In case you missed my recent article in the ABA Journal, I am including some of it here.  The content is very important to all women lawyers as women rise in the profession to levels of supervision and management.  They must be cheerleaders for each other, and they must not give into temptation to right the sins of the past leveled by male practitioners against women in the profession.  To do so would be to unwise and shortsighted.  Here is some of what I wrote in the ABA Journal article:

The senior women need to remember the words of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when she said, “There is a special place reserved in hell for women who do not support other women.” Remember it and post it in their offices for constant reminder.

But that is not all. The attitudes of women lawyers toward male lawyers also need examining. They are equally as divisive and harmful to the profession.

When senior women lawyers become exclusive in their preferences to work with women over men, it is harmful to the profession. When departments full of women lawyers “freeze out” male practitioners in other ways because of built-up resentments, it is harmful to the profession.

And when that kind of “not-female” exclusion also is targeted to unsuspecting young male lawyers—who have had nothing to do with historical grievances—there is potential for even greater harm.

Most of the female lawyers exhibiting these behaviors are motivated by past gender inequalities. They are still smarting from old wrongs. In their negative and divisive actions toward male colleagues, they are failing to recognize that the excuse of “cluelessness” articulated by past generations of male lawyers to explain wrongful attitudes about gender inclusion is no defense for the exclusionary behaviors of women lawyers today.

Today’s powerful women lawyers are not clueless. They are not naive. They have borne witness to the sins of the past, and they know better than to repeat them.

They know exactly what they are doing to their male colleagues and how harmful grinding the ax of resentment can be. They understand that the oft-heard rallying cry, “We don’t need the men,” is short-sighted, imprudent and potentially harmful to our profession. But they don’t seem to be able to help themselves.

We women lawyers must be willing to examine ourselves and our motives. We must be willing to critique our attitudes and change our behaviors—for the good of all lawyers and the profession.

Recently when I was speaking at a conference of the Federal Bar Association, a senior woman judge told me, “The women lawyers are smart, capable, determined and hungry. They are gaining. Soon the men will decide not to compete and will leave firms for in-house positions or businesses or early retirement.”

She said this as if it would result in improvement for the profession. She stated it as a wise, aspirational goal. She said it in a way that made me believe she thought it was what I wanted to hear.

But it did not strike me that way. It struck me as very shallow and unfortunate. It struck me as a way of evening the score, and I could not help but wonder whether that is what we want.

Do we want a reorganization of the profession that will send us back to majority class rule and little in terms of empathy and respect for the other foundational values of our profession?

Do we want a reorganization of the profession based on divisive behaviors and unwillingness to pull together as women and men working toward mutual goals?

I don’t think so, but we need to be careful.

Our lack of professionalism and petty natures may be showing.

For the complete article:  http://www.abajournal.com/voice/article/gaining_in_influence_women_lawyers_must_be_careful_what_they_wish_for/?fbclid=IwAR0AlXQ19-tU2GqlQ24zL93yCh-h9aebHq54tQIvaYtCRsCy8drWgQafsVI

I just listened to a podcast on Law.com that every young lawyer and law firm leader should hear.  It will confirm what young lawyers know they do not like about Big Law, and it will serve as a tutorial for law firm leaders.

The interviewee is Mitch Zuklie, who has been the chairman of Orrick for the last five years.  I have been following his leadership for a portion of that time, and that is why the podcast caught my attention.   The podcast also validates the messages of my new book, What Millennial Lawyers Want:  A Bridge from the Past to the Future of Law Practice.

The theme of the interview is this quote from Zuklie, “If we are going to convince the best talent to choose and stay in Big Law, we need to change the model.”  The changes that he identifies include:

• Create a great place to work through training and identifying and inspiring talent;
• Create models for early responsibilities as decision-makers;
• Create increased interest in career paths and earlier promotion;
• Create team-oriented problem solving and entrepreneurship models;
• Increase flexibility to accommodate the needs of young families;
• Increase periodic feedback and get away from the annual-only review model;
• Increase the firm’s pro bono commitment; and
• Increase diversity and inclusion by being mindful of the effects of bad policies and implicit biases.

There is a lot to think about there.  So, if you are wondering why you are not happy in Big Law, you likely will discover it by listening to the podcast.  And if you are wondering why so many associates are leaving Big Law and your law firm, in particular, you law firm leaders will probably discover it by listening as well. 

I hope so.

The last two weeks have been exhausting.  Hearing allegations of sexual assault against a nominee to the US Supreme Court is exhausting — no matter whether you believe them or not.  It is completely exhausting — exhausting to hear the allegations and exhausting to process arguments that no investigation of those allegations is necessary.  Exhausting to watch a TV interview/promotion of a Supreme Court nominee regarding issues of sexual assault.  It all seems surreal.

Allegations of sexual harassment are shocking enough.  Allegations of sexual assault are something else entirely.  Since when do we just let it be “he said, she said” about things that may be crimes without looking into it further — as in a formal investigation by the FBI.  That is mind boggling to me. 

Theoretically, nominations to the Supreme Court of our land should be about excellent jurisprudence, awesome qualifications to make decisions that control our daily lives, and impeccable character.  But that is not happening today.  Instead, the confirmation hearings are infused with politics and polling.  Politics is seeping into everything these days and pushing “the right thing” far to the side and even farther out of view.

I typically do not get into politics at Best Friends at the Bar, and I am not taking political sides here.  What I am doing is reminding you that sexual harassment and gender discrimination are things that you will be lucky if you can avoid in the workplace today.  As women lawyers, you are still in the minority, and there still are gender stereotypes that will plague you throughout your careers.  The standards of acceptability in terms of behavior are different for you than for your male colleagues.  If you want to test it, try being strident and outspoken during your next law firm meeting or before a male judge in the courtroom.  That will be a life lesson.  And you will not forget it.  I know I didn’t.

These are important issues, and you need to pay attention to them.  Gender discrimination can be obvious and easy to spot or it can be nuanced and sneak up on you.  The most harmful is the implicit bias that affects your upward mobility and your earning power — and which you discover too late.

I include the subjects of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and implicit bias in almost every speech I give.  I do not obsess about it, but I make sure my audiences know enough about it to beware of its harmful effects.  I have discussed it in my books and on this blog before, and I will continue to do that.

Most of my audiences are receptive to this information.  I am grateful for that because it means that you young women are learning and arming yourself to protect your futures.

Every once in awhile, however, I am amazed at denials of the importance of these issues.  Consider a VERY VERY prestigious Big Law firm pushing back on my remarks about reporting issues of gender discrimination and implicit bias to HR and, if there is no satisfactory resolution at that level, to keep notes and consider a resolution outside the law firm.  Also consider that the push back was not from male lawyers.  The push back was from senior women partners.  I guess their loyalty was to the organization and not to women.  Sad.

I pushed back, too.  I reminded those women that I am an advocate for women lawyers not for individual law firms.  I applaud HR processes that are fair, thorough and invested in exploring the facts, discovering the truth, and redressing wrong.  However, not all law firm processes meet those standards.  In those instances, I want women to know their options. Even if XYZ law firm has a process that does meet those high standards, many of the women I speak to today at such law firms may not be there in the future.  They may find themselves at law firms with processes of much lesser quality and dedication to fairness.  They will need the information I have for them.

It is as simple as this.  Take these issues seriously, whether you are a young woman lawyer or a law firm leader.  You do less at your peril.