Sacramento No Glass Ceiling Initiative
Women Lawyers of Sacramento is a proud supporter of the Sacramento No Glass Ceiling Initiative. On this site, WLS intends to list the names of the law firms and businesses in Sacramento that have signed the No Glass Ceiling Pledge, and the Supporters. You will also find the Pledge to distribute to your own firms, legal departments or businesses for signature. A copy of the Pledge is available by clicking here. If you obtain a signed Pledge, provide a copy to Marcia Augsburger for inclusion in the list of those who have made the commitment in Sacramento. For more information about the No Glass Ceiling Initiative and how your firm/company can participate, please contact: Marcia Augsburger at maugsburger@mhalaw.com.
Other bar associations supporting Sacramento's No Glass Ceiling Initiative include Sacramento County Bar Association, Federal Bar Association, Asian/Pacific Bar Association of Sacramento, Wiley Manuel Bar Association, Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gays and Lesbians, and La Raza Lawyers Association of Sacramento. The initiative is also supported by Law Offices of Tac Craven, Law Offices of Virginia Meuller, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and University of California Davis Law School.
Background and History
In 2002, a group of San Francisco lawyers began signing up 76 law firms and legal departments in its No Glass Ceiling Initiative to encourage local law firms to make work environments more family-friendly and promote more women up the ranks. This project has been successful through the extraordinary efforts of Angela Bradstreet, managing partner of Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP.
In 2004, thanks to Grace Bergen, the then president of WLS, a working committee of dedicated women lawyers was formed, including Patricia Sturdevant, Tamara Dahn, Megan Lewis, Kristi Beckley, Lori Okun, Barbara O'Hearn, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, and Marty Opich. The committee created a No Glass Ceiling Task Force modeled after its San Francisco’s counterpart. The Task Force in Sacramento consisted of 15 of Sacramento’s top law partners and business persons. The members of the Task Force worked hard to garner support for the No Glass Ceiling Initiative’s goals aimed at increasing management statistics and the quality of life of women in Sacramento law firms, businesses and state agencies.
The Task Force composed a written commitment, or pledge, for law firms, corporate legal departments, governmental legal offices, and businesses alike to sign. The pledge commits the firm or business to involve women in all aspects of firm management, equalize retention rates between men and women, eliminate gender bias, increase business development opportunities and establish flexible work policies.
A recent survey shows that over 18 Sacramento law firms and businesses are signatories to the No Glass Ceiling pledge. But that number has become static, and a couple of law firms had decided to retract their pledge. In response, WLS is creating the No Glass Ceiling Committee to be chaired by Marcia Augsburger, a partner at McDonough Holland and Allen PC. The newly formed WLS No Glass Ceiling Committee will continue to encourage law firms and businesses to sign onto the No Glass Ceiling pledge.
Angela Bradstreet said, "This is not a gender issue, it is a business issue. It is simply no profitable for law firms to hire on female associates and lose them due to lack of partnership opportunities." The American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession reported in 2001 that it costs firms approximately 150 percent of the employee’s annual salary to recruit and train a replacement associate. According to American University Washington College of Law’s Program on WorkLife Law, the loss of a single associate can cost a firm as much as $500,000.
While nearly 50% percent of law school graduates are female, only about 16 percent of partners in Sacramento are female, the same percentage found in a national survey two years ago. But simply calling attention to the lack of women in key managing positions in law firms is not a sufficient catalyst for change. The WLS No Glass Ceiling Committee will be examining the reasons why we face a glass ceiling, and developing plans to help firms retain and promote women. We can learn from a number of prominent women who have explored how the glass ceiling can be "shattered."
Eve B. Burton, in More Glass Ceilings Than Open Doors: Women as Outsiders in the Legal Profession, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 565 (1996) argues that that for a woman to be successful in the legal profession, particularly in the large firm or corporate environment, she must have at least two of the following: (1) a flexible schedule; (2) support from a spouse or partner; and (3) a firm culture that does not require a choice between success at work and family or outside interests. As to flexible scheduling, Ms. Burton sees a flexible schedule as flexible on both the part of the attorney and the employer. Thus, while an attorney might be regularly scheduled to work four days a week, she should be prepared to work more intensively for some periods, which would be followed by "significant" periods of time off. If the attorney works significantly more than contemplated, compensation should be adjusted accordingly. As for support from a spouse or partner, Ms. Burton notes that women who are coupled with men who also work in a profession that expects long and unpredictable hours are at a disadvantage in their ability to balance family and work. She urges male attorneys to spend more time in child rearing and related tasks. As for firm culture, Ms. Burton states that pleasing clients is a powerful way to overcome institutional bias against flexible schedules.
Judith P. Vladeck in Response to Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: A Modest Proposal for Change, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 595 (1996) concludes that until the legal profession abandons its resistance to the idea that women, even those who are potential or actual mothers, are capable of commitment to the law and of providing continuing economic returns to the firms that support them, women will get nowhere. The article cites four mechanisms by which law firms perpetuate white male domination and exclusion of women from equal opportunity. These are Environment: Women are not encouraged to consider partnership as a possibility. In addition, they are discouraged by having to work in an atmosphere that tolerates classical ways of putting a young woman in her place, such as unwelcome sexual advances, harassment, or paternalistic attitudes. Assignments: Women are assigned work that limits their opportunity for partnership while newly hired males are given career advancing assignments with earlier client contact and are provided with partner mentoring. Channeling: Women are directed into fields other than lucrative corporate or commercial practice, and instead are encouraged to choose fields like domestic relations, which are then devalued as less desirable because they are women's fields. Pregnancy Discrimination: Women are faced with the Hobson's choice of foregoing having children (or unnaturally deferring child birth) or giving up partnership. Men do not have to make the choice. This is not equal opportunity.
Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford Law professor, has written extensively on women in law. In Myths of Meritocracy, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 585 (1996) she writes that while women perceive continuing gender bias difficulties in the practice of law, the perception of male attorneys is that barriers have broken down. The contrast between the perceptions of the men and women can have negative repercussions on the firms in which they jointly participate. Female lawyers consistently report receiving fewer opportunities in mentoring, business development, and desirable assignments than their male colleagues. These inequalities often reflect sex-based stereotypes, such as the assumption that women with children are less committed to their careers than are other attorneys. These preconceptions about women's lesser commitment often distort performance evaluations and eventually become self-fulfilling prophecies. A related problem involves the reluctance some male clients and attorneys still feel in working closely with women, or in including women in informal networks where mentoring and rainmaking occur. Concerns about sexual harassment complaints can heighten that discomfort.
Ms. Rhodes contends that women's career sacrifices are attributable not just to women's choices but to men's choices as well. Thus, another contributing factor to continuing gender bias is the commonly held belief that persistent gender inequalities are attributable to the fact that women have different family priorities from men and that these personal commitments exact a professional price. Male spouses' failure to shoulder equal family responsibilities and male colleagues' failure to support alternative working arrangements are also responsible. Employed women spend about twice as much time on domestic chores as employed men. In addition, the spouses of female lawyers frequently view their own professional obligations as fixed and women's as negotiable.
Some inequality in the work force is inevitable, but over time, with serious commitment to women’s advancement, we will all do better. Failure to take action will make the glass ceiling turn into a concrete one. The critical message to convey to law firms is that the glass ceiling is not healthy for anyone.
For more information about the No Glass Ceiling Initiative and how your firm/company can participate, please contact: Marcia Augsburger at maugsburger@mhalaw.com. This background on the initiative is also given in WLS President Theresa La Voie's article in the June 2007 Newsletter.
