LSAC GRANTS REPORT SERIES

Leaving Law and Barriers to Reentry: A Study of Departures From and Reentries to Private Practice Fiona M. Kay Stacey Alarie Jones Adjei Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Law School Admission Council Grants Report 13-02 November 2013

A Publication of the Law School Admission Council

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) is a nonprofit corporation that provides unique, state-of-the-art products and services to ease the admission process for law schools and their applicants worldwide. Currently, 218 law schools in the United States, Canada, and Australia are members of the Council and benefit from LSAC's services. All law schools approved by the American Bar Association are LSAC members. Canadian law schools recognized by a provincial or territorial law society or government agency are also members. Accredited law schools outside of the United States and Canada are eligible for membership at the discretion of the LSAC Board of Trustees; Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne is the first LSAC-member law school outside of North America. Many nonmember schools also take advantage of LSAC‘s services. For all users, LSAC strives to provide the highest quality of products, services, and customer service. Founded in 1947, the Council is best known for administering the Law School Admission Test (LSAT®), with about 100,000 tests administered annually at testing centers worldwide. LSAC also processes academic credentials for an average of 60,000 law school applicants annually, provides essential software and information for admission offices and applicants, conducts educational conferences for law school professionals and prelaw advisors, sponsors and publishes research, funds diversity and other outreach grant programs, and publishes LSAT preparation books and law school guides, among many other services. LSAC electronic applications account for 98 percent of all applications to ABA-approved law schools. © 2014 by Law School Admission Council, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work, including information, data, or other portions of the work published in electronic form, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission of the publisher. For information, write: Communications, Law School Admission Council, 662 Penn Street, PO Box 40, Newtown, PA, 18940-0040. This study is published and distributed by LSAC.

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Theoretical Explanations .............................................................................................. 3

Job Satisfaction and Turnover .............................................................................. 3 Family Pressures and the Firm ............................................................................. 5 Organizational Context and Available Options ..................................................... 6 Globalization, Economic Instability, and Changing Firm Structures ...................... 7

Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 9

Data, Sampling, and Survey Design ..................................................................... 9 Measurement of Variables .................................................................................. 11

Quantitative Results .................................................................................................... 15 Qualitative Results ...................................................................................................... 26

Reasons for Leaving ........................................................................................... 26 Reentry to Private Practice ................................................................................. 38

Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 46

Nature and Timing of Exits ................................................................................. 46 Policy and Practice ............................................................................................. 47

References ................................................................................................................... 49

1

Executive Summary

Numerous studies report an overrepresentation of women among those leaving the profession of law. Although research has documented high turnover among female lawyers, particularly from private practice, only a handful of studies have explored the factors precipitating the decision to leave. The main causal factors identified to date include difficulties associated with combining family life and law practice, and problems of discrimination and blocked career advancement. In this report we analyze data from a longitudinal study of nearly 1,600 Ontario lawyers, surveyed across a 20-year period. Our analysis involves mixed methods, incorporating both statistical analysis of survey responses and detailed comments offered by participants. We employ survival models to estimate the timing of transitions out of private practice and to examine factors precipitating exits from private practice. The qualitative data provide further exploration into the motives underlying departures from private practice and barriers for those seeking to return to private practice. We find that women are leaving private practice at higher rates than men. These departures appear to be largely the consequence of organizational structures and a practice culture that remain resistant to flexible schedules, time gaps between jobs, and parental and other leaves. Yet the careers of contemporary lawyers appear to be characterized by more job changes, discontinuity, and movement between sectors of practice than is commonly assumed. Our report moves beyond a study of work/life balance and motherhood to examine the broader issues of institutional constraints on careers of both men and women in law. We explore policy initiatives to encourage retention of legal talent in private practice and practice strategies to reduce barriers for those individuals seeking to return to private practice.

Introduction

Numerous studies have documented that, after investing in undergraduate and law school studies and establishing careers in law practice, women are leaving the profession at higher rates than men (Brockman, 1994; Hagan & Kay, 1995; Hull & Nelson, 2000; Kay, 1997; Kay & Hagan, 1999; Noonan & Corcoran, 2004; Patton, 2005; Reichman & Sterling, 2002; Spurr & Sueyoshi, 1994; Wallace, 2001). Attrition is costly for both law firms and the female lawyers who leave. Employers incur a significant cost in the hiring and development of junior associates while striving to retain the legal talent they already have (Preenan, De Pater, Van Vianen, & Keijzer, 2011; Proudfoot, Corr, Guest, & Dunn, 2009). Turnover also entails high costs due to missed contributions of experienced firm lawyers, instability of departments or teams, disruptions to trusted relations between firm lawyers and clients, and loss of expertise. The cost of losing lawyers from a firm is particularly severe if a component of their knowledge was strongly firm-specific, such as deep, tacit knowledge about the firm‘s culture and business acumen, because such knowledge is difficult to rebuild or replace (Benson & Brown, 2007; Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy, Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006; Somaya, Williamson, & Lorinkova, 2008).

2

For lawyers, leaving also carries personal costs. Law graduates invest years in higher education and certification and often graduate with a sizeable student debt load (Hirshman, 2006). Lawyers who leave the profession early on face a devastating situation of being saddled with a mountain of debt and no legal career to show for the years invested in higher education. Lawyers leaving the profession at any time in their career make a significant change in their planned route from their initial career aspirations. Even turnover within the legal profession, across firms, or between sectors of practice disrupts individuals‘ lives in the short term and may have longer term costs by way of earnings and career advancement. For women, job turnover may be particularly damaging. Female lawyers leaving private law practice, for example, may find it difficult to ―opt back in‖ at commensurate job levels. These barriers to reentry further perpetuate and exacerbate gender inequalities (Arun, Arun, & Borooah, 2004; Budig & England, 2001; Felmlee, 1995; Moen & Roehling, 2005). To date, research has focused narrowly on motherhood, dissatisfaction with promotion opportunities, and the issue of work/life balance as the primary reasons for leaving law practice among female lawyers (Brockman, 2006; Leiper, 2006; Porter, 2006; Rhode, 2002; Wenk & Rosenfeld, 1992; Williams, 2007). Yet a far more extensive range of factors influences whether women change jobs, switch law fields, leave law practice altogether, or stay with their first employer after admission to the bar (Sandefur, 2007). Broader consideration of the organizational and environmental factors shaping female lawyers‘ employment opportunities and job-changing behavior is lacking in the literature (Percheski, 2008). This report starts to fill this gap by identifying and testing for the effects of several possible theoretical mechanisms that may be salient to job turnover. Using a sample of lawyers who started their careers in private practice, either in law firms or as sole practitioners, we examine the following research questions:

1. Do most lawyers who launch careers in private practice remain in private practice across the span of their careers, or do many migrate to non-private practice (e.g., government, in-house counsel within a corporation, academia, private industry)?

2. Is there significant attrition from law—from private practice to full exits from the practice of law (e.g., to new careers in business, journalism, commercial real estate, etc.)?

3. Do many lawyers in private practice ―opt out‖ just temporarily, for example, staying home to raise children for a few years, or venturing into other forays such as politics, and then later returning to private practice after a period of absence?

4. For those individuals seeking to return to private practice, what obstacles or hurdles stand in their way?

5. What policies might help to retain legal talent and reduce turnover in private practice?

We begin by reviewing several explanations offered in the research literature on job turnover among professionals.

3

Theoretical Explanations

Job Satisfaction and Turnover One of the most pervasive explanations of turnover, attitude theory, draws attention to the experience of professional work, particularly subjective assessments and organizational attachment fostered through work. As Steel (2002, p. 346) notes, ―No other single domain of work has had as much influence on turnover research as attitude theory.‖ This approach argues that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job and organizational attributes (e.g., earnings, nature of the work, advancement opportunities, coworker relations) and turnover. The general claim is that dissatisfaction with one‘s job triggers thoughts about leaving the organization (Bentein, Vandenberghe, Vandenberg, & Stinglhamber, 2005; Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Numerous studies show job satisfaction consistently predicts employee retention across a range of professions, including law (Barak, Nissly, & Levin, 2001; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Griffeth et al., 2000; Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer, 2010; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2001; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007; Rode, Rehg, Near, & Underhill, 2007). But are men and women equally satisfied in law practice? Several studies of lawyers find that, although women report overall job satisfaction equal to that of men, women report being less satisfied with specific aspects of their work (Hull, 1999; Reichman & Sterling, 2004). Female lawyers appear less satisfied with aspects such as compensation, job opportunities (Reichman & Sterling, 2004), job setting, and promotion prospects (Dinovitzer, Garth, Sander, Sterling, & Wilder, 2004; Dinovitzer, Reichman, & Sterling, 2009). However, such rewards are important in creating an employment environment that encourages workers to remain employed at the organization (Saporta & Farjoun, 2003). Failure to satisfy junior lawyers‘ aspirations via resources, assignments, and advancement outcomes encourages lawyers to consider leaving their workplace (Armstrong, Riemenschneider, Allen, & Reid, 2007). Weak prospects of promotion, in particular, appear to be a key consideration in the decision by junior lawyers to quit a firm and transfer to another firm or employer (Dobrev, 2005; Saporta & Farjoun, 2003). Female professionals generally receive a smaller share of workplace rewards, including promotions (Dryfhout & Estes, 2010; Mallon & Cohen, 2001). For example, in a study of 2,587 lawyers from two bar admission cohorts (1969–1973 and 1980–1983) of U.S. lawyers in Chicago and New York, Spurr and Sueyoshi (1994) found that female lawyers are considerably less likely to be promoted and slightly more likely to leave the firm. Similarly, Brockman‘s (1994) study of British Columbian lawyers revealed career advancement and attaining partnership were the most frequently mentioned by male and female lawyers as areas in which women experience discrimination. As Patterson and Mavin (2009, p. 175) note, ―It is perhaps unsurprising that women are leaving corporate employment in increasing numbers as their need for challenge, achievement and status is left unfulfilled.‖ Although much of the literature on job satisfaction and turnover has emphasized the importance of promotion opportunities to retention, clearly other job resources can play a motivational role through increasing lawyers‘ learning and development and fostering a dynamic work environment (Kay & Gorman, 2012). Job resources, such as social

4

support offered by colleagues, play an important role in encouraging work engagement and access to challenging assignments (de Lange, De Witte, & Notelaers, 2008; Fields, Dingman, Roman, & Blum, 2005; Firth, Mellor, Moore, & Loquet, 2004; Jackofsky & Peters, 1983). A positive relationship with colleagues may build organizational commitment, thereby creating a work environment in which lawyers wish to stay and build their career rather than searching out other job prospects. Female lawyers appear disadvantaged compared to their male counterparts, as they are overlooked by possible mentors and left out of work on challenging cases. Literature on the legal profession documents women‘s lack of mentors and developmental experiences and reduced promotion prospects, particularly in law firms (Beckman & Phillips, 2005; Kay & Hagan, 1998; Reichman & Sterling, 2002; Rhode, 2001). For example, Brockman‘s (1994, p. 136) study of British Columbian lawyers documents other job resources, such as access to clients and assignment of cases, where female lawyers were disadvantaged, thereby reducing their subsequent opportunities for promotion. In a study based on in-depth interviews with 100 attorneys in the Denver Metropolitan area, Reichman and Sterling (2002, p. 961) argue that:

women‘s ‗choices‘ reflect their ability to accumulate professional assets balanced against the pull of the family. Women described their disappointing experiences with work assignments, lack of recognition of their abilities, problems they experienced while trying to find an influential mentor. The stories about work that we gathered suggest that choice may be as much about the push away from work as it is about the pull of the family.

Furthermore, Wallace‘s (2001) survey of Calgary lawyers shows that intrinsic and professional job rewards and work demands significantly influence lawyers‘ levels of work satisfaction and whether or not they desire to leave law. Wallace (2001) found that when female lawyers‘ work is sufficiently challenging and service-oriented, while not conflicting with their home life, they are more satisfied with and, in fact, are more committed to the practice of law than their male colleagues. Consistent with attitudinal theories of job satisfaction and turnover, we hypothesize that lawyers‘ satisfaction with content of work, opportunities for promotion (as well as income and prestige), and collegiality will encourage retention in private practice.

Hypothesis 1a: High satisfaction with content of legal work is positively related to retention. Hypothesis 1b: High satisfaction with opportunities for advancement (as well as income and prestige) is positively related to retention. Hypothesis 1c: High satisfaction with coworker relationships (collegiality) is positively related to retention.

5

We also expect that while men and women are similarly satisfied overall with their professional work, gender differences emerge with respect to specific forms of job satisfaction, including content of work, promotion opportunities, and collegiality. Such differences may contribute to gender disparities in departures from private practice.

Hypothesis 1d: Men assess their job satisfaction with content of work, opportunities for advancement, and collegiality more positively than women assess these same job attributes.

Family Pressures and the Firm Another argument commonly invoked in explaining turnover describes female lawyers as ―opting out‖ from their careers to raise their young children. This approach views women‘s ―voluntary‖ exits from law firms as a strategic adaptation in the face of demanding responsibilities from work and home life (Belkin, 2003; Moen, 2008; Moen, Kelly, & Hill, 2011; Stone, 2007; Stone & Lovejoy, 2004). As a result of conflicting demands from work and family, women are seen as more apt to leave law firms and even jettison the profession entirely (Belkin, 2003; Hewlett & Luce, 2005; Kuperberg & Stone, 2008; Williams, Manvell, & Bornstein, 2006). In support of the opting out argument, research has shown that the overall workload of managing career and family, as well as negative spillover from work to home (e.g., requirements to work evenings and weekends) or from home to work (e.g., interruptions at work to deal with child care issues), predict job turnover and turnover intentions (Armstrong et al., 2007; Jones, Chonko, Rangarajan, & Roberts, 2007; Moen & Huang, 2010). In addition, male and female professionals tend to cite different reasons for leaving jobs, with women often citing reasons such as child care responsibilities, illness in the family, pregnancy, and wanting to have a job closer to home, and men rarely citing family reasons (Sicherman, 1996). As Donovan (1990, p. 142) phrased it, ―The most notorious reason for women to leave [a firm] is motherhood.‖ Consistent with the opting out framework, we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The presence of children in the home is positively related to women‘s exits from private law practice.

However, recent studies challenge the assumed trend of opting out among female professionals. In a landmark study, Percheski (2008) conducted a rigorous analysis to assess whether employment rates among recent cohorts of women in professional and managerial occupations are increasing or being maintained, or whether these professionals are opting out of employment to stay home with their children. Percheski (2008) used data from the 1960 through 2000 American Censuses and American Community Survey (2004). Her analysis suggests that in fact there has been an increase of full-time year-round employment among younger cohorts of women, even among mothers of young children. Further, women working in historically male-dominated occupations (including law) have the highest full-time employment rates. Other studies support Percheski‘s (2008) claims, showing no trend toward opting out among highly educated women. For example, Goldin (2006) found that women with

6

professional or graduate degrees have high rates of employment, return to work following short interruptions for children, and have low rates of opting out. Similarly, Wallace (2001) found that female lawyers are less likely to want to leave the practice of law compared to men, and neither marital status nor presence of preschool-aged children generate job dissatisfaction or a desire to leave law. The problem may lie with the fact that the opting out argument pays little attention to structural aspects of the workplace. Instead, the framework blames female professionals, implying that working mothers fail to manage their multiple roles effectively, making the choice to leave their careers to stay home with their children. The language of opting out overlooks other factors, such as inflexible workplaces, labor market instability, men‘s lower contributions to housework, unstable child care arrangements, or other reasons why women may not work outside the home (Boushey, 2008, p. 31). We consider these broader issues next. Organizational Context and Available Options Numerous studies suggest that women‘s exits from private practice are in fact the result of a broader range of reasons than childbearing and a decision to stay home with children. In her study of British Columbian lawyers, Brockman (1994) found that women often report leaving law due to the lack of flexibility offered by law firms, excessively long hours, child care commitments, and the stressful nature of the work. And while part-time schedules may be offered in formal policies, most lawyers refrain from affording themselves a part-time schedule for fear of damaging their careers (Rhode, 2002; Sommerlad & Sanderson, 1998). These studies hint at the fact that what others have called opting out more accurately consists of women making career adaptations (e.g., reduced hours, shifting areas of practice, slower promotion tracks), or even temporary or longer-term exits from their careers, as a consequence of being pushed out by the rigid inflexibilities of their work environment (Moen et al., 2011; Stone, 2007). From this perspective, individuals‘ choices are bound by organizational structures and cultures (Clegg, 1989; Moen et al., 2011; Mossman, 1994; Weisselberg & Li, 2011). In the context of law, lawyers often work in firms that define the possibilities in terms of career ladders, full- and part-time work options, and leave and benefit plans, as well as convey expectations about caseload, hours, and delivery of legal services (see Law Society of Upper Canada, 2011). However, it is not only workplace benefits and organizational structures that constrain (or enable) lawyers‘ choices. Practices within the firm, such as a culture that places a strong emphasis on billings, establish further strictures. The emphasis on billable hours conveys to junior lawyers a firm‘s ―engrained cultural beliefs and practices around work time and face time as indicators of work commitment, productivity, and quality‖ (Moen et al., 2011, p. 72). The emphasis on organizational context and available options shifts research away from the opting out rhetoric of individual choice. Rather, the focus is directed to rising pressures with increasing billable-hour quotas (Epstein, 2004; Rhode, 2002) and ―time cages‖ of professional work (Moen et al., 2011) as pivotal to job turnover (Brockman, 1994). One way in which professionals may adapt to increased family commitments is through work schedule flexibility, which may moderate the effects of increasing family responsibilities on job turnover by providing lawyers with a greater ability to manage

7

what are often competing demands (Moen et al., 2011). To the extent that turnover intentions reflect the absence of work/life balance, planning to leave a job with extreme demands can be a strategy to achieve a better sense of fit (Stone, 2007). Work schedule flexibility may offer the needed bridge between work and family roles by enabling legal professionals to take advantage of shorter or more pliable work schedules and to take time off for personal matters. Research demonstrates that flexible work schedules are associated with higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Scandura & Lankau, 1997), lower stress and lower work–family conflict (Armstrong, Riemenschneider, Allen, & Reid, 2007), and increased retention (Heyman, 2008). Further, organizations that offer flexible scheduling and family-friendly policies may enhance lawyers‘ commitment to the firm by building a sense that the firm leaders are fair, value the skills offered by lawyers employed within the firm, and understand the importance of family commitments (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007).

Hypothesis 3: The availability of flexible work schedules will decrease the rate of exits from private practice.

Globalization, Economic Instability, and Changing Firm Structures It is important to acknowledge that the organizational contexts in which many private practice lawyers work—law firms—have changed dramatically in recent years. The global expansion of law firms has seen the growth of foreign offices with an emphasis on corporate mergers and acquisitions work (Sokol, 2007). Law firms have expanded dramatically in size over the last three decades, and this growth has been accompanied by an increase in the number of branch offices domestically and internationally (Baker & Parkin, 2006). Increased leverage (e.g., rising numbers of associates relative to the number of partners) has also come about with the growth in size and geographic scope of large law firms. Furthermore, the tournament model (Galanter & Palay, 1991) that claimed firms operate as an ―up-or-out‖ pyramid structure has changed (Gorman, 1999; Henderson, 2006) to incorporate at least two stages to the tournament in most large law firms. The first stage of the tournament is the promotion from the ranks of associate to that of partner. The second stage occurs at the partner level in which nonequity (service or salaried) partners battle to join the ranks of equity (owner, profit-sharing) partners. The two-tier model has become the norm in many of the large law firms, particularly those with multiple offices (Henderson, 2006; Sokol, 2007). Globalization of firms also raises new challenges for strategic decision-making and competitive expansion (Sokol, 2007), networks of knowledge transfer and cohesive firm cultures (Faulconbridge, 2007), and professional autonomy in a managerial model of firm expansion (Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2008). Beyond globalization and changing firm hierarchies, private practice more generally has seen significant changes in recent years. There has been a decline in the traditional model of solo practice and small partnerships (Gorman & Sandefur, 2011) with a shift to larger firms (Leicht & Fennell, 1997). Demographics have also changed, with rising numbers of women and racial minorities entering law (Dinovitzer et al., 2004; Epstein, 1993; Gorman & Kay, 2010; Kay & Gorman, 2008, 2012). Lawyers working in law firms and as sole practitioners encounter a growing infringement on their areas of practice

8

(from accountancy, realtors, notaries, and paralegals), eroding their monopoly over services (Kay, 2009; Kim & Sakamoto, 2008; Timmermans, 2008). The nature of legal work is also changing across various practice settings. In recent years there has been a ratcheting up of workloads and time pressures on legal professionals (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Moen & Yu, 2000). Some scholars argue that the ―boundedness‖ of working time is evaporating with the use of information technologies and mounting expectations that lawyers be available to their clients and law firms at any hour, including weeknights and weekends, further contributing to stress (Moen et al., 2011; Seron & Ferris, 1995). The expansion of hours demanded in legal practice contributes to work/life balance issues, particularly for women (Dau-Schmidt, Galanter, Mukhopadhaya, & Hull, 2009), who typically bear a heavier share of child care responsibility.

The escalating time pressures, combined with a lack of workplace policies to accommodate family responsibilities, may prompt some women to interrupt their careers in private practice, making moves to more predictable hours through employment in government work or leaving the labor market entirely for a period of time. Certainly, the dominant model of career progression (Papanek, 1973) has assumed an ―ideal worker‖ (Kelly et al., 2010; Williams, 2001), one whose career is both linear and continuous (Sirianni & Negrey, 2000). In contrast, women have tended to experience more interrupted, nonlinear careers due largely to family commitments (Fondas, 1996; Mallon & Cohen, 2001). Perhaps not only women‘s careers are anomalous in today‘s economy. The careers of both male and female lawyers may be subject to greater flux, including discontinuous career paths, as a result of globalization, economic recessions, and changing job conditions in modern firms (Moen et al., 2011). We know little about the impact of interruptions, their length and nature, on the careers of legal professionals. We surmise that long interruptions from law practice—the result of a single extended leave or a series of short leaves—will augment the chances of leaving private practice. These interruptions may signal to law firm leaders a lack of commitment on the part of a lawyer, and interruptions longer in duration may also suggest that a lawyer is seriously engaged with outside ventures (e.g., establishing a business, entering politics). The nature of the interruption may matter as well. Parental leaves, in particular, may not receive the same welcome reception as those leaves taken by lawyers for the purposes of working as in-house counsel, campaigning for election in politics, or working in government. Each of these latter pursuits may be viewed as bringing rich assets to the firm, including the development of expertise or the channeling of new and lucrative clients to the firm. We therefore suggest two hypotheses related to interruptions from law practice:

Hypothesis 4a: Gaps between jobs, especially for long durations, will hasten departures from private practice. Hypothesis 4b: Taking a parental leave will increase the risk of leaving private practice.

9

The broader economic context is also salient to the career progression of lawyers in private practice. A sizeable body of literature suggests economic climate influences turnover (Couch & Fairlie, 2010; Griffeth et al., 2000; Heyman, 2008; Park & Sandefur, 2003; Steel, 2002). Periods of both economic decline and prosperity may prompt an increase in job movement, albeit for different reasons. Poor economic conditions at the time of career launch may lead law graduates to change jobs in an effort to land a more desirable or more secure position. Job moves may consist of quits as preemptive moves to avoid the impact of downsizing, partnership denials, and partnership dissolutions (Couch & Fairlie, 2010; Park & Sandefur, 2003), or job changes may be the result of early terminations, casualties of difficult economic times. In contrast, when the economy is prosperous there may be a high tendency of people to hop among different organizations for purposes of career advancement (Cho & Huang, 2012; Forrier, Sels, & Synen, 2009). We suspect that the latter mobility pattern occurs primarily in the form of firm-to-firm job changes, a jockeying for preferred positioning in the private practice marketplace rather than movement across sectors of law practice. Meanwhile, a difficult economic climate, especially one that clouds the labor market as new graduates enter private practice, is likely to cause significant instability, prompting lawyers to seek jobs across sectors of practice or to even exit law practice entirely. We pose one final hypothesis, centered on economic climate at the time of career entry.

Hypothesis 5: A high unemployment rate at the time of career entry is a significant and positive predictor of leaving private practice.

Research Methodology

Data, Sampling, and Survey Design The source of data for this study comes from a longitudinal panel survey of lawyers conducted in the province of Ontario. In the Canadian context, Ontario is an ideal setting in which to study legal careers because the province is home to nearly half (41%) of the nation‘s lawyers (Kay & Brockman, 2000; Kay & Hagan, 2005). We collected data at four time points, at regular intervals: 1990, 1996, 2002, and 2009. The relatively short intervals were chosen in an effort to capture knowledge of recent job histories and workplace conditions while these events and situations were still fresh in participants‘ minds. The original sample consisted of a disproportionately stratified random sample of lawyers from the membership records of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC). The sample was stratified by gender to include equal numbers of men and women called to the Ontario Bar between 1975 and 1990, a period in which the first sizeable number of women entered law practice. The questionnaires were mailed directly to respondents‘ places of employment. The 1990 survey, with one reminder, received a 68% response rate (N = 1,597). In 1996, we conducted a second survey of this same sample. Through a single reminder, we obtained a response rate of 70%. The third wave of survey data collection took place in 2002 and, with two reminders, achieved a response rate of 73%. The fourth and final survey took place in 2009, again with two reminders, and received a response rate of

10

68%. The four surveys yielded very respectable response rates (close to 70% on each survey mailing). The surveys were designed with a unique format, including a work history calendar summarizing job changes across time. Participants were asked to provide a complete account of their career histories, describing the core features of their current and previous positions, and also of the organizations in which they were employed (Dobrev, 2005). In the initial survey, the work history calendar consisted of one page per job. This format enabled us to gather detailed information on each professional position, as well as on gaps and activities between positions, across relatively short time spans. Each page asked questions about:

Start and end dates of the position

Type of position (full time or part time)

A description of the professional position itself (not engaged in practice of law; employment in government, corporation, legal aid or law clinic, private industry, associate of law firm, sole practitioner, partner, and other positions)

How many lawyers worked in the office at one physical location

Three main fields of law practiced in the position

Gross annual income before leaving the position

How the position compared to what they originally wanted

Main reasons for leaving the position

Specification of time between leaving and starting next position

A description of activities during any gaps between jobs Each survey wave included data on up to eight professional positions. A separate set of pages explored participants‘ current professional positions in greater depth. This section included a range of other questions about job satisfaction, workplace responsibilities, and organizational context. In addition, the survey incorporated questions about life outside law, including dates of marriages and cohabitation, dissolution of unions (separation, divorce), births (and adoptions) of children, and timing of parental leaves. Each survey wave also introduced special themes, including: (a) mentoring and professional development; (b) pro bono, community involvement, and volunteer work; (c) legal education and debt; and (d) health and well-being. Again, these data-rich surveys were collected at approximately 6–8 year intervals. Conducting survey waves every few years served to minimize inconsistent autobiographical reconstructions and recall difficulties (Manzoni, Vermunt, Luijkx, & Muffels, 2010). The four waves of surveys, conducted in 1990, 1996, 2002, and 2009, were then merged together, and the work and life histories painstakingly nested into each individual‘s record or biography. We restructured the professional work calendar data in each survey wave into an event history format where a single spell accounts for each job held by each participant during his or her career since law school graduation. We then calculated these spells as person-month units. This format of data collection is ideal for the survival analyses we conduct in this report. Particularly important for our research is that participants were asked to indicate if and when they changed professional positions and when such

11

changes involved transitions between the private practice of law and movement out of private practice. Measurement of Variables Our analysis includes several independent variables to test the hypotheses outlined above. Among our demographic and family variables, we included gender (1 = female), racial minority (1 = minority), and marital status (1 = married or cohabiting). We measured children in terms of four dummy variables: one, two, three, and four or more children (with no children as the comparison category). We tapped human capital through five variables. Elite law school was defined as the University of Toronto, the top ranked and with most costly tuition fees in the province (1 = University of Toronto).1 Areas of law were coded as business law (including corporate-commercial, banking, securities, industrial and intellectual property, and tax), litigation, people law (including social welfare, administrative law, wills and estates, family, labor, and real estate) and criminal law, following the work of Gorman (2006). Hours worked asked lawyers to report the number of hours they worked each week, including daytime, evening, and weekend hours. Client recruitment tapped whether lawyers had primary responsibility for clients of the firm (coded 0) or clients they bring in (coded 1). We also assessed the amount of time lawyers devoted to corporate clientele. We compared lawyers who spend more than 50% of their time representing corporate clients (coded 1) with those spending 50% of their time or less with corporate clients (coded 0). Next, we captured the initial organizational setting in terms of organizational size, desirability of first job, geographic location, and economic climate at the time of entry to law. We asked lawyers to describe their first job in private practice as either: solo practice or law firm. We then coded the size of firms in terms of: small firms of less than 10 lawyers, small midsized firms of 10–19 lawyers, large midsized firms of 20–49 lawyers, and large firms of 50 or more lawyers. We entered solo practice and the various firm size variables as a series of dummy variables in the regression models. We asked lawyers how this position compared with the one they originally had wanted after bar admission. This variable, landed first job desired, was coded as follows: 1 = nothing like; 2 = little of what; 3 = some of what; 4 = mostly what; and 5 = exactly what they wanted. Lawyers reported whether they started off their careers in the Greater Toronto area (GTA = 1) or elsewhere. We also included in our analysis a measure of the unemployment rate at the time each yearly cohort was admitted to the Ontario Bar (range = 6.9–11.8). In addition, we included a set of variables intended to assess job satisfaction and workplace benefits. We measured job satisfaction in terms of three dimensions. Satisfaction with content of work asked lawyers to rate their level of satisfaction with the nature of the work. We also asked lawyers to assess their level of satisfaction with working relationships with colleagues as a measure of collegiality. Another composite

1 MacLean’s magazine ranks the University of Toronto first among Canadian common law schools

based on elite firm hiring, national reach, Supreme Court clerkships, faculty hiring, and faculty journal citations. See http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/09/07the-2012-macleans-law-school-rankings/, accessed December 19, 2012.

12

measure tapped lawyers‘ satisfaction with the power track in their work setting. This scale asked lawyers to rank their level of satisfaction with income, prestige of work, and opportunity for advancement ( = .78).2 Prior research demonstrates the importance of

separating out dimensions of job satisfaction (Dinovitzer & Garth, 2007) rather than using a global measure of job satisfaction. This differentiation is important because studies have shown women and men share similar levels of general satisfaction, while at the same time there are gender differences on specific facets, such as promotions and substance of legal work (Dinovitzer et al., 2004; Hagan & Kay, 2007). In addition, we inquired about work benefits, specifically the flexibility of hours afforded at the early career stage. In the first wave of the survey (1990), we asked lawyers whether their job offered flexible work hours (on a full-time basis) (coded 0 = no; 1 = yes). Sex discrimination measures whether the lawyer reported experiencing sexual discrimination ―occasionally,‖ ―frequently,‖ or ―always present‖ (coded 1), compared to ―rarely,‖ ―never,‖ or ―uncertain‖ (coded 0). Studies of promotion and retention often do not include measures of sexual discrimination (Noonan & Corcoran, 2004, p. 147); however, research suggests these perceived experiences are significant obstacles to women‘s successful integration in the profession (Epstein, 2004; Hunter, 2002; Ietswaart, 2003; Sommerlad, 2006; Thornton, 1996; Wilder, 2007). Finally, we included three measures designed to tap aspects of career breaks. The first, duration of interruptions, measures the number of months between positions, totaled across the lawyer‘s career to date (range = 0–78 months). Parental leave measures whether the lawyer reported taking a parental leave during the course of their career. Other leaves measures whether they took a leave for purposes other than parental leave. Table 1 lists the operationalization and descriptive statistics of the variables used in our analysis.

2 Each of the job satisfaction items is a descriptive statement about the professional position to which

the participant is asked to respond. The use of descriptive statements to draw inferences about facet-specific job satisfaction is consistent with the methods used in many of the most popular job satisfaction instruments today (Lichtenstein, Alexander, McCarthy, & Wells, 2004). Each item was scaled on a 7-point (strongly disagree to strongly agree) continuum, and the resulting measure represents the mean score of the respective items.

13

TABLE 1 Operationalization and measurement of study variables

Females (N = 576 ) Males (N = 558)

Independent Variables Description Mean (%) SD 2 Mean (%) SD

Demographics & Family

Racial minority 0 = nonracial minority; 1 = racial minority .07 .26 * .04 .20

Married 0 = not married or cohabiting; 1 = married or cohabiting

.81 .39 *** .89 .31

Children: none Comparison category .31 .47 *** .23 .42

1 child 0 = none; 1 = one child .15 .36 .14 .35 2 children 0 = none; 1 = two children .30 .46 ** .36 .48 3 children 0 = none; 1 = three children .17 .38 .19 .40 4+ children 0 = none; 1 = four or more children .07 .26 .07 .26

Wave 1: First Job

Human Capital Elite law school 0 = other law schools; 1 = University of Toronto .13 .34 .14 .35 Areas of law: Business law 0 = else; 1 = corporate commercial, banking,

securities, industrial and intellectual property, and tax .20 .40 .19 .39

Litigation 0 = else; 1 = civil litigation .23 .42 .27 .44 People law 0 = else; 1 = social welfare, other administrative law,

wills and estates, family, labor, real estate .47 .50 .43 .50

Criminal law 0 = else; 1 = criminal law .04 .20 * .07 .26 Hours per week Hours worked per week, including day, evening, and

weekends 38.81 11.23 † 40.18 13.65

Client recruitment 0 = lawyer has primary responsibility for clients of the firm; 1 = lawyer brings in clients

.22 .42 *** .35 .48

Corporate clients 0 = proportion of time spent representing corporate clients less than 50%; 1 = 50% or more of time spent representing corporate clients

.30 .46 * .35 .48

14

TABLE 1 Operationalization and measurement of study variables (Continued)

Females (N = 576 ) Males (N = 558)

Independent Variables Description Mean (%) SD 2 Mean (%) SD

Organizational Setting Solo practice 0 = firm; 1 = sole practitioner .08 .27 .10 .30 Small firm 0 = else; 1 = less than 10 lawyers .49 .02 .53 .50 Small midsize firm 0 = else; 1 = 10–19 lawyers .11 .31 .11 .31 Large midsize firm 0 = else; 1 = 20–49 lawyers .10 .30 .09 .28 Large firm 0 = else; 1 = 50 or more lawyers .23 .42 * .18 .38 Landed first job desired How this position compared with the one the

respondent originally wanted after bar admission: 1 = nothing like; 2 = little of what; 3 = some of what; 4 = mostly what; and 5 = exactly what they wanted

3.72 1.14 3.78 1.17

Greater Toronto area 0 = elsewhere; 1 = Greater Toronto area (GTA) .57 .50 .53 .50 Unemployment rate at call Range = 6.9–11.8 8.84 1.55 8.76 1.62

Job Satisfaction Content of work Level of satisfaction with nature of work, coded from

1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied 5.70 1.08 5.63 1.15

Power track Level of satisfaction with income, prestige of work, and opportunity for advancement, coded from 1 = very

dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied ( = .78); scale

standardized in regression

5.07 1.06 5.13 1.13

Collegiality Level of satisfaction with working relationship with colleagues, coded from 1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied

5.78 1.14 5.61 1.19

Flexible schedule 0 = no; 1 = flexible schedule available with full-time hours

.30 .46 ** .32 .47

Sexual discrimination 0 = has not experienced sexual discrimination or is uncertain; 1 = has personally experienced sexual discrimination occasionally, frequently, or always present

.74 .44 *** .11 .32

Across All 4 Waves

Career Breaks Duration of interruptions Number of months between positions, totaled across

career to date 6.14 11.97 *** 2.89 7.42

Parental leave 0 = none taken; 1 = taken at least one parental leave .39 .49 *** .04 .20

Other leaves 0 = none taken; 1 = taken at least one leave other than parental leave

.25 .43 *** .16 .36

†p = .06; * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests).

15

Techniques of Data Analysis Our analysis estimates proportional hazard models using Cox regression. This procedure allows us to estimate the probability of temporary or permanent departure from private law practice, conditional on surviving in private practice until the time of observation (Preston, 2004). The focus is on the hazard rate or ―risk‖ of an event occurring—in this case, the event of leaving private practice. Each lawyer‘s hazard rate for a particular event varies based on their conditions (e.g., areas of practice, billable hours, job satisfaction) and can be conceptualized as influencing the expected length of time until the event occurs (Allison, 1995; Kramer & Berg, 2003). The model on which this method is based is called a proportional hazards model, ―because the hazard for any individual is a fixed proportion of the hazard for any other individual‖ (Allison, 1995, p. 114). Hence, variables with significant coefficients can be thought of as having a significant effect on the relative timing of exit from private practice, not on whether or not a lawyer exits private practice (Kramer & Berg, 2003, p. 518).3 In our analysis, we nest regression models to examine the utility of various explanations for gender differences in leaving private practice. The baseline model shows the effect of demographic and family size variables on leaving private practice. In subsequent models, we add human capital attributes (Model 2), organizational context (Model 3), job satisfaction and experience variables (Model 4), and finally interruptions and leaves (Model 5). Nesting the regression models allows us to see which theoretical explanations account for the relationship between gender and leaving private practice (Anashensel, 2002; Dryfhout & Estes, 2010). We turn next to examining the findings from our statistical analysis.

Quantitative Results

Among our full sample of 1,577 law graduates, the majority of law graduates launched their careers in the private practice of law (72%). Within private practice, 80% entered law firms as associates. Nine percent started as partners, establishing firms with colleagues or joining an existing practitioner in partnership. The remaining 11% began their careers working as sole practitioners. While nearly three quarters of law graduates entered private practice, other law graduates began their careers in various lines of work. About 10% entered government, 5% worked as in-house counsel to corporations, 2% joined legal aid or law clinics, and 7% worked in other settings. A further 5% of law graduates did not practice law immediately after their admission to the bar. Figure 1 displays these distributions across positions post-graduation.

3 Cox regression offers the ability to estimate coefficients without assuming a particular functional

form for the baseline hazard. This is an important advantage over a more restrictive specification such as the Weibull (which assumes monotonicity through the log transformation); thus such a model is not well suited to data with interval observations on duration (Spurr & Sueyoshi, 1994, p. 826).

16

FIGURE 1. First professional position after graduation from law school

At the start of careers in law, there are both similarities and differences in areas of employment between genders (Figure 2). Among our cohort of lawyers (called to the Ontario Bar between 1975 and 1990), a nearly equal percentage of men and women entered law firms as associates (57% of men and 58% of women) and similar percentages of men and women started as sole practitioners (9% of men and 7% of women). However, a larger percentage of men (11%) than women (3%) launched their careers as law firm partners. A slightly greater percentage of women (11%) compared to men (8%) started their careers as government employees. Other differences are only slight. For example, 3% of women and 1% of men started out in legal aid or law clinics; 5% of women and 4% of men started their careers as employees of corporations, and 5% of women and 4% of men did not practice law in their first professional position after law school graduation (see Figure 2).

Not in law

Government employment

Employee of corporation

Legal Aid

Associate in firm

Sole practitioner

Partner

Other

First Professional Position after Law School

17

FIGURE 2. Law school graduates’ first professional positions, by gender

One of the most interesting observations is just how much mobility there is within legal careers (Figure 3). The lawyers in this study were called to the bar 19–34 years ago (at the time of the 2009 survey). This 15-year cohort of lawyers is now in their mid- to late-career stage. Those who started their careers in private practice have had on average three professional positions across their careers to date. The mean, however, masks the true amount of variation. Approximately 24% of lawyers had held three professional positions at the time of the 2009 survey. A sizeable percentage had held fewer positions: 16% had held one position and 25% had held two positions. A sizeable proportion of lawyers had also held more than three professional positions over their careers: 17% had 4, 10% had 5, and 9% had 6–12 positions over the course of their careers. There was no statistically significant difference between the average number of professional positions held by women and men. The number of professional positions held reflects various job changes. Some of these changes consisted of (a) movement within a law firm from associate to partner; (b) movement laterally and upward between law firms; (c) departures from law firms to establish independent law offices (e.g., sole practitioners); and (d) movement out of private law practice. A sizeable proportion of lawyers left the private practice of law. Some lawyers went to work as in-house counsel with corporations or unions, some moved to government

Women Men

Not in law Government employment Employee of corporation

Legal Aid Associate in firm Sole practitioner

Partner Other

First Professional Position after Law School, by Gender

18

service, and some left to start independent businesses. Other lawyers returned to school (graduate programs such as MBA or LLM), while some lawyers (more often women) stayed home for a period of time to raise young children. Among our sample of law graduates, a broad array of pursuits took place outside private practice. For example, lawyers reported such new career paths as farming, journalism, law school professor, chocolatier, fiction writer, professional musician, interior designer, pilot, physiotherapist, and politician (to name only a few).

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8 9 11 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89 11 12

05

10

15

20

25

Women Men

Perc

ent d

istr

ibutio

n

Career Positions

Number of Professional Positions over Career, by Gender

FIGURE 3. Number of professional positions over the career span to date, by gender

Careers in law do not always consist of a continuous flow from one professional position to another. Many lawyers in our study experienced at least temporary interruptions over the course of their careers. Approximately 35% of all those who started their careers in private practice experienced gaps of some duration between professional positions. The average length of time between positions was greater for women (mean = 6.14, SD = 11.97) than for men (mean = 2.89, SD = 7.42) (t-test = 5.47, p < .001).4

4 This mean includes the full range from 0 to 78 months.

19

The reasons for career interruptions vary by gender. For women, caring for children was the most common reason (25–46%); for men, unemployment, furthering education, and travel were the reasons more commonly offered. Illness and injury were the least common reasons (typically under 5%) for both men and women. Women were consistently more likely than men to list responsibilities for child care and looking after aging parents as activities during career interruptions (see also Monahan & Swanson, 2009). Surprisingly, a sizeable share of lawyers left private practice during their careers. Of the 1,134 lawyers starting out careers in private practice in our study, 493 (44%) left private practice at some point.5 Women were more prevalent among the departed: 52% of women who started in private practice exited compared to 35% of men. Among those lawyers who left, 18% of women and 15% of men returned to private practice at a later time in their career. We are interested to learn more about these lawyers who left private practice. We explore the factors influencing this exodus in the next section. In Figure 4, we plot the survivor functions (product-limit estimations) for men and women, showing the 95% confidence intervals. The survival function, in this context, is essentially the rate of retention within private practice. Across the different time trajectories, the survival curve for men is higher and relatively gentler in its decline than for women, indicating that men leave private practice more slowly than women. In other words, the exodus (or rate of exit) is dramatically faster among female lawyers, as revealed by the steep survival function among women in our sample. The graphs for both men and women reveal the high degree of movement out of private practice within the first 8 years (100 months) following bar admission. This is the case for both men and women, though women‘s high rates of exit (lower survival functions) continue in the years following.

5 Some of this movement may be for reasons of retirement, though the majority of our sample is in

their mid-career stage at the time of the survey. The longest career possible in our sample was 34 years at the time of the 2009 survey (for lawyers called to the bar in 1975), and only a quarter (24%) of our sample was over 55 years of age at the time of the final survey. Only 5% of our sample was over 65 years of age at the time of the 2009 survey. It is likely that a small percentage have taken early retirement (though some may have exited law to pursue other careers or business ventures prior to formal retirement).

20

0

.25

.5.7

5

1

0 100 200 300 400 500Analysis Time

95% CI Survivor function

Male

0

.25

.5.7

5

10 100 200 300 400

Analysis Time

95% CI Survivor function

Female

Kaplan-Meier Estimates, By Sex

FIGURE 4. Survivor functions (Kaplan–Meier estimates) of the timing of departures from private practice, by sex

Table 2 presents the multivariate results of our Cox proportional hazards regression analysis predicting exits from private practice. These coefficients can be converted to hazard ratios by exponentiating individual coefficients. In most cases, the hazard ratio is easily interpreted as the relative shift in the hazard rate that is associated with a one-unit change in the variable (Cleves, Gould, Gutierrez, & Marchenko, 2008, p. 131). In Model 1, we see that women are significantly more likely to leave private practice ( = .518, hazard ratio = 1.678, p < .001). In this case, women face a 68% greater

hazard of leaving private practice than men (recall that women are coded as 1 and men are coded as 0 in the multivariate analysis). In general, a hazard ratio greater than 1 implies an increased risk (probability and timing combined) of attrition, while a ratio of less than 1 implies a decreased risk (Imazeki, 2005, p. 438). Having children does not appear to be central to job moves, though something interesting happens when lawyers have three children. There is a significant effect at three children ( = .393,

hazard ratio = 1.481, p < .01) (providing support for Hypothesis 2). Lawyers with three children move out of private practice 48% more quickly than those with no children. This is perhaps a breaking point for firms. As one lawyer in our study commented, ―Bay Street has a tolerance for up to two kids. After two kids, women are shown the door.‖

21

Model 2 adds human capital effects. Those lawyers working in the area of people law (e.g., social welfare, administrative, wills and estate, family, labor, and real estate) are less likely to make an exit from private practice ( = −.483, hazard ratio = .617,

p < .05) than those in other areas of law. Not surprisingly, lawyers who are successful early in their career at recruiting clients ( = −1.364, hazard ratio = .256, p < .001) and

who represent corporate clients ( = −1.400, hazard ratio = .247, p < .001) are also

less at risk of leaving private practice. It is important here to note that women are less likely to have primary responsibility for bringing in new clients to the firm and that women also spend less time, on average, representing corporate clients than their male colleagues (see Table 1). As a result, the gender difference in leaving private practice is reduced with the inclusion of these variables, though the difference remains sizeable and statistically significant ( = .339, hazard ratio = 1.40, p < .001).

Inclusion of characteristics of the organizational setting in which lawyers launched their careers does little to reduce the gender gap in leaving private practice. In Model 3, firm size and solo practice settings do not significantly affect the risk of exiting private practice. However, lawyers who successfully landed the job they ideally wanted after law school are less likely to leave private practice at a later date ( = −.227, hazard

ratio = .797, p < .001). Starting off in a much desired job reduces the risk of leaving private practice by 21%. The matching of aspired position with eventual job offer is a powerful retainer of legal talent. However, for those who entered private practice during periods of economic hardship—many in our sample were among the graduates entering law during the recession of the late 1980s—poor economic climate was a significant force, over and above human capital and organizational context, that pushed lawyers out of private practice ( = .064, hazard ratio = 1.066, p < .05) (consistent with

Hypothesis 5). In Model 4, we introduce job satisfaction and experience measures. Satisfaction with power track is an important factor in reducing lawyers‘ risk of leaving private practice ( = −.324, hazard ratio = .724, p < .001). Consistent with Hypothesis 1b,

individuals starting out in settings rich with promotional and financial opportunities move 28% more slowly out of private practice. In contrast, satisfaction with content of legal work does not have the same ―holding power.‖ Counter to Hypothesis 1a, satisfaction with content of legal work actually increases the risk of leaving private practice ( = .197, hazard ratio = 1.218, p < .001). Lawyers more satisfied with the

content of their legal work move out of private practice 22% more quickly than those less satisfied. This may seem counterintuitive, but perhaps satisfaction with legal work is highly portable to other sectors of law. Therefore, lawyers satisfied with the substance of legal work, but frustrated by other conditions of their employment, may continue their legal career while making the move out of private practice in search of an improved work environment. It is noteworthy that satisfaction with collegiality in the workplace also fails to ensure that lawyers will remain in private practice (counter to Hypothesis 1c). Satisfaction with collegiality increases the risk of leaving private practice ( = .142,

hazard ratio = 1.153, p < .05). Lawyers experiencing more collegial workplaces move out of private practice 15% more quickly than those less satisfied with their coworkers. It seems that enjoying the substance of law practice and having good colleagues may not

22

be sufficient to keep lawyers in private practice when other factors fall short of expectations. In sharp contrast, workplaces that offer flexible schedules (on a full-time basis) significantly decrease the risk of lawyers leaving private practice ( = −.218, hazard

ratio = .804, p < .05). Consistent with Hypothesis 3, lawyers working in offices that offer flexible full-time schedules move out of private practice 20% more slowly than those working in offices without such scheduling options. Such flexibility, while still maintaining full-time hours, might be a much valued benefit for lawyers with family responsibilities or those lawyers seeking to attain an improved quality of life. In Model 4, we also introduce a measure of sexual discrimination experiences in the practice of law. Lawyers who experienced discrimination are significantly more likely to exit ( = .257, hazard ratio = 1.293, p < .05), leaving private practice 29% more quickly

than those who were not targeted by sexual discrimination. This experience is highly gendered: 74% of women in our sample reported having experienced sexual discrimination in the practice of law, while only 11% of men stated that they had experienced sexual discrimination. With the introduction of sexual discrimination to our equation, gender is no longer a significant predictor of the risk of leaving private practice. In our final model, Model 5, we introduce the effects of interruptions on careers. Parental leave has the largest effect ( = .337, hazard ratio = 1.401, p < .01). Taking

a parental leave moves individuals out of private practice 40% more quickly. Almost 40% of women in private practice reported taking a parental leave compared with just 4% of men (t-test = 15.997, p < .001). Leaves for other reasons (e.g., education, travel, illness) propel lawyers out of private practice 30% more quickly than those who have not taken such leaves ( = .263, hazard ratio = 1.300, p < .05). Again, these leaves

were more often taken by women (25%) compared to men (16%) (t-test = 4.035, p < .001). In addition, consistent with Hypothesis 4a, longer interruptions between professional positions also move lawyers out of private practice more quickly ( = .014,

hazard ratio = 1.014, p < .001). Recall that these interruptions were for a range of reasons, including unemployment spells, return to education, travel, illness or injury, and looking after children. That said, women were more likely to experience these interruptions (45% compared to 26% of men) and when gaps occurred between jobs, they were typically longer for women (mean = 6.14 months) than for men (mean = 2.89 months) (t-test = 5.470, p < .001).

23

TABLE 2 Cox proportional hazard estimates of leaving private practice (N = 1,134)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Demographics & Family Gender .518*** .339* .385*** .173 .066 Racial minority .172 .178 .131 .102 .062 Married −.056 .029 .084 .120 .084 Children

a

1 child .181 .259 .263 .207 .111 2 children .101 .234 .256 .178 .038 3 children .393** .378* .457** .339* .238 4+ children −.013 .048 .046 −.052 −.187 Human Capital Elite law school −.076 −.010 −.072 −.090 Areas of law: Business law −.211 −.102 −.078 −.079 Litigation −.304 −.263 −.224 −.226 People law −.483* −.506** −.442* −.405* Criminal law −.098 −.043 .102 .127 Hours per week .004 .005 .004 .005 Client recruitment −1.364*** −1.349*** −1.362*** −1.286*** Corporate clients −1.400*** −1.347*** −1.277*** −1.240*** Organizational Setting

b

Solo practice .354 .350 .339 Small firm .302 .294 .280 Large midsized firm .303 .301 .306 Large firm .080 .147 .181 Landed first job desired −.227*** −.204*** −.194*** Greater Toronto area .139 .138 .120 Unemployment rate at call

.064* .053 .053

Satisfaction & Experiences Satisfaction: Content of work .197*** .196*** Power track −.324*** −.343*** Collegiality .142** .152** Flexible hours −.218* −.182 Discrimination .257* .134 Career Breaks Duration of interruptions .014*** Parental leave .337** Other leaves .263* aNo children is the comparison category.

bSmall midsized firm is the comparison category.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests).

24

In Table 3, we examine these models separately for men and women. Some interesting gender differences emerge. First, the effects of having children on legal careers vary dramatically between men and women. When we explore the reduced model (Model 1) separately for men and women, we discover men‘s hazard of leaving private practice falls by 42% with two children ( = −.546, hazard ratio = .579, p < .01)

and by 53% with four or more children ( = −.764, hazard ratio = .466, p < .05).6 In

contrast, women‘s hazard rate for leaving private practice increases by 53% with one child ( = .422, hazard ratio = 1.526, p < .05), 69% with two children ( = .525, hazard

ratio = 1.69, p < .01), and 106% with three children ( = .724, hazard ratio = 2.063,

p < .001). These effects of family size on the risk of leaving private practice fell from statistical significance with the introduction of the parental leave variable, suggesting that parental leave mediates the relationship between children and leaving private practice. Working long hours increases women‘s hazard of leaving private practice but does not have a similar effect for their male counterparts. Recruiting clients to the firm and serving corporate clients reduce the risk of leaving private practice for both men and women, though the effects are stronger for men. Women appear to move out of small firms of less than 10 lawyers more quickly (p < .05) while, for men, retention appears more secure in the very large law firms (borderline significance of p < .10). Counter to Hypothesis 1d, we find no statistically significant differences between men‘s and women‘s average levels of satisfaction across content of work, power track, and collegiality (see Table 1). Although men and women do not differ dramatically in their reported levels of job satisfaction, satisfaction with power track (e.g., earnings, prestige, and promotions) offers a powerful inducement to stay in private practice. Satisfaction with power track was particularly effective in stemming the flow from private practice, and this effect was significantly stronger for men. And interestingly, although the effect of flexible (full-time) hours is negative on the movement of men and women out of private practice, this effect is statistically significant for men only. The provision of flexible full-time work appears to be of considerable value to male lawyers. This is intriguing, as much of the literature speaks about flexible schedules as a ―woman‘s issue.‖ Perhaps most impressive are the effects of leaves. Women pay a heavy price for both parental leaves and any other forms of leave taken during their positions in private practice. Taking a parental leave increases women‘s hazard of leaving private practice by 37% ( = .315, hazard ratio = 1.370, p < .05) and taking a leave for other purposes

augments the hazard of leaving by 48% ( = .396, hazard ratio = 1.486, p < .01)

6 Not only might men with children be more likely to continue their law career, but some research

suggests men may also be more lucratively rewarded as their family size grows. In an article titled, ―The Masculine Mystique,‖ Hagan and Kay (2010) found that the legal practices of men are radically altered by experiences in the formation of families. Their study of Toronto urban lawyers tracked over 20 years of professional lives among male and female lawyers from law school to late middle life. The authors found that spending large amounts of time with corporate clients is a very specialized investment that is rewarded with partnership and earnings and that, among men, bears an unexpectedly unique relationship to having children. Men with larger families are uniquely rewarded with higher earnings and promotions.

25

(supporting Hypothesis 4b). In sharp contrast, for men, taking a leave—parental or otherwise—has no significant impact on their risk of leaving private practice. TABLE 3 Cox proportional hazard estimates of leaving private practice, men and women separately

Men (N = 558) Women (N = 576)

Baseline Model Full Model Baseline Model Full Model

Demographics & Family Racial minority .022 .069 .228 .081 Married .255 .130 −.254 .075 Children:

a

1 child −.238 .054 .422* .085 2 children −.546* .073 .525* .126 3 children −.126 .335 .724*** .307 4+ children −.764* −.299 .432 −.023 Human Capital Elite law school .099 −.238 Areas of law: Business law −.553 .157 Litigation −.308 −.211 People law −.547† −.384 Criminal law .148 −.076 Hours per week .002 .009† Client recruitment −1.710*** −.974*** Corporate clients −1.378*** −1.119*** Organizational Setting

b

Solo practice .164 .495† Small firm −.076 .474* Large mid−sized firm .441 .243 Large firm .478† −.066 Landed first job desired −.173** −.202*** Greater Toronto Area .114 .156 Unemployment rate at call

.074 .019

Satisfaction & Experiences Satisfaction: Content of work .306*** .124* Power−track −.420*** −.346*** Collegiality .168* .149* Flexible hours −.418* −.056 Discrimination −.054 .129 Career Breaks Duration of interruptions

.035*** .008†

Parental leave .340 .315* Other leaves −.038 .396** aNo children is the comparison category.

bSmall mid-sized firm is the comparison category.

†p<0.10;*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001 (two-tailed tests).

26

These statistical analyses tell part of the story. Our data enable us to see the significant impact of organizational attributes, including flexibility of schedules and workplace accommodations, among other factors, on career pathways into (and away from) private practice. But how do lawyers themselves understand the job changes, career transitions, and investments they have made during their careers? We turn next to explore the comments and explanations written by participants in our study. The survey design afforded several spaces throughout the questionnaire and full pages where participants were invited to expand on their work and life experiences, particularly regarding transitions out of and returns to private practice.

Qualitative Results

As noted, a striking result of the survey data is the degree of mobility within legal careers. Through our statistical analysis of career pathways, it is apparent that the paths taken by law graduates are tremendously diverse. Some participants have moved from private practice to government service or in-house counsel during their career, while others have accepted political or judicial appointments. Some participants have pursued a vast array of job opportunities outside private practice. Further, some have fallen ill and left law practice for a number of years. Some have been the casualties of economic forces, such as firm dissolution, and have made moves between firms, sometimes changing their main areas of practice. For some lawyers, these changes redirected careers over the long term, while for others, the changes represented temporary stopovers on a longer career pathway in private practice. Nonetheless, change rather than continuity characterizes the careers of law graduates in our study. In this next section, we will outline explanations provided by participants in our study, explanations that describe their departures from private practice. Some of these individuals have returned to private practice, while others have not. In both cases, participants in the study generously wrote about the factors that facilitated their reentry to private practice and those that hindered, even prevented, their return. Reasons for Leaving In the survey, lawyers took the opportunity to explain their reasons for leaving private practice. We highlight four main explanations that surfaced in the surveys. The themes addressed in this section include (a) family responsibilities and establishing/maintaining a work/life balance, (b) organizational structure, (c) pursuit of other interests, and (d) burnout. These themes often overlapped to shape the eventual decision to pursue options outside private practice. For example, numerous participants indicated an incompatibility between the law firm environment and family obligations. We begin with the first theme, the issue of family responsibilities and organizational context.

27

Family Responsibilities Family pressures exert a significant influence on the decision of both male and female lawyers to leave private practice. The survey indicated that the competing demands of raising a young family and juggling dual careers drove some lawyers out of private practice. Several participants stated directly that they decided to leave practice to care for young children. For example, participants stated: ―stayed home to raise kids‖; ―original decision—to raise children‖; and ―I had young children so I left and worked 2 part-time appointments while my children were young.‖ Many lawyers went further to describe their specific trajectory, following the arrival of children, including attempts to continue full-time work, as well as engagement with part-time and contract work. The following two participants wrote:

I stayed home—did freelance legal editorial work during naps and at night. I volunteered once they were in school. Tried to return to full-time work while they were at summer camp but left job when they returned…I hadn‘t ―wasted‖ my education staying home to care for my children. It was a choice my spouse and I made for reasons that were valid and when it didn‘t work out, I was content to go back to volunteer work and stopped feeling guilty about not working in the legal field. I left to raise my children…after birth of first child, I took about 2 months off before resuming part-time employment. My husband worked shifts and covered child care. After our second child was born, I stopped regular employment and only worked occasional contracts until our youngest child was in school full-time.

Some participants kept their remarks brief, with no discussion of ―push/pull‖ factors, and simply indicated that their decision to leave private practice was motivated by a desire to participate fully in raising young children. However, other participants elaborated on their reasons for choosing to exit private practice for family reasons. It is to these explanations that we now turn. When family life was discussed in the surveys, it was often in the context of work/life balance. Participants discussed how family responsibilities impacted the decision to exit private practice, and this was mostly in terms of a constant struggle to manage both career and family life. The conflicting demands from professional and family lives proved incompatible for some, forcing lawyers to choose one or the other. It does not appear that family was all-consuming in terms of workplace interruptions, medical appointments, sick days, or unstable child care arrangements. Rather, the workplace appeared to be the more ―greedy‖ realm, often requiring evening hours at the office, high billable hours, ―on call‖ availability via smartphones and tablets to colleagues and clients, weekend time commitments, travel, and short or little notice in changing schedules. In the face of competing demands, participants indicated family as the top priority:

28

The most important turning point in my life was having my first child. It was shortly after that when I decided to leave private practice and work as a government lawyer. The work has been more varied and interesting and I found a better balance between work and my personal life. Once my children were born, I decided not to drive myself mad trying to balance law and family, as I had seen others do. I‘ve taken contract jobs here and there, nothing full-time ‗til they‘re gone off to university (soon!) I left the practice of law to stay at home full-time with my children which I intend to do for at least 2 more years…I have lived my life in chapters—the chapters being the focus devoted to my education, followed by my career (20 years) followed by years devoted to my family—with only some overlap. I found I could have it all but not all at the same time. It was easier to devote myself to my family because I had my career—and a very enjoyable career in law—first. These remain important years to me.

When lawyers exited private practice to focus on raising a family, it was not always the case that they stayed home to devote their full attention to raising a family. Rather, most, regardless of gender, changed jobs or occupations in order to achieve a greater degree of work/life balance. The first in the series of three quotes above is illustrative of this transition with a move to government employment. Although the specific pathways out of private practice differ across participants, a common theme was a preference for family responsibilities and balance. In addition, participants often acknowledged a timeline with respect to exiting and returning to private practice. It appears as though a change is made in order to allow greater attention to the needs of children and family in the developmental years and then, for many participants, the intention is to return to private law practice once familial obligations are less burdensome. An additional point of interest in the discussion of work/life balance is the role of one‘s life partner (or spouse) in the decision to leave private practice. Contemporary research has only begun to explore the lives of dual-career couples (Abele & Spurk, 2011; Abraham, Ausberg, & Hinz, 2010; Chaa, 2010; Sweet & Moen, 2012), and there is little research on the influence of spouses on lawyers‘ career pathways. However, career decisions are not made in a vacuum, and it is likely that spouses play an important role. One participant outlined the presence of an ultimatum that impacted on his decision to exit private practice:

I was working at a large Bay Street firm in corporate law. My partner said she would not have children with me if I continued to work long hours at the firm. I decided to go to graduate school and became a legal academic. Neither my partner nor I have regretted that decision despite the financial sacrifice and I have 2 lovely children.

29

This case may not be so exceptional. The pull from one‘s spouse toward the family may explain the decision to exit private practice in other cases as well. The inability to balance both work and family life, in combination with spousal encouragement that favors family life, may prompt an exit from private practice. To add to this, perhaps the combination of a push toward family and the absence of strong enticements pulling one back to private practice (for example, accommodations to enable lawyers to effectively manage both busy careers and family lives) may drive lawyers out of private practice. Speaking to the issue of stressful work combined with a spouse‘s view, one participant remarked:

I left to look after my four children, I had little support for working from my spouse and practice of law involves its own stress. I have been a volunteer mediator at a community mediation service. I use my law background to assist my family.

In this case, a lack of personal support combined with the stresses from private practice environment led to a departure from private practice. The above comment with regard to using one‘s legal background in other capacities was a recurring theme among study participants. Few expressed regret over their legal education, and most identified value in their training, whether they had chosen to transition to a new career or raise a family. A recurring theme in discussions of work/life balance was the ―double shift‖ that many female lawyers face after a full day‘s work at the office. The following quote illustrates the difficulties of two professional careers, young children, elder care, and commuting combined.

I left law originally because my husband and I moved from [city name] to the country. We had two children (three years and two years of age). I was pregnant with our third child (this was in 1988). We continued to live there till 2002, when we moved into town (but still outside [city name], where my husband worked—gone 6 am to 7–7:30 pm most weeknights). I had two–three different jobs between 1988 and 2000. I left due to the strain of having basically two full-time jobs (one inside the home, one outside, without assistance—for the most part—by my husband on the home front (child care, home maintenance, cooking, cleaning, etc.)…. My husband took on more and more legal responsibilities. Tensions grew in our marriage. I also had eldercare responsibilities for my parents who lived 40 km away. I decided I wouldn‘t go back to work till our three kids were in university.

While some participants indicated leaving for family responsibilities as a personal choice (e.g., ―It was my choice to quit my partnership and work for modest part-time income in order to meet my family responsibilities‖), the reasons provided in the quotes presented thus far do not explore pressures resulting from the organizational structure. In other words, while it is clear that family responsibilities influenced these lawyers‘ exits from private practice, the types and roles played by ―push‖ and ―pull‖ factors remain elusive. We turn our attention next to explanations that specifically addressed the incompatibility of familial obligations and the organizational structure of private firms.

30

It was a common theme among participants in the survey to acknowledge family responsibilities as incompatible with the firm environment—even among those who remained in private practice. For some, it is clear that the two environments conflicted to such a degree as to undermine any semblance of a balanced lifestyle:

I left law practice when my children were still quite young. I simply found that it was not compatible (even on a part-time basis) with raising children. Had four children in five years—not conducive to practicing. …Stayed home. Also had live-in help. Gave up career to raise kids and take them to activities—be there to carpool and when they got home…went back to workforce after many years of raising kids. Obviously having children changed my life and changed my work/life priorities. Still I worked hard, believing that when I made partnership I would have greater control. This was not true so I left the firm 3 years after I was made partner.

These three quotes describe the strains associated with demanding careers in private practice and the responsibilities of raising young children. The first quote reveals that the early years of parenting young children are especially demanding, and that even changing from full-time to part-time work may not be sufficient to accommodate family commitments. A few lawyers also remarked that part-time work resembled full-time work in other occupations (40 hours/week) or that the hours associated with part-time work had a way of creeping up, though the salaries remained reduced. The second quote hints at the difficulties incurred with larger family size, though our statistical data suggest this remains problematic only for women—not men. Numerous participants in the study who had left private practice stated that they either returned after a few years or at least had intended to make a return (often their return was to full-time work, though not always back in private practice). The third quote is revealing in that even promotion and a degree of job security do not ensure a greater sense of control over work/life balance, including access to adequate parental leave, control over hours, and flexibility to leave work for the needs of children. Even among the upper echelons of private practice, lawyers may struggle to achieve a harmonious balance between professional and family domains. The specific nature of these struggles was outlined by participants in the study. For some, the issue was financial—―…it was hard to make a living as a sole practitioner with young children.‖ For others, opportunities external to private practice offered superior work/life balance:

After my first child was born I left full-time practice and began teaching part-time at a University. I had a babysitter in the neighborhood…When I married in 1990 I left the [region]. I commuted for a year until our first child was born. Then I left the firm I was with—downtown Bay Street type and never returned. I had no real contacts in the city I moved to. At the same time the opportunity arose to teach part-time and this flexibility worked well with family life.

31

In our study, numerous female lawyers, across all waves of the survey (1990–2009) commented on the impact of children on their careers. Particularly concerning is the questioning of career commitment female lawyers experienced by their colleagues and law firm management. As noted in the statistical analysis earlier in this report, for female lawyers (but not typically for male lawyers), having children—especially more than two children—is often perceived poorly by employers. The following quote reveals the difficult circumstances that confronted two lawyers (married to each other and raising a growing family) at a small firm:

In 1996, I had my third child. This was my first biological child. My first two children were adopted. I was a partner in a small firm. My husband was an associate. We were both fired when our child was 2 months old, as the other partners felt we were not committed to the firm. We opened our own firm. After 7 years, I was offered the position as senior counsel at [a large organization], my main client. My husband joined another, very successful partnership. My husband and I are still together after 20 years of marriage and 4 children—our former partners‘ new partnership with our ―replacements‖ lasted one year. Being lawyers gave us incredible freedom to be self-employed when we needed to be, however with 4 children I need and appreciate the benefits I have (medical, dental, etc.) as an employee of a quasi-governmental organization!

Numerous lawyers commented frequently on how transitions to positions outside private practice had allowed them greater flexibility in their schedules and enhanced work/life balance. The following two excerpts are illustrations of several different pathways taken in an attempt to achieve compatibility between career and family life:

Having children and practicing law is really difficult. It has gotten so much harder today. Working in-house (1990–1999) was almost essential to balancing my life/our household. Some firms are far more ―parent-friendly‖ than mine was back then (1980s). In 1999, I accepted a much more challenging position—it was very important to get that recognition—but I later realized it was ‗too much‘ for me to handle with the responsibilities I had to my family, so I quit my job instead of having someone else perform that job above me. I‘ve struggled to balance work with family obligations, including primary care of two special needs children. So I‘ve gone from [position to position], trying to remain working part-time, some in law and others in policy or mediation. I‘ve been forced to take two years off when my employer refused to agree to part-time. I‘m full-time against my wishes.

In this last example, it is apparent that accommodations are sometimes not afforded by organizations, and in many cases alternate arrangements appear to be a matter of personal negotiation rather than stated law firm policies. In the next section we examine further how the organizational structures, particularly within law firms, influence decisions to exit private practice.

32

Organizational Structure From what our surveys show, the law firm environment appears to have a direct impact on lawyers‘ decisions to leave private practice. The qualitative data echo the statistical analysis, demonstrating a quest for better work/life balance as motivating many exits. Numerous participants expressed that their decision to leave private practice was bound to traits of the law firm environment. The reasons provided include financial pressures, high billable-hour quotas, expectations of additional involvement after hours (e.g., working in the office late into the evening or socializing with clients), and discrimination that often surfaced through ―old boys‘ networks,‖ such as exclusion from access to challenging cases, clients, or other developmental opportunities. Practices in the firm, such as emphasis on revenues and billable hours, influenced the exit decision of several participants. One participant decided to leave because ―big firms downtown required $1 million gross in billing per year…impossible to achieve so I work from home.‖ The bottom line emphasis on profit in the large urban law firms was mentioned by several lawyers as a reason for their exodus from private practice. As two other lawyers noted:

I am leaving private practice at end of [this year], so I will answer this. Law firm management asked for capital contribution without any equity interest. Consequence of not providing this ―interest-free loan‖ was the firm‘s exercise of its option to terminate my contract. I took the view that this was extortion and declined to provide the capital requested.

Being thrown out of one of Canada‘s so-called leading law firms in the interests of increased profitability for the remaining partners.

An emphasis on firm profits over quality of legal work, integrity, and harnessing of legal skills appeared to drive some law firm associates out of private practice (not simply to other firms). In addition to the focus on firm profits, the emphasis on billable hours resulted in some lawyers ―looking for the door.‖ For example, one participant, who claimed the profession had ―worn them out,‖ stated that they ―needed to get away from the treadmill of billings/collections/overhead of being a partner in a firm.‖ Clearly, financial pressures and expectations regarding billable hours impact partners as well as associates in law firms. These pressures appear to characterize the culture of many law firms (Ashley, 2010; Campbell, Charlesworth, & Malone, 2012). One participant, unhappy with the profession, expressed a concern with the growing emphasis on the business of law over the profession of law:

It is an occupation without soul—purely profit motivated….I left the practice of law because it was a ghastly way to make a living, full of greedy, unhappy, combative people focused solely on money. There were and are exceptions, but they are most definitely exceptions.

33

The tremendous emphasis on profit and billable hours appears to have some very negative consequences for the environment and experiences of junior lawyers within law firms. For some lawyers, their experience was that of leaving a ―greedy‖ and uncooperative workplace. Particularly troubling was how overwhelmingly time-consuming this culture had become:

While in private practice, working full-time and meeting my billable target goals, I was still expected to ―do something more‖ for the firm. This was the time I decided I would prefer an in-house corporate counsel position. Balancing a family and a full-time job in private practice left little room for me to devote numerous extra hours on committees—not that I don‘t recognize the importance of this work—it‘s just that I did not feel I had the extra time to devote to these initiatives.

The quote above highlights the demanding culture of firms that may expect more than dedicated effort, long hours, and excellent quality of legal skills—there may be expectations of ―something more,‖ in this case committee work, which fostered an exit from private practice. Organizational constraints mentioned by lawyers were not always specific to law firms. A few lawyers noted that the LSUC‘s rules for membership and insurance made staying active for lawyers in ―non-traditional‖ settings problematic. As one lawyer wrote:

I am proud of my transition from practicing lawyer to academic. However, I feel the Law Society/legal regulation was not helpful in this transition because rigid rules about categories of practice and insurance coverage force the non-traditional lawyer out of the mainstream and prevent them from staying active. I appreciate that this is a quality control approach but it forces the non-traditional lawyer out.

Complaints about the climate of law firms not only addressed pressures of billable hours and bottom line financial imperatives. There was also discussion among female lawyers of an ―old boys‘ network‖ that persists in the profession to the exclusion of women:

In a small town, lack of professionalism. Old boys‘ network particularly tough for visible minority from [city name]. Law practice is extremely ―old‖ and patriarchal in its thinking and I am not happy within the profession.

In addition, other lawyers remarked on a lack of respect and collegiality in the legal profession. As one lawyer commented, ―I had been in practice for a long time and had become discouraged by a lack of courtesy in my practice area from colleagues.‖ However, as discussed in the statistical analysis, collegiality in the workplace may not be sufficient to retain lawyers in private practice when other expectations fall short of the mark. That being said, collegiality, professionalism, and recognition by seniors were mentioned by several lawyers, particularly as they experienced contrasting (and more

34

enjoyable) work environments outside private practice. As the following lawyer observed:

In 1990 I moved from private practice to in-house counsel at a [industry] company. I much preferred being part of a company with the accompanying status and respect from seniors, to the life of a docketing associate at a firm.

Pursuit of Other Interests Another theme that arose in the comments offered by study participants was that they experienced a pressing need to take a break from the practice of law. Several lawyers described their transition out of private practice as stimulated by a desire for a lifestyle change or a career change. The following lawyers commented:

I left a part-time practice at a small firm. No complaints at all with the firm or their flexibility. I started there when my kids were very young. Eventually I just wanted a break from Family Law and more time at home. Since I left (3 years+), no regrets. Do volunteer work. I left Bay Street because I found my life was completely consumed by the practice of law. Though my firm was excellent and the work was professionally and financially rewarding, I have never regretted that choice. My life is much more full and I would even say rich in the things that matter most to me—family, friends, and community. I moved to a modest home overlooking [location] in [city name] with my husband. I am dabbling in local politics, learning to paint, volunteering for the library, playing scrabble and bridge, working for a couple of charities and trying to learn to relax after many, many years of stress. Not there yet!

This last quote suggests the high level of stress borne by lawyers in private practice. Another lawyer‘s decision to leave private practice was prompted, in part, by a traumatic personal event:

My mother‘s death and 21 years in practice in a law firm setting. I realized that life is not about years of thankless toil. I didn‘t want to retire as a lawyer. I needed to find my vocation, something that gives me meaning and fulfillment. It was time to leave law.

Another significant factor in the decision to exit private practice was the desire for a new challenge through a career change. Several lawyers detailed new opportunities that emerged, removing them from private practice, or an interest in pursuing new business ventures that built on their education and experience in law:

Left to pursue career developing public policy.

35

I left the practice of law to pursue various business development positions with leasing or financial companies. I felt that acquiring sales, credit and finance skills I would be better equipped to start or run a company. Pursue different career opportunities…I was offered a position on a federal cabinet minister‘s staff. I became interested in public service and stayed. I have worked in a number of senior government positions…. I had the opportunity to work for a cabinet minister. This introduced me to public service. I saw that there was a wealth of opportunity to be involved in important and interesting work that used my legal training and skills in non-traditional ways. I have not regretted this career choice. I was offered the position of [position name]. This position removed me from the practice of law.

These three lawyers left private practice to pursue public policy, business development, and administrative appointments. Other lawyers wrote of their enthusiasm to combine skill sets, such as ―flying skills with legal skills‖ or the ―pleasurable part of practice with the fun of teaching.‖ For these lawyers, their decision to leave private practice was one that did not mean leaving law behind, but rather blending their legal talents and experiences in law with other interests. While some lawyers ventured into new lines of work, several returned to school. Returning to school enabled new career options. For example, one lawyer noted, ―to make a career change—went back to school.‖ Some lawyers returned to university to complete a master‘s degree in law (LLM), while others pursued business (MBA), both programs building on legal backgrounds. Others returned to school for quite different programs, including teaching, engineering, and trades, to name a few. The following participant details her transition from a law firm to graduate studies and a new career in academia:

Left position to raise children (tried for partnership and didn‘t make it)—The most important milestone or turning point that allowed me to re-enter the full-time world was obtaining my LLM. This opened the doors of academia to me. It took considerable time to obtain a tenure track position (working four years of limited term positions first) but now I am in the eve of tenure [having successfully published]….

A return to education did not necessarily signal a long-term exit from private practice. Some lawyers reported temporary breaks from private practice to pursue continuing education. For example, one participant ―Took 2 years off—2000–2002, to attend cooking school at [college name]. Returned to work refreshed, happier, and with a broader perspective.‖ Also leaving private practice temporarily to ―retool,‖ another participant indicated a return to university studies ―to do master‘s degree in law at [university name] law school specializing in health law. I was very unhappy in private practice (banking law) and wanted to change area of practice.‖ The eventual return to

36

private practice in both of these cases illustrates how some temporary exits take place. These lawyers returned to private practice rejuvenated by their new educational experiences. However, many lawyers who leave private practice do not return. In some cases, extreme stress, health issues, and burnout were to blame. We explore these issues in the next section. Burnout A final recurring theme in our study as to why lawyers exit private practice is burnout. Lawyers reported exiting private practice due to intense levels of stress:

Left because of stress. …it had worn me out. Leaving private practice—1999—I had burned out in private practice and was seriously considering leaving the legal profession entirely.

These examples address a stressful work environment that leads lawyers to feel frustrated, run down, lacking motivation, depressed, physically exhausted, and needing to change their lives in significant ways. Burnout was cited by several participants in the study as providing the personal push to leave private practice. These lawyers sometimes wrote of the hectic pace and demanding hours of practice and the need for better work/life balance. One participant wrote: ―…running out of energy to market and work long hours, opportunity to take pension, husband retired 2 years previously.‖ Some study participants reported that medical issues influenced their decision to leave private practice. In these cases, lawyers indicated that they had little choice in the decision to leave private practice. Often health problems were related to the work environment. For instance, the following participant described the role of a stressful work context, burnout, and depression.

Good old ‗nervous breakdown‘. Burnout… During which I was on disability insurance. Unemployed by choice but my job and partner in firm awaiting my return… Clinical Depression. Burnout. I did family law exclusively and as specialist (certified) got the most nasty cases and dysfunctional clients as well as nice normal unhappy folk.)… I was under intensive drug and talking therapy for about a year. Therapy for 5 years was paid for entirely by my Canadian Bar Association Disability Insurance, as was my income at insured level. I still receive some as income low. Spent 3 months feeling sorry for myself, examined my life priorities and decided after 6 months not to return to practice. I am still disabled—reduced powers of concentration. Got a dog and a life. Went back to gardening, reading, writing and photography…Would not return to practice ever. I‘ve begun to be happy instead of being a successful lawyer.

37

Many lawyers wrote about the negative impact that stress and working long hours had on their health. The following two lawyers discuss this issue:

Due to the enormous stresses of a 99% legal aid practice and the collapse of the legal aid plan plus a genetic predisposition, I developed an incurable stress-induced disability… My extremely negative perspective on the experience of being a lawyer is shared by all older lawyers who have a large percentage of legal aid cases.…Unfortunately for me, I did not try to get out before my health was destroyed and this is because I believed in what I was doing and I was suited to being a litigation lawyer. In criminal law, I think, either for the Crown or the defense, the stress level is very high, and many people end up getting sick. Not just with the flu but seriously ill—heart disease and cancer are common.

Several lawyers in the study reported leaving private practice on long-term disability, the result of chronic health conditions. A few described their disabilities as worsening, resulting in ―medical retirement.‖ However, some lawyers who fell ill and took medical leave were able to return to a productive private practice:

Following a severe medical situation in which I was in a coma for some time. Recovered, but took an extended leave from work. I returned to work and have enjoyed the practice of law since that date (2001).

Other lawyers suffering from chronic illness made a move from private practice to government or other settings with more predictable or reduced hours. As one lawyer remarked:

Have a chronic illness… left private practice to work for government. I enjoy it more, feel more satisfied, avoid law firm/partnership dynamics BUT less income. Tough trade off.

For other lawyers, health crises, including surgeries and other treatments, represented a turning point in their lives. The following two participants comment on the significance of these health crises for their lives more broadly:

Getting breast cancer—‗94 gives one a whole new perspective. I really needed to live to figure out how this all turns out, see my kids grow up, and appreciate the incredible support I have in the community. Getting sick while working for a large downtown law firm in 1989/90 changed my life completely. I gave up drinking, decided to head for a more balanced career and took up ballroom dancing—how I met my husband.

38

The stressful and demanding nature of work in private practice is worthy of study, with close attention to issues of lawyers‘ well-being (both emotional and physical), substance abuse problems, and available support systems (e.g., workplace benefit plans, counseling, treatment programs). Reentry to Private Practice Obstacles to Reentry In this section, we explore barriers to reentry and then move to examine how to assist those returning to private practice. Once a lawyer leaves private practice, how easy is it to return? Some participants described their attempts to return to private practice as blocked by a lack of jobs or a resistance by firms to hire lawyers who had been out of private practice for a period of time. So while some simply stated, ―unable to find employment in law practice,‖ others went on to describe specific obstacles in their job search. The two most common obstacles listed included: (a) the length of time away from private practice; and (b) institutional barriers that block reentry. With respect to the timing issue, the reasons provided emphasize the negative impact of having ―been out of private practice for too long‖ and ―being deemed too old.‖ These themes surface in the following responses:

I waited too long to return to practicing law after staying home with children. I think you cannot leave for more than 2 or 3 years and hope to return to the same level you were at. Nobody wants older ―juniors‖ when they can have fresh young lawyers. At my age, law firms expect me to bring business with me—they think I am too expensive compared to an associate right out of law school.

A second main barrier for those seeking to return to private practice is a range of institutional barriers. One lawyer encountered the challenges of starting up practice in another province:

I have confirmed with Law Society of [province] that I am not eligible for transfer of membership (since I was not practicing for last 3 years in [province]) and would have to do Bar Admission Course if I wished to practice law in [province]. (Guess I should have been a plumber, then no problem transferring license!)

Another expressed frustration at the restrictions on the availability of part-time work for lawyers. The profession itself, and law firms more specifically, are considered to discourage part-time hours:

39

Law Society and the way private practice discourages part-time work is still gender-biased and work centric. Locums and parental leave are good policies but part-time policies and fees must be reviewed and part-time practice for whatever reason encouraged as opposed to forcing people to leave the profession to deal with other issues, family responsibilities, continuing education, medical treatment, etc. …not being hired back after articling7 position really shocked my confidence—after moving to small town out of [city name] never practiced law and instead decided to care for our children myself. Found no options in law 30 years ago for part-time law work and did not want to set up practice alone.

These comments draw attention to matters of flexibility in scheduling. All lawyers seeking to return to private practice may not desire a full-time work schedule, but nonetheless have expertise and skills to contribute to law practice. A significant problem for lawyers seeking to return to private practice is adequate support for their return. One lawyer described negotiating the terms for their reentry prior to leaving private practice:

I previously left law practice in 1983 (previous survey) and came back in 1993 with no concept of there being any support. I left practice again in 2004 partially and negotiated a guaranteed right to go back to practice full-time if being [position title] part-time didn‘t work for me. It did. I think people need some ability to leave with ―strings‖ and some part-time maybe.

Several lawyers commented on the desire to return to law practice and to positions that might allow a greater degree of control over their work arrangements—be that part-time hours, flexibility in scheduling, less around-the-clock availability, or just predictability of a regular schedule. One lawyer contemplating a return to the practice of law wrote:

…If I go back—it would be to a law-related job—but not private practice (i.e., it would be in-house) because easier to control job (at least philosophically). But all law-related jobs are harder, more competitive, more instantaneous (because of e-mail, etc.) now than 10 years ago. You have to commit 150% of yourself—so to assist?—create less stressful jobs!

A final matter raised by study participants was that of pay following a period of time out of private practice. Returning to private practice from government employment, in-house counsel, or business ventures outside of law did not always result in equal footing on career ladders in private practice. Leaving private practice meant returning at a reduced rate of pay and with little opportunity to ―catch up‖ or translate outside experience as relevant to the firm‘s salary scale. As one participant wrote, ―…Once

7 Articles are the period, often approximately 6 months in duration, where law graduates in Canada

work in legal settings (e.g., law firms, legal department of a corporation, with a sole practitioner, law clinic) under the supervision of senior lawyers. Articles are intended to aid new law school graduates to develop their practical skills before taking the bar admission examinations.

40

you‘re out, the pay scale to get back is low and the prospects of equalizing careers are just not there (like most).‖ Assistance for Those Returning to Private Practice This section outlines specific suggestions for assisting the returning lawyer. We asked participants what private practice can do and what supports can be made available to assist lawyers seeking to return to private practice. The comments offered came from lawyers currently in private practice as well as from those who had left private practice. Their comments offer suggestions for training/education, mentoring, networking, and profession-based changes. A significant number of participants identified the presence of training, further education, and seminars as vital to the reentry process. Participants suggested the need for ―refresher courses,‖ ―requalification course similar to Bar Ad to refresh skills,‖ ―upgrading courses,‖ and ―a quasi-articling experience.‖ Education appeared to be important to a successful return to law practice. Study participants suggested a variety of forums for education. Some suggested these programs ought to be the responsibility of the LSUC, while others suggested it might be in the interests of law firms to offer seminars, and others recommended a combination of LSUC and firm-based programs. Lawyers suggested the training could be specific to one‘s ―area of proposed practice‖ or could focus on ―résumé writing, marketing self, and entrance presentations.‖ To encourage law graduates who have left private practice to return, most participants recommended that these courses or seminars be offered at no cost to the returning lawyer. While many participants suggested courses, others went further to describe the content and purpose of such courses or programs. For example, the following five lawyers suggested:

Provide information on how skill sets acquired in other pursuits can translate to effective practice skills to both lawyers seeking to return and to prospective colleagues/employers. A reintegration program that touches on most of the above (job networks, clientele, business start-up costs, job availability, marketing of skills), not just substantive law. Courses specifically created for lawyers returning to practice—provide a certificate for courses completed? CLE geared for returning lawyers, addressing the issues as well as substantive law. Lawyers wishing to go back into private practice after X years away should be required to take a mini ―bar type‖ refresher course on ethics; and the core requirements of running of practice. Counseling/lunch n‘ learns offered by Law Society to review current market conditions, marketing oneself etc. in light of little or no client base.

41

Overwhelmingly, participants in the study noted the importance of mentoring for those seeking to return to private practice. Some participants suggested a mentor was vital to facilitating a successful transition to private practice, and some went further to call on law firms to establish formal mentoring programs. Participants offered various suggestions on how mentoring may be organized as well as its purpose:

Should have programs to up-grade practice management skills. For example, at this point I have no idea how files are opened, documents logged, e-mail protocols, conflict of interest processes, etc. Should also be able to up-grade program specific knowledge e.g., Family law, court procedures etc. Perhaps create programs where lawyers who re-enter are paired with mentors/can job shadow to get back up to speed. Upgrading in specific areas of law (particularly procedure) and defined mentoring program with objective goals and time commitments. Place in a voluntary position in a law firm or legal clinic as a stepping stone; assistance from lawyers who wish to assume a mentorship role; attendance at CLE programs.

— A mini-course to update legal knowledge skills, as well as computer skills — Develop a mentoring system to support them — Monthly seminars aimed at those — Mentor — Refresher Course by LSUC — Like a ―Mini Articling‖ Program—Law firms to co-operate—to reacquaint individuals with the practice

This combination of courses or programs, together with mentorship, is deemed by many to be an important stepping stone to a successful return to private practice after an extended period of absence. Some of the suggestions called for the establishment of a formal coordinated system through the LSUC to assist returning lawyers. Participants also offered concrete suggestions for the development of mentoring aimed at facilitating a successful reintegration of lawyers to private practice:

Mentoring program with supportive contemporary who can facilitate introductions and re-entry into profession. Organized mentoring re-entry programs marketed by LSUC to gain law firm support. Mentoring program to help them re-build networks, contacts, knowledge and provide support to rebuild confidence. Real mentoring, not just lip service, and real integration into practice environment.

42

Although mentoring programs exist, in the form of matching programs coordinated within some law firms and as programs available through the LSUC, these mentoring programs are aimed primarily at new entrants to the profession, students of law, paralegals, and racial minorities new to the profession. Currently there is a lack of formal mentoring programs tailored to the needs of returning members.8 Mentors, however, may play important roles at various stages of careers; they are not only of value to lawyers starting their career, but also to those who are reentering law practice. Clearly, the roles are different than those assumed by a mentor to a junior lawyer who is developing skills, learning new systems, and making the transition from law school to practice environment. In the case of lawyers seeking to return to private practice, mentoring offers a touchstone—someone whom the returning lawyer can approach with questions, and from whom he or she can seek support and guidance. The mentor is an important link, one that can help to familiarize the returning lawyer with technological changes, navigate new laws and procedures, and offer valuable introductions and contacts. Such mentor contacts may be particularly useful to sole practitioners and/or lawyers who have relocated to new geographic areas. Numerous lawyers in our study called on law firms to make a commitment to mentoring programs aimed at the reintegration of lawyers—including those who are returning to private practice from other sectors of the profession or after a period of time out of the workforce. Such mentor programs benefit the firm through faster time for returning lawyers to regain footing as they ―ramp up‖ with new technologies, knowledge of changes to law and procedures, and integration into teams and existing work units. Participants in our study also called for the dedication of resources to create mentorship programs that yield tangible assistance, rather than ―lip service,‖ to mentoring. An additional suggestion to assist returning lawyers is one that many believe should occur prior to the initial exit. Several participants remarked on the importance of maintaining contacts during the period of time out of private practice. In fact, prior to leaving private practice, it appears important to foster relationships that will help to keep the lawyer informed and to ease their return to private practice at a later time. Participants identified networking as important for those seeking to return to private practice. For example, participants noted the value of ―networking opportunities‖ and ―marketing and developing client connections,‖ and stated ―colleagues must assist just as they assist articling students.‖ It is evident that having a reliable network in place is essential to a smooth return to private practice. Without such networks for locating jobs, serving as references and developing a clientele base, lawyers seeking to return to private practice are at a significant disadvantage:

Maintain liaison with law firms to maintain a ―job bank.‖ Need ways to stay in touch. The individual has to maintain his/her contacts and expertise while away from practice.

8 See, for example, the following Law Society of Upper Canada websites: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/For-

Lawyers/Improve-Your-Practice/Lawyer-Mentorship-Programs/ (accessed 16 December 2013) and http://www.lsuc.on.ca/equity-mentorship/ (accessed 16 December 2013).

43

No idea—not a good idea to leave unless you have a lot of good contacts who can help you get back in. Loss of network is a huge hurdle.

Participants also identified changes they would like to see take place at the LSUC. In addition to a mentoring program for lawyers seeking to return to private practice, suggestions included special courses to upgrade skills and marketability, funding to assist smaller firms (and other organizations) who hire lawyers on a part-time basis, and job fairs.

Law Society develop a program to assist lawyers in returning to practice—i.e., networking help, specific skills upgrade. Law Foundation monies given to assist small or medium firms or other organizations (such as Civil Liberties Association) to hire part-time lawyers or full-time lawyers. LSUC sponsored job fairs bringing together firms who are hiring with mature individuals wanting to go back to work as a lawyer.

Many lawyers commented on the need for a variety of resources to help lawyers seeking to return to private practice. The LSUC, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Bar Association, local law associations, and various organizations that employ lawyers have a role to play in developing support systems. As one participant noted:

Ensure that there are lawyer support systems in place in a variety of forms—for example, local law associations, LSUC, CBA, OBA, within government, etc.

Comments were not entirely critical. Rather, the comments appeared to be constructive, with suggestions for mentoring and programs that might ease the transition back to private practice. One lawyer praised the LSUC and Bar Associations for their efforts:

I think Law Society and the CBA and the OBA and other legal networks do a good job of offering courses and other assistance to those wanting to come back.

These contrasting assessments may suggest several possibilities. It may be that some individuals are aware that programs exist, though they have not needed to make use of those services. As such, their assessments may simply reflect approval of the presence of such programs. It is also possible that that while some courses and other forms of assistance are in place, what there is falls short of the amount of support lawyers will need when they reenter practice. Participants in our study emphasized that mentoring programs, courses, and coordination of job postings (through job fairs and job banks) may serve as valuable services and resources for lawyers returning to private practice. Further assessment of these services is needed in terms of outcomes (i.e., successful

44

transitions achieved by individuals seeking to reenter private practice with the aid of these resources).

It should also be acknowledged that while such resources may help equip individuals seeking to reenter private practice with contacts, advice, sharpening of skills, and updated knowledge on legal and technological change, such supports extended to individual lawyers do little to change ageism and engrained biases held by employers. It is recommended that the LSUC and Bar Associations continue to invest in, expand, and assess available resources to encourage successful transitions among lawyers seeking to reenter private practice. New initiatives are needed that seek to remove bias against the hiring of older individuals, bias against those who have been out of private practice for a period of time, and a recognition of skills accrued outside private practice as relevant to contemporary law practice. These initiatives may be particularly salient to the retention of women and racial minorities in private practice, given that rates of departure are higher for these groups. Initiatives that encourage their return may be beneficial to the diversity of the legal profession. In addition to these supports, participants identified the need to reduce professional costs affiliated with membership to the LSUC for those seeking to return to private practice. This suggestion speaks to the need to reduce financial barriers for these lawyers. Numerous participants offered comments on this issue:

Reduced LSUC and insurance fees for first year or two. Graduate increase to pay cost of professional fees and licensing, should be given 6 months free period. The Law Society of Upper Canada should consider not charging membership fees arrears, if any, and should not require rigorous re-entry conditions, e.g., Re-qualification exams after 5 years of non-practice. Perhaps linking professional fees and licensing costs to actual earnings in first two years would be helpful. Maybe a graduated fee schedule. Reality is we are self-employed individuals. Should be able to help ourselves. Maybe offer returning lawyers same perks we offer 1st time/student lawyers. Lower fees for initial returning year; low interest start-up loans to encourage returnees.

An obstacle for lawyers seeking to return to private practice is monetary. Membership and insurance fees pose a significant barrier, especially for lawyers who have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time. Reducing fees, even for a short transition period, may entice lawyers contemplating a return to private practice to take that step. For those already committed to a return, reduced fees or a graduated fee schedule will make the transition easier as they build up their practice.

45

Participants in the study noted four other factors that could encourage and ease lawyers‘ reentry to private practice. First, a plea was made by several lawyers to improve opportunities for part-time work. Often, the request for part-time work was to ease the transition back to private practice, as returning lawyers rebuild their skill set, become acquainted with new technology and systems, and establish a clientele base. Part-time work was also described as important ―for females with kids‖ and for the ―bridge‖ that it facilitates. Numerous lawyers expressed a desire for more flexible schedules—part-time or even full-time—for lawyers seeking to return to private practice. Some of the ideas for flexible schedules included ―working from home,‖ ―job sharing,‖ ―a graduated return to work,‖ and ―changing attitudes and encourage flexibility and open-mindedness.‖ Second, some lawyers recommended that new placement opportunities be created with returning lawyers in mind. Several participants identified this as an important feature for returning lawyers that will allow them to ―gain experience…and regain credibility,‖ as well serve the firms who can ―hire mature lawyers at low salaries.‖ Third, several participants called for the establishment of an online directory or catalogue of available positions (e.g., a job bank or posting of openings at firms) for lawyers seeking to return to private practice, as well as for those who are retired and wish to take on contracts or part-time work. Some participants discussed the possibility of a recruitment agency that might connect lawyers seeking to return to private practice with law firms, while others suggested the LSUC might play a role in facilitating the matching process. A fourth comment, one that was expressed by several participants, was the need for counseling. A few participants suggested counseling could prove beneficial by helping returning lawyers to find a suitable ―fit‖ and to understand ―what is needed to return to practice.‖ Building on this suggestion, one participant remarked:

Objective career counseling could help some candidates. A great many lawyers who leave the practice of law, however, are just not prepared to make the personal sacrifices demanded by traditional private practice. That is likely to continue.

Numerous lawyers wrote of the loss of confidence and erosion of contacts that took place while they were away from private practice. Some lawyers also expressed a concern that their work experiences (or life experiences) outside of private practice would be perceived of as having little value to law firms hiring lawyers. The suggestion of counseling appears to be one that calls on both emotional support (e.g., confidence building) as well as professional support. Professional support may include the following: how to market oneself to law firms, how to communicate the relevance of skills and experiences outside private practice in a job interview, résumé crafting, interview skills, wardrobe and professional image, and business planning.

46

Discussion and Conclusion

This report began with an exploration of three theoretical models of turnover. Our study found mixed support for the role of job satisfaction. Although satisfaction with the power track (promotions, earnings, and prestige) reduced the risk of lawyers leaving private practice, satisfaction with content of work and collegiality did not have the same retention power. Our measures of job satisfaction were derived from the first survey in 1990 and serve only as a proxy for facets of job satisfaction in early careers. It is possible that many lawyers shifted jobs early on in an attempt to achieve better levels of job satisfaction. We found no evidence of gender differences across facets of job satisfaction, though satisfaction with the power track appears more effective at retaining male lawyers than female lawyers in private practice. We also explored the role of family pressures. We found evidence that women are at greater risk of leaving private practice, especially when they have more than one child, while men are more likely to remain in private practice with growing families. However, it is the impact of parental and other leaves and interruptions between professional positions that take the greater toll on women‘s careers. Upon return from these relatively short gaps (over the course of a career) female lawyers face an uphill battle to retention and advancement in private practice. A key issue to investigate is how women are treated upon return from parental and other leaves and whether they are disadvantaged in terms of clientele, assignments, support by colleagues, and assessments of competence by firm leaders. Are women, as some research suggests, held to a higher standard than their male colleagues upon their return from a parental leave (Kay & Hagan, 1999)? Our data suggest that female lawyers are more likely to be challenged about their career commitment after having children, especially when they have more than one or two children. In contrast, men with growing families enjoy longer-term continuity with their law firms. Nature and Timing of Exits An important question is whether lawyers who leave private practice do so as a result of their own decision to quit, or whether they leave as a result of layoffs, firing, or other forms of termination. Several studies find that job quits are sometimes a preemptive move when employees perceive the risk of job loss to be high (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Manski & Straub, 2000; Moen et al., 2011). Early exits from private practice may be the result of associates leaving their firm in anticipation that they will not receive an invitation to join the firm‘s partnership (Gorman, 1999). It seems more likely, however, that such early job changes would lead associates to seek positions with other firms or to set up solo practice, enabling them to continue in private practice, rather than to exit private practice altogether. Unfortunately, our study does not enable us to distinguish between voluntary exits (e.g., quits) and involuntary turnover (e.g., termination). On the one hand, contextual specification of how or why a job exit occurred may be relevant to subsequent job moves (Wheaton & Reid, 2008, p. 226), and these different types of exits may have different antecedent factors (Park & Sandefur, 2003). However, current scholarship suggests that ―[i]n a climate of rising risk and constraint, voluntary/involuntary turnover

47

distinctions are increasingly blurred‖ (Moen et al., 2011, p. 74). Some women or men exit their jobs (and private practice) because of parenting obligations and poor work/life balance, while others quit in anticipation of being let go, or else are encouraged to leave ―voluntarily.‖ Lawyers may describe their moves as ―voluntary‖ when in fact termination was imminent or had already taken place (Park & Sandefur, 2003). Regardless of whether exits are voluntary, some research suggests women are leaving firms ―in large numbers prior to making partner‖ (Reichman & Sterling, 2002, p. 962). Noonan & Corcoran (2004, p. 146), for example, found ―[w]omen who entered private practice were 1.8 times as likely as men to leave within 4 years (18% vs. 10%).‖ Our findings suggest this form of attrition is an important part of the story. Women in our sample were more likely to leave private practice early in their careers: 31% of women compared to 21% of men left within 5 years (t-test = −7.40, p < .001). Furthermore, our results also suggest that many moves from private practice take place after lawyers have already attained law firm partnership status. Studies have suggested that some women delay having children until after they have reached partnership (Leiper, 2006). Having established themselves within firms, these women then encounter the full weight of an organizational structure that lacks accommodation for parental leaves and time schedule flexibility. A study more narrowly focused on exits from law firms could directly address whether, prior to partnership decisions, women switch firms or leave private practice, and whether different or similar dynamics drive women out after partnership has been granted. Policy and Practice Earnings and promotions are inducements that firms offer to retain their professional legal talent that might otherwise easily transfer to other firms (Saporta & Farjoun, 2003, p. 263). Our study suggests that satisfaction with the power track (e.g., earnings, promotion opportunities, prestige) reduces the risk that lawyers will leave private practice. In addition, firms can take other initiatives to retain legal talent, initiatives that are less costly than lucrative salaries. Lawyers in our study were less likely to leave organizations that offered flexible full-time hours. This finding is consistent with a sizeable body of research demonstrating that greater employee flexibility can promote retention, especially for employees with chronic overloads and time strains (Armstrong et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2006; Kelly & Moen, 2007). Stone‘s (2007) research has shown that female professionals often feel pushed out precisely because of the inflexibility and excessive demands of their jobs. Unfortunately, flexibility policies are often ―on the books‖ but not widely available in practice (Kelly & Moen, 2007; Schieman & Glavin, 2008). Scholars increasingly suggest that more fundamental changes are needed to the structure and culture of time at work (Bianchi, Casper, & King, 2005; Kelly & Moen, 2007; Kelly et al., 2008; Kossek & Lambert, 2005; Moen, 2003; Pitt-Catsouphes, Kossek, & Sweet, 2006) to achieve improved well-being of professionals and their families. This will require fundamental changes to the temporal organization of work, more than simply drafting policies that are frowned upon by firm management if accessed by lawyers (Moen et al., 2011, p. 70). Another strategy to retain legal talent is to offer improved parental leave arrangements. Our results suggest that perceptions of sexual discrimination may be

48

intertwined with the negative career consequences of taking parental and other leaves. Women who take a parental leave may find themselves marginalized in the firm upon their return (Epstein, Sauté, Oglensky, & Gever, 1995). Future research should explore the impact of length of parental leave and the consequences of taking more than one parental leave on promotions and retention in law firms. Parental leaves may be particularly restricted within solo practice and small firms for financial reasons, and it is notable that we find women are at a greater risk of leaving private practice from small firms. Programs that provide financial benefits to practicing lawyers in small firms and solo practices may help make parental leaves a doable option, while maintaining the viability of these smaller practices.9 The need for greater balance between professional and private life in the legal profession has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent years in the media, law journals, and legal periodicals (Crawford, 2011; Gray, 2011; McLennan, 2010; Pullen, 2010; Selick, 2007; Slaughter, 2012; Tibbetts, 2007). Numerous studies have called for alterations in the structure of the profession to allow greater flexibility in scheduling, the ability to take leaves (Brockman, 2001; Law Society of Upper Canada, 2008; Leiper, 2006; Reichman & Sterling 2002; Rhode, 2001; Thornton, 1996), and ease of transition for those who want to leave the profession and reenter at a later time (O‘Brien, 2006). Participants in our study suggested additional strategies to facilitate the reentry of lawyers who have left private practice. These strategies include:

Mentor programs

Educational programs, seminars, and courses to upgrade skills, substance of law, and knowledge of technology

Job banks and job postings

Recruitment and lawyer–firm matching services

Availability of part-time and volunteer positions

Increased availability of workplace flexibility in terms of hours, job sharing, and some work-at-home options

The value of networks and maintaining contacts during absence from private practice

Reduced or graduated membership/licensing/insurance fees

Counseling services

9 Recently, the LSUC (Ontario) extended its 3-year pilot ―Parental Leave Assistance Program‖

(PLAP), though the program came under heated debate recently. See: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/lsuc-likely-to-axe-parental-leave-benefits.html [Accessed 19 November 2012]. See also Brosnahan (2012). The goal of this pilot program is to reduce the hardship that arises when a practicing lawyer who is a partner in a small firm or a sole practitioner takes parental leave. The program provides financial benefits to practicing lawyers in firms of five lawyers or fewer who do not have access to other maternity, parental, or adoption financial benefits under public or private plans and who meet the eligibility criteria. The PLAP is a recommendation developed by the Law Society‘s Retention of Women Working Group. See: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=2147487024 [Accessed 16 December 2013].

49

Improving flexibility for lawyers in private practice and accessibility for individuals returning to private practice are pressing issues, particularly given changes to legal careers brought on by the forces of globalization, economic recession, and the growth and reach of large law firms. For legal professionals, turnover is rapidly becoming a fact of contemporary working life, as job changes and job insecurity become the norm. The career mystique of continuous employment with the same firm is no longer the case (Moen & Roehling, 2005). As Moen and colleagues (2011, p. 69) remark: ―Contemporary employment paths are often marked by turnover in light of global economic forces and job conditions impelling employees out of particular jobs and even out of the workforce.‖ Our study reveals that interruptions between professional positions in private practice may hasten lawyers‘ departures from private practice. Future research is needed to examine the nature of career interruptions. Some studies suggest that unemployment spells might be more damaging to future earnings than gaps for self-employment or family leave (Bruce & Schuetze, 2004; Theunissen, Verbruggen, Forrier, & Sels, 2011). Future work needs to explore whether gaps between professional positions, as well as leaves taken during professional positions, and for which purposes (e.g., family, unemployment, education, or other reasons), are viewed by potential employers as resulting in skill atrophy (Williams, 2001) and whether these paths have a negative impact on subsequent employment and earnings. In conclusion, careers among private practitioners appear to be changing through a diversity of pathways, with continuity of employment with one employer no longer the singular career model. Increasingly lawyers move between firms and across sectors of practice, and these trajectories may include gaps between jobs and leaves during the course of professional positions. Nevertheless, the private practice of law continues to rely on a traditional model of linear and continuous careers (Brockman, 2001; Sirianni & Negrey, 2000), with an emphasis on billable hours as the ―bottom line‖ and a resistance to workplace accommodations (Epstein, 2004; Rhode, 2002). Attrition from private practice appears to be rooted in organizational constraints that push lawyers out. Discussions that focus on work/life balance as exclusively a woman‘s issue or that focus narrowly on motherhood as the primary source of job-leaving among female lawyers divert attention from the structural and institutional factors (Percheski, 2008; Wenk & Rosenfeld, 1992) that constrain career pathways for both men and women in the legal profession.

References

Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2011). The dual impact of gender and the influence of timing of parenthood on men‘s and women‘s career development: Longitudinal findings. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 225–232.

Abraham, M., Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2010). Migration decisions within dual-earner partnerships: A test of bargaining theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 876–892.

50

Allison, P. D. (1995). Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Anashensel, C. S. (2002). Theory-based analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Armstrong, D. J., Riemenschneider, C. K., Allen, M. W., & Reid, M. F. (2007). Advancement, voluntary turnover and women in IT: A cognitive study of work-family conflict. Information and Management, 44, 142–153.

Arun, S. V., Arun, T. G., & Borooah, V. K. (2004). The effect of career breaks on the working lives of women. Feminist Economics, 10(1), 65–84.

Ashley, L. (2010). Making a difference? The use (and abuse) of diversity management at the UK‘s elite law firms. Work, Employment and Society, 24(4), 711–727.

Baker, G. P., & Parkin, R. (2006). The changing structure of the legal services industry and the careers of lawyers. North Carolina Law Review, 84, 1635–1682.

Barak, M. E. M., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and meta-analysis. Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661.

Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resource practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 189–220.

Beckman, C. M., & Phillips, D. J. (2005). Interorganizational determinants of promotion: Client leadership and the attainment of women attorneys. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 678–701.

Belkin, L. (2003, October 26). The opt-out revolution. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 42–47, 58, 85–86.

Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2007). Knowledge workers: What keeps them committed; what turns them away. Work, Employment and Society, 21(1), 121–141.

Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A Latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3):468–482.

Bianchi, S. N., Casper, L. M., & King, R. B. (2005). Work, family, health, and well-being. Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

51

Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 882–892.

Boushey, H. (2008). ‗Opting out?‘ The effect of children on women‘s employment in the United States. Feminist Economics, 14(1), 1–36.

Brockman, J. (1994). Leaving the practice of law: The wherefores and the whys. Alberta Law Review, 32(1), 116–180.

Brockman, J. (2001). Gender and the legal profession: Fitting in or breaking the mould. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Brockman, J. (2006). An update on gender and diversity in the legal profession in Alberta, 1991–2003. In E. Sheehy & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Calling for change: Women, law, and the legal profession (pp. 237–251). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

Brosnahan, M. (2012, November 21). Ontario Law Society poised to drop parental leave program: Pilot program to help keep women in private practice deemed a success. CBC News. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/11/21/law-society-ontario-parental-leave-program.html

Bruce, D., & Schuetze, H. J. (2004). The labor market consequences of experience in self-employment. Labour Economics, 11(5):575–598.

Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.

Campbell, I., Charlesworth, S., & Malone, J. (2012). Part-time of what? Job quality and part-time employment in the legal profession in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 149–166.

Chaa, Y. (2010). Reinforcing separate spheres: The effect of spousal overwork on men‘s and women‘s employment in dual-earner households. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 303–329.

Cho, V., & Huang, X. (2012). Professional commitment, organizational commitment, and the intention to leave for professional advancement. Information Technology and People, 25(1), 31–54.

Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Cleves, M. A., Gould, W. W., Gutierrez, R., & Marchenko, Y. U. (2008). An introduction to survival analysis using Stata (2nd ed). College Station, TX: Stata Press Publication.

52

Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1):55–70.

Couch, K. A., & Fairlie, R. (2010). Last hired, first fired? Black-white unemployment and the business cycle. Demography, 47(1):227–247.

Crawford, T. (2011, February 25). Women lawyers leaving in droves. Toronto Star. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://www.thestar.com/living/article/944937-women-lawyers-leaving-in-droves

Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031–1042.

Dau-Schmidt, K. G., Galanter, M., Mukhopadhaya, K., & Hull, K. E. (2009). Men and women of the bar: An empirical study of the impact of gender on legal careers. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, 16(1), 49–145.

de Lange, A. H., De Witte, H., & Notelaers, G. (2008). Should I stay or should I go? Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers versus movers. Work & Stress, 22(3), 201–223.

Dinovitzer, R., & Garth, B. G. (2007). Lawyers‘ satisfaction in the process of structuring legal careers. Law & Society Review, 41(1), 1–50.

Dinovitzer, R., Garth, B. G., Sander, R., Sterling, J., & Wilder, G. Z. (2004). After the JD: First results of a national study of legal careers. Chicago, IL: NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education and the American Bar Foundation.

Dinovitzer, R., Reichman, N., & Sterling, J. (2009). The differential valuation of women‘s work: A new look at the gender gap in lawyers‘ incomes. Social Forces, 88(2), 819–864.

Dobrev, S. D. (2005). Career mobility and job flocking. Social Science Research, 34(4), 800–820.

Donovan, K. (1990). Women associates‘ advancement to partner status in private firms. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 4, 135–152.

Dryfhout, V. L., & Estes, S. B. (2010). Explaining the gender gap in professors‘ intentions to leave. Sociological Focus, 43(2), 109–127.

Epstein, C. F. (1993). Women in law. 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

53

Epstein, C. F. (2004). Border crossings: The constraints of time norms in transgressions of gender and professional roles. In C. F. Epstein & A. Kalleberg (Eds.), Fighting for time: shifting boundaries of work and social life (pp. 317–340). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Epstein, C. F., Sauté, R., Oglensky, B., & Gever, M. (1995). Glass ceilings and open doors: Women‘s advancement in the legal profession. Fordham Law Review, 64(2), 291–449.

Faulconbridge, J. (2007). Relational networks of knowledge production in transnational law firms. Geoforum, 38(5), 925–940.

Faulconbridge, J., & Muzio, D. (2008). Organizational professionalism in globalizing law firms. Work, Employment and Society, 22(1), 7–25.

Felmlee, D. (1995). Causes and consequences of women‘s employment discontinuity, 1967–1973. Work and Occupations, 22(2):167–187.

Fields, D., Dingman, M. E., Roman, P. M., & Blum, T. C. (2005). Exploring predictors of alternative job changes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(1), 63–82.

Firth, L., Mellor, D. J., Moore, K. A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2):170–187.

Fondas, N. (1996). Feminization at work: Career implications. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principal for a new organizational era (pp. 282–293). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Forrier, A., Sels, L., & Synen, D. (2009). Career mobility at the intersection between agent and structure: A conceptual model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 739–759.

Galanter, M., & Palay, T. (1991). Tournament of lawyers: The transformation of the big law firm. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Goldin, C. (2006). The quiet revolution that transformed women‘s employment, education, and family. American Economic Review, 96, 1–21.

Gorman, E. H. (1999). Moving away and ‗up and out‘: Determinants of permanent employment in law firms. Law & Society Review, 33(3), 637–666.

Gorman, E. H. (2006). Work uncertainty and the promotion of professional women: The case of law firm partnership. Social Forces, 85(2), 865–890.

54

Gorman, E. H., & Kay, F. M. (2010). Racial and ethnic minority representation in large U.S. law firms. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 52, 211–238.

Gorman, E. H., & Sandefur, R. (2011). ‗Golden age,‘ quiescence, and revival: How the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work and Occupations, 38(3):275–302.

Gray, J. (2011, November 8). Why supermom is leaving the law firm. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved October 18, 2012, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/why-supermom-is-leaving-the-law-firm/article4251445/

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488.

Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (1995). Gender in practice: A study of lawyers’ lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hagan, J., & Kay, F. M. (2007). Even lawyers get the blues: Gender, depression and job satisfaction in legal practice. Law & Society Review, 41(1), 51–78.

Hagan, J., & Kay, F. M. (2010). The masculine mystique: Living large from law school to later life. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 25(2), 195–226.

Henderson, W. D. (2006). An empirical study of single-tier versus two-tier partnerships in the Am Law 200. North Carolina Law Review, 84, 1691–1750.

Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B. (2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success. Harvard Business Review, 83, 43–54.

Heyman, F. (2008). How wage compression affects job turnover. Journal of Labor Research, 29(1), 11–26.

Hill, E. J., Mead, N. T., Dean, L. R., Hafen, D. M., Gadd, R., Palmer, A. A., & Ferris, M. S. (2006). Researching the 60-hour dual-earner workweek: An alternative to ‗opt-out revolution‘. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(9), 1184–1203.

Hirshman, L. (2006). Get to work. New York, NY: Viking.

Hull, K. (1999). The paradox of the contented female lawyer. Law & Society Review, 33(3), 687–702.

Hull, K. E., & Nelson, R. L. (2000). Assimilation, choice or constraint? Testing theories of gender differences in the careers of lawyers. Social Forces, 19(1), 229–264.

55

Hunter, R. (2002). Talking up equality: Women barristers and the denial of discrimination. Feminist Legal Studies, 10(2), 113–130.

Ietswaart, H. F. P. (2003). Choices in context: Life histories of women lawyers in the Netherlands. In U. Schultz & G. Shaw (Eds.), Women in the world’s legal professions (pp. 353–370). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.

Imazeki, J. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 431–449.

Jackofsky, E. F., & Peters, L. H. (1983). Job turnover versus company turnover: Reassessment of the March and Simon participation hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 490–495.

Jacobs, J., & Gerson, K. (2004). The time divide: Work, family and gender inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jones, E., Chonko, L., Rangarajan, D., & Roberts, J. (2007). The role of overload on job attitudes, turnover intentions, and salesperson performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 663–671.

Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Van Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure everyone can be replaced…but at what cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit level performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 133–144.

Kay, F. M. (1997). Flight from law: A competing risks model of departures from law firms. Law & Society Review, 31(2), 301–335.

Kay, F. M. (2009). Professional monopolies and divisive practices in law: ‗Les femmes juridiques‘ in civil law Canada. The International Journal of Law in Context, 4(3), 187–215.

Kay, F. M., & Brockman, J. (2000). Barriers to gender equality in the Canadian legal establishment. Feminist Legal Studies, 8(2), 169–198.

Kay, F. M., & Gorman, E. H. (2008). Women in the legal profession. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 4, 299–332.

Kay, F. M., & Gorman, E. H. (2012). Developmental practices, organizational culture, and minority representation in organizational leadership: The case of partners in large U.S. law firms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 91–113.

Kay, F., & Hagan, J. (1998). Raising the bar: The gender stratification of law firm capitalization. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 728–743.

56

Kay, F., & Hagan, J. (1999). Cultivating clients in the competition for partnership: Gender and the organizational restructuring of law firms in the 1990s. Law & Society Review, 33(3), 517–555.

Kay, F., & Hagan, J. (2005). Social mobility and hierarchical structure in Canadian law practice. In W. Felstiner (Ed.), Reorganization and resistance: Legal professions confront a changing world (pp. 281–311). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing of Oxford.

Kelly, E. L., Ammons, S. K., Chermack, K., & Moen, P. (2010). Gendered challenge, gendered response: Confronting the ideal worker norm in a white-collar organization. Gender & Society, 24(3), 281–303.

Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L. A., & Kaskubar, D. (2008). Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work-family initiatives on work-family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 305–349.

Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2007). Rethinking the clockwork of work: Why schedule control may pay off at home and at work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(4), 487–506.

Kim, C. H., & Sakamoto, A. (2008). Does inequality increase productivity? Evidence from U.S. manufacturing industries, 1979 to 1996. Work and Occupations, 35(1), 85–114.

Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. J. (2005). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kramer, L. A., & Berg, E. C. (2003). A survival analysis of timing of entry into prostitution: The differential impact of race, educational level, and childhood/adolescent risk factors. Sociological Inquiry, 73(4), 511–528.

Kuperberg, A., & Stone, P. (2008). The media depiction of women who opt out. Gender & Society, 22(4), 497–517.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Altheimer, I. (2010). An exploratory examination of the consequences of burnout in terms of life satisfaction, turnover intent, and absenteeism among private correctional staff. Prison Journal, 90(1), 94–114.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233–250.

Law Society of Upper Canada. (2008). Final report—Retention of women in private practice working group. Toronto, ON: The Law Society of Upper Canada.

57

Law Society of Upper Canada. (2011). Retention of women in private practice: Status report. Toronto, ON: The Law Society of Upper Canada.

Leicht, K. T., & Fennell, M. L. (1997). The changing organizational context of professional work. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 215–231.

Leiper, J. M. (2006). Bar codes: Women in the legal profession. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J. A., McCarthy, J. F., & Wells, R. (2004). Status differences in cross-functional teams: Effects on individual member participation, job satisfaction, and intent to quit. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(3), 322–335.

Mallon, M., & Cohen, L. (2001). Time for a change? Women‘s accounts of the move from organizational careers to self-employment. British Journal of Management, 12(3), 217–230.

Manski, C. F., & Straub, J. D. (2000). Worker perception of job insecurity in the mid-1990s: Evidence from the survey of economic expectations. The Journal of Human Resources, 35(3), 447–479.

Manzoni, A., Vermunt, J. K., Luijkx, R., & Muffels, R. (2010). Memory bias in retrospectively collected employment careers: A model-based approach to correct for measurement error. Sociological Methodology, 40(1), 39–73.

McLennan, N. (2010). Women lawyers & the boys‘ club. BC Business. Retrieved March 20, 2012. http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top-stories/2010/06/09/women-lawyers-amp-boys039-club

Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 493–522.

Moen, P. (2003). It’s about time: Couples and careers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Moen, P. (2008). It‘s constraints, not choices. Science, 319(5865), 903–904.

Moen, P., & Huang, Q. (2010). Customizing careers by opting out or shifting jobs: Dual-earners seeking life-course ‗fit.‘ In K. Christensen & B. Schneider (Eds.), Workplace flexibility: Realigning 20th century jobs to 21st century workers (pp. 73–94), New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., & Hill, R. (2011). Does enhancing work-time control and flexibility reduce turnover? A naturally occurring experiment. Social Problems, 58(1), 69–98.

58

Moen, P., & Roehling, P. (2005). The career mystique: Cracks in the American dream. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Moen, P., & Yu, Y. (2000). Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work conditions, gender, and life quality. Social Problems, 47(3), 291–326.

Monahan, J., & Swanson, J. (2009). Lawyers at mid-career: A 20-year longitudinal study of job and life satisfaction. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(3), 451–483.

Mossman, M. J. (1994). Lawyers and family life: New directions for the 1990s (part two). Feminist Legal Studies, 2(2), 159–182.

Noonan, M. C., & Corcoran, M. E. (2004). The mommy track and partnership: Temporary delay or dead end? Annals AAPSS, 596(1), 130–150.

O‘Brien, T. L. (2006, March 19). Why do so few women reach the top of big law firms? The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2012, from http://diversity.ncbar.org/media/2755149/whyfewwomenreachthetopofbiglawfirms.pdf

Papanek, H. (1973). Men, women, and work: Reflections on the two-person career. American Journal of Sociology, 87(4), 852–872.

Park, H., & Sandefur, G. D. (2003). Racial/ethnic differences in voluntary and involuntary job mobility among young men. Social Science Research, 32(3), 347–375.

Patterson, N., & Mavin, S. (2009). Women entrepreneurs: Jumping the corporate ship and gaining new wings. International Small Business Journal, 27(2), 173–192.

Patton, P. A. (2005). Women lawyers, their status, influence and retention in the legal profession. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 11(2), 173–194.

Percheski, C.(2008). Opting out? cohort differences in professional women‘s employment rates from 1960 to 2005. American Sociological Review, 73(3), 497–517.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek, E. E., & Sweet, S. A. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of work and family: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2):438–454.

Porter, N. B. (2006). Re-defining superwoman: An essay on overcoming the ‗maternal wall‘ in the legal workplace. Duke Journal of Gender, Law & Policy, 13, 55–84.

59

Preenan, P. T. Y., De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Keijzer, L. (2011). Managing voluntary turnover through challenging assignments. Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 308–344.

Preston, A. E. (2004). Leaving science: Occupational exit from scientific careers. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Proudfoot, J. G., Corr, P. J., Guest, D. E., & Dunn, G. (2009). Cognitive-behavioural training to change attributional style improves employee well-being, job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 147–153.

Pullen, K. (2010, May). The problem with women. Toronto Life, pp. 42–49. Retrieved November 22, 2012, from http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/from-print-edition-informer/2010/05/10/the-problem-with-women/

Reichman, N. J., & Sterling, J. S. (2002). Recasting the brass ring: Deconstructing and reconstructing workplace opportunities for women lawyers. Capital University Law Review, 29(4), 923–977.

Reichman, N. J., & Sterling, J. S. (2004). Sticky floors, broken steps, and concrete ceilings in legal careers. Texas Journal of Women and the Law, 14(1), 27–76.

Rhode, D. L. (2001). Access to justice. Fordham Law Review, 69(5), 1785–1819.

Rhode, D. L. (2002). Gender and the profession: The no-problem problem. Hofstra Law Review, 30, 1001–1013.

Rode, J. C., Rehg, M. T., Near, J. P., & Underhill, J. R. (2007). The effect of work/family conflict on intention to quit: The mediating roles of job and life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2(2), 65–82.

Sandefur, R. L. (2007). Staying power: The persistence of social inequality in shaping lawyer satisfaction and lawyers‘ persistence in the profession. Southwestern University Law Review, 36(3), 539–556.

Saporta, I., & Farjoun, M. (2003). The relationship between actual promotion and turnover among professional and managerial administrative occupational groups. Work and Occupations, 30(3), 255–280.

Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377–391.

Schieman, S., & Glavin, P. (2008). Trouble at the border? Gender, flexibility at work, and the work-home interface. Social Problems, 55, 590–611.

60

Selick, K. (2007, August 22). Don‘t lower the bar. National Post, p. A17.

Seron, C. (1996). The business of practicing law: The work lives of solo and small-firm attorneys. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Seron, C., & Ferris, K. (1995). Negotiating professionalism: The gendered social capital of flexible time. Work and Occupations, 22(1), 22–47.

Sicherman, N. (1996). Gender differences in departures from a large firm. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(3), 484–505.

Sirianni, C., & Negrey, C. (2000). Working time as gendered time. Feminist Economics, 6(1), 59–76.

Slaughter, A.-M. (2012, July/August). Why women still can‘t have it all. Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Sokol, D. D. (2007). Globalization of law firms: A survey of the literature and a research agenda for further study. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 14(1), 5–28.

Somaya, D., Williamson, I. O., & Lorinkova, N. (2008). Gone but not lost: The different performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators and competitors. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 936–953.

Sommerlad, H. (2006). ‗Becoming‘ a lawyer: Gender and the processes of professional identity formation. In E. Sheehy and S. McIntyre (Eds.), Calling for change: Women, law, and the legal profession (pp. 159–178). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

Sommerlad, H., & Sanderson, P. (1998). Gender, choice and commitment: Women solicitors in England and Wales and the struggle for equal status. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: Ashgate.

Spurr, S. J., & Sueyoshi, G. T. (1994). Turnover and promotion of lawyers: An inquiry into gender differences. The Journal of Human Resources, 24(3), 813–842.

Steel, R. P. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 346–360.

Stone, P. (2007). Opting out: Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stone, P., & Lovejoy, M. (2004). Fast-track women and the ‗choice‘ to stay home. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596(1), 62–83.

61

Sweet, S., & Moen, P. (2012). Dual earners preparing for job loss: Agency, linked lives, and resilience. Work and Occupations, 39(1), 35–70.

Theunissen, G., Verbruggen, M., Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2011). Career sidestep, wage setback? The impact of different types of employment interruptions on wages. Gender, Work and Organizations, 18(S1), 101–131.

Thornton, M. (1996). Dissonance and distrust: Women in the legal profession. Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press.

Tibbetts, J. (2007, August 15). Female lawyers forced to ditch careers. Ottawa Citizen, p. A7.

Timmermans, S. (2008). Professions and their work: Do market shelters protect professional interests? Work and Occupations, 35(2), 164–188.

Wallace, J. E. (2001). Explaining why lawyers want to leave the practice of law. In J. Van Hoy (Ed.), Legal professions: Work, structure, and organization (pp. 117–145). New York, NY: JA1 Press.

Weisselberg, C. D., & Li, S. (2011). Big law‘s sixth amendment: The rise of corporate white-collar practices in large U.S. law firms. Arizona Law Review, 53(4), 1221–1299.

Wenk, D., & Rosenfeld, R. A. (1992). Women‘s employment exit and reentry: Job-leaving reasons and their consequences. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 11, 127–150.

Wheaton, B., & Reid, S. (2008). The role of timing vs. duration in the cumulative work history effects of job exits and nonemployment on women‘s mental health. Advances in Life Course Research, 13, 195–232.

Wilder, G. Z. (2007). Women in the legal profession: Findings from the first wave of the After the JD study. Washington, DC: NALP.

Williams, J. (2001). Unbending gender: Why work and family conflict and what to do about it. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Williams, J. C. (2007). Legal professions and job demands: Implications for work/life balance. In S. Sweet & J. Casey (Eds.), Work and Family Encyclopedia (pp. 1–21). Chestnut Hill, MA: Sloan Work Family Research Network, Boston College. Retrieved December 29, 2012, from https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/wfrn-repo/object/ps3xp23bf1p07d8x.

Williams, J. C., Manvell, J., & Bornstein, S. (2006). ‘Opt-out’ or pushed out?: How the press covers work/family conflict. San Francisco, CA: UC Hastings College of the Law.