Breaking the Glass Gavel

Breaking the Glass Gavel: Addressing Gender Gaps in Elite Law Firms

By Madison Bell — November 17th, 2025

Introduction

In 2016, a survey done by the Florida Bar’s Young Lawyers Division revealed that 43% of women experienced gender bias within the legal profession. This included salary discrepancies, lack of opportunities for advancement, and insensitive comments by colleagues, partners, or clients (Implicit Bias in the Legal Profession, p. 8). The findings of this survey reflect the gender biases and inequalities that are rooted in a profession which prides itself on fairness and justice.

There are many broader implications that stem from gender disparity in the legal field. These implications go beyond people’s individual careers and onto the broader structures of justice, representation, and equity. When women are underrepresented in the legal profession, specifically in leadership roles, important perspectives in issues such as family law, workplace discrimination, and gender-based violence may be overlooked. This gender imbalance in the legal field can perpetuate systemic biases towards women and hinder the development of laws that protect all citizens male and female. Deborah L. Rhode, a renowned scholar in legal ethics and gender law states, “Gender diversity in the legal profession is not just about fairness; it is about improving the quality of justice delivered. When women are underrepresented in law, particularly in positions of power, entire perspectives are lost, and the law itself risks reflecting only the experiences of the dominant group.” Addressing these disparities is essential to the future of workplace equality and ensuring that legal systems serve everyone equitably and inclusively.

Although today women make up 38% of attorneys -a significant increase from the 5% representation in the 1950s- barriers to leadership roles for women in elite law firms still remain very present (Fenwick 2023). This paper examines the underrepresentation of women in elite law firms by exploring three primary factors: implicit and explicit biases, structural barriers within the legal profession, and caregiving responsibilities. These three factors collectively perpetuate gender disparities in the legal profession, and this paper also looks at the actions that can be taken to foster equality in the legal profession going forward.

Historical Context & Current State

Historically, the legal profession has been dominated by men. In 1950, women made up less than 5% of all attorneys (Fenwick 2023). This figure only began to shift once the feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s made their appearance in society. By 2022, women accounted for 38% of lawyers, reflecting progress, but also showing the very limited amount of growth the profession has had. This very small, slow growth in the last decade suggests that we are still quite far from equal gender representation in the legal profession. As Fenwick (2023) observes, “The last decade’s modest growth suggests that the journey to equality is far from over.”

Today, women still face significant challenges when it comes to reaching leadership roles. According to Lienberg and Scharf (2019), one of the most shocking things is the high attrition rate of experienced women in elite law firms. Their research shows that 58% of women cited caregiving responsibilities as a primary reason for leaving their firms. It states, “As the data made clear, experienced women lawyers bear a disproportionate brunt of responsibility for arranging for care, leaving work when needed by the child, children’s extracurricular activities, and evening and daytime childcare” (Liebenberg & Scharf 2019). These challenges that women face suggest that although women’s entry into the legal profession has become more accessible, advancement remains clouded by other obstacles.

Implicit & Explicit Biases in Hiring

Implicit biases or people’s unconscious attitudes that influence their behaviors play a large role in the perpetuation of gender inequality in elite law firms. It has major effects on hiring and promotional decisions. Whysall (2018) states, “Implicit cognition is an essential and unavoidable part of human information processing, which means that implicit biases, and the potential discrimination that can lead from them, can emerge at any stage of the talent management process; from recruitment and selection, to promotion and development opportunities” (Whysall 2018, p. 228). In this quote, the author is highlighting how these cognitive biases during the recruitment process lead to discrimination, even if it is subconsciously. Whysall (2018) also notes the idea that decision-makers often rely on heuristics, such as stereotypical views of leadership as more masculine traits, when evaluating candidates for leadership positions. These biases put women at a very considerable disadvantage, mainly because women are less likely to be perceived as “fitting into” the traditional image of a successful attorney. All of these unconscious biases influence how resumes and interviews are evaluated, often leading to fewer opportunities given to female candidates.

Explicit biases, although less viable today, also exist. As demonstrated in Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004), they found that job applicants with names perceived as female or belonging to racial minorities received significantly fewer callbacks than those with traditionally male or white names, even when their qualifications were identical. These findings show how explicit discrimination, though less overt, continues to influence hiring decisions. The article specifically cites “White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews” (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004, p. 1). This finding not only shows the unfair hiring practices of legal firms, but also the dual disadvantage faced by women of color within the legal field.

In the legal profession specifically, Coontz (1995) highlights a significant gender divide in perceptions of bias. The article talks about how women consistently report discrimination in both pay and advancement opportunities, but many men within the profession fail to recognize these inequities. The gap in awareness of inequality between the genders continues to perpetuate an environment of gender inequality and makes it more challenging to address systemic inequalities. This is mostly because those in power -mostly men- may not perceive the need for change.

Structural & Cultural Barriers

Elite law firms operate within an inherently demanding framework that is also often incompatible with work-life balance. Liebenberg and Scharf (2019) notes that women frequently leave their firms due to the inability to meet the “workload and time demands of billing large numbers of hours, originating business, and managing non-substantive responsibilities.” These structural rules are often made worse by cultural expectations, and caregiving responsibilities that disproportionately fall on women. The article states, “Experienced women lawyers bear a disproportionate brunt of responsibility for arranging for care, leaving work when needed by the child, children’s extracurricular activities, and evening and daytime childcare” (Liebenberg and Scharf 2019, p. 12). These caregiving responsibilities not only affect women’s ability to stay in the legal profession, but also their ability to advance in the profession.

Workplace cultures often tend to prioritize presenteeism and networking outside of the traditional working hours. Presenteeism is when an employee shows up to work but isn't able to perform at their full capacity because of reasons such as illness, mental health, injury, or tiredness. Employees may do this because of the extreme pressures put on them by their job, something very common in the legal field. These practices often exclude many women because of their caregiving responsibilities. According to the Intellectual Property Owners Association, “women attorneys are held to a higher ethical standard than their male counterparts and are therefore punished more often and more harshly for the same offenses” (p. 8). These practices and cultural norms within create an environment where women must work a great deal harder to achieve the same recognition as men.

Counterpoints & Broader Implications

Some may argue that gender disparities in law are diminishing by pointing to the increasing number of women entering the legal profession. Oppositely, the data shows that although more women are joining the legal field, they are not advancing or able to advance at the same rate as their male counterparts. “The underrepresentation of females at senior ranks places those women that do achieve the higher ranks in a precarious position, as tokens, open to scrutiny by both fellow officers and the public alike” (Whysall 2018, p. 4). This quote shows just how ingrained this inequality is in society, that even the few women who do achieve higher positions are still looked down upon by their peers.

The implications of these disparities extend far beyond just the legal profession. More diverse legal teams are more likely to approach problems innovatively and represent a broader range of perspectives. Fixing these inequities is not just a matter of justice but one of professional excellence. Moreover, gender equity in leadership roles can serve as a model for other industries, helping to dismantle systemic inequalities across all of society.

Solutions & Recommendations

As a profession, there are many changes that the legal field could make in order to right these injustices, first being organizational changes. Implementing anonymous hiring practices where gender name and gender are not stated could help to mitigate the impacts of implicit biases during the application process. This approach would remove personal identifiers from resumes, and has been proven effective in reducing gender disparities in other fields. “Screening of resumes and other applicant information should be undertaken ‘blind’, with any factors irrelevant to job performance omitted, particularly those known to trigger stereotypes such as candidate name, age, gender, and photograph” (Whysall 2018, p. 231). They also reference joint evaluation, where resumes are compared in batches instead of individually, which encourages assessors to prioritize job performance and mitigate group stereotypes (Whysall 2018, p. 231).

A study by Goldin and Rouse (2000) supports the effectiveness of anonymous hiring practices. Symphony orchestras in the US implemented blind auditions using screens to conceal candidates' identities. Goldin and Rouse (2000) discovered that “the screen increased the probability that a woman will be advanced out of preliminary rounds by 50%” (Whysall 2018, p. 221). Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) shows a similar concept regarding racial inequality: “This 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant. Based on our estimates, a White name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience” (p. 2). Removing gender and racial identifiers could lead to more equitable hiring practices.

Another potential way to fix inequities would be policy changes. Creating flexible work policies, such as remote working options and extended parental leave, are essential to supporting women with caregiving responsibilities. Liebenberg and Scharf (2019) emphasize mentorship programs, sponsorship initiatives, and policies that retain female talent: “The policies that at least 75% of women believe are important to advancing senior women are work from home (78%); paid parental leave (76%); clear consistent criteria for promotion to equity partner (75%); and a formal part-time policy for partners (75%)” (Liebenberg and Scharf 2019). Implementing these policies can increase women in powerful decision-making positions within the legal profession.

Educational initiatives such as mandatory implicit bias training for hiring managers and partners can foster inclusivity and awareness of workplace inequalities. Whysall (2018) notes, “awareness of cognitive biases is the first step to addressing subconscious discrimination.” Firms tracking metrics on gender equality, representation in senior roles, and pay gaps can hold themselves accountable.

Potential Limitations & Barriers

Resistance to change from those benefiting from the current system can stifle initiatives. Implicit biases remain challenging to overcome. Joan Williams describes “Prove-It-Again” syndrome, requiring women and people of color to exceed expectations to receive recognition.

Cultural norms and societal trends, including paternalistic attitudes regarding caregiving, also present barriers. Bias against women with children—termed the “Maternal Wall”—affects perceptions of competence and commitment, hindering career progression.

Conclusion

The underrepresentation of women in elite law firms is multifaceted, rooted in implicit and explicit biases, structural barriers, and cultural expectations. Progress has been made, but significant work remains. Addressing these disparities requires organizational reforms, policy changes, and educational initiatives, which will empower women and strengthen the legal profession. Future research could explore intersectional challenges and the effectiveness of implemented solutions.

Sources

Anon. n.d. “Implicit Bias in the Legal Profession.” Intellectual Property Owners Association. (https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Implicit-Bias-White-Paper-2.pdf).
Bertrand, Maria, & Sendhil Mullainathan (2004) “Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination,” 94 American Economic Rev. 991–1014. (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9873/w9873.pdf).
Bohnet, I., A. van Geen, and M.H. Bazerman. 2012. When performance trumps gender bias: Joint versus separate evaluation. Working paper no 12-083. (http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-083.pdf).
Coontz, P. D. (1995). Gender Bias in the Legal Profession: Women “See” It, Men Don’t. Women & Politics, 15(2), 1–22. (https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v15n02_01).
Fenwick, Jaline. 2023. “See Her, Hear Her: The Historical Evolution of Women in Law and Advocacy for the Path Ahead.” The American Bar Association. (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-november/see-her-hear-her-historical-evolution-women-in-law/).
Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. 2000. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review 90: 715–741.
Jackson, Liane. 2018. “Race and Gender Bias Is Rampant in Law, Says New Report That Also Offers Tools to Fight It.” ABA Journal. (https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/race_and_gender_is_bias_rampant_in_law_says_new_report_that_also_offers_too/).
Liebenberg, Roberta and Stephanie Scharf. 2019. “Walking out the Door.” The American Bar Association. (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/initiatives_awards/long-term-careers-for-women/walking-out-the-door/).
Rhode L. Deborah. 2015. The Trouble with Lawyers - Hardcover - Oxford University Press. (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-trouble-with-lawyers-9780190217228?cc=us&lang=en&).
Whysall, Z. (2018). Cognitive biases in recruitment, selection, and promotion: The risk of subconscious discrimination. Hidden inequalities in the workplace: A guide to the current challenges, issues and business solutions, 215-243. (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77192-0_11).