Women in Law: No News Here

In case you missed it, the NAWL recently put out another survey that shows our nation's biggest law firms put out a welcome mat for women, but don't dare let them wander upstairs.

Among the highlights:

• "Women lawyers account for about 15% of equity partners . . . This number is essentially unchanged in the past five years"
• The average firm’s highest governing committee includes only one or two women among its members – and about 10% of the nation’s largest firms have no women at all on their governing committees."
  
• "[W]omen equity partners earn[] only 85% of the compensation earned by their male colleagues."
• "Women represent a surprising 73% of “fixed-income equity partners,” those lawyers in mixed-tier firms who are required to contribute capital to the firm, but nevertheless receive only an annual salary and performance-based bonus rather than sharing in the overall profits of the firm."
• "Women represent 60% of staff attorneys."
  

This is nothing new to anyone well-versed in how large, conservative organizations handle societal pushes towards inclusion and diversity. Even though 50% of law school graduates are now women, and women have comprised 40%+ of the lawyer pool since 1990, the elite at the largest firms continue to find innovative ways to marginalize the disfavored gender.

Remember: these are the same firms that more or less run the ABA. In theory, the legal profession should be leaders in gender equality given a lawyer's broad schooling in things like discrimination and ethics. Furthermore, as quasi-public servants, one would expect lawyers and their firms to not serve as "good ol' boy" clubs. But given their role in the ABA, is it any wonder nothing is really done to "[e]liminate bias in the legal profession and the justice system."

That said, this is my favorite line in the entire report: "Largely in response to corporate clients’ demands that firms play proactive roles in staffing matters with a more inclusive mix of lawyers, law firms have developed diversity goals and diversity program initiatives."

What bold-faced hypocrisy! Only 15% of corporate directors are women (an elected office, but usually elected at the suggestion of the company) and you're demanding that women have a bigger role in firms? You won't hire a female CEO or pay her what you would a male, but you want the people representing you in court to do it?

Furthermore, why not drop them and find a firm where women actually have a say in something? Ever hear of supply and demand? Remember, even the biggest and baddest firms mess up.