Retention of Women in the Law

On Monday, Women in the Law and the Feminist Law Student’s Association co-hosted a panel discussion on the retention of women in private practice.  The event brought together a group of Bay Street lawyers – Kirby Chown, who retired as regional managing partner at Mc McCarthy Tétrault LLP; Linda Rothstein, a partner at Paliare Roland; Ruth Promislow, a partner at Bennet Jones; and Darcy Legros, an associate at Bennet Jones—to discuss some of the challenges to the retention and advancement of women in private sector firms. Josée Bouchard, an Equity Advisor with the Law Society of Upper Canada, served as moderator.

Let’s start with a disclaimer:  these are some remarkable women. The panelists were intelligent, extremely hardworking, and confident—the kind of lawyers that many female (and male) law students aspire to be.  And it made us pretty happy that one of the panelists described herself as an “old school feminist.” It felt sort of like getting a high-five in the middle of the panel.

Still, we left the event feeling a bit disheartened.  The panelists offered stories about how they “made it” in a male-dominated Bay Street firms. They assured us that it was possible for women to succeed if they “work hard,” and “work with the right people.”

This is useful advice, but it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. Monday’s discussion focused on how to balance traditionally female roles (such as childbearing) with large firm work.  For example, panelists shared stories about taking advantage of maternity leave policies while staying connected with colleagues and files. But the panel did not substantively address the systemic issues that continue to exclude women from the top echelons of private practice.

For instance, the traditional law firm structure is based on a model that rewards lawyers who have a stay-at-home partner (or, at least, a partner who is willing to sacrifice career for family) to support their long hours. This model systemically discriminates against women, who continue to do a disproportionate share of work in the home even when both partners work full time, and who are much less likely to have a spouse who will put their career on the backburner to focus on work inside the home.  For single parents—who are, again, more often women—this model is nearly impossible. Although we may be moving towards a society where men and women share equally in household labour and professional success, we are a long way from achieving that goal.  When we do, this model of a firm will be unworkable for nearly everyone. Until then, it disproportionately excludes women.

You might argue that this system rewards the hardest workers (read: people who put in the longest hours). You might also argue that women who want to work less could choose a different job.  But these arguments miss the point.  Our profession creates and sustains a structure of success that is built on the exclusion of women. This hurts women, and it hurts firms.  As The Economist recently noted, “study after study has shown that companies with lots of women in senior positions are more successful than those with few or none.”[1]

The panelists had a room full of (primarily female) law students, trying to figure out how to shape their careers.  They also have a substantial amount of power in the big firms.  On Monday, I think we all missed an opportunity to talk about the kind of structural change that is really required to make law a more equitable profession.

Krista and Maya are proud members of the FLSA.  But also, the opinions in this piece are entirely their own.