Anyone who has viewed the viral video, “So You Want to Go to Law School” on YouTube may recall an older male attorney describing one of the more mundane aspects of the practice of law (e.g., responding to Requests for Admissions created solely to confuse you) to an earnest young woman considering going to law school. Despite the male attorney's ominous warnings, the female protagonist in the video, Carrie-Ann Fox, nonetheless decides to go to a fictitious law school and even spawns a sequel YouTube video. Unfortunately, many women are making a different decision—to not go to law school. As a result, this could be a critical time for law firms to make the practice of law more "friendly" to women.

The data provided in a recent Catalyst study illustrates this fact. (Catalyst’s “Women in Law in the U.S.” (2011).) Catalyst is not alone in reporting this trend—according to the ABA, in the 2009 to 2010 class, women made up 47.2 percent of J.D. Students. (American Bar Association, “Enrollment and Degrees Awarded 1963-2010.") This is a noticeable change from 1993, when women comprised 50.4 percent of J.D. students. (American Bar Association, “First Year and Total J.D. Enrollment by Gender 1947 – 2010.”)

Several factors are likely to blame for the erosion of female law school applicants—the economy, related concerns about student loan debt, and perhaps most importantly, the lack of women in the upper echelons of law firms and corporate law departments. This stalled advancement coupled with the perception that law school may not be a good investment in these trying economic times could contribute to a long-term setback for women in the profession. These troubling statistics have certainly been noted by the media—the New York Times, for example, published a piece last year documenting the progress of women in the law in light of the 30th anniversary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor hearing her first case on the United States Supreme Court. (Editorial. "The Glass Ceiling." New York Times on the Web, 8 Oct. 2011. 5 April 2012.) The editorial noted that women with children are having the hardest time staying in the profession, and are half as likely to be hired as women without children.

In 2010, women made up 31.5 percent of all lawyers. (Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 11: Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation, S*x, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity,” Annual Averages 2010 (2011).) However, 11 percent of the largest law firms in the United States have no women on their governing committees. (National Association of Women Lawyers and The NAWL Foundation, Report of the Sixth Annual National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms (October 2011). At many firms, female partners do not play a major role in business development. Indeed, women partners account for only 16 percent of those partners receiving credit for having $500,000 or more business at law firms. (Id.)

After assessing the amount of time, effort, and money required to complete law school and make partner at a law firm, some women may determine that it is not worth the sacrifice, if being partner does not give them actual power relative to firm business decisions. In a survey of the 50 best law firms for women, only a fraction of the decision makers were women: 10 percent of firm chairpersons were women; 2 percent of the firms had women managing partners; 19 percent of the equity partners were women; and 28 percent of the non-equity partners were women. (NAFE and Flex-Time Lawyers, “Executive Summary,” Best Law Firms for Women 2011 (2011).)

This lack of power translates into cold hard dollars, as women lawyers made approximately 77 percent of male lawyers' salaries in 2010. (Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 39: Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and S*x,” Annual Averages 2010 (2011).) This lesser income, combined with the demands facing women at home, may not make the practice of law as appealing to females who may feel that they are choosing between a family life and a successful law practice. One study found that nearly half as many male lawyers as women lawyers (44 percent vs. 84 percent) have a spouse that is employed full-time. (Catalyst, Women in Law: Making the Case (2001).) So while top male lawyers may have spouses who do not work full-time, if at all, many female lawyers' spouses work full-time, and the demands of both spouses working is particularly hard on these families.

What do these declining enrollment figures mean for the future practice of law? A decreasing number of females entering law school will undoubtedly result in fewer female attorneys in the coming years. And, that could result in even fewer women in leadership positions within firms, which may further perpetuate the enrollment trend.

What can law firms do to encourage women to enroll in and complete law school? Law firms should consider instituting female-friendly work practices, such as generous maternity leave, flex-time, and telecommuting ability. These business decisions may lead to increased productivity and lower turnover rates. What goes without saying is the impact of technology on the modern lawyer's life. Gone are the days of being “off-the-clock.” The BlackBerry, iPhone, and other PDAs have contributed to a whole new level of accessibility for most attorneys, particularly those who communicate with clients. Although there are some drawbacks to the norm of around-the-clock communication, it has ushered in a new age of flexibility for attorneys who do not have to be in their office to review e-mails, work documents, and participate in telephone conferences. These advancements have benefited female practitioners to the extent that they allow for some of the same work to be done from home, which is particularly helpful for those with family obligations.

Notwithstanding the percentage reduction in law school enrollment, there are still a number of organizations focused on advancing women in the profession. Groups like DRI's Women in the Law Committee (WITL), the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), and the National Association of Women and Minority Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF) have undertaken noteworthy work aimed at ensuring the success of women both in law school and in private practice. The WITL, for instance, holds an annual Sharing Success Seminar, n/k/a Women in the Law Seminar, which provides an opportunity for female attorneys to discuss tried and true methods aimed at achieving success in and outside of the courtroom. NAWL has similar initiatives like the continuing series, “Taking Charge of Your Career,” designed to provide the skills and information that women lawyers need to reach leadership levels in their practice settings. These efforts will hopefully cause law firms to pay closer attention to these important issues moving forward in order to counteract the enrollment decline and ensure diversity in future generations of attorneys to come.

Michele Hale DeShazo is senior counsel with the New Orleans office of Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson LLC, in which four of the firm's five founding partners are women. Her practice is entirely devoted to litigation, including environmental, toxic tort, product liability and general civil defense litigation.

Over the past few years, we have all heard about and possibly participated in alternative fee agreements.  According the legal analysts, these agreements are “here to stay” and in response  DRI appointed an  Alternative Fee and Billing Task Force which recently authored a comprehensive white paper on 10 of the most popular alternative fee agreements.  This paper, now available on the DRI web site, exclusively for DRI members, details the most popular features of and potential ethical issues raised by each type of alternative fee agreements. The paper outlines the considerations that each party should consider before entering any type of arrangement.   

Listen up, all you internet users (which is basically everybody but my mother, who still views the Internet as the work of the devil, and will quote from the book of Revelation in support of her theory).  Three bills you need to be aware of, because they may change the way you view (or more correctly, the way you are allowed to view) the Internet.  and from what I’m reading, there are some pretty darned big sites and companies that are ready to either “go dark” in protest (Wikipedia, for example, which is where I do most of my legal research) or lend a big supporting hand to the protests of the current bills being considered (Google is one – who can live a day without Googling something?  I mean for cryin’ out loud the Company has made itself into a verb!!).  Those bills are:

Do you feel at a loss or intimidated or repulsed by the thought of using social media? Like it or not, social media sites are a new means of communication, which we cannot ignore any more than we can ignore email. The fact is social media, if used properly, can be an effective, professional, and personal tool. If you are not using these sites currently, take a few minutes to see why you should be using social media and what you can do efficiently and effectively to save time, learn more and even advance your career. 

It is no secret that law firms sometimes encounter clients that are less than enthusiastic about paying their bills. When a client balks at paying, there can be an enormous strain on the relationship, just as there can be "trickle down" stress at the firm for those attorneys who spent valuable time on the case. When a firm is unable to collect full payment in these situations, often the younger lawyers on the case are the first to suffer. They can have their time and billings cut, which can affect  not just their compensation and progress in the firm, but also their confidence and belief that their contributions are being valued.

An issue that has recently flooded the pages of the New York Times is the rapidly increasing cost of attending law school, despite the economic climate this country is currently experiencing.  Law school tuition is rising four times faster than the cost to attend an undergraduate institution, yet the amount of students attending has also increased despite the heavy debt they will incur and the tight job market they will enter after graduating.  Many people in various legal positions have contributed their opinions to the debate of whether it is necessary for law schools to take action to lower costs, and if so, how that should be accomplished.  

The first law school in the United States was established in 1784 and the school viewed its students as apprentices, not as scholars.  However, in 1878 the American Bar Association (“ABA”) was formed and began enacting limitations on law schools.  For instance, in the 1890s the ABA pushed states to limit the number of people admitted to the Bar.  In 1906, the Association of American Law Schools also contributed to the transformation of law schools by adopting a requirement that law school consist of three years of study.

Since the formation of law schools, the organization of these institutions has experienced changes.  It is less common to see militant professors, as portrayed in the 1973 movie The Paper Chase, and more common to witness professors simply asking for volunteers in class and not berating students if they did not read an assignment.  Even the length of time that a person has to go to law school has changed.  Recently, schools such as Northwestern University School of Law have begun to offer an accelerated program in which a student can complete their Juris Doctor (“J.D.”) in two years instead of three.  

Despite all these changes, though, many people in the legal field are frustrated with how much it costs to attend law school as well as the make-up of law schools.  One common complaint, as detailed in The New York Times article, “What They Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering,” is that law students are leaving school with no practical training, leaving firms the task of having to prepare new associates to become lawyers on the firm’s dime, or that of clients.  Many suggestions have been offered as to how to remedy this issue in a way that would train law students to become lawyers and alleviate some of the financial costs law schools and students face.  One suggestion has been to decrease the amount of credits students must take.  Another proposal has been to replace the third year of law school with an apprenticeship, which was the focus of the first law schools, instead of forcing students to engage in more coursework.

A proposition that has generated a lot of discussion is the idea of replacing full-time faculty with adjunct faculty.  Currently, the ABA requires that its accredited schools have a ratio of twenty students or less to one full-time faculty member.  A ratio of thirty students to one full-time faculty member is not in compliance with the ABA standards, but many of these full-time professors do not have practical legal experience because law schools look to hire scholars and not people who have spent years practicing law.  On the other hand, an adjunct professor is an experienced practitioner by definition.  

Besides lacking practical experience, it is more expensive to employ full-time faculty as opposed to adjunct faculty.  About half of a law school’s budget is spent on faculty salary and benefits, and about eighty percent of that budget goes toward full-time faculty.  Alternatively, adjunct faculty make a few thousand dollars a year to teach a course.  

With the current economic climate, it is vital that changes are made among different institutions, including law schools that will keep costs down.  While no method is a guaranteed solution, staffing more adjunct faculty is something that should be considered and this type of change would need to be initiated by the ABA.  Even though modifications to the organization of law schools may make law school administrations and professors uneasy, if adjustments are not made, the make-up of the legal profession may experience unwanted changes.  The New York Times article states that, “the nature of legal work itself is evolving, and the days when corporations buy billable hours, instead of results, are numbered.”  If law students continue on the path of failing to obtain practical experience, their chances of succeeding in this dismal market will remain poor.

A 2011 Midlevel Associates Survey conducted by The American Lawyer demonstrates that although the salary gap between minority and majority associates is closing, persistent differences continue to exist.  Hispanic associates reported the highest increase in their salary from 2008 to 2011, while Asian associates reported the highest salary and billing rates as compared to both their minority and majority counterparts, despite a decrease in their average salary.  Nonetheless, minority associates continue to rate job satisfaction categories lower than their majority counterparts. 

The survey also demonstrates that firms are making an effort to retain their minority associates.  Black and Hispanic associates were the most likely to report that they had mentors – 86.5 % and 83.1%, respectively.  Notwithstanding, all minorities thought that they had a lower chance of making partner than white associates.  Only 60% of Blacks, 63.7% of Asians and 68.4% of Hispanics thought that they were headed toward promotion.  How effective are these mentoring relationships when minority associates do not believe that they will reach the upper echelons of their firms?  What is the missing link between mentoring and retention/advancement of minority associates?  Has your firm employed innovative efforts to address the issue of advancement of minority attorneys?

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1322459168295&Survey_of_Minority_Associates_Shows_Persistent_Differences&cmp=tsm-cc-CCDDSurvey              

I got an e-mail the other day telling me that I should read an article published by the ABA.  Normally I ignore such messages, but this one caught my eye.  The title of the article was “Not One Legal Secretary Preferred Working with Women Lawyers.”  Hummm.  I thought.  So I read it.

On Friday, October 28, 2011 the ABA Journal posted this article in their online content. 

This article is based on a study called “If you become his second wife, you are a fool: Shifting paradigms of the roles, perceptions, and working conditions of legal secretaries in large law firms.”  The full study is available at this link. The problem is that the ABA’s article, in my opinion, is a complete mischaracterization of the study.

On October 31, 2011, a group of women attorneys including the President of California Women Lawyers, Georgia Black Women Lawyers, and others had a phone conference with ABA Editor, Allen Pusey.  Those on the call ultimately demanded an apology and a retraction.  At the time of this writing, neither has happened.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Forbes published a piece about women demanding an apology from the ABA.  

Two days later, on Friday, November 4, 2011, the ABA ran another article, basically saying the original article did women lawyers a favor by pointing to the fact we are discriminated against, and we don’t like to talk about it, so we got angry.  That is my summary. Read it and decide for yourself.

I am not a member of the ABA.  I dropped my membership and I am glad I did.  I think both articles should be retracted immediately.  The title of the initial article is inaccurate.  The study actually states that 47 percent of those surveyed had no opinion as to whether they preferred to work for male or female partners or associates.  With almost half of survey respondents expressing no opinion, it is a distortion of the results to say that “not one” legal secretary preferred working with women partners.

Additionally, the article gives the impression that the survey heavily emphasized the issue of legal secretaries working with women partners.  Such a survey on its face is insulting and feeds into gender stereotypes.  We do not (and should not) read about surveys regarding working with partners of particular religious affiliations, ethnicities, or sexual orientations.  While the study surveyed legal secretaries on a wide range of issues, two thirds of the ABA article focused on only one issue, secretaries working with women partners.  By strongly focusing on the survey results dealing with legal secretaries working with women lawyers, the article misrepresents the substance of the underlying study.  It gives disproportionate attention to but one of many issues addressed and in so doing continues to perpetuate negative stereotypes of women lawyers.  

Legal secretaries play an important role in law firms, and surveying how that role has evolved during the past 50 years is a worthwhile endeavor.  The ABA Journal’s emphasis on one aspect of that study does a disservice to legal secretaries as well as the women lawyers with whom they work.  I hope you will join me in writing to that organization asking for a retraction and apology. If you are interested in more background information or the steps certain women lawyers groups are taking, please let me know.  I am proud to be a DRI woman and I am proud to be on its Women in the Law Committee.

The Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) reported in the October 3, 2011 edition of the paper about the start-up of three brand new companies that were started with the purpose of entering what is considered the “fledging alternative litigation funding market.”  You can view the article here.  

The legal community is beginning to take notice of the trend of moving away from paper and toward eBooks. Attorney Jean P. O'Grady recently blogged on the topic.  Ms. O’Grady concluded that the eBook model is a poor fit for the legal community.