Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fiona M. KayStacey AlarieJones Adjei
April 2013
Leaving Law and Barriers to Re-entry
A Report to the Law Society of Upper Canada
A Study of Departures from and Re-entries to Private Practice
Leaving Law and Barriers to Re-entry: A Study of Departures from and Re-entries to Private Practice
A Report to the Law Society of Upper Canada
by
Fiona M. Kay, Stacey Alarie, and Jones Adjei Queen’s University
23 April 2013
This study was funded by research grants from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and with the cooperation of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The opinions contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Law School Admission Council or the Law Society of Upper Canada.
i
Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS .............................................................................................. 3
Job Satisfaction and Turnover .................................................................................................... 3 Family Pressures and the Firm .................................................................................................... 7 Organizational Context and Available Options .......................................................................... 9 Globalization, Economic Instability, and Changing Firm Structures ....................................... 11
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................. 14 Data, Sampling, and Survey Design ......................................................................................... 14 Measurement of Variables ........................................................................................................ 17 Techniques of Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 23
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 24 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 40
Reasons for Leaving ................................................................................................................. 41 Family Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 41 Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................... 49 Pursuit of Other Interests ...................................................................................................... 52 Burn-out ................................................................................................................................ 55
Re-entry to Private Practice ...................................................................................................... 58 Obstacles to Re-entry ............................................................................................................ 58 Assistance for Those Returning to Private Practice ............................................................. 61
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 69 Nature and Time of Exits .......................................................................................................... 70 Policy and Practice .................................................................................................................... 72
References ..................................................................................................................................... 77
ii
List of Tables Table 1. Operationalization and Measurement of Study Variables .............................................. 21 Table 2. Cox Proportional Hazard Estimates of Leaving Private Practice (N=1,134) ................. 36 Table 3. Cox Proportional Hazard Estimates of Leaving Private Practice, Men and Women Separately ...................................................................................................................................... 39
List of Figures Figure 1. First Professional Position after Graduation from Law School ..................................... 25 Figure 2. Law School Graduates’ First Professional Positions, by Gender .................................. 26 Figure 3. Number of Professional Positions over the Career Span to Date, by Gender ............... 28 Figure 4. Survivor Functions (Kaplan-Meier Estimates) of the Timing of Departures from Private Practice, by Sex. ............................................................................................................... 31
iii
Leaving Law and Barriers to Re-entry:
A Study of Departures from and Re-entries to Private Practice
ABSTRACT Numerous studies report an overrepresentation of women among those leaving the profession of law. Although research has documented high turnover among women lawyers, particularly from private practice, only a handful of studies have explored the factors precipitating the decision to leave. The main causal factors identified to date include difficulties associated with combining family life and law practice and problems of discrimination and blocked career advancement. In this report we analyze data from a longitudinal study of nearly 1,600 Ontario lawyers, surveyed across a twenty-year period. Our analysis involves mixed-methods, incorporating both statistical analysis of survey responses and analysis of the detailed comments offered by participants in the study. We employ survival models to estimate the timing of transitions out of private practice and to examine factors precipitating exits from private practice. The qualitative data provide further exploration of the motives underlying departures from private practice and barriers for those seeking to return to private practice. We find that women are leaving private practice at higher rates than men. These departures appear to be largely the consequence of organizational structures and a practice culture that remain resistant to flexible schedules, time gaps between jobs, and parental and other leaves. Yet, the careers of contemporary lawyers appear to be characterized by more job changes, discontinuity and movement between sectors of practice than is commonly assumed. Our report moves discussion beyond the work/family debate and motherhood, to examine the broader issues of institutional constraints on careers of both men and women in law. We explore policy initiatives to encourage retention of legal talent in private practice and practice strategies to reduce barriers for those individuals seeking to return to private practice.
1
Leaving Law and Barriers to Re-entry: A Study of Departures from and Re-entries to Private Practice
INTRODUCTION Numerous studies have documented that, after investing in undergraduate and law school
studies and establishing careers in law practice, women are leaving the profession at higher rates
than men (Brockman 1994; Hagan and Kay 1995; Hull and Nelson 2000; Kay 1997; Kay and
Hagan 1999; Noonan and Corcoran 2004; Patton 2005; Reichman and Sterling 2002; Spurr and
Sueyoshi 1994; Wallace 2001). Attrition is costly for both law firms and the women lawyers who
leave. Employers incur a significant cost in the hiring and development of junior associates and
they strive to retain the legal talent they have (Preenan, De Pater, Van Vianen, and Keijzer 2011;
Proudfoot, Corr, Guest, and Dunn 2009). Turnover also implies high costs due to missed
contributions of experienced firm lawyers, instability of departments or teams, disruptions to
trusted relations between firm lawyers and clients, and loss of proficiency. The cost of losing
lawyers from a firm is particularly severe if a component of their knowledge was strongly firm-
specific, such as deep tacit knowledge about the firm’s culture and business acumen, because this
knowledge is difficult to rebuild or replace (Benson and Brown 2007; Kackmar et al. 2006;
Somaya, Williamson, and Lorinkova 2008).
For lawyers, leaving also carries personal costs. Law graduates invest years in higher
education and certification and often graduate with a sizeable student debt load (Hirshman 2006).
Individuals who leave law practice after years of study and professional training make a
significant change in their planned route from their initial career aspirations. Even turnover
within the legal profession, across firms or between sectors of practice, disrupts individuals’
2
lives in the short term and may have longer term costs by way of earnings and career
advancement. For women, job turnover may be particularly damaging. Women lawyers leaving
private law practice, for example, may find it difficult to ‘opt back in’ at commensurate job
levels. These barriers to re-entry further perpetuate and exacerbate gender inequalities (Arun,
Arun, and Borooah 2004; Budig and England 2001; Felmlee 1995; Moen and Roehling 2005).
To date, research has focused narrowly on dissatisfaction with promotion opportunities
and motherhood and the issue of ‘work/life balance’ as the primary sources of job leaving among
women lawyers (Brockman 2006; Leiper 2006; Porter 2006; Rhode 2002; Wenk and Rosenfeld
1992; Williams 2007). Yet, a far more extensive range of factors influence whether women
change jobs, leave law practice or stay with their first employer after admission to the Bar
(Sandefur 2007). Broader consideration of the organizational and environmental factors shaping
women lawyers’ employment opportunities and job changing behavior is lacking in the literature
(Percheski 2008). This report starts to fill this gap by identifying and testing for the effects of
several possible theoretical mechanisms that may be salient to job turnover. Using a sample of
lawyers who started their careers in private practice, either in law firms or as sole practitioners,
we examine the following research questions:
1. Do most lawyers who launch careers in private practice remain in private practice across
the span of their careers or do many migrate to non-private practice (e.g., government, in-house counsel within a corporation, academe, private industry)?;
2. Is there significant attrition from law – from private practice to full exits from the practice of law? (e.g., to business, and new careers such as journalism, commercial real estate, and other careers)?;
3. Do many lawyers in private practice ‘opt out’ just temporarily, for example, staying
home to raise children for a few years, or venturing into other forays such as politics, and then later return to private practice after a period of absence?;
3
4. For those individuals seeking to return to private practice, what obstacles or hurdles stand
in their way?; and,
5. What policies might help to retain legal talent and reduce turnover in private practice?
We begin by reviewing several explanations offered in the research literature on job
turnover among professionals.
THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS
Job Satisfaction and Turnover
One of the most pervasive explanations of turnover, attitude theory, draws attention to the
experience of professional work, particularly subjective assessments and organizational
attachment fostered through work. As Steel (2002:346) notes, “No other single domain of work
has had as much influence on turnover research as attitude theory.” This approach argues that job
satisfaction mediates the relationship between job and organizational attributes (e.g., earnings,
nature of the work, advancement opportunities, coworker relations) and turnover. The general
claim is that dissatisfaction with one’s job triggers thoughts about leaving the organization
(Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, and Stinghamber 2005; Boswell, Boudreau, and Tichy
2005; Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner 2000). Numerous studies show job satisfaction consistently
predicts employee retention across a range of professions, including law (Barak, Nissly, and
Levin 2001; Cotton and Tuttle 1986; Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner 2000; Lambert, Hogan, and
Altheimer 2010; Lambert, Hogan, and Barton 2001; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino 1979;
Podsakoff, LePine, and LePine 2007; Rode et al. 2007). But are men and women equally
satisfied in law practice?
4
Several studies of lawyers find that although women report overall job satisfaction equal to
that of men, women report being less satisfied with specific aspects of their work (Hull 1999;
Reichman and Sterling 2004). Women lawyers appear less satisfied with such aspects as
compensation, job opportunities (Reichman and Sterling 2004), job setting, and promotion
prospects (Dinovitzer et al. 2004; Dinovitzer, Reichman, and Sterling 2009). Yet, such rewards
are important in creating an employment environment that encourages workers to remain
employed at the organization (Saporta and Farjoun 2003). Failure to satisfy junior lawyers’
aspirations via resources, assignments and advancement outcomes heightens lawyers’ intentions
to leave their workplace (Armstrong et al. 2007). Weak prospects of promotion, in particular,
appear to be a key consideration in the decision by junior lawyers to quit a firm and transfer to
another firm or employer (Dobrev 2005; Saporta and Farjoum 2003). Yet, women professionals
generally receive a smaller share of workplace rewards, including promotions (Dryfhout and
Estes 2010; Mallon and Cohen 2001). For example, in a study of 2,587 lawyers from two cohorts
(1969 to 1973 and 1980 to 1983) of U.S. lawyers in Chicago and New York, Spurr and Sueyoshi
(1994) found women lawyers are considerably less likely to be promoted and slightly more likely
to leave the firm. Similarly, Brockman’s (1994) study of British Columbian lawyers revealed
career advancement and attaining partnership were the most frequently mentioned by women and
men lawyers as areas in which women experience discrimination. As Patterson and Mavin
(2009:175) note, “It is perhaps unsurprising that women are leaving corporate employment in
increasing numbers as their need for challenge, achievement and status is left unfulfilled.”
5
Although much of the literature on job satisfaction and turnover has emphasized the
importance of promotion opportunities to retention, clearly other job resources can play a
motivational role through increasing lawyers’ learning and development and fostering a dynamic
work environment (Kay and Gorman 2012). Job resources, like social support offered by
colleagues, play an important role in encouraging work engagement and access to challenging
assignments (Fields et al. 2005; Firth et al. 2004; Jackofsky and Peters 1983; Lange, De Witte,
and Notelaers 2008). A positive relationship with colleagues may build organizational
commitment, thereby lowering intentions to quit.
Again, women appear disadvantaged on this front, as they are overlooked by possible
mentors and left out from work on challenging files. The literature on the legal profession
documents women’s lack of mentors and developmental experiences and reduced promotion
prospects, particularly in law firms (Beckman and Phillips 2005; Kay and Hagan 1998;
Reichman and Sterling 2002; Rhode 2001). For example, Brockman’s (1994:136) study of
British Columbian lawyers documents other job resources, such as access to clients and
assignment of files, where women were disadvantaged, thereby reducing their subsequent
opportunities for promotion. In a study based on in-depth interviews with 100 attorneys in the
Denver Metropolitan area, Reichman and Sterling (2002:961) argue that:
women’s ‘choices’ reflect their ability to accumulate professional assets balanced against the pull of the family. Women described their disappointing experiences with work assignments, lack of recognition of their abilities, problems they experienced while trying to find an influential mentor. The stories about work that we gathered suggest that choice may be as much about the push away from work as it is about the pull of the family.
6
Furthermore, Wallace’s (2001) survey of Calgary lawyers shows that intrinsic and professional
job rewards and work demands significantly influence lawyers’ dissatisfaction and desire to
leave law. Wallace (2001) found that when women lawyers’ work is sufficiently challenging and
service oriented, while not conflicting with their home life, they are more satisfied with and in
fact are more committed to the practice of law than their male colleagues.
Consistent with attitudinal theories of job satisfaction and turnover, we hypothesize that
lawyers’ satisfaction with content of work, opportunities for promotions (as well as income and
prestige), and collegiality will encourage retention in private practice.
Hypothesis 1a: High satisfaction with content of legal work is positively related to retention.
Hypothesis 1b: High satisfaction with opportunities for advancement (and income and prestige) is positively related to retention.
Hypothesis 1c: High satisfaction with coworker relationships is positively related to
retention.
We also expect that while men and women are similarly satisfied overall with their
professional work, gender differences emerge with reference to specific forms of job satisfaction,
including content of work, promotion opportunities, and collegiality. Such differences may
contribute to gender disparities in departures from private practice.
Hypothesis 1d: Men assess their job satisfaction with content of work, opportunities for advancement and coworkers’ support more positively than women assess these same job attributes.
7
Family Pressures and the Firm
Another argument commonly invoked in explaining turnover describes women lawyers
as ‘opting out’ from their careers to raise their young children. This approach views women’s
‘voluntary’ exits from law firms as a strategic adaptation in the face of demanding
responsibilities from work and home life (Belkin 2003; Moen 2008; Moen, Kelly and Hill 2011;
Stone 2007; Stone and Lovejoy 2004). As a result of conflicting demands from work and family,
women are seen as more apt to leave law firms and even jettison the profession entirely (Belkin
2003; Hewlett and Luce 2005; Kuperberg and Stone 2008; Williams, Manvell, and Bornstein
2006). In support of the ‘opting out’ argument, research has shown that the overall workload of
managing career and family, as well as negative spillover from work to home (e.g., requirements
to work evenings and weekends) or from home to work (e.g., interruptions at work to deal with
child care issues), predict job turnover and turnover intentions (Armstrong et al. 2007; Jones et
al. 2007; Moen and Huang 2010). In addition, men and women professionals tend to cite
different reasons for leaving jobs, with women often citing reasons such as child care
responsibilities, illness in the family, pregnancy, and wanting to have a job closer to home,
whereas men rarely cite family reasons (Sicherman 1996). As Donovan (1990:142) phrased it,
“The most notorious reason for women to leave [a firm] is motherhood.” Consistent with the
‘opting out’ framework, we test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The presence of children in the home is positively related to women’s exits from private law practice.
However, recent work challenges the assumed trend of ‘opting out’ among women
professionals. In a landmark study, Percheski (2008) conducted a rigorous analysis to assess
whether recent cohorts of women in professional and managerial occupations are increasing or
8
maintaining high employment rates, or if they are ‘opting out’ of employment to stay home with
their children. Percheski (2008) used data from the 1960 through 2000 American Censuses and
American Community Survey (2004). Her analysis suggests that in fact there has been an
increase of full-time year-round employment among younger cohorts of women, even among
mothers of young children. Further, women working in historically male-dominated occupations
(including law) have the highest full-time employment rates. Other studies support Percheski’s
claims, showing no trend toward opting out among highly educated women. For example, Goldin
(2006) found that women with professional or graduate degrees have high rates of employment,
return to work following short interruptions for children, and have low rates of opting out.
Similarly, Wallace (2001) found that women lawyers are less likely to want to leave the practice
of law compared with men, and neither marital status nor presence of preschool-aged children
generate job dissatisfaction or a desire to leave law.
The problem may lie with the fact that the ‘opting out’ argument pays little attention to
structural aspects of the workplace. Instead, the framework blames women professionals,
implying working mothers fail to manage effectively their multiple roles, making the choice to
leave their careers to stay home with their children. The language of ‘opting out’ overlooks other
factors, such as inflexible workplaces, labor market instability, men’s lower contributions to
housework, unstable child care arrangements, or other reasons why women may not work
outside the home (Boushey 2008:31). We consider these broader issues next.
9
Organizational Context and Available Options
Numerous studies suggest that women’s exits from private practice are in fact the result
of a broader range of reasons than child-bearing and a decision to stay home with children. In her
study of British Columbian lawyers, Brockman (1994) found that women often report leaving
law due to the lack of flexibility offered by law firms, excessively long hours, child care
commitments, and the stressful nature of the work. And while part-time schedules may be
offered in formal policies, most lawyers refrain from affording themselves of a part-time
schedule for fear of damaging one’s career (Rhode 2002; Sommerlad and Sanderson 1998).
These studies hint at the fact that what others have called ‘opting out’ more accurately consists of
women making career adaptations (e.g., reduced hours, shifting areas of practice, slower
promotion tracks), or even temporary or longer-term exits from their careers, as a consequence of
being pushed out by the rigid inflexibilities of their work environment (Moen et al. 2011; Stone
2007).
From this perspective, individuals’ choices are bound by organizational structures and
cultures (Clegg 1989; Moen et al. 2011; Mossman 1994; Weisselberg and Li 2011). In the
context of law, lawyers often work in firms that define the possibilities in terms of career ladders,
full- and part-time work options and leave and benefit plans, as well as convey expectations
about caseload, hours, and delivery of legal services. However, it is not only workplace benefits
and organizational structures that constrain (or enable) lawyers’ choices. Practices within the
firm, such as a culture that places a strong emphasis on billings, establish further strictures. The
emphasis on billable hours conveys to junior lawyers a firm’s “engrained cultural beliefs and
practices around work time and face time as indicators of work commitment, productivity, and
10
quality” (Moen et al. 2011:72). The emphasis on organizational context and available options
shifts research away from the ‘opting out’ rhetoric of individual choice. Rather, the focus is
directed to rising pressures with increasing billable hour quotas (Epstein 2004; Rhode 2002) and
‘time cages’ of professional work (Moen et al. 2011) as pivotal to job turnover (Brockman
1994).
One way in which professionals may adapt to increased family commitments is through
work schedule flexibility. Organizational provisions such as schedule flexibility may moderate
the effects of increasing family responsibilities on job turnover by providing lawyers with a
greater ability to manage what are often competing demands (Moen et al. 2011). To the extent
that turnover intentions reflect the absence of work/life balance, planning to leave a job with
extreme demands can be a strategy to achieve a better sense of fit (Stone 2007). Work schedule
flexibility may offer the needed bridge between the work and family roles by enabling legal
professionals to take advantage of shorter or pliable work schedules and to take time off for
personal matters. Research demonstrates that flexible work schedules are associated with higher
organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Scandura and Lankau 1997), lower stress and
lower work-family conflict (Armstrong et al. 2007), and reduced job leaving (Heyman 2008).
Further, organizations that offer flexible scheduling and family-friendly policies may enhance
lawyers’ commitment to the firm by building a sense of the firm leaders as fair, accommodating,
and valuing the skills offered by lawyers employed within the firm (Crossley et al. 2007).
Hypothesis 3: The availability of flexible work schedules will decrease the rate of exits from private practice.
11
Globalization, Economic Instability, and Changing Firm Structures It is important to acknowledge that the organizational contexts in which many private
practice lawyers work, law firms, have changed dramatically in recent years. The global
expansion of law firms has seen the growth of foreign offices with an emphasis on corporate and
mergers and acquisitions work (Sokol 2007). Law firms have expanded dramatically in size over
the last three decades and this growth is accompanied with an increase in the number of branch
offices domestically and internationally (Baker and Parkin 2006). Increased leverage (rising
numbers of associates relative to the number of partners) has also come about with the growth in
size and geographic scope of large law firms. Furthermore, the tournament model (Galanter and
Palay 1991) that claimed firms operate as an ‘up-or-out’ pyramid structure has changed (Gorman
1999; Henderson 2006) to incorporate at least two stages to the tournament in most large law
firms. The first stage of the tournament is the promotion from the ranks of associate to that of
partner. The second stage occurs at the partner level in which non-equity (service or salaried)
partners battle to join the ranks of equity (owners, profit-sharing) partners. The two-tier model
has become the norm in many of the large law firms, particularly those with multiple offices
(Henderson 2006; Sokol 2007). Globalization of firms also raises new challenges for strategic
decision-making and competitive expansion (Sokol 2007), networks of knowledge transfer and
cohesive firm cultures (Faulconbridge 2007), and professional autonomy in a managerial model
of firm expansion (Faulconbridge and Muzio 2008).
Beyond globalization and changing firm hierarchies, private practice more generally has
seen significant changes in recent years. There has been a decline in the traditional model of solo
practice and small partnerships (Gorman and Sandefur 2011) with a shift to larger firms (Leicht
12
and Fennell 1997). Demographics have also changed with rising numbers of women and racial
minorities entering law (Dinovitzer et al. 2004; Epstein 1993; Gorman and Kay 2010; Kay and
Gorman 2008, 2012). Lawyers working in law firms and as sole practitioners encounter a
growing infringement on their areas of practice (from accountancy, realtors, notaries, and
paralegals), eroding their monopoly over services (Kay 2009; Kim and Sakamoto 2008;
Timmermans 2008).
The nature of legal work is also changing across various practice settings. In recent years
there has been a ratcheting up of workloads and time pressures on legal professionals (Jacobs
and Gerson 2004; Moen and Yu 2000). Some scholars argue that the ‘boundedness’ of working
time is evaporating with the use of information technologies and mounting expectations that
lawyers be available to their clients and law firms at any hour, including weeknights and
weekends, further contributing to stress (Moen et al. 2011; Seron and Ferris 1995). The
expansion of hours demanded in legal practice contributes to work balance issues, particularly
for women (Dau-Schmidt et al. 2009), who typically bear a heavier share of child care
responsibility.
The escalating time pressures, combined with a lack of workplace policies to
accommodate family responsibilities, may prompt some women to interrupt their careers in
private practice, making moves to more predictable hours through employment in government
work or leaving the labor market entirely for a period of time. Certainly, the dominant model of
career progression (Papanek 1973) has assumed an ‘ideal worker’ (Kelly et al. 2012; Williams
2001), one whose career is both linear and continuous (Sirianni and Negrey 2000). In contrast,
13
women have tended to experience more interrupted, non-linear careers due largely to family
commitments (Fondas 1996; Mallon and Cohen 2001). Yet, perhaps not only women’s careers
are anomalous in today’s economy. The careers of both men and women lawyers may be subject
to greater flux, including discontinuous career paths, as a result of globalization, economic
recessions and changing job conditions in modern firms (Moen et al. 2011). We know little
about the impact of interruptions, their length and nature, on the careers of legal professionals.
We surmise that interruptions that are long in duration, the result of a single extended
leave or a series of short leaves, will augment the chances of leaving private practice. These
interruptions may signal to law firm leaders a lack of commitment on the part of a lawyer, and
interruptions longer in duration may also reflect a lawyer’s serious engagement with other
possible ventures (e.g., establishing a business, entering politics). The nature of the interruption
may matter as well. Parental leaves, in particular, may not receive the same welcome reception
as those leaves taken by lawyers for the purposes of working as in-house counsel, campaigning
for election in politics, or working in government. Each of these pursuits may be viewed as
bringing rich assets to the firm, including the development of expertise or the channeling of new
and lucrative clients to the firm. We therefore suggest two hypotheses related to interruptions
from law practice:
Hypothesis 4a: Gaps between jobs, especially for long durations, will hasten departures from private law practice.
Hypothesis 4b: Taking a parental leave will increase the risk of leaving private law
practice.
The broader economic context is also salient to the career progression of lawyers in
private practice. A sizeable body of literature suggests economic climate influences turnover
14
(Couch and Fairlie 2010; Griffeth et al. 2000; Heyman 2008; Park and Sandefur 2003; Steel
2002). Periods of both economic decline and prosperity may prompt an increase in job
movement, albeit for different reasons. Poor economic conditions at the time of career launch
may lead law graduates to change jobs in an effort to land a desirable or secure position. Job
moves may also consist of quits as pre-emptive moves to avoid the impact of downsizing,
partnership denials, and partnership dissolutions (Couch and Fairlie 2010; Park and Sandefur
2003), or job changes may be the result of early terminations, casualties of difficult economic
times. In contrast, when the economy is prosperous there may be a high tendency of people to
hop among different organizations for purposes of career advancement (Cho and Huang 2012;
Forrier, Sels, and Synen 2009). We suspect that the latter mobility pattern occurs primarily in the
form of firm-to-firm job changes, a ‘jockeying’ for preferred positioning in the private practice
marketplace rather than movement across sectors of law practice. Meanwhile, a difficult
economic climate, especially one that clouds the labor market as new graduates enter private
practice, is likely to cause significant instability, prompting lawyers to seek jobs across sectors of
practice or to even exit law practice entirely. We pose one final hypothesis, centered on
economic climate at time of career entry.
Hypothesis 5: A high unemployment rate at time of entry to career is a significant and positive predictor of leaving private practice.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Data, Sampling, and Survey Design
The source of data for this study comes from a longitudinal panel survey of lawyers
conducted in the province of Ontario. In the Canadian context, Ontario is an ideal setting in
which to study legal careers because the province is home to nearly half (41%) of the nation’s
15
lawyers (Kay and Brockman 2000; Kay and Hagan 2005). We collected data at four time points,
at approximately 6-8 year intervals: 1990, 1996, 2002, and 2009. The relatively short intervals
were chosen in an effort to capture knowledge of recent job histories and workplace conditions
while these events and situations were still fresh in participants’ minds. The original sample
consisted of a disproportionately stratified random sample of lawyers from the membership
records of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The sample was stratified by gender to include
equal numbers of men and women called to the Ontario Bar between 1975 and 1990, a period in
which the first sizeable number of women entered law practice.
The questionnaires were mailed directly to respondents’ places of employment. The 1990
survey, with one reminder, received a 68% response rate (N=1,597). In 1996, we conducted a
second survey of this same sample. Through a single reminder, we obtained a response rate of
70%. The third wave of survey data collection took place in 2002 and, with two reminders,
achieved a response rate of 73%. The fourth and final survey took place in 2009, again with two
reminders, and received a response rate of 68%. The four surveys yielded very respectable
response rates (close to 70% on each survey mailing).
The surveys were designed using a unique format, including a work history calendar
summarizing job changes across time. Participants were asked to provide a complete account of
their career histories, describing the core features of their current and previous positions, and also
of the organizations in which they were employed (Dobrev 2005). The initial survey was
designed with a unique format, including a work history calendar consisting of one page per job.
This format enabled us to gather detailed information on each professional position, as well as
16
gaps and activities between positions, across relatively short time spans. Each page, or ‘block,’
incorporated questions about:
• Start and end dates of the position; • Type of position: full or part-time; • A description of the professional position itself (not engaged in practice of law;
employment in government, corporation, Legal Aid or law clinic, private industry, associate of law firm, sole practitioner, partner, and other positions);
• How many lawyers worked in the office at one physical location; • Three main fields of law practiced in the position; • Gross annual income before leaving the position; • How the position compared to what they originally wanted; • Main reasons for leaving the position; • Specification of time between leaving and starting next position; and, • A description of activities during any gaps between jobs.
Each survey wave included data on up to eight professional positions. A separate set of
pages explored participants’ contemporary professional positions in greater depth. This section
included a range of other questions about job satisfaction, workplace responsibilities, and
organizational context. In addition, the survey incorporated questions about life outside law,
including dates of marriages and cohabitation, dissolution of unions (separation, divorce), births
(and adoptions) of children, and timing of parental leaves. Each survey wave also introduced
special themes, including: (1) mentoring and professional development; (2) pro bono,
community involvement, and volunteer work; (3) legal education and debt; and (4) health and
well-being.
These rich data were collected at approximately six-year intervals. Conducting survey
waves every six years served to minimize inconsistent autobiographical reconstructions and
recall difficulties (Manzoni et al. 2010). The four waves of surveys, conducted in 1990, 1996,
17
2002 and 2009, were then merged together, and the work and life histories painstakingly nested
into each individual’s record or biography.
We restructured the professional work calendar data in each survey wave in an event
history format where a single spell accounts for each job held by each participant during his or
her career since law school graduation. These spells were then calculated as person-month units.
This format of data collection is ideal for the survival analyses we conduct in this report.
Particularly important for our research is that participants were asked to indicate if and when
they changed professional positions and when such changes involved transitions between the
private practice of law and movement out of private practice.
Measurement of Variables
Our analysis includes several independent variables to test the hypotheses outlined above.
Among our demographic and family variables, we included gender (1=female), racial minority
(1=minority), and marital status (1=married or cohabiting). We measured children in terms of
four dummy variables: one, two, three, and four or more children (with no children as the
comparison category).
We tapped human capital through five variables. Elite law school was defined as the
University of Toronto, the top ranked and with most costly tuition fees in the province
(1=University of Toronto).1 Areas of law were coded as business law (including corporate-
1 MacLean’s magazine ranks the University of Toronto first among Canadian common law schools based on elite firm hiring, national reach, Supreme Court clerkships, faculty hiring, and faculty journal citations. See
18
commercial, banking, securities, industrial and intellectual property, and tax), litigation, people
law (including social welfare, administrative law, wills and estates, family, labor, and real estate)
and criminal law, following the work of Gorman (2006). Hours worked asked lawyers to report
the number of hours they worked each week, including day-time, evening, and weekend hours.
Client recruitment tapped whether lawyers had primary responsibility for clients of the firm
(coded 0) or clients they bring in (coded 1). We also assessed the amount of time lawyers
devoted to corporate clientele. We compare lawyers who spend more than 50% of their time
representing corporate clients (coded 1) with those spending less than half their time with
corporate clients (coded 0).
Next, we captured the initial organizational setting in terms of organizational size,
desirability of first job, geographic location, and economic climate at time of entry to law. We
asked lawyers to describe their first job in private practice as either: solo practice or law firm.
We then coded the size of firms in terms of: small firms of less than ten lawyers, small mid-sized
firms of ten to nineteen lawyers, large mid-sized firms of twenty to forty-nine lawyers, and large
firms of fifty or more lawyers. We entered solo practice and the various firm size variables as a
series of dummy variables in the regression models. We asked lawyers how this position
compared with the one they originally wanted after bar admission. This variable, landed first job
desired, was coded: 1=nothing like; 2=little of what; 3=some of what; 4=mostly what; and
5=exactly what they wanted. Lawyers reported whether they started off their careers in the
Greater Toronto Area (GTA=1) or elsewhere. We also included in our analysis a measure of the
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/09/07the-2012-macleans-law-school-rankings/ [accessed 19 December 2012].
19
unemployment rate at the time each yearly cohort was admitted to the Ontario Bar (range=6.9 to
11.8).
In addition, we included a set of variables intended to assess job satisfaction and
workplace benefits. We measured job satisfaction in terms of three dimensions. Satisfaction with
content of work asked lawyers to rate their level of satisfaction with the nature of the work. We
also asked lawyers to assess their level of satisfaction with working relationships with colleagues
as a measure of collegiality. Another composite measure tapped lawyers’ satisfaction with the
‘power-track’ in their work setting. This scale asked lawyers to rank their level of satisfaction
with income, prestige of work, and opportunity for advancement (alpha=.78).2 Prior research
demonstrates the importance of separating out dimensions of job satisfaction (Dinovitzer and
Garth 2007) rather than using a global measure of job satisfaction. This differentiation is
important because studies have shown women and men share similar levels of general
satisfaction, while at the same time there are gender differences on specific facets, such as
promotions and substance of legal work (Dinovitzer et al. 2004; Hagan and Kay 2007). In
addition, we inquired about work benefits, specifically the flexibility of hours afforded at the
early career stage. In the first wave of the survey (1990), we asked lawyers whether their job
offered flexible work hours (on a full-time basis) (coded 0=none; 1=yes). Sex discrimination
measures whether the lawyer reported experiencing sexual discrimination “occasionally,”
“frequently,” or “always present” (coded 1), compared with “rarely,” “never,” or “uncertain”
(coded 0). Studies of promotion and retention often do not include measures of sexual
2 Each of the job satisfaction items is a descriptive statement about the professional position to which the participant is asked to respond. The use of descriptive statements to draw inferences about facet-specific job satisfaction is consistent with the methods used in many of the most popular job satisfaction instruments today (Lichtenstein, Alexander, McCarthy, and Wells 2004). Each item was scaled on a 7-point strongly disagree to strongly agree continuum, and the resulting measure represents the mean score of the respective items.
20
discrimination (Noonan and Corcoran 2004:147); however, research suggests these perceived
experiences are significant obstacles to women’s successful integration in the profession (Epstein
2004; Hunter 2002; Ietswaart 2003; Sommerlad 2006; Thornton 1996; Wilder 2007).
Finally, we included three measures designed to tap aspects of career breaks. The first,
duration of interruptions, measures the number of months between positions, totaled across the
lawyer’s career to date (range=0 to 78 months). Parental leave measures whether the lawyer
reported taking a parental leave during the course of their career. Other leaves measures whether
they took a leave for purposes other than parental leave. Table 1 lists the operationalization and
descriptive statistics of the variables used in our analysis.
21
Table 1. Operationalization and Measurement of Study Variables Females (N=576 ) Males (N=558) Independent Variables Description Mean (%) SD χ2 Mean (%) SD Demographics & Family Racial minority Married Children: none 1 child 2 children 3 children 4+ children Wave 1: First Job: Human Capital Elite law school Areas of law Business law Litigation People law Criminal law Hours per week Client recruitment Corporate clients Organizational Setting Solo practice Small firm Small mid-size firm Large mid-sized firm Large firm
0=non-racial minority; 1=racial minority. 0=not married or cohabiting; 1=married or cohabiting Comparison category 0=else; 1=one child. 0=else; 1=two children. 0=else; 1=three children. 0=else; 1=four or more children. 0=other law schools; 1=University of Toronto 0=else; 1=corporate commercial, banking, securities, industrial and
intellectual property, and tax. 0=else; 1=civil litigation. 0=else; 1=social welfare, other administrative law, wills and estates,
family, labor, real estate. 0=else; 1=criminal law. Hours worked per week, including day, evening and weekends. Primary responsibility for clients of the firm (=0) versus clients the
lawyer brings in (=1). 0=proportion of time spent representing corporate clients less than 50%;
1=more than 50% of time spent representing corporate clients. 0=firm; 1=sole practitioner. 0=else; 1=less than 10 lawyers. 0=else; 1=10-19 lawyers. 0=else; 1=20-49 lawyers. 0=else; 1=50 or more lawyers.
.07 .81 .31 .15 .30 .17 .07 .13 .20 .23 .47 .04
38.81 .22 .30 .08 .49 .11 .10 .23
.26 .39 .47 .36 .46 .38 .26 .34 .40 .42 .50 .20
11.23 .42 .46 .27 .02 .31 .30 .42
* *** *** ** * + *** * *
.04 .89 .23 .14 .36 .19 .07 .14 .19 .27 .43 .07
40.18 .35 .35 .10 .53 .11 .09 .18
.20 .31 .42 .35 .48 .40 .26 .35 .39 .44 .50 .26
13.65 .48 .48 .30 .50 .31 .28 .38
(continued)
22
Table 1. (continued) Females (N=576 ) Males (N=558) Independent Variables Description Mean (%) SD χ2 Mean (%) SD Landed first job desired Greater Toronto Area Unemployment rate at call Job Satisfaction Content of work Power-track Collegiality Flexible schedule Sexual Discrimination Across 4 all waves: Career Breaks Duration of interruptions Parental leave Other leaves
How this position compared with the one the respondent originally
wanted after bar admission: 1=nothing like; 2=little of what; 3=some of what; 4=mostly what; and 5=exactly what they wanted.
0=elsewhere; 1=Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Range= 6.9-11.8. Level of satisfaction with nature of work, coded from 1=very dissatisfied
to 7=very satisfied. Level of satisfaction with income, prestige of work, and opportunity for
advancement, coded from 1=very dissatisfied to 7=very satisfied. Alpha reliability =.78. Scale standardized in regression.
Level of satisfaction with working relationship with colleagues, coded from 1=very dissatisfied to 7=very satisfied.
0=no; 1=flexible schedule available on full-time hours. 0=has not experienced sexual harassment or is uncertain; 1=has personally experienced sexual discrimination occasionally, frequently, or always present. Number of months between positions, totaled across career to date. Range= 0 to 78. 0=none taken; 1=taken at least one parental leave. 0=none taken; 1=taken at least one leave other than parental leave.
3.72
.57
8.84
5.70
5.07
5.78 .30 .74
6.14 .39 .25
1.14
.50
1.55
1.08
1.06
1.14 .46 .44
11.97 .49 .43
** *** *** *** ***
3.78
.53
8.76
5.63
5.13
5.61 .32 .11
2.89 .04 .16
1.17
.50
1.62
1.15
1.13
1.19 .47 .32
7.42 .20 .36
+p=.06; * p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001 (two-tailed tests).
23
Techniques of Data Analysis
Our analysis estimates proportional hazard models using Cox regression. This
procedure allows us to estimate the probability of temporary or permanent departure from
private law practice, conditional on surviving in private practice until the time of
observation (Preston 2004). The focus is on the hazard rate or ‘risk’ of an event occurring –
in this case, the event of leaving private practice. Each lawyer’s hazard rate for a particular
event varies based on their conditions (e.g., areas of practice, billable hours, job satisfaction)
and can be conceptualized as influencing the expected length of time until the event occurs
(Allison 1995; Kramer and Berg 2003). The model on which this method is based is called a
proportional hazards model, “because the hazard for any individual is a fixed proportion of
the hazard for any other individual” (Allison 1995:114). Hence, variables with significant
coefficients can be thought of as having a significant effect on the relative timing of exit
from private practice, not on whether or not a lawyer exits private practice (Kramer and
Berg 2003:518).3
In our analysis, we nest regression models to examine the utility of various
explanations for gender differences in leaving private practice. The baseline model shows
the effect of demographic and family size variables on leaving private practice. In
subsequent models, we add human capital attributes (Model 2), organizational context
(Model 3), job satisfaction and experience variables (Model 4) and finally, interruptions and
3 Cox regression offers the ability to estimate coefficients without assuming a particular functional form for the baseline hazard. This is an important advantage over a more restrictive specification such as the Weibull (which assumes monotonicity through the log transformation) and such a model is not well suited to data with interval observations on duration (Spurr and Sueyoshi 1994:826).
24
leaves (Model 5). Nesting the regression models allows us to see which theoretical
explanations account for the relationship between gender and leaving private practice
(Anashensel 2002; Dryfhout and Estes 2010). We turn next to examine the findings from
our statistical analysis.
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
Among our full sample of 1,577 law graduates, the majority of law graduates
launched their careers in the private practice of law (72%). Within private practice, 80%
entered law firms as associates. Nine percent started as partners, establishing firms with
colleagues or joining an existing practitioner in partnership. Meanwhile, 11% began their
careers working as sole practitioners. While nearly three-quarters of law graduates entered
private practice, other law graduates began their careers in various lines of work. About
10% entered government, 5% worked as in-house counsel to corporations, 2% joined Legal
Aid or law clinics, and 7% worked in other settings. A further 5% of law graduates did not
practice law immediately after their admission to the Bar. Figure 1 (see below), a pie chart,
displays these distributions across positions post-graduation.
25
Figure 1. First Professional Position after Graduation from Law School
At the start of careers in law, there are both gender similarities and differences in
areas of employment (see Figure 2). Among our cohort of lawyers (called to the Ontario Bar
between 1975 and 1990), a near equal percentage of men and women entered law firms as
associates (57% of men and 58% of women) and similar percentages of men and women
started as sole practitioners (9% of men and 7% of women). However, a larger percentage of
men (11%) than women (3%) launched their careers as law firm partners. A slightly greater
percentage of women (11%) compared with men (8%) started their careers as government
employees.
Not in law
Government employment
Employee of corporation
Legal Aid
Associate in firm
Solo practitioner
Partner Other
First Professional Position after Law School
26
Other differences are only slight. For example, 3% of women and 1% of men started
out in Legal Aid or law clinics; 5% of women and 4% of men started their careers as
employees of corporations, and 5% of women and 4% of men did not practice law in their
first professional position after law school graduation. Figure 2 (see below) graphs these
distributions in pie charts for men and women separately.
Figure 2. Law School Graduates’ First Professional Positions, by Gender
Women Men
Not in law Government employment Employee of corporation Legal Aid Associate in
firm Solo practitioner
Partner Other
First Professional Position after Law School, by Gender
27
One of the most interesting observations is just how much mobility there is within
legal careers (see Figure 3). The lawyers in this study were called to the Bar between 19 and
34 years ago (at the time of the 2009 survey). This fifteen-year cohort of lawyers is now in
their mid- to late-career stages. Those who started their careers in private practice have had
on average 3 professional positions across their careers to date. The mean average, however,
masks the true amount of variation.
Approximately 24% of lawyers had held three professional positions at the time of
the 2009 survey. A sizeable percentage has held fewer positions: 16% had held one position
and 25% had held two positions. There were also a sizeable proportion of lawyers having
held more than three professional positions over their careers: 17% had four jobs, 10% had 5
jobs, and 9% had between 6 and as many as 12 positions over the course of their career.
There was no statistically significant difference between the average number of professional
positions held by women and men.
The number of professional positions held reflects various job changes. Some of
these changes consisted of: (1) movement within a law firm from associate to partner; (2)
movement laterally and upward between law firms; (3) departures from law firms to
establish independent law offices (e.g., sole practitioners); and (4) movement out of private
law practice.
A sizeable proportion of lawyers left the private practice of law. Some lawyers went
to work as in-house counsel with corporations or unions, some moved to government
28
service, and some left to start independent businesses. Other lawyers returned to school
(graduate programs such as MBA or LLM), while some lawyers (more often women) stayed
home for a period of time to raise young children. Among our sample of law graduates, a
broad array of pursuits took place outside private practice. For example, lawyers reported
such new career paths as: farming, journalism, law school professor, chocolatier, fiction-
writer, professional musician, interior designer, pilot, physiotherapist, and politician (to
name only a few).
Figure 3. Number of Professional Positions over the Career Span to Date, by Gender
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8 9 11 12
1
23
4
5
6
78
9 11 1205
1015
2025
Women Men
Per
cent
dis
tribu
tion
Career Positions
Number of Professional Positions over Career, by Gender
Careers in law do not always consist of a continuous flow from one professional
position to another. Many lawyers in our study experienced at least temporary interruptions
29
over the course of their careers. Approximately 35% of all those who started their careers in
private practice experienced gaps of some duration between professional positions. The
average length of time between positions was greater for women (mean=6.14, SD=11.97)
than for men (mean=2.89, SD=7.42) (t-test=5.47, p<.001).4
The reasons for career interruptions vary by gender. For women, caring for children
was the most common reason (ranging from 25% to 46%); while, for men, unemployment,
furthering education and travel were the reasons more commonly offered. Illness and injury
were the least common reasons (typically under 5%) for both men and women. Women
were consistently more likely than men to list responsibilities for child care and looking
after aging parents as activities during career interruptions (See also Monahan and Swanson
2009).
Surprisingly, a sizeable share of lawyers left private practice during their careers. Of
the 1,134 lawyers starting out careers in private practice in our study, 493 (or 44%) left
private practice at some point.5 Women were more prevalent among the departed. Fifty-two
percent of women who started in private practice exited compared with 35% of men.
Among those lawyers who left private practice, 18% of women and 15% of men returned to
private practice at a later time in their career. We are interested to learn more about these
4 This mean average includes the full range from zero to 78 months. 5 Some of this movement may be for reasons of retirement, though the majority of our sample is in their mid-career stage at the time of the survey. The longest career possible in our sample is 34 years at the time of the 2009 survey (for lawyers called to the Bar in 1975), and only a quarter (24%) of our sample was over 55 years of age at the time of the final survey. Only 5% of our sample was over 65 years of age at the time of the 2009 survey. It is likely that a small percentage have taken early retirement (though some may have exited law to pursue other careers or business ventures prior to formal retirement).
30
lawyers who left private practice. We explore the factors influencing this exodus in the next
section.
In Figure 4 (see below), we plot the survivor functions (product-limit estimations)
for men and women, showing the 95% confidence intervals (grey-scaled). The survival
function, in this context, is essentially the rate of retention within private practice. Across
the different time trajectories, the survival curve for men is higher and relatively gentler in
its decline than for women, indicating that men leave private practice more slowly than
women. In other words, the exodus (or rate of exit) is dramatically faster among women
lawyers, as revealed by the steep survival function among women in our sample. The graphs
for both men and women reveal the high degree of movement out of private practice within
the first 8 years (100 months) following Bar admission. This is the case for both men and
women, though women’s high rates of exit (lower survival functions) continue in the years
following.
31
Figure 4. Survivor Functions (Kaplan-Meier Estimates) of the Timing of Departures from Private Practice, by Sex.
0.2
5.5
.75
1
0 100 200 300 400 500Analysis Time
95% CI Survivor function
Male
0.2
5.5
.75
1
0 100 200 300 400Analysis Time
95% CI Survivor function
Female
Kaplan-Meier Estimates, By Sex
Table 2 presents the multivariate results of our Cox proportional hazards regression
analysis predicting exits from private practice. These coefficients can be converted to hazard
ratios by exponentiating individual coefficients. In most cases, the hazard ratio is easily
interpreted as the relative shift in the hazard rate that is associated with a one-unit change in
the variable (Cleves et al. 2008:131). In Model 1, we see that women are significantly more
likely to leave private practice (β=.518, hazard ratio=1.678, p<.001). In this case, women
face a hazard of leaving private practice 68% greater than men (Recall that women are
coded as 1 and men are coded as 0 in the multivariate analysis). In general, a hazard ratio
greater than one implies an increased risk (probability and timing combined) of attrition,
32
while a ratio of less than one implies a decreased risk (Imazeki 2005:438). Having children
does not appear to be central to job moves, though something interesting happens when
lawyers have three children. There is a significant effect at three children (β=.393, hazard
ratio=1.481, p<.01) (providing support for Hypothesis 2). Lawyers with three children move
out of private practice 48% more quickly than those with no children. This is perhaps a
breaking point for firms. As one lawyer in our study commented, “Bay Street has a
tolerance for up to two kids. After 2 kids, women are shown the door.”
Model 2 adds human capital effects. Those lawyers working in the area of people
law (e.g., social welfare, administrative, wills and estate, family, labor, and real estate) are
less likely to make an exit from private practice (β=-.483, hazard ratio=.617, p<.05) than
those in other areas of law. Not surprisingly, lawyers who are successful early in their career
at recruiting clients (β=-1.364, hazard ratio=.256, p<.001) and who represent corporate
clients (β=-1.400, hazard ratio=.247, p<.001) are also less at risk of leaving private practice.
It is important here to note that women are less likely to have primary responsibility for
bringing in new clients to the firm and women also spend less time, on average, representing
corporate clients than their male colleagues (See Table 1). As a result, the gender difference
in leaving private practice is reduced with the inclusion of these variables, though the
difference remains sizeable and statistically significant (β=.339, hazard ratio=1.40, p<.001).
Inclusion of characteristics of the organizational setting in which lawyers launched
their careers do little to reduce the gender gap in leaving private practice. In Model 3, firm
size and solo practice settings do not significantly affect the risk of exiting private practice.
33
However, lawyers who successfully landed the job they ideally wanted after law school are
less likely to leave private practice at a later date (β=-.227, hazard ratio=.797, p<.001).
Starting off in a much desired job reduces the risk of leaving private practice by twenty-one
percent. The matching of aspired position with eventual job offer is a powerful retainer of
legal talent. Yet, for those who entered private practice during periods of economic
hardship, and many in our sample were among the graduates entering law during the
recession of the late 1980s, poor economic climate was a significant force, over and above
human capital and organizational context, that pushed lawyers out of private practice
(β=.064, hazard ratio=1.066, p<.05) (consistent with Hypothesis 5).
In Model 4, we introduce job satisfaction and experience measures. Satisfaction with
‘power-track’ is an important factor in reducing lawyers’ risk of leaving private practice
(β=-.324, hazard ratio=.724, p<.001). Consistent with Hypothesis 1b, individuals starting
out in settings rich with promotional and financial opportunities move 28% more slowly out
of private practice. In contrast, satisfaction with content of legal work does not have the
same ‘holding power.’ Counter to Hypothesis 1a, satisfaction with content of legal work
increases the risk of leaving private practice (β=.197, hazard ratio=1.218, p<.001). Lawyers
more satisfied with the content of their legal work move out of private practice 22% more
quickly than those less satisfied. This may seem counterintuitive, but perhaps satisfaction
with legal work is highly portable to other sectors of law. Therefore, lawyers satisfied with
the substance of legal work, but frustrated by other conditions of their employment, may
continue their legal career, while making the move out of private practice in search of an
improved working environment. It is noteworthy that satisfaction with collegiality in the
34
workplace also fails to assure lawyers will remain in private practice (counter to Hypothesis
1c). Satisfaction with collegiality increases the risk of leaving private practice (β=.142,
hazard ratio=1.153, p<.05). Lawyers experiencing more collegial workplaces move out of
private practice 15% more quickly than those less satisfied with their coworkers. It seems
that enjoying the substance of law practice and having good colleagues may not be
sufficient to keep lawyers in private practice when other factors fall short of expectations.
In sharp contrast, workplaces that offer flexible schedules (on a full-time basis)
significantly decrease the risk of lawyers leaving private practice (β=-.218, hazard
ratio=.804, p<.05). Consistent with Hypothesis 3, lawyers working in offices that offer
flexible full-time schedules move out of private practice 20% more slowly than those
working in offices without such scheduling options. Such flexibility, while still maintaining
full-time hours, might be a much valued benefit for lawyers with family responsibilities or
those lawyers seeking to attain an improved quality of life.
In Model 4, we also introduce a measure of sexual discrimination experiences in the
practice of law. Lawyers who experienced discrimination are significantly more likely to
exit (β=.257, hazard ratio=1.293, p<.05), leaving private practice 29% more quickly than
those who were not targeted by sexual discrimination. This experience is highly gendered,
with 74% of women in our sample reporting having experienced sexual discrimination in
the practice of law, while only 11% of men stated they had experienced sexual
discrimination. With the introduction of sexual discrimination to our equation, gender is no
longer a significant predictor of the risk of leaving private practice.
35
In our final model, Model 5, we introduce the effects of interruptions on careers.
Parental leave has the largest effect (β=.337, hazard ratio=1.401, p<.01). Taking a parental
leave moves individuals out of private practice 40% more quickly. Almost 40% (39%) of
women in private practice reported taking a parental leave compared with just 4% of men (t-
test=15.997, p<.001). Leaves for other reasons (such as education, travel, illness) also
propel lawyers out of private practice (β=.263, hazard ratio=1.300, p<.05). These other
leaves move lawyers out of private practice 30% more quickly than those who have not
taken such leaves. Again, these leaves were more often taken by women (25%) compared
with men (16%) (t-test=4.035, p<.001). In addition, consistent with Hypothesis 4a, longer
interruptions between professional positions also move lawyers out of private practice more
quickly (β=.014, hazard ratio=1.014, p<.001). Recall that these interruptions were for a
range of reasons including: unemployment spells, return to education, travel, illness or
injury, and looking after children. That said, women were more likely to experience these
interruptions (45% compared with 26% of men) and when gaps occurred between jobs, they
were typically longer for women (mean=6.14 months) than for men (mean=2.89 months) (t-
test=5.470, p<.001).
36
Table 2. Cox Proportional Hazard Estimates of Leaving Private Practice (N=1,134)
Model 1 β
Model 2 β
Model 3 β
Model 4 β
Model 5 β
Demographics & Family Gender Racial minority Married Children: a 1 child 2 children 3 children 4+ children Human Capital Elite law school Areas of law: Business law Litigation People law Criminal law Hours per week Client recruitment Corporate clients Organizational Settingb Solo practice Small firm Large mid-sized firm Large firm Landed first job desired Greater Toronto Area Unemployment rate at call Satisfaction & Experiences Satisfaction: Content of work Power-track Collegiality Flexible hours Discrimination Career Breaks Duration of interruptions Parental leave Other leaves
.518***
.172 -.056 .181 .101 .393**
-.013
.339*
.178
.029 .259 .234 .378* .048
-.076
-.211 -.304 -.483* -.098 .004
-1.364*** -1.400***
.385*** .131 .084 .263 .256 .457** .046
-.010
-.102 -.263 -.506** -.043 .005
-1.349*** -1.347***
.354 .302 .303 .080
-.227*** .139 .064*
.173 .102 .120 .207 .178 .339*
-.052
-.072
-.078 -.224 -.442* .102 .004
-1.362*** -1.277***
.350 .294 .301 .147
-.204*** .138 .053 .197***
-.324*** .142**
-.218* .257*
.066
.062
.084 .111 .038 .238
-.187
-.090
-.079 -.226 -.405* .127 .005
-1.286*** -1.240***
.339 .280 .306 .181
-.194*** .120 .053 .196***
-.343*** .152**
-.182 .134 .014*** .337** .263*
aNo children is the comparison category. bSmall mid-sized firm is the comparison category. * p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001 (two-tailed tests).
37
In Table 3 (see below), we examine these models separately for men and women.
Some interesting gender differences emerge. First, the effects of having children on legal
careers vary dramatically for men and women. When we explore the reduced model (Model
1) separately for men and women, we discover men’s hazard of leaving private practice falls
by 42% with two children (β=-.546, hazard ratio=.579, p<.01) and by 53% with four or
more children (β=-.764, hazard ratio=.466, p<.05). In contrast, women’s hazard rate for
leaving private practice increases by 53% with one child (β=.422, hazard ratio=1.526,
p<.05), 69% with two children (β=.525, hazard ratio=1.69, p<.01), and 106% with three
children (β=.724, hazard ratio=2.063, p<.001). These effects of family size on the risk of
leaving private practice fell from statistical significance with the introduction of the parental
leave variable, suggesting that parental leave mediates the relationship between children and
leaving private practice.
Working long hours increases women’s hazard of leaving private practice, but does
not have a similar effect on men’s movement out of private practice. Recruiting clients to
the firm and serving corporate clients reduce the risk of leaving private practice for both
men and women, though the effects are stronger for men. Women appear to move out of
small firms of less than ten lawyers more quickly (p<.05) while, for men, retention appears
more secure in the very large law firms (borderline significance of p<.10).
Counter to Hypothesis 1d, we find no statistically significant differences between
men’s and women’s mean average levels of satisfaction across content of work, ‘power-
track,’ and collegiality (See Table 1). Although men and women do not differ dramatically
38
in their reported levels of job satisfaction, satisfaction with ‘power track’ (e.g., earnings,
prestige, and promotions) offers a powerful inducement to stay in private practice.
Satisfaction with ‘power-track’ was particularly effective in stemming the flow from private
practice, and this effect was significantly stronger for men. And interestingly, although the
effect of flexible (full-time) hours is negative on the movement of men and women out of
private practice, this effect is statistically significant for men only. The provision of flexible
full-time work appears to be of considerable value to male lawyers. This is intriguing as
much of the literature speaks about flexible schedules as a ‘woman’s issue.’
Yet, perhaps most impressive are the effects of leaves. Women pay a heavy price for
both parental leaves and any other forms of leave taken during their positions in private
practice. Taking a parental leave increases women’s hazard of leaving private practice by
37% (β=.315, hazard ratio=1.370, p<.05) and taking a leave for other purposes augments the
hazard of leaving by 48% (β=.396, hazard ratio=1.486, p<.01) (supporting Hypothesis 4b).
In sharp contrast, for men, taking a leave, parental or otherwise, has no significant impact on
their risk of leaving private practice.
39
Table 3. Cox Proportional Hazard Estimates of Leaving Private Practice, Men and Women Separately
Men (N=558) Women (N=576) Baseline Model Full Model Baseline Model Full Model β β β β Demographics & Family Racial minority Married Children: a 1 child 2 children 3 children 4+ children Human Capital Elite law school Areas of law: Business law Litigation People law Criminal law Hours per week Client recruitment Corporate clients Organizational Settingb Solo practice Small firm Large mid-sized firm Large firm Landed first job desired Greater Toronto Area Unemployment rate at call Satisfaction & Experiences Satisfaction: Content of work Power-track Collegiality Flexible hours Discrimination Career Breaks Duration of interruptions Parental leave Other leaves
.022
.255
-.238 -.546* -.126 -.764*
.069
.130 .054 .073 .335
-.299 .099
-.553 -.308 -.547+ .148 .002
-1.710*** -1.378***
.164
-.076 .441 .478+
-.173** .114 .074 .306***
-.420*** .168*
-.418* -.054 .035*** .340
-.038
.228
-.254 .422* .525* .724*** .432
.081
.075 .085 .126 .307
-.023
-.238 .157
-.211 -.384 -.076 .009+
-.974*** -1.119***
.495+ .474* .243
-.066 -.202*** .156 .019 .124*
-.346*** .149*
-.056 .129 .008+ .315* .396**
aNo children is the comparison category. bSmall mid-sized firm is the comparison category. * p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001 (two-tailed tests).
40
These statistical analyses tell part of the story. Our data enable us to see the
significant impact of organizational attributes, including flexibility of schedules and
workplace accommodations, among other factors, on career pathways in (and from) private
practice. But how do lawyers themselves understand the job changes, career transitions and
investments they have made during their careers? We turn next to explore the comments and
explanations written by participants in our study. The survey design afforded several spaces
throughout the questionnaire and full pages where participants were invited to expand on
their work and life experiences, particularly regarding transitions out of private practice and
returns to private practice.
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
As noted, a striking observation in the survey data has been the degree of mobility
within legal careers. Through our statistical analysis of career pathways, it is apparent that
the paths taken by law graduates are tremendously diverse. Some participants have moved
from private practice to government service or in-house counsel during their career, while
others accepted political or judicial appointments. Some participants pursued a vast array of
job opportunities outside private practice. Further, some have fallen ill and left law practice
for a number of years. And, some have been the casualties of economic forces, such as firm
dissolution, and made moves between firms, sometimes changing their main areas of
practice. For some lawyers, these changes redirected careers over the long term, while for
others, the changes represented temporary stop-overs on a longer career pathway in private
practice. Nonetheless, change rather than continuity characterizes the careers of law
graduates in our study.
41
In this next section, we will outline explanations provided by participants in our
study, explanations that describe their departures from private practice. Some of these
individuals have returned to private practice, while others have not. In both cases,
participants in the study generously wrote of the factors that facilitated their re-entry to
private practice and those that hindered, even prevented, their return.
Reasons for Leaving
In the survey, lawyers took the opportunity to explain their reasons for leaving
private practice. We highlight four main explanations that surfaced in the surveys. The
themes addressed in this section include: 1) family responsibilities and
establishing/maintaining a work/life balance; 2) organizational structure; 3) pursuit of other
interests; and 4) burn-out. These themes often overlapped to shape the eventual decision to
pursue options outside private practice. For example, numerous participants indicated an
incompatibility between the law firm environment and family obligations. We begin with
the first theme, the issue of family responsibilities and organizational context.
Family Responsibilities
Family pressures exert a significant influence on the decisions of men and women
lawyers to leave private practice. The competing demands of raising a young family and
juggling dual careers drove some lawyers out of private practice. Several participants stated
directly that they decided to leave practice to care for young children. For example,
42
participants stated: “stayed home to raise kids”; “original decision – to raise children”; and
“I had young children so I left and worked 2 part-time appointments while my children were
young.” Many lawyers went further to describe their specific trajectory, following the
arrival of children, including attempts to continue full-time work, as well as engagement
with part-time and contract work. The following two participants wrote:
I stayed home – did freelance legal editorial work during naps and at night. I volunteered once they were in school. Tried to return to full-time work while they were at summer camp but left job when they returned…I hadn’t “wasted” my education staying home to care for my children. It was a choice my spouse and I made for reasons that were valid and when it didn’t work out, I was content to go back to volunteer work and stopped feeling guilty about not working in the legal field. I left to raise my children…after birth of first child, I took about 2 months off before resuming part-time employment. My husband worked shifts and covered child care. After our second child was born, I stopped regular employment and only worked occasional contracts until our youngest child was in school full-time.
Some participants kept their remarks brief, with no discussion of ‘push’/ ‘pull’ factors, and
simply indicated that their decision to leave private practice was motivated by a desire to
participate fully in raising young children. However, other participants elaborated on their
reasons for choosing to exit private practice for family reasons. It is to these explanations
that we now turn.
When family life was discussed in the surveys, it was often in the context of work/life
balance. Participants discussed how family responsibilities impacted the decision to exit
private practice and this was mostly in terms of a constant struggle to manage both career
and family life. The conflicting demands from professional and family lives proved
incompatible for some, forcing lawyers to choose one or the other. It does not appear that
43
family was all-consuming in terms of workplace interruptions, medical appointments, sick
days, or unstable child care arrangements. Rather, the workplace appeared to be the more
‘greedy’ realm, often requiring evening hours at the office, high billable hours, ‘on call’
availability via Blackberry and iPhones to colleagues and clients, weekend time
commitments, travel, and short or little notice in changing schedules. In the face of
competing demands, participants indicated family as the top priority:
The most important turning point in my life was having my first child. It was shortly after that when I decided to leave private practice and work as a government lawyer. The work has been more varied and interesting and I found a better balance between work and my personal life.
Once my children were born, I decided not to drive myself mad trying to balance law and family, as I had seen others do. I’ve taken contract jobs here and there, nothing full-time ‘til they’re gone off to university (soon!) I left the practice of law to stay at home full-time with my children which I intend to do for at least 2 more years…I have lived my life in chapters – the chapters being the focus devoted to my education, followed by my career (20 years) followed by years devoted to my family – with only some overlap. I found I could have it all but not all at the same time. It was easier to devote myself to my family because I had my career – and a very enjoyable career in law – first. These remain important years to me.
When lawyers exited private practice to focus on raising a family, it was not always
the case that they stayed home to devote their full attention to raising a family. Rather, most,
regardless of gender, changed jobs or occupations in order to achieve a greater degree of
work/life balance. The first in the series of three quotes above is illustrative of this transition
with a move to government employment. Although the specific pathways out of private
practice differ across participants, a common theme was a preference for family
responsibilities and balance. In addition, participants often acknowledged a timeline with
respect to exiting and returning to private practice. It appears as though a change is made in
44
order to allow greater attention to the needs of children and family in the developmental
years and then, for many participants, the intention is to return to private law practice once
familial obligations are less burdensome.
An additional point of interest in the discussion of work/life balance is the role of
one’s life partner (or spouse) in the decision to leave private practice. Contemporary
research has only begun to explore the lives of dual-career couples (Abele and Spurk 2011;
Abraham, Ausberg, and Hinz 2010; Chaa 2010; Sweet and Moen 2012), and little work
explores the influence of spouses on lawyers’ career pathways. However, career decisions
are not made in a vacuum, and it is likely that spouses play an important role. One
participant outlined the presence of an ultimatum that impacted on their decision to exit
private practice:
I was working at a large Bay Street firm in corporate law. My partner said she would not have children with me if I continued to work long hours at the firm. I decided to go to graduate school and became a legal academic. Neither my partner nor I have regretted that decision despite the financial sacrifice and I have 2 lovely children.
This case may not be so exceptional. The pull from one’s spouse toward the family may
explain the decision to exit private practice in other cases as well. The inability to balance
both work and family life, in combination with spousal encouragement that favors family
life, may prompt an exit from private practice. To add to this, perhaps the combination of a
push toward family and the absence of strong enticements pulling one back to private
practice (for example, accommodations to enable lawyers to effectively manage both busy
careers and family lives) may drive lawyers out of private practice. Speaking to the issue of
stressful work combined with a spouse’s view, one participant remarked:
45
I left to look after my four children, I had little support for working from my spouse and practice of law involves its own stress since that time I took mediation training and have been a volunteer mediator at a community mediation service. I use my law background to assist my family.
In this case, a lack of personal support combined with stresses from the private practice
environment led to a departure from private practice. The above comment with regard to
using one’s legal background in other capacities was a recurring theme among study
participants. Few expressed regret over their legal education, and most identified value in
their training, whether transitioning to a new career or raising a family.
A re-occurring theme in discussions of work/life balance was the ‘double shift’ that
many women lawyers face after a full day’s work at the office. The following quote
illustrates the difficulties of two professional careers, young children, elder care, and
commuting combined.
I left law originally because my husband and I moved from [city name] to the country. We had two children (three years and two years of age). I was pregnant with our third child (this was in 1988). We continued to live there till 2002, when we moved into town (but still outside [city name], where my husband worked – gone 6 am to 7-7:30 pm most weeknights). I had two-three different jobs between 1988 and 2000. I left due to the strain of having basically two full-time jobs (one inside the home, one outside, without assistance – for the most part – by my husband on the home front (childcare, home maintenance, cooking, cleaning, etc))…. My husband took on more and more legal responsibilities. Tensions grew in our marriage. I also had eldercare responsibilities for my parents who lived 40km away. I decided I wouldn’t go back to work till our three kids were in university.
While some participants indicated leaving for family responsibilities as a personal
choice (i.e., “It was my choice to quit my partnership and work for modest part-time income
in order to meet my family responsibilities”), the reasons provided in the quotes presented
46
thus far do not explore pressures resulting from the organizational structure. In other words,
while it is clear that family responsibilities influenced these lawyers’ exits from private
practice, the types and roles played by ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors remain elusive. We turn our
attention next to explanations that specifically addressed the incompatibility of familial
obligations and the organizational structure of private firms.
It was a common theme among participants in the survey to acknowledge family
responsibilities as incompatible with the firm environment – even among those who
remained in private practice. For some, it is clear that the two environments conflicted to
such a degree as to undermine any semblance of a balanced lifestyle:
I left law practice when my children were still quite young. I simply found that it was not compatible (even on a part-time basis) with raising children.
Had four children in five years – not conducive to practicing. …Stayed home. Also had live- in help. Gave up career to raise kids and take them to activities – be there to carpool and when they got home…went back to workforce after many years of raising kids.
Obviously having children changed my life and changed my work/life priorities. Still I worked hard, believing that when I made partnership I would have greater control. This was not true so I left the firm 3 years after I was made partner.
These three quotes describe the strains associated with demanding careers in private
practice and the responsibilities of raising young children. The first quote reveals that the
early years of parenting young children are especially demanding and even part-time work
may not be sufficient to accommodate family commitments. A few lawyers also remarked
that part-time work resembled full-time work in other occupations (40 hours/week) or that
the hours associated with part-time work had a way of creeping up, though the salaries
47
remained reduced. The second quote hints at the difficulties incurred with larger family size,
though our statistical data suggest this remains problematic only for women – not men.
Numerous participants in the study who had left private practice stated that they either
returned after a few years or at least had intended to make a return (often their return was to
full-time work, though not always back in private practice). The third quote is revealing in
that even promotion and a degree of job security does not assure greater control, including
access to adequate parental leave, control over hours, and flexibility to leave work for the
needs of children. Even among the upper echelons of private practice, lawyers may struggle
to achieve a harmonious balance between professional and family domains.
The specific nature of these struggles was outlined by participants in the study. For
some, the issue was financial – “…it was hard to make a living as a sole practitioner with
young children.” For others, opportunities external to private practice offered superior
work/life balance:
After my first child was born I left full-time practice and began teaching part-time at a University. I had a babysitter in the neighborhood…When I married in 1990 I left the [region]. I commuted for a year until our first child was born. Then I left the firm I was with – downtown Bay Street type and never returned. I had no real contacts in the city I moved to. At the same time the opportunity arose to teach part-time and this flexibility worked well with family life.
In our study, numerous women lawyers, across all waves of the survey (1990 to
2009) commented on the impact of children on their careers. Particularly concerning is the
questioning of career commitment women lawyers experienced by their colleagues and law
firm management. As noted in the statistical analysis earlier in this report, for women
lawyers (but not typically for men), having children, especially more than two children, is
48
often perceived poorly by employers. The following quote illustrates the bias against
women lawyers with families:
In 1996, I had my third child. This was my first biological child. My first two children were adopted. I was a partner in a small firm. My husband was an associate. We were both fired when our child was 2 months old, as the other partners felt we were not committed to the firm. We opened our own firm. After 7 years, I was offered the position as senior counsel at [a large organization], my main client. My husband joined another, very successful partnership. My husband and I are still together after 20 years of marriage and 4 children – our former partners’ new partnership with out “replacements” lasted one year. Being lawyers gave us incredible freedom to be self-employed when we needed to be, however with 4 children I need and appreciate the benefits I have (medical, dental, etc.) as an employee of a quasi-governmental organization!
Numerous lawyers commented frequently on how transitions to positions outside
private practice had allowed them greater flexibility in their schedules and enhanced
work/life balance. The following two excerpts are illustrations of several different pathways
taken in an attempt to achieve compatibility between career and family life:
Having children and practicing law is really difficult. It has gotten so much harder today. Working in-house (1990-1999) was almost essential to balancing my life/our household. Some firms are far more ‘parent-friendly’ than mine was back then (1980s). In 1999, I accepted a much more challenging position – it was very important to get that recognition - but I later realized it was ‘too much’ for me to handle with the responsibilities I had to my family, so I quit my job instead of having someone else perform that job above me. I’ve struggled to balance work with family obligations, including primary care of two special needs children. So I’ve gone from secondment to secondment, trying to remain working part-time, some in law and others in policy or mediation. I’ve been forced to take two years off when my employer refused to agree to part-time. I’m not full-time against my wishes.
In this last example, it is apparent that accommodations are sometimes not afforded by
organizations, and in many cases alternate arrangements appear to be a matter of personal
negotiation rather than stated law firm policies.
49
In the next section we examine further how the organizational structures, particularly
within law firms, influence decisions to exit private practice.
Organizational Structure
In our study, the law firm environment appears to have a direct impact on lawyers’
decisions to leave private practice. The qualitative data echo the statistical analysis,
demonstrating a quest for better work/life balance as motivating many exits. Numerous
participants expressed that their decision to leave private practice was bound to traits of the
law firm environment. The reasons provided include: financial pressures; high billable hour
quotas; expectations of additional involvements after hours, such as working in the office
late into the evening or socializing with clients; and discrimination that often surfaced
through “old boys’ networks,” such as exclusion from access to challenging cases, clients or
other developmental opportunities.
Practices in the firm, such as emphasis on revenues and billable hours, influenced
the exit decision of several participants. One participant decided to leave because “big firms
downtown required $1 million gross in billing per year…impossible to achieve so I work
from home.” The bottom line emphasis on profit in the large urban law firms was mentioned
by several lawyers as a reason for their exodus from private practice. As two other lawyers
noted:
I am leaving private practice at end of [this year], so I will answer this. Law firm management asked for capital contribution without any equity interest. Consequence of not providing this “interest-free loan” was the firm’s exercise
50
of its option to terminate my contract. I took the view that this was extortion and declined to provide the capital requested. Being thrown out of one of Canada’s so-called leading law firms in the interests of increased profitability for the remaining partners.
An emphasis on firm profits over quality of legal work, integrity and harnessing of legal
skills appeared to drive some law firm associates out of private practice (not simply between
firms).
In addition to the focus on firm profits, the emphasis on billable hours resulted in
some lawyers “looking for the door.” For example, one participant, who claimed the
profession had “worn them out,” stated that they “needed to get away from the treadmill of
billings/collections/overhead of being a partner in a firm.” Clearly, financial pressures and
expectations regarding billable hours impact partners as well as associates in law firms.
These pressures appear to characterize the culture of many law firms (Ashley 2010;
Campbell, Charlesworth, and Malone 2012). One participant, unhappy with the profession,
expressed a concern with the growing emphasis on the business of law over the profession
of law:
It is an occupation without soul – purely profit motivated….I left the practice of law because it was a ghastly way to make a living, full of greedy, unhappy, combative people focused solely on money. There were and are exceptions, but they are most definitely exceptions.
The tremendous emphasis on profit and billable hours appears to have some very negative
consequences for the environment and experiences of junior lawyers within law firms. For
some lawyers, their experience was that of leaving a “greedy” and uncooperative workplace.
Particularly troubling was how overwhelmingly time-consuming this culture had become:
51
While in private practice, working full-time and meeting my billable target goals, I was still expected to “do something more” for the firm. This was the time I decided I would prefer an in-house corporate counsel position. Balancing a family and a full-time job in private practice left little room for me to devote numerous extra hours on committees – not that I don’t recognize the importance of this work – it’s just that I did not feel I had the extra time to devote to these initiatives.
The quote above highlights the demanding culture of firms that may expect more than
dedicated effort, long hours, and excellent quality of legal skills – there may be expectations
of yet “something more,” in this case committee work, which fostered an exit from private
practice.
Organizational constraints mentioned by lawyers were not always specific to law
firms. A few lawyers noted that the Law Society of Upper Canada’s rules for membership
and insurance made staying active for lawyers in ‘non-traditional’ settings problematic. As
one lawyer wrote:
I am proud of my transition from practicing lawyer to academic. However, I feel the Law Society/legal regulation was not helpful in this transition because rigid rules about categories of practice and insurance coverage force the non-traditional lawyer out of the mainstream and prevent them from staying active. I appreciate that this is a quality control approach but it forces the non-traditional lawyer out.
Complaints about the climate of law firms not only addressed pressures of billable
hours and bottom line financial imperatives. There was also discussion among women
lawyers of an “old boys’ network” that persists in the profession to the exclusion of women:
In a small town, lack of professionalism. Old boys’ network particularly tough for visible minority from [city name]. Law practice is extremely “old” and patriarchal in its thinking and I am not happy within the profession.
52
In addition, other lawyers remarked on a lack of respect and collegiality in the legal
profession.
I had been in practice for a long time and had become discouraged by a lack of courtesy in my practice area from colleagues.
However, as discussed in the statistical analysis, collegiality in the workplace may not be
sufficient to retain lawyers in private practice, when other expectations fall short of the
mark. That being said, collegiality, professionalism and recognition by seniors were
mentioned by several lawyers, particularly as they experienced contrasting (and more
enjoyable) work environments outside private practice. As the following lawyer observed:
In 1990 I moved from private practice to in-house counsel at a [industry] company. I much preferred being part of a company with the accompanying status and respect from seniors, to the life of a docketing associate at a firm.
Pursuit of Other Interests Another theme that arose in the comments offered by study participants was that
they experienced a pressing need to take a break from the practice of law. Several lawyers
described their transition out of private practice as stimulated by a desire for a lifestyle
change or a career change. The following lawyers commented:
I left a part-time practice at a small firm. No complaints at all with the firm or their flexibility. I started there when my kids were very young. Eventually I just wanted a break from Family Law and more time at home. Since I left (3 years+), no regrets. Do volunteer work. I left Bay Street because I found my life was completely consumed by the practice of law. Though my firm was excellent and the work was professionally
53
and financially rewarding, I have never regretted that choice. My life is much more full and I would even say rich in the things that matter most to me – family, friends, and community. I moved to a modest home overlooking [location] in [city name] with my husband. I am dabbling in local politics, learning to paint, volunteering for the Library, playing scrabble and Bridge, working for a couple of charities and trying to learn to relax after many, many years of stress. Not there yet!
This last quote suggests the high level of stress born by lawyers in private practice. Another
lawyer’s decision to leave private practice was prompted, in part, by a traumatic personal
event:
My mother’s death and 21 years in practice in a law firm setting. I realized that life is not about years of thankless toil. I didn’t want to retire as a lawyer. I needed to find my vocation, something that gives me meaning and fulfillment. It was time to leave law.
Another significant factor in the decision to exit private practice was the desire for a
new challenge through a career change. Several lawyers detailed new opportunities that
emerged, removing them from private practice, or an interest to pursue new business
ventures that built on their education and experience in law:
Left to pursue career developing public policy. I left the practice of law to pursue various business development positions with leasing or financial companies. I felt that acquiring sales, credit and finance skills I would be better equipped to start or run a company. Pursue different career opportunities…I was offered a position on a federal cabinet minister’s staff. I became interested in public service and stayed. I have worked in a number of senior government positions…. I had the opportunity to work for a cabinet minister. This introduced me to public service. I saw that there was a wealth of opportunity to be involved in important and interesting work that used my legal training and skills in non-traditional ways. I have not regretted this career choice.
54
I was offered the position of [position name]. This position removed me from the practice of law.
These three lawyers left private practice to pursue public policy, business development, and
administrative appointments. Other lawyers wrote of their enthusiasm to combine skill sets,
such as “flying skills with legal skills” or the “pleasurable part of practice with the fun of
teaching.” For these lawyers, their decision to leave private practice was one that did not
mean leaving law behind, but rather blending their legal talents and experiences in law with
other interests.
While some lawyers ventured into new lines of work, several returned to school.
Returning to school enabled new career options. For example, one lawyer noted, “to make a
career change – went back to school.” Some lawyers returned to university to complete a
Master’s degree in law (LLM), while others pursued business (MBA), both programs
building on legal backgrounds. Others returned to school for quite different programs,
including: teachers’ college, engineering, and trades, to name a few. The following
participant details her transition from a law firm to graduate studies and a new career in
academe:
Left position to raise children (tried for partnership and didn’t make it) - The most important milestone or turning point that allowed me to re-enter the full-time world was obtaining my LLM. This opened the doors of academia to me. It took considerable time to obtain a tenure track position (working four years of limited term positions first) but now I am in the eve of tenure [having successfully published]….
55
A return to education did not necessarily signal a long term exit from private
practice. Some lawyers reported temporary breaks from private practice through the pursuit
of education. For example, one participant “Took 2 years off – 2000-2002, to attend cooking
school at [college name]. Returned to work refreshed, happier, and with a broader
perspective.” Also leaving private practice temporarily to ‘retool,’ another participant
indicated a return to university studies “to do Master’s degree in law at [university name]
law school specializing in health law. I was very unhappy in private practice (banking law)
and wanted to change area of practice.” The eventual return to private practice in both of
these cases illustrates how some temporary exits take place. These lawyers returned to
private practice rejuvenated by their new educational experiences.
However, many lawyers who leave private practice do not return. In some cases,
extreme stress, health issues and burn-out were to blame. We explore these issues in the
next section.
Burn-out A final re-occurring theme in our study, as to why lawyers exit private practice, is
burn-out. Lawyers reported exiting private practice due to intense levels of stress:
Left because of stress. …it had worn me out. Leaving private practice – 1999 – I had burned out in private practice and was seriously considering leaving the legal profession entirely.
56
These examples address a stressful work environment that leads lawyers to feel frustrated,
“run down,” lacking motivation, depressed, physically exhausted, and needing to change
their lives in significant ways. Burn-out was cited by several participants in the study as
providing the personal push to leave private practice. These lawyers sometimes wrote of the
hectic pace and demanding hours of practice and the need for better work/life balance. One
participant wrote: “…running out of energy to market and work long hours, opportunity to
take pension, husband retired 2 years previously.”
Some study participants reported that medical issues influenced their decision to
leave private practice. In these cases, lawyers indicated that they had little choice in the
decision to leave private practice. Often health problems were related to the work
environment. For instance, the following participant described the role of a stressful work
context, burn-out, and depression.
Good old ‘nervous breakdown’. Burn out… During which I was on disability insurance. Unemployed by choice but my job and partner in firm awaiting my return… Clinical Depression. Burn out. I did family law exclusively and as specialist (certified) got the most nasty cases and dysfunctional clients as well as nice normal unhappy folk.)… I was under intensive drug and talking therapy for about a year. Therapy for 5 years was paid for entirely by my Canadian Bar Association Disability Insurance, as was my income at insured level. I still receive some as income low. Spent 3 months feeling sorry for myself, examined my life priorities and decided after 6 months not to return to practice. I am still disabled – reduced powers of concentration. Got a dog and a life. Went back to gardening, reading, writing and photography…Would not return to practice ever. I’ve begun to be happy instead of being a successful lawyer.
Many lawyers wrote about the negative impact stress and working long hours had on
their health. The following two lawyers discuss this issue:
Due to the enormous stresses of a 99% legal aid practice and the collapse of the legal aid plan plus a genetic predisposition, I developed an incurable
57
stress-induced disability… My extremely negative perspective on the experience of being a lawyer is shared by all older lawyers who have a large percentage of legal aid cases.…Unfortunately for me, I did not try to get out before my health was destroyed and this is because I believed in what I was doing and I was suited to being a litigation lawyer. In criminal law, I think, either for the Crown or the defense, the stress level is very high, and many people end up getting sick. Not just with the flu but seriously ill – heart disease and cancer are common.
Several lawyers in the study reported leaving private practice on long term
disability, the result of chronic health conditions. A few described their disabilities as
worsening, resulting in “medical retirement.” However, some lawyers who fell ill and
took medical leave were able to return to a productive private practice:
Following a severe medical situation in which I was in a coma for some time. Recovered, but took an extended leave from work. I returned to work and have enjoyed the practice of law since that date (2001).
Other lawyers suffering from chronic illness made a move from private practice to
government or other settings with more predictable or reduced hours. As one lawyer
remarked:
Have a chronic illness… left private practice to work for government. I enjoy it more, feel more satisfied, avoid law firm/partnership dynamics BUT less income. Tough trade off.
For other lawyers, health crises, including surgeries and other treatments, represented
a turning point in their lives. The following two participants comment on the
significance of these health crises for their lives more broadly:
58
Getting breast cancer – ’94 gives one a whole new perspective. I really needed to live to figure out how this all turns out, see my kids grow up, and appreciate the incredible support I have in the community. Getting sick while working for a large downtown law firm in 1989/90 changed my life completely. I gave up drinking, decided to head for a more balanced career and took up ballroom dancing – how I met my husband.
The stressful and demanding nature of work in private practice is worthy of study,
with close attention to issues of lawyers’ well-being, both emotional and physical health,
substance abuse problems, and available support systems (e.g., workplace benefit plans,
counseling, treatment programs).
Re-entry to Private Practice
Obstacles to Re-entry
In this section, we explore barriers to re-entry and then move to examine how to
assist those returning to private practice.
Once a lawyer leaves private practice, how easy is it to return? Some participants
described their attempts to return to private practice as blocked by a lack of jobs or a
resistance by firms to hire lawyers who had been out of private practice for a period of time.
So while some simply stated, “unable to find employment in law practice,” others went on
to describe specific obstacles in their job search. The two most common obstacles listed
included: (1) the length of time away from private practice; and (2) institutional barriers that
block re-entry.
59
With respect to the timing issue, the reasons provided emphasize the negative impact
of having “been out of private practice for too long” and “being deemed too old.” These
themes surface in the following responses:
I waited too long to return to practicing law after staying home with children. I think you cannot leave for more than 2 or 3 years and hope to return to the same level you were at. Nobody wants older “juniors” when they can have fresh young lawyers. At my age, law firms expect me to bring business with me – they think I am too expensive compared to an associate right out of law school.
The ability to return to private practice appears to be hindered by the duration of absence
from private practice and bias against one’s age.
A second main barrier for those seeking to return to private practice is a range of
institutional barriers. One lawyer encountered the challenges of starting up practice in
another province:
I have confirmed with Law Society of [province] that I am not eligible for transfer of membership (since I was not practicing for last 3 years in [province]) and would have to do Bar Admission Course if I wished to practice law in [province]. (Guess I should have been a plumber, then no problem transferring license!)
Another expressed frustrations at the restrictions on the availability of part-time work for
lawyers. The profession itself, and law firms more specifically, are seen to discourage part-
time hours:
Law Society and the way private practice discourages part-time work is still gender-biased and work centric. Locums and parental leave are good policies but part-time policies and fees must be reviewed and part-time practice for whatever reason encouraged as opposed to forcing people to leave the
60
profession to deal with other issues, family responsibilities, continuing education, medical treatment, etc. …not being hired back after articling position really shocked my confidence – after moving to small town out of [city name] never practiced law and instead decided to care for our children myself. Found no options in law 30 years ago for part-time law work and did not want to set up practice alone.
These comments draw attention to matters of flexibility in scheduling. All lawyers seeking
to return to private practice may not desire a full-time work schedule, but nonetheless have
expertise and skills to contribute to law practice. A significant problem for lawyers seeking
to return to private practice is adequate support for their return. One lawyer described
negotiating the terms for their re-entry prior to leaving private practice:
I previously left law practice in 1983 (previous survey) and came back in 1993 with no concept of there being any support. I left practice again in 2004 partially and negotiated a guaranteed right to go back to practice full-time if being [position title] part-time didn’t work for me. It did. I think people need some ability to leave with “strings” and some part-time maybe.
Several lawyers commented on the desire to return to law practice and to
positions that might allow a greater degree of control over their work arrangements –
be that part-time hours, flexibility in scheduling, less around-the-clock availability, or
just predictability of a regular schedule. One lawyer contemplating a return to the
practice of law wrote:
…If I go back – it would be to a law-related job - but not private practice (i.e., it would be in-house) because easier to control job (at least philosophically). But all law-related jobs are harder, more competitive, more instantaneous (because of e-mail, etc.) now than 10 years ago. You have to commit 150% of yourself – so to assist? – create less stressful jobs!
61
A final matter raised by study participants was that of pay following a period of time
out of private practice. Returning to private practice from government employment, in-
house counsel or business ventures outside of law did not always result in equal footing on
career ladders in private practice. Leaving private practice meant returning at a reduced rate
of pay and with little opportunity to ‘catch up’ or translate outside experience as relevant to
the firm’s salary scale. As one participant wrote, “…Once you’re out, the pay scale to get
back is low and the prospects of equalizing careers are just not there (like most).”
Assistance for Those Returning to Private Practice This section outlines specific suggestions for assisting the returning lawyer. We
asked participants what private practice can do and what supports can be made available to
assist lawyers seeking to return to private practice. The comments offered came both from
lawyers currently in private practice as well as those who had left private practice. Their
comments offer suggestions for training/education, mentoring, networking, and profession-
based changes.
A significant number of participants identified the presence of training, further
education and seminars as vital to the re-entry process. Participants suggested the need for:
“refresher courses,” “requalification course similar to Bar Ad to refresh skills,” “upgrading
courses,” and “a quasi-articling experience.” Education appeared to be important to a
successful return to law practice. Study participants suggested a variety of forums for
education. Some suggested these programs ought to be the responsibility of the Law
Society, while others suggested it might be in the interests of law firms to offer seminars,
62
and others recommended a combination of Law Society and firm-based programs. Lawyers
suggested the training could be specific to one’s “area of proposed practice” or could focus
on “résumé writing, marketing self, and entrance presentations.” To encourage law
graduates who have left private practice to return, most participants recommended these
courses or seminars should be offered at “no cost” to the returning lawyer. While many
participants suggested courses, others went further to describe the content and purpose of
such courses or programs. For example, the following five lawyers suggested:
Provide information on how skill sets acquired in other pursuits can translate to effective practice skills to both lawyers seeking to return and to prospective colleagues/employers. A reintegration program that touches on most of the above (job networks, clientele, business start-up costs, job availability, marketing of skills), not just substantive law. Courses specifically created for lawyers returning to practice – provide a certificate for courses completed? CLE geared for returning lawyers, addressing the issues as well as substantive law. Lawyers wishing to go back into private practice after X years away should be required to take a mini “bar type” refresher course on ethics; and the core requirements of running of practice. Counseling/ lunch n’ learns offered by Law Society to review current market conditions, marketing oneself etc. in light of little or no client base.
Overwhelmingly, participants in the study noted the importance of mentoring for
those seeking to return to private practice. Some participants suggested a mentor was vital to
facilitating a successful transition to private practice, and some went further to call on law
firms to establish formal mentoring programs. Participants offered various suggestions on
how mentoring may be organized and its purpose:
Should have programs to up-grade practice management skills. For example, at this point I have no idea how files are opened, documents
63
logged, e-mail protocols, conflict of interest processes, etc. Should also be able to up-grade program specific knowledge e.g., Family law, court procedures etc. Perhaps create programs where lawyers who re-enter are paired with mentors/can job shadow to get back up to speed. Upgrading in specific areas of law (particularly procedure) and defined mentoring program with objective goals and time commitments. Place in a voluntary position in a law firm or legal clinic as a stepping stone; Assistance form lawyers who wish to assume a mentorship role; Attendance at CLE programs. - A mini-course to update legal knowledge skills, as well as computer skills - Develop a mentoring system to support them - Monthly seminars aimed at those -Mentor -Refresher Course by LSUC -Like a “Mini Articling” Program – Law firms to co-operate – to reacquaint individuals with the practice
This combination of courses or programs, together with mentorship, is deemed an important
stepping stone to a successful return to private practice after an extended period of absence.
Some of the suggestions called for the establishment of a formal coordinated system through
the Law Society of Upper Canada to assist returning lawyers. Participants also offered
concrete suggestions for the development of mentoring aimed at facilitating a successful
reintegration of lawyers to private practice:
Mentoring program with supportive contemporary who can facilitate introductions and re-entry into profession. Organized mentoring re-entry programs marketed by LSUC to gain law firm support. Mentoring program to help them re-build networks, contacts, knowledge and provide support to rebuild confidence. Real mentoring, not just lip service, and real integration into practice environment.
64
Mentors appear to play many roles, though the roles are different than those assumed
by a mentor to a junior lawyer who is developing skills, learning new systems, and making
the transition from law school to practice environment. In the case of lawyers seeking to
return to private practice, mentoring offers a touchstone – someone whom the returning
lawyer can approach with questions, and from whom he or she can seek support and
guidance. The mentor is an important link, one that can help to familiarize the returning
lawyer with technological changes, navigate new laws and procedures, and offer valuable
introductions and contacts. Some lawyers felt that responsibility for the development of
mentoring programs should rest with the Law Society. Such mentor contacts may be
particularly valuable to sole practitioners and/or lawyers who have relocated to new
geographic areas. Numerous lawyers also called on law firms to make a commitment to
mentoring programs aimed at the reintegration of lawyers – including those who are
returning to private practice from other sectors of the profession or a period of time out of
the workforce. Such mentor programs benefit the firm through faster time for returning
lawyers to regain footing as they ‘ramp up’ with new technologies, knowledge of changes to
law and procedures, and integration into teams and existing work units. Participants in our
study called for the dedication of resources to create mentorship programs that yield
tangible assistance, rather than ‘lip service’ to the notion of mentoring.
An additional suggestion to assist returning lawyers is one that many believe should
occur prior to the initial exit. Several participants remarked on the importance of
maintaining contacts during the period of time out of private practice. In fact, prior to
leaving private practice, it appears important to foster relationships that will help to keep the
65
lawyer informed and to ease their return to private practice at a later time. Participants
identified networking as important for those seeking to return to private practice. For
example, participants noted the value of “networking opportunities;” “marketing and
developing client connections;” and “colleagues must assist just as they assist articling
students.” It is evident that having a reliable network in place is essential to a smooth return
to private practice. Without such networks for locating jobs, serving as references and
developing a clientele base, lawyers seeking to return to private practice are at a significant
disadvantage:
Maintain liaison with law firms to maintain a “job bank.” Need ways to stay in touch. The individual has to maintain his/her contacts and expertise while away from practice. No idea – not a good idea to leave unless you have a lot of good contacts who can help you get back in. Loss of network is a huge hurdle.
Participants also identified changes they would like to see take place at the Law
Society of Upper Canada. The suggestions included: establishing a mentoring program for
lawyers seeking to return to private practice, special courses to upgrade skills and
marketability, funding to assist smaller firms (and other organizations) who hire lawyers on
a part-time basis, and job fairs.
Law Society develop a program to assist lawyers in returning to practice – i.e., networking help, specific skills upgrade.
66
Law Foundation monies given to assist small or medium firms or other organizations (such as Civil Liberties Association) to hire part-time lawyers or full-time lawyers. LSUC sponsored job fairs bringing together firms who are hiring with mature individuals wanting to go back to work as a lawyer.
Many lawyers commented on the need for a variety of resources to help lawyers seeking to
return to private practice. The Law Society of Upper Canada, Canadian Bar Association,
Ontario Bar Association, local law associations and various organizations that employ
lawyers have a role to play in developing support systems. As one participant noted:
Ensure that there are lawyer support systems in place in a variety of forms – for example, local law associations, LSUC, CBA, OBA, within government, etc.
Comments were not entirely critical. Rather, the comments appeared to be productive with
suggestions for mentoring and programs that might ease the transition back to private
practice. One lawyer praised the Law Society and Bar Associations for their efforts:
I think Law Society and the CBA and the OBA and other legal networks do a good job of offering courses and other assistance to those wanting to come back.
Overall, it appears that mentoring programs, courses and coordination of job postings
(through job fairs, job banks) are important services and resources for lawyers returning to
private practice. It is recommended that the Law Society of Upper Canada and Bar
Associations continue to invest in these services.
In addition to these supports, participants identified the need to reduce professional
costs affiliated with membership. This suggestion speaks to the need to reduce financial
67
barriers to those lawyers seeking to return to private practice. Numerous participants offered
comments on this issue:
Reduced LSUC and insurance fees for first year or two. Graduate increase to pay cost of professional fees and licensing, should be given 6 months free period. The Law Society of Upper Canada should consider not charging membership fees arrears, if any, and should not require rigorous re-entry conditions, e.g., Re-qualification exams after 5 years of non-practice. Perhaps linking professional fees and licensing costs to actual earnings in first two years would be helpful. Maybe a graduated fee schedule. Reality is we are self-employed individuals. Should be able to help ourselves. Maybe offer returning lawyers same perks we offer 1st time/student lawyers. Lower fees for initial returning year; low interest start-up loans to encourage returnees.
An obstacle for lawyers seeking to return to private practice is monetary. Membership and
insurance fees pose a significant barrier, especially for lawyers who have been out of the
workforce for an extended period of time. Reducing fees, for even a short transition period,
may entice lawyers contemplating a return to private practice to take that step. For those
already committed to a return, reduced fees or a graduated fee schedule will make the
transition easier as they build up their practice.
Participants in the study noted four other factors that could encourage and ease
lawyers’ re-entry to private practice. First, a plea was made by several lawyers to improve
opportunities for part-time work. Often, the request for part-time work was to ease the
transition back to private practice, as returning lawyers rebuild their skill set, become
68
acquainted with new technology and systems, and establish a clientele base. Part-time work
was also described as important “for females with kids” and for the “bridge” that it
facilitates. Numerous lawyers expressed a desire for more flexible schedules, part-time or
even full-time, for lawyers seeking to return to private practice. Some of the ideas for
flexible schedules included: “working from home;” “job sharing;” “a graduated return to
work;” and “changing attitudes and encourage flexibility and open-mindedness.”
Second, some lawyers recommended that new placement opportunities be created
with returning-to-practice lawyers in mind. Several participants identified this as an
important feature for returning lawyers that will allow them to “gain experience…and
regain credibility,” as well serve the firms who can “hire mature lawyers at low salaries.”
Third, several participants called for the establishment of an on-line directory or
catalogue of available positions (e.g., a job bank or posting of openings at firms) for lawyers
seeking to return to private practice, as well as for those who are retired and wish to take on
contracts or part-time work. Some participants discussed the possibility of a recruitment
agency that might connect lawyers seeking to return to private practice with law firms,
while others suggested the Law Society might play a role in facilitating the matching
process.
A fourth comment, one that was expressed by several participants, was that of the
need for counseling. A few participants suggested counseling could prove beneficial by
69
helping returning lawyers to find a suitable “fit” and to understand “what is needed to return
to practice.” Building on this suggestion, one participant remarked:
Objective career counseling could help some candidates. A great many lawyers who leave the practice of law, however, are just not prepared to make the personal sacrifices demanded by traditional private practice. That is likely to continue.
Numerous lawyers wrote of the loss of confidence and erosion of contacts that took place
while they were away from private practice and a concern that their work experience (or life
experience) outside of private practice would be of little value to law firms hiring lawyers.
The suggestion of counseling appears to be one that calls on both emotional support (e.g.,
confidence building), as well as professional support (e.g., how to market oneself to law
firms, how to communicate the relevance of skills and experiences outside private practice
in a job interview, résumé crafting, interview skills, wardrobe and professional image, and
business planning).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This report began with an exploration of three theoretical models of turnover. Our
study found mixed support for the role of job satisfaction. Although satisfaction with
‘power-track’ (promotions, earnings, and prestige) reduced the risk of lawyers leaving
private practice, satisfaction with content of work and collegiality did not have the same
retention power. Our measures of job satisfaction were derived from the first survey in 1990
and serve only as a proxy for facets of job satisfaction in early careers. It is possible that
many lawyers shifted jobs early on in an attempt to achieve better levels of job satisfaction.
We found no evidence of gender differences across facets of job satisfaction, though
70
satisfaction with ‘power-track’ appears more effective at retaining men, than women,
lawyers in private practice.
We also explored the role of family pressures. We find evidence that women are at
greater risk of leaving private practice, especially when they have more than one child,
while men are more likely to remain in private practice with growing families. However, it
is the impact of parental and other leaves and interruptions between professional positions
that take the greater toll on women’s careers. Upon return from these relatively short gaps
(over the course of a career) women lawyers face an uphill battle to retention and
advancement in private practice. A key issue to investigate is how women are treated upon
return from parental leaves and whether they are disadvantaged in terms of clientele,
assignments, support by colleagues, and assessments of competence by firm leaders. Are
women, as some research suggests, held to a higher standard than their male colleagues
upon their return from a parental leave (Kay and Hagan 1999)? Our data suggest that
women lawyers are more likely to be challenged about their career commitment after having
children, especially when they have more than one or two children. In contrast, men with
growing families enjoy longer term continuity with their law firms.
Nature and Time of Exits: An important question is whether lawyers who leave
private practice do so as a result of their own decision to quit or do they leave as a result of
layoffs, firing, or other forms of termination? Several studies find that job quits are
sometimes a preemptive move when employees perceive the risk of job loss to be high (Batt
and Valcour 2003; Manski and Straub 2000; Moen et al. 2011). Early exits from private
71
practice may be the result of associates leaving their firm in anticipation that they will not
receive an invitation to join the firm’s partnership (Gorman 1999). It seems, more likely,
however, that such early job changes would lead associates to seek positions with other
firms or to set up solo practice, enabling them to continue in private practice, rather than to
exit private practice all together.
Unfortunately, our study does not enable us to distinguish between voluntary (e.g.,
quits) and involuntary turnover (e.g., termination). On the one hand, contextual specification
of how or why a job exit occurred may be relevant to subsequent job moves (Wheaton and
Reid 2008:226), and these different types of exits may have different antecedent factors
(Park and Sandefur 2003). However, current scholarship suggests that “[i]n a climate of
rising risk and constraint, voluntary/involuntary turnover distinctions are increasingly
blurred” (Moen et al. 2011:74). Some women or men exit their jobs (and private practice)
because of parenting obligations and poor work/life balance, while others quit in
anticipation of being let go, or else are encouraged to leave ‘voluntarily.’ Lawyers may
describe their moves as ‘voluntary’ when in fact termination was imminent or had taken
place (Park and Sandefur 2003).
Regardless of whether exits were voluntary, some research suggests women are
leaving firms “in large numbers prior to making partner” (Reichman and Sterling 2002:962).
Noonan and Corcoran (2004:146), for example, found “[w]omen who entered private
practice were 1.8 times as likely as men to leave within four years (18 vs. 10 percent).” Our
findings suggest this form of attrition is an important part of the story. Women in our
72
sample were more likely to leave private practice early in their careers: 31% of women
compared with 21% of men left within 5 years (t-test=-7.40, p<.001). Yet, our results also
suggest that many moves from private practice take place after lawyers have already
attained law firm partnership status. Studies have suggested that some women delay having
children until after they have reached partnership (Leiper 2006). Having established
themselves within firms, these women then encounter the full weight of an organizational
structure that lacks accommodation for parental leaves and time schedule flexibility. A
study more narrowly focused on exits from law firms could directly address whether, prior
to partnership decisions, women switch firms or leave private practice, and whether
different or similar dynamics drive women out after partnership has been granted.
Policy and Practice: Earnings and promotions are inducements that firms offer to
retain their professional legal talent that might otherwise easily transfer to other firms
(Saporta and Farjoum 2003:263). Our study suggests that satisfaction with ‘power-track’
(e.g., earnings, promotion opportunities, and prestige) reduces the risk that lawyers will
leave private practice. Yet, firms can take other initiatives to retain legal talent; initiatives
that are less costly than lucrative salaries. Lawyers in our study were less likely to leave
organizations that offered flexible full-time hours. This finding is consistent with a sizeable
body of research demonstrating that greater employee flexibility can promote retention,
especially for employees with chronic overloads and time strains (Armstrong et al. 2007;
Hill, Mead, Dean, Hafen, Gadd, Palmer, and Ferris, 2006; Kelly and Moen 2007). Stone’s
(2007) research has shown that women professionals often feel pushed out precisely because
of the inflexibility and excessive demands of their jobs. Unfortunately, flexibility policies
73
are often ‘on the books’ but not widely available in practice (Kelly and Moen 2007;
Schieman and Glavin 2008). Scholars increasingly suggest more fundamental changes are
needed to the structure and culture of time at work (Bianchi, Casper, and King 2005; Kelly
and Moen 2007; Kelly et al. 2008; Kossek and Lambert 2005; Moen 2003; Pitt-Catsouphes,
Kossek, and Sweet 2006) to achieve improved well-being of professionals and their
families. This will require fundamental changes to the temporal organization of work, more
than simply drafting policies that are frowned upon by firm management if accessed by
lawyers (Moen et al. 2011:70).
Another strategy to retain legal talent is to offer improved parental leave
arrangements. Our results suggest that perceptions of sexual discrimination may be
intertwined with the negative career consequences of taking parental and other leaves.
Women who take a parental leave may find themselves marginalized in the firm upon their
return (Epstein, Sauté, Oglensky, and Gever 1995). Future research should explore the
impact of length of parental leave and the consequences of taking more than one parental
leave on promotions and retention in law firms. Parental leaves may be particularly
restricted within solo practice and small firms for financial reasons, and it is notable that we
find women are at a greater risk of leaving private practice from small firms. Programs that
provide financial benefits to practicing lawyers in small firms and solo practices may help to
make parental leaves a ‘do-able’ option, while maintaining the viability of these smaller
practices.6
6 Recently, the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) extended its three-year pilot "Parental Leave
Assistance Program" (PLAP), though the program came under heated debate recently. See: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/lsuc-likely-to-axe-parental-leave-benefits.html [Accessed 19 November 2012]. See also Maureen Brosnahan. 2012. “Ontario Law Society Poised to Drop Parental Leave
74
The need for greater balance between professional and private life in the legal
profession has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent years in the media, law
journals, and legal periodicals (Crawford 2011; Gray 2011; McLennan 2010; Pullen 2010;
Selick 2007; Slaughter 2012; Tibbetts 2007). Numerous studies have called for alterations in
the structure of the profession to allow greater flexibility in scheduling, the ability to take
leaves (Brockman 2001; Law Society of Upper Canada 2008; Leiper 2006; Reichman and
Sterling 2002; Rhode 2001; Thornton 1996), and ease of transition for those who want to
leave the profession and re-enter at a later time (O’Brien 2006). Participants in our study
suggested additional strategies to facilitate the re-entry of lawyers who have left private
practice. These strategies include: (1) mentor programs; (2) educational programs, seminars,
and courses to upgrade skills, substance of law and knowledge of technology; (3) job banks
and job postings; (4) recruitment and lawyer-firm matching services; (5) availability of part-
time and volunteer positions; (6) increased availability of workplace flexibility in terms of
hours, job sharing, and some working from home options; (7) the value of networks and
maintaining contacts during absence from private practice; (8) reduced or graduated
membership / licensing / insurance fees; and (9) counseling services.
Program: Pilot Program to Help Keep Women in Private Practice Deemed a Success.” CBC News, November 21 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/21/law-society-ontario-parental-leave-program.html) [Accessed 22 November 2012]. The goal of this pilot program is to reduce the hardship that arises when a practicing lawyer who is a partner in a small firm or a sole practitioner takes parental leave. The program provides financial benefits to practicing lawyers in firms of five lawyers or fewer who do not have access to other maternity, parental, or adoption financial benefits under public or private plans and who meet the eligibility criteria. The Parental Leave Assistance Program is a recommendation developed by the Law Society's Retention of Women Working Group. See: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=2147487024 [Accessed 19 November 2012].
75
Improving flexibility for lawyers in private practice and accessibility for individuals
returning to private practice are pressing issues, particularly given changes to legal careers
brought on by the forces of globalization, economic recession, and the growth and reach of
large law firms. For legal professionals, turnover is rapidly becoming a fact of contemporary
working life, as job changes and job insecurity become the norm. The career mystique of
continuous employment with the same firm is no longer the case (Moen and Roehling
2005). As Moen and colleagues (2011:69) remark: “Contemporary employment paths are
often marked by turnover in light of global economic forces and job conditions impelling
employees out of particular jobs and even out of the workforce.” Our study reveals that
interruptions between professional positions in private practice may hasten lawyers’
departures from private practice. Future research needs to examine the nature of career
interruptions. Some studies suggest that unemployment spells might be more damaging to
future earnings than gaps for self-employment or family leave (Bruce and Schuetze 2004;
Theunissen, Verbruggen, Forrier, and Sels 2011). Future work needs to explore whether
gaps between professional positions, as well as leaves taken during professional positions,
and for which purposes (e.g., family, unemployment, education, or other reasons), are
viewed as resulting in skill atrophy (Williams 2001) and whether these paths have a
negative impact on subsequent employment and earnings.
In conclusion, careers among private practitioners appear to be changing through a
diversity of pathways, with continuity of employment with one employer no longer the
singular career model. Increasingly lawyers move between firms and across sectors of
practice, and these trajectories may include gaps between jobs and leaves during the course
76
of professional positions. Yet, the private practice of law continues to rely on a traditional
model of linear and continuous careers (Brockman 2001; Sirianni and Negrey 2000), with
an emphasis on billable hours as the ‘bottom line’ and a resistance to workplace
accommodations (Epstein 2004; Rhode 2002). Attrition from private practice appears to be
rooted in organizational constraints that push lawyers out. Discussions that focus on
work/life balance as exclusively a woman’s issue or that focus narrowly on motherhood as
the primary source of job-leaving among women lawyers divert attention from the structural
and institutional factors (Percheski 2008; Wenk and Rosenfeld 1992) that constrain career
pathways for both men and women in the legal profession.
77
References Abele, Andrea E. and Daniel Spurk. 2011. “The Dual Impact of Gender and the Influence of
Timing of Parenthood on Men's and Women's Career Development: Longitudinal Findings.”International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(3):225-232.
Abraham, Martin, Katrin Auspurg, and Thomas Hinz. 2010. “Migration Decisions Within Dual-Earner Partnerships: A Test of Bargaining Theory.” Journal of Marriage and Family72(4):876-892.
Allison, Paul D. 1995. Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Anashensel, Carol S. 2002. Theory-Based Analysis for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Armstrong, Deborah J., Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, Myria W. Allen, and Margaret F. Reid. 2007. “Advancement, Voluntary Turnover and Women in IT: A Cognitive Study of Work-Family Conflict.” Information and Management 44:142-53.
Arun, Shoba V., Thankom G. Arun, and Vani K. Borooah. 2004. “The Effect of Career Breaks on the Working Lives of Women.” Feminist Economics 10(1):65-84.
Ashley, Louise. 2010. “Making a difference? The Use (and Abuse) of Diversity Management at the UK's Elite Law Firms.” Work, Employment and Society 24(4):711-727.
Baker, George P. and Rachel Parkin. 2006. “The Changing Structure of the Legal Services Industry and the Careers of Lawyers.” North Carolina Law Review 84:1635-82.
Baker, Maureen. 2010. “Choice or Constraints: Family Responsibilities, Gender and Academic Career.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 41(1):1-18.
Barak, Michàl E. Mor, Jan A. Nissly, and Amy Levin. 2001. “Antecedents to Retention and Turnover among Child Welfare, Social Work, and Other Human Service Employees: What Can We Learn from Past Research? A Review and Meta-analysis.” Social Service Review 75(4):625-61.
Batt, Rosemary and P. Monique Valcour. 2003. “Human Resource Practices as Predictors of Work-Family Outcomes and Employee Turnover.” Industrial Relations 42(2):189-220.
Beckman, Christine M. and Damon J. Phillips. 2005. “Interorganizational Determinants of Promotion: Client Leadership and the Attainment of Women Attorneys.” American Sociological Review 70(4):678-701.
Belkin, Lisa. 2003. “The Opt-Out Revolution.” The New York Times Magazine, October 26, pp. 42-47, 58, 85-86.
Benson, John and Michelle Brown. 2007. “Knowledge Workers: What Keeps Them Committed; What Turns Them Away.” Work, Employment and Society 21(1):121-41.
Bentein, Kathleen, Robert Vandenberg, Chirstian Vandenberghe, and Florence Stinglhamber. 2005. “The Role of Change in the Relationship between Commitment and Turnover: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90(3):468-82.
Bianchi, Suzanne N., Lynne M. Casper, and Rosalind B. King. 2005. Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being. Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boswell, Wendy R., John W. Boudreau, and Jan Tichy. 2005. “The Relationship Between Employee Job Change and Job Satisfaction: The Honeymoon-Hangover Effect.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90(5):882-92.
78
Boushey, Heather. 2008. “‘Opting Out?’ The Effect of Children on Women’s Employment in the United States.” Feminist Economics 14(1):1-36.
Brockman, Joan. 1994. “Leaving the Practice of Law: The Wherefores and the Whys.” Alberta Law Review 32(1):116-80.
------. 2001. Gender and the Legal Profession: Fitting in or Breaking the Mould. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
------. 2006. “An Update on Gender and Diversity in the Legal Profession in Alberta, 1991-2003.” Pp. 237-51 in Calling for Change: Women, Law, and the Legal Profession, edited by E. Sheehy and S. McIntyre. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Brosnahan, Maureen. 2012. “Ontario Law Society Poised to Drop Parental Leave Program: Pilot Program to Help Keep Women in Private Practice Deemed a Success.” CBC News, November 21. Retrieved November 22, 2012 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/21/law-society-ontario-parental-leave-program.html).
Bruce, Donald and Herbert J. Schuetze. 2004. “The Labor Market Consequences of Experience in Self-Employment.” Labour Economics 11(5):575-98.
Budig, Michelle J. and Paula England. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.” American Sociological Review 66:204-25.
Campbell, Iain, Sara Charlesworth, and Jenny Malone. 2012. “Part-time of What? Job Quality and Part-time Employment in the Legal Profession in Australia.” Journal of Sociology48(2):149-166.
Chaa, Youngjoo. 2010. “Reinforcing Separate Spheres: The Effect of Spousal Overwork on Men's and Women's Employment in Dual-Earner Households.” American Sociological Review 75(2):303-329.
Cho, Vincent and Xu Huang. 2012. “Professional Commitment, Organizational Commitment, and the Intention to Leave for Professional Advancement.” Information Technology and People 25(1):31-54.
Clegg, Stewart. 1989. Frameworks of Power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Cleves, Mario A., William W. Gould, Roberto Gutierrez, and Yulia U. Marchenko. 2008. An
Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata. 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press Publication.
Cotton, John L. and Jeffrey M. Tuttle. 1986. “Employee Turnover: A Meta-Analysis and Review with Implications for Research.” The Academy of Management Review 11(1):55-70.
Couch, Kenneth A. and Robert Fairlie. 2010. “Last Hired, First Fired? Black-White Unemployment and the Business Cycle.” Demography 47(1):227-47.
Crawford, Trish. 2011. “Women Lawyers Leaving in Droves.” Toronto Star, February 25. Retrieved October 12, 2012 (http://www.thestar.com/living/article/944937--women-lawyers-leaving-in-droves).
Crossley, Craig D., Rebecca J. Bennett, Steve M. Jex, and Jennifer L. Burnfield. 2007. “Development of a Global Measure of Job Embeddedness and Integration Into a Traditional Model of Voluntary Turnover.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4):1031-42.
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth G., Marc Galanter, Kausik Mukhopadhaya, and Kathleen E. Hull. 2009. “Men and Women of the Bar: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Gender on Legal Careers.” Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 16(1): 49-145.
Dinovitzer, Ronit and Bryant G. Garth. 2007. “Lawyers’ Satisfaction in the Process of Structuring Legal Careers.” Law & Society Review 41(1):1-50.
79
Dinovitzer, Ronit, Nancy Reichman, and Joyce Sterling. 2009. “The Differential Valuation of Women’s Work: A New Look at the Gender Gap in Lawyers’ Incomes.” Social Forces 88(2):819-64.
Dinovitzer, Ronit, Bryant G. Garth, Richard Sander, Joyce Sterling, and Gita Z. Wilder. 2004. After the JD: First Results of a National Study of Legal Careers. Chicago, IL: NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education and the American Bar Foundation.
Dobrev, Stanislav D. 2005. “Career Mobility and Job Flocking.” Social Science Research 34(4):800-20.
Donovan, Kathleen. 1990. “Women Associates’ Advancement to Partner Status in Private Firms.” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 4:135-52.
Dryfhout, Vicki L. and Sarah Beth Estes. 2010. “Explaining the Gender Gap in Professors’ Intentions to Leave.” Sociological Focus 43(2):109-27.
Epstein, Cynthia F. 1993. Women In Law. 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. ------. 2004. “Border Crossings: The Constraints of Time Norms in Transgressions of Gender and
Professional Roles.” Pp. 317-40 in Fighting for Time: Shifting Boundaries of Work and Social Life, edited by C. F. Epstein and A. Kalleberg. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs, Robert Sauté, Bonnie Oglensky, and Martha Gever. 1995. “Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: Women’s Advancement in the Legal Profession.” Fordham Law Review 64(2):291-449.
Faulconbridge, James. 2007. “Relational Networks of Knowledge Production in Transnational Law Firms.” Geoforum 38(5):925-40.
Faulconbridge, James and Daniel Muzio. 2008. “Organizational Professionalism in Globalizing Law Firms.” Work, Employment and Society 22(1):7-25.
Felmlee, Diane. 1995. “Causes and Consequences of Women’s Employment Discontinuity, 1967-1973.” Work and Occupations 22(2):167-87.
Fields, Dail, Myra E. Dingman, Paul M. Roman, and Terry C. Blum. 2005. “Exploring Predictors of Alternative Job Changes.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78(1):63-82.
Firth, Lucy, Devid J. Mellor, Kathleen A. Moore, and Claude Loquet. 2004. “How Can Managers Reduce Employee Intention to Quit?” Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(2):170-87.
Fondas, Nanette. 1996. “Feminization at Work: Career Implications.” Pp. 282-93 in The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principal for a New Organizational Era, edited by M. B. Arthur and D. M. Rousseau. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Forrier, Anneleen, Luc Sels, and Dave Synen. 2009. “Career Mobility at the Intersection between Agent and Structure: A Conceptual Model.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82(4):739-59.
Galanter, Marc and Thomas Palay. 1991. Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goldin, Claudia. 2006. “The Quiet Revolution that Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family.” American Economic Review 96:1-21.
Gorman, Elizabeth H. 1999. “Moving Away and ‘Up and Out’: Determinants of Permanent Employment in Law Firms.” Law & Society Review 33(3):637-66.
------. 2006. “Work Uncertainty and the Promotion of Professional Women: The Case of Law Firm Partnership.” Social Forces 85(2):865-90.
80
Gorman, Elizabeth H. and Fiona M. Kay. 2010. “Racial and Ethnic Minority Representation in Large U.S. Law Firms.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 52(Special Issue: Law Firms, Legal Culture, and Legal Practice):211-38.
Gorman, Elizabeth H. and Rebecca Sandefur. 2011. “‘Golden Age,’ Quiescence, and Revival: How the Sociology of Professions Became the Study of Knowledge-Based Work.” Work and Occupations 38(3):275-302.
Gray, Jeff. 2011. “Why Supermom is Leaving the Law Firm.” The Globe and Mail, November 8. Retrieved 18 October 2012 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/why-supermom-is-leaving-the-law-firm/article4251445/).
Griffeth, Rodger W., Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium.” Journal of Management 26(3):463-88.
Hagan, John and Fiona Kay. 1995. Gender in Practice: A Study of Lawyers’ Lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hagan, John and Fiona M. Kay. 2007. “Even Lawyers Get the Blues: Gender, Depression and Job Satisfaction in Legal Practice.” Law & Society Review 41(1):51-78.
Henderson, William D. 2006. “An Empirical Study of Single-Tier Versus Two-Tier Partnerships in the Am Law 200.” North Carolina Law Review 84:1691-1750.
Hewlett, Sylvia A. and Carolyn B. Luce. 2005. “Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success.” Harvard Business Review 83:43-54.
Heyman, Fredrik. 2008. “How Wage Compression Affects Job Turnover.” Journal of Labor Research 29(1):11-26.
Hill, E. Jeffrey, Nicole T. Mead, Lukas Ray Dean, Dawn M. Hafen, Robyn Gadd, Alexis A. Palmer, and Maria S. Ferris. 2006. “Researching the 60-Hour Dual-Earner Workweek: An Alternative to ‘Opt-Out Revolution’.” American Behavioral Scientist 49(9):1184-1203.
Hine, Christine. 2010. “Sex Discrimination and Law Firm Culture on the Internet: Lawyers at the Information Age Watercooler.” American Journal of Sociology 116(2):719-721.
Hirshman, Linda. 2006. Get to Work. New York, NY: Viking. Hull, Kathleen. 1999. “The Paradox of the Contented Female Lawyer.” Law & Society Review
33(3):687-702. Hull, Kathleen E. and Robert L. Nelson. 2000. “Assimilation, Choice or Constraint? Testing
Theories of Gender Differences in the Careers of Lawyers.” Social Forces 19(1):229-64. Hunter, Rosemary. 2002 “Talking Up Equality: Women Barristers and the Denial of
Discrimination. Feminist Legal Studies 10(2):113-30. Ietswaart, Heleen F. P. 2003. “Choices in Context: Life Histories of Women Lawyers in the
Netherlands.” Pp. 353-70 in Women in the World’s Legal Professions, edited by U. Schultz and G. Shaw. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Imazeki, Jennifer. 2005. “Teacher Salaries and Teacher Attrition.” Economics of Education Review 24(4):431-49.
Jackofsky, Ellen F. and Lawrence H. Peters. 1983. “Job Turnover versus Company Turnover: Reassessment of the March and Simon Participation Hypothesis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 68(3):490-95.
Jacobs, Jerry and Kathleen Gerson. 2004. The Time Divide: Work, Family and Gender Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81
Jones, Eli, Lawrence Chonko, Deva Rangarajan, and James Roberts. 2007. “The Role of Overload on Job Attitudes, Turnover Intentions, and Salesperson Performance.” Journal of Business Research 60(7):663-71.
Kackmar, K. Michele, Martha C. Andrews, David L. Van Rooy, R. Chris Steilberg, and Stephen Cerrone. 2006. “Sure Everyone can be Replaced…But at What Cost? Turnover as a Predictor of Unit Level Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 49(1):133-44.
Kay, Fiona M. 1997. “Flight From Law: A Competing Risks Model of Departures from Law Firms.” Law & Society Review 31(2):301-35.
------. 2009. “Professional Monopolies and Divisive Practices in Law: ‘Les Femmes Juridiques’ in Civil Law Canada.” The International Journal of Law in Context 4(3):187-215.
Kay, Fiona M. and Joan Brockman. 2000. “Barriers to Gender Equality in the Canadian Legal Establishment.” Feminist Legal Studies 8(2):169-98.
Kay, Fiona M. and Elizabeth H. Gorman. 2008. “Women in the Legal Profession.” Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 4:299-332.
------. 2012. “Developmental Practices, Organizational Culture, and Minority Representation in Organizational Leadership: The Case of Partners in Large U.S. Law Firms.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639(1):91-113.
Kay, Fiona M. and John Hagan. 1998. “Raising the Bar: The Gender Stratification of Law Firm Capitalization.” American Sociological Review 63(5):728-43.
------. 1999. “Cultivating Clients in the Competition for Partnership: Gender and the Organizational Restructuring of Law Firms in the 1990s.” Law & Society Review 33(3):517-55.
------. 2005. “Social Mobility and Hierarchical Structure in Law Practice.” Pp. 281-311 in Reorganization and Resistance: Legal Professions Confront a Changing World, edited by W. Felstiner. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing of Oxford.
Kelly, Erin L. and Phyllis Moen. 2007. “Rethinking the Clockwork of Work: Why Schedule Control May Pay Off at Home and at Work.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 9(4):487-506.
Kelly, Erin L., Samantha K. Ammons, Kelly Chermack, and Phyllis Moen. 2010. “Gendered Challenge, Gendered Response: Confronting the Ideal Worker Norm in a White-Collar Organization.” Gender & Society 24(3):281-303.
Kelly, Erin L., Ellen Ernst Kossek, Leslie B. Hammer, Mary Durham, Jeremy Bray, Kelly Chermack, Lauren A. Murphy, and Dan Kaskubar. 2008. “Getting There From Here: Research on the Effects of Work-Family Initiatives on Work-Family Conflict and Business Outcomes.” Academy of Management Annals 2:305-49.
Kim, C. H. and A. Sakamoto. 2008. “Does Inequality Increase Productivity? Evidence from U.S. Manufacturing Industries, 1979 to 1996.” Work and Occupations 35(1):85-114.
Kossek, Ellen E. and Susan J. Lambert. 2005. Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and Individual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kramer, Lisa A. and Ellen C. Berg. 2003. “A Survival Analysis of Timing of Entry into Prostitution: The Differential Impact of Race, Educational Level, and Childhood/Adolescent Risk Factors.” Sociological Inquiry 73(4):511-28.
Kuperberg, Arielle and Pamela Stone. 2008. “The Media Depiction of Women Who Opt Out.” Gender & Society 22(4):497-517.
82
Lambert, Eric G., Nancy L. Hogan, and Irshad Altheimer. 2010. “An Exploratory Examination of the Consequences of Burnout in Terms of Life Satisfaction, Turnover Intent, and Absenteeism Among Private Correctional Staff.” Prison Journal 90(1):94-114.
Lambert, Eric G., Nancy Lynne Hogan, and Shannon M. Barton. 2001. “The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intent: A Test of a Structural Measurement Model Using a National Sample of Workers.” The Social Science Journal 38(2):233-50.
Lange, Annet H. de, Hans De Witte, and Guy Notelaers. 2008. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Examining Longitudinal Relations among Job Resources and Work Engagement for Stayers versus Movers.” Work & Stress 22(3):201-23.
Law Society of Upper Canada. 2008. Final Report --Retention of Women in Private Practice Working Group. Toronto, ON: The Law Society of Upper Canada.
------. 2011. Retention of Women in Private Practice: Status Report. Toronto, ON: The Law Society of Upper Canada.
Leicht, Kevin T. and Mary L. Fennell. 1997. “The Changing Organizational Context of Professional Work.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:215-31.
Leiper, Jean McKenzie. 2006. Bar Codes: Women in the Legal Profession. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Lichtenstein, Richard, Jeffrey A. Alexander, John F. McCarthy, and Rebecca Wells. 2004. “Status Differences in Cross-Functional Teams: Effects on Individual Member Participation, Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Quit.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45(3):322-35.
Mallon, Mary and Laurie Cohen. 2001. “Time for a Change? Women’s Accounts of the Move from Organizational Careers to Self-Employment.” British Journal of Management 12(3):217-30.
Manski, Charles F. and John D. Straub. 2000. “Worker Perception of Job Insecurity in the mid-1990s: Evidence From the Survey of Economic Expectations.” The Journal of Human Resources 35(3):447-79.
Manzoni, Anna, Jeroen K. Vermunt, Ruud Luijkx, and Ruud Muffels. 2010. “Memory Bias in Retrospectively Collected Employment Careers: A Model-Based Approach to Correct for Measurement Error.” Sociological Methodology 40(1):39-73.
McLennan, Neal. 2010. “Women Lawyers & the Boys’ Club.” BC Business. Retrieved 20 March 2012 (http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top-stories/2010/06/09/women-lawyers-amp-boys039-club).
Mobley, William H., Roger W. Griffeth, Herbert H. Hand, and B. M. Meglino. 1979. “Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process.” Psychological Bulletin 86(3):493-522.
Moen, Phyllis. 2003. It’s About Time: Couples and Careers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
------. 2008. “It’s Constraints, Not Choices.” Science 319(5865):903-4. Moen, Phyllis and Qinlei Huang. 2010. “Customizing Careers by Opting Out or Shifting Jobs:
Dual-Earners Seeking Life-Course ‘Fit’.” Pp. 73-94 in Workplace Flexibility: Realigning 20th Century Jobs to 21st Century Workers, edited by K. Christensen and B. Schneider. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Moen, Phyllis and Patricia Roehling. 2005. The Career Mystique: Cracks in the American Dream. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Moen, Phyllis and Yan Yu. 2000. “Effective Work/Life Strategies: Working Couples, Work Conditions, Gender, and Life Quality.” Social Problems 47(3):291-326.
83
Moen, Phyllis, Erin L. Kelly, and Rachelle Hill. 2011. “Does Enhancing Work-Time Control and Flexibility Reduce Turnover? A Naturally Occurring Experiment.” Social Problems 58(1):69-98.
Monahan, John and Jeffrey Swanson. 2009. “Lawyers at Mid-Career: A 20-Year Longitudinal Study of Job and Life Satisfaction.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6(3):451-483.
Mossman, Mary Jane. 1994. “Lawyers and Family Life: New Directions for the 1990s (Part Two).” Feminist Legal Studies 2(2):159-82.
Noonan, Mary C. and Mary E. Corcoran. 2004. “The Mommy Track and Partnership: Temporary Delay or Dead End?” ANNALS, AAPSS 596(1):130-50.
O’Brien, Timothy L. 2006. “Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?” The New York Times, March 19. Retrieved 21 September 2012 (http://diversity.ncbar.org/media/2755149/whyfewwomenreachthetopofbiglawfirms.pdf).
Papanek, Hanna. 1973. “Men, Women, and Work: Reflections on the Two-Person Career.” American Journal of Sociology 87(4):852-72.
Park, Hyunjoon and Gary D. Sandefur. 2003. “Racial/ethnic Differences in Voluntary and Involuntary Job Mobility Among Young Men.” Social Science Research 32(3):347-75.
Patterson, Nicola and Sharon Mavin. 2009. “Women Entrepreneurs: Jumping the Corporate Ship and Gaining New Wings.” International Small Business Journal 27(2):173-92.
Patton, Paula A. 2005. “Women Lawyers, Their Status, Influence and Retention in the Legal Profession.” Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 11(2):173-94.
Percheski, Christine. 2008. “Opting Out? Cohort Differences in Professional Women’s Employment Rates from 1960 to 2005.” American Sociological Review 73(3):497-517.
Pitt-Catsouphes, Marcie, Ellen E. Kossek, and Stephen A. Sweet, eds. 2006. The Handbook of Work and Family: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, Methods, and Approaches. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Podsakoff, Nathan P., Jeffrey A. LePine, and Marcie A. LePine. 2007. “Differential Challenge Stressor-Hindrance Stressor Relationships with Job Attitudes, Turnover Intentions, Turnover, and Withdrawal Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2):438-54.
Porter, Nicole Buonocore. 2006. “Re-defining Superwoman: An Essay on Overcoming th‘Maternal Wall’ in the Legal Workplace.” Duke Journal of Gender, Law & Policy 13:55-84.
Preenan, Paul T. Y., Irene E. De Pater, Annelies E. M. Van Vianen, and Laura Keijzer. 2011. “Managing Voluntary Turnover through Challenging Assignments.” Group & Organization Management 36(3):308-44.
Preston, Anne E. 2004. Leaving Science: Occupational Exit from Scientific Careers. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Proudfoot, Judith G., Philip J. Corr, David E. Guest, and Graham Dunn. 2009. “Cognitive-Behavioural Training to Change Attributional Style Improves Employee Well-being, Job Satisfaction, Productivity, and Turnover.” Personality and Individual Differences 46:147-53.
Pullen, Kelly. 2010. “The Problem with Women.” Toronto Life, May, pp. 42-49. Retrieved 222 November 2012 (http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/from-print-edition-informer/2010/05/10/the-problem-with-women/).
Reichman, Nancy J. and Joyce S. Sterling. 2002. “Recasting the Brass Ring: Deconstructing and Reconstructing Workplace Opportunities for Women Lawyers.” Capital University Law Review 29(4):923-77.
84
------. 2004. “Sticky Floors, Broken Steps, and Concrete Ceilings in Legal Careers.” Texas Journal of Women and the Law 14(1):27-76.
Rhode, Deborah L. 2001. “Access to Justice.” Fordham Law Review 69(5):1785-1819. ------. 2002. “Gender and the Profession: The No-Problem Problem.” Hofstra Law Review.
30:1001-13. Rode, Joseph C., Michael T. Rehg, Janet P. Near, and John R. Underhill. 2007. “The Effect of
Work/Family Conflict on Intention to Quit: The Mediating Roles of Job and Life Satisfaction.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 2(2):65-82.
Sandefur, Rebecca L. 2007. “Staying Power: The Persistence of Social Inequality in Shaping Lawyer Satisfaction and Lawyers’ Persistence in the Profession.” Southwestern University Law Review 36(3): 539-556.
Saporta, Ishak and Moshe Farjoun. 2003. “The Relationship Between Actual Promotion and Turnover Among Professional and Managerial Administrative Occupational Groups.” Work and Occupations 30(3):255-80.
Scandura, Terri A. and Melenie J. Lankau. 1997. “Relationships of Gender, Family Responsibility and Flexible Work Hours to Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(4):377-91.
Schieman, Scott and Paul Glavin. 2008. “Trouble at the Border? Gender, Flexibility at Work, and the Work-Home Interface.” Social Problems 55:590-611.
Selick, Karen. 2007. “Don’t Lower the Bar.” National Post, August 22, A17. Seron Carroll. 1996. The Business of Practicing Law: The Work Lives of Solo and Small-Firm
Attorneys. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Sicherman, Nachum. 1996. “Gender Differences in Departures from a Large Firm.” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review 49(3):484-505. Sirianni, Carmen and Cynthia Negrey. 2000. “Working Time as Gendered Time.” Feminist
Economics 6(1):59-76. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2012. “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” Atlantic Magazine,
July/August 2012. Retrieved November 14, 2012 (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/).
Sokol, Daniel D. 2007. “Globalization of Law Firms: A Survey of the Literature and a Research Agenda for Further Study.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14(1):5-28.
Somaya, Deepak, Ian O. Williamson, and Natalia Lorinkova. 2008. “Gone but not Lost: The Different Performance Impacts of Employee Mobility between Cooperators and Competitors.” Academy of Management Journal 51(5):936-53.
Sommerlad, Hilary. 2006. “‘Becoming’ a Lawyer: Gender and the Processes of Professional Identity Formation. Pp. 159-78 in Calling for Change: Women, Law, and the Legal Profession, edited by E. Sheehy and S. McIntyre. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
Sommerlad, Hilary and Peter Sanderson. 1998. Gender, Choice and Commitment: Women Solicitors in England and Wales and the Struggle for Equal Status. Dartmouth, NS: Ashgate.
Spurr, Stephen J. and Glenn T. Sueyoshi. 1994. “Turnover and Promotion of Lawyers: An Inquiry into Gender Differences.” The Journal of Human Resources 24(3):813-42.
Steel, Robert P. 2002. “Turnover Theory at the Empirical Interface: Problems of Fit and Function.” Academy of Management Review 27(3):346-60.
Stone, Pamela. 2007. Opting Out: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
85
Stone, Pamela and Meg Lovejoy. 2004. “Fast-Track Women and the ‘Choice’ to Stay Home.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 596(1):62-83.
Sweet, Stephen and Phyllis Moen. 2012. “Dual Earners Preparing for Job Loss: Agency, Linked Lives, and Resilience.” Work and Occupations 39(1):35-70.
Theunissen, Gert, Marijke Verbruggen, Anneleen Forrier, and Luc Sels. 2011. “Career Sidestep, Wage Setback? The Impact of Different Types of Employment Interruptions on Wages.” Gender, Work and Organizations 18(S1):101-31.
Thornton, Margaret. 1996. Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession. Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press.
Tibbetts, Janice. 2007. “Female Lawyers Forced to Ditch Careers.” Ottawa Citizen, August 15, A7.
Timmermans, Stefan. 2008. “Professions and their Work: Do Market Shelters Protect Professional Interests?” Work and Occupations 35(2):164-88.
van Dam, Karen. 2005. “Employee Attitudes Toward Job Changes: An Application and Extension of Rusbult and Farrell’s Investment Model.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78(2):253-72.
Wallace, Jean E. 2001. “Explaining Why Lawyers Want to Leave the Practice of Law.” Pp. 117-45 in Legal Professions: Work, Structure, and Organization, edited by J. Van Hoy. New York, NY: JA1 Press.
Weisselberg, Charles D. and Su Li. 2011. “Big Law’s Sixth Amendment: The Rise of Corporate White-Collar Practices in Large U.S. Law Firms.” Arizona Law Review 53(4):1221-99.
Wenk, DeeAnn and Rachel A. Rosenfeld. 1992. “Women’s Employment Exit and Reentry: Job-leaving Reasons and Their Consequences.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 11:127-50.
Wheaton, Blair and Sarah Reid. 2008. “The Role of Timing vs. Duration in the Cumulative Work History Effects of Job Exits and Nonemployment on Women’s Mental Health.” Advances in Life Course Research 13:195-232.
Wilder, Gita Z. 2007. Women in the Legal Profession: Findings from the First Wave of the After the JD Study. Washington, DC: NALP.
Williams, Joan. 2001. Unbending Gender: Why Work and Family Conflict and What to Do About It. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Joan C. 2007. “Legal Professions and Job Demands: Implications for Work/Life Balance.” Pp. 1-21 in Work and Family Encyclopedia, edited by S. Sweet and J. Casey. Chestnut Hill, MA: Sloan Work Family Res. Network, Boston College. Retrieved December 29, 2012 (http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia/php?mode=nav).
Williams, Joan C., Jessica Manvell, and Stephanie Bornstein. 2006. ‘Opt-Out’ or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict. San Francisco, CA: UC Hastings College of the Law.
