Support, mentoring, and risk-taking bring women to first chair, finds study

By Barbara L. Jones
BridgeTower Media Newswires
 
MINNEAPOLIS — It is well-known that the proportionate number of women entering the legal profession is increasing — slowly. It is also well-known that women have not advanced into the highest levels of private practice or of corporate law departments at anywhere near the same rate as men.

The ABA study “First Chairs at Trial,” from 2015 reported that only 17 percent of equity partners in big firms and 22 percent of general counsel in the Fortune 500 are women. It also reported that on only about 24 percent of civil cases was the lead counsel a woman. In criminal cases, 33 percent of lead counsel were women. “More women need seats at the table,” and an entry-level pipeline is not enough, the report concludes.

More women at the table can be accomplished, say lawyers at Nilan Johnson Lewis, where 50 percent of its arbitrations and trials are handled by women. Additionally, 37 percent of its shareholders are women and a majority of its board of directors are women. Barbara Jones met with three of Nilan’s women litigators, Tracy Van Steenburgh, Sandra Jezierski and Amanda Cialkowski to discuss what works and what doesn’t for women litigators. The interview has been edited for length and clarity

Jones: What was your reaction to the ABA study?

Jezierski: I was actually surprised that it was as high as it was. The percentage of female shareholders is much lower.

Van Steenburgh: It’s 22 percent.

Cialkowski: It’s much narrower because many of the female shareholders are trial lawyers. I was also surprised because in most of the cases that I’ve tried, I’ve been the only woman in the courtroom. There may be a woman plaintiff, but otherwise it’s not uncommon that [everyone else] is a man. I go all over the country and it’s still mostly men.

Van Steenburgh: I think there are more women judges. I tried a case in Chicago in 2010 where there was a female judge, female plaintiff and female lawyers for the plaintiff and the defense. The judge said, “This is the first case that I’ve had where everybody is female.” You would have hoped it would have happened sooner than that, but I think it is improving. It’s very slow.

I have been involved in a fair number of multi-district litigation cases where there are women lawyers but they tend to be products liability cases involving women’s health. I think there is a perception and I think it’s true that women defense lawyers are more effective when you have women plaintiffs. There are a lot of men representing women.

Jezierski: I’ve noticed that in sexual harassment cases they often have female attorneys on the defense.

Jones: Speaking of sexual harassment, that’s kind of the gorilla in the room everywhere right now. Do you think that overt sexism, including harassment, is at work here?

Van Steenburgh: I think overt sexism is part of it, I think it’s also affinity.

Jezierski: I also think there’s a misperception that women attorneys can’t be aggressive or effective in the courtroom. Clients would rather have a bulldog. I also think women don’t have to act like men to be effective in the courtroom.

Van Steenburgh: I think sometimes in litigation with large corporations there is a concern that they need a person with gray hair, with stature, because people are reporting to someone higher up who will have a lot of questions. I’ve also had clients say they are looking for someone who is going to be the face of the company, who is projecting what their image is.

Jones: What’s different about Nilan Johnson Lewis?

Van Steenburgh: The firm started in 1996 after Popham Haik imploded. I came in 1998. I noticed that there was a perspective that I liked. I was the first lateral shareholder to come in and they were looking for a woman. The philosophy of the founders was that we want to reflect what’s going on with the clients and we want to be responsive. That philosophy has permeated ever since — we want to make sure there are a lot of women and other diverse attorneys within the firm. It helped that we came from the ashes of another firm and could reflect on that, I think that’s part of it.

From the beginning the philosophy has been that women need to be decision-makers, out front, representing our firm. It’s not just populating the firm with women. We have more than 50 percent women and women are the majority on board of directors.

Jezierski: I was hired in 1998 as an associate. For me to come into this firm, with partners like Tracy, it never crossed my mind that I couldn’t try a case. It was part of the work.

Cialkowski: The other thing is that the firm has been smart about making accommodations so we don’t lose talent. You see women leaving the practice in large numbers. I think Nilan has been cognizant that there are unique pressures for women who are trying to raise a family and have a litigation practice. It’s being supportive and not making women feel like second-class citizens. I’ve had partners volunteer to pick up my kids when I’m in trial. There are a number of women who made shareholder when they were on maternity leave. I’m one of them.

Jezierski: I was pregnant when I made shareholder.

Jones: The other important component is mentorship. Can you explain how that’s been important to you?

Cialkowski: One attribute of our firm that lends itself well to that is our flat, non-hierarchal structure. You’re not made to feel stupid for asking questions. Everybody’s got an open-door policy. It lends itself to sharing knowledge and teaching each other.

Jezierski: And the partners here do it for free. They aren’t going to bill the client for giving me advice.

Cialkowski: When you come in as an associate you have a senior mentor and an associate mentor. You have those opportunities throughout your entire associate career. You check in with your associates, make sure they are getting the work and opportunities they want. There is an equal, if not more, amount of informal mentoring that goes on.

Jones: Can you talk a little about how you were helped?

Cialkowski: The first case I tried here was in federal court and I tried it with Mike Nilan and Scott Smith. There were thousands of documents and when it came to trial Mike said, “You should be in there, you should handle witnesses, you’ve worked the case up. I don’t want you sitting there as a token.” That really gave me confidence. The next case I tried I was essentially first chair.

Van Steenburgh: I had tried cases before I came here, it wasn’t mentoring so much as support. I remember going out to see a potential client and two of the partners came with me to show that we had bench strength and we could try these cases. I’ve tried to pay it forward by giving others, women and men, an opportunity to get into court.

I was recently involved in an MDL that was being created and the plaintiff’s side had three men on the steering committee. When we went in for approval U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim told the plaintiffs, “I’d really like to see a woman on your committee.” One was appointed.

Jones: Do you have any thoughts on work for women in appellate work?

Van Steenburgh: There are some very effective women appellate lawyers here such as Diane Bratvold, who is now a judge, and Kay Nord Hunt. In this state, I think that would be a good area for women. I have less knowledge of other states. Thinking of cases I’ve been involved in where appeals have been taken across the country and I can’t think of any women who’ve argued those appeals.

Amanda: If you go to the U.S. Supreme Court you see lawyers that argue there frequently, and they are all men.

Jones: What do we as a profession do now? There comes a point where you have to ask for what you want.

Van Steenburgh: I think women get put in roles or assume the role of being more deferential and assisting. There’s a certain amount of socialization, you can’t get away from that. You have to practice walking away from that role and having others support them. It’s easy to fall into that role. It’s safe.

Jezierski: Trying cases is stressful. I’ve had one case and Amanda’s had several where we were ‘drop-in’ attorneys. I was offered a [race-discrimination] case where I had one week to prepare for a jury trial. I could have said no, I’m uncomfortable, I’ve never done that. But I stepped up and did it and I’m glad I did. It does take courage and I make myself take those chances.

Jones: The corollary to what you’re saying is that you have to be willing to fail. You have to understand that you could lose those cases.

Van Steenburgh: I love the old adage about trials — if you haven’t lost one, you haven’t tried any.