(no subject)

[liadnan]

Two vaguely professional things, unrelated save in my head. But at least one of them ought to be of general interest rather than only to the handful of lawyers among you... The appropriate catch-all (catch both?) title is probably something like "Gender and the Law".

The first is that a screaming tirade of alarums and excursions broke out a couple of minutes ago in the sedate and peaceful environs of Lincoln's Inn. Thinking it sounded like a Major Incident alarm I went to have a look and discovered it was in fact a group called Fathers 4 Justice, whose main purpose is essentially to complain about what they see as unjust treatment meeted out to them in the Family Courts. (The fact that Lincoln's Inn is almost exclusively full of Chancery -ie property- practitioners rather than family ones was almost certainly lost on them, and fair enough I guess). Why they blame us, as a profession in general, rather than the judges and HMG, is not entirely clear to me.
The second comes from my weekly newswire, lawzone.co.uk, who I hope don't mind me quoting parts of their editorial:
1 EDITORIAL: SEXISM IN THE CITY OF SHEFFIELD
"But you're a woman."

That was response of one male client on being introduced to the
senior partner of a large City law firm. That this prejudice is
reflected within the law comes as little surprise.

Sadly, you didn't have to look too far for another ugly example
last week. Solicitor Harriet Davies-Taheri, who was fired and a
week later lost her baby, has been awarded 31,500 pounds
compensation for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal by an
employment tribunal.

Her employer, the Sheffield law firm Prodow Mackay, suspended
her on the grounds of "poor work", one month after her telling her
firm she was pregnant. She then developed life threatening pre
eclampsia and lost her baby.

She is convinced that her illness was stress-related and the firm is
to blame for the death of her son. Her boss was reported to have
said: "I suppose I shouldn't ask if you are going to go off and have
millions of babies, but if I give you this job and you leave I will go
absolutely ballistic."

Clearly, the firm's 'family friendly' policy had fallen down the
back of a filing cabinet when they came to interview Ms Davies-
Taheri for the job.


2. EXODUS: WOMEN LAWYERS LEAVING THE
PROFESSION IN DROVES
Almost two-thirds of women leaving the legal profession do so
because they feel it is impossible to combine bringing up a family
with a legal career, according to new research that for the first
time interviews women who have opted out of the law.

According to a study by the Young Solicitors Group, the
Association of Women Solicitors and the Law Society, some 59
per cent of the 439 women who had left the profession and were
interviewed cited childcare as the reason for their departure. What
was more, 67 per cent were put off from coming back for similar
reasons.

Almost half of all respondents (44 per cent) claimed that they were
put off by the profession's attitude to women.

Unsurprisingly given the results, the failure of firms to hold on to
women staff was reflected most strikingly at partner level. It was
revealed that 57 per cent of women who had stayed with a firm for
between 10 and 19 years, compared to 85 per cent of men in the
same range, despite the fact that approximately 60 per cent of
entrants to the profession are women.

I note that this is about the solicitor's profession. It is probably easier to have a child and come back to a career as a barrister, I know two people in these chambers who have done so and one of them's the head and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge. You aren't "on a track" in the same way. Nevertheless, who am I to know? I simply pass these things on, as I think they're interesting.
Incidentally, there were more female than male entrants to the Bar in my year, for the first time. Which is important, applications have been higher among women than men for some years I believe, but applicants and getting through the three (or five) years of training to finally having a tenancy are entirely different things.

But what do you do about it? People after partnership in major city law firms are expected to work their arses off, day after day. Nannies all round? Or expect less (for the firm) from the women than the men? Or what? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this (rather than opt for a job as a government lawyer, or in a provincial law firm, with the smaller workload - and income-).
That's an honest question, not an opinion by the way.
There's at least one person reading this who will undeniably have definite opinions on this...

I said I was going home an hour ago, didn't I. Bugger. Off now, anyway.

Comments

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, my bridesmaid commented on this tonight when we were having drinks to celebrate her engagement. We were on the baby subject, and she said she wanted a career first before having babies.

She's a City solicitor as well...

The only other one I know is G.'s late aunt, who did have three kids and wound up a judge, having come into law the old-fashioned way, but her experience is rather out of date these days.

[liadnan]

It's not only the law of course. Same story with City highfliers: Nicola Horlick is a massive exception to the rule. And, I'd guess, the medical profession, certainly surgeons.

[lil-ashy.livejournal.com]

But what do you do about it? People after partnership in major city law firms are expected to work their arses off, day after day. Nannies all round?

How about getting your government to impliment reliable, safe, secure, across the bord affordable child care programs (it is do able! One province in Canada (Qubec) managed it!)

That way parents have a choice, an alternative, with out putting their kids at risk.

No they wouldn't have to choose it and many probably wouldn't (as a lot of people seem to want to stay at home with their kids), but it would give them the option to continue working.

Or expect less (for the firm) from the women than the men? Or what? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this (rather than opt for a job as a government lawyer, or in a provincial law firm, with the smaller workload - and income-).

Is that is it possible for women? Or is that is it possible for a person in general to go into such a carrear and have a child?

[liadnan]

How much does the childcare programme cost? And at what age does it start?

Your final point is a good one and points up carelessness in my original question. But I think it misses an important angle, and the one I'm getting at: essentially what you say just above. Firstly of course, a father isn't going to actually have the child. There's what minimum two months (pure guess) that a mother has to have off, anecdotal evidence of third world women having their babies in the lunch break and going straight back to work notwithstanding.
More relevant to what I'm thinking about is the emotional/psychological thing. Say your leave covers a reasonable time for a mother to be physically fit and then you have to choose between taking time off work or putting it into free childcare. Is it not fair to say that most mothers will say they want more time off work to spend time with their baby: a year perhaps? Is this more likely to be an emotional/psychological problem for fathers or mothers? And if they say that, does the profession have to artificially ensure they don't fall behind their competitors, of whatever sex, who are not parents?
One also has to bear in mind that quite frequently there won't be a father around...

How much does the childcare programme cost? And at what age does it start?

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

The costs for hiring a nanny here are roughly about 10% of what would be considered a good monthly income. Play schools start at the age of 2 years and you can leave your kids there for only 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. We still don't have facilities where you can leave your child for 8 hrs or more.

Moving on, the way I look at it, having a baby *is* a career decision. The mother would need at *least* 3 months to be physically fit and back at the job [all those women in all those anecdotes who went back to the fields usually just crossed the fields to make their way home to rest in bed for the next 40 days. They leave the bed after 40 days, the house after 3 months and start hard labour only after an year]. However, at 2 odd months [the last fortnight or so of your pregnancy, you are not fit to work. You are just too fat and ungainly...bloody hell, you need a 4 step plan to turn over on your side whilst lying in bed!] your baby can't even support her own neck. Given the amount of hard work you have already put into that tiny little thing over the last one year, you are not about to leave her with a total stranger for 8 or 9 hours a day. Fast forward one year and you have a child which can talk a little, walk a little and has mastered most of the motor functions. Even at this point, most mothers would rather stay with the baby most of the day.

Going by what I know of the law firms in Delhi, Chandigarh and Bangalore [only criminal law, big name firms, I'm afraid], most women lawyers are allowed a year off with pay and another year off without pay and with no damage to her seniority. The firm usually keeps them involved by sending them files and telling them to draft legal briefs etc - work that they can do at home, around the baby's schedule. Once they rejoin [and that is usually after one year], their presence in the office is required only for a few hours and they are given still more take-home work. Once the child is old enough to go to school, the hours and the workload increases.
The fame, the recognition comes only once the kids are a little older but there seems to be a willing distribution of labour and the firm owners seem to consider it an investment in their people.

[booklectica]

I'm starting to wonder if this isn't actually an insoluble problem, at least in this stage of feminism/civilisation.

I think you're right - on the whole, women who have children want a fair amount of time at home with those children. Men probably do too, of course, and that also needs sorting - at the moment paternity leave is two weeks, which strikes me as far too short. (As opposed to 26-52 weeks of maternity leave).

It may be the case that, at the moment, women who want a seriously high-flying career such as being a lawyer actually do need to choose that over having children. I don't like the idea but it may be true. Other jobs, and even careers, can be more easily reconciled with family life - but that's not much help if your lifetime ambition lies in law.

Don't know. Difficult. Maybe careers are overrated anyway...

[stonehan.livejournal.com]

No one really questions a father who works long hours and sees his children at weekends, but it's frowned upon for a woman to do the same, no matter how good the arrangements are for the child in the meantime.

There's a strong social push for the woman to compromise her career for her child and there's certainly censure for those women who don't want to. After all, why does a woman who works hard to get to the top of her profession bother to have a baby at all, since she's not at home to wipe her darling's bottom and see her first step? But we don't ask that question about fathers.

There's a huge number of things that the government and private companies could do to ease the pressure on working parents- but that won't change the demands of the job. Fundamentally some professions will always demand long hours, dedication and the sacrifice of other aspects of one's life.

Having a baby should be a choice that potential parents make in full knowledge of the implications it will have for their lives, and only after assuring themselves that they can offer the child love, security and affection. I know it doesn't often happen like that; people make hard decisions based on fear and love and muddled thinking and hope that somehow it will all work out.

Many women work long hours not to get to the top of their profession but just to make ends meet. Somehow that's OK: we'd rather a woman worked in a care home for the elderly 60 hours a week and paid the rent and the babysitter than she sat at home and cared for the child all day and accepted benefits. But it's not OK for a woman to work the same hours for a lot more money, and pay for much better childcare, if she's doing it in order to further her career. In other words- if a woman is forced to leave her child then we can sympathise. If she chooses to do so she has to justify herself.

Oh I ramble. You so knew this would set me off :)

So, my answer is: with enough help and support, with childcare and with the same hard work as her child free colleagues a woman with children can give the firm as much committment as a woman without children can. She can raise a child according to her beliefs, she can have happy, well rounded children who are confident that they are loved and wanted. It's just that she can't do that as well as fill a traditional maternal role.

I think many women try to have both things and therefore end up compromising both in terms of work and in terms of their role as a mother. In my experience the person who comes out worst of is the mother- she will place her child and her job in front of her own needs.

I'm neither denying nor excusing the rampant sexual discrimination refelected in the articles you quoted. But I think that it's too easy to simply blame the establishment for not being "family friendly"; it ignores the element of choice that is involved. Women do choose to scale down their careers in order to spend more time with their children, but I don't think this means we should run around trying to change the nature of the profession from which they have stepped down. We should make the implications of having children clearer, we should give both men and women more options to work flexibly, we should encourge society to accept and include men who step down from their careers to care for children and generally give children and their education and raising a much higher value.

Oh yeah. We should invent completely foolproof contraception as well, please. And a refund policy if you change you mind withing 6 months of giving birth :)

. And a refund policy if you change you mind withing 6 months of giving birth :)

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

*l*

The population problem would be solved rather easily if this policy came into effect.

Re: . And a refund policy if you change you mind withing 6 months of giving birth :)

[liadnan]

Ah come on. Am I to believe that either of you would hand back Ciara and Koko?

? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is possible but it happens rather rarely here. Most [thinking] women know and accept the fact that having children means, to a certain extent, that they are putting their lives and career on hold for a few years. Once these years have passed, you are free to go back to whatever you were doing.

The only exceptions I have seen to the norm are when the women concerned are living in a joint family.Then, it is easy to resume your career after 3 months or so. It is much easier to leave your three month old baby with your mother-in-law and sisters-in-law and the maid than with just a nanny.

I have seen people leave their babies with nannies and I found it rather reasonable...until I had my own baby. Amongst all the thousands of things people never warn you about pregnancy and motherhood are the irrationally protective urges that take you over.A new mother is *far* more irrational than a pregnant woman....

However, there also seems to be a slight difference in the general attitude. Out here, most employers have very generous maternity leaves and the work load is automatically reduced while the child is very young.

However, in the end, I think the fact is that no woman who chooses to have a child can follow the same kind of a career graph, in a demanding career, as a man can. Doesn't mean she can't scale the same heights or perform better. Still, the graph *would* look different if she has a baby. She might have a supportive environment at home and at work but there would still be changes necessitated by hormones and biology.

So, yes, a woman *can* go all the way, but usually, only on her own time-table. If the bosses are clever enough to understand that [here the practice seems to be to take on temps for around a year or 18 months until the new mother can resume a partial workload], things work out rather fine and the firm, in the end, suffers no loss.

Re: ? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this

[liadnan]

But what does the client do when they find that the person they've been working with is away. My suspicion is they go to someone where that is (they think) less likely to happen. Personal relationships count for an enormous amount in this business.
And on the barrister's side, where we are all self-employed that is more starkly apparent actually. A woman who takes time off to have a baby will be exempted from chambers expenses in our set for some time (6 months?) I don't know if that's common or connected to the fact that our head of chambers is the only head of a major commercial set I can think of offhand who is a woman, let alone a woman with a child (and she's fairly young for it, in her very early 50s I guess, even by male standards. That, hopefully is a generational thing though. I note, in this ridiculously long bracketed digression that there are only a handful of women on the High Court bench, I can only think of two women at the next level, Lady Justices, and there has never yet been a woman in the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, though one of those two is likely to make it soon).
Family networks... yes, I guess that's something that Indian families (here and in India) and others have that your normal Anglo-Saxon family just doesn't. But is that breaking down over there? Is that something which is inevitably going to break down as a side effect of generally positive changes in society, as people become richer on average and women become free-er? (Freer. Freeer? Eh?) (That isn't intended to bring your own situation into this by the way...)

Re: ? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, the clients usually don't go away because the ;lawyer has a baby. After all one usually has 8 months of advance notice. That is time enough to shift the work load and phase out cases in such a way that a delivery and subsequent absence wouldn't coincide with cross examining a starr witness. I think the problem would be more acute for the self-employed, especially if the client doesn't have much knowledge of others in the firms [if there is a firm, that is]. But again, if you are self employed, chances are you have worked out your budget, planned your pregnancy and decreased your workload according to your physical imperatives. The thing though is that if you handle it carefully enough, you will lose clients but the same clients would recommend you to others when you *are* back at work.

The joint family system is breaking down these days - people move away for jobs and the family turns nuclear. Still, it is not that big a change - it has been replaced by the concept of the extended family. A group of family and friends all of which live near enough to turn up in emergencies. People getting richer, women becoming free-er, the traditional family system breaking doen.....none of this really makes that much of a difference. Apparently, we Indians are a community loving people. We seem to form lots of groups and ties wherever we go...and I wouldn't try to bring my situation into this. I seem to be an anomalous Indian. By Indian standards, I am a veritable hermit.