"Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult." The old saying that can be illustrative in the career success stories of many women, and perhaps few places more so than of female lawyers at the Bar.
The women who have picked litigation and are successful do not shy away from addressing the problem of gender bias compounded by lack of structure and sluggishness of court procedures.
"I went to courts like Bayana," recounts bemused IP specialist Anuradha Salhotra. "It used to feel like a zoo. I was the only lady in the courts there and the entire community used to come to see me argue.” She clearly identifies the sexist attitude of people as one of the bigger problems women faced in the courts.
But monetary consideration and better working conditions were recognised as the main reasons for a leaning towards corporate work.
"Youngsters are attracted to corporate law practice because it is much better pay - larger firms like AZB and Amarchand Mangaldas pay enticing salaries," says Manik Karanjawala.
Sole Trilegal woman partner Charandeep Kaur notes: "Law is a demanding profession, corporate demands same amount of work as litigation."
But Salhotra feels that hardcore litigation is especially tough: "There are no timings; the court dictates time."
And while the gestation period from junior advocate assisting a senior counsel to starting one's own practice is very long and cumbersome for both sexes, it remains an even more distant possibility for women with no legacy to fall back upon.
Zia Mody adds that a woman litigating lawyer has to be outstanding in order to get noticed in the courts, "It is still a fair struggle for women to succeed and break through the ceiling if they like it in the court world."
And being outstanding is never good enough in the absence of perseverance and hard work. Those qualities are the prerequisites to excelling in any field but become even more significant while battling cases.
On the flip side of course, one female lawyer says that women's greater emotional intelligence gives them advantages of being able to strategise and negotiate with far more tact than men.
Even those willing to surpass the initial obstacles and stick around to become arguing counsels have to override psychological barriers clients may display in favour of men.
"As far as arguing counsels are concerned there is no question they far outnumber women. This is partly due to the level of confidence that a man has while addressing the bench," claims Karanjawala. "Though we have very tough women lawyers who have excelled like Indira Jaisingh, that’s an exception and not a rule."
However, despite the rigours of litigation and apparent ease of working in a law firm, female partners do perceive full commitment and dedication towards work as common key to success.
Khaitan & Co litigation partner Gauri Rasgotra who rejoined the firm's Delhi office after working for two years in the US as the head of the George Washington University Law School's India Studies Center says that while difficult, the Bar's pay-off is worth it.
"I have practiced in the courts from 1995 to May 2006,” she enthuses. “You get a high when you go to the courts. Just in the beginning of her career does a female lawyer face some discrimination by clients but not after she proves herself."
One female partner believes that things are now changing for the better with an increasing number of women graduating as lawyers every year. Some of them get drawn into litigation, and they are there to stay, whereas others return to the bar after spending years as corporate attorneys.
"Litigation is a very interesting part of law, corporate law can get monotonous,” she says. “Every case is a different fact situation like another story."
Therefore, it all boils down to what kind of work ultimately motivates and evokes passion in an individual which is less of a gender and more of merit-based contention.
And it should be pointed out that the Delhi Bar Council executive committee now has two female members: Rana Praween Siddiqui and Sarla Kaushik. When contrasted with the representation of law firm lawyers at the Delhi Bar Council (Luthra & Luthra partner Vijay Sondhi), perhaps women are not doing all too badly in the field.
Legally India wishes a happy International Women's Day to all readers.
Read more about women's careers in Indian corporate law firms.
Women breaking into the Bar: as tough as ever?
Photo by 200MoreMontrealStencils
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Flowers and free lunch on women's day
Access to the creche (mother have preference over fathers!)
And a whole load else!
If senior lawyers, as a rule, pay a decent amount (lets say Rs. 40-50,000/- p.m.), then many law students would rather join them than the big law firms. But unfortunately, few lawyers pay, and the few who do pay, rarely cross Rs.25-30000. A decent salary is expected by lawschoolites who spend a lot on their education and senior lawyers can easily afford a good junior for 50k. Its peanuts for seniors, but still, there are a "few good men" and hence "few good juniors at the bar". Seniors forget that cheap lawyers get lousy results and they should understand that a lawschoolite does not want to struggle for money after law school.
There are many good juniors at the bar. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Pray, why should they? Do explain. Did we earn by virtue of cogging projects for five years? This attitude of entitlement is what convinces most people that lawschool grads are brats. You don't need to worship a senior but everyone struggles to build a clientele - all consultants do, all doctors in private practice do. Why not lawyers?
The difficulty is only this - to retain clientele and referrals from briefing counsels, you can't have attitude without talent. And that is where many, many lawschoolites fall short.
Some senior lawyers openly say that they feel women are a waste in litigation! Such attitude always is a killer.
Add to this, conferences are a part of litigation and they take place during all sorts of odd hours e.g. 3 am! without taking into account the convenience or otherwise of the woman lawyer in the team.
Its surely difficult to break the ceiling, as Zia says and more so, if she doesn't have a legacy behind her.
In no other professional field are graduates of the best universities treated so shabbily by established players / firms in their core profession. Can you imagine a super speciality hospital paying an AIIMS graduate with specialization a sum of Rs. 4000 a month? OR an investment bank paying an IIM-A alumni that much to work as an analyst ?
I believe it is a real shame that this sort of behavious is perpetuted by all the leading senior counsel in this country (including all the well known stars). And until this state of affairs is cleaned, no lawyer of any talent will stick his neck out to venture into the courtrooms.
I joined litigation recently, and I found out that seniors, even those who earn in lacs per month, pay junior lawyers peanuts. As rightly pointed out in the comment, no good, excellent junior lawyer can feel inclined to work for a such a small salary, the seniors should think in terms of long term benefits.
It is hard for a junior male lawyer, but even harder for a female lawyer, as they also have to fight prejudice at the Bar.
It is high time seniors started being magnanimous. If not, then the Bar is going to suffer since only illiterate, manipulative lawyers will join it and those who have the potential to serve will desert it.
The problem of remuneration is directly linked to the general quality of fresh lawyers. They are very good at attempting research but are absolutely unfinished as lawyers.
The generally lacking bits are information, knowledge, thinking ability, the powers of analysis and correlation and above all coherence in output. Law School generally teaches that research is god. But the basic problem is that research with half baked concepts and understanding is frustrating for seniors of all varieties.
Generally, Corporate Law Practices bill by the hour so the more the number of heads the more the billing. Whereas, Litigation briefs are won upon the basis of merits, theories and supporting impeccable research. The last cannot come without the basic understanding of theories. Which most of the fresh lawyers absolutely lack in. Therefore the lesser pay in the litigation practices.
The law school formula or research and more research without understanding the concepts creates more havoc than clarity, which should be the fundamental aim of all lawyers without limitation of the practice.
Maybe the day the billing mannerisms change more young lawyers would probably get a chance at working at the bar. Till then i dont view the same changing.
The limited world view and life experience precludes the fresh lawyers from some inherent understandings of the manner of functioning and operation of the courts.
So you need to first survive 5 years at law school, do well, which in itself is rather difficult and then choose to go to the bar and get paid peanuts, because you 'may' not have the street smarts?
Firstly I refuse to believe ALL fresh lawyers from the NLUs are just a bunch of nerdy geeks. Secondly, my dear lord is your reasoning a pathetic excuse for being stingy!
I think we spend too much time whining about how hard things are.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first