Five law firms commended as among 100 best places to work, in part because of work-life balance policies

Here's the story, which I saw on the ABA Journal. These five major law firms recently made Fortune Magazine's list of 100 Best Places to Work. Note that one of the firms, Arnold & Porter at No. 19, made the list in part because it pays some of the health insurance premiums for lower wage earners. Others were selected on the basis of generous maternity leave policies, non-discrimination against LGBT lawyers, and concierge services, among other benefits.

The other law firms are Alston & Bird (31), Bingham McCutchen (41), Perkins Coie (55), and Nixon Peabody (66). All of these firms are also highly competitive in terms of associate pay.

Crisis for mid-career women attorneys?

The ABA Journal ran this story about a new book by Kathy Caprino, “Breakdown, Breakthrough: The Professional Woman’s Guide to Claiming a Life of Passion, Power and Purpose," discussing its application to female attorneys. Here's a short excerpt from the Journal article by Rachel Zahorsky:

In her book, Caprino identifies 12 crises that corporate mid-career women face, including work-life balance failures, bad or intolerable treatment at work, and a fearfulness to speak up without being rejected or punished. These issues "absolutely apply" to women in the legal profession as well, Caprino says.

Careful not to blame their male counterparts, Caprino says many female professionals are dominated at work by generally white-male competitive career models that emphasize linear career paths and the assumption that top-performing women are motivated most by money and power.

I wonder if any of you have experienced any of these . . .

Liberation in being a flight attendant?

I suppose it is all relative . . . and this story is about Arab women. Here's an excerpt from Katherine Zoepf's story in Monday's NYT, part of the paper's Generation Faithful series. I like the comparison of these women to American women half a century ago, who also found liberation of sorts as an early wave of "stewardesses" and "air hostesses" for the likes of Pan Am and Eastern Airlines.

Here are some excerpts from Zoepf's story:

Flight attendants have become the public face of the new mobility for some young Arab women, just as they were the face of new freedoms for women in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. They have become a subject of social anxiety and fascination in much the same way.

* * *

And many say that the experience of living independently and working hard for high salaries has forever changed their ambitions and their beliefs about themselves, though it can also lead to a painful sense of alienation from their home countries and their families.

The story includes lots of information on the women's lifestyle, including its restrictions. In many ways, though, the Arab women are depicted as resembling American college students -- at least in terms of the dorm lifestyle. Read the rest here.

Would naming Caroline Kennedy to HRC's Senate seat be sexist?

That's what Nicholas Kristof suggests on his blog yesterday. He writes:

Caroline Kennedy strikes me as a very impressive woman with all the right priorities, such as education. But I also find it unseemly and undemocratic that she seems to have vaulted to the top of the Senate list by virtue of who her dad was. . . . Isn’t that sexist?

I'm not sure how it is (or would be) sexist . . . unless he is drawing some analogy to McCain's selection of Palin, which many argued (plausibly) was attributable almost solely to the fact that Palin was female and McCain knew he needed female voters. Also, I suppose there is the argument that because Hillary Rodham Clinton has held the seat, it has become a "woman's seat" and should be filled by another woman.

Kristof hints at both bases for the "sexist" label later in the column. He suggests that naming Kennedy would be "disrespectful of so many other women in New York politics who have worked for many years in Congress and accumulated tremendous experience and credentials." Kristof lists Carolyn Maloney, "one of the great champions of women around the world on issues ranging from sex trafficking to reproductive health" and Nita Lowey, "a formidable member of Congress with a great record of getting things done." Then, however, Kristof suggests that the sexism would be in naming Caroline Kennedy to the post "because of her father," while overlooking qualified "women who have earned their own substantial credentials."

That's an argument for which I have some appreciation, though I thought many readers' comments on the blog post made good points. Several pointed out that it would be nepotism, not sexism, to pick Kennedy on the basis of who her father was. Others were more supportive of Caroline Kennedy, with many seeing value for New York in her "star power."

Gail Collins' column today, which is titled "Ms. Kennedy," also takes up the merits of her possible appointment to the seat. She notes that Caroline Kennedy has been a very successful fund raiser for the NYC public schools, but cautions this does not necessarily make her a great political fund-raiser. Collins also observes in Caroline Kennedy a trait she shares with Hillary Clinton, and it might be seen as a female trait: being a good listener.

Collins closes with, "If Kennedy wants to succeed Clinton, she’s got every right to give it a shot." Obviously, Collins is a bit more positive than Kristof about the prospect and potential of Caroline Kennedy as U.S. Senator. Also, Collins doesn't mention sexism, perhaps because she does not see it as a force in Gov. Paterson's decision.

On a somewhat related note, I find interesting how Kennedy has presented her qualifications. Yesterday, in upstate New York, she answered a reporter's question about them this way:

“I just hope everybody understands that it is not a campaign but that I have a lifelong devotion to public service * * * I’ve written books on the Constitution and the importance of individual participation. And I’ve raised my family. I think I really could help bring change to Washington.”

Read full coverage from the NYTimes here.

Sarah Palin was often ridiculed by liberals when she invoked her experiences as a mother as a credential relevant to being an effective U.S. Vice President. I wonder if Caroline Kennedy's invocation of her role in raising three children will be viewed in the same way.

Obama names first woman to be permanent head of the S.E.C.

Word is that Mary Schapiro will be the first female to be permanent head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Here's a link to the NYT story, and here's an excerpt that highlights her exceptional credentials, including as chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. She is currently head of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority.

Ms. Schapiro, 53, is a former commissioner of the S.E.C. She met with Mr. Obama in recent days in Chicago, officials said, and her appointment was on the agenda during a meeting on Tuesday of Mr. Obama’s top economic advisers.

Although her appointment is not a cabinet-level position, she faces confirmation by the Senate, some of whose members have been critical of how the S.E.C. performed in overseeing the faltering investment banks this year.

Why men lawyers earn more than women

I just saw on ssrn.com this abstract for a paper that explores that question. Here's the abstract:

Using a dataset of survey responses from University of Michigan Law School graduates from the classes of 1970 through 1996, I find that fathers tend to receive higher salaries than non-fathers (a "daddy bonus"). In addition, mothers earn less than non-mothers (a "mommy penalty"). There is also some statistical support for the inference that there is a penalty associated purely with gender (women earning less than men, independent of parenthood), another result that is unique to the literature.

Analyzing full- or part-time status as well as work hours also suggests a key difference between women and men. Those who take part-time status are almost entirely women who take on child-rearing duties, and they reduce their work hours by an average of approximately thirty percent. These statistical results are, however, significantly less reliable because of the very small numbers of respondents (male or female) who work less than full time.

You can download the full paper, by Neil H. Buchanan, here.