Posted in:
Justitia Think Tank
The Law Society of Upper Canada today announced [PDF] the formation of the Justitia Think Tank as part of its effort to “retain and advance women” in the legal profession. Forty Ontario law firms have agreed to participate for three years (2009-2011) and to:
- maintain statistical data on the gender of lawyers in the firm,
- “review their existing written policies on maternity, paternal and adoption leave and flexible work arrangements”,
- share information on networking and business development opportunities for women, and
- eventually (2011) “develop strategies to enhance women’s participation in the leadership of the firm.”
The think tank is an initiative resulting from the reports of the Retention of Women in Private Practice Working Group, the Final Consultation Findings of which are available online [PDF].
One is always hopeful for good and needed change… but I’m afraid I’m sceptical about the likelihood that this effort will produce much of anything of value for women in law, when, it seems to me, what’s wanted is a deeper examination of the way in which law is now practised by both men and women.
I’m also very sceptical. If it’s anything like the conference U of T held a couple of years back entitled ‘Gender and Diversity in the Legal Profession’, there will be a lot of talk about things like being able to redirect calls from one’s office to one’s home phone number, and very little real challenge to the billable hours model. Perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised, but I won’t hold my breath.
In one sense this is an irrelevant comment but I have to protest the increasingly common use of the word gender when what is meant is sex. There are two sexes, female and male, corresponding to women and men; there are, depending principally on one’s language, at least three genders, feminine, masculine and neuter. Public washrooms are allocated by sex, not, as recent discussion in the Globe & Mail suggested, by gender. On the doors of most public washrooms you will find that they are allocated to women or men, sometimes ladies or gentlemen; you will not find “feminine” or “masculine” on the doors. The legal profession is divided into those members who are female and those who are male, i.e., by sex.
We are in danger of losing a useful distinction. Is this some revived nineteenth century prudery?