The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) released results from a survey that found that 70% of low-level staff lawyers at America’s largest law firms are female, but only 15% of equity partners:

The typical AmLaw 200 firm is now a two-tier partnership with many different categories of lawyer in a leveraged structure: 151 equity partners (barely 15% women), 91 non-equity partners (26% women), 54 counsel (35% women), 188 associates (46% women), and 11 staff attorneys (70% women). As the preceding numbers clearly show, women constitute a smaller percentage of each category as you move up the career ladder. In other words, over the course of time women exit law firms disproportionately more than their male peers. Moreover, it is troubling to note that the percentages of women equity partners and women associates in the typical firm have declined slightly during the past two years.

NAWL goes on to explain why some of these disparities exist, and points to the fact that male lawyers are significantly older than female and therefore at a more advanced place in their career, and evidence that a lot of female attorneys prefer the flexibility and lower pressure of being a staff attorney rather than an associate.

However, according to NAWL, this is a major problem:

On the other hand, many, many women choose to be on a partner track and aim for partnership. Our ideal would be that, as more women entered big-firm legal practice, the standards and expectations would evolve to be more accepting of all women’s lives and goals – not to slot more women at the lowest, non-partner track position. That approach sends an unfortunate message: “Yes, Ms. JD, you can work in BigLaw, but the right to advance, along with profits, professional status and the most interesting projects, are restricted to those who accept the 24/7 on-demand mentality in every year of their practice, and the resultant stresses and warping of their lives.”

Our goal is to encourage firms to have systems of advancement that build in flexibility and accommodate the needs of women (and men) lawyers at various phases of their careers. After all, when more than one-third of the legal profession is female, it cannot be beneficial to firms to lose so much legal talent after a relatively short span of years. Our disappointment is that so many firms have not yet figured out how to develop policies and practices to retain women lawyers without simply relegating them to a bottom-tier role.

So, essentially, what they want is for law firms to allow women to put in the same amount of effort as a staff attorney, but to be paid more and given a higher position. In other words, less work for more pay (for females). And yet they still don’t know why firms – which are businesses in competition with other businesses – can’t figure out how to do this. Well, the firms could do it, but they’d lose money. It’s kind of hard to get around that. Unless, of course, you think money just kind of grows like grass.

A lot of women do indeed have this attitude toward money, but you’d think that of all people lawyers could figure it out. They supposedly have strong analytical skills, a good grasp of logic, and high intelligence.

But here you have NAWL saying that legal firms should “evolve” to accept “all women’s lives and goals…” Gee, I wish I could get someone to buy that line from me. I mean, if you don’t care about my goals, it’s because, like, you just need to “evolve,” man…