Is making money a problem for single female lawyers?

There’s an article in the Times Online that touches upon an issue I heard about a lot while I was working in Chicago…single women who find that men are intimidated by their jobs/money.

For the first time women in their twenties are earning more than their male counterparts in at least five American cities, including New York, Boston and Chicago. In Dallas, young women earn on average 20% more than men.

…

The study, by Professor Andrew Beveridge of Queens College in New York, concluded that women’s increasing affluence was largely the result of growing numbers of female university graduates. More than 50% of women in full-time work have college degrees, compared with 38% of men.

The figures change dramatically once women enter their thirties – when many start families and fall behind men in the promotion race.

…

A contributor to another “dating down” discussion noted that “most of my single women lawyer friends identify themselves as an airline stewardess if they are trying to meet men, even in a fun setting like a bar”.

Hmmm… I would not encourage anyone to start off any relationship on a lie.

W.I.L.D. Woman: Cupcake Brown

The American Bar Association website has a tidbit about attorney Cupcake Brown. She’s had an interesting life to say the least. I strongly believe that the legal profession should be made up of people from all walks of life and her life story certainly seems to have take a different path than mine did. From drug addict and prostitute to lawyer to screenwriter… how inspiring!

Anita Hill…that’s Professor Hill to you

US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a new book out.  Anita Hill is going to be back in the spotlight soon.  According to this article in the Tucson Citizen, she is now teaching law at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.

Get on board with Mary Cranston

I like the ABA newsletters which provides highlights of people’s accomplishments, news, and practice tips.  In the September issue, there is an interesting Q&A with Mary Cranston, who sits on the board at VISA.  She talks about the traits that help make women lawyers contributing members of corporate boards.

The DirectWomen Institute is an ABA program to develop and train accomplished women to become directors on boards.  Now that sounds like a great idea for networking.

Sandra Day O’Connor: Once Unwanted

For those unemployed law school graduates out there, fear not, even esteemed lawyers have trouble finding a job sometimes.  Some lucky Montrealers were treated to a lunch hour session with 3 Canadian and 3 American Supreme Court justices speaking according to this Montreal Gazette article.

“Beverley McLachlin, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and her colleague Marie Deschamps nodded as Sandra Day O’Connor, who in 1981 became the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, recalled her frustrating attempts to break into the field after graduating from Stanford University law school in the early 1950s.

Although she had completed her studies in two years instead of the usual three, finishing third in a class of 102, no one wanted to hire her.

“I couldn’t get a job, I couldn’t get an interview. It was very difficult,” she recalled.”

Bet those employers regretted their decisions as she rose through the ranks!

Family Friendly Firms

Here is a press release about the Top Ten Family Friendly Firms compiled by Yale Law Women and co-sponsored by Women’s Law School Coalition, an affiliation of women’s law student organizations.  Lists like this are fun, but let’s not forget all those small firms all around the women who are family friendly without the fanfare.  Kudos to those firms too!

Behind every lawsuit there is a story

Cozen O’Connor faces a gender discrimination lawsuit.    Every firm has its own “culture” or an “attitude” unique to the firm and it’s always fun to get a peek inside… but I think that when it comes to lawsuits, firms usually settle rather than have their firm culture and gossip dragged outside for all to see regardless of whether the claims are true or false.

Direct services vs. research and advocacy

The Toronto Star has an article today with the headline “Tories slammed over the demise of women’s groups.” Status of Women Canada changed the rules by which groups qualify for funding from the government. Groups that provide direct services the funding will be favored while groups that do advocacy and research work will no longer qualify.

“[The government's] position has been that there is a large enough body of research and statistics out there about obstacles to women’s participation in society – now is the time to put money into direct services such as job training assistance for new immigrants. It beefed up the funding envelope for such projects by $5 million in the last budget, bringing it to $15.3 million.”

The loss of National Association of Women and the Law is sad; it lobbied for the inclusion of women in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But people have to understand that hot issues change and the funding pot is a limited resource.

My personal beliefs are that although research and advocacy are clearly important, the hot issue in this century are the group of women who are farthest from equality and struggle the most: those in the lower class who would benefit most from direct services. More research would benefit a small percentage of the upper/middle class where the big companies and law firms they work for won’t want to be ‘the bad guys’ shown by the studies. The scrutiny of media and feminist scholars will surely bring attention to anything that is missed by the government or the private sectors and their internal sensors for Charter-sensitive issues. Direct services, on the other hand, will allow marginalized women such as immigrant women or poor women greater access to justice and equality. We need more grass-roots, training/educational services and these are person by person, social- economical- psychological changes that research and advocacy can’t touch directly. Perhaps things will change in the next ten years and the government will have to spend more money on research again, but for now, I think direct services is where the money should be spent.

“Late for work? Don’t mention the nanny”

Times Online has an article about working mothers. One of the women interviewed is a lawyer with kids:

Lisa Thompson, a corporate lawyer with three children, said that a generally negative atmosphere in her office led her to lie about absences and lateness if her childcare arrangements fell through. She said that colleagues took a dim view of her need to leave at 5.30pm every day, even though she worked at home to catch up when the children were in bed.

I hear all the time that things are better now than they were 10 years ago in terms of home-work balance. I wonder what will happen in the next 10 years…

What do Idaho and Indiana have in common?

According to this Idaho Press-Tribune article, Idaho and Indiana are now the only states in the US where the state’s highest court do not include any female judges.  Of course, everyone was aware of this possibility prior to the appointment of Judge Joel Horton to fill the vacancy left by Justice Linda Copple-Trout.  Should the position be decided/not decided by gender as a rule? Or does this situation where there would be zero females on the Court otherwise, create a special circumstance where gender should be considered? Or are there simply not enough qualified women who want the job?

[Peg Dougherty, Vice President of the Idaho Women Lawyers, says,] “It’s a very large segment of the population that’s not being represented on the court, and I don’t think that anyone can dispute that a woman’s perspective is different than a man’s perspective.”

Horton, however, said he didn’t think gender would be an issue in the high court’s rulings.

“My flip answer is that as a male, I wouldn’t know,” Horton joked.