CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, PATNA

PROJECT WORK FOR IIND

SEMESTER
SESSION: 2009-2014

SUBJECT: SOCIOLOGY II
TOPIC: WOMEN LAWYERS: THEIR
EXPERIENCES

BY- ANKITA SURABHI

ROLL NO: 315
BA.LLB. ( Hons )
1st Year
 2

Acknowledgement
I would first like to extend my gratitude towards my Sociology professor
Dr. Sangeet who gave me this wonderful opportunity to work on this
elaborate and educative topic, recognizing my special interest in women
oriented studies, especially one as comprehensive as those surrounding
women lawyers. This has helped me a great deal in understanding my
subject well and the case under study opened my eyes to many the many
facets of the problems and situations being faced by women lawyers in
the country and all over the world.

The internet and its vastness can never be undermined for I discovered
some new sites and pages that I could never have found in a book. I came
across some new books that helped a great deal in providing a strong
backbone and authenticity to the topic at hand. Many sites provided me
with incredible information about the situation during the British period
as well the post-independence and the progress thereof, which are of great
significance, and increased my knowledge and understanding of the
subject.

The books in my library and the ones that have already been suggested to
us were a great help too.

Not many were involved in this project so that about concludes my list.
However I would acknowledge my own role here, for I have worked hard
on this topic, given some good information and I thus hope my work will
be appreciated.

- Thank you

INDEX
1. CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION…………………………………………4
 3

2. CHAPTER 2 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………….5

3. CHAPTER 3: WOMEN IN LAW. WHY? RESERCH STUDY…………6-7

(i) Economic Reasons: influx of women in law………………….7-9

(ii) Women in legal profession ( overview )………………………9-10

4. CHAPTER 4 : DISADVANTAGES. THE ‘WHAT’ AND ‘WHY’…….11-17

(i) Occupations of women in law………………………………..11-13

(ii) Equity Obstacles……………………………………………..13-14

(iii) The ‘ maternal wall’…………………………………………14-16

 The proposed solution (litigation?)……………………..16

(iv) Several other problems………………………………………16-17

5. CHAPTER 5 : THE IMPACT OF ‘FEMINIZATION’ ON LAW………17-20

6. CHAPTER 6 : OVERCOMING DISADVANTAGES………………….21-25

(i) Negotiating Styles, How to Play to the Best…………………21-22

(ii) Recognizing and Embracing Oneself………………………..22-23

(iii) What women lawyers think of each other-mentorship……...23-24

 Statistics- graph…………………………………….24-25

7. CHAPTER 7 : SITUATION IN INDIA: OPEN PERSPECTIVE………25-29

8. CHAPTER 8 : EXCERPT FROM THE “LAWYER”…………………..30-32

9. CHAPTER 9 : OUTSTANDING FEMALE LAWYERS:INDIA……….32-35

(i) Ela Bhatt………………………………………………………32

(ii) Indira Jaising………………………………………………….33-34
(iii) Cornelia Sorabji………………………………………………34-35

10. CHAPTER 10 : BIBLIOGRAPHY…………36

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
 4

Lawyers wield much power and influence in social, economic, and political circles.
Law also is known to be a male-dominated profession, much like academia,
accounting, architecture, investment banking, and management consulting. Despite
increasing female representation in law schools and entry level legal positions over
the past few decades, structural segregation of women in this male-dominated
profession perpetuates large disparities between the career trajectories of male and
female lawyers.

The position of women in the legal field has seen many changes over the past few
years from the better to worse of the more unexplained and complicated. Many myths
have been recognized and busted. What most of the people perceive as being ideal or
normal pose such problems, both officially and personally on the female psyche that
eventually starts overwhelming their practical outlook and reasonable beliefs about
equality in the workplace. While gender discrimination is at one hand several other
objects have been analysed and investigated too.

The advent of women in the legal arena has also been studied and explained
theoretically in the best way possible. Solutions and guides have been provided.
Actual statistics pertaining to the performance and presence of women has been
produced; to ascertain the authenticity of the subject under scanner. Prominent women
lawyers in the country have been discussed, along with their contributions. Maximum
effort has been put into the project to highlight some of the most glaring issues since
despite the data and material available, it is impossible to sum up the whole of the
study into a few pages.

I duly hope my effort will be recognized and appreciated and as the topic goes, should
be seen from a female point of view. Thank you.

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Aims and Objectives:
The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the topic “Women Lawyers:
Their Experiences” through various books written on the topics and other sources.
 5

The aim has been to come to a conclusion very much indigenous while keeping level
with
Research Methodology
Keeping the objectives in mind, material was collected with the help of different
websites and then it was compiled to make the theoretical part of the project. The
methodologies of my research are Social Survey Method, Interview and Case Study
Method and Statistical Method.
Scope and Limitations:
Though the topic “Women Lawyers: their Experiences” is an immense project and
pages can be written over the topic but because of certain restrictions and limitations
we might not have dealt with the topic in great detail.
Sources of Data:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-
1. Websites

Method of Writing and Mode of Citation:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily
analytical. The researcher has followed Uniform method of citation throughout the
course of this research paper and made a compilation of all in the Bibliography
section.

CHAPTER 3

WOMEN LAWYERS: THEIR

EXPERIENCES
Lawyers wield much power and influence in social, economic, and political circles.
Law also is known to be a male-dominated profession, much like academia,
accounting, architecture, investment banking, and management consulting. Despite
increasing female representation in law schools and entry level legal positions over
 6

the past few decades, structural segregation of women in this male-dominated

profession perpetuates large disparities between the career trajectories of male and
female lawyers.

WHY LAW?
The story of women in the legal profession is an easy one to tell even across widely
disparate national and legal cultures. Until quite recently women were not to be found
in significant numbers among law graduates, legal professionals or in any occupation
involving legal work, however loosely defined. For most nations this changed
radically in the 1970s with the expansion of university education to include women
and the simultaneous development of an increased role for the university in training
legal professionals in many countries.
In some countries women were prohibited by law from entering legal occupations
even if they had read law or apprenticed with a lawyer. In such countries it took a
change of law, whether by legislation or common law development, to effect a change
in the rules of admission to law practice. In other countries (New Zealand, for
example), women were never legally prohibited from entering the profession, but they
did not enter the field, and the participation of women in the profession strongly
tracks the development in other countries with more formal barriers. Social barriers to
entry and participation in the profession seem more powerful than legally prescribed
limits. Similarly, changed social conditions, such as the international women's
movement, the democratization of university education and new methods of birth
control and attitudes toward the family have affected enormous changes in the
participation of women in the legal profession. To be sure there are some cultural or
national variations, but there is substantial uniformity across countries.

The various ideologies related to women’s’ association with law and practice
One of the significant themes in any study of women in the legal profession is
whether women will be changed by the legal profession or whether the legal
profession will be changed by the increased presence of women. In short, what will
the dependent and independent variables are in this study of the impact of a
previously excluded group on the profession? Related to this theme is the question of
what difference the entrance of women will make in the profession--will
differences be observed because women are different (culturally, socially or
biologically) from men and will therefore perform legal functions in a different
way? Or, as some have suggested, will women make contributions to the profession
from their position as previously excluded outsiders or as dominated and oppressed
beings who will reject the hierarchy and unnecessary stratification of the profession,
or as people with family responsibilities and interests who will require adaptations in
the workplace?
 Next, what will the nature of women's contributions to the legal profession be
changes in the way law is practiced, change in the structure of work, changes
in the substantive law, and changes in the very basic forms of the legal
system? These are some of the questions and themes to be explored in a study
of women in the legal profession.
 Other themes include those of macro questions. As women begin to approach
constituting half of the profession (in most western countries women comprise
about 40 percent of the present law student body) will the status of the
profession decline? As women and the things they do have been devalued in
 7

various cultural forms, will the increase of the performance of legal tasks by
women affect the social and political regard of these legal functions? We see
evidence of this already, in the clustering of women in the legal jobs typically
lowest in the social stratification hierarchy in virtually all countries. Or, in a
less likely turn of events, might the status of the legal profession rise with
changes in the profession wrought by women--a profession that truly "helps"
through warmer, less aggressive, more honest practices?
Once participation in the profession exceeds token levels new questions emerge.
Will only “exceptional" women succeed or rise in the professional hierarchy, or will
average women do as well as average men? In short, what is the nature of gender
discrimination--are exceptions, those who act like men, allowed to penetrate the
restricted boundaries while those who act more like women are kept out? And, with
the demand for "equality" as the theoretical construct on which much feminist theory
is based, what will happen when some women are not "equal" to men but in positions
of authority over them? Again the nature of gender discrimination is implicated in far
more complex forms--women may be "equal" to men but when they are in superior
positions in functional or occupational stratification systems does the resistance
become another form of the "women are inferior" argument--they can't be better than,
above, superior to men. And what effect has the large influx of women into the
profession had on those now excluded? As expansion of the profession recedes in the
1980s and the places available in the profession become more limited, who are
women "displacing" and what effect does that have on social structures? As many of
the national reports demonstrate, as gender barriers are eliminated or reduced the class
barriers may get higher; the large numbers of women entering the profession are
largely from the middle class. Does this suggest that class discrimination is more
resistant to change than gender discrimination in the professions and elsewhere?

The influx of women into legal professions: an economic analysis:

Women are increasingly attracted to the field of law, possibly because of its
favourable economic factors, such as relatively high earnings early in the career and
ease of re-entry into the field after periods of nonparticipation in the labour force. The
year 2001 was a watershed year in legal education. For the first time, female law
school entrants outnumbered men.
This event is the culmination of a trend over the last half-century which saw the legal
profession experience rapid increases in the number and percent of women receiving
law degrees. At the same time, a large body of literature documented a "second class"
professional status of women in the legal field. If women are treated so poorly in the
legal profession, why do they find it an attractive career choice?

Part of the explanation for the growth in female lawyers has been the revolution in
female participation in the labour force in general. Another explanation is the
increased number of college degrees awarded to women, which grew to 55.2 percent
of all bachelor degrees in 1996, up from 42.6 percent in 1966. However, the
"feminization rate" of the legal profession exceeds by several-fold these trends in
labour force participation and degree awards. it was found that "the earnings structure
found in the law profession rewards men more than it does females." Also, women
receive lower benefits than men for attendance at a prestigious law school, and suffer
earnings penalties after having families. Graduates found that even after controlling
 8

for childcare, work history, school performance, and other variables, about one-fourth
of the male-female wage gap remained unexplained, female lawyers worked in "less
remunerative, if not lower status, positions." These findings seem at odds with the
rapid growth of female law graduates.

It can be argued that the rapid feminization of the law was the result of three factors:
1) job opportunities in teaching, a traditionally female occupation, declined forcing
women into other careers; 2) law was "disproportionately attractive" to women during
the period of increasing female labour force participation, especially for women of
upper- and upper-middle income families; and 3) high relative salaries of lawyers to
bachelor-degree recipients.

In terms of labour force participation, female law graduate participation rates are not
higher than the other professional fields in early career. However, a law degree
appears to allow for greater ease in re-entry into the field after periods of
nonparticipation, especially for jobs that are closely related to the degree field. Also,
the rates of labour force participation over a working career are very high for female
law graduates versus the other professional fields.
When one compares early career earnings of women in different professions, law
ranks first. Further, when these median salaries are adjusted to reflect length of
workweek, female law graduate earnings exceed that of male law graduates. Finally,
female law graduate earnings have a relatively steep profile over the working life
compared with other professional fields that show decline in earnings, especially in
later career. Expected lifetime earnings of female law graduates are exceeded only by
female M.Ds. When one considers both the costs and benefits of professional school
attendance, an even stronger economic case for law school emerges. Using a human
capital analysis, the internal rate of return on a law school education averaged a 14.8-
percent annual rate for women, which exceeded returns to female human capital
investment in the comparison fields. Male age-earnings profiles are much steeper than
those of women's. Over their career life, a male law school graduate's expected
earnings are approximately 14 percent more than women. However, when one
examines rates of return, this difference is mitigated because women have lower costs
of training and also lower bachelor-degree earnings. As a result, female net lifetime
earnings exceed that of men's. However, because most of these net benefits accrue in
late career, the internal rate of return on professional school investment is lower for
women than men. Part of this difference is driven by mid-career decline in law school
graduate earnings for women. This decline occurs at career age 10-13 (biological age
"thirty-something"), and is likely the result of labour force interruptions for family
reasons. Overall, the rate of return to a female law degree exceeds female
professionals in other fields. Earnings early in one's career are important, but lifetime
earnings are the basis for undertaking the large investments of time and money for
professional school. One interesting attribute of female law graduate earnings is the
relatively "steep" age-earnings profile compared with other female professionals save
M.D.s. This implies two things regarding female law graduates: 1) there is little skill
obsolescence and penalty for workforce exit and re-entry; and 2), law has high returns
to experience.
There are substantial economic reasons why women have been attracted to law during
the last three decades. As female participation in higher education grew, law appears
to have been able to attract a disproportionate share of these new professional school
 9

entrants based upon favourable economic factors compared with other professional

fields.

Women in the Legal Profession

Lest it be forgotten, one should recall that even with a law student participation rate of
about 35 percent it will take at least another generation to have a large impact on the
total numbers of women in the legal professions of most countries. Even with an
outpouring of over one-third of new admittees to the bar each year, women enter a
formerly totally male population. Thus, in the United States although 34 percent of
new entrants to the profession in 1983 were women, women still comprised only 12
percent of the total lawyer population. Demographers predicted that women will not
approach 40 percent of the lawyer population until shortly before the year 2000. Most
important in analyzing the data about entrance into the profession is to try to uncover
the places and rates of female attrition, failure or discouragement. One crucial theme
in understanding women's participation in the legal profession is to locate choice
points where women either self-select to leave the training track or are forced out by
external forces. These women are likely to be subject to less universalistic and more
discriminatory controls, (e.g., apprenticeships). As an illustration of this point,
consider an American example. There is much anecdotal information but little hard,
empirical evidence that women are leaving large law firms before the partnership
decision because they (1) fear negative decisions, Women still do not represent
more than 3 percent of the partners in major law firms; (2) do not like the demands
of the "greedy institutions" that require up to 2300 billable hours a year; or (3)
find the work demands for partnership inconsistent with child-bearing plans.
Assuming graduation from law school at about age 24, it takes about seven years to
"make" partner, thus requiring primarily commitment to hard work during the best
years of fertility. Thus, while rates of actual entry to legal education are quite high,
rates of actual admission to the bar and rates of actual participation in the
profession are lower, once again with a remarkable congruence across nations.
In the United States, admissions to the bar for women climbed radically in the
1970s (with the general growth and expansion of entrants into the legal profession).
By 1973, the number of males admitted each year levelled off but the number of
females admitted to the bar continued to increase yearly through 1983. Likewise, in
Canada, women represent between 35-40 percent of new entrants to the bar. In
England and Wales 20 percent of those called to the bar are women and in Scotland
in 1982, 36 percent of new entrants were female (participation in legal education had
risen to about 40 percent. Many countries report that women may even perform
better in school, but still have greater difficulty in locating positions. In Norway,
where 54 percent of law students are now women, a much smaller number actually
entered the profession.
Here the British case is illustrative for demonstrating the discrimination which
appears to exist at the apprenticeship level. England and Wales report comparable
numbers of men and women receiving honours; however, women have particular
difficulty finding pupillages, tenancies, and clients. Under the American civil rights
law, a partnership, although not an "employment" decision, was held to be a
"condition or term of employment" under the statutory language, for purposes of
finding a major law firm may have discriminated unlawfully in denying
partnership to a woman. Women in Great Britain report discrimination, not only
 10

from male barristers, but from clerks and clients as well. As recently as 1967, two-
thirds of London chambers had no women; in 1976 one-third still had no women.
Many scholarships at the Inns of Court have been denied to women. In 1975, when
17 percent of those called to the bar were women, only 12 percent actually started to
practice. A similar story can be told with respect to solicitors where apprenticeships
may not serve quite the same discriminatory barriers, but attrition is quite high. In
1974, 2,296 women were "on the rolls" but only 1,299 women took out
practicing certificates and many women were found working as clericals in
solicitors' offices. A higher percentage of women express interest in becoming
solicitors rather than barristers in recognition of the more obvious discrimination in
the barrister apprenticeship structure. Thus, while women appear to have greater
increased participation in meritocratic university education, their actual participation
in law practice is moving at a generally slower, but widely varying pace, as the
controls of the university conclude and the controls of the presently male
constituted profession take over. It should be noted that barriers to entrance or
success in the legal profession operate in complicated ways that reinforce the current
male-created structure of the legal profession. While some of the barriers can be
attributed to blatant or subtle discrimination, others are socially constructed
impediments that begin as external forces but appear to many to be internal by nature,
i.e., choices by women not to pursue practice or some particular form of practice.
In other words, as long as partnership decisions are timed to coincide with
childbearing plans, women may be unable, as a class, to succeed in large numbers.
Even where some firms, as in the United States, attempt to adapt their structures by
permitting maternity leaves or allowing part-time work, women who avail themselves
of such "innovations" find they are considered less committed as lawyers--they have
failed to live up to the male constructed image of a dedicated lawyer. Thus, women
are perceived as “opting out" without any questioning of whether the work structure
has within it impediments or obstacles that preordain the outcome. As is said in
employment discrimination doctrine, such "neutral rules or constructs have
disproportionate impacts" on particular segments of the workforce (here women).
One significant theoretical and practical question that is implicated in this picture of
disproportionate entrance into the profession is whether it is the profession that
will innovate and adapt to women's life cycles or whether women will have to adapt
to current male structures of work organization. At the present time, the latter
appears to be the case.

CHAPTER 4

DISADVANTAGES in Status, Role and Position

The ‘What’ and ‘why’ of Discrimination

 Occupations of Women in the Legal Profession

 11

The most startling finding of this comparative study of women in the legal profession
is that women are disproportionately located in different spheres of the profession
in virtually every country. What is most interesting, however, is that although women
cluster in what are considered the lowest echelons of the profession, the particular
form of law practice differs somewhat from country to country. Thus, in aggregating
the national data that we have, women are performing virtually all lawyering tasks.
But, in any particular culture or country they may be excluded from a particular
branch of the profession either because women are generally restricted from high
status occupations, or because particular stereotypes of what women are good or poor
at relegates them to certain tasks or locations. There is, therefore, a sort of push-pull
effect where women are "pulled" into what they are perceived to be good at (domestic
relations work, for instance) and "pushed," or more likely kept, out of what is
generally considered to be high status work (usually private commercial work in
western capitalist regimes). Another factor operates to increase gender segmentation
of the workforce and that is the compatibility of particular occupations with life
cycle choices. Thus, in most western European nations where government programs
for child rearing leaves exist, women will be found disproportionately in
governmental legal posts.
In Germany, for example, women prefer public sector jobs because of a regulatory
scheme, particularly in the judiciary, which permits part-time work and guarantees
child leave for some years with re-entry to the same job. Women currently represent
28 percent of jurists in practice training and 30 percent of all judges on probation (the
first three years of occupation in the judicial role). Unfortunately, although women
seem to prefer jobs with the state, such jobs are becoming less and less available due
to economic conditions. Since women experience difficulty in obtaining private
company jobs they appear to be turning to advocate positions. In 1983, women
represented 36 percent of advocates (a position in the German legal profession
typically entered into as a second choice when one cannot obtain a primary
choice. In Belgium, by contrast, where there are comparatively fewer judges and it is
considered a very high prestige occupation, women represent a disproportionately low
number of judges. With Belgium’s international commercial occupations, women
are also underrepresented in private commercial employment. Women are found
disproportionately high in the non-profit sector in teaching and as advocates. Most
significant, however, is the fact that although women represent 35 percent of the
student population they represent 50 percent of those seeking work (highly
represented in the unemployed), and 50 percent of all women attorneys can be found
in Brussels where there is said to be easier acceptance . Similarly, in France women
are found disproportionately in suburban practices, rather than in prestigious Paris
practices. In further contrast, while women seem to be employed in advocate positions
in European nations, in Norway women are underrepresented in the courts, in part
because these professions are viewed in Norway as requiring "aggressive
defiance" and a connection to trade, both of which women are thought not to have.
In Brazil, women represent 46 percent of all legal aid attorneys, the least remunerative
of legal occupations, and 20 percent of the public prosecutors. Interestingly where the
poverty level of the nation greatly decreases the use of the courts, police chiefs (who
are law graduates) are considered the most common source of dispute resolution,
particularly among the poorer classes. In the common law countries the patterns are
strikingly uniform. In general, women are not found at the highest levels of private
practice and although they are over-represented in public jobs, occupations of women
tend to cluster at the lower levels. Of course, an important explanation of the
 12

hierarchical findings has to do with length of time in the profession. In most of these
countries women have not been lawyers long enough in high enough numbers to have
climbed the respective ladders to senior partnership or high justice. Nevertheless,
some interesting patterns exist. In the United States women are found
disproportionately in government positions (approximately 21 percent of women
lawyers are found in government law jobs, both federal and state, compared to about
12 percent for men. When women are found in the private sector, interesting clusters
occur. They are found disproportionately in large firms (as junior associates) and in
solo or very small practices rather than middle-level sized firms. Perhaps this is due to
perceived locations of discrimination where large firms may be applying more
bureaucratic, rationalistic standards and small firms operate on closer personal
relations. Middle size firms may represent the major source of discretionary
discrimination in delegated committees or firm culture. In recent years, women
have been over-represented in the large law firm associate pool comprising (in 1980)
15 percent of all associates but only 2 percent of all partners. This latter figure is
changing yearly; a recent study of partnerships in firms of over 100 lawyers in Los
Angeles reveals that in 1983 only 3 percent of the partners were women, but in 1984,
the percentage increased to 4 percent a bit of datum which partially confirms the
age/relatively recent admission phenomenon. Still, given the rapid increase in
entrance to the profession during the 1970s, partnership rates still seem quite low. A
recent study of women in the class of 1974 at Harvard Law School revealed that
although women graduates were more likely to work initially at large elite law firms,
ten years after initial employment, only 23 percent of the women are partners while
51 percent of the men are partners. Over half of the 49 women studied who initially
went to large private firms opted out, one way or another, to a different form of
practice or no practice at all. In similar patterns, women are grossly underrepresented
at the highest levels in England, where there were few women as heads of sets,
Q.C.'s or judges, women barristers are concentrated in the least favoured specialties,
criminal law, domestic relations and general civil, and hardly found in the more
remunerative fields of tax, commercial law and chancery. In Scotland women
comprise only two out of 148 principals in the leading law firms.
Women are also over-represented at the lower ends of the occupational hierarchy. In
the United States women account for almost all paralegals, paraprofessionals who
perform routine legal tasks and "assist" male attorneys. In Japan, women make up 67-
78 percent of Japanese law clerks. Most common law countries also report low
representation rates of women in the elite circles of the bar associations, whether
compulsory or voluntary. Thus, women are not found in the elite Councils of Law
Societies in Scotland, England or New Zealand. Similarly, women are virtually
excluded from the House of Delegates to the American Bar Association and are just
beginning to find a positions in leadership positions in state and local bar
associations. This, of course, is attributable to the fact that positions in the elite
circles of the bar associations tend to be recruited from the elite commercial sections
of the bar. In some countries women have actively formed and supported their own
bar associations which, in recent years, has led to some segmentation of the female
bar. In Canada, for example, the Women's Law Association serves as a general
membership organization, but the Women and Law group has a more explicitly
feminist political agenda focusing on the role of women in the profession and the
impact of particular laws on women. Similarly, in a recent case before the California
Supreme Court, two women's lawyer groups split as to appropriate political strategy.
In a case involving the legal treatment of a professional degree at the time of marital
 13

dissolution, one women's legal group, Women Lawyers of Los Angeles, argued on
behalf of the wife's (and women's) interest in considering a professional degree as
community (thus, shared) property. At the same time, another women's legal
group, The California Women's Lawyer Association, chose instead to identify with
the professional class by seeking the treatment of a degree as separate property (thus
protecting women's newly found professional status and income investment). Similar
conflicts are currently facing women's lawyer groups as they are forced to choose
positions in the litigation process involving the legal treatment of pregnancy disability
leave. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Cal Fed v Guerra, centered around the
"equal v. special" debate over pregnancy in relationship to a male disability (the
federal approach), versus specification of it own rules (the California state
approach. As women continue to enter the profession, these more complicated
variations within women's groups will likely become more pronounced in terms
political/feminist philosophy, choices of subject specialty and task specialization,
and assimilation to or rejection of traditional, conventional and male modes of
work organization. Some women's groups, such as the California Women's Lawyer
Association, will identify them- selves with the professional class ("I am a lawyer
first and woman second"), and others will identify themselves as women first, with
class interests coextensive with other women.

 Women lawyers still face equity obstacles

Despite sweeping changes in the legal profession during the last two decades, women
do not have equal access to positions of leadership and power, maintains Deborah
Rhode, Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law, Stanford (Calif.) University. "About
30% of lawyers are women, but they represent only 15% of Federal judges and law
firm partners, and 10% of law school deans and general counsel positions at Fortune
500 companies." Minority women are further underrepresented, she says, accounting
for one percent of corporate officers and less than one percent of law firm partners.

"A widespread assumption is that barriers have been coming down; women have been
moving up; and full equality is either upon us or just around the corner," Rhode notes.
"Only three percent of male lawyers think that prospects for advancement in the legal
profession are greater for men than for women." The facts belie that notion, she
argues. Furthermore, the common explanation that the issue is the "product of cultural
lag" and that it is just a matter of time until "girls catch up" does not explain the extent
of underrepresentation--particularly when women have long made up one-third of
people entering the field. "Studies involving thousands of attorneys have found that
men are at least twice as likely as similarly qualified women to obtain partnership.
The pipeline leaks, and if we simply wait for time to correct the problem, we may be
waiting a very long time." Rhode indicates that three issues continue to pose obstacles
for a woman's advancement in the profession: traditional sexual stereotypes, inflexible
workplace structures, and inadequate access to mentoring. These problems must be
remedied, she stresses, if firms are to be successful in meeting the needs of their
clients. "In order to perform effectively in an increasingly competitive global
environment, organizations need advisors with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and
styles of leadership. Gender differences do make some difference, and they need to be
registered in leadership positions."
 14

Despite this, women who aspire to leadership roles face "double standards and
double binds. They risk appearing too `soft' or too `strident,' too aggressive or not
aggressive enough. What is assertive in a man is often viewed as abrasive in a
woman." Studies show that women are rated lower when they adopt so-called
"masculine," authoritative styles, she points out, particularly when the evaluators are
men. Moreover, female attorneys often lack a presumption of competence that is
accorded to their male counterparts. "Women are held to higher standards; their
competence is rated lower; and they are less likely to be viewed as leaders."

Higher standards apply to working mothers more than they do to working fathers.
"Those who want extended leaves or reduced schedules appear lacking as
professionals. Those who seem willing to sacrifice family needs to workplace
schedules appear lacking as mothers. These mixed messages leave lots of women with
the uncomfortable sense that whatever it is they're doing, they should be doing
something else." Yet, research shows that part-time workers are more productive and
that flexible arrangements save money in the long run by reducing absenteeism and
attrition. "Balanced lives, in short, help bottom lines, and it's a failure to adequately
do the math ... that accounts for the lag in workplace policies." Many explanations for
the glass ceiling and gender-based pay differentials in the legal profession have been
proposed. The gender disparity found in this profession is likely the result of multiple
factors, including employment conditions that promote structural barriers, gender
discrimination, and stereotypes and biases against women. For example, various kinds of
structural barriers, such as organizational form, institutional rigidity in changing firm
culture to accommodate the values and lifestyles of women, the genealogy of
organizational leadership, domestic commitments and lack of child care, rainmaking
demands (bringing in more clients for the firm), long work hours, and part-time work that
derails one from the partnership track, all can work to enhance “stereotype
discrimination” characterizing women as “non-partnership material.” According to
Rhode, most women lack access to mentors and informal support networks. Given the
demographics of upper-level positions, they will remain at a disadvantage until such
issues are viewed as organizational responsibilities.

 The "maternal wall"

Most mother-attorneys try to emulate Superwoman because the maternal wall makes

them feel that they have to be a Superwoman to "make it" as a working mother.
As Professor Joan Williams comments, most women never even approach the glass
ceiling; they are "stopped dead, long beforehand, by the maternal wall." The maternal
wall affects women with children in many aspects of their jobs, including hiring,
promotions, pay, and even terminations. It is difficult for mothers to perform as ideal
workers, because pregnancy, maternity leave, and the continual demands of child-
rearing inevitably cause them to be absent from work. In addition, because mothers
are not similarly situated to men or women without children, courts permit employers
to treat them differently, which usually means they are treated more poorly. In the
legal workplace, the effect of the maternal wall becomes readily apparent when
female attorneys become pregnant: it is the change in assignments once the pregnancy
is announced; it is the constant questions, rumours, and innuendos about whether she
will return after her maternity leave; it is the receipt of a nominal or non-existent
bonus during the year she has her baby. When a woman becomes a mother, she may
find herself perceived more as a low-competence caregiver, rather than as a high-
 15

competence business woman. As an example, one frustrated female attorney reported

that she was given paralegal-type work when she returned from maternity leave, even
though, in her words, "[she had] had a baby, not a lobotomy.

The Maternal Wall in the Legal Workplace

While the maternal wall affects women in all professions, the legal workplace
represents a particularly fertile ground upon which to discuss the maternal wall
problem and to plant seeds of change. As Professor Mary Jane Mossman states,
"women who are both lawyers and mothers may be especially well positioned, as
women, to challenge the hidden assumptions that are at the root of the work and
family dilemma that currently exists in society." Several writers have discussed the
plight of mothers who are attorneys. These discussions fall into two general
categories: the challenges that mothers face even when they are working full time, and
the difficulty of the "mommy-track" or working reduced hours.

1. Mother-Lawyer: An Oxymoron? A 1994 study revealed that, although women

lawyers comprised thirty-seven percent of all lawyers admitted to practice
between 1985 and 1994, only thirteen percent were law firm partners. Is was
discovered that "[a] significantly disproportionate number of women lawyers who
attain traditional success as partners, judges, or full professors are unmarried or
childless." Overall, only forty-five percent of women lawyers have children, and
nearly all of them are married to men who work full-time. In contrast, male lawyers
are likely to be married (seventy-two percent) and have children (sixty-eight percent),
and nearly half are married to women who do not work outside the home. Research
also indicates that there is a differential in commitment to domestic chores and
childcare among male and female lawyers, and that having children is a primary
reason for gender inequality in the legal profession.
When mother-attorneys do continue to work full-time after having a baby, they often
find that traditional ideas about family inhibit their ability to succeed. They report that
if they worked fewer hours than before, they were considered not as committed to
their jobs, but if they worked more they were criticized for being less than fully
attentive mothers. Furthermore, comments made by various lawyers suggest that
many people still believe that a woman's top priority should be her family. One male
partner at a law firm stated:
[Motherhood] is the biggest problem for [younger women] and for
us, to be honest, because you have an associate with two or three
children within a three or four year period. I don't know how you can
cope with those two competing [demands], because I don't think women
can say, "I'm going to ignore my family," and she can't say "I'm
going to ignore my practice".... I'm not happy when I sense that the
woman has put total primacy on her legal career because I know that
the family side has been neglected.

 . THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

A. Is Litigation an Option?

The over-simplified answer to this question is "no": Litigation is not an option in most
cases. Our legal system does not recognize as illegal discrimination most of the
practices that construct the maternal wall. Even in cases where litigation is an option,
many lawyers are fearful of filing complaints, because they fear being blacklisted
 16

with no future opportunities to work in the profession. Even though it is illegal for
firms to retaliate or refuse to hire a lawyer because he or she has filed a lawsuit
against a firm, it surely happens, and I would recommend that any woman think
carefully before embarking on such a course of action.
Regardless of whether it is strategically useful for an attorney to sue her employer, it
is important to discuss why it would likely not be a successful option.
In what is perhaps the most often-cited case in this area, Ezold v. Wolf, Block,
Schorr & Solis-Cohen, a female attorney unsuccessfully challenged her law firm's
decision to deny her promotion to partner. Although she prevailed at trial, the Third
Circuit reversed her victory, holding in part that because her employer gave a specific
reason for her termination insufficient analytical ability--the trial court should
not have looked at her overall skill. One, Professor Bisom-Rapp, believes that the
Third Circuit's approach is problematic for mother-attorneys whose family
responsibilities frequently require them to deviate from the norms of the legal
workplace.

 Several Other Problems

The subtlety of micro-aggressions makes them thorny to protest. It's difficult to

imagine a woman associate complaining to a partner that he makes eye contact with
the men in his practice group but not with her. People from stigmatized groups are
often least likely to complain, in an effort to avoid confirming the stereotyped traits
attributed to them. The fear of being labeled a "whiner" regularly silences women
associates...Instead of standard diversity training, firms might do better in their
retention efforts by providing training in emotional intelligence, effective delivery of
feedback, interpersonal conflict management and mechanisms for preventing biases
from influencing judgments and behavior.

"Older men tend to feel less comfortable spending time with a young woman than
with a young man. With the guys, it's more of a father-son bond -- let's play some
golf, let's hit happy hour, and I'll give you some advice about your career and see
what I can do to help you," she said. "Men might shy away from that type of
mentoring relationship with a young woman because they're afraid of what people
will think."

In particular, one research shows that promoting their own successes is a helpful
strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women
highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more
offended by self-promoting females than men are. This creates a huge challenge for
ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them
unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy
braggarts.

The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in
qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or
as likable, but not both. “It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and
a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who
is an expert on women in leadership.
 17

Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research
shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a
woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful
applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously
pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.

Another problem faced by women lawyers is the paternalism of their male colleagues
and judges. According to a woman lawyer, one of the judges, finding her raising her
voice during the course of an argument, had remarked that ''a woman's voice should
be like silk.'' "If a male lawyer had raised his voice, the judge would have asked him
to just lower his voice," she pointed out.

CHAPTER 5

THE IMPACT OF THE FEMINIZATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION:

WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR THE PROFESSION AND FOR THE LAW?

The feminization of the legal profession is clearly a process which is well on its way
if what is meant by feminization is the increase in numbers of women in the
profession. There are more women lawyers now than ever before and
there will be even more in the coming years. What makes this an interesting social
process to watch is the question of whether women will have a unique perspective to
offer the practice of law or the development of substantive doctrine. Such questions
implicate important issues in feminist theory. If women demand equality with men on
the basis that they are the same as men, than more women in the legal profession
should be no more significant than more blue-eyed lawyers. It is because some
feminists believe that equal participation does not necessarily require "sameness,"
particularly when what women are supposed to be the same as is a male model,
that notions of difference can be introduced into what women may offer as
contributions to the profession. This is a dangerous and problematic argument,
though one I am willing to make because of the possibility that arguments or
claims about differences can be distorted back into claims about inabilities or
stereotypic devaluing of what is labelled female.
The "difference" argument can be explicated as follows. First, we see and
experience differences everyday. What is problematic is when the differences are
used to devalue one half of the set of differences, usually the female versions,
without recognizing their possible strengths and functional (particularly in the
context of the legal profession) possibilities. Second, to observe the differences is not
to endorse them, or to necessarily have a view about their origin (social, biological,
cultural or political). My own view is that the origins are mostly, though not
exclusively social (i.e., transformable through socialization) and political (women
are what they are in part because they have been defined by those who have the
power to speak the definitions [men]). Thus, what follows is more in the nature of
a speculative suggestion of what contributions women may make to law and the
legal profession from data and theoretical work that currently exist with projections
into the future of what might happen with the greater participation of women in the
legal profession. Much of what follows is derived from Anglo-American feminist
theory and research, with contributions from France's own distinctive feminist
 18

theory. Thus it will be important to watch the cultural and national variations that
clearly require further study and empirical verification.
In a recent survey conducted by the American Bar Association, three quarters of the
women questioned said that there would be "major" consequences for the profession
as a result of women's entrance (40 percent of the men said it would not have major
consequences, but 45 percent said that it would have "most favourable"
consequences) What might those consequences be? The most commonly suggested
difference is a perceived aversion to combativeness and extreme of the adversarial
process. Women express dissatisfaction with the win/loss nature of litigation and the
inability to effect solutions that take account of all the parties' needs. This is
consistent with some recent research in developmental psychology which
suggests that women may seek solutions to moral problems without choosing
abstract right and wrong answers, but by trying to keep the relationships of the
parties in moral dilemmas constant. For example, using Kohlberg's Heinz' dilemma
(should Heinz steal a drug he cannot afford in order to save the life of his wife?),
Carol Gilligan has demonstrated that women seek to hold constant the
relationships and desires of the parties rather than deciding, as in an algebraic
equation, that life is worth more than property, so the drug should be stolen. Instead,
the pharmacist and Heinz should meet together and discuss their problem (as
in mediation rather than litigation) directly and arrive at another substantive
solution--instalment payments for the drug. Thus, applying this "female" form of
moral reasoning to the legal process, different processes might be used, more
mediation and less litigation, and different substantive solutions might be reached--
fewer binary winner-take-all results.
Similarly, there is some evidence that women are more concerned with the
peculiar form of situational ethics that the adversary system requires by placing
one's client at all times above the welfare of the other side. One of Carol Gilligan's
subjects, a lawyer, suggested that she would have preferred to turn over to the court
a document from the other side that an incompetent lawyer had failed to use, which
would have defeated her client's case but achieved the "just" result. The subject of
this study was concerned not only with achieving the correct result, but with
expressing appropriate concern for the Other (the adversary is cared for, thought
about, dealt with not as an "end" to be defeated in quite the way the adversarial
system contemplates). Will the imagery and vocabulary of litigation associated with
wars and sports change as women enter these fields and seek to modify them?
Thus, from the suggestive data, one could ask a series of questions that might
explain some of the occupational segmentation demonstrated above. Do women
seek judgeships or other non-adversarial jobs in disproportionate numbers? Are
job choices in less adversarial systems (i.e., the Continental European inquisitorial
systems) different from common law adversarial systems? Are women choosing
occupations they prefer for these reasons (self-selection)\or are they channelled into
certain jobs because of perceptions by others that thee are the jobs they would best
be suited to (discrimination based on stereotype)?
Of course, while the positive sides of these differences can be observed we
should also look at the downsides.
Do women resist litigation because they fear or prefer to avoid conflict? Is that
a good quality for a legal professional to possess? Does over-solicitude or
caring for the other side diminish the loyalty or zeal given one's own client? Are
the stereotypic feminine qualities of empathy and altruism possible in the practice
of law as currently constituted? As it can be imagined in a different society? Can
 19

women transform the stereotypes that devalue them ("women are good with
people") to functions they have been barred from in the professions (i.e.,
client relations in large law firms)? It appears that, as in law, women in the
corporate sector are allocated to particular jobs (personnel), as well as
industries (retail clothing, banking, insurance) based on the negative
attributions of stereotypes (people and service industries) when the
mainstream and power lie elsewhere (marketing and manufacturing).
Women trial advocates have argued for a different style of trial advocacy--
conversations with fact-finders rather than persuasive intimidation. Women have
expressed interest in broadening the nature of relevance, wanting to know more of
the facts involved in a problem than that which is legally relevant--a search for what
feminist theorist calls "contextualism and particularity" rather than application of a
few facts to general, abstract principles of law.
Perhaps most significant for the practice of law is the possibility of different
work structures. Early studies of feminist law firms, at least in the United States,
demonstrate that women organized more equalitarian, less hierarchical work
structures, involving more participatory decision making. This is thought to derive,
in part, from the particular feminine methodology of the leaderless consciousness
raising group. Such groups valued equality of hearing time where expertise grants a
hearing, not an authoritative decision. And the emphasis in such groups on
experiential sources of knowledge may lead to broader avenues of fact investigation
and inquiry.
In those rare circumstances where women have risen to levels of leader- ship in
the profession, (judgeships or senior, but not yet managing, partners, cabinet
secretaries and deans) there is the controversial question of whether women will lead
and manage differently--more nurturing, communicative, consensus building styles.
The women in leadership debate flourish not only in law, but in other professions as
well: corporate leadership, medicine and education. As a formerly excluded group,
there is some evidence that women have attempted to demystify and deprofessionalize
the law in greater numbers than men in an effort to empower other less powerful
sisters (Pro se divorce project). Such developments in law parallel those in
medicine where early women pioneers in the medical profession in 19th century
America attempted to emphasize public health and preventive care and education
over surgery, medicine and more interventionist forms of medical care.
Perhaps most related to women's roles in the profession is the obvious
connection between personal lives to professional lives. While women continue to
bear the children, there is a biological necessity for reconciling the complicated
relationship between personal lives and professional work. While some countries
have provided solutions by passing social legislation which attempts, in some
segments of the economy, to permit women (and in some cases men) to take
temporary leaves, most have not and thus issues like maternity leave, re-entry,
seniority and assessments for partnerships become the women's province. Some have
hoped/urged that women's connection to the family and to work may alter the work
styles and commitments of all legal professionals, offering a healthier balance
between the "greedy institutions" of work and the rest of life. In a recent study of
salaried and employed lawyers in the United States, sociologist Eve Spangler
concluded that male and female attorneys did not talk about their work differently
except that women, and not men, seemed concerned about the relationship between
career and family. Although some view this concern as a "simple" issue of
working conditions or "fringe benefits" that may change as it becomes an issue for a
 20

greater number of employees, others view this an opportunity for women concerned
with domesticity to create an "oppositional culture" in the workplace to place
emphases on different issues and values in the means and ends of work. As
Virginia Woolf urged, women should become professionals "without becoming
professionalized" (Woolf 1938) to the male conception of what it means to
work all day in a male constructed conception of the job. Finally, there is the
influence of women on the substantive law. It is clear that in many nations the influx
of women in the profession coincided with law reform on issues affecting women
(civil rights, discrimination laws, equality rights, abortion and divorce reform,
pregnancy benefits and, in some countries, marital property rights). Yet it is not
universally true that the entrance of women into the profession will lead to liberal
social reforms. The data from Germany seem to suggest, for example, that recent
women entrants to the legal profession are more politically conservative than their
male counterparts. Similar data in the United States are beginning to reveal that
male and female college students who are attracted to law are success- and
financial security-oriented, thus more
conservative, and have more in common with each other than with others of their
own sex who are attracted to other fields of study. Yet, the increase of women in the
profession seems to have changed some of our understandings of juridical
concepts--equality has been transformed in some contexts to equity (comparable
worth and equal value in Europe and the U.S.) and individualistic rights, in some
contexts, have been broadened to more collective or group- based rights (health care
and reproductive freedom).

CHAPTER 6

Overcoming Disadvantages and Getting Ahead

What to do and how to do it

 21

 Gender Differences in Negotiation Styles:

How Women Lawyers Can Play to Their Strengths

Women lawyers who want to be effective negotiators need to understand one thing: 
men and women have different negotiating styles.  The key to being successful is to
recognize those differences and play to your strengths. What are some of the
differences?  “In general, women tend to accept less and concede more than men,” 
“Studies have shown that when men are negotiating against women, they tend to play
hardball or tend to be more aggressive and concede less than they would if they were
negotiating against a man.  I think it is important to keep that in mind so that you
understand before you go into a negotiation what the ground rules are.”

In addition, a lot has been written about the fact that women tend to value personal
relationships more than they do a win, if you will, in a particular negotiation.  Women
tend to want to be liked or be perceived as good or nice and that may be antithetical to
a tough, aggressive negotiating style. Women who hold back because they are afraid
of being perceived as overly aggressive or as confrontational should strive to cultivate
a communication style that is direct and straightforward.

Focus on Strengths
Women also tend have particular strengths that can play well in negotiation.  “Women
tend to ask more questions to try to gain more insight, to try to get to know the person
better.”  In addition, when women ask questions, they often ask more open-ended
questions which will elicit more information.  Anyone who does any negotiating
knows that the best thing to do is ask questions and find out what your opponent is
thinking because that will certainly help to formulate a strategy. One can really learn a
lot by listening.  Listening is an under utilized skill in negotiations, but one can learn a
lot more from listening to what the opponent has to say than by laying the cards on
the table. Anyone entering into a negotiation needs to make sure that the goals are
clear, reasonable and achievable, and it can be helpful to consult with a mentor or
partner to help you make sure that the goals are not set too low.

Preparation Is Key
Whatever the differences in style, preparation is critical to the success of any
negotiation.  Anything on negotiation will tell that the number one mistake people
make in negotiations is trying to wing it; not having a clear goal and not having a
clear plan about how to achieve that goal.  One can’t just rely on past experience, or
familiarity with a case. everything should be Written down, what the bottom line
number is, opening number , what concessions you would be willing to give up or be
willing to make, and whether there is any creative solution other than the exchange of
money that may satisfy you or your client. It is also important to analyze the other
side’s position.  “You have to know that if you make a certain demand, the other side
is likely to do something or say something and you have to be prepared to meet that
objection and provide a reasonable rationale for your position. Women must keep the
goal in mind, but also remember that negotiation is a process.  Men often perceive
negotiation as a game that they can win.  If it takes longer, that doesn’t bother them. 
Women, maybe because they don’t delegate enough and are overly busy, tend to want
to get in and reach a conclusion and move on.   If it is not a quick solution and it is
something that the opponent needs to save face and have it take a little bit longer or
 22

appear that he is not giving up as much, then one has to be careful to allow that
process to continue.”
Overcoming Obstacles
Negotiation can be uncomfortable for even the most successful and confident women
lawyers.  How can women lawyers identify and overcome the obstacles that keep
them from being as successful as they would like to be in negotiations? First and
foremost, is practice.  Women should not shy away from the opportunities to
negotiate.  It is sort of like decision making.  It is a muscle that if you use it enough
you will feel more comfortable doing it. Subtle actions that establish power and
authority that woman need to be aware of.   Women tend to sit in areas around the
conference table that are known as the ‘dead zone’ while men will sit at the head of
the table and seek to take control. Women have a tendency to behave like “good little
elementary school girls and take up a lot of space. Contrast that to the men who
“lounge in and will take two chairs, not just one.  They will lean back over their chair
and drape an arm over the arm rest of the one next to them.  They spread all of their
stuff out everywhere; coats on one chair and they’ll take up two or three spaces with
their material.  They are establishing territory.”  It is important for women to
recognize these tendencies and Do whatever it is that you want to do to establish a
physical presence at the table.

 Recognizing and Embracing oneself

In their book, “Dancing on the Glass Ceiling”, authors, Candy Deemer and Nancy
Fredericks discuss the differences between men and women in the workplace. While
men instinctively network with clients and upper management and assume leadership
positions and other authoritative roles, women shy away from leadership positions
and rely on their misplaced belief that “doing a great job should be good enough” to
get promoted.6 Disappointedly, women do not rely on their inherent qualities to
achieve workplace success. Deemer and Fredericks point out that, women, as a whole,
have more leadership characteristics than men. Women tend to “gravitate toward
certain leadership behaviours that are not even on the radar screens of most men, such
as intuitive decision making, the special talent for nurturing subordinates, and the
automatic ability to interpret both the verbal and nonverbal layers of communication.”
Unfortunately, as the book discusses, women do not embrace these qualities, but
rather, attempt to emulate male patterns. Many times, in both our professional and
personal lives, we have heard the comment that women are overly emotional. Rather
than denying this quality, Deemer and Fredericks believe women should “accentuate
[such] left-brain traits” and that we should not lose touch with the “fundamental
feminine parts of ourselves” such as intuition, creativity, emotion, and our
communicative abilities. In fact, it is imperative that leaders have these types of
qualities in order to achieve success, and it is significant that these qualities are
primarily attributed to women. Women are special because they bring something
different to the table. But rather than embracing those feminine qualities, we attempt
to assimilate to environments that are primarily male-dominated. How can we expect
society to change its views when we continually acquiesce to the role that society has
carved out for us? They strain to alter society’s views on women, but rather than
revealing our true colours, they adopt male characteristics. It is seen that the attitudes
of the younger male associates progressing. They encourage women to participate as
part of a team and no longer promote the “boy’s club” mentality. They are angered by
 23

discrimination against women and truly believe that women are equals. Although the
times are changing, women continue to stand in the way of their own success. Rather
than ignoring the gender differences, women need to endeavour to make the
differences matter. Men will likely remain as the majority in the workplace. This is
because the same feminine qualities that create great women leaders also push women
to instinctively care for their children, which can eventually interfere with a two-
income household. Women may never be the majority in the workforce, but their
feminine qualities will take them closer to top-level positions than any other course
they plot.

 What Women Lawyers Really Think of Each Other -

Mentorship

Would women lawyers prefer to work with men or other women? The answer may
depend on the age of the female lawyer you’re asking, a survey has found.

Of more than 1,400 respondents who answered the question, 58 percent said the
gender of their colleagues made no difference, while 42 percent expressed a
preference for working either with men or women. Female supervisors age 40 and
over who said gender mattered to them preferred working with women. About 80
percent said female lawyers take direction better, take constructive criticism better (59
percent) and have more discretion (79 percent).But younger female attorneys who are
following in the footsteps of that trailblazing generation don’t hold their older
colleagues in such high regard. Among female lawyers under 40 who thought gender
matters, 58 percent said male supervisors give better direction, give more constructive
criticism (56 percent) and are better at keeping confidential information private (64
percent).

Why do opinions about the role of gender in the workplace depend on the age of the
female attorney?

Some experts cite generational tension: Female lawyers entering the profession often
don’t want to make the same personal sacrifices as their predecessors, and they
question whether such sacrifices are even necessary to succeed. Senior women may
not understand this mindset, much less realize that the playing field has changed,
experts suggest. And that can block useful dialogue. “I’m concerned that more senior
women don’t fully understand the profound demographic changes taking place,” says
Lauren Stiller Rikleen. A senior partner at Bowditch & Dewey in Framingham, Mass.,
she advises law firms about workplace issues. Rikleen says female partners often tell
her that there will always be associates who, like themselves, will sacrifice their
personal lives for successful careers. But she says younger men are also less willing to
make the personal sacrifices of their predecessors. “It’s not purely gender-based,”
says Rikleen, a member of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women
in the Profession. “That says to me that if I’m a leader of a workplace, I need to think
about what’s happening here in the future—and how to position this place.” When
Rikleen talks to younger women lawyers, she says, they’re often relieved that she
understands their complaints. Women closer to her age are often surprised that she
 24

doesn’t share their perspective. Arin Reeves, a Chicago lawyer who focuses on
diversity consulting, mentions that when female partners develop a women’s
initiative, the female associates generally don’t find it useful. “There’s no such thing
anymore of all the women being in the same boat, who need a particular set of
strategies to be kept afloat. Now that women have a lot more models to choose from,
they are becoming more selective as to which women they identify with.” women
need to move away from placing judgment on other women,” she says, “and accept
more diversity among ourselves.”

Women Under 40 Who Think Gender Matters Said:

 25

Women Supervisors Over 40 Who Think Gender Matters Said:

CHAPTER 7

SITUATION IN INDIA: AN OPEN PERSPECTIVE

Law was often looked at as a marriage degree - three years in law, then you get
married," recalls AZB founding partner Zia Mody about women's views of a legal
career 30 years ago. Since then law firms have gradually fought the profession's
gender bias, arguably more successfully in India than abroad. But there is still a long
way to go.

An un-Indian problem
Retaining female lawyers all the way to partnership has been a headache for almost all
international law firms and is a perennial debate. The percentages of female partners
at UK corporate firms stubbornly hover between 10 and 20 per cent and Clifford
Chance managing partner David Childs recently expressed concern that this was "not
good enough". And last week Allen & Overy radically broke its existing partnership
lockstep to improve female partner retention by integrating flexible working. Apart
from Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi opening up a crèche for working mothers late last
year, however, female career progression appears to be rarely talked about within
India's law firms. Nevertheless, many women in Indian corporate law have arguably
already achieved much greater visibility than their London City or New York Wall
Street counterparts.

Women of history
Most of the first generation of today's top female corporate lawyers started their
careers at the Bar. Indeed, there were few alternatives in the first decades after India's
independence but many nevertheless soon beat a hasty retreat.
"Men in court don't understand women in skirts," says one female partner bluntly.
Even beyond overt sexism, however, the general lifestyle of the Bar and Bench is not
 26

conducive to the careers of women, many of whom are traditionally also expected to
lead a family and household. Days are usually spent in court and evenings can be
filled with client meetings and case preparation. Taking time off means no income.
"We saw a number of women in court, but only a few were very serious," explains
Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi partner Pallavi Shroff, adding that there are maybe only
half a dozen senior counsels across the country who are female. On the High Court
Bench, only 6 per cent of judges are women, which Law Minister Veerappa Moily
wants to desperately address. "Woman lawyers working in the courts, the number
keeps receding but you don't see that in corporate law firms," notes Phoenix Legal co-
founding partner Manjula Chawla, who started her career in the courts. The rise of
Indian corporate law firms may have improved women's legal career prospects but
juggling the demands of transactional law and family is still far from easy. "I
remember when I started, [clients] just wanted to meet Mr. Shroff even if I was
dealing with their case," says Pallavi Shroff, "but today clients are willing to give
respect if you can command it." And one female partner articulates the concerns of
others in the Indian cultural context and laments: "As a woman it is difficult to
network as well as a man would do, especially without sending the wrong signals."

Bearing the burden

However, bearing children, raising them and maternity leave are usually cited as the
main reasons of why women and demanding legal careers do not go well together.
"What pains me most," recounts Amarchand Mumbai partner Vandana Shroff, "are
women who are brilliant, but then suddenly 'here comes a baby' and off they go."
"For a woman lawyer it is important to get married to a lawyer," posits Manik
Karanjawala who has been a litigating advocate since the heydays of Emergency. "I
agree that you don't marry a profession and you marry a person, but it helps."
Trilegal's first female partner Charandeep Kaur agrees that motherhood makes things
hard, remembering how she would take conference calls from home after putting her
baby to sleep. Pallavi Shroff adds: "I had occasions earlier in life where I had to leave
a sick child at home because I had a matter in court to argue. I would prepare at night
with my daughter in my lap running a temperature."

Family matters
"The main thing is really for the family to be supportive and that's where it cracks if
that doesn't happen," notes Mody. But if the in-laws, grandparents, extended family
and domestic help do step in, it creates a resource that is culturally or financially all
but unavailable in the West. "In the US or the UK," jokes Luthra & Luthra capital
markets partner Madhurima Mukherjee, "if a woman has to become a partner you
pretty much have to not have a child or be divorced." Another female partner says:
"We have so much domestic help – we don’t need to take care of the house at all.
Driver, cook, groceries, nanny - I have nothing to think about except providing
intellectual attention and entertainment to my child." LawQuest founder Poorvi
Chothani adds that a double income in the family can also mean that many women are
"rather entrepreneurial" in India. "It gives them the boost and they are able to stick
their neck out further than they would otherwise." Chothani runs a Mumbai
immigration and employment boutique firm of two lawyers and four paralegals, all of
whom are women. She says that she had intentionally made the choice to start a firm
that allowed a work-life balance, although she is happy to admit that this has also
come at the expense of profit. London-based ALMT Legal co-founding partner
Shalini Agarwal raises another family perspective and says that it can cut both ways:
 27

the close proximity and high expectations of an Indian family can in some cases be a
burden in itself. Another reason for India's apparently more level playing field is that
family firms still loom large in India's legal landscape. And family firm often literally
means that the entire family gets involved in the legal practice irrespective of gender,
and the distinction between work and family becomes blurry – and easier to manage.
"Every successful woman lawyer in India comes from a family of lawyers, has a
lineage," claims Lall Lahiri Salhotra co-founding partner Anuradha Salhotra. "The
reason is not any other but the balancing of work and family – law is a very
demanding field."

Ready or not
At least anecdotally it appears that at many firms, particularly those with female role
models at the top, the ratio of men to women at the partnership level is higher than in
the West, although by necessity senior and equity partners still make up a minority at
the older firms.
Mody admits that in the very top tier there are still perhaps fewer women although she
expects that in the next five years many junior female partners will rise up the ranks.
"If they can survive the 28 to 36 year period, then the struggle is by and large over."
Vandana Shroff argues that even putting a career on hold for a year to have a baby
should not be the end. "In the whole scheme of things, everyone has a professional
life of at least 40 years," she says, although she agrees that in the dark of the night not
every principal associate might see it that way. But Mody's truism that "nothing
succeeds like success" and Pallavi Shroff's recommendation that complete focus, grit
and determination are the bare essentials in making it, both point to the same
conclusion. Ultimately most successful female lawyers appear to have gotten there
through ambition and hard work, despite the expectations and the environment. "I
have children and I am married but I have chosen to have a full time career," says
Luthra & Luthra's Mukherjee. "I have to compete on a basis that makes me
understand that I cannot use my children as an excuse." Nevertheless, senior female
lawyers are still more of an exception than a rule. And although menacing
discrimination against women in the profession has decreased and the new generation
of lawyers may improve matters it is yet unclear whether all Indian law firms are
ready for them. Or perhaps they do not need to be and families will take care of
things?

"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to

be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult." The old saying that can be
illustrative in the career success stories of many women, and perhaps few places more
so than of female lawyers at the Bar.
The women who have picked litigation and are successful do not shy away from
addressing the problem of gender bias compounded by lack of structure and
sluggishness of court procedures. "I went to courts like Bayana," recounts bemused IP
specialist Anuradha Salhotra. "It used to feel like a zoo. I was the only lady in the
courts there and the entire community used to come to see me argue.” She clearly
identifies the sexist attitude of people as one of the bigger problems women faced in
 28

the courts. But monetary consideration and better working conditions were recognised
as the main reasons for a leaning towards corporate work. "Youngsters are attracted to
corporate law practice because it is much better pay - larger firms like AZB and
Amarchand Mangaldas pay enticing salaries," says Manik Karanjawala. Sole Trilegal
woman partner Charandeep Kaur notes: "Law is a demanding profession, corporate
demands same amount of work as litigation." But Salhotra feels that hardcore
litigation is especially tough: "There are no timings; the court dictates time."
And while the gestation period from junior advocate assisting a senior counsel to
starting one's own practice is very long and cumbersome for both sexes, it remains an
even more distant possibility for women with no legacy to fall back upon. Zia Mody
adds that a woman litigating lawyer has to be outstanding in order to get noticed in the
courts, "It is still a fair struggle for women to succeed and break through the ceiling if
they like it in the court world." And being outstanding is never good enough in the
absence of perseverance and hard work. Those qualities are the prerequisites to
excelling in any field but become even more significant while battling cases. On the
flip side of course, one female lawyer says that women's greater emotional
intelligence gives them advantages of being able to strategise and negotiate with far
more tact than men. Even those willing to surpass the initial obstacles and stick
around to become arguing counsels have to override psychological barriers clients
may display in favour of men. "As far as arguing counsels are concerned there is no
question they far outnumber women. This is partly due to the level of confidence that
a man has while addressing the bench," claims Karanjawala. "Though we have very
tough women lawyers who have excelled like Indira Jaisingh, that’s an exception and
not a rule." However, despite the rigours of litigation and apparent ease of working in
a law firm, female partners do perceive full commitment and dedication towards work
as common key to success. Khaitan & Co litigation partner Gauri Rasgotra who
rejoined the firm's Delhi office after working for two years in the US as the head of
the George Washington University Law School's India Studies Center says that while
difficult, the Bar's pay-off is worth it. "I have practiced in the courts from 1995 to
May 2006,” she enthuses. “You get a high when you go to the courts. Just in the
beginning of her career does a female lawyer face some discrimination by clients but
not after she proves herself."
One female partner believes that things are now changing for the better with an
increasing number of women graduating as lawyers every year. Some of them get
drawn into litigation, and they are there to stay, whereas others return to the bar after
spending years as corporate attorneys. “Litigation is a very interesting part of law,
corporate law can get monotonous,” she says. “Every case is a different fact situation
like another story." Therefore, it all boils down to what kind of work ultimately
motivates and evokes passion in an individual which is less of a gender and more of
merit-based contention. And it should be pointed out that the Delhi Bar Council
executive committee now has two female members: Rana Praween Siddiqui and Sarla
Kaushik. When contrasted with the representation of law firm lawyers at the Delhi
Bar Council (Luthra & Luthra partner Vijay Sondhi), perhaps women are not doing all
too badly in the field.

Time was when women had no choice but to play Della Street to Perry Mason, but
Street Legal has changed a lot in these last few decades, even in India Women are
now leading practitioners in all fields of law, but some branches do see more women
than others, such as corporate, civil and family law. Others, only the very brave
 29

venture into. Criminal law is one such. The pitfalls are many there, as women lawyers
run the risk of appearing too ‘soft’ or too ‘vociferous,’ too aggressive, or not
aggressive enough. Supreme Court lawyer Rebecca Mammen John was also thought
to be not tough enough to handle criminals and the stress of the courtroom.
“Eyebrows were raised when I chose to be a criminal lawyer but that’s where my
passion lay,” declares John, 40.

“It’s all about the right representation of the facts, delivered with pure conviction in
front of the judges and opponents,” says John, who started litigating in 1988. Just four
years into her chosen field, she had a major breakthrough when she fought Harshad
Mehta’s criminal cases in Delhi. “Dealing with the police and criminals is the biggest
challenge as a woman in this branch of law,” she says. However, according to her, it
is fascinating to see the various facets of human emotions unfolding through the
stages of a criminal trial. “Corporate, civil and constitutional law cases just do not
have the same human element,” says John, who believes that there has been an
attitudinal shift in women choosing law as profession. She adds that the good news is
“whether in the corridors of the court or in the trial room there is no glass ceiling for
women any more!”  Counting Ram Jethmalani as mentor, she has a slew of important
corporate clients such as Coca Cola, Reckitt Benckiser, SAIL, and Ispat among
others. When not in court she loves to decorate her home and spend time with her son.

Priya Hingorani, 42, took to constitutional law as a duck to water as law ran in her
blood. “Since my parents were  lawyers we always had dinner table discussions on
cases. The difference they made to people’s lives, inspired me to work for those
denied basic constitutional rights,” says Hingorani, the first woman honorary
secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association in 1999 and its youngest vice
president 2005.  Her first major victory was the Shahina Bano case in 1991, about a
woman who was forced into prostitution by her in-laws because she had given birth to
a baby girl. “In numerous cases I fought, I found that the police were the
culprits….As a woman, dealing with that was an ordeal,” says Hingorani, at present
fighting for the 40,000 PSU employees in Bihar who have not been paid their salaries
for a decade.

She has also fought for the rights of patients in Ranchi Mental Hospital who were
denied basic medication. “It is a role-model hospital now. We made sure it is,” says
Hingorani, justifiably proud of her achievements, adding, “If I hadn’t become a
lawyer, I would’ve been an IPS officer….Or maybe a sportsperson, as I was a
basketball star in school!”  Equally courageous was the plunge taken by Maushami
Joshi in 2001, as a newbie National Law School grad with a degree in international
trade law. From 1994 India had been at the receiving end as countries filed cases
against Indian exporters. India had not yet formulated trade policies and legal
expertise in that field was scarce. “I was there at the right time at the right place,” says
the 33-year-old who joined Luthra & Luthra as an associate. “This area was
dominated by government officials or very experienced lawyers. Besides, very few
law firms had started the practice so it was new and challenging,” says Joshi, recalling
that dealing with ministry officials was the toughest part.
 30

CHAPTER 8

Here is an excerpt from an interesting novella “LAWYER”, which

will throw some light on the female’s strength and status in the legal
profession

Melanie Green locked eyes with the senior partner. She was a woman of
determination and ambition. She focused her dark eyes to mesmerise him before he
could start a counter argument or a defence of his position. There was a senior post
coming available in Blumenthal's and she was going to have it. “But, my dear,” Abe
Blumenthal began. He didn't mean to be deliberately patronising, but it was enough to
ratchet up Melanie's annoyance, which she held in check with much difficulty.
“Commercial property is a very dull area of legal practice. You make a very valuable
contribution to Blumenthal's where you are now.” Abe took out a handkerchief and
wiped his sweating pate. “Oh, I see,” came Melanie's steel and ice retort. “So because
I am a woman I should know my place in life and stay in Family and Matrimonial.”
Abe began to splutter a disclaimer, but he got nowhere. “Or perhaps you think the
feminine touch should be confined to Wills and Probate where grieving relatives can
be treated with the care and compassion that an unemotional male lawyer could never
muster.
“Or perhaps women are the only ones fit for the tedium of Conveyancing because it
doesn't demand too much brain power.”
“No, not at all,” Abe offered in indignation.
“No, Mr Blumenthal. Well that's not how I see it - or any of the other women lawyers
in this firm. We find ourselves the majority in key departments like Personal Injury
and Medical, Family, Probate and Domestic Conveyancing.”.
“But tell me, Mr Blumenthal.” Melanie deliberately leaned forward in her chair,
placed her elbows on the edge of the desk and cupped her chin in her intertwined
fingers. She was signalling unmistakably that the gloves were now off. The fight was
on. “Tell me why there is only one junior female lawyer in Litigation, and none
whatsoever in Commercial and Commercial Property?”
“Well,” said Abe, wincing, clearing his throat and straightening his tie, huge gold
rings flashing on his fingers, “they are not the most interesting of legal practice. Very
boring, you know. Lots of musty old papers and dry-as-dust clients.” Melanie lifted a
hand and stopped him. “Perhaps that's why,” she observed, interrupting him, “the
lawyers in these two departments, manned exclusive by men, I might note, are the
most highly paid in the firm and just by coincidence, happen to form almost exclusive
the board of
this firm.” There was a pregnant pause, then Abe leaned back in his commodious
office chair and challenged Melanie. “I hope you are not suggesting that we
discriminate against women employees.”
“I'm not suggesting anything, Mr Blumenthal. I let the facts speak for themselves.”
Abe realised that she would have made a superb barrister had she chosen the Bar as
her career. Instead she had followed most law graduates and spent a year at Law
School before joining Blumenthals a decade ago as a trainee solicitor. She had proved
to be a quick learner,
a knowledgeable lawyer, a diligent investigator and a brilliant draftsman. She had
steered cases to a favourable and lucrative conclusion that had scared off more
 31

experienced solicitors. The partners had watched her prowess and progress with
astonishment. Mr Blumenthal rose from his chair. The interview was over.
“As you must be aware, Melanie, there are two internal applications for the post in
Commercial Property, yours and Randall German's. I can assure you the Board will
look at each of them with complete impartiality. I cannot be fairer than that.” Abe
rounded the desk, held out his hand to Melanie who had interpreted the signals
correctly and was already on her feet and turning to leave. Melanie took his hand and
felt the other gently on her shoulder guiding her toward the door. “Thank you for our
frank discussion.” And with that it was all over. Melanie heard the door to Mr
Blumenthal's office click shut behind her. Mrs Halliwell, hislong-time personal
assistant, looked up from her computer and smiled at Melanie. “I blew it, Moira. I lost
my temper and blew it!” she said, hastening out of Mrs Halliwell's office before being
engaged in an interrogation. All Melanie heard as she raced away, fighting back the
tears, was: “Never mind, dear ...”
Randall Gorman; always it was Randall Gorman who seemed to block her path to
promotion. When she wanted to make into Litigation, he had been favoured over
Melanie. Yet she was the one with the additional qualifications in Advocacy and
Criminal Practice. Before that, Randall had raced through Probate, Conveyancy, and
Matrimonial while Melanie had been forced to take a slower route. Melanie had built
up an enviable reputation in dealing with family and divorce matters. Billings had
quadrupled in the department, most of which could be attributed to Melanie and the
new clients she had won for the firm. For the last two years, she had been rewarded
both with a junior partnership and leadership of the Matrimonial team. “Randall,
Randall, Randall - always bloody Randall”, she muttered as she made her way to
the privacy of her own office.
Melanie was a mystery.
The mystery deepened when Melanie left the office uncharacteristically early at 4pm
-usually she would not venture out until after 7pm and was always at her desk by
seven each morning. Her departure was an even deeper enigma, knowing that the
board were meeting that afternoon to consider the the new appointment in
Commercial Property. Word on the firm's grapevine was that the outside candidates
had been rejected. It would be a straight fight between Randall and Melanie. Most
favoured Randall for his meteoric rise in the hierarchy and his Oxford Masters in
Law. He was the obvious choice in a male-dominated boardroom for the next place at
the table, which went with the job. Melanie was too feisty, too much the feminist, to
be tolerated as an equal by the men on the board.
At eight that evening, Melanie walked into one of the finest restaurants in town. She
had been to the hairdressers and had a makeover. Before that she had been to one of
the most exclusive dress shops in the town and purchased a very expensive outfit for
the evening. The self-pampering had certainly taken her mind off the events unfolding
in the Blumenthal's boardroom.
The Maitre D escorted Melanie to a secluded table in a corner alcove. Randall rose to
greet her. “My, you look stunning, Darling,” .
Melanie was bursting with curiosity, but she waited until she was seated and Randall
had ordered Champagne for them. “Well, did you get it?” she asked, eagerly scanning
his pokerfaced expression for some tell-tale clue.
He kept her waiting staring into her eyes. “Yes,” he said at long last. She lost all her
cool reserve and whoopied with delight, clapping her hands like a little girl as she
bounced on her seat. “My Darling, that's wonderful.” She lent over the table and met
Randall halfway to give him a tender kiss of congratulations. “And I get a senior
 32

partnership with it,” he added. “Fantastic,” she said, clapping her hands to her lips in
joy, her eyes wet with glistening tears. “It's a good job Old Abe doesn't know we're
married, Randall.” “Oh but I do,” came a voice from behind her. “I've know for a long
time - but that's enough of that. I'm here to congratulate the other new member of the
board, Miss Green - or should I say Mrs Gorman.” Melanie was speechless and turned
to see her husband grinning from ear to ear, before swinging back to face Abe.
“In short,” said Abe, “the board decided it was high time we had a much younger
image. A husband and wife team at top would fill the bill quite nicely.
“Congratulations, Melanie.”

CHAPTER 9

SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING FEMALE LAWYERS OF INDIA

Ela Bhatt
Ela Ramesh Bhatt (born on 7 September 1933 in the city of Ahmedabad in India) is
the founder of the Self-Employed Women's Association of India (SEWA). A lawyer
by training, Bhatt is a respected leader of the international labour, cooperative,
women, and micro-finance movements who has won several national and
international awards.

TLA and SEWA

In 1956, Ela Bhatt married Ramesh Bhatt (now deceased). After working for
sometime with the Gujarat government, Ela was asked by the TLA to head its
women's wing in 1968. In this connection she went to Israel where she studied at the
Afro-Asian Institute of Labor and Cooperatives in Tel Aviv for three months,
receiving the International Diploma of Labor and Cooperatives in 1971. She was very
much influenced by the fact that thousands of women related to textile worker worked
elsewhere to supplement the family income, but there were state laws protecting only
the industrial workers and not these self-employed women. So with the co-operation
of Arvind Buch, the then president of TLA, Ela Bhatt undertook to organize these
self-employed women into a union under the auspices of the Women's Wing of the
TLA. Then in 1972 the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA) was
established with Buch as president and she herself as the general-secretary,

Other work and awards

She was one of the founders of Women's World Banking in 1979 with Esther Ocloo
and Michaela Walsh, and served as its chair from 1980 to 1998. She currently serves
as the Chair of the SEWA Cooperative Bank, of HomeNet, of the International
Alliance of Street Vendors, and of WIEGO. She is also a trustee of the Rockefeller
Foundation. She was granted an honorary Doctorate degree in Humane Letters by
Harvard University in June 2001. Ela Bhatt was also awarded the civilian honour of
Padma Shri by the Government of India in 1985, and the Padma Bhushan in 1986.
She was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership in 1977
 33

and the Right Livelihood Award in 1984. She has been chosen for the Niwano Peace
Prize for 2010 for her contribution to the uplift of poor women in India.

Indira Jaising
Indira Jaising (born 1940, Mumbai) is an Indian lawyer. She went to school in
Mumbai and graduated in Bangalore, before getting her degree in law in 1962. Jaising
became the second woman to be designated as a Senior Advocate by the High Court
of Bombay in 1986 (the first was Sohini Nanavati).She became first women to reach
the post of Additional Solicitor General of India in 2009. From the beginning of her
legal career, she has focused on protection of human rights, rights of women and
those of the poor working class.

Fighting For Women

Indira Jaising argued several cases relating to discrimination against women,

including the Mary Roy's case, which led to the grant of equal inheritance rights for
Syrian Christian women in Kerala and Rupan Deol Bajaj, the IAS officer who had
prosecuted KPS Gill for outraging her modesty. This was one of the first cases of
sexual harassment, successfully prosecuted. Jaising also argued the case of Githa
Hariharan in which the Supreme Court in a Bench presided over by Chief Justice A.S.
Anand held that under Hindu law, the mother was also the "natural guardian" of her
minor children, so that the children could also bear the name of the mother. Jaising
also successfully challenged the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Divorce Act
in the High Court of Kerala, thus enabling Christian women to get a divorce on the
ground of cruelty or desertion, a right which was denied to them, which greatly
bothered Jaising.

Human Rights and the Environment

Indira Jaising has represented the victims of the Bhopal tragedy in the Supreme Court
of India in their claim for compensation against the American multinational Union
Carbide Corporation. Jaising argued cases of homeless pavement dwellers of Mumbai
who were facing eviction. A keen environmentalist, Jaising has argued major
environmental cases in the Supreme Court. Jaising has been associated with several
Peoples Commissions on Violence in Punjab to investigate the extra judicial killings,
disappearances and mass cremations that took place during the period 1979 to 1990.

Lawyers Collective

Indira Jaising later became the founder secretary of the Lawyers Collective, an
organization that provides legal funding for the underprivlieged sections of Indian
society. She founded a monthly magazine called The Lawyers, in 1986, which focuses
on social justice and women's issues in the context of Indian law. She has been
involved in cases related to the discrimination against women, the Muslim Personal
Law, rights of pavement dewllers and the homeless and the Bhopal gas tragedy. She
has fought against child labor, for the economic rights of women, estranged wives and
 34

domestic violence cases. Here is a link to the article she has written on the first
anniversary of the domestic violence act passed into law Woman Against Family.

Other

Indira Jaising has attended several national and international conferences on women
and represented her country at these conferences. She had a fellowship at the Institute
of Advanced Legal Studies London and has been a visiting Scholar at the Columbia
University New York. She was conferred with the Rotary Manav Seva Award in
recognition of her services to the nation in fighting corruption and as a champion of
the weaker sections of the society. She was given the Padma Shree by the President of
India in 2005 for her service to the cause of public affairs.

Cornelia Sorabji

Early life and education

Sorabji was born at Nashik in the Bombay Presidency, India, on 15 November 1866.
She was one of nine children of Reverend Sorabji Karsedji, a Parsi Christian, and his
wife, Francina Ford, an Indian who had been adopted and raised by a British couple.
Ford, who believed that education must begin at home with women, helped to
establish several girls’ schools in Poona (now Pune). Due in part to her influential
societal position, Ford was often consulted by local women in matters pertaining to
inheritance and property rights. Many of Sorabji’s later educational and career
decisions would be heavily influenced by her mother.

As a child Sorabji received her education both at home, with her missionary father,
and at mission schools. In 1892, she was given special permission by Congregational
Decree, due in large part to the petitions of her English friends, to sit the Bachelor of
Civil Laws exam at Oxford University, becoming the first woman to ever do so.

Legal activities

Upon returning to India in 1894, Sorabji became involved in social and advisory work
on behalf of the purdahnashins, women who, according to Hindu law, were forbidden
to communicate with the outside male world. In many cases, these women owned
considerable property, yet had no access to the necessary legal expertise to defend it.
Sorabji was given special permission to enter pleas on the behalf of the
 35

purdahnashins before British agents of Kathiawar and Indore principalities, but she
was unable to defend them in court since, as a woman, she did not hold professional
standing in the Indian legal system. In the hopes of gaining legal recognition, Sorabji
presented herself for the LLB examination of Bombay University in 1897 and
pleader’s examination of Allahabad high court in 1899. Yet, despite her successes,
Sorabji would not be recognized as a barrister, until the law, which barred women
from practicing, was changed in 1924.

Sorabji began petitioning the India Office, as early as 1902, to provide for a female
legal advisor to represent women and minors in provincial courts. In 1904 she was
appointed Lady Assistant to the Court of Wards of Bengal and by 1907, due to the
need for such representation, Sorabji was working in the provinces of Bengal, Bihar,
Orissa, and Assam. During the next 20 years of service, it is estimated that Sorabji
helped over 600 women and orphans to fight legal battles, sometimes at no charge.
She would later write about many of these cases in her work Between the Twilights
and her two autobiographies. In 1924, the legal profession was opened to women in
India and Sorabji began practicing in Calcutta. However, due to male bias and
discrimination, she was confined to preparing opinions on cases, rather than pleading
them before the court. Sorabji retired from the high court in 1929, and settled in
London, visiting India during the winters. She died at her London Home,
Northumberland House, Green Lanes, Finsbury Park, on 6 July 1954.

Social and reform work

At the turn of the century, Sorabji was also actively involved in social reform work.
She was associated with the Bengal branch of the National Council for Women in
India, the Federation of University Women, and the Bengal League of Social Service
for Women. For her services to the Indian nation, she was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind
gold medal in 1909. Although an Anglophile, Sorabji had no desire to see “the
wholesale imposition of a British legal system on Indian society any more than she
sought the transplantation of other Western values.” Early in her career Sorabji had
supported the campaign for Indian Independence, relating women’s rights to the
capacity for self government. Although she greatly supported traditional Indian life
and culture, Sorabji did a great deal to promote the movement to reform Hindu laws
regarding child marriage and the position of widows. She often worked alongside
fellow reformer and friend Pandita Ramabai. Nevertheless, she believed that the true
impetus behind social change was education and until the majority of illiterate women
had access to it, the suffrage movement would be a failure.

By the late 1920s, however, Sorabji had adopted a staunch anti-nationalist attitude;
believing that nationalism violated the beliefs, customs, and traditions of the country’s
Hindu ‘orthodox’. By 1927 she was actively involved in promoting support for the
Empire and preserving the rights of the Hindu Orthodox. She favorably viewed the
polemical attack on Indian self-rule in Katherine Mayo’s, Mother India (1927), and
condemned Mahatma Gandhi’s campaign of civil disobedience. She toured India and
the United States to propagate her political views which would end up costing her the
support needed to undertake later social reforms. One such failed project was the
League for Infant Welfare, Maternity, and District Nursing.
 36

CHAPTER 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites referred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ela_Bhatt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Jaising

http://www.ibanet.org/PPID/Constituent/Women_Lawyers_Interest_Group/Conferenc
es.aspx

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060927/asp/atleisure/story_6797098.asp

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2687_131/ai_90870874/

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/01/weekinreview/ideas-trends-women-lawyers-
justice-is-blind-also-a-lady.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Challenges+and+advantages+of+a+young+female+liti
gator-a0146126570

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Re-defining+superwoman
%3a+an+essay+on+overcoming+the+%22maternal+wall%22+in...-a0146271742

http://www.legallyindia.com/20100308558/Analysis/women-breaking-into-the-bar-
as-tough-as-ever

http://nylawblog.typepad.com/women_lawyers/discrimination/

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/aug/08mad.htm

http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&source=hp&q=women+lawyers+india+problems+ad
vantages&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b

http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&q=advantages+in+legal+profession+for+women&m
eta=&aq=o&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b

http://www.google.co.in/search?
hl=en&q=discrimination+against+women+lawyers&meta=cr
%3DcountryIN&aq=o&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
37