Women in Law Hackathon Keynote Address

Delivered By Melanie Heller, Vice President and General Manager of

Bloomberg Law
Like, Im sure all of you, when Caren Ulrich Stacy came to us about
this event we jumped at the chance to be a part of it. Tackling the problems
of women advancing in the legal market is something that needs this kind of
attention, and we at Bloomberg Law are thrilled to be part of this
discussion. I dont need to reiterate the issues at hand the things many of
us have experienced, seen at our firms and read about, including in the
Stanford white paper put together as part of this event.
I was so excited and inspired to hear all the amazing and innovative
ideas you have all come up with. They clearly transcend things attempted
in the past, some of which simply gave lip service to the issue, and have the
ability to truly transform the legal sphere. All the ideas presented were
concrete, tactical solutions that we can put in place immediately, and many
of them would apply outside of the legal arena as well. And each of these
ideas embody Carens battle cry less talk, more action.
But something I want to discuss with you today is what Ill call the
other side of the problem the more overarching, systemic issues. The fact
that the law firm environment simply isnt built to account for the lives of
women the responsibilities that they have outside of the office. The fact
that although the sea is shifting, women still bear responsibility for most
household activities, including taking care of children. The fact that the
years that women are supposed to be working the hardest/longest often
coincide with their childbearing years. The fact that there is limited
flexibility in the way law firms currently deal with situations many of the
solutions dont actually address the real problems. The fact that large law
firms are often more focused on the short term economic effects of things,
and not focused enough on the long term effects on the law firm as a whole.
The fact that we are still measured by the billable hour. The fact that we
are scared to admit that maybe we need to treat women differently,
understand their concerns differently, and come up with solutions with them
in mind.
I believe that even if women can escape some of the problems detailed
in the Stanford white paper lack of mentorship, less desirable work
assignments, biased reviews, fewer business development opportunities
they are nonetheless extracting themselves from the workplace for the
overarching reasons just mentioned. They are capable of doing everything
the men can do, they just dont want to make the necessary sacrifices. They
are choosing to leave because they feel like its not a career that
appreciates their specific needs. If we really want to keep and advance
women in the legal profession, we need to work on the things identified

today, and also work to fix the systematic issues that exist that necessarily
disadvantage women.
A recent New York Times article written by Judith Shulevitz, titled
How to Fix Feminism says it well. The author wishes that the sacrifices
one makes in ones career in order to spend time raising kids was valued,
rather than looked down upon. But true equality will take more than equal
pay and better working conditions. It will require something more radical,
a transvaluation of all values, in Neitzsches phrase.
When I think back to the reasons I decided to leave BigLaw, the main
one was not addressed in the Stanford white paper. I dont have specific
complaints about my experience in BigLaw. I didnt feel overwhelming
discrimination, and I do feel like opportunities were given to me. Generally,
I was given the same opportunities as my male peers, put on the good
deals, etc. At both of my law firms, I had no problem finding formal and
informal mentors, and incidentally my two greatest mentors were both men,
who chose to take me under their wing and train me to work with their most
important clients. I never worried about my path, my ability to succeed, or
my ability to be promoted. In short, I felt very much that partnership was
mine for the taking.
What stopped me in my tracks was the fact that I did not have a
balanced life. I was being encouraged to bill more and more time, to spend
more and more time in the office, and beyond that, I was being asked to
spend so much of my precious non-work time entertaining clients and
prospective law firm laterals. I was told that this is what everyone does to
make partner. I was single at the time, and I was becoming nervous that I
was going to remain so. When I first approached the head of my group
telling him I didnt think this path was for me, after the requisite you can
do this, just stick with it this is the hardest part, he allowed me to go on a
four month externship to a non-profit to recharge before returning back to
my old job. I didnt say no to getting paid a BigLaw salary and working nonprofit hours, but I knew it wasnt going to solve my issue. And heres a
perfect example of what I mean by a solution that dont match the problem.
I told him I didnt have a good work/life balance so he gave a four months
break and then expected me to come back wanting to return to my 18 hour
days? He essentially gave me a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
Let me contrast that with a very similar story but at another firm. My
close friend, who is now a partner at an AmLaw 100 firm, and has been for
years, approached the head of her group when she was a mid-level
associate and said something similar to what I had said. The head of her
group asked what it would take to make her feel more comfortable staying.
She said she didnt want to travel anymore. She was honest about the fact
that she didnt feel like she was ever going to meet someone, get married,

or have kids, because she was constantly on the road. So the partner told
her he would only staff her on deals that required no travel. Furthermore,
he told her he didnt care from where she worked, offering her a little more
flexibility. As she described it to me, this was the first time she realized that
she could do the job and also have a family. That was six years ago now. In
that time, she made partner, got married, had two kids and helped launch a
new office of her firm.
The solutions we provide have to be responsive to the actual
problems. My firm dealt with my complaint by offering up a solution that
was used in the past for someone who had burnt out and needed a break. I
hadnt burnt out I just needed something different. It wasnt responsive to
my request, and therefore didnt succeed. My friends solution was created
for her, and gave her what she specifically needed. It allowed her to stay
and succeed. Mine just pushed off the day I was going to leave.
This is fundamentally my issue with the idea of flextime as a solution
for women. Putting aside the issues raised in the Stanford white paper
about flextime being stigmatized, and people on flextime being perceived as
no longer being on track for partner, I have a different issue. While
flextime arrangements allow lawyers to have a reduced billable hour
workload, as currently implemented at many firms it doesnt actually
provide real flexibility for those people. If a client needs you, or if
something need to get done, youre still not going to be able to attend that
dance recital or class trip. And the fact that reduced billable hours
automatically leads to reduced pay (even when the law firm isnt necessarily
getting reduced value) is another problem too.
So when I finally decided to leave practice, like so many other women
I know, it wasnt because I didnt think partnership was attainable. It was
because I had decided I didnt want it. I had plenty of mentors at the firm,
but none of the women were people I aspired to become. They all had been
asked to give up more things than I cared to, and when they became
partner many found that life had largely passed them by. I was not
interested in making the sacrifices I felt I was going to have to make.
I think thats something we dont always talk about in relation to this
problem, the lack of female role models at firms and the impact that has on
female associates. There were certainly successful, happy, female partners
at my firm with families and successful marriages, but not in my practice
group, and thats what I needed to see. Retaining anyone at a law firm is
dependent upon that person seeing people at the firm who they can imagine
becoming. Women in an organization dont simply want to see women at
the top. They want to see women who have the things they want, whether
its a spouse or partner, kids, or just general flexibility to have a life outside
of work.

Just yesterday, LeanIn.Org launched a new campaign called Together

Women Can. In Sheryl Sandbergs own words: The campaign emphasizes
that women can be powerful allies for each other at work and are
uniquely qualified to do so because we experience many of the same
challenges. When a woman helps another woman, they both benefit. And
when women celebrate one anothers accomplishments, were all lifted up.
One takeaway from the campaign is that women are in the best position to
change the status quo that defines full dedication as giving 100% of your
attention to work. Since few women can do that, its another way of
unconsciously excluding women. The campaign pushes women to redefine
success in a way that transcends the status quo, and leaves room for women
to succeed. As women take positions of power in law firms, and
corporations, the idea is that they will be the ones to spearhead the change.
And as more junior women see senior women who they can aspire to be,
people like the friend I mentioned before who have achieved that work/life
balance, I believe we will have more women wanting to stay in the
profession.
But in a world where billable hours are the only real measure of
success, it really is difficult to create balance. Every hour out of the office is
an hour not billed. Furthermore, and I saw this happen repeatedly, women
who decided to have families were written off immediately. The women who
redeemed themselves were the ones that created full work flexibility by
finding full-time coverage for their kids. In my role as staffing coordinator
at a large firm, I often was faced with resistance when partners were asked
to work with people who had flexible arrangements or who wanted to make
it home for dinner with their kids but were then available to log back on and
work from home, one of them even offering to come back to the office after
putting her kids to sleep. This woman would have been out of pocket for
two hours and back online, but many partners were unwilling to work with
her on these terms. Thats what I mean about thinking short term instead
of long term this woman was asking for a small concession but since it did
not confirm to the norm, it was rejected. (Unsurprisingly, this associate
eventually left the firm for an in-house role that afforded her more
flexibility.) Im starting to think, after reading the Stanford white paper, and
reflecting upon the stories I just relayed, that the billable hour issue really
is, at the heart of it, a feminist one. Maybe its the one we should all
consider tackling first.
Because it just cant be that the only choice for a woman who happens
to be a mother, or wants to be a mother, is to get fulltime help at home to
give her the same billing flexibility as the men, or leave the job. That
cannot be what we want the solution to be. Thats why, in addition to the
solutions we have come up with today, we need to also start working to
change the way we think about commitment, and success, at the law firm.

What if success and commitment was tied to outcome, not billable hours.
You could get the same result from your lawyers and incentivize them to be
more efficient with their time.
I happen to work for a company that has made a commitment to
advancing women, and incidentally fulfills a number of the
recommendations detailed in the Stanford white paper, so there is proof
that if you want to fix these things, you can. Michael Bloomberg himself has
put multiple women at the top of his management structure Patricia
Harris is the head of Philanthropy, something that we all know is extremely
important to him; Patricia Roskill is the CFO; Beth Mazzeo is the COO. At
every major management meeting, when people present to Mike, they see
him flanked by these powerful women. And he has made sure the company
understands that diversity is a priority and he holds his leaders accountable
for doing the same. Furthermore, we are measured on what we accomplish,
not how many hours it takes us to do it. When you talk about more action,
fewer words, its clear that Bloomberg isnt just saying it, hes doing it. And
this obviously trickles down through the company.
In my division, the Legal Division, there are as many women as men
reporting to the President. I can tell you that personally I know my
performance is measured on what I accomplish rather than what hours I
spend in the office. I am given the flexibility to attend the out of work
things that are important to me, or necessary for me to be at. I love my job,
and Im excited to go to work every day, because in my job I dont have to
apologize for devoting time to my family, or attempting to be home for
dinner and bedtime every night and then logging back in at night, if need
be. Of course I give things up at home too. I skip more things at my kids
school than I go to; my nanny takes my kids to their doctors appointments; I
am yet to attend a school trip. However, I am allowed to go to the things
that are important with no prejudice. And frankly my boss, David Perla, one
of the judges here, prioritizes his family as well. And we all respect him for
it. We work in an environment where balancing the two is a constant
struggle, but is done openly, and women and men alike can have balance
and also succeed.
In order to provide people flexibility and balance in the law firm
environment, I think we need to relax some of our existing conventions - to
find a way to assess performance in a way that transcends the need to hit a
specific billable hour requirement, and get people truly comfortable with
the idea that people can work everywhere. Technology, including
Bloomberg Law, the tool I work on, are now accessible to people no matter
where they are. People can access their secure networks, collaboration
tools and internal databases and document repositories, from home. There
is no reason why someone couldnt go home, put his or her kids to sleep and
then log back on and continue to work. When I was in charge of staffing,

partners often resisted working with associates who sought to have this
arrangement, and we let them do that. I think we need to stop allowing
partners to say no. We need to force the issue.
And we have to find a way to support women through the years where
they have the largest childbearing burden. I promise you, if you can help
them get through those years and in the scheme of things, there arent
that many years where our kids demand that much of our time - youll have
them in the profession for many years to come. Its a small investment for a
large gain.
Its about thinking long term, not short term. Let me tell you a story
that illustrates what I mean. When I interviewed at Bloomberg LP back at
the end of 2011 I was 7 months pregnant. I was unhappy in my current
position, but figured no one would hire someone that pregnant. I
interviewed anyhow, at the suggestion of a friend. That same person
coached me to not be apologetic about the pregnancy it was nothing to be
embarrassed about and had nothing to do with my ability to do the job.
Nonetheless, I was shocked to receive a job offer that would give me a
three-month maternity leave after only working for two months. A number
of months after returning to work I told my boss that I thought he was brave
to hire someone so pregnant. He looked at me, confused, and said, You
were the right person for the job. We had looked for a while before meeting
you. We were willing to lose you for 3 months to have you for the duration.
And thats really what it comes down. Its really simple. We need to
think about the long game. We need to stop thinking that a maternity leave,
going on flextime to raise a child, or trying to achieve balance between
work and family is something insurmountable. We need to consider
different possibilities for different people, with no prejudice. Its not worse,
or less committed, to take time off or have a reduced schedule its just a
different way to get there. We need to stop thinking that its anti-feminist to
treat women differently. We are different. We have different needs and
different concerns, and we need different solutions.
We need to decide where we want women to be at our law firms and
organizations presumably with equal representation in the partner ranks,
C-level positions and on committees and then we need to work to get
there. Its short term thinking that gets us in trouble. If we want women in
those roles, we need to create an environment that makes that possible, and
we need to make it happen now. All law firms say that retaining women is
important to them. If so, lets aspire to have less talk, and more action.