting by the high school cool girls. Even after her death, the gloating continued on Facebook. Her tragedy and the arrogant, narcissistic cruelty of the tormentors has captured local attention and fills the radio talk shows.

Yesterday, I heard a talk show caller (male) comment that "it wasn't surprising," because "women are always that way." He went on to relate a story of a friend who was a lawyer at a large downtown law firm: "My friend says the women senior partners terrorize the junior women partners. It's brutal."

I will be the first to agree that society of women operates on different rules than the society of men, and that women (like men) can be thoughtless and even cruel. I claim no special "kindness" for my sex. The queen bee phenomenon exists (though it is usually a single hard-bitten survivor), but truly, I am shocked by that caller's account of a group of senior women ganging up against the younger ones. Perhaps his tale is accurate, I cannot say because I do not know the name of the firm, but I doubt it.

I have spent twenty years in large law firm settings, and by and large, the women have looked out for each other. Within firms, the more senior women - especially we few senior partners - generally do our best to mentor the young ones: we de-brief them after sexist encounters, give them a "heads up" about particularly difficult clients or opposing counsel, and share strategies for navigating firm hierarchies.

The women's network in the larger legal community is also strong. We may not be chummy (after all, we are often opposing each other in court), but within our jurisdiction or practice area, we few, senior women keep tabs on each other. We compare experiences and women's "war stories," even about our own firms, and in a pinch, when the issue is a woman's issue, and not a case, we back each other up. I have seen it and experienced it again and again.

In the large dollar, complex lawsuits that are my specialty, there are rarely more than two or three senior women among the many lawyers and law firms involved. When the deposition breaks, or the judge dismisses the jury, we all head to the same place, and we are alone there for days and hours and weeks over the course of a complex matter. Being generally adverse, we can't talk about the case, and most of us don't talk football. So what do we do? Well, we're girls, so we start with the easy stuff, "Wow, I love your shoes!" And then, we dish: "Did you hear that Smith & Smith finally made a woman senior partner? I didn't think they'd ever do that . . ." Before long, it's personal: "How good is your firm about part time?"

So, mean girls be damned, but don't damn us all: the sisterhood of the Ladies Room is strong.

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.