How should the Law Society address the exodus of women lawyers from private practice? Does the Justicia project reach far enough?
Bencher candidates in their first 15 years of practice answer this question in the third part of our bencher election survey.
You can also see a list of all benchers in their first decade-and-a-half of their careers here, and read their answers to our questions about mandatory CPD and the big issues facing new lawyers in Ontario.
Q:
Women are leaving Bay Street in droves. To address this, the LSUC launched Justicia, a project that asks firms to formally pledge to introduce supportive policies and programs for female lawyers. But unlike similar American programs, Justicia does not require firms to set targets for increasing the number of female senior associates and partners, or disclose any information on whether progress is being made. Should the LSUC require firms to set targets and track their progress publicly?
Basil Alexander:
In order to determine the effectiveness of any program, one has to measure and track changes and results over time. Projects such as Justicia should thus incorporate a requirement and expectation that there will be public reporting of targets and results. To be clear, this requirement and expectation would only apply to those firms who sign up to participate in the program (i.e. not the entire profession) because the point is to determine whether the project is having a tangible effect and whether changes might be needed. Such reporting should definitely be at a high overall project level. It perhaps should also apply to participating firms over a certain threshold of people because such firms would have an appropriate critical mass. Of course, any others who wish to publicly provide such information should also be free to do so.
Monica Goyal:
The Justicia program’s very existence is a hopeful sign. Unfortunately, without targets or information disclosure, it may be a long time before we see meaningful change on Bay Street. Meanwhile, the Law Society should broaden its efforts to support women lawyers. These efforts should include helping to develop more diverse types of practices such as work-sharing or part-time arrangements, or a hands-on assistance program for lawyers who are looking to start their own practice. Further, I would consider revisiting the current fee schedule to ensure it is not a significant obstacle to new types of work arrangements.
Dan Guttman:
More could and should be done to retain female lawyers in practice. One initiative which I have advocated in my campaign is the expansion of the parental leave benefit — in terms of quantum and who it is available to. This would be one small step in facilitating the retention of female lawyers in private practice. With respect to the big firms, while Justicia is a good start, much more can be done. In my opinion the Law Society should require large firms to set targets and track the progress of female lawyers publicly. The Law Society should champion other initiatives — for instance the newly formed Young Women and the Law.
Nabeel Haque:
YES. Diversity within the profession is both positive and necessary. Law has traditionally been a male dominated profession even though society is increasingly diverse. People need to feel comfortable with their lawyer and this means providing familiarity in terms of religion, ethnicity and gender. In order to serve the public effectively, the profession needs to reflect this diversity as well. Setting targets for women and minority groups along with public scrutiny will benefit the profession.
Katherine I. Henshell:
Like any career, lawyers need to decide how to divide their priorities within their time commitments. The current practice of law causes practitioners to make career choices based on their highest priorities. The current practise of law, and the practice of business in general, tends to place less emphasis on the priority of family. The concept of women leaving high profile jobs is not exclusive to the practise of law. This problem exists because of the way business is practised in North America. If the LSUC wants to address this issue then they need to meet with the Bay Street firms to mutually develop a system in which the businesses can still thrive and operate while addressing the needs of their workforce.
Wennie Lee:
This is a difficult question. The issue, for the most part, is not so much the existence of a glass ceiling, but that the realities of modern practice are not accommodating to women, in that they are forced to chose between family and a professional life. I am not sure that a program as currently thought out is enough to change what is a reality that affects the lives of both men and women, but which takes a major toll on women. A more holistic approach is needed, and would necessitate not only assistance from law firms, but also the courts, and other institutions which dictate the realities of practice.
Robert Levan:
I believe firmly that more can be done by way of supportive policies and programs to ensure the retention of women in all areas of our profession. That said, I am not sure that requiring larger law firms to set targets and report publicly as a part of a voluntary program would be a workable solution in the case at hand. I would think that any firm who felt they might not meet the goals or who believed they could fall short of the targets would hedge their bets and opt not to continue their participation in the program to avoid potential embarrassment.
Dorette Pollard:
The LSUC is on the right track in its efforts to address the exodus of young women from the private practice. However, as a regulatory body the LSUC needs to reinforce and enforce Justicia by setting reasonable and achievable standards. To be effective, this initiative should also impose sanctions for non-compliance where required. To cite an example, the Orstein Report reveals that women in the legal profession do not earn the same salaries as their male counterparts. I believe that pay inequity is a contributing factor to the high attrition rate for women who make up 60% of young lawyers. I support the Law Society’s efforts with respect to parental leave and as your Bencher, making positive change for young women will be a priority for me.
A. Michael Rothe:
I certainly agree that more needs to be done to retain the many fine women who have entered the legal profession. The Justica program is a positive step in that direction. The program requires that at this stage the larger firms (25+ lawyers) commit to adopting programs for the retention of women and further, to the collecting and maintaing of demographic information about their lawyers. While I would support requiring this information be made public for greater transparency, I would be hesitant to force these firms to set specific targets at this early stage.
Robert Shawyer:
No. In order to address the issue of women leaving large Bay Street firms and the practice more generally, the LSUC needs to introduce programs similiar to unemployment insurance that lawyers can pay into and withdraw from when they need to take time off for maternity leave or parentel leave, etc. It is only when we start addressing the issues that are at the core issues of why women are leaving the profession and lawyers are struggling with making a living and taking care of their families will we begin to solve some of the real issues facing the profession.
Osgoode Hall photo by Oliver Mallich