Forty-five years ago, I had just graduated from law school and joined 22 male attorneys in a litigation boutique. It was a great job, and I got a lot of early experience in both federal and state courts. In those days, judges were not very enthusiastic to have women lawyers in their courtrooms, to put it mildly. The judges did not know how to relate to women in those positions or how to address them. I think it often was more awkward for the judges than it was for the women lawyers.

As co-counsel in a week-long state court trial during the early 1980’s, the judge referred to me only as “she” and “her” although he addressed the male lawyers as “Mr. So and So” or “Counsel.” On the first day of trial, after we concluded opening statements and were on recess, the court reporter came running up to me calling my name. Anticipating the worst, I was sure I had said something incomprehensible that she needed clarified, but that was not her purpose. She just wanted to meet me. I was the first woman lawyer ever to try a case there, and she was excited about it.

In federal court, I had occasion to be referred to as “little girl,” “woman” and “honey” by judges and, at one most memorable moment, I endured a lecture from the judge about my responsibility to act like a man in his courtroom — because, as the judge explained, he did not discriminate between genders. Oh, OK.

Yes, it was annoying, but it also was somewhat amusing and satisfying because I knew that I was being noticed as a woman lawyer and that I was throwing an unknown into the equation. I won my motions, I got rulings and settlements in my favor, and I prevailed in enough other ways to affirm my competence and to chalk up the rest of it to a profession that was not quite ready at the time for the likes of me or other women lawyers.

Flash forward now to a recent scene in a Colorado appellate court when a state prosecutor was asked a question by a female member of a three-judge panel and responded by addressing the judge as “honey.” The footage from the courtroom camera, which is included in the Above the Law report, shows the prosecutor so rattled that he barely could continue with his argument. At least it was clear that his error was not intentional. That is the good news.

The bad news, of course, is that it happened at all, and I am sure that most of you reading this are outraged. And I am outraged too, but I have to admit that I also am somewhat pleased. I am pleased because there are so many women judges today that an offense like this is even able to happen. In my experience, it was only the women attorneys who suffered being referred to as “honey,” but now we have advanced far enough to have women judges on benches throughout the country deciding cases litigated by male lawyers. And it is happening again.

What a wonderful reversal of power.

Looks like another bastion of BigLaw is falling by the wayside. We have seen big changes at BigLaw in the recent past, but this is really big.

Let’s face it, there was not a lot of choice about Working From Home (WFH) during the pandemic, but the interest in remote work outlasted the pandemic and is still alive and well, at least in modified versions. Although some of the BigLaw membership have floated mandates for five days in the office, the record on enforcement is weak.

Even the billable hour has some big firms advocating for more flexibility and other billing alternatives. Some observers predicted this years ago, but the time was not right. Most of us knew that. But, times have changed, and it is hard to know what is next as firms compete for talent.

But this is bigger than either one of those. Drum roll, please. More and more top BigLaw firms have moved or are moving to two-tiered partnership, as in salaried and equity. For what seems like the beginning of time, equity partnership was the only game in town. But, firms are now understanding that if some of their competitors are adopting salaried partnerships, the job market could become even more dynamic and leave them behind. Associate lawyers, faced with ten years or more to advance to equity, are eying firms that offer salaried partnerships and upgraded titles with more and more interest. It is all about opportunities, and opportunities can create unrest and talent drain.

According to Bloomberg Law, Debevoise & Plimpton, just this week, has adopted the two-tiered model of partnership, joining Paul Weiss, Cravath, Cleary Gottlieb and WilmerHale. Only what has been described as a “small contingent” of firms in the Am Law 100 are still stuck on a sole equity tier, including Jones Day, Ropes & Gray and Skadden. Even Skadden is reported to be giving two tier partnership “consideration.”

This may read like progress — especially for lawyers stuck at the associate level with the associate titles — but you should not make the mistake of thinking that BigLaw management has altruistic motives and is making this change to benefit associate lawyers. For the Pollyannas out there, think again. Call me a skeptic, but it looks to me like these ultra traditional firms are making a change this big because it is in their own best interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

Talent drain is not a pretty thing.