Bonnie Warkentin Click here to see full sized version.

Paid maternity leaves and a pool of lawyers capable of filling in during the leaves are among proposals advanced by a working group that has been looking at how to stem an exodus of female lawyers from the profession.

Co-chaired by Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) benchers Laurie Pawlitza and Bonnie Warkentin, the 15-lawyer group advised the law society’s February Convocation that while women have been entering the profession in record numbers, they have also been leaving private practice “in droves.”

The working group was appointed following a benchers’ planning session in September 2005 at which the issue of retaining women in private practice was identified as a priority, and it was decided that the Law Society should develop strategies to address the issue.

The working group’s mandate called on it to identify best practices in law firms and in sole practice that enhance the retention of women; to determine LSUC’s role in addressing the issue, and to design and implement strategies for medium and large law firms to retain women.

In addition, the group was to develop strategies to respond to the socio-economic needs of women in small firms and sole practices, including the viability of their practices, as well as their unique child-care challenges; and to take into account the needs of women “from diverse communities.”

In a “consultation paper” submitted to Convocation, the working group made nine recommendations, one of which was that LSUC implement a three-year pilot project for firms with more than 25 lawyers and the two largest firms in each region “in which firms commit to adopting programs for the retention and advancement of women.”

The firms would be asked to make commitments in three main areas: providing maternity/parental leaves and flexible work arrangements; encouraging networking and business development, and “mentoring and appointing women in leadership roles.”

Noting that the pilot project would be the first of its kind in Canada, the working group predicted it would “lead the way for innovative systemic change in the legal profession.”

As a first step, the participating law firms would collect and maintain demographic information about their lawyers “as benchmarks for the development of programs for the advancement of women lawyers.”

Although that information would not be made public or provided to LSUC they would commit to maintaining it, including differences among practice groups, so as to identify areas where they have more or less successful in retaining or advancing women and to make strategies for improvement.

Another recommendation is that LSUC, in conjunction with legal association where that is appropriate, provide direct support to women in large and medium-sized firms through programs such as a leadership and professional development institute and and new forms of online support.

Specifically, the working group proposed development of an online Women’s Resource Centre, with tools and information focusing on issues related to women’s advancement, such as tips on practice management and building a professional profile; maintaining profitability while raising a family; model maternity and flexible arrangement policies and guidelines; networking opportunities; individual coaching opportunities for women, and information on effective mentoring for women, including how to seek out mentors.

The proposals for paid maternity and parental leaves are aimed at small firms and sole practitioners who can face major financial hurdles in trying to raise a family.

Specifically, the working group calls in LSUC to develop both a three-year Parental Leave Benefit Pilot Program and a five-year pilot project to promote and support “practice locums” that would include an online registry of locum lawyers, guides and checklists on how to make a locum arrangement work effectively, and sample locum arrangements, including non compete clauses.

The proposal “would allow women and men to take leaves of absence or to have flexible work schedules while having the opportunity to rely on competent lawyers to maintain their practice on a temporary basis,” while also allowing them to undertake practice locum work when they want to have flexible careers.

Under the proposal, the 3-year pilot benefits program would start next January and provide $3,000 a month for up to 3 months to lawyers in firms of five or fewer lawyers.

Noting that Quebec lawyers have had similar programs since 2003 — initially through the Barreau du Québec and more recently through the Québec Parental Insurance plan, the report suggests the parental leaves could be administered by either LSUC or LawPRO and would cost members no more than $15 a year.

Other proposals would see LSUC:

• provide direct resources for women in sole practices and small firms, including new online resources, practice management advice and “direct support”;
• work with law schools to provide access to information and educational opportunities on the practice of law, including practising in diverse work settings;
• create an advisory group of women lawyers from Aboriginal, francophone “and/or equality-seeking communities” to assist in implementing the report’s recommendations, and
• facilitate, through its Equity and Aboriginal Issues Committee, the development of networking strategies focused on the needs of women from Aboriginal, francophone and/or equality-seeking communities in firms of all sizes.
  

The working group suggested that at the end of three years or the end of each recommended pilot project, LSUC assess their proposals’ effectiveness, “and identify further strategies, if appropriate, for the retention and advancement of women in private practice.”

Although the report was submitted for information only, it says Convocation will be asked to approve the nine recommendations.

A motion calling for the report to be disseminated “to the profession, law firms, law schools and legal organizations for the purpose of receiving comments about the proposed recommendations” was passed unanimously after several benchers spoke in favour. The only concern expressed was that the proposed two months of consultations might prove insufficient.

In outlining the report’s highlights, co-chair Pawlitza said the working group had been “quick to discover that one size doesn’t fit all,” and solving the problem would require different measures for large and small law firms.

Warkentin told the benchers the three-month limit for the payment of parental leave benefits was decided upon in the belief that most sole practitioners and lawyers in small firms would not want to be away from their practices any longer than that.