Victims of neo-liberalism: Why so few women in Australian law firms reach the top and stay there

The rest of partners' meeting time is devoted to the most contentious topic of all: how to divide up the firm's profits. In short, who gets what?

To be fair, most partners do not enjoy these discussions. Most are decent people trying to survive by the insane rules of super-capitalism. They are grateful for the large sums they earn and have no wish to dwell unduly on monetary matters. Whether they earn X hundred thousand dollars or Y hundred thousand dollars per annum is neither here nor there, as long as their legal ability and their contribution to the firm is not unfairly impugned.

But, invariably, in all firms, there are a handful of self-styled "rainmakers" and "heavy hitters" and "top performers" who insist that they deserve more money than they are getting. They not only complain about their (terribly inadequate) share of the existing pie, but about the size of the total pie itself (also terribly inadequate). So they agitate.

The measures they propose routinely entail making life yet more miserable for everyone else in the firm, from "underperforming" partners right down to the tea ladies.

Lawyers of this kind take their lead from ASX 200 CEOs, or merchant bankers, or other superstars of the corporate world, many of whom are their clients. Management is bound if not inclined to listen to them.

Thus are the ways in which super-capitalism is perpetuated. It's the kick-the-cat syndrome.

It is interesting to note that doctors do not seem to have prostituted themselves to quite the extent that solicitors have. A lawyer who rings a specialist doctor demanding an urgent appointment will (to put it mildly) be treated much less deferentially than a wealthy doctor who rings a specialist lawyer and makes a similar demand. Doctors still have some self-respect.

To return, then, to the original question: why are women under-represented in senior positions in Australian law firms?

The answer, I believe, is straightforward. Those of neo-liberal bent may not agree with me, nor those who adhere slavishly to the creed of political correctness. But I close with four propositions.

First, Australian law firms are extremely tough places to work, and it gets tougher rather than easier the more senior you get.

Second, many young graduates who start work as solicitors at Australian law firms today, men and women, are simply not suited to the work. Even if they "succeed," and even if they don't admit it openly to the powers-that-be, many come to despise the job.

Third, around the age of thirty, if not sooner, women are much more likely than men to be honest with themselves and get out. Perhaps women have more common sense.

I risk being lynched for saying this, but women who are married to wealthy or potentially wealthy men (a common situation nowadays) can more readily afford to suffer a reduction in their personal income. In any case, opting out of one's chosen profession, or switching to a less lucrative job, does not carry the same level of social stigma for a woman as it still does for a man.

Finally, women contemplating motherhood are likely to make an additional judgment. For all but the most brilliant, robust, organised and resourceful of women (the so-called super-women of modern mythology), coping with life as both a loving mother and a partner at a law firm is so fraught a challenge as not to seem worth the effort. For many such women, the prospect of motherhood is a blessed, welcome diversion.

In such circumstances, what is in operation is not a maternity wall but a maternity escape-hatch.