Women as "canaries in the coal mines" that are large law firms

This story from today's ABA Journal online suggests that an exodus of women from Heller, Ehrman foretold the firm's collapse. Here's the lede from Deborah Weiss's story:

A former Heller Ehrman partner who spearheaded a project to retain women lawyers has been doing some thinking about why law firms dissolve.

Patricia Gillette, an employment lawyer, leaped to Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe last October for what she describes as “cultural reasons.” At Heller, she founded the Opt-In Project with another lawyer in an effort to find out how to retain women lawyers. What she learned, she tells the ABA Journal, was that the problems spurring women lawyers to leave law firms were also contributing to firm implosions.

“Women were the canaries in the coal mine,” says Gillette. “What we found is that the issues that were causing women to leave law firms have become the issues that are causing young lawyers to leave large law firms, whether men or women.”

The project identified several problems with the management structure at law firms that are forcing out young lawyers unwilling to wait for the remote partnership prize, contributing to unhappiness among Baby Boomer lawyers seeking new practice options, and eroding the cohesiveness that had held firms together.

While it's never good to be the canary in the coalmine if you're the one that croaks, what is heartening about this story is that women were smart enough to get out -- and they became trendsetters on that basis.

Anti-choice initiatives lose in three states, including California

Here's an excerpt from the New York Times story regarding the South Dakota and Colorado initiatives, which both failed.

A first-of-its-kind measure in Colorado, which was defeated soundly, would have defined life as beginning at conception.

* * *

The South Dakota measure would have banned abortions except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother.

* * *

''The lesson here is that Americans, in states across the country, clearly support women's ability to access abortion care without government interference,'' said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

I hope I am not speaking too soon on Prop. 4 in California. The Sacramento Bee is currently reporting 52.6% "no" and 47.4% "yes" on a law that would have required parental notification of a minor's abortion and a waiting period.

Here's to Kay Hagan and Jeanne Shaheen

A net gain of at least one woman in the U.S. Senate, as of this hour.

Palin and the public-private divide

According to an interview last month with an Alaska journalist, Sarah Palin sees no distinction between the public and the private. That may explain, in some small way, why she charged the state when her children traveled with her, even to events to which they were not invited and had no clear public function or purpose. Here's an excerpt from the AP story, which was in the Sacramento Bee about 10 days ago.

The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.

In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters' 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

Alaska law does not specifically address expenses for a governor's children. The law allows for payment of expenses for anyone conducting official state business.

As governor, Palin justified having the state pay for the travel of her daughters - Bristol, 17; Willow, 14; and Piper, 7 - by noting on travel forms that the girls had been invited to attend or participate in events on the governor's schedule.

But some organizers of these events said they were surprised when the Palin children showed up uninvited, or said they agreed to a request by the governor to allow the children to attend.

Several other organizers said the children merely accompanied their mother and did not participate. The trips enabled Palin, whose main state office is in the capital of Juneau, to spend more time with her children.

"She said any event she can take her kids to is an event she tries to attend," said Jennifer McCarthy, who helped organize the June 2007 Family Day Celebration picnic in Ketchikan that Piper attended with her parents.

State Finance Director Kim Garnero told The Associated Press she has not reviewed the Palins' travel expense forms, so she could not say whether the daughters' travel with their mother would meet the definition of official business.

This practice sounds a bit dodgy to me, but it does raise an issue that has crossed my mind before. For a workplace to be family-friendly, how far should it go to make travel possible -- indeed, do-able -- for employees who have children? Whether or not Palin acted properly in billing the state of Alaska for her children's travel, what accommodations and perqs should be extended to employees' children in order to keep working parents in the work place and on track in their careers? Does it make a difference if the employer is in the private sector or the public? a civil servant, the governor, or (gasp!) the Vice President?

"Elite Women Getting Older, and Better"

That NYT headline caught my eye this morning, making me momentarily hopeful. But, upon reading the accompanying story, I see the news appears to apply only to marathon runners. Sigh.

Here is an excerpt from Juliet Macur's story:

Their average age is about 33, one of the oldest groups of elite women, if not the oldest, in the history of the race, organizers said. Two-thirds are 30 or older, including the favorites Paula Radcliffe, 34, and Gete Wami, 33. Nearly half are 35 and older.

The story goes on to note that female runners like these earn six-figure fees from participating in these high profile marathons. Five of the women running in the NY Marathon this year have accumulated at least $1 million in prize money during their careers. That's impressive, but it has me wondering how much (more) the men are making.

Proposition K would legalize prostitution in San Francisco

I didn't know about Proposition K, the ballot measure that would decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco, until I read this story in the New York Times today. On both sides of this issue are feminists of different stripes. Indeed, this the de-criminalization of prostitution has been the topic of quite a few feminist legal theory papers over the years, and they've taught me a lot.

In short, those in favor of the proposition say it would empower prostitutes to unionize and will increase their safety by making it easier for them to call on law enforcement for assistance when they are threatened. One long-time advocate for prostitutes who was herself a prostitute for 35 years, Carol Leigh a/k/a Scarlot Harlot (she spoke at UC Davis this spring), had this to say:

Basically, if you feel that you’re a criminal, it can be used against you * * * It’s a really serious situation, and ending this criminalization is the only solution I see to protect these other women working now.

Another self-described "independent, in-call escort," age 22, said she "enjoyed her work" and thought Proposition K would empower prostitutes to achieve better pay and to work more safely.

The NYT gives the impression that everyone else is against Prop K, including big guns like Mayor Gavin Newsome and city D.A. Kamala D. Harris. Harris challenges the characterization of prostitution is not a victimless crime. Harris suggests, of course, that the prostitutes are among the victims, but she does not address how continuing criminalization of prostitution helps them.

If you want to read more, the Huffington Post covered the issue here.