A few days ago after reading about Working Mother magazine’s recognition of programs in diversity and work/life balance, I had a chance to catch up with the Managing Partner of Dorsey & Whitney, Marianne Short.
Now, the list of "Best Law Firms for Women 2007" numbers 50:
- Alston & Bird, Atlanta, GA
- Armstrong Teasdale, St. Louis, MO
- Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC
- Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, IN
- Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, IL
- Bingham McCutchen, Boston, MA
- Blackwell Sanders, Kansas City, MO
- Bryan Cave, St. Louis, MO
- Chapman and Cutler, Chicago, IL
- Covington & Burling, Washington, DC
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY
- Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, NY
- Dickstein Shapiro, Washington, DC
- DLA Piper US, New York, NY
- Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, MN
- Duane Morris, Philadelphia, PA
- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, Pittsburgh, PA
- Farella Braun + Martel, San Francisco, CA
- Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, WI
- Folger Levin & Kahn, San Francisco, CA
- Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ
- Heller Ehrman, San Francisco, CA
- Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC
- Holland & Knight, New York, NY
- Howrey, Washington, DC
- Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA
- Ice Miller, Indianapolis, IN
- Katten Muchin Rosenman, Chicago, IL
- King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA
- Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL
- Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, Pittsburgh, PA
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, New York, NY
- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, CA
- Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago, IL
- McDermott Will & Emery, Chicago, IL
- McGuireWoods, Richmond, VA
- Miller & Chevalier Chartered, Washington, DC
- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, Boston, MA
- Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, CA
- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, New York, NY
- Patton Boggs, Washington, DC
- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, New York, NY
- Reed Smith, Pittsburgh, PA
- Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, NY
- Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, IL
- White & Case, New York, NY
- WilmerHale, Washington, DC
- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, NC
So why did I want to talk to Marianne? Pretty simple, actually: Of the 50 firms, Dorsey is the only one that is both in the AmLaw 100 and which is led by a woman.
Before Marianne and I spoke, I had sketched out a few questions (which I shared with her in advance) including:
- What particular initiatives did the firm undertake to accommodate working mothers that are different from or in addition to initiatives it might already have undertaken for “work/life balance” in general?
- Aside from the social, ethical, and other moral/human reasons for such an initiative, what are the business benefits to the firm? To its clients?
- Did the firm already have in place any policies regarding flex-time, sabbaticals, job sharing, etc.? If so, why were these inadequate for working mothers?
- Has there been any push-back from female lawyers who are either childless or who choose not to take advantage of working mother programs, or from male lawyers?
Here’s what I learned.
The first thing she reported is that the working mothers/work-life balance initiative has been something the firm has been working on for decades, starting in the 1970’s when they drafted their first parental leave guidelines.
In fact, if memory serves, it probably started when the first female lawyer got pregnant and wanted to continue practicing. (Marianne’s own two children are 19 and 24, so some reasonable arrangements were clearly in place when she was with the firm in the 1980’s.)
In 1993 Dorsey lawyers participated in a mentoring program for women, followed by offsite retreats dedicated to networking among women in 1997, and in 2004 a formal task force was created to address flexible work arrangements.
Men, to be sure, can take advantage of exactly the same programs; indeed, anyone, with or without children, can use flex-time to, say, care for aging parents. The program has worked particularly well with younger lawyers who grew up computer-literate and can operate independently and professionally from home or elsewhere. Said Marianne: "I don’t look at it as only women of childbearing age." The initiative is potentially for the benefit of almost everyone, particularly as two-earner households become ubiquitous.
What about pushback, I ask: Has there been any quiet resistance from those on a more traditional track? "Zero," she replied. Two expectations are now in play where only one used to be. The old, and still current, expectation was that you would be readily available to clients no matter what. The new, and added, expectation is that you can be available from wherever you want to be. Compromising the quality of work or client service is non-negotiable and always has been, but the ability to work from wherever is new.
No face-time in the office required? "No, huge change from when I was an associate. If a senior person was going to be in on Saturday morning, you were going to be in on Saturday morning; that expectation doesn’t exist any more. The biggest change from the 1970’s and 1980’s is a complete embrace of different ways of getting work done. It’s the quality and timeliness of work, not the individual lawyer’s presence, that counts."
So, fine, all this makes us feel virtuous and flexible and enlightened, but what are the business benefits to the firm and its clients?
"Remember that a large part of what lawyers, especially partners, need to focus on is not just grinding the work out but business development. That means being active in your community, doing pro bono, serving on boards. Sure, at the start of one’s career there’s a certain inevitable and even welcome discipline to learning the craft, but once you have accomplished that, having simple human experiences, reaching out and talking with other people, makes you stronger and helps you build your business."
In other words, she doesn’t see the firm "accommodating" to new expectations; she sees it as "appreciating" the new expectations, which is in every sense good for the firm’s business.
And, the firm is making significant investments in recruitment, retention, training, and mentoring—the "care and feeding" of the next generation. I mention that one observation I hear repeatedly from managing partners is that, if you truly want a collaborative firm culture, there’s no substitute for spending the money to put people on airplanes and get them together in offsite’s at nice hotels. To get away from, as one put it, the "name tag syndrome" at partner meetings. She agrees emphatically, applying the same "it’s an investment not an expense" philosophy to associate training: "If you believe in your firm’s pipeline of talent development, this is a good business model."
I ask about external pressures, from clients or even courts, for diversity efforts, and she says it’s not only an increasing external demand, but a smart internal way to assemble teams. Marianne’s a trial lawyer, and she observes that "when I argue a case to a judge or a jury, I appreciate all perspectives and comments from a diverse trial team, which help me prepare for the little surprises encountered in court." And, in any event, the drive for diversity has become a non-issue, at least internally to the firm. "Even if someone doesn’t want to get it at first, all they need to hear is that one major client wants it, and that’s the end of the conversation."
How will she know if these efforts are paying off?
She doesn’t have an isolated anecdote to tell or a stem-winding paragraph stolen from a campaign stump speech to offer, she has a fact:
- Five years ago, in 2002, 28% of the 5th through 7th year associates were women.
- Today, in 2007, the percentage of the 5th through 7th year associates who are women is 50%.
To me, that’s a powerful number. Maybe you can get there from here.
