Knowing nothing of the law I found this a very interesting essay. In academia, where I do have some experience, there is a similar problem for many women, that of reaching the higher ranks and perhaps more importantly leaving the teaching "worker bees" doing interminable essay marking and teaching junior undergraduates. The problem here is, I think, once more the maternal wall/ceiling (choose your metaphor) and the critical career life period which is in the 5–10 years following the acquisition of a higher degree : the "post–doc". Here it is essential to build up a publication record and at least begin getting grants independently. "Rainmaker" worship is not confined to the law! This period coincides with the early years of marriage & children and a woman so often hits forty with the kids off and running but lacking the necessary track record; she finds herself in a competition wearing lead boots, so to speak. I do suspect that the two ambitions – of being a successful wife and mother and a high flyer at work – are incompatible for all but a few very strong and talented women.

As a retired male lawyer ,I spent about 7 years after qualifying in a medium sized provincial law firm and then 27 years in a government legal office . In 1992 this government office was required to operate in an allegedly commercial manner by sending bills to its exclusively government agency clients , for payment out of Budget funds . I often dealt with lawyers from major commercial firms and I know that the facts in this article are correct .

Even in my government law office , marketing , management , fake management training [ bonding workshops , role playing and the like ] were regarded as far more important than actual "black letter law " . The latter was regarded with derision and the " rainmakers " who claimed to bring in legal work were rewarded with promotion and performance bonuses . Generally , after obtaining a law degree , the rainmakers practised law , if at all , only briefly and then harassed the lawyers who actually did the work , to send more bills .

Regarding women with children , I agree that they should be entitled to part time work , provided that this is compatible with the overall efficiency of the office . Often it is not compatible and those lawyers who do not have children , or whose children have grown up , have to carry an extra burden for the part timers . This would be less the case , if clients did not expect 24 / 7 service . In most instances , 24 / 7 service is not necessary , but managers are scared to tell this to clients .

Modern technology generally has made working life for lawyers more stressful and the end service to clients has not improved . Service may be rendered more quickly but mistakes are made or lawyers
e . g , give advice and prepare agreements in a manner which protects the lawyer from negligence claims and complaints , rather than to produce the best result .

Last time I looked, becoming a lawyer and where you work as a lawyer were still voluntary. If you don't like it, don't do it.

Blaming "super-capitalism" is meaningless. You are essentially saying you shouldn't have to work so hard and that revenue should be spread around more evenly. Good luck with that - socialism went out with the Berlin wall.

“Women are grossly under-represented at the higher levels of the Australian legal profession.”

Relative *to what*?

The great flaw in the author’s article is the assumption that if women are not represented in the workforce in every way as they would be if they were men, then this self-evidently proves a waste and an injustice.

It doesn’t, for obvious reasons.

To believe that “women” form a great homogeneous lump of persons with homogeneous interests, and that the outcomes for this class should be the same as another great homogeneous lump, “men”, and that men and women have, could, or should have an equal liability when it comes to having babies, takes an advanced degree of learnt stupidity.

“In Australian law firms today, there is general agreement that the under-representation of women at senior levels is a huge problem.”

Well there shouldn’t be. That idea only makes sense if you think that you know better than everyone else in the world put together, because it’s the aggregate of all those persons’ decisions that are causing the phenomenon you misunderstand and hate.

The very fact that special conditions are mooted for women and mothers disproves your factually incorrect basal assumption that the sexes are equal.

“The main features of super-capitalism are unregulated free markets…”

Here the author resorts to blatant dishonesty. Roy, name *one* ‘unregulated free market’ or admit that you are lying, and that your premise is a straw man.

Workplaces aren’t enjoyable? Well welcome to the real world sunshine! Of course it’s difficult to focus on being productive and profitable. But the alternative is a world in which a privileged class can focus on “lossability” – the ability to make losses, paid for by someone else, to fund their prerogative of laziness, or their desire to get something for nothing.

“To return, then, to the original question: why are women under-represented in senior positions in Australian law firms?”

You have never established that they are. There is no reason why the proportions of men and women in any given profession should not be different.

So Roy doesn't find legal firms such a great place to work. I wonder if he would have preferred to drive a bus, or dig coal out of the ground perhaps. Probably not much more fun really.

The thing that most of these glass ceiling people forget is that work is the real world, it's not school.

Girls like school, they like the social atmosphere & the support of teachers & associates, they work well in this environment. Boys however aren't so wrapped in school, they would rather be playing football or computer games, definitely something more competitive. Mostly they do only as well as they must to get through.

Then comes work. Not so social or supportive. Competition is everywhere, boys thrive, & girls shrivel, at least most do.

They prefer the public service, where affirmative action means they get promoted if there is any chance at all they can do the job. A place where they can progress to their 3rd or 4Th level of incompetence no questions asked. A quick glance at any government organisation will show this. Health care anyone.

Of course some blokes aren't so well equipped for the business world either. They also like government jobs, & academia beacons those who find real work too tough. Perhaps that's why so many graduates are not the least prepared for the real world. Their teachers can't bear to think of or talk about it.