 I loved Professor Backhouse’s biography of Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, so when I saw her book “Two Firsts: Bertha Wilson and Claire L’Heureux-Dubé at the Supreme Court of Canada” I knew I would enjoy it as well.
“Two Firsts” is a lot shorter than the 1000-page biography of Justice L’Heureux-Dubé and much of “Two Firsts” that discusses L’Heureux-Dubé’s life and career was already covered in the biography. However, what I enjoyed about this new book was the insight into Justice Wilson’s career and rise to the top court and how it compared/contrasted with Justice L’Heureux-Dubé’s. Professor Backhouse eloquently tells the story of these two trailblazing women, juxtaposing their personal histories and career progressions. Wilson was Scottish born, married to a church minister, and was a research lawyer at a large corporate law firm in Toronto before being appointed to the bench. She was described by those who knew her as a “stoic Scot” who “stuck to her work”. While L’Heureux-Dubé, a Quebecoise who practiced family law, was described as having a “reputation as a femme fatale, whose flamboyance dominated every room she entered”.[1] While these women had different personal and professional lives, both were subjected to similar sexism and discrimination that arose due to their position as the “firsts”. They were isolated, left out, and “enveloped in a chilly climate that signalled disrespect”. Often their response was to downplay or ignore what was going on. At the Court of Appeal for Quebec, a judicial colleague named Fred, whom L’Heureux-Dubé liked and admired, gave her a “quick slap on the buttocks” “in a gesture apparently meant to be playful”. When the other judges cried out “Fred, you’ll be sued!”, L’Heureux-Dubé just laughed and said, “Oh, it’s so nice. Oh, Fred…I miss it.” Years later she added, “I was the only one. I was not going to alienate everybody there.”[2] When a fellow judge pulled out a chair for Justice Wilson on her first day in court at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, she “put up her index finger and said, ‘Don’t you ever do that again.’ The front row …all Queen’s Counsel, just broke right out laughing”. The chair-pulling judge emphasized that Wilson was ultimately “a great sport about it”.[3] In addition to reviewing the reception these women had as the “firsts”, the book also examines the judicial history of some of the important cases that Wilson and L’Heureux-Dubé decided, including Becker v Pettkus, Lavallee, and Morgentaler for Justice Wilson and Moge v Moge, Canada (Attorney General) v Mossop, Seaboyer, and Ewanchuk for L’Heureux-Dubé. A quick, entertaining, well-researched, and informative read, I think anyone interested in a ‘behind the scenes’ look at being a judge in Canada and the history (or “herstory”) of these “Two Firsts” will enjoy this book. The book is published by Second Story Press as a Feminist History Society Book. [1] Constance Backhouse, Two Firsts: Bertha Wilson and Claire L'Heureux-Dube at the Supreme Court of Canada, (Toronto: Second Story Press, 2019) at p. 14. [2] At p 131. [3] At p. 138.
0 Comments
For this post we have the pleasure of hearing from TWO women leading in law: Christy Allen and Nancy Houle, partners at Davidson Houle Allen LLP in Ottawa. Andrea Daly, an articling student at their firm, wrote to tell me: "Impressive and lengthy resumes aside, Nancy and Christy are generally all-around amazing people. They treat clients and employees alike with kindness, respect and empathy. . . As for amazing women succeeding in the legal profession, Christy and Nancy really do set the bar (no pun intended).I am inspired working with them every day and hope that you would consider profiling them." Who could say no to that? 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business: We are a small boutique condominium law firm in Ottawa, and we represent almost exclusively condominium corporations (although we also represent other collective property interest groups, as well as some individual homeowners). Our practice spans most of Eastern Ontario, though we also represent some clients in Northern and Southern Ontario, as well as in Toronto. Condominium law is a far more interesting area of practice than most people realize. It is an even mix of corporate and litigation work, and it touches on a multitude of legal issues and areas of practice. We deal with everything from large scale construction deficiency litigation to helping clients navigate human rights issues, employment issues, statutory compliance issues, and corporate governance issues, to name a few. It is this variety that really keeps us interested in the long run. 2. Why did you go to law school? Christy - I went to law school because it was available to me as a practical option when I graduated from my undergraduate studies, and I liked the idea of a career in law. While I didn’t necessarily realize it at the time, I know now how fortunate I was to have had law as a realistic option, and to be honest, I worry about the future of our profession when I think about the fact that had I graduated from undergrad today, law school might not have been economically available to me. There are others out there with far better and more inspiring reasons than I had to go to law school, and my hope is that we can find a way to ensure that they are given a fair opportunity to become lawyers. Nancy – My goal to go to law school began when I was 12 years old. Actually, it began because I wanted to be a Judge, and was advised that I would first need to be a lawyer! I echo Christy’s comments and concerns about the future of our profession, and the opportunities for those who wish to pursue a legal career. I truly love practicing law. [So much so that I have no intention of ever applying to the Bench!] It saddens me to think that there may be someone with such passion who is not able to realize a dream because of economics. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? We both pretty much tripped over the practice of condominium law, and fell into a practice group within a larger firm that included the amazing partners that we have today. Having stumbled into the area of practice, we both ended up really enjoying the practice – and we particularly enjoyed the people we were working with. Our group ultimately left that larger firm to become the boutique firm that we are today - that start up of our small firm was less about chance. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? One of the best things about the practice of law is the fact that we get to experience some pretty amazing moments as a result of our careers. So its tough to chose, but we both have to say that our proudest career achievements, at this point in our lives, is the fact that we were able to successfully start up a boutique law firm. In addition, one of the best parts about starting our own firm has been that we’ve been able to shape it into a firm that maintains core values that are reflective of our own shared philosophy and beliefs. In an industry as traditional as the legal industry, it can be difficult to move away from the standard way of practicing and doing business. So, its been incredibly refreshing for us to be able to move in our own direction with our new venture. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? The biggest challenge, in our view, is that the traditional model of practice doesn’t generally allow for women to balance the interests of being a lawyer and a mother. This is, in our view, what has resulted in so many women leaving private practice before year 10. Having said this, this challenge in many ways provides all of us with an opportunity to change how we practice law, to allow for more flexibility and more options, and to ensure that we are being more inclusive and losing less talent. There are so many extremely talented lawyers (both men and women) who earnestly want to balance their careers with parenting. And if given the proper opportunity, they may decide to stay in private practice - and in so doing will themselves help to drive the significant change that will be required to overhaul the way lawyers have practiced for so long. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? Christy - Even before starting law school, I’ve always believed that each of us has to forge our own path, regardless of what others may say or what obstacles may lie ahead. For women just starting out, I think the best advice I could give is this: Don’t let the statistics scare you and don’t give up just because others say it might be too hard to balance law with whatever other challenge you may be facing in your life. If you want a career in private practice and you also want a family, it is possible. Adjustments may be required, and inevitably some soul searching will take place along the way. But just keep putting one foot in front of the other and try to ignore all the voices that say its not possible. And don’t forget to take whatever opportunities may come your way (particularly later in your career) to seek change for the better, so that this work-life balance challenge that so many women in this profession face will be less of a challenge for future generations. Nancy – In addition to Christy’s advice, I would add the following advice to young mothers struggling to find balance in the profession: As a young mother trying to maintain a successful legal career, you will inevitably be pulled in many, many directions. You might, at some point, feel like a failure in every aspect of your life: work, personal and family. If that happens, reach out to those who have been there too. Share your story, seek guidance and input, but make the decision that is best for you! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Christy and Nancy for participating in this series, and thank you Andrea for introducing me. And a really big THANK YOU to all of the leading women in law profiled in this series: Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.   I am so excited to profile Suzie Seo in the Women Leading in Law series. I met Suzie on the first day of law school. We were sitting next to each other in the large lecture hall waiting for the Dean's Welcome Address, both a little nervous, neither of us knowing anyone. We were pretty much inseparable for the remainder of law school, even becoming roommates for two years. Although our legal careers are very different and we live in different parts of the country, I am truly honoured to call Suzie a dear friend, supporter, confidante, and an amazing woman who is leading in law. I hope you enjoy reading about Suzie's interesting career path and advice for new lawyers: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I’m currently in a transition period. The first transition is that in October 2018, after practicing in-house at the Senate of Canada for over 12 years -- Legal Counsel (2006-2012), Parliamentary Counsel (2012-2017) and Assistant Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel (2017-2018) -- I decided to start a new chapter in my legal career as Legislative Counsel with the Government of British Columbia in Victoria. Over a 7-week period, I wound down my practice -- advancing as many of my files as possible to see them to completion or to a state to transition over to colleagues -- while at home my spouse and I listed and sold our house privately; culled, packed and shipped our belongings across the country; and got ready for our cross-country road-trip with two kids in tow. I also began the process of being called to the BC Bar. I began my new post as Legislative Counsel in mid-October, exclusively drafting legislation (Bills, Regulations and Orders in Council) and enjoying the benefits that come with having ministry solicitors and policy advisors as drafting instructors! The second reason for the transition period came two months into my new job when I decided to submit an application for a one-year Parliamentary Counsel position that unexpectedly came up at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. It is now June and I have been at the Legislative Assembly for a little over 4 months. In many ways I have returned to my former practice of law. As in-house counsel to the Legislative Assembly, I provide legal services and advice, upon request, to the House, presiding officers, parliamentary committees, Members and their legislative and constituency office staff, and to the officers of the Legislative Assembly and the administrative departments they oversee that consist of both parliamentary and corporate branches like HR, IT and Finance. As a Table Officer, I sit at the Table alongside the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during House proceedings, providing procedural advice to presiding officers and Members. And lastly, as a member of the senior management team, I contribute to the governance, strategic and other corporate initiatives of the Legislative Assembly. 2. Why did you go to law school? I went to law school because I wanted to become a lawyer in one or more of the following practices areas, which coincidentally all start with “i”: international law; immigration law; intellectual property law. I studied what interested me during four years of undergraduate studies at the University of Toronto: human biology, zoology, anthropology and Spanish. I am an immigrant (“1.5 generation” Korean-Canadian) with most of my extended family in South Korea. Since my elementary school days, I have always been intrigued, excited and agitated by human rights and public policy issues. I thought I could build on all of this by studying law and pursuing a legal career in any one of the three “i” practice areas. Plus, I liked school and wanted to continue studying. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? Probably a bit of both. I strived for and worked hard to achieve each of the stepping stones -- law school, summering jobs, articling, legal jobs -- that led me to where I am today (design). But I didn’t know, as each stone was being laid, what the final destination would be (chance). I would be self-centered and foolish to not acknowledge the role of my supportive and loving family who has always been my cheering squad at every milestone in my life (and in between), encouraging me and keeping me both grounded and buoyant in love. My mom and dad pray for me everyday, so I believe there is also divine design in how I got to be where I am today. What does the future hold for me?! I don’t know... 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? Work-wise, I would say working with Senators to work on various pieces of legislation that have become law over the years has been my most significant achievement because I directly contributed to the work of federal lawmakers that resulted in a direct, tangible and sometimes life-changing impact on Canadians. Looking back not too far, I am also proud I let myself reflect on where I was in my legal career and what I wanted to do in the next decade and beyond that led to the major change in my career path and to my family’s and my life last year. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? Not enough women in senior leadership positions in both the private sector (including law firms) and public institutions continues to be both a challenge and area of opportunity for women in law. There is also the societal perception problems that many women lawyers, including those in senior positions, face in their everyday interactions with clients, opposing counsel and others in the course of their practice and the additional work required of them to be constantly mindful of managing the fine line (examples below) that is nevertheless more often than not crossed for them:
6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? Be purposeful in building diverse networks early in your career within the legal community (and outside the law!) and with everyone, especially women. Don’t overthink before calling someone in those networks to think out loud. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Suzie for sharing your journey with us. I also want to mention that Suzie obtained her Civil Law degree (magna cum laude) while working full time at the Senate and won the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012. I am sure the future is bright for you, no matter what it might be! ICYMI: Previous posts profiled Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan. Sign up to have these profiles sent directly to your email address and stay tuned for the next post soon! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired!  “How Do You Do It?” and “How Do You Do it All?”: Dispelling Myths About My Life as a Lawpreneur5/27/2019  The two questions I am asked on a regular basis are: “How do you do it?” and “How do you do it all?”
The first question is often from people who want advice from me on how to start their own “thing”, whether it’s their own law practice, freelance law practice, or side-hustle business. The second question, “How do you do it all?”, is often followed by “Three kids, running a business, lawyering, teaching, blogging, when you do find the time?” Both of these questions make me uncomfortable. The fact that people are asking me these questions makes me think I am projecting this fake Instagram image that I am succeeding at all of this and it is easy for me. So, this blog post is dedicated to these two questions and dispelling some common myths that I hear. HOW DO YOU DO IT? A little over a year after I started my solo freelance lawyer business, I was having coffee with an acquaintance and she said to me, “Your business is going so well. You are so lucky! It is not normally that way. What luck you have!” (For some context, this individual had started a few different businesses that never really got off the ground.) I didn’t know how to respond, so I sort of just stared at her and muttered a non-committal answer. But inside my head I was thinking, “Luck? Really was that all this was? Luck?” That night at 3 am, lying in bed wide awake (you know, when my brain decides it’s a good time to work through some problems), I thought about her comment and why it annoyed me. Sure, okay, I concluded, there was some luck involved. I cannot deny that I certainly have the inherent advantages associated with being born into the life of an able-bodied white woman (more context, my coffee companion was also an able-bodied white woman). But I also knew that it most certainly wasn’t all luck. I worked really hard to get my business to where it was. The comment annoyed me as it diminished my efforts and placed my success out of my control. It was something that just happened to me and not something I made happen. And this is myth number one that I want to dispel: Successful businesses or law firms don’t “just happen”. You cannot hang up a shingle and “Voila!” you have a successful law practice. I meet with lawyers all the time who want advice on how to start a freelance or solo practice. When I follow up a few months or a year later to see how things are going, some are disappointed that their practice is not as successful as they thought it would be. I ask them what they have done to grow their business. Often, they tell me they put up a website, printed business cards, and had a few coffees. That’s it!?! You need to hustle! I went to two or three networking events a week (still do). I emailed everyone I knew. I set up as many coffees and lunches as I could. I spent hours writing and re-writing blog posts and articles for legal publications. I built my social media presence. I volunteered hours of my time with different organizations to build my profile. This was not luck. This was hard work. A website and some business cards may be “hard work” to some. Not to me. I’ve been financially independent since I turned 18. I paid for undergrad and law school by working several different summer and part time jobs. I know what it is like to have to work hard or not reach my goals. I guess my point is, you can have great ideas and a great passion for a new business or law practice but if you don’t put in the hours of work it will likely go nowhere. You may love the idea of freelancing or being your own boss (and it is pretty awesome!) but it is not all rainbows and sunshine. I fully agree with the saying that successful businesses are 1% idea and 99% execution. And sometimes even with all of that hard work a business will still fail. But with just an idea and no execution it will fail every time. Remember this when you see those “overnight success” companies or law firms. Likely “overnight” involved years of frustration, no money, hard work, and even failure. So how do you do it? Yes, you need a little luck, but you also need a lot of hard work. HOW DO YOU DO IT ALL? “Three kids? Wow, how do you do it all?” My response: “The same way my husband does it.” But no one ever asks my husband (who runs his own firm, sits on a board, coaches baseball, etc.) “Wow, three kids, how do you do it all?” I have this funny belief that both parents should parent their children. I don’t believe that children “need” their mothers more than their fathers or that somehow, just because our bodies birthed these kids that we are somehow better at parenting than men. So, to dispel myth number two – I am not doing it all because I don’t believe I should be doing it all. I have a perfectly capable partner, we have neighbours, we have grandparents, we have paid help, we have friends. I am fortunate and privileged to have a “village” and I take advantage of that. People always assume I started my own business so I can stay home with my kids and not because I might have had a great business idea and some entrepreneurial drive. How many people think this of men who start their own businesses? Do they automatically assume men become entrepreneurs so they can care for their kids? I understand the nature of my practice (freelance lawyering) and my business (a freelance lawyer company, Flex Legal) might suggest to some that I only work part time in my pajamas from home, but I work full time or more and have had an office since my first year in business. Some weeks I work more hours than I did when I was on Bay Street. However, as an entrepreneur, I can choose when I work those full time hours and I purposefully chose an office close to my house so I can see my kids who come home from school for lunch several days a week. But I am not the one who walks the kids to school every morning (that’s my husband) and we have a caregiver who picks them up everyday. So, I want to dispel the myth that I am parenting my kids full time and running a business full time and doing everything else full time. I am not. I don’t know how anyone could. I have time to do everything I am doing because I have a lot of help (and coffee, lots of coffee 😉). And even with all of this help, I still screw up sometimes. Bottom line: It is not easy. I am not doing it all . . . . I am just doing my best.  It's back! While I wait for some firms to finish their answers for my Equality, Diversity and Inclusion series, I've decided to re-start the Women Leading in Law series that has been on a bit of a hiatus. So check back here often as both the EDI series and the WLL series (along with my own personal musings on law) will pop up from time to time. For this profile I am featuring Kim Gale, who is no stranger to social media, networking, and building a brand for herself. If I could go back in time to my younger lawyer days I would tell myself, "Be more like Kim". She gets it. Like many of you, I first "met" Kim on LinkedIn (I believe she was promoting her blog, Law for Millennials) and then at a legal networking event. I have since had the pleasure of having coffee with Kim and learning more about her estate litigation law firm, Gale Law. 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I practice estate litigation at my own firm, Gale Law. My law firm is representative of my values: legal advice that is straightforward, solutions that are cost-effective and a free consultation where clients can have the comfort to ask questions before paying out of pocket. My clients' issues are deeply personal and I find being compassionate and available is extremely important as an estate litigator. I handle matters relating to estate disputes, some examples include misappropriation of estate funds, passing of a common law spouse, and attorney for property and personal care issues. 2. Why did you go to law school? I decided to go to law school in the UK because I wanted to study in a place where I could travel, and experience new things. I thought I would leave Toronto behind and move to London, England permanently. I always wanted to be a lawyer and I thought if I didn’t give it a shot it would be something I would regret. I felt the same way about starting my own firm - it was something I always wanted to do. I guess I figure the worst thing is living life feeling stuck and not reaching your full potential. Life is too short to not follow your dreams. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? In life there is always a bit of luck! As my mom says, “chance favours the prepared mind” (and according to Google she quoted this from Louis Pasteur). My mom, Reeva Finkel, is a top litigator and senior partner at Blaney McMurtry and I’d like to think I’m following in her footsteps as a female litigator. Having her as a role model has deeply inspired me to believe that hard work and preparation are the keys to success. I still call her (many times) for questions and support. I feel lucky to have her as my strong female role model, in addition to many others, and I got to where I am through leaning on others for support and rolling up my sleeves and working hard. I’m also pretty passionate about what I do – I think it helps to like what you do and want to help others! 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? I am proud of the group I co-founded, NCA Network , and the team we put together, in addition to my blog, Law for Millennials and of course, my own firm. NCA Network is a networking group for lawyers and students who went to law school outside of Canada. We are making waves to promote diversity and inclusion in the legal community. NCA stands for the National Committee on Accreditation exams which are the exams you must write to qualify a non-Canadian degree to Canadian standards. I wrote 7 NCA exams while working as a paralegal full-time in the UK and I found the NCA process lonely and difficult. I navigated the NCA process on my own and through this difficult time, I gained knowledge and insight that I wanted to pass along to other students so that they don’t have to go through the same struggle I went through. We hosted our first event at the TLA on March 21 and attendees received 40 minutes of EDI CPD hours. We had the Honourable Justice Thorburn speaking in addition to Isfahan Merali and Atrisha Lewis, and I acted as the moderator. The topic was on diversity and inclusion. Our event was a success with almost 100 attendees! We are excited to make this an annual event and continue to work with the Toronto Lawyers Association and our sponsors. Law for Millennials is more fun – easy to understand legal information focused on issues millennials face! Free, not complicated and not dull. So far all of my co-authors are female lawyers and law students, many from the NCA process, and I love using this platform to promote female lawyers. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? I am blown away about how supportive the legal community, specifically, the support from females, I have received. We understand the challenges of being a female in a (still) male dominated profession. We refer work to each other, invite each other to networking events and try to help each other. I appreciate the support immensely and I try to pay it forward. Through this support, we create grassroots to promote females in the legal profession. Just being given the opportunity to write this blog post is an example of female support - Erin thank you so much for this opportunity, you are a true pioneer and inspiration (and great example of females supporting females). 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? I like to give advice which reflects on my own experience. When I was working as a paralegal in the UK, I was very out of my element and I thought the only way to fit in was to be someone else. Fitting into the British culture became very important to me. Looking back, I think I would have been much happier if I just stayed true to myself. My advice is to just be yourself. The reality is you’ll be a better advocate and provide a higher service to your clients if you are genuine. It is too much effort to be someone else. People prefer to work with real people anyway. None of us are robots. We have our own personality – why not show yours off! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you Kim for sharing your journey with us. Best of luck with your new firm. ICYMI: Previous posts profiled Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan. Sign up to have these profiles sent directly to your email address and stay tuned for the next post soon! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired!   This month in Ontario, lawyers and paralegals will vote for the next set of “Benchers” at the Law Society of Ontario (LSO). For those unfamiliar with the term, Benchers are the board of directors at the LSO, the regulatory body that governs lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. Bencher terms are for four years. Eligible voters can vote for up to 20 lawyers in the Toronto region and 20 lawyers outside of Toronto. There is a common misconception that Benchers represent lawyers, much like a member of parliament represents their constituents. Benchers actually represent the interests of the public and regulate the profession. Still confused? Precedent Magazine published a helpful article: What do Benchers at the Law Society of Ontario Actually Do?
For this election my Twitter and LinkedIn feeds are filled with #BencherElection2019 posts, conversations, podcasts, endorsements, etc. Looking at this level of engagement, one might think that every lawyer in Ontario is super keen to vote and discuss the pressing issues facing our profession. Unfortunately, this is likely far from the truth. Social media platforms, and especially Twitter, can be massive echo chambers. While lawyers on social media appear to be engaged in the election, the historical data on voter turnout suggests that the majority of lawyers are really apathetic. Large Firm Lawyers Vote (Sole Practitioners, Not So Much) The LSO published a comprehensive report on voter turnout, covering election results from 1987 to 2015. Generally, turnout has decreased with every election. 10,287 of the 18,369 eligible voters (or 56%) voted in the 1987 election. Fast forward to 2015. Despite the technological advancement of online voting and a relatively robust #BencherElection engagement on Twitter, 2015 had the lowest percentage of voter turnout in the years documented. Of the 47,396 eligible voters (notice the significant increase in the number of lawyers in Ontario) only 16,040 (or 33.84%) voted. Interestingly, in private practice, the voting-lawyers are from firms of between 76-100 lawyers (over 77% voted in the last election) and firms of over 100 lawyers (over 50% voted). Could this be due to the constant pressure from management to vote for the lawyers who are running from those firms? Hmm. Sole practitioners, who make up the largest category of lawyers in private practice, had the lowest voter turnout for private practice lawyers with only 36.35%. In 2015, only 24.55% of the over 23,000 lawyers not in private practice (lawyers employed in government, corporations, academia) voted. Also, consistently every year, a slightly higher percentage of lawyers who identify as male vote than lawyers who identify as female. In the last election 35.66% of all male lawyers voted, while only 31.23% of female lawyers voted. Why You Should Vote (and Encourage Others to as Well) These statistics tell me that most lawyers do not prioritize the Bencher election. Understandably, many lawyers would prefer to spend time on other aspects of their lives rather than taking the time to research the issues, research the candidates, sit down at a computer, and vote. The problem is that there are several important issues that the LSO (and the newly elected Benchers) will be grappling with, and these issues affect not only the legal profession as a whole, but you as an individual lawyer. I will not discuss the issues in detail here but a few examples: improving access to justice, ensuring lawyers are competent to practice and providing remedial or disciplinary measure for those who are not, the licensing process, entity-based regulation, diversity & inclusion initiatives, the cost of legal education, alternative business structures, etc. In the past, Benchers have made some important (and sometimes controversial) decisions: changing the name from Law Society of Upper Canada to Law Society of Ontario; introducing the Law Practice Program to assist with the articling crisis; deciding not to accredit Trinity Western University; implementing the Statement of Principles requirement; approving the recent public awareness campaign; etc. If you are interested, the minutes and transcripts from Convocation tell you how the incumbent Benchers who are running again voted on past issues (just click on the year on the left-hand side). As an example, these are the Minutes from December 1, 2017 which involved a vote on Mr. Groia’s “conscientious objector” motion regarding the Statement of Principles. All lawyers and paralegals should care about who will be making the decisions about each of these issues. Want to Vote and Don’t Have the Time to Research all those Lawyers? “What do you mean there are 128 lawyers running? I don’t have the time to research all of them!” I know many of you are thinking this and it is a valid observation. I have a few suggestions for you: First, several people and organizations want to make this easier for you and have compiled the information you need for the election in one place. For example, Colin Lachance has organized and published the website LSOBencher.com where the candidates can submit their profile and their positions on the current issues. The Ontario Bar Association has made a website profiling its members who are running. The Law Times also has a website listing the candidates. Sean Robichaud has a podcast featuring some of the candidates. Or you can follow #BencherElection2019 on Twitter. These are just some of the places you can go to get the information you need. Does that still sound like a lot of work? Another option is to seek out a lawyer you trust (and who has the time and interest to do the research) and ask for their recommendations (thanks, Morgan Sim for this suggestion). Or, there is my approach. I really dislike receiving emails and flyers from candidates. Not only do they fill my inbox and recycling container, I do not think it is fair to those candidates who cannot cover the expense for such advertising. Not all candidates can pay for the email list or can afford to have fliers printed and mailed out. For the last two Bencher elections I have made sure not to check off the box on our annual reports allowing Benchers to email me. Instead, I only look at one thing: The Voting Guide provided by the LSO. Each candidate gets one page and one page only to convince me why I should vote for them. I see it as a level playing field for all candidates. I’m not saying my approach is perfect, but as a rather busy person who wants to vote, this is the best use of my time. (Hint: the Voting Guide is searchable if there was a particular issue that interested you, for example, the Statement of Principles.) So, Vote! No excuses this year. Get out and vote. Encourage other lawyers to do the same. You will receive an email from the LSO in the second week of April with a link and explanation on how to vote. Keep an eye out for it and vote by April 30, 2019. Whatever approach you take, I just ask that you take a few minutes to vote and tell all the lawyers in your network to vote as well!  How does one of the largest law firms in Canada address and advance equity, diversity and inclusion? I reached out to Nikki Gershbain, McCarthy Tétrault's Senior Director, Inclusion and Community Engagement, to find out: 1. Almost all law firms have an equity, diversity and inclusion policy or commitment on their website. What does EDI mean to your firm and is improving EDI a priority? For McCarthy Tétrault, EDI means taking the obligatory commitment that can be found, as you note, on every firm’s website, and turning it into concrete and meaningful action for our people on the ground. It’s not only a priority for our firm, it’s one of our five strategic pillars. At McCarthy Tétrault we’re focussed on diversity, but even more so on inclusion. Inclusion goes beyond representation in an effort to identify and eliminate unconscious biases, creating programs and policies designed to set diverse lawyers up for success, and creating spaces where everyone can bring their whole selves to the workplace. For us, EDI is more than just a head count. As EDI expert Verna Myers has now famously written, “diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance.” Importantly, what inclusion is not is reverse discrimination. This can’t be said enough. The kind of efforts I’m describing and that our firm is promoting don’t create an unfair advantage for some groups – they simply level the playing field for others. As part of the EDI movement, we need to dispel myths that continue to persist, despite clear evidence that diverse lawyers can face significant barriers to success within the legal profession. We need to drive home the message that merit and inclusivity are two sides of the same coin. Finally, true EDI requires leadership from the top of the house. While diversity and inclusion have been longstanding priorities of McCarthy Tétrault, late last year our CEO Dave Leonard kicked off a renewed and robust internal dialogue that has, within a short period of time, elevated and prioritised these discussions. Leadership matters. 2. What steps (or initiatives) has your firm taken to address and improve EDI? McCarthy Tétrault has always been committed to EDI. We were the first Canadian law firm to appoint a Chief Inclusion Officer, and one of the first to establish a National Inclusion Committee. In recent years, we’ve focused on creating leadership opportunities for women: today, 45% of our senior leadership team and 40% of our board members are women, as well as 43% of our lawyers. Elevating large numbers of women into senior governance roles has put gender issues front and centre at the firm, and has set an example for our women lawyers, who see visible evidence of the fact that they can aspire to positions of leadership at the firm. Some of the many programs and policies we currently have in place to put our values into action include bias-free recruitment policies, work allocation programs, support for parents and nursing mothers, mental health leadership, flexible work arrangements, and firm-wide anti-harassment training. Associates can also take up to one year of parental leave without impacting their salary level or partnership eligibility. These programs have led to our status as one of Canada’s Best Diversity Employers, seven years running. We’re one of just a handful of law firms in the country to currently hold this distinction. While we are proud of our progress, we know there’s more to be done. That’s why McCarthy Tétrault recently created my role – Senior Director, Inclusion and Community Engagement – and launched an innovative, firm-wide program called “Inclusion Now”. The first program we announced under the Inclusion Now banner was outward-looking: a five year, $5M gift to United Way to support members of five equity-seeking groups: women, members of the LGBTQ2S community, Indigenous people, newcomers, and people living with disabilities. We know that poverty is exacerbated by other vulnerabilities, so by targeting our investment to programs serving these communities, we hope to deepen the impact of our giving. We also plan to follow-up this financial gift with the gift of our time, by providing pro bono services to clients of the agencies we’re working with. Scotia Bank recently announced a United Way gift modelled after this approach, and we hope to see more corporate donors follow suit. Turning inward, I’m currently in the process of developing a firm-wide strategy to build on our existing efforts, create new programs and policies to achieve our EDI goals, and ensure that the values of diversity, inclusion and social responsibility inform every aspect of who we are as a firm, and what we do. In short: I have the best job ever! 3. Which initiative has been the most successful and why? I can think of a few! Our work allocation program, which we’ve rolled out in several of our largest practice groups across the country, ensures that our associates have access to great work and career-enhancing professional opportunities. We all fall prey to affinity bias – human beings are naturally drawn to people who are “like us”. In a large law firm-setting, work is distributed by more senior, and therefore a more homogeneous group of, lawyers. In this kind of environment, unintentional bias can impact a young associate’s career. We are proud of this program and have plans to continue to roll it out more broadly across the firm. Lawyers work extremely hard. It’s a career and lifestyle we’ve freely chosen. But for young parents of any gender, the challenges of managing a law practice while raising young kids can lead to enormous career pressure. In order to make this balancing act easier, McCarthy Tétrault’s parental support program offers executive coaching, a maternity leave buddy program, internal "baby rooms", emergency daycare support and reimbursement for nursing parents who need to travel with a caregiver. Most recently, we launched our inaugural “Inclusion Now Awards”. Fifty four members of our firm – students, associates, counsel, partners and employees – were nominated by their peers for the many ways they serve as diversity and inclusion champions in their workplaces and communities. We celebrated ten winners, two per office, by bringing the entire firm together via video conference. Our CEO and Regional Managing Partners hosted the event, and the turn-out and energy in each of our offices was remarkable. By publicly recognizing our colleagues for their EDI efforts, we hope to encourage others to step up. 4. Which initiative was the least successful (what's not working) and why? We’ve never launched a program that wasn’t successful at some level – each effort we’ve made to promote EDI has achieved a certain element of traction. The question I’m asking right now is not “how do we design successful EDI programs”, but rather, “what EDI programs will have the greatest impact”. The truth is, how to make genuine progress isn’t a huge mystery – there is no shortage of credible studies and reports that tell us how we can move the dial to increase the representation of women, lawyers of colour, LGBTQ lawyers etc. The path is there, we simply have to have the desire to take it. 5. What is your goal? What do you hope to achieve through your EDI-focused actions? We have many goals, but let me touch on three. First and foremost, our goal is to help create a culture that works for our diverse students, lawyers and staff. We want folks to choose to build their careers at McCarthy Tétrault, and when they get here we want them to have the same opportunities as everyone else to achieve their full potential. In short, we want diverse people to thrive in our workplace. Second, we want to engage all members of our firm to support these goals, even those who don’t feel personally affected by the issues. That’s why I’ve spent the last four months meeting with dozens of associates, partners and staff, and it’s why I’m working on a strategy that creates opportunities for everyone to actively engage with these issues, and incentives for doing so. Third, we’d like to see this work have an impact on the profession more broadly. While it’s always exciting to feel like you’re on the leading edge of something important and innovative, it’s even more exciting to know you’ve contributed to systemic change. McCarthy Tétrault has an opportunity not only to find new and innovative ways to support, nurture and advance diverse talent at our firm, but to contribute to change for all lawyers.
Thank you Nikki for taking the time to answer these questions and for giving us an insight into your firm's initiatives and goals. ICYMI, previous posts have featured Casey & Moss LLP and Lerners LLP. Stay tuned for the next post soon. Sign up to have these profiles sent directly to your email address!
The idea for this series surfaced last year when I attended a women lawyers conference where the conversation quickly turned to criticizing and calling out law firms for not doing enough to make a positive change. The conversation went on for quite some time with example after example of all that is wrong with law firms. While the criticism may have been warranted, unfortunately, no one talked about possible solutions. . . . . .So with this blog series I wanted to reach out to law firms and find out what they are doing to advance EDI in their firms. Are they doing anything? What is working? What isn't? What is the end-goal? How do they measure "success"? The posts include a set of five questions that each firm will answer. My simple goal is to start a conversation, find out what is happening in this area in law firms across Canada, and perhaps we can all learn from each other.  For this profile in this new series, we shift from the larger law firm setting (see our profile on Lerners LLP) to see what a boutique law firm is doing to address EDI. Starting your own firm means starting with a blank slate. Read on to see what Angela Casey and Angelique Moss have done to address EDI as they build their firm from the ground up (and what the steps they took when they noticed they might be falling into the 'old boys club' trap):
1. Almost all law firms have an equality/equity, diversity and inclusion (“EDI”) policy or commitment on their website. What does EDI mean to your firm and is improving EDI a priority? For us, it started with equality in the partnership. There are no Casey clients or Moss clients. There are only Casey and Moss clients. Our model of partnership is actually very old-fashioned. We are not just partners but friends who genuinely care about each other. We share management duties equally and rewards equally. We have equal voices in decision making. We support each other rather than compete with each other. The culture of our firm is family friendly. Our technology is set up so that our lawyers can practice from anywhere. I once worked from my hotel room between games at my son’s hockey tournament with a colleague who was plugged in at home during her baby’s nap time. We don’t schedule meetings at times that would conflict with daycare pick up and drop off times. We also offer remote work options for staff who need to work around family obligations. We offer our lawyers flexible work and compensation arrangements to allow them to align their career goals and family obligations and/or interests outside of the law. We recognize that there is no ‘one size fits all’ and that goals and responsibilities can change over time. Our compensation structure is intended to accommodate anyone – male or female, with children or without, and those wanting to work fewer or more hours. We also have a parental leave policy which allows firm members – male or female, adoptive parent or birth parent - to take 17 weeks of paid parental leave plus one additional paid month of leave for each year they have been with us. We believe that the key to gender equality is not only to create workplaces friendly to women returning to work, but also to support and encourage men who are doing their share of parenting and household work. At a recent Ontario Bar Association event, one of my male colleagues at another small firm showed me about 50 pictures of his new baby on his phone and was positively giddy about leaving the reception to go home and play with his baby. That made my heart happy. For our staff, we try to create opportunities to contribute in ways that play to their individual strengths. Our clerks are bright, hardworking, and have fabulous people skills. With the type of work we do (estate litigation and estate administration), there are many opportunities to involve them in a wide variety of tasks. Because we are small, lean and specialized, we can offer fixed fee packages and lower hourly rate services by maximizing our use of staff and lawyer time. For each task within a mandate, we ask ourselves who can do the task best, most efficiently, and at the lowest cost for the client. Depending on the task, it might be a student, a clerk, a legal assistant, or a lawyer, and we try to think creatively when developing a work plan. This is great for our clients, who save money by either paying the lowest appropriate hourly rate, or by purchasing a fixed fee package. It also benefits our staff by allowing them to assume more challenging roles and responsibilities as they grow with us. We want our staff to take ownership of their work, so that they feel invested in our clients’ files, and also to know that they have contributed to our firm’s success. Because we could not do the work we do without great support staff. 2. What steps (or initiatives) has your firm taken to address and improve EDI? Being a new firm, we have the advantage of being able to prioritize diversity from the outset. There is no entrenched culture where we try to fit new people into a pre-existing mold. We can keep our minds open about how the firm will grow and develop. Rather than looking at who will be the best fit for the firm, we can focus on building the firm to fit the needs of its team members and clients. It’s a more inclusionary premise. Promoting and encouraging diversity makes business sense for us, given our specialization in estates, trusts and capacity litigation. Our clients are typically going through some type of family conflict in the wake of a death or a dementia diagnosis. These issues are deeply personal. We need to talk about and document details of our clients’ family lives, which they may never have shared outside of their immediate family. Now they are sitting in a boardroom talking (and often crying) about these very private topics. Having lawyers and staff from different backgrounds and with different perspectives is a real advantage for us in this practice area. 3. Which initiative has been the most successful? And Why? We have regularly scheduled lunch meetings with the entire team. At these team meetings, we discuss ideas, ongoing initiatives, draft policies, and ways to improve our work flow. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the conversation. For instance, at our last meeting, we were happy to see our most recent hire asking questions and contributing to the conversation. In addition to our formal team meetings, we regularly gather the whole team to get to know each other in a more social setting. When a team member has a birthday, the firm goes out for lunch together. Getting together for meals in a casual setting outside of the office is a great way to learn more about each other, and this deepens our respect for each other. 4. Which initiative was the least successful (what’s not working?) And why? Initially, we tended to attract potential associates who are like us, not just professionally but also on a personal level. When it was just the two of us, we marveled at how much we had in common – we both ride our bikes to work, we both enjoy craft beer, we share the same taste in food, books, Netflix, and humour. When we added our first lawyer to our team, we were pleasantly surprised to find out that she also rides a bike to work and loves craft beer. Our second associate hire was another bike-riding female lawyer who shares similar interests. Not long ago, a colleague reached out to tell us about a fantastic lawyer who she thought we might want to meet. This candidate had all the qualities we would look for in a lawyer - she was a respected and passionate advocate, an excellent writer, and, as our colleague pointed out to us, she was a funny, bike-riding beer drinker, who would “fit right in”. It was kind of amusing at the time, but it did cause us to reflect about our hiring criteria. Were we starting to do what the “old boys club” was guilty of on Bay Street – subconsciously stacking our team with people who look and think like us? We want to welcome all people who share our firm’s values – not just those who are like us - and we want to make a conscious effort to make sure that everyone on the team feels included. Breaking the mold, our third associate hire was a man (and we haven’t seen his bike…yet). Now, our team of 9 (5 lawyers, 1 articling student and 3 clerks) is a very diverse group. 5. What is your goal? What do you hope to achieve through your EDI actions? We have set out to prove that it is possible to create a supportive and inclusive work environment, while delivering uncompromising excellence in our advocacy work for clients. In order to accomplish this, we believe in investing in our team members for the long term. For instance, the second associate lawyer we hired was pregnant at the time we hired her. We knew that she would be a great fit at our firm – she was an accomplished litigator with a Bay Street pedigree who shared our values and our passion for helping people. She wasn’t really looking for a new job at the time we met her; she was just feeling out what practicing law would or could be like after having a child. We made her an offer immediately. When she told us that she was pregnant and wasn’t sure it was the right time to make a move, our first response was, “well, we’re still in if you’re in”. Ultimately, we want to create a partnership where each new partner feels that he or she has an equal voice in shaping the future of the firm. We also strongly believe that each team member needs to feel his or her contributions to the firm are valued. Finally, we want our team to feel supported when they contribute to their families and communities and otherwise have a life outside of law. We are still a young firm, but we are proud of what we have accomplished so far. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Angela and Angelique for taking the time to thoughtfully answer these questions and letting us know about your goals. Stay tuned for the next post soon. Sign up to have these profiles sent directly to your email address! The idea for this series surfaced last year when I attended a women lawyers conference where the conversation quickly turned to criticizing and calling out law firms for not doing enough to make a positive change. The conversation went on for quite some time with example after example of all that is wrong with law firms. Unfortunately, no one talked about possible solutions. . . . . .So with my new series, I wanted to reach out to law firms and find out what they are doing to advance EDI in their firms. Are they doing anything? What is working? What isn't? What is the end-goal? How do they measure "success"? The posts will include a set of five questions that each firm will answer. My simple goal is to start a conversation, find out what is happening in this area in law firms across Canada, and perhaps we can all learn from each other.  I am happy to unveil a new series I have started for 2019 focused on improving equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the legal profession (I don't have a witty title for this series yet, so all suggestions welcomed!)
The idea for this series surfaced last year when I attended a women lawyers conference where the conversation quickly turned to criticizing and calling out law firms for not doing enough to make a positive change. The conversation went on for quite some time with example after example of all that is wrong with law firms. Unfortunately, no one talked about possible solutions. While I am not saying that this criticism was unwarranted, I do believe it is easier to sit back and critique than it is to be out there trying to make the changes that need to happen. . . And I know some firms are putting in some effort. So with my new series, I wanted to reach out to law firms and find out what they are doing to advance EDI in their firms. Are they doing anything? What is working? What isn't? What is the end-goal? How do they measure "success"? The posts will include a set of five questions that each firm will answer. My simple goal is to start a conversation, find out what is happening in this area in law firms across Canada, and perhaps we can all learn from each other. For my first post, I sat down with Lisa Munro, the Managing Partner of Lerners LLP to discuss the EDI initiatives at her firm: 1. ALMOST ALL LAW FIRMS HAVE AN EDI POLICY OR COMMITMENT ON THEIR WEBSITE. WHAT DOES EDI MEAN TO YOUR FIRM AND IS IMPROVING EDI A PRIORITY? Improving equality, diversity, and inclusion is definitely a priority for Lerners. A lot of firms, Lerners included, have historically been very lawyer-centric, the idea being that the lawyers are the economic drivers of the firm. While you can’t argue with this fact, focusing most efforts on the lawyers means that we are leaving behind the rest of the team. I think that one of the things that diversity and inclusion committees have done for law firms has been to put the focus on the culture of a firm and on all the people that play a part in serving our clients. We are now realizing that it can’t just be all about the lawyers and ensuring that the lawyers are happy and professionally fulfilled. So at Lerners we place a lot of emphasis on the inclusion part of EDI which means, do people feel like they are a part of the firm? Do they feel like they are valued for their contributions? Do they feel like their voices are heard? Do they feel that if they have concerns or complaints there is a place for them to go to address them? Do they feel that their colleagues listen to them? Do they have opportunities for professional advancement? All of those things go far beyond the equality and diversity issues that many of us are now talking about. I constituted our firm’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee in late 2017, and started with a survey. I think a lot of firms start there. As a result of the feedback we received from that survey, I placed as much emphasis on inclusion as I did on equality and diversity issues. We learned that some people felt isolated in the group. And so, our task was, what do we do to make people feel that they belong at this firm? A lot of the initiatives that we have tackled as a Committee have tried to draw people in and get them to participate, get to know one another, and work together. That part is very important for us. If we focus on equality and diversity, our history has been very much that Lerners is a place where women thrive and have voices and have opportunities for leadership. I am very proud of that. We’ve had that reputation for a very long time, mostly because of our two strong senior partners, one of whom is Janet Stewart, still with the firm. She was our managing partner in both offices for many years at a time when there were very few women managing firms. She was someone who had a practice and she was well respected. People listened to her. She had influence. Janet was also supported by our senior partner in Toronto, Earl Cherniak. He and Janet were a formidable team. Because of the respect that Earl had for Janet and the respect that Earl had for women in the firm in the general, I know that I always took for granted the fact that women would have the same opportunities as men because that was my personal experience. When I started to hear what was going from friends at other firms, even during our articling year, it was a bit of a surprise to me. I now think that I and my colleagues at Lerners have been somewhat sheltered. We achieved gender parity within our partnership a few years ago; it does fluctuate, but I am pretty happy with that. I do think that where we need to turn our focus now is on some of the other areas of diversity and inclusion, including on retaining and promoting racialized lawyers and staff members. I am happy with where we are in the junior lawyer ranks, which says to me that maybe we are doing well on the recruitment side. But the question is, can we retain a diverse group lawyers through to equity partnership? What could we be doing differently to achieve that objective? I know that there are a lot of firms looking at their recruitment and promotion processes. We are doing the same. But among our junior lawyers in particular, I am pretty happy with where we are. What we have to do is make sure they stay fulfilled and challenged, and that they see opportunities for advancement. That is our next challenge as a firm. 2. WHAT STEPS (OR INITIATIVES) HAS YOUR FIRM TAKEN TO ADDRESS AND IMPROVE EDI? When I started the Diversity and Inclusion Committee in September, 2017, I had never been on a committee like this. I said that I would Chair it. I don’t think I appreciated what a big bite I was taking. We started with my vision, because when you start something like that, you have to do some planning initially and then float the plan out there and see if you get traction. Luckily, I did and we had many enthusiastic contributors within a short period of time. Initially, I sent a firm wide email, advising that I was starting the Committee, and asked: “Who wants to be involved?” There is always early trepidation because people are not sure what the time commitment will be, what it involves, etc. But I had an intrepid group of about eight people who agreed to work with me on this journey. I was really pleased that we had broad representation within the firm, among both lawyers and staff members. I brought an initial outline of a plan to the group and then we worked together to generate ideas, plan monthly initiatives, and carry them forward. It was exciting to see that we had many more ideas than we could use in a single year. I have since talked to people at other firms where the work of the committee is really a management-led process. That may very well be necessary in firms larger than ours, but we were able to get participation and leadership from everyone on the Committee. We sit around a table with legal assistants, law clerks, partners, our administrative team, human resources, and marketing discussing, “What do you think we should do?” Everybody was an equal contributor and I saw people taking on leadership opportunities that had not previously existed. The Committee has generated so much enthusiasm that when I solicited interest a few months ago for people to sit on the Committee in 2019, I received over 30 positive responses. I was a bit overwhelmed by that; a 30-person committee can be unwieldy, but when I considered our inclusion mandate I knew I couldn’t say no to anybody. I am now in the process of trying to create something in which everybody feels engaged and interested. While that will be a challenge, the message I got was that people see value in the work of the Committee and wanted to be a part of it. We decided in our first year that our theme was going to be very modest: “making Lerners a better place to work”. We always thought that Lerners was a good place to work, but there are always ways to improve. Every initiative that we took was in furtherance of that objective. We came up with various monthly initiatives through internal focus groups without looking at what other firms were doing. Nothing we did was revolutionary, but we created what we thought would work for us. We had, for example, an anti-harassment training session that was mandatory for everyone at the firm and received very positive feedback about it. I think most people expected the training to focus on sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. We wanted our training to be broader than that – it also dealt with how to deal with differences that come up in the workplace, the more subtle things like treating everyone in the firm with respect and looking at things from the perspective of someone who might come from a different cultural or ethnic background. We had “case studies” that presented challenging sets of facts that we discussed as a group. The idea of engendering a culture of respect also became our theme for a strategic planning process that we undertook at the same time. Respect is one of our firm core values and we rolled out the strategic plan on the basis that it was critical to achieving success. That idea really arose out of our diversity and inclusion initiatives. Like many firms, we also organized unconscious bias training for all members of the firm. We were looked at the issue primarily from the perspective of our recruitment process and it has changed the way we talk about recruiting now. We used to hear people saying things like, “I really think this candidate would fit in well in the group”. And now because of the unconscious bias training, we are saying to ourselves and to each other, “Am I supporting recruitment of somebody because they are like me?” We also created a Lerners Diversity Award, which was given out at our end-of-year party. I sent an email to everyone in the firm, asking for nominations of those who advanced the objectives of equality, diversity, and inclusion at Lerners in 2018. I received lots of responses and, interestingly enough, there were very clear winners. One person in each office stood out to our colleagues among everybody who did a lot of work. Other initiatives that we undertook last year included working with a community charity group on International Women’s Day. Members of the firm were asked to bring in clothes suitable for work to support an organization that donates clothes to women who are looking for a jobs. We had a great response. We also had a speaker come in and talk about Indigenous law and we had a great turnout for that. I was blessed with having a committee whose members were very enthusiastic and rolled up their sleeves and were willing to put in a lot of time and effort to make these initiatives successful. 3. WHICH INITIATIVE HAS BEEN THE MOST SUCCESSFUL? AND WHY? Interesting enough, our most successful event last year was the one that was the easiest one to organize and the least costly: it was a potluck. Last summer we had a “Celebrating Our Diversity Through Food” potluck. Anybody who wanted to participate contributed food for a buffet lunch. We had all contributions set up in a board room. The contributors put up little signs describing the food they had made and brought. The event really brought people together and overwhelmingly I heard from members of the firm that it was their favourite event. We learned that when you get creative, you can make a lot of headway without spending a lot of money. 4. WHICH INITIATIVE WAS THE LEAST SUCCESSFUL (WHAT’S NOT WORKING)? AND WHY? The initiatives I found to be less successful were those in which we brought in speakers. And that is not because our speakers weren’t good; they were excellent. But people really enjoyed the months in which the initiative involved interaction and engagement with each other. People preferred the sessions in which we would have a case study or a problem to talk about, as opposed to having somebody come in and talk. I was surprised by that because we as lawyers tend to think that having a lecture is a great way to learn something. But really if your objective is to bring people together, having something interactive makes the most sense. 5. WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE THROUGH YOUR EDI-FOCUSED ACTIONS? AND HOW DO YOU MEASURE PROGRESS? I struggle with how to measure our progress. I know that in 2019, the Law Society of Ontario will be requiring firms to provide statistical data, which will be published and will allow firms some way to measure progress. I think that will be useful. And I do think we have to measure success. But I feel like a lot of what we are doing that works is more intangible than that because it is helping to create a sense of belonging. I want to really carry forward the idea of respect in the workplace into 2019. If I hear that something has gone on or a conversation that has taken place that shouldn’t have, my role as managing partner is to address that. And I think every partner and every lawyer needs to set an example. Right now, I am measuring success by the fact that I am finding people getting together and enjoying one another’s company and contributing. I see clear leaders emerging from among the staff and more junior lawyers. Some volunteers on the Committee told me that they had never volunteered for a single firm committee before. Also because of our Committee and I our initiatives, I know more of our staff members. So those things are my way to measure success at the moment. Long term, that won’t be good enough. But right now, I am taking these little victories as they come. --------------------------------------------------- Thank you Lisa for this interview and for participating in this series. Sign up to have these profiles sent directly to your email address and stay tuned for the next post soon! The Women Leading in Law series will also return. Keep sending in suggestions for amazing women lawyers to be profiled.  Despite the constant reminders that our legal profession is far from reaching any sort of laudable goal when it comes to equality, diversity, and inclusion, I am generally optimistic that things are (slowly) changing for the better. My Twitter feed is filled with amazing diverse lawyers doing amazing things. I see allies speaking up. I see new calls taking a stand and demanding change. I am truly optimistic.
This optimism, however, is often tested (and lately it seems to be tested regularly) by encounters with mansplainers. For those unfamiliar with the (I would argue useful but over-used) term, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “mansplaining” as “to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic.” When I encountered mansplaining early in my career, I didn’t put a label on what was happening as the word was not widely used. I would just leave a conversation or a meeting feeling like a man had figuratively pat me on the head and said “Ahh, how cute”. I would be angry but couldn’t pinpoint exactly why. Now I have no problem recognizing when mansplaining occurs, and I know exactly why I am angry. Since starting my business Flex Legal Network Inc. in 2015 (a freelance lawyer company matching law firms with freelance lawyers/law clerks), the mansplaining has been off the charts. I will give you just a few of the many examples. Once at a law firm cocktail party a rather “handsy” man asked about my business and I explained it to him. He replied, “No, that’s not your business, your business is. . .” and he went on to explain my own business to me for a solid five minutes. I kid you not. On another occasion, speaking with a lawyer who was interested in learning more about Flex I asked him how he found us. He told me “By Googling”. I replied, “That’s great, I work really hard on our SEO”. He instantly put on his ‘Teacher Voice’ and said, “Oh it’s not that, Google has these algorithms you see, and websites with certain keywords and phrases are ranked higher and show up more frequently in search results.” Really? He also enunciated “algorithms” as if I was hard of hearing or couldn’t understand words with more than one syllable. Most recently I had an encounter with what I have dubbed the “mansplainer extraordinaire”. A lawyer was interested in joining Flex as a freelance lawyer after a long career as a corporate lawyer. We had a pleasant enough phone call where we talked about our own legal careers and then I explained how Flex worked (we are not a law firm, we don’t take on our own clients, we are a company that matches freelance lawyers with law firms who have overflow legal work on a project basis). After the call I sent him Flex’s membership terms for his review. The following week he emailed me back saying that “it was clear” to him, that I had “not fully thought through [my] business structure” but that he was “willing to work with” me to make sure that my business was “kosher”. He sent me a link to the Rules of Professional Conduct asking if I had reviewed them (seriously? Nope never heard of them. . .) and a link to a blog post explaining in layperson’s terms a “Limited Liability Partnership” saying “please read so we can discuss” (double seriously? I’ve only been practicing law for almost 14 years; did he really think I didn’t know what an LLP was?) He then said he was “just thinking things through to make sure Flex’s arrangements work” - this was followed by a 😉. He also attached his “amendments” to my three-page plain language membership terms. He had completely redrafted them into a ten-page contract full of corporate legalese gobbledygook. He clearly thought he was some lawyer-knight in shining armour coming in to save the damsel in business distress. I was physically shaking with rage! I was livid! Even writing this a month later I can feel the anger. Why would this man think I wanted or needed him to “fix” my business? What on earth made this man think he knows more than I do about running a freelance lawyer company? Not that I need to explain this to anyone, but obviously before starting my business I did extensive research and planning, including reviewing and analyzing the Rules of Professional Conduct, the by-laws, law society commentary (not just the Law Society of Ontario's but from the law societies across the country and the world), legal journal articles, other secondary sources, and case law. I also spoke directly with the LSO and with experts in legal ethics. It was with all of this information that I chose to structure my business the way I did. What annoys me the most about this encounter is that it ruined my day. I spent all day fuming and thinking about how I would respond. I wrote draft email after draft email (knowing none of them would be sent). And then I got angry at myself for letting him affect me the way he did. I was angry that I let him ruin my day. I had a mountain of work to do, but I was paralysed. I billed not a single measly .1 for my own freelance clients and tasks that I needed to complete for Flex went undone. Knowing I made exactly $0.00 that day has made me think about the economic costs that mansplaining has on my life. I know some people are better at just shrugging this stuff off and often that is the advice I receive: “Forget him” “Don’t waste your time” “You are overreacting”. I wish I could have just moved on with my day and went back to making money, but I am not built that way. Every time I encounter mansplaining, and the paralysing anger it induces, not only is my emotional well-being affected, so is my financial well-being. My productivity suffers. And I know it is not just mansplaining and it is not just me. I would think that most lawyers who are subject to sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. comments suffer from a productivity loss and an economic cost in addition to the emotional price-tag attached to such comments. I struggled with how to conclude this blog post. The optimist in me wanted to end on a positive note. I’m not sure that I can. All I can say is that I waited a few days before I responded to mansplainer extraordinaire. I opted for a polite but clear email that I was not pleased and explained why his email was not welcomed (is there a term for explaining to a man what mansplaining is?) He was genuinely apologetic but also confused as he wanted to let me know his intentions were pure and he was really just trying to help. He said he should have called me instead of sending me an email (hint: mansplaining over the phone is still mansplaining). I guess my one positive take away from this is that I hope the next time he (or anyone else reading this) has a desire to “help” a woman, that they take a second to stop and re-consider. Some questions to assist: did she ask you to explain something to her? Might she know more than you about the topic? Would most male lawyers with her experience know this? Meanwhile, I guess I can work on my own reaction to mansplaining. I am no longer willing to take a financial hit for someone else’s bad behaviour. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for reading my blog! I write about my lawyer-life, women in law, and write the odd book review. I had a series on my blog in 2018 called Women Leading in Law which focused on amazing women leading in law (I was tired of hearing about women leaving law). This series is on pause but will return at a later date. In 2019 (in addition to my personal musings) I will be starting a series profiling law firms that are taking concrete steps to improve equality, diversity, and inclusion in the legal profession. I hope that the new series will highlight what is working (and not working) in increasing the retention and promotion of women and members of other equality seeking groups in law. I have four law firms signed on, but I am looking for at least 8 more firms of all sizes from across Canada that would be willing to be profiled. Know any firm trying to make a difference (beyond posting EDI policies)? Large, mid-sized, boutique? Perhaps firms started by lawyers who were interested in building a new type of law firm with EDI as a priority? Please let me know! |
  Erin C. Cowling is a freelance litigator, researcher & writer at Cowling Legal Freelance and President and Founder of FLEX LEGAL, a network of freelance lawyers.
Categories
All
Archives
August 2019
|
RSS Feed
|
(C) 2014-2019 Cowling Legal. All rights reserved.
|
Please note I only work with other lawyers, law firms and legal departments and do not represent clients of my own.
Information on this website does not constitute legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Accessing or using this website does not create a solicitor-client relationship. See website Terms of Use/Privacy Policy. info@cowlinglegal.com
3080 Yonge Street, Suite 6060 Toronto,ON M4N 3N1 (appointment only) 416.509.3655 |
|