Abstract
Dr. Phyllis Kitzerow, now Professor Emerita of sociology at Westminster College (Pennsylvania), taught at the college between 1978 and her retirement in 2012. In 1975, she interviewed 77 women lawyers in a Pennsylvania county who had graduated from law school between 1925 and 1975. The interviews were part of her PhD in sociology (1977) which asked why these women wanted to become lawyers and about their experiences during law school and after. In 2010, she contacted as many of these women as she could and managed to reinterview 32 women lawyers. She also interviewed an additional 33 women lawyers whom she had missed in 1975 or who had moved into the County. She focused on their occupational histories, compensation, satisfaction, and work–family balance. When analyzing her interviews, she divided the women into three groups: pioneer group (graduated from law school by 1963; n = 8), transition group (graduated between 1964 and 1972; n = 13), and modern group (graduated from 1973 to 1975; n = 44). She also conducted a focus group in 2011 with 10 law students and attended a local bar association round table on work/family conflict.
Chapter 2 discusses the reasons why the 65 women went to law school. For the pioneer group, it was mostly about contacts that motivated these middle- to higher class women, who were outstanding academically, to attend law school. In the later groups, women also saw law as a “good fit,” a substitute vocation, a tool for social justice and “intrinsically interesting.” Only one woman mentioned financial payoff. The author relays numerous anecdotes of discrimination and sexist behavior by law professors and fellow law students, which will come as no surprise to women who went to law school prior to 1976.
Chapter 3 examines the problems these women encountered in their search for a position within the legal profession. The chapter is rich with examples and, as with the previous chapter, provides information and data about the social, economic, and legal context of the times within which these women lived. For example, Kitzerow provides a history of human rights legislation and affirmative action in the United States and how changes to the legal profession (nature of work, increase in the size of law firms, and demand for lawyers) affected job opportunities. The move from nepotism to limited “WASP meritocracy” and then to competitive meritocracy had an impact on where women decided to practice law.
In order to illustrate career paths over the years, Kitzerow selects eight women from six different placements (large and small firms, sole practitioners, corporations hired government positions, and elected or appointed government positions) and from the three groups for her discussion in Chapter 4. Factors that led to success included high-ranking performance at law school (although this was more so for women that came after the pioneer group), performance at work, connections, timing, and the effect of marriage and children.
Chapter 5 addresses the question, “Was Law a Good Choice?” As with other studies in the United States and Canada, women are not as successful as men when it comes to income. However, career success can be defined in terms other than income. Kitzerow asked her respondents whether they progressed as fast as they expected, what they saw as their greatest achievement, and whether law was the right decision for them. As anticipated, the pioneer women had fewer expectations than the women called later, but the first two groups were more similar to each other than the modern group. For example, only one of the women in the pioneer and transition groups had mixed feelings about going into law, whereas more women in the modern group were unsure or had mixed feelings about their legal careers. The modern group was also more likely to have expectations that were not met—disappointment with salary, dissatisfied with sexist conditions, and so on. Drawing on previous studies of lawyers’ satisfaction, Kitzerow tries to make sense of the concept of career satisfaction and the paradox of the contented woman lawyer.
Kitzerow found three patterns in how her respondents dealt with “Balancing Work and Family” (Chapter 6). First, 23% of the women (more so in the pioneer group than the transition and modern groups) did not have children. Second, some respondents worked part-time or took off long periods of time to look after their children. Again integrating previous studies in her analysis, Kitzerow identifies some of the problems with part-time work—for example, the arrangement often ends up with women working full time for part-time pay. The third pattern was to use childcare (often live-in help) and to continuing working full time—in some cases trying to “work like a man.” Nevertheless, women who combined work and children often ended up strained, both physically and mentally.
Chapter 7 examines the respondent’s thoughts on how gender impacted their decisions and career. The majority (62% of the pioneer group, 69% of the transition group, and 78% of the modern group) said they would have been treated differently if they were men. Most of them also believed that gender still matters in the legal profession. Although the 2011 focus group of law students thought that law schools were now more egalitarian, many anticipated problems with integrating family and work.
In Chapter 8, “High Hopes, Mixed Outcomes,” Kitzerow examines the link between family and work and women’s progress or lack thereof in the legal profession. She examines other studies on why gender equality has stalled and become a “no-problem” despite data to the contrary. As solutions become available, new ideologies (e.g., hyper competitiveness and competitive stereotypes) arise. There is little doubt that one’s gender still plays a role in the legal profession.
I would highly recommend this book for prelaw students, law students, lawyers, judges, policy makers, and legislators. It is filled with thoughtful comments from both Kitzerow and her respondents, and provides a well-crafted integration of the literature on women in the legal profession. Much of Kitzerow’s commentary is also relevant to other professions where women are still disadvantaged by a male-dominated culture.