FINAL REPORT ON EQUITY AND DIVERSITY IN ALBERTA S LEGAL PROFESSION

FINAL REPORT ON EQUITY AND DIVERSITY IN ALBERTA S LEGAL PROFESSION Completed for the Joint Committee on Equality, Equity and Diversity By Merrill Cooper, Joan Brockman, and Irene Hoffart January 26, 2004 Calgary, Alberta

FINAL REPORT ON EQUITY AND DIVERSITY IN ALBERTA S LEGAL PROFESSION Completed for the Joint Committee on Equality, Equity and Diversity of the Law Society of Alberta; Canadian Bar Association, Alberta Branch; Faculty of Law, University of Calgary; and Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Completed by Merrill Cooper, Joan Brockman, and Irene Hoffart Funded by the Alberta Law Foundation January 26, 2004 Law Society of Alberta 600, 919 11 th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2R 9Z9 Tel: (403) 229-4700 Toll free: 1-800-661-9003 Fax: (403) 228-1728 Home page: http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com

FOREWORD The Joint Committee on Equality, Equity and Diversity in 2003 commissioned a broad study on bias and equity in Alberta s legal profession. The Committee was motivated by concerns that discrimination and bias in Alberta s legal profession may be continuing to act as barriers to practice and professional advancement for some groups of lawyers. The Committee includes representatives from the Canadian Bar Association (Alberta Branch), the faculties of law at the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta, and the Law Society of Alberta and has broadened its mandate to include all aspects of equity and diversity in the legal profession in Alberta. The Committee contracted with a team of three consultants working under the auspices of Guyn Cooper Research Associates in Calgary to conduct the study: Joan Brockman, professor of criminology at Simon Fraser University, who completed the 1991 surveys; Merrill Cooper, principal of Guyn Cooper Research Associates; and Irene Hoffart, of Synergy Research Group. The objectives of this study are to determine if and how changes have occurred for women lawyers in Alberta since 1991; to collect baseline data on the nature and extent of bias in the profession on other grounds of discrimination such as race, disability, and sexual orientation; and to collect information about lawyers who move to the inactive list and the reasons motivating their decisions. The study includes written surveys of active and inactive members; focus groups with lawyers, law students, and articling students; and the development of an interview protocol to be administered annually to a sample of lawyers who move from active to inactive membership status. This work is to build on active and inactive member surveys conducted in 1991 by the then Committee on Women and the Legal Profession. The 1991 surveys obtained a descriptive profile of Law Society members and collected data on lawyers perceptions about and experiences with gender bias in the legal profession. The 1991 survey findings were instrumental to the Committee over the last decade in the development of a range of policies, guidelines and programs to address inequities in the profession. It is the hope of the Committee that this study will assist us in the years to come as we work towards developing further policies and programs that encourage and promote a diverse and inclusive legal profession. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Alberta Law Foundation for funding the project. Thanks go to our consultants Merrill Cooper, Joan Brockman and Irene Hoffart for their commitment to the project. I personally also wish to thank the members of the Survey Steering Committee, including: Elizabeth Miller (CBA) Sandra Mah, Sheilah Martin QC (U of C), Doug McGillivray QC, Martin Kaga, Jeanne Byron (Equity Ombudsperson) and Susan Billington (LSA); and the past and current members of the Equality, Equity and Diversity Committee involved in the project including Madame Justice June Ross (former Chair), Yvonne Stanford (Vice Chair), Tudor Beattie, Gerry Gall (U of A), Cheryl Gottsleig, Laurel Watson, Judy Daniels, Everett Bunnell QC, Wilf Willier, Ian Zaharko John Holmes QC, Jennifer Koshan (U of C). Rhonda Ruston QC, Chair Equality, Equity and Diversity Committee

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all the members of the Law Society of Alberta who took the time to complete the surveys and to write about their concerns and observations. Thanks are also due to the lawyers, articling students, and law students who participated in interviews and focus group discussions. Your perspectives were invaluable and you contributions enormous. Thanks are due to the Law Society of Alberta and the Canadian Bar Association, Alberta Branch, for commissioning the consultants to complete the project. Many thanks are due to the Equity and Diversity Project Steering Committee, which has been responsible for the oversight and administration of the project and for providing guidance, advice, and assistance to the consultants. We would particularly like to thank Rhonda Ruston, Chair of the Steering Committee, for her passion and commitment in spearheading the project. The Equity and Diversity Project Steering Committee has included the following members: Rhonda Ruston, Q.C., Chair Martin Kaga Sandra Mah Sheilah Martin, Q.C. Douglas McGillivray, Q.C. Beth Miller Susan Billington, Policy and Program Counsel, Law Society of Alberta Jeanne Byron, Equity Ombudsperson, Law Society of Alberta We are especially grateful to Susan Billington, Counsel, Policy and Programs, for her tremendous support and assistance in completing all aspects of the project, and to her assistant, Michelle Riches, for providing administrative support to the Steering Committee and the consultants. We would also like to thank Don Thompson, Executive Director of the Law Society, for his sound input and guidance over the course of the project. This project was made possible through funding from the Alberta Law Foundation. The Foundation s financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Joint Committee on Equity, Equality, and Diversity, the Law Foundation of Alberta, the Canadian Bar Association, the University of Calgary Faculty of Law, or the University of Alberta Faculty of Law. Joan Brockman School of Criminology Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C.V5A 1S6 (604) 291-4036 brockman@sfu.ca Merrill Cooper Guyn Cooper Research Associates #5, 222 Riverfront Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 0A5 (403) 263-9164 merrillcooper@shaw.ca Irene Hoffart Synergy Research Group 516 Sierra Morena Place SW Calgary, Alberta T3H 2X1 (403) 240-2346 synergyresearch@telus.net

TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION. 1 SECTION 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. 3 2.1 INTRODUCTION... 3 2.2 RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS... 4 2.3 SUMMARY OF THE RECENT RESEARCH... 13 SECTION 3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY... 14 3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT.. 14 3.2 SAMPLE AND ADMINISTRATION 14 3.3 METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS 15 SECTION 4 RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY OF INACTIVE MEMBERS.. 19 4.1 INTRODUCTION: ATTRITION FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION... 19 4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS.. 20 4.3 EMPLOYMENT.. 24 4.4 REASONS FOR NOT PRACTISING LAW... 28 4.5 DOING IT ALL OVER AGAIN AND RETURN TO THE PRACTISE OF LAW. 37 4.6 PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH DISCRIMINATION BY OTHERS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION 41 4.7 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT DISCRIMINATION IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. 45 4.8 TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION, IF ANY, EXPERIENCED BY LAWYERS 48 4.9 CHILDREN. 52 4.10 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON THE INACTIVE MEMBERS SURVEY. 53 SECTION 5 RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY OF ACTIVE MEMBERS... 56 5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS... 56 5.2 EMPLOYMENT.. 61 5.2.1 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY IN LAW.. 61 5.2.2 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT 64 5.2.3 SUMMARY OF FORMER AND CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES... 87 5.3 CHILDREN AND THEIR EFFECTS ON CAREER. 89 5.3.1 NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND CARE OF CHILDREN.. 89 5.3.2 EFFECTS OF CHILD CARE RESPONSIBILITIES ON CAREER DECISIONS.. 90 5.3.3 SUMMARY OF CHILDREN AND THEIR EFFECTS ON CAREER 94 5.4 DISCRIMINATION 96 5.4.1 PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH DISCRIMINATION WHILE SEEKING EMPLOYMENT OR DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION 96 5.4.2 PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH AND OBSERVATIONS OF HARASSMENT 118 5.4.3 LAWYERS PERCEPTIONS ABOUT DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROFESSION 126 5.4.4 LAWYERS ATTITUDES ABOUT VARIOUS DIVERSITY-RELATED ISSUES... 140 5.4.5 SUMMARY OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION.. 148 SECTION 6 RESULTS FROM THE EQUITY AND DIVERSITY FOCUS GROUPS 154 6.1 FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY... 154 6.2 PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS... 155 6.3 FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS.. 156 6.4 SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS.. 166 SECTION 7 CONCLUSIONS 169 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 EQUITY AND DIVERSITY SURVEY FOR INACTIVE MEMBERS EQUITY AND DIVERSITY SURVEY FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In 2003, the Joint Committee on Equality, Equity and Diversity commissioned a study on bias and equity in Alberta s legal profession. The objectives of the study were to determine if and how changes have occurred since the 1991 study on gender bias; to collect more extensive baseline data on the nature and extent of bias in the profession on other grounds of discrimination in addition to gender, including race, ethnicity, religion, disability, and sexual orientation; and to collect information about lawyers who move to the inactive list and the reasons motivating their decisions. Two of the reasons motivating the Joint Committee to commission the study were anecdotal reports from members about ongoing discrimination in the profession, and Law Society membership data indicating that, despite the fact that equal numbers of men and women have entered the profession over the past decade, women lawyers, particularly those called to the bar in 1990 or earlier, have been leaving the profession in greater numbers and proportions than the men. Anecdotal reports from members also suggested that mid-sized and large law firms were experiencing challenges in retaining young women associates. The study included written surveys of active and inactive members; focus groups with lawyers, law students, and articling students; and the development of an exit interview protocol. Development of the Equity and Diversity Surveys was informed by the Law Society s 1991 surveys on gender bias; the review of the literature, including surveys of lawyers in Canada and the United States completed over the past decade; and pre-survey interviews and focus groups with 16 Calgary lawyers who are members of the historically disadvantaged groups targeted in the survey. The questionnaires were included with the May 2003 edition of The Advisory, the newsletter of the Law Society of Alberta. All of the 7,075 active members of the Law Society who had paid their fees and insurance dues as of May 22, 2003 were sent a copy of the Active Members questionnaire. Of the inactive members, the 539 members who had inactive member status, resided in Alberta, receive Law Society correspondence, and had moved from active to inactive status in the past 10 years were sent a copy of the Inactive Members questionnaire. Active members questionnaires were completed and returned by 905 respondents (13% of active members); 43% of respondents were female and 57% were male. Inactive members questionnaires were returned by 134 inactive members (25% of the inactive members meeting the criteria for inclusion); 56% were female and 44% were male. Eighty-seven individuals (15 men and 72 women) participated in 14 focus groups in five Alberta cities. As with all surveys, with the exception of census surveys, completion of the questionnaires was voluntary and subject to self-selection bias and, therefore, may not constitute a statistically representative sample from which conclusive inferences can be made to the entire population of Alberta lawyers. However, the demographic and practice breakdown of both active and inactive respondents is remarkably consistent with Law Society membership data in terms of gender, year of call, years as member, and geographic location. There is a slight over-representation of older male respondents on the inactive survey, compared to inactive Law Society members. Study findings Data from the survey of inactive members show that the majority of both the men and women lawyers who moved to inactive status in the past 10 years left the profession to look for more personally rewarding opportunities, to avoid the nature, stress and adversarial approach of the practice of law, or to find more balance with personal life. Only half of the inactive survey respondents reported that, if they could do it all over again, they would become a lawyer.

Likewise, data from the survey of active members revealed dissatisfaction among many respondents, particularly younger lawyers, with some aspects of the practice of law, including hours of work, work-life balance, the profit-driven culture of the profession and, for members of historically disadvantaged groups, discrimination that impedes their career advancement. Dissatisfaction with the culture of the legal profession was expressed by both active and inactive survey respondents in their additional written comments in the surveys and emerged as a strong theme in the focus group discussions. In general, these respondents made disparaging comments about the culture of the profession as being an old boys club, increasingly driven by the pursuit of profits, rather than justice. 71% of the younger respondents, compared to 22% of the older respondents, agreed that they would consider working reduced hours on a regular basis if they were not concerned about the possible detrimental effect of this on their careers. 81% of the younger respondents, compared to 55% of the older respondents, agreed that, in the practice of law, merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one s self to the workplace at the expense of family relationships. 64% of the younger respondents, compared to 12% of the older respondents, disagreed that lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear some of the costs Perceptions about discrimination 92% of the women and 69% of the men thought that there is some form of bias or discrimination against women in the profession; 33% of the men and 14% of the women thought there was discrimination against men. Among active survey respondents, 91% of the lawyers of colour believed that there is racial discrimination in the profession, 73% of lawyers with disabilities believed there is discrimination on the basis of disability, 88% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents believed there is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 83% of women with children and 32% of men with children believed there is discrimination on the basis of parental status. Very few Aboriginal respondents completed a written survey, however, in focus group discussions, both Aboriginal and non-aboriginal participants strongly agreed that there is extensive discrimination against Aboriginal lawyers throughout the legal profession. The most common type of discrimination against women and other diversity groups is perceived to be discrimination in career advancement. Personal experiences with discrimination Without reference to the specific ground of discrimination, 39% of the active women respondents, 41% of the respondents of colour, 28% of respondents with a non-christian religious affiliation, 40% of disabled respondents, and 40% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination firsthand while seeking or during the course of employment in the past five years. Many of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers were not out, so discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation may be under-represented in the study. Few Aboriginal lawyers completed a written survey, but all but one of the Aboriginal focus group participants reported that they experienced discrimination within the profession on an ongoing basis, and it was often very serious and overt. For all the diversity groups, other lawyers and clients were most commonly responsible for the discrimination: 39% of women respondents, 26% of respondents of colour, 20% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents, 14% of respondents with disabilities, and 14% of women with children reported that they had experienced discrimination from other lawyers. Discrimination was most commonly manifested in the forms of racist and sexist comments, denial of opportunities to work on files, exclusion from opportunities to be involved in workplace activities

related to career advancement, exclusion from work-related social or business development activities related to career advancement, and negative career consequences as a result of having children or being a parent. In addition, sexual harassment continues to be a serious problem in the profession. Consequences of discrimination Analysis of the data on employment] revealed that, controlling for number of years at the bar and place and type of employment, women respondents worked at least as many hours as men respondents. Women without children worked significantly more hours than women with children and men with or without children. Controlling for number of years at the bar, there were no significant differences in billing hours between men with children and women with children who billed by the hour. Again, women without children billed more hours than the other groups. However, in the large firms, the men charged a significantly higher hourly billing rate than the women. Even when number of years at the bar, employment in the public or private sector, and firm size were controlled for, the men respondents earned significantly more on an annual basis than the women respondents. 55% of the women, as compared with 75% of the men, had children. Men were still far more likely than women, and lawyers without disabilities were more likely than lawyers with disabilities, to be partners in law firms. Women and members of other diversity groups were more likely than other respondents to be employed in the public sector. Changes since 1991 The survey results indicate that discrimination has decreased somewhat since 1991. This may be partially attributable to heightened awareness about equity and diversity in the profession due to the Law Society s model policies and the Equity Ombudsperson program, along with broader social changes. Slightly fewer men and women believe that there is gender bias in the profession, and there appears to be a smaller proportion of men and women who have personally experienced direct discrimination from other lawyers and from clients than they did in the past. Although the percentage of respondents reporting that they have experienced and observed sexual harassment has actually increased, this may be attributable to increased levels of awareness and sensitivity about sexual harassment among respondents, particularly among men lawyers. There is also some indication that attitudes toward and accommodation of the needs of lawyers with disabilities has improved, and that discrimination on the basis of race alone, at least for men lawyers, may have decreased. It appears that there is a greater perception that men of colour and people with disabilities fit into a large firm environment, although the same beliefs do not appear to be extended to Aboriginal lawyers or visible minority lawyers who manifest language, cultural, or religious characteristics that are different from the dominant cultural group. It appears that discrimination against Aboriginal lawyers is pervasive and profound. Women s advancement in the profession is still seriously hindered by the fact that they bear the children and they are involved in a disproportionate amount of child rearing activities compared to their male counterparts. Little progress has been made in the private sector to accommodate parenting by both men and women, although the consequences are largely borne by women. As a result, women leave the profession in sufficient numbers that they may still be unable to form the critical mass required to effect meaningful change in the profession. It is unclear whether the attitudes of younger lawyers, both men and women, offer some promise for a more balanced and less biased legal profession in the future or whether, as they age, these lawyers attitudes will change to conform to the more dominant views of older members of the profession.

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION In 1990, the Law Society of Alberta initiated the Joint Committee on Women and the Legal Profession to examine issues concerning women in the legal profession. The Committee includes representatives from the Canadian Bar Association (Alberta Branch), the faculties of law at the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta, and the Law Society of Alberta. This Committee has continued its work and broadened its mandate to include all aspects of diversity. The Committee is now named the Joint Committee on Equity, Equality and Diversity. In 1991, the Committee commissioned a survey of Alberta lawyers to obtain a descriptive profile of Law Society members and to collect data on lawyers perceptions about and experiences with gender bias in the legal profession, and more limited data on discrimination on other grounds. The survey findings were used to inform the development of a range of policies, guidelines, and programs to address inequities in the profession. In 2003, the Committee commissioned another, broader study on bias and equity in Alberta s legal profession. The objectives of the new study were to determine if and how changes have occurred for women lawyers since 1991; to collect more extensive baseline data on the nature and extent of bias in the profession on other grounds of discrimination including race, ethnicity, religion, disability, and sexual orientation; and to collect information about lawyers who move to the inactive list and the reasons motivating their decisions. The Committee was motivated to commission the study by concerns that discrimination and bias in Alberta s legal profession may be continuing to act as barriers to practice and professional advancement for some groups of lawyers. As discussed in the following section of the report, recent studies have confirmed the ongoing existence of bias in the legal profession on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, and age elsewhere in North America. The research also reveals a divide between the perceptions of members of the dominant demographic groups in the profession and those who are members of non-dominant groups about the existence and effects of discrimination. For instance, Caucasian lawyers are less likely to believe that discrimination is an ongoing issue for visible minority lawyers and male lawyers are less likely to believe that discrimination is still a significant issue for female lawyers. Local anecdotal evidence and reports from Law Society members suggested that the legal profession in Alberta may not be immune from the foregoing problems. Few data are available about the demographic composition of Alberta s lawyer population. No detailed demographic data are yet available from the 2001 Census of Canada, but the 1996 census indicated that 92.6% of Alberta lawyers were Caucasian, compared to 87.5% of the population of Alberta in the labour force. The greatest gap existed for Aboriginal people: 1.2% of lawyers were Aboriginal, compared to 3.4% of the labour force population. The next biggest gap was among people of Chinese descent, who comprised 2.1% of lawyers and 3.1% of the labour force. 1 Using different baselines, a survey of members of the Law Society of Alberta in 1998 found that 2% of members were Aboriginal, compared to 6% of the general population, and 1 Ornstein, M. (2001). Lawyers in Ontario: Evidence from the 1996 Census. A Report to the Law Society of Upper Canada. Table 3. Available at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/news/factst/changeface.jsp. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 1

2% of members were Chinese, compared to 4% of the population. 2 Overall, almost one-third of Alberta lawyers are women, which is consistent with national averages. About half of Alberta s women lawyers have been practising for 10 years or less. No data have been collected on sexual orientation, disability, religion, or age for Alberta lawyers. Many people believe that the increasing representation of women and members of diverse groups within the profession means that it is only a matter of time before discrimination and other barriers are overcome. A recent editorial in the Calgary Herald is illustrative. In response to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson s observations about barriers to the advancement of women lawyers and low representation of Aboriginal and visible minority lawyers in the profession, 3 the editors commented that any problems would be overcome as the old boys retire and are replaced by more women, along with men with more contemporary attitudes. 4 Yet, the recent research suggests that, while matters may be improving in some ways, ongoing bias against diverse groups may prevent them entering and advancing within the profession to the point where they are able to influence meaningful changes in the culture of the profession. In other words, in the absence of concrete equity initiatives, change may continue to occur at a glacial pace. As succinctly summarized by Charles Smith, Equity Advisor at the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), it is interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the very profession which has been the source of such insight and eloquence on equality requires a healthy dose of selfexamination and positive action to address inequality and outright discrimination within its own ranks. 5 With these issues and concerns in mind, the Joint Committee on Equity, Equality and Diversity contracted a group of consultants to complete a research project to determine the extent to which bias and discrimination exists in Alberta s legal profession. The contract was awarded to a team of three consultants working under the auspices of Guyn Cooper Research Associates in Calgary: Joan Brockman, professor of criminology at Simon Fraser University, who completed the 1991 study; Merrill Cooper, principal of Guyn Cooper Research Associates; and Irene Hoffart, of Synergy Research Group. The Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession presents the findings of the equity and diversity study. 6 The Report is set out as follows: Section 2 provides a brief overview of the recent research on discrimination in the legal profession. Sections 3, 4, and 5 describe and present the findings of the Equity and Diversity Surveys of Inactive and Active Members of the Law Society of Alberta. Section 6 summarizes the findings of interviews and focus groups conducted with lawyers, articling students, and law students around the province. Conclusions from the study are provided in Section 7. 2 Law Society of Alberta. (1999). Final report on 1998 membership survey (Calgary: Law Society of Alberta). Figure 2. This survey used 1996 census data for the percentage in the general population. 3 (No author) Clarkson says legal profession ruled by men. Calgary Herald. February 28, 2003, p. A3. 4 Editorial. Old boys, new girls. Calgary Herald. March 2, 2003, p. A14. 5 Smith, C. (2002). Next steps on the road to equality in the Canadian legal profession. Touchstone. Newsletter of the CBA s Standing Committee on Equality. December 2002. 6 The work commissioned from the consultants also included the development of a protocol for interviews to be completed annually with members of the Law Society who move from active to inactive status in the preceding year. The Report on the Exit Interview Protocol is a separate document which is available from the Law Society. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 2

SECTION 2. REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH 2.1 Introduction A review of the literature on bias and discrimination within the legal profession suggests that barriers to practice and professional advancement continue to exist for lawyers belonging to several demographic groups. First, hundreds of studies conducted over the past 30 years in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere around the world 7 have consistently identified and documented the existence of bias and discrimination against women in the legal profession. Although considerable progress has been made in some areas, recent studies confirm that gender bias continues, although sometimes in subtle forms, in areas such as hiring, remuneration, career advancement, accommodation for family commitments, and sexual harassment. Second, other research conducted over the past decade in North America has revealed discrimination and bias in the profession on the grounds of race, disability, sexual orientation, and age. As noted earlier, the research also reveals a divide between the perceptions of members of the dominant demographic groups in the profession and those who are members of non-dominant groups about the existence and effects of discrimination. For instance, non-visible minority lawyers are less likely to believe that discrimination is an ongoing issue for visible minority lawyers 8 and male lawyers are less likely to believe that discrimination is still a significant issue for female lawyers. 9 In addition to the obvious concerns about discrimination within a profession that provides itself on advancing equality in society, a strong economic case can be made for promoting diversity and new business approaches within the legal profession. There is considerable evidence linking workplace diversity with increased profits for businesses. Although no studies specific to law firms have been conducted, there is no reason to believe that law firms are somehow exempt from the pressures experienced by other businesses to understand and respond to diverse cultures in order to compete in an increasingly multicultural society and a global economy. 10 It has been predicted that knowledge of other languages and cultures will be increasingly valuable to lawyers as the percentage of the Canadian population who are immigrants from non-english speaking, non-christian cultures continues to grow, and as Aboriginal people become economically, politically, and legally stronger. 11 The Law Society of British Columbia has argued that valuing and fostering diversity within the legal workplace is key to the long-term health and viability of the profession; 12 others have stated that [i]f the profession does not reflect the community it will become irrelevant. 13 7 See, for example, Schultz, U.; Shaw, G. (2003). Women in the world s legal professions. (Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing), which includes studies from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 8 California Judicial Council, Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. (1993). Fairness in the California state courts: A survey of the public, attorneys and court personnel. (Los Angeles: California Judicial Council). 9 For example, in Sanborn s US study 3% of male lawyers and 25% of female lawyers believed that prospects for advancement are greater for men than for women. Samborn, H.V. (2000). Higher hurdles for women. ABA Journal. Sept. 2000. ADD 10 Goss, J. (1999). The value of diversity. Law Society of Alberta Benchers Advisory 60 (May 1999). 11 Young Lawyers Conference, Canadian Bar Association. (2000). The future of the legal profession: The challenge of change. (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association). 12 Quoted in Goss, The value of diversity. 13 Strosberg, quoted in Bogart, W.A. (Ed.) (1999). Access to affordable and appropriate law-related services in 2020: Report of a roundtable sponsored by the Department of Justice, the Law Commission of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association and the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor. (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association). Available at http://www.cba.ca. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 3

Likewise, as more women than men are now entering the profession in Canada, there will be a greater economic imperative for law firms seeking to find and retain top talent to address gender bias within their firms and the profession as a whole. One of the means to this end will be finding ways to address issues of work-life balance, which are experienced by both men and women lawyers and professionals in general, but have a disproportionate impact on women s professional advancement. 14 Efforts to arrive at reduced hour schedules have met with some resistance from law firms. Yet, recent research based on Washington law firms has shown that, contrary to popular belief, lawyers working reduced hours do not incur additional costs for firms and are equally committed to practice as full-time lawyers, virtually all practice areas are amenable to balanced schedules, and reduced hour schedules do not create problems for clients, even in high-powered firms. In fact, the research suggests that more balanced hours can increase firms staff retention rates, morale, client satisfaction, and profitability. 15 There is also some concern that the goal posts may be changing as battles are won. In 2000, Wallace surveyed lawyers in Alberta about the various stresses in their work and home lives. She found that the women and men working full time worked an average of 50 hours per week, however, associates and partners worked an average of 60 hours per week. The women and men who worked part time worked 35-38 hours per week, and part-time associates worked 40 hours or more per week. 16 Similarly, other studies have found that part-time work in the legal profession is simply a normal full-time job with part-time pay. 2.2 Research highlights Women lawyers Studies conducted over the past decade on gender bias in the legal profession confirm that bias against women lawyers continues to influence women s experiences and outcomes in areas of practice, professional advancement, earnings, job satisfaction, and retention. As summarized by Kay and Brockman, [a]fter formal barriers to entry were dismantled, women continued to confront formidable barriers through overt and subtler forms of discrimination and exclusion. [O]ffical data on the Canadian legal profession reveal that women are under-represented in private practice, have reduced chances for promotion and are excluded from higher echelons of authority, remuneration and status within the profession. 17 Earlier research conducted in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan during the 1980s and early 1990s 18 identified many barriers to women in the profession. For example, a survey of Alberta lawyers completed by Brockman for the Law Society of Alberta in 14 See Duxbury, L.; Higgins, C. (2002) The 2001 national work-life conflict study: Report one. (Ottawa: Health Canada); Duxbury, L.; Higgins, C.; Coghill, D. (2003) Voices of Canadians: Seeking work-life balance (Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada). 15 Williams, J.; Calvert, C.T. (2001) Balanced hours: Effective part-time policies for Washington law firms (Washington, DC: The Project for Attorney Retention) Also see Williams, J. (2000) Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. (New York: Oxford University Press). 16 Wallace, J.E. (2001). Juggling it All: A Study of Lawyers Work, Home and Family Demands and Coping Strategies: Report of Stage Two Findings (Report Prepared for the Law School Admission Council) at 13. 17 Kay, F.M.; Brockman, J. Barriers to gender equality in the Canadian legal establishment in Schultz & Shaw, Women in the World s Legal Professions, pp. 49-75. Reprinted from (2000) Feminist Legal Studies 8(2): 169-198. 18 For a summary of studies done in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan see Buckley, M. (1993). Synthesis of provincial law society reports (Appendix 4 to Bertha Wilson, (Chair), Touchstones for change: Equality, diversity and accountability (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association). Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 4

1991 19 revealed that 97% of the women respondents and 78% of men respondents believed there was bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession. Over half of the women had experienced discrimination from other lawyers. Over 80% of the women and 42% of the men thought there was bias against women in career advancement, and respondents agreed that women (65% of women, 22% of men) and men (11% of women, 15% of men) were discriminated against via lack of accommodation for family commitments. Perceptions about discrimination against women were slightly higher among inactive (non-practising) members of the Law Society. 20 The findings of the 1991 Alberta survey and other early studies were used by Madame Justice Bertha Wilson in Touchstones for Change, her 1993 report on gender equality in the legal profession completed for the CBA. 21 Madam Justice Wilson recited a somewhat numbing list of barriers faced by women in the profession, including sexual harassment; salary differentials; difficulties in obtaining articles; difficulties in securing good files and problems with work allocation; problems in career advancement in terms of promotion and access to partnership; the lack of women in management and leadership positions; segregation into certain areas of practice; and an unwillingness to accommodate female parents who have family responsibilities. 22 These early studies and the Wilson Report sparked and informed the development and implementation of a broad range of equity policies and initiatives by provincial law societies and the Canadian Bar Association in the 1990s. 23 Such initiatives clearly raised awareness about bias and discrimination in the profession, but it is not known whether they have, in fact, influenced positive change. Subsequent research suggests that, while the nature and extent of bias against women has evolved over time, it does continue to exist. For example, Brockman s 1994 study of young B.C. lawyers (called three to seven years) 24 found many similarities between women and men in terms of why they went to law school and what they liked and disliked about the practice of law. However, women (16%) were more likely than men (8%) to predict that they would not be practising in five years. 25 The majority of women (88%) and men (66%) thought there was discrimination against women in the legal profession. Sixty percent of the women and only 4% of the men reported that they had experienced discrimination since entering the legal profession and 46% of the women experienced discrimination from other lawyers. The most frequently identified forms of discrimination were lack of accommodation for family (60% of women, 19 Brockman, J. (1991). Identifying the issues: A survey of active members of the Law Society of Alberta (A Report Prepared for the Joint Committee on Women and the Legal Profession). (Edmonton: Law Society of Alberta). See also, Brockman, J. (1992). Bias in the legal profession: Perceptions and experiences. Alberta Law Review 30(3): 747-808. A similar study with similar results was done in British Columbia; see also Brockman, J. (1991) Identifying barriers: A survey of members of the Law Society of British Columbia. Prepared for the Law Society of British Columbia, Subcommittee on Women in the Legal Profession. (Vancouver: Law Society of B.C.) and Brockman, J. (1992). Bias in the Legal Profession: A Survey of Members of the Law Society of British Columbia. Queen's Law Journal 17: 91. 20 Brockman, J. (September, 1992). Leaving the Practice of Law: A Survey of Inactive Members of the Law Society of Alberta. A Report Prepared for the Joint Committee on and Inequality in the Legal Profession (formerly the Joint Committee on Women and the Legal Profession); Brockman, Leaving the Practice of Law: The Wherefors and the Whys. 21 For a summary of studies done in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan see Buckley, M. Synthesis of provincial law society reports (Appendix 4 to Wilson, Touchstones for change). 22 Wilson, Touchstones for Change, p. 55. 23 Initiatives of the Law Society of Alberta include the implementation in 1996 of the Equity Ombudsperson and model policies, including guidelines on maternity and parental leave, equality in employment interviews, gender inclusive communications, alternative work schedules, and anti-harassment. These are available on the Law Society of Alberta website, http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com. A concise summary of CBA equality initiatives over the past decade can be accessed at http://www.cba.org/cba/equality/equality/default.asp. 24 Brockman, J. (2001). in the legal profession: Fitting or breaking the mould. (Vancouver: UBC Press). 25 When the sample was drawn, 31.4% of the women and 25.6% of the men were left out of the sampling process because they had already left the practice of law; Brockman, in the legal profession, p. 197. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 5

42% of men) and barriers to career advancement (38% of women, 28% of men). Women respondents incomes were appreciably lower than men s and many women described their prospects of partnership in large firms as nonexistent. Similar patterns were revealed by Kay et al. in a 1996 second wave study of the cohort of lawyers in Ontario (called between 1975 and 1990) previously surveyed in 1990. 26 The researchers concluded that, while considerable improvement in the mobility of women occurred between 1990 and 1996, sizeable gaps remain between men and women in salaries, promotion opportunities, and levels of job satisfaction. 27 For example, women were less likely than men to be partners (33% of the men and 17% of the women). 28 Although there was no significant difference in the average number of hours billed, women spent a greater proportion of their time than men on administrative work and uncompensated law-related work. As with other studies, women were less likely than men to be married or have children, and those who had children spent substantially more time than men caring for them. Results of the third wave study, completed in 2002, are not yet available. Kay s 1996 findings were echoed in a 1999 survey of Quebec lawyers, which found that, despite the fact that 40% of Quebec s practising lawyers are female, women had fewer opportunities than men, were less likely to become partners, earned less money, and were less satisfied with their ability to balance work and their personal lives than men. 29 In a survey of Alberta lawyers in 2000, Wallace found that 38% of the men who worked full time were partners, compared to 17% of the women. 30 Lower satisfaction rates among women lawyers were also reported in the Law Society of Saskatchewan s 1999 membership survey. The data showed that female lawyers are less satisfied than male lawyers, and significantly so for issues concerning economic rewards and career advancement, as well as those dealing with their standing amongst and treatment by other lawyers. 31 Similar findings have been reported in a vast number of American studies on gender equality in the legal profession. As just one example, the third status report of the American Bar Association s Commission on Women in the Legal Profession 32 completed in 2001 concluded that major barriers to equality, many of them unintentional, remain in the legal profession for women, lawyers of colour, lesbian lawyers, and lawyers with disabilities. Myths of meritocracy, gender stereotypes, inadequate access to mentoring and support networks, workplace structures (work-family conflicts, expected hours of work, gaps between formal policies and practice), sexual harassment, and gender bias in the justice system (disrespectful treatment, the devaluation of women s credibility) still persist. Based on a 1997 study on professional fulfilment, the Boston Bar Association attributed a precipitous drop in the U.S. in the advancement of women 26 Hagan, J.; Kay, F. (1995). in practice: A study of lawyers' lives. (New York: Oxford University Press). 27 Kay, F.M.; Dautovich, N.; Marlor, C. (1996). Barriers and opportunities within law: Women in a changing legal profession. A longitudinal survey of Ontario lawyers. (Ottawa: Law Society of Upper Canada, 1996), p. 182. 28 Analysis of the first wave data found that regardless of experience and background characteristics, organizational settings and macro-social factors, men have consistently higher likelihoods of attaining partnership than women Kay; F.M.; Hagan, J. (1994). Changing opportunities for partnership for men and women lawyers during the transformation of the modern law firm Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 32(3): 413, p. 450; also see Kay; F.M.; Hagan, J. (1998). Raising the Bar: The Stratification of Law-Firm Capital. American Sociological Review 63: 728. 29 Kay, F.M. (2002). Crossroads to Innovation and Diversity: The Careers of Quebec Lawyers. McGill Law Journal. 47(4) 699. 30 Wallace, J.E. (2001). Juggling it All: A Study of Lawyers Work, Home and Family Demands and Coping Strategies: Report of Stage Two Findings (Report Prepared for the Law School Admission Council). 31 Law Society of Saskatchewan. (1999). Membership survey: Final report. (Regina: Law Society of Saskatchewan), p. 24. 32 Rhode, D.L. (2001) The unfinished agenda: Women in the legal profession. (Chicago: American Bar Association, Commission on Women in the Legal Profession). Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 6

to partnership to women leaving law firms because of the increased demands of private practice, coupled with the difficult balance of family demands. The Association concluded that it is virtually impossible to remain on the partnership track and work part time, even when parttime work constitutes more than 40 hours of work per week. 33 Reichman and Sterling tracked the movement of lawyers in Denver, Colorado and found that women move more often than men and are more likely to move downward than men. 34 Women leaving the practice of law Studies in Canada in the early 1990s showed that women left the practice of law in greater proportion than men, although not in as great a number. In 1991, 33% of the women and 28% of the men who were called to the bar in Alberta between 1976 and 1990 were no longer active members of the Law Society. In total numbers, 1012 men and 443 women called during those years were no longer active members. 35 A 1991 survey of members of the Law Society of Alberta who had become non-practising between 1987 and 1991 found that over 60% of the women and 44% of the men called in 1978 or later 36 expressed dissatisfaction with the balance between their work and personal life when they were last practising law in Alberta. This lack of accommodation was seen as a form of bias against women by 65% of the women and 23% of the men. It was also seen as the most prevalent form of bias against men by the women respondents (14%) and the men called in 1978 or later (22%). In terms of why they left the practice of law, women most often cited hours demanded by practice (73%), then stressful nature of work (61%), lack of flexibility in firm (60%), felt burnt out (43%), child care commitments (42%), and wanted to use different skills (38%). Only 30% left for a better position outside law. The men who were called in 1978 or later cited wanted to use different skills most often (47%), followed by adversarial nature of work (46%), cannot find a job (45%), stressful nature of work (43%), hours demanded by practice (40%), and better position outside law (36%). 37 In her 1990 survey of Ontario lawyers called between 1975 and 1990, Kay included lawyers who had left the practice of law, and she used a life course perspective (asking respondents to list all of their jobs and absences from the practice of law in order to examine their occupational histories). In examining the life course of 1009 lawyers who had joined the profession initially by entering private practice, Kay found that regardless of background factors, human capital, work-related variables, market conditions, job satisfaction, or commitment, women experience more rapid rates of transition out of law practice. When these factors are taken into account, she found that women leave law 60% more quickly than men. Departures occurred more quickly (123%) from small firms with fewer than ten lawyers. 38 She also found that lawyers who experience sex discrimination leave law practice 81% more quickly than their counterparts 33 Boston Bar Association Task Force on Professional Fulfillment. (1997). Expectations, reality, and recommendations for change. (Boston, MA: Boston Bar Association). 34 Reichman, N.J.; Sterling, J.S. (2002). Recasting the brass ring: Deconstructing and reconstructing workplace opportunities for women lawyers. Capital University Law Review 29(4): 923. 35 Brockman, Leaving the practice of law, p. 123. 36 There was only one woman respondent and 36 men who had been called before 1978, and therefore the comparisons were made between three groups; see Brockman, Leaving the practice of law, for more detailed information. 37 Brockman, Leaving the practice of law, pp. 128-131. For a similar study in British Columbia, see Brockman, J. (1992). "Resistance by the club to the feminization of the legal profession. Canadian Journal of Law and Society. 7(2): 47. 38 Kay, F. M. (1997). Flight from law: A competing risks model of departures from law firms. Law & Society Review 31(2): 301, p. 318. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 7

whose work environment is not so hostile. 39 As with the studies in Alberta and British Columbia, Kay found that men more often identified improved opportunities elsewhere as a motive for leaving law, while women were more inclined to report feeling pushed out of law for reasons of balance and quality of life. 40 Parental leave actually reduced the risk of women leaving by 74%. 41 In light of these findings and the fact that women move 37% more slowly to partnership than the men, Kay concludes that her data support the ghettoization perspective rather than the genuine integration of women into law. 42 The 1999 survey of lawyers in Nova Scotia asked lawyers why they had left private practice. Forty-six percent of the women identified a combination of remuneration, inflexible hours, and childcare difficulties, whereas 79% of the men identified remuneration only. 43 Lawyers of colour and Aboriginal lawyers Canadian and American research completed in the past decade has revealed bias and discrimination against lawyers of colour and Aboriginal lawyers. Although there are blatant examples to the contrary, for the most part overt discrimination and racism have been replaced by more subtle forms of discrimination, making it hard for non-visible minority people to appreciate or even acknowledge the existence of covert, reflexive, or subconscious racial biases. 44 For example, some have observed that a lawyer who speaks with a heavy accent or whose mannerisms may be cultural in origin is perhaps even subconsciously given less credit than one whose background is much more similar to that of [a] judge 45 or other legal professional belonging to the dominant cultural group. Based on demographic and other data collected on visible minority lawyers and law students, the CBA concluded that systemic racism is widespread within the profession. 46 These data show, for instance, that visible minority and Aboriginal law students have much less success in finding articles, and are less likely to be hired after articles. 47 Discrimination continues after lawyers are hired. For example, in the 1991 Alberta survey, one-third of the lawyers who identified themselves as visible minorities reported that they had experienced discrimination from other lawyers based on their race. 48 More recently, visible minority law students and lawyers consulted by the CBA reported that law firms discriminated against them by making assumptions about their skills, interests, and abilities that prejudiced their likelihood of being hired and, if hired, the nature of the work assigned to them. Employers assumed, for example, that Aboriginal lawyers would bring land claims work and East Indian women lawyers would bring 39 Kay, Flight from law, p. 320. 40 Kay, Flight from law, pp. 321-22. 41 Kay, Flight from law, p. 322. 42 Kay, Flight from law, p. 327. 43 Nova Scotia Barristers Society (undated) Professional/Personal Choices and the Practice of Law. (A Report of the Equality Implementation Committee of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society) at 6. 44 Mtima, L. (2002). Of words we ve never spoken and thoughts we ve never had Goal IX 8(3): 3-4. (American Bar Association. Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession). 45 California Judicial Council, Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. (1997). Final report of the California Judicial Advisory Committee on racial and ethnic bias in the courts. (Los Angeles: California Judicial Council). 46 St. Lewis, J.; Trevino, B. (Co-Chairs). (1999). Racial equality in the legal profession. Report 1. The challenge of racial equality: Putting principles into practice; St. Lewis, J. (1999). Report 2. Virtual Justice: Systemic Racism and the Canadian Legal Profession. Presented to the Council of the Canadian Bar Association by the Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession. (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association). 47 St. Lewis & Trevino, Racial equality in the legal profession. Report 1, pp. 17-22. 48 Brockman, Identifying the issues: A survey of active members of the Law Society of Alberta; Brockman, Bias in the legal profession, p. 786. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 8

poor women clients with family law problems. Other examples included lawyers being told they could not work on a particular file because the client did not want a lawyer with his or her particular ethnic background, or being repeatedly told racist jokes. 49 The only Canadian study specific to the experiences of Aboriginal lawyers was completed in 2000 by the Law Society of British Columbia. 50 Consistent with findings about the experiences of members of other visible minority groups, respondents identified numerous barriers experienced in articling, securing employment, and practising law. About 40% of respondents reported experiencing barriers during articling such as cultural insensitivity or racism by staff or other articling students, racist slurs and demeaning remarks, discrimination or favouritism in work assignments, or channeling into areas of law that were not of interest to them. Over twothirds of the respondents reported that they had experienced barriers in the practice of law, including discrimination or insensitivity by lawyers, judges, and clients; overwork and burnout; dissuasion from practising in areas of interest; and, less frequently, racist slurs and demeaning remarks. Thirty-seven percent of respondents stated that they had experienced discriminatory barriers in regard to employment matters, such as hiring, promotion and salary. The research suggests that bias against visible minority and Aboriginal women lawyers may be more profound than against white women lawyers or visible minority and Aboriginal men lawyers. The Boston Bar Association s 1997 study of barriers to professional fulfillment in the practice of law 51 identified both qualitative and quantitative differences between the experiences of and problems faced by women lawyers and both men and women lawyers of colour. While echoing the findings of other studies about the ways in which white women and visible minority men and women lawyers are marginalized in the profession, women of colour respondents believed that they faced more barriers based on race than on gender, and that they had to work harder and longer than white women, as well as white men, lawyers in order to prove themselves. Likewise, in its 1994 report on visible minority women lawyers, the American Bar Association concluded that the combination of being a person of colour and a woman is a double negative in the legal marketplace, regardless of type of practice. 52 Briefly, visible minority women lawyers must repeatedly establish their competence to professors, peers, and judges, perceive they are ghettoized into certain practice areas, and have more difficulty achieving prominence and rewards in the profession. 53 The California Judicial Council survey also found that visible minority women lawyers are not treated with the same respect as other women lawyers. 54 An American Bar Association survey of Aboriginal women lawyers in 1998 found that the experiences of these lawyers are similar to those of women lawyers and other visible minority 49 St. Lewis & Trevino, Racial Equality in the Legal Profession. Report 1, pp. 19-20 50 Ferguson, G.; Foo, K. (2000). Addressing Discriminatory Barriers Facing Aboriginal Law Students and Lawyers. (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia). The report was the third in the research project. Also see Law Society of British Columbia. (1996). Report on the Survey of Aboriginal Law Graduates in British Columbia (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia) and Law Society of British Columbia. (1998). Summary and Discussion of the Aboriginal Law Graduates Focus Groups (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia). 51 Boston Bar Association Task Force on Professional Fulfillment. (1997). Expectations, reality, and recommendations for change. (Boston, MA: Boston Bar Association). 52 Multicultural Women Attorneys Network (a joint project of the ABA Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession and the Commission on Women in the Profession) (1994). The burdens of both, the privileges of neither, p. 9. 53 Multicultural Women Attorneys Network, The burdens of both, the privileges of neither, p. 3. 54 California Judicial Council, Fairness in the California state courts. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 9

groups. 55 Three-quarters of the respondents had at some point confronted the assumption that their acceptance to law school was a product of affirmative action rather than ability. Respondents reported that this assumption carried forward to practice, where they had to repeatedly establish their competence to peers and judges. Most respondents stated that they had frequently encountered both gender and racial discrimination, often in combination, and most often in the form of negative comments and racial epithets and stereotypical characterizations regarding concepts of time, life on the reserves, or Native American attitudes. As with Aboriginal male lawyers, barriers to advancement encountered in the work environment included stereotypes that limit job opportunities; failure to be recognized as competent; pay inequities; insufficient mentoring; heightened scrutiny of hours, work product and performance; and undue difficulties in attaining partnership status or other promotions. In addition, several respondents felt they were not offered the same career development opportunities as white women lawyers. Gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers Although there appear to be no Canadian studies specifically on sexual orientation bias in the legal profession, several American studies completed in the past decade have revealed extensive discrimination against gay and lesbian law students and lawyers. This bias occurs both in the court system and across the spectrum of legal employment, including discrimination in recruitment and articling interviews, discrimination in pay and benefits, barriers to professional success (including bias in work assignments, client development opportunities, and performance evaluations), and exclusion from social events. 56 A 1994 survey of lawyers conducted by the Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Sexual Orientation Bias 57 found widespread evidence of sexual orientation bias in the profession. Discrimination against lawyers on the basis of sexual orientation was identified by respondents as a widespread and often virulent problem that negatively affects performance evaluations, promotions, career advancement, benefits, and salary. These findings were echoed in a 2001 study conducted by the Judicial Council of California on sexual orientation bias in the court system. Focus groups conducted with gay and lesbian lawyers revealed a lack of equal employment opportunities and benefits for lawyers and court personnel, exclusion from informal legal system networks, disrespect and mistreatment due to sexual orientation bias and homophobia, and sexual orientation bias influencing judicial decision making. 58 Two surveys of New York lawyers reported discrimination against gay and lesbian lawyers in the court system. In a 1993 survey of legal aid lawyers, 78% of whom identified themselves as heterosexual, 43% of respondents reported that they had witnessed some form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the court system. 59 Similarly, in a 1997 survey of gay and 55 American Bar Association, Commission on Women in the Profession; Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession; Federal Bar Association; and Native American Bar Association. (1998). The burden of both, the privileges of neither. A report on the experiences of Native American women lawyers, p. 2. 56 King County Bar Association. (1995). In pursuit of equality. The final report of the KCBA Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues in the Legal Profession. (Washington, DC: King County Bar Association). Cited in Washington State Bar. (1999) Trends and issues affecting lesbians and gays in the legal profession. Washington State Bar News Online. 12. Available at http://www.wsba.org/barnews/1999/12/diversity.htm. 57 Los Angeles County Bar Association, Committee on Sexual Orientation. (1994). Report of the Committee on Sexual Orientation Bias. Los Angeles, CA: Country Bar Association). 58 Judicial Council of California. (2001). Sexual orientation fairness in the California courts. Final report of the Sexual Orientation Fairness Subcommittee of the Judicial Council s Access and Fairness Subcommittee. (Orange County, CA: Judicial Council of California). 59 Bar Association of the City of New York, Committee on Lesbians and Gay Men in the Legal Profession. (1993). Report on the Experience of Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 10

lesbian lawyers in New York, 60 44% of respondents stated that it is a disadvantage in the courts to be perceived as a gay man and 35% of respondents stated that it is a disadvantage to be perceived as a lesbian. Respondents commented that gay and lesbian lawyers are less likely to be taken seriously by judges and other court personnel, and receive poor treatment in the courts. Over half of the respondents reported witnessing offensive behaviour or hearing derogatory remarks, largely from other lawyers. A 1995 survey of gay and lesbian lawyers in Minneapolis 61 found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation resulted in barriers in hiring, retention and promotion for gay and lesbian lawyers. Almost unanimously, respondents observed hostility toward gay and lesbian people in the legal workplace, particularly in private firms, which they felt created tremendous pressure to remain closeted. Respondents stated that the response to efforts to come out to supervisors or partners was often to keep it to yourself. The survey found that remaining in hiding requires an almost obsessive attention to secrecy, and that this takes tremendous time and effort. Respondents indicated that most gay and lesbian legal professionals perceive that being out at the office will result in adverse consequences ranging from the loss of important mentor relationships to termination. These outcomes are very real: most out gay and lesbian interviewees have paid a professional price for their honesty. The consequences of coming out were found to include poor performance evaluations, lack of promotion, poor work assignments and, in the most extreme circumstances, dismissal under the guise of poor performance. In addition, in many cases the leadership at the law firms would not acknowledge that there was a problem, and tended to deny that there were any gay or lesbian lawyers at the firm. It should be noted that, although the 1991 survey of Alberta lawyers did not ask respondents about their sexual orientation, three women and 11 men indicated they had experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At that time, it was speculated that this small number is probably due to the fact that gay and lesbian lawyers are, for the most part, not revealing their sexual orientation for fear of discrimination. 62 Lawyers with disabilities Both Canadian and American studies have identified bias against persons with disabilities in the practice of law. As summarized in a 2001 article in The National, lawyers with disabilities are regularly subjected to pity, patronization, paternalism, and stereotypical false assumptions that they re generally less capable than persons without disabilities. 63 The author comments that there is a general perception that lawyers with disabilities are less likely to succeed in some fields of law, adding that this may be true to some extent, primarily because of lack of accommodations rather than any shortcoming on the lawyers part. He notes that some lawyers with disabilities opt to practice in areas that require fewer accommodations, rather than engage Lesbians and Gay Men in the Legal Profession. (New York: Bar Association of the City of New York). 60 Lesbian and Gay Law Association of Greater New York. (1997) LeGaL report on sexual orientation fairness in second circuit courts. (New York: LeGaL). Available at http://www.le-gal.org. 61 Hennepin County Bar Association Lesbian and Gay Issues Subcommittee. (1995). Legal employers barriers to advancement and to economic equality based upon sexual orientation. (Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County Bar Association). 62 Brockman, Identifying the issues: A survey of active members of the Law Society of Alberta. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was also discussed by interviewees in a study of young lawyers in British Columbia although, again, respondents were not asked their sexual orientation. See Brockman, in the legal profession, pp. 80-83. 63 Cumming, J. (2001). Access and Justice. The National (Jan/Feb 2001). (Ottawa: Canadian Bar Association). Available at http://www.cba.org/cba/national/cover 2001/JF01.asp. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 11

in ongoing struggles with their firms to obtain the tools that they require to succeed in their preferred practice areas. 64 The most in-depth exploration of the barriers faced by lawyers with disabilities in Canada was completed by the Law Society of British Columbia in 2000. 65 Interviews with 24 lawyers and law students with disabilities revealed that significant improvements with respect to both accommodations and attitudes have occurred over the past decade. Respondents who had had positive career experiences identified mentors, supportive colleagues, willingness of employers to provide accommodation, and their own self-initiative and hard work as greatly contributing to their success as lawyers. In addition, respondents reported that the stereotype that people with disabilities are generally incompetent and that those who are not are exceptional and inspirational had become somewhat less pervasive. On the other hand, virtually all of the respondents reported that they experienced ongoing discrimination, prejudice, negative attitudes, and physical access barriers in the profession. More than half of the respondents stated that discrimination eventually led to loss of employment, marginalization into solo practice, or early retirement. The most common problems included communication, print, and physical barriers in court rooms and workplaces, resentment about accommodations, negative stereotypes equating disability with incompetence, and social marginalization. The study found that such barriers frequently prevent career advancement and lead to overwork, burnout and failure in both private firms and government departments. 66 Lawyers with disabilities are seldom kept on after articling and finding employment appears to be difficult. 67 A study on the barriers faced by lawyers and law students with disabilities conducted by the Research Education and Advocacy Centre for the Handicapped in Ottawa identified many employment areas in need of improvement. Survey respondents observed that law firms and lawyer employers as a general rule have a long way to go before a majority lives up to the profession's obligations respecting affirmative action and disability accommodation for employees and prospective employees. 68 Here, again, most respondents indicated that their disabilities had some adverse effect on their career choices and their employment opportunities and realities. Law students seeking articles or making career decisions were advised to be prepared to work harder than their colleagues, and to seek out opportunities to prove themselves in order to overcome unfounded prejudices. A majority of respondents noted that they had avoided applying for articles or jobs with private firms because they did not believe they would be hired, preferring to work in public institutions with proven records on equity issues. Perceptions among disabled lawyers that private firms are less willing to hire and to accommodate lawyers with disabilities are perpetuated by negative stereotypes and, in some instances, by the current actions of lawyers and law firms. 69 Likewise, American research has found that many lawyers and judges with disabilities do not request needed accommodations 64 Cumming, Access and Justice. 65 Hill, L. et al. (2000). Lawyers with disabilities: Identifying barriers to equity. A report of the Disability Research Working Group of the Equity and Diversity Subcommittee. (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia). Available at http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca 66 Hill, Lawyers with disabilities, p. 37. 67 Hill, Lawyers with disabilities, p. 37. 68 McChesney, A.; Nolan, R.; Schmieg, M. (2001). Advancing professional opportunities and employment accommodation for lawyers and other law graduates who have disabilities. (Ottawa: Reach), p. 13. Available at http://www.reach.ca/advancing%20opportunities.pdf. Also see David M. Lepofsky, D. (1991). "Disabled persons and Canadian law schools: The right to equal benefit of the law school." McGill Law Journal 36: 636. 69 McChesney, Nolan & Schmieg, Advancing professional opportunities. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 12

because they anticipate professional repercussions, including reduced professional credibility and opportunities for advancement, or other adverse attitudes or treatment. 70 2.3 Summary of the recent research Studies in the early 1990s in Alberta and elsewhere found that the majority of women and men in the legal profession were of the view that women faced gender bias in the profession. Although these studies spurred the Canadian Bar Association and law societies to action, recent research indicates that bias and discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, disability, age, and sexual orientation continue in the legal profession. The areas in which bias most frequently appears include hiring, remuneration, career advancement, accommodation for family commitments, and sexual harassment. 70 See, for example, State Bar of California, Subcommittee on the Employment of Attorneys with Disabilities. (1993). Survey of attorneys and judges with disabilities and chronic medical conditions. (San Francisco: State Bar of California). Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 13

SECTION 3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Equity and Diversity Surveys were developed for both active and inactive members of the Law Society of Alberta. Active members of the Law Society of Alberta are lawyers who have paid the membership and insurance fees (if required) to practice law in the Province of Alberta. Inactive members are those lawyers who have not paid the annual practice fees or insurance dues and, therefore, are not eligible to practice law, but pay an inactive fee ($130) each year to continue to receive information from the Law Society of Alberta. 3.1 Questionnaire development Questionnaire development was informed by the Law Society s 1991 surveys on gender bias; the review of the literature, including surveys of lawyers in Canada and the United States completed over the past decade; and pre-survey interviews and focus groups with 16 Calgary lawyers who are members of the historically disadvantaged groups targeted in the survey. Because the 2003 questionnaire for active members covers all grounds of discrimination, it was considerably longer and more complicated than the 1991 questionnaire. Efforts were made to include many of the questions from the 1991 questionnaire in the 2003 questionnaire to allow for comparison of the findings from the two surveys, although some items were dropped and others modified. A draft version of the active members questionnaire was piloted on a sample of 14 lawyers (8 male, 6 female) who were affiliated with the Law Society as Benchers, committee members, or staff. It was agreed that it would be unnecessary to pilot the inactive members questionnaire because there is significant overlap between the two questionnaires. Pilot survey respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire, report on the time required to answer the questions, and provide feedback about content and the wording of questions. Where possible, this feedback was incorporated into the final versions of the questionnaires. 3.2 Sample and administration The questionnaires were included with the May 2003 edition of The Advisory, the newsletter of the Law Society of Alberta. The Advisory is received by all active and inactive members of the Law Society. The mailing list was stratified into active and inactive members. All of the 7,075 members who had paid their fees and insurance dues as of May 22, 2003 were sent a copy of the Active Members questionnaire. Of the inactive members, the 539 members who had inactive member status, resided in Alberta, and had moved from active to inactive status between January 1, 1993 and May 22, 2003 were sent a copy of the Inactive Members questionnaire. The questionnaires were accompanied by a cover letter from the presidents of the Law Society of Alberta and the Canadian Bar Association-Alberta Branch, along with a business reply envelope addressed to the Calgary office of the Law Society. The envelopes were forwarded to and opened by the consultants. The questionnaires were mailed on June 2 and 3, 2003 with a request for returns by June 30. This deadline was subsequently extended to July 31, although returned questionnaires were accepted until August 31. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 14

Active members questionnaires were completed and returned by 905 respondents (13% of active members); 43% of respondents were female and 57% were male. Inactive members questionnaires were completed and returned by 134 inactive members (25 % of the inactive members meeting the criteria for inclusion); 56% were female and 44% were male. 3.3 Methodology limitations Mailing house errors The mailing house normally used by the Law Society was engaged to insert all materials into envelopes and to stamp and mail the envelopes. Two errors made by the mailing house may have affected survey response rates. First, delays in mailing the surveys may have affected response rates from lawyers with disabilities. Lawyers with disabilities were offered the option of completing the survey via an anonymous telephone interview with one of the consultants. The cover letter sent out with the questionnaires invited lawyers with disabilities to use this option, and provided details about dates and times when the consultant would be available to complete interviews. Lawyers were also told that they could arrange alternate interview times and dates by telephoning the consultant. However, the questionnaires were not mailed until after the dates proposed for the telephone interviews. This may have discouraged some lawyers with disabilities from completing the survey. Second, the mailing house mistakenly sent the active members questionnaire, rather than the version for inactive members, to some of the inactive lawyers. The error was promptly discovered and corrected by mailing the inactive members questionnaire to inactive members. Inactive lawyers also received a telephone call from the Law Society alerting them to the error. The additional mailing, along with the telephone call, may have encouraged lawyers to complete the survey, thereby increasing the response rate from inactive lawyers. Representativeness of samples Active members questionnaires were completed by 13% of active members; inactive members questionnaires were completed by 25% of the inactive lawyers meeting the criteria for inclusion. These response rates are high by industry standards. As with all surveys, with the exception of census surveys, completion of the questionnaires was voluntary and subject to self-selection bias and, therefore, may not constitute a statistically representative sample from which conclusive inferences can be made to the entire population of Alberta lawyers. However, the demographic and practice breakdown of respondents is very consistent with that of the entire population of lawyers in Alberta. As illustrated in Tables 3.1 through 3.8, the gender, year of call, years as member, and geographic breakdown of respondents on both the active and inactive members questionnaires are quite consistent with Law Society membership data. 71 There is a slight over-representation of older male respondents on the inactive survey, compared to inactive Law Society members. 71 All Law Society of Alberta statistics are as of May 22, 2003. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 15

Tables 3.1 3.4 Active Law Society members compared with Active Members Survey respondents Table 3.1. Active Law Society members and active members survey respondents year of call Active Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Previous to 1973 537 11% 11 1% 56 11% 3 1% 1973 to 1979 949 19% 114 5% 102 20% 14 4% 1980 to 1985 1028 21% 324 16% 112 22% 74 19% 1986 to 1990 739 15% 364 18% 58 11% 67 18% 1991 to 1995 659 13% 436 21% 69 13% 74 19% 1996 to 2000 749 15% 527 25% 89 17% 92 24% 2001 to 2003 340 7% 297 14% 31 6% 58 15% Total 5001 100% 2073* 100% 517 100% 382 100% Table 3.2. Active Law Society members and active members survey respondents age Practising Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % under 30 102 2% 143 7% 25 5% 38 10% 30-39 1142 23% 804 39% 116 22% 131 34% 40-49 1634 33% 762 37% 171 33% 153 40% 50-59 1627 33% 334 16% 162 31% 55 14% 60+ 496 10% 31 1% 44 8% 5 1% Total 5001 100% 2074 100% 518 100% 382 100% Table 3.3. Active Law Society members and active members survey respondents geographic location Active Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Calgary & area 2385 48% 1035 50% 239 46% 182 47% Edmonton & area 1602 32% 737 36% 184 36% 148 39% Other 1014 20% 302 15% 96 18% 54 14% Total 5001 100% 2074 100% 519 100% 384 100% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 16

Table 3.4. Active Law Society members and active members survey respondents place of work Active Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % With firms 2570 51% 927 45% 276 54% 181 47% Sole practitioners 1271 25% 487 23% 133 26% 61 16% With corporations 775 16% 288 14% 39 8% 37 10% With government 378 8% 379 18% 63 12% 90 23% Other 4 <1% 16 4% Total 4994 100% 2081 100% 511 100% 369 100% The Law Society statistics do not include an other category. It is unclear how members who do not fit into these four groups have been categorized. Among the survey respondents, the other category includes, for example, lawyers who do research on a contract basis. In addition, among survey respondents, those categorized as working for government includes lawyers who work for government on contract. Again, it is not clear how Law Society members who worked for government on contract were categorized. Tables 3.5 to 3.8. Inactive Law Society members compared with Inactive Members Survey respondents 72 Table 3.5. Inactive Law Society members and inactive members survey respondents year of call Inactive Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Previous to 1973 51 19% 4 1% 16 27% 2 3% 1973 to 1979 36 14% 7 3% 4 7% 2 3% 1980 to 1985 49 18% 43 16% 12 20% 12 16% 1986 to 1990 36 14% 47 17% 14 24% 16 22% 1991 to 1995 38 14% 73 26.5% 7 12% 16 22% 1996 to 2000 36 14% 73 26.5% 3 5% 20 27% 2001 to 2003 19 7% 27 10% 3 5% 5 7% Total 265 100% 274 100% 59 100% 73 100% Table 3.6. Inactive Law Society members and inactive members survey respondents age Inactive Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % under 30 6 2% 19 7% 3 5% 3 4% 30-39 59 22% 107 39% 9 16% 28 38% 40-49 76 29% 96 35% 17 29% 25 34% 50-59 65 25% 37 14% 11 19% 10 14% 60+ 59 22% 15 5% 18 31% 7 10% Total 265 100% 274 100% 58 100% 73 100% 72 The tables comparing inactive Law Society members with inactive survey respondents under-represents the response rate because the Law Society statistics include members who moved to inactive status between January 1, 1993 and May 22, 2003, and the survey was restricted to members who resided in Alberta. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 17

Table 3.7. Inactive Law Society members and inactive members survey respondents geographic location Inactive Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Calgary & area 158 51% 183 57% 30 51% 41 55% Edmonton & area 101 32% 111 35% 22 37% 27 36% Other 52 17% 25 8% 7 12% 6 8% Total 311 100% 318 100% 59 100% 74 100% Table 3.8. Inactive Law Society members and inactive members survey respondents year of move to inactive status* Inactive Members Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 1980 to 1992 No info No info No info No info 7 12% 8 12% 1993 22 7% 11 3% 4 7% 5 7% 1994 13 4% 19 6% 1 2% 4 6% 1995 21 7% 13 4% 4 7% 2 3% 1996 17 5% 12 4% 5 9% 2 3% 1997 12 4% 26 8% 2 3% 3 4% 1998 18 6% 19 6% 6 10% 4 6% 1999 34 11% 36 11% 0 0% 2 3% 2000 44 14% 35 11% 10 17% 9 13% 2001 44 14% 49 15% 8 14% 9 13% 2002 48 15% 39 12% 5 9% 14 21% 2003 38 12% 59 19% 6 10% 6 9% Total 311 100% 318 100% 58 100% 68 100% *The Law Society figures reflect the year that the member moved to inactive status; the survey asked for the year in which the respondent last practiced law Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 18

SECTION 4. RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY OF INACTIVE MEMBERS 4.1 Introduction: Attrition from the legal profession in Alberta Membership data from the Law Society of Alberta show some changes in the gender composition of the legal profession since 1991. Women are starting to enter the profession in greater proportion. In the five years prior to the 1991 study (1986-1990), 35% of the lawyers called to the bar were women. This percentage rose to 45% in the five years prior to the 2003 study (1998-2002). In 1991, 972 women and 4798 men were active members of the Law Society; women comprised 20% of the active membership. In 2003, 2074 women and 5001 men were active members of the Law Society. Between the times of the two studies, the percentage of active members who were women increased from 20% to 29%. Women still leave the profession in greater proportion than men, as they did in 1991. However, the gap between women and men has decreased since 1991. In 1991, 33% of the women and 28% of the men who had been called to the bar in the previous 15 years (1976-1990) were no longer active members of the Law Society on May 1, 1991. In 2003, 28% of the women and 25% of the men who had been called in the previous 15 years (1988-2003) were no longer active members of the Law Society on May 22, 2003. These figures also show that the attrition rate has decreased for both women and men between the two time periods. Table 4.1 shows the attrition rates for women and men called between 1976 and 2002, as of May 22, 2003. The attrition rate gap between women and men increases among the more senior lawyers. For example, there is no difference between the attrition rate of women and men who were called between 1998 and 2002. However, for those called between 1983 and 1987, the attrition rate for women is 42% compared to 33% for men. Table 4.1. Attrition Rates for Women and Men Called Between 1976 and 2002, as of May 22, 3003 Number called Number in good standing Attrition Year of call Count Count Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 1973-77 127 952 62 600 65 51% 352 37% 1978-82 388 1434 201 934 187 48% 500 35% 1983-87 554 1102 319 737 235 42% 365 33% 1988-92 604 1026 386 734 218 36% 292 28% 1993-97 628 892 437 643 191 30% 249 28% 1998-02 793 988 642 797 151 19% 191 19% Total 3094 6394 2047 4445 1047 34% 1949 30% As in 1991, men still leave the profession in greater absolute numbers. In 1991, 1,012 men and 443 women, who were called between 1976 and 1990, were no longer active members; only 30% of those who were no longer members were women. In 2003, 732 men and 560 women who were called between 1988 and 2002 were no longer active members; 43% were women. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 19

A similar analysis cannot be completed for other diversity characteristics, such as race or sexual orientation, because the Law Society does not keep statistics on this information. 4.2. Characteristics of respondents and sexual orientation Questionnaires were returned by 74 women and 59 men; 56% of the respondents were women and 44% were men. The vast majority of the respondents who answered the question on sexual orientation (96%) reported that they are heterosexual; five respondents are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and two respondents did not answer the question. Respondents were asked if their colleagues were aware of their sexual orientation when they last practised law. Four of the five gay, lesbian, or bisexual respondents indicated that their colleagues were not aware of their sexual orientation and one respondent said that some trusted colleagues knew. Race, language, and religion Eighty-nine percent of the respondents reported they were Caucasian: eight women (11% of the women) and six men (10% of the men) identified themselves as being members of visible minority groups or people of colour. Between one and five respondents identified themselves as being of Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, Filipino, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Aboriginal, or Middle Eastern descent or of having multiple ethnicities. In the 1991 study, 2.5% of the women and 5.4% of the men who responded identified themselves as members of visible minorities by virtue of their colour or race. Respondents were asked what language they learned at home in childhood and still understood. Most of the respondents (89%) learned English at home, five (4%) learned German, two (1.5%) learned Ukrainian, two (1.5%) learned a Chinese language, and the rest learned one of Arabic, French, Japanese, Lithuanian, Polish, or Vietnamese. Respondents were also asked what language they most often speak at home. Eighty-nine percent (118) of respondents reported that they most often speak English; the remaining 15 respondents identified the following languages: German (5), Chinese (2), Ukrainian (2), French (1), Arabic (1), Japanese (1), Lithuanian (1), Polish (1), and Vietnamese (1). Fifty-six percent (75) of respondents identified themselves as having a Christian religion affiliation; 34% (45) had no religious affiliation; and the remaining 10% reported that they were Jewish (5), Buddhist (5), Hindu (1), Coptic (1), or Muslim (1). Lawyers with disabilities Sixteen percent (21) of the respondents said they had a disability. Respondents listed the following disabilities: arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer, multiple sclerosis, injuries from accidents, lung disease, mobility problems, epilepsy, quadriplegia, sleep disorder, systemic lupus, vision problems, and ill health. The 1991 survey asked the question somewhat differently; 3.4% of the 1991 respondents indicated that they considered themselves disadvantaged for the purpose of employment by reason of a persistent disability. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 20

Age As discussed in the methodology section, the average age of the women who responded to the inactive members questionnaire was 44 years (Med = 43), as compared to 52 years (Med = 50) for the men. The women s ages ranged from 28 to 69, and the men s ages ranged from 29 to 83. A greater proportion of men (31%) than women (10%) were aged 60 years or older, and a greater proportion of women (42%) than men (21%) were under the age of 40 years. The respondents in this survey were older than the respondents in the 1991 survey, although the women were still much younger than the men in both surveys. In 1991, the average age of the women was 34 years, as compared to 45 years for the men; none of the women and 22% of the men were 60 years of age or older, and 85% of the women and 48% of the men were under the age of 40 years. Table 4.2. Respondents age and gender Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % under 30 3 5% 3 4% 30-39 9 16% 28 38% 40-49 17 29% 25 34% 50-59 11 19% 10 14% 60+ 18 31% 7 10% Total 58 100% 73 100% Marital status and employment status of respondents spouses Seventy six percent of the women and the men were married or cohabiting. Of those who were married or cohabiting, the women (83%) were more likely than the men (44%) to have spouses who worked full time, and the men (38%) were more likely than the women (13%) to have spouses who did not work in the paid workforce. The men respondents (18%) were more likely than the women (4%) to be married or cohabiting with part-time workers. In 1991, 68% of women respondents and 66% of the men were living in a married or equivalent relationship. Table 4.3. Spouses employment status by gender Count Col % Count Col % Employed full time 20 44% 46 83% Employed part time 8 18% 2 4% Not employed 17 38% 7 13% Total 45 100% 55 100% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 21

Number of children Seventy three percent of the women respondents, compared to 64% of the men, had children. Of those respondents who were parents, both the women and men had an average of two children. In 1991, 51% of the women and 47% of the men had children. The women had an average of 2.2 children, the men an average of 2.9 children. Geographic location The majority of women (55%) and men (51%) respondents worked or lived in Calgary at the time of the survey, and 36% of the women and 37% of the men were in Edmonton. Table 4.4. Geographic location of where respondents work or live by gender Count Col % Count Col % Calgary & area 30 51% 41 55% Edmonton & area 22 37% 27 36% Other 7 12% 6 8% Total 59 100% 74 100% Year of call Table 4.5 shows the years the respondents were called to the bar in Alberta by gender. The median year of call for women was 1991 and the median year of call for the men was 1985. Only 7% of the women, compared to 39% of the men, were called before 1981. Moving the cut off year five years later, 22% of the women and 54% of the men were called before 1986, and 56% of the women and 22% of the men were called after 1990. As with the survey in 1991 (where 54% of the women and 36% of the men were called between 1987 and 1991), a much larger proportion of the women were called in the later years. Table 4.5. Year called to bar by gender Surveys Returned Count Col % Count Col % Previous to 1973 16 27% 2 3% 1973 to 1979 4 7% 2 3% 1980 to 1985 12 20% 12 16% 1986 to 1990 14 24% 16 22% 1991 to 1995 7 12% 16 22% 1996 to 2000 3 5% 20 27% 2001 to 2003 3 5% 5 7% Total 59 100% 73 100% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 22

Years of practise Table 4.6 shows the number of years the respondents had practised law in all jurisdictions. Women had practised an average of four years (Med = 7), men an average of 17 years (Med = 13). More women (52%) than men (26%) had practised for fewer than five years; more men (46%) than women (15%) had practised for 15 years or more. Table 4.6. Years of practise by gender Count Col % Count Col % 0 to 2 8 13.6% 25 36.8% 3 to 4 7 11.9% 10 14.7% 5 to 6 3 5.1% 3 4.4% 7 to 8 1 1.7% 5 7.4% 9 to 10 5 8.5% 8 11.8% 11 to 12 4 6.8% 5 7.4% 13 to 14 4 6.8% 2 2.9% 15+ 27 45.8% 10 14.7% Total 59 100% 68 100% Table 4.7. Years respondents practised law by diversity characteristics Years practised law in all jurisdictions (not including articles) Median Mean Count Sexual orientation Race Disability Language spoken at home Religion Heterosexual 8.0 11.7 127 Gay, lesbian, bisexual 2.0 8.6 5 Caucasian 8.5 11.5 118 Other 4.8 13.0 14 No 8.0 10.9 111 Yes 11.0 16.0 21 English 8.0 11.7 131 Not English 10.0 10.0 2 Non-Christian 4.5 11.3 15 Christian 10.0 12.5 73 No religious affiliation 5.0 10.3 45 Time not practising law by diversity groups Since their call to the bar in Alberta, the women respondents had spent an average of 3.8 years not practising law and the men an average of 2.8 years. Both the women and the men spent an average.9 years not practising law and looking for a position in law. The women spent an average of 3.8 years not practising and not looking for a position in law, compared to an average of 2.7 years spent by the men. There are no other notable differences between diversity groups in terms of time spent not practising law and looking for a position in law. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 23

4.3 Employment Type of legal employment Table 4.8 shows how respondents were employed when they last worked in the legal profession. The most common location for women (49%) and men (36%) was an associate or employee in a law firm. The number of respondents in other diversity groups is too small to draw any meaningful comparisons. Table 4.8. Last employment in the legal profession by diversity characteristics How were you last employed in the legal profession Sole practitioner on your own Office sharing with other practitioners Associate in or employee of a law firm Partner in a law firm Government lawyer Corporate counsel Articling student Other 73 # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 10 17% 5 8% 21 36% 10 17% 2 3% 5 8% 2 3% 4 7% 5 7% 5 7% 35 49% 2 3% 7 10% 5 7% 4 6% 9 13% Current work status, type of work and effect on income Table 4.9 shows that 12% of the women respondents and 31% of men were retired; 35% of the women and 9% of the men were homemakers, 27% of the women and 33% of the men were employed full time, and 16% of the women and 17% of the men were employed part time. In 1991, none of the women and 22% of the men who responded to the survey were retired, and 1% of the men and 22% of the women were homemakers. Table 4.9. Current work status by gender Count Col % Count Col % Retired 18 31% 9 12% Student 0 0% 0 0% Homemaker 5 9% 26 35% Employed full time 19 33% 20 27% Employed part time 10 17% 12 16% Unemployed 5 9% 5 7% Student and employed part-time 0 0% 1 1.4% Homemaker and employed part-time 1 2% 1 1.4% Total 58 100% 74 100% 73 Other types of employment included academic, NGO overseas, contract, legal representative in business capacity, trust officer, research lawyer and law related mediation. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 24

Table 4.10 sets out where those who were employed worked. Of the 44 women who were employed, 30% were self-employed, compared to 39% of the 31 men. Twenty-five percent of the women and 16% of the men worked for government, and 20% of the women and 23% of the men were employees in a business. Most of the respondents were engaged in work that was very related to their legal training (44% of the women and 39% of the men) or somewhat related to their legal training (40% of the women and 45% of the men). Only 16% of the women and men were engaged in work that was unrelated to their legal training. Table 4.10. Primary employment and relationship of work to legal training by gender Primarily employed Work is Count Col % Count Col % Self employed 12 39% 13 30% Government 5 16% 11 25% Employee in a business 7 23% 9 20% Other 5 16% 5 11.5% Education 1 3% 5 11.5% Not for profit society 1 3% 1 2% Union 0 0% 0 0% Sub-total 31 100% 44 100% Unrelated to your legal training 5 16% 7 16% Somewhat related to your legal training 14 45% 17 40% Very related to your legal training 12 39% 19 44% Sub-total 31 100% 43 100% Twenty-one percent of lawyers of colour and Caucasian lawyers were retired; 36% of lawyers of colour and 22% of Caucasian lawyers were homemakers; 29% of lawyers of colour and 30% of Caucasian lawyers were employed full time. The lawyers of colour (57%) were more likely than Caucasian lawyers (31%) to be self-employed. The work of the lawyers of colour (57%) was more likely than the work of Caucasian lawyers to be unrelated to their legal training (57% compared to 11%). Forty-three percent of lawyers with disabilities, compared to 16% of lawyers without disabilities, were retired. As Table 4.11 shows, 66% of the women and 39% of the men experienced a decrease in income as a result of not practising law. Table 4.11. Effect of practising law on income Count Col % Count Col % Increased income 9 16% 9 13% Decreased income 22 39% 46 66% Income remained the same 8 14% 4 6% Don't know 17 30% 11 16% Total 56 99% 70 101% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 25

Women s income decreased by an average of $55,625 (Med = 45,000); men s by an average of $69,500 (Med = 55,000). Thirteen percent of the women and 16% of the men increased their income by not practising law. The nine women increased their income by an average of $54,286 (Med = 30,000), while the nine men increased their income by $116,875 (Med = 60,000). Satisfaction with current employment Respondents were asked whether they were more satisfied with their current employment as compared to when they last worked in the legal profession, less satisfied, or whether there was no difference between the two on a number of dimensions. Table 4.12 presents responses by gender. The largest proportion of women and men found that they were more satisfied with their current employment than when they last worked in the legal profession in terms of balance with personal life (89% of the women and 84% of the men), hours of work (78% of the women and 87% of the men), choice of current career (63% of the women and 76% of the men), nature of work (66% of the women and 63% of the men), and control over work (60% of the women and 62% of the men). Credit for work was more satisfying for a greater proportion of the men (64%) than the women (43%), as was opportunity for advancement (53% of the men, compared to 25% of the women). There were also some differences at the other end of the scale. A greater proportion of women than men were less satisfied in their current employment compared to when they last worked in the legal profession with regard to prestige of work (51% of the women and 29% of the men), remuneration (49% of the women and 33% of the men), opportunity for advancement (40% of the women and 6% of the men), employment benefits (40% of the women and 24% of the men), and standing among colleagues (40% of the women and 11% of the men). It appears as though both the women and the men benefited in terms of greater flexibility and balance with their personal lives when they left the practice of law, but the women suffered more in terms of remuneration, advancement, and prestige than the men did. Table 4.12. Current employment compared to legal profession by gender Count Col % Count Col % Nature of work Hours of work Job security Remuneration Prestige of work Control over work Less satisfied in current employment 5 13% 10 19% No different 9 24% 8 15% More satisfied in current employment 24 63% 35 66% Less satisfied in current employment 0 0% 5 9% No different 5 13% 7 13% More satisfied in current employment 33 87% 42 78% Less satisfied in current employment 8 22% 14 26% No different 12 32% 17 32% More satisfied in current employment 17 46% 22 42% Less satisfied in current employment 12 33% 26 49% No different 12 33% 10 19% More satisfied in current employment 12 33% 17 32% Less satisfied in current employment 11 29% 27 51% No different 17 45% 14 26% More satisfied in current employment 10 26% 12 23% Less satisfied in current employment 5 14% 7 13% No different 9 24% 14 26% More satisfied in current employment 23 62% 32 60% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 26

Table 4.12. Current employment compared to legal profession by gender, continued Count Col % Count Col % Credit for work Contact with clients Opportunity for advancement Employment benefits Mentoring available to you Balance with personal life Choice of current career Standing among colleagues The respect and dignity with which you are treated by your colleagues Respect and dignity with which you are treated by the public Working relationship with female colleagues Working relationship with male colleagues Working relationship with administration Working relationship with support staff Working relationship with supervisors Less satisfied in current employment 2 6% 10 19% No different 11 31% 20 38% More satisfied in current employment 23 64% 23 43% Less satisfied in current employment 6 18% 13 26% No different 14 41% 17 34% More satisfied in current employment 14 41% 20 40% Less satisfied in current employment 2 6% 21 40% No different 15 42% 18 35% More satisfied in current employment 19 53% 13 25% Less satisfied in current employment 9 24% 21 40% No different 17 46% 9 17% More satisfied in current employment 11 30% 23 43% Less satisfied in current employment 8 22% 12 23% No different 20 56% 22 42% More satisfied in current employment 8 22% 19 36% Less satisfied in current employment 1 3% 2 4% No different 5 13% 4 7% More satisfied in current employment 32 84% 48 89% Less satisfied in current employment 2 5% 11 21% No different 7 19% 8 15% More satisfied in current employment 28 76% 33 63% Less satisfied in current employment 4 11% 21 40% No different 24 63% 19 36% More satisfied in current employment 10 26% 13 25% Less satisfied in current employment 4 11% 14 27% No different 23 61% 17 33% More satisfied in current employment 11 29% 21 40% Less satisfied in current employment 6 16% 19 36% No different 21 55% 19 36% More satisfied in current employment 11 29% 15 28% Less satisfied in current employment 1 3% 3 6% No different 31 82% 30 60% More satisfied in current employment 6 16% 17 34% Less satisfied in current employment 1 3% 4 8% No different 27 71% 30 60% More satisfied in current employment 10 26% 16 32% Less satisfied in current employment 1 3% 5 11% No different 32 84% 32 68% More satisfied in current employment 5 13% 10 21% Less satisfied in current employment 1 3% 6 13% No different 32 84% 31 65% More satisfied in current employment 5 13% 11 23% Less satisfied in current employment 1 3% 5 10% No different 26 70% 27 56% More satisfied in current employment 10 27% 16 33% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 27

4.4 Reasons for not practising law Respondents were asked about the degree to which a number of factors influenced their decision not to practise law. As shown in Table 4.13, at least half of the respondents were influenced somewhat or a great deal by more personally rewarding opportunities elsewhere, nature of the work, stressful nature of the work, adversarial nature of the work, and balance with personal life. More women than men were influenced by care of children, hours of work, and control over work, although many men were also influenced by these factors. A greater proportion of women than men were influenced to leave the practice of law by retirement due to involuntary loss of position, birth of a child, spouse s career, discrimination, credit for work, contact with clients, opportunity for advancement, available mentoring, the respect and dignity by which they were treated by colleagues and by the public, and working relationships with male colleagues. A greater proportion of men than women were influenced to leave law by retirement due to age, illness or injury, Law Society insurance dues, and exposure to liability. Table 4.13. Reasons for not practising law by gender Count Col % Count Col % Retirement due to age not at all or not much 41 76% 57 24% somewhat or a great deal 13 24% 4 7% Involuntary loss of employment not al all or not much 42 84% 46 74% somewhat or a great deal 8 16% 16 26% Unable to find job practising law not al all or not much 43 84% 48 79% somewhat or a great deal 8 16% 13 21% Illness or injury not al all or not much 39 74% 55 89% somewhat or a great deal 14 26% 7 11% Disability not al all or not much 44 86% 57 93% somewhat or a great deal 7 14% 4 7% Better pay elsewhere not al all or not much 38 75% 49 79% somewhat or a great deal 13 25% 13 21% More personally rewarding opportunities not al all or not much 16 30% 18 28% elsewhere somewhat or a great deal 37 70% 46 72% Birth of a child not al all or not much 48 94% 36 54% somewhat or a great deal 3 6% 31 46% Care of children not al all or not much 44 88% 27 42% somewhat or a great deal 6 12% 37 58% Care of dependent adults not al all or not much 50 100% 57 90% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 6 10% Spouse s career not al all or not much 43 84% 41 66% somewhat or a great deal 8 16% 21 34% Discrimination not al all or not much 46 90% 44 71% somewhat or a great deal 5 10% 18 29% Nature of work not al all or not much 23 44% 25 38% somewhat or a great deal 29 56% 41 62% Hours of work not al all or not much 27 54% 17 25% somewhat or a great deal 23 46% 51 75% Job security not al all or not much 38 76% 47 71% somewhat or a great deal 12 24% 19 29% Prestige of work not al all or not much 46 92% 55 85% somewhat or a great deal 4 8% 10 15% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 28

Table 4.13. Reasons for not practising law by gender, continued Count Col % Count Col % Stressful nature of work not al all or not much 26 50% 26 38% somewhat or a great deal 26 50% 42 62% Adversarial nature of work not al all or not much 23 43% 30 45% somewhat or a great deal 30 57% 36 55% Balance with personal life not al all or not much 19 37% 10 15% somewhat or a great deal 33 63% 58 85% Intellectual challenge not al all or not much 42 82% 54 81% somewhat or a great deal 9 18% 13 19% Control over work not al all or not much 30 59% 30 45% somewhat or a great deal 21 41% 36 55% Credit for work not al all or not much 37 73% 39 60% somewhat or a great deal 14 27% 26 40% Contact with clients not al all or not much 43 84% 50 76% somewhat or a great deal 8 16% 16 24% Opportunity for advancement not al all or not much 40 80% 43 65% somewhat or a great deal 10 20% 23 35% Employment benefits not al all or not much 39 76% 46 70% somewhat or a great deal 12 24% 20 30% Mentoring available to you not al all or not much 39 76% 41 62% somewhat or a great deal 12 24% 25 38% Law Society fees not al all or not much 40 77% 55 83% somewhat or a great deal 12 23% 11 17% Law Society insurance dues not al all or not much 37 69% 52 78% somewhat or a great deal 17 31% 15 22% Exposure to liability not al all or not much 38 75% 55 85% somewhat or a great deal 13 25% 10 15% Standing among colleagues not al all or not much 51 98% 60 94% somewhat or a great deal 1 2% 4 6% Respect & dignity with which treated by not al all or not much 43 83% 43 65% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 9 17% 23 35% Respect and dignity with which treated by not al all or not much 45 88% 51 78% public somewhat or a great deal 6 12% 14 22% Working relationship with female not al all or not much 50 98% 58 91% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 1 2% 6 9% Working relationship with male colleagues not al all or not much 47 92% 39 59% somewhat or a great deal 4 8% 27 41% Working relationship with administration not al all or not much 48 94% 58 91% somewhat or a great deal 3 6% 6 9% Working relationship with support staff not al all or not much 51 98% 62 97% somewhat or a great deal 1 2% 2 3% Working relationship with court personnel not al all or not much 52 100% 63 100% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 0 0% Table 4.14 summarizes responses of Caucasian lawyers and lawyers of colour. At least half of the lawyers of colour and Caucasian lawyers were influenced somewhat or a great deal by more personally rewarding opportunities elsewhere, nature of the work, hours of work, stressful nature of the work, and balance with personal life. A greater proportion of the lawyers of colour than the Caucasian lawyers were influenced by care of children and by inability to find a job. Caucasian lawyers were more influenced than lawyers of colour by the adversarial nature of the work and control over work. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 29

Table 4.14. Reasons for not practising law by race Retirement due to age Involuntary loss of employment Unable to find job practising law Illness or injury Disability Better pay elsewhere More personally rewarding opportunities Birth of a child Care of children Care of dependent adults Spouse s career Discrimination Nature of work Hours of work Job security Prestige of work Stressful nature of work Adversarial nature of work Balance with personal life Intellectual challenge Control over work Credit for work Contact with clients Opportunity for advancement Race Caucasian Other Count Col % Count Col % not al all or not much 87 85% 10 83% somewhat or a great deal 15 15% 2 17% not al all or not much 77 76% 10 100% somewhat or a great deal 24 24% 0 0% not al all or not much 83 83% 7 64% somewhat or a great deal 17 17% 4 36% not al all or not much 84 82% 9 82% somewhat or a great deal 19 18% 2 18% not al all or not much 90 89% 10 100% somewhat or a great deal 11 11% 0 0% not al all or not much 77 76% 9 82% somewhat or a great deal 24 24% 2 18% not al all or not much 30 29% 4 36% somewhat or a great deal 75 71% 7 64% not al all or not much 75 72% 8 62% somewhat or a great deal 29 28% 5 38% not al all or not much 65 64% 6 50% somewhat or a great deal 36 36% 6 50% not al all or not much 95 94% 11 100% somewhat or a great deal 6 6% 0 0% not al all or not much 76 76% 8 67% somewhat or a great deal 24 24% 4 33% not al all or not much 80 79% 9 82% somewhat or a great deal 21 21% 2 18% not al all or not much 42 41% 5 36% somewhat or a great deal 61 59% 9 64% not al all or not much 39 38% 5 38% somewhat or a great deal 65 63% 8 62% not al all or not much 74 73% 10 77% somewhat or a great deal 28 27% 3 23% not al all or not much 87 86% 13 100% somewhat or a great deal 14 14% 0 0% not al all or not much 45 43% 6 43% somewhat or a great deal 60 57% 8 57% not al all or not much 44 42% 8 62% somewhat or a great deal 61 58% 5 38% not al all or not much 23 22% 6 46% somewhat or a great deal 83 78% 7 54% not al all or not much 85 82% 10 77% somewhat or a great deal 19 18% 3 23% not al all or not much 50 49% 9 69% somewhat or a great deal 53 51% 4 31% not al all or not much 64 63% 11 85% somewhat or a great deal 38 37% 2 15% not al all or not much 81 79% 11 85% somewhat or a great deal 22 21% 2 15% not al all or not much 72 71% 10 77% somewhat or a great deal 30 29% 3 23% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 30

Table 4.14. Reasons for not practising law by race, continued Race Caucasian Other Count Col % Count Col % Employment benefits not al all or not much 72 70% 12 92% somewhat or a great deal 31 30% 1 8% Mentoring available to you not al all or not much 69 67% 10 77% somewhat or a great deal 34 33% 3 23% Law Society fees not al all or not much 82 80% 12 86% somewhat or a great deal 21 20% 2 14% Law Society insurance dues not al all or not much 76 72% 12 86% somewhat or a great deal 30 28% 2 14% Exposure to liability not al all or not much 79 77% 13 100% somewhat or a great deal 23 23% 0 0% Standing among colleagues not al all or not much 97 95% 13 100% somewhat or a great deal 5 5% 0 0% Respect & dignity with which treated by not al all or not much 74 71% 11 85% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 30 29% 2 15% Respect and dignity with which treated by not al all or not much 82 80% 13 100% public somewhat or a great deal 20 20% 0 0% Working relationship with female not al all or not much 94 93% 13 100% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 7 7% 0 0% Working relationship with male colleagues not al all or not much 74 72% 11 85% somewhat or a great deal 29 28% 2 15% Working relationship with administration not al all or not much 92 91% 13 100% somewhat or a great deal 9 9% 0 0% Working relationship with support staff not al all or not much 99 97% 13 100% somewhat or a great deal 3 3% 0 0% Working relationship with court personnel not al all or not much 101 100% 13 100% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 0 0% Table 4.15 summarizes responses of lawyers with and without disabilities. More than half of the lawyers with and without a disability were influenced somewhat or a great deal by balance with personal life. Lawyers without a disability were more influenced than lawyers with disabilities by the nature of work, hours of work, the stressful nature of work, the adversarial nature of work, and control over work. Lawyers with disabilities were far more influenced than lawyers without disabilities, not surprisingly, by illness or injury and disabilities and, to a lesser extent, by retirement due to age, involuntary loss of employment, inability to find a job practising law, discrimination, credit for work, Law Society fees and insurance dues, and working relationships with female colleagues. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 31

Table 4.15. Reasons for not practising law by disability Disability Reasons for not practising law No Yes Count Percent Count Percent Retirement due to age not al all or not much 83 86% 14 82% somewhat or a great deal 14 14% 3 18% Involuntary loss of employment not al all or not much 76 80% 12 75% somewhat or a great deal 19 20% 4 25% Unable to find job racticing law not al all or not much 78 83% 13 76% somewhat or a great deal 16 17% 4 24% Illness or injury not al all or not much 88 93% 5 26% somewhat or a great deal 7 7% 14 74% Disability not al all or not much 93 100% 7 39% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 11 61% Better pay elsewhere not al all or not much 72 76% 14 82% somewhat or a great deal 23 24% 3 18% More personally rewarding opportunities not al all or not much 23 23% 11 65% somewhat or a great deal 76 77% 6 35% Birth of a child not al all or not much 69 69% 15 88% somewhat or a great deal 31 31% 2 12% Care of children not al all or not much 57 59% 14 82% somewhat or a great deal 39 41% 3 18% Care of dependent adults not al all or not much 89 95% 17 94% somewhat or a great deal 5 5% 1 6% Spouse s career not al all or not much 69 73% 15 88% somewhat or a great deal 26 27% 2 12% Discrimination not al all or not much 77 81% 13 76% somewhat or a great deal 18 19% 4 24% Nature of work not al all or not much 37 37% 11 69% somewhat or a great deal 64 63% 5 31% Hours of work not al all or not much 33 33% 11 65% somewhat or a great deal 67 67% 6 35% Job security not al all or not much 72 73% 13 81% somewhat or a great deal 27 27% 3 19% Prestige of work not al all or not much 84 86% 16 100% somewhat or a great deal 14 14% 0 0% Stressful nature of work not al all or not much 41 41% 11 61% somewhat or a great deal 60 59% 7 39% Adversarial nature of work not al all or not much 44 44% 9 53% somewhat or a great deal 57 56% 8 47% Balance with personal life not al all or not much 20 20% 9 50% somewhat or a great deal 81 80% 9 50% Intellectual challenge not al all or not much 79 79% 16 94% somewhat or a great deal 21 21% 1 6% Control over work not al all or not much 49 49% 11 65% somewhat or a great deal 50 51% 6 35% Credit for work not al all or not much 66 67% 10 59% somewhat or a great deal 32 33% 7 41% Contact with clients not al all or not much 78 79% 15 88% somewhat or a great deal 21 21% 2 12% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 32

Table 4.15. Reasons for not practising law by disability, continued Disability Reasons for not practising law No Yes Count Percent Count Percent Opportunity for advancement not al all or not much 68 69% 15 88% somewhat or a great deal 30 31% 2 12% Employment benefits not al all or not much 69 70% 16 94% somewhat or a great deal 30 30% 1 6% Mentoring available to you not al all or not much 66 67% 14 82% somewhat or a great deal 33 33% 3 18% Law Society fees not al all or not much 83 83% 12 71% somewhat or a great deal 17 17% 5 29% Law Society insurance dues not al all or not much 78 76% 11 65% somewhat or a great deal 25 24% 6 35% Exposure to liability not al all or not much 79 80% 13 81% somewhat or a great deal 20 20% 3 19% Standing among colleagues not al all or not much 94 95% 17 100% somewhat or a great deal 5 5% 0 0% Respect and dignity with which you were not al all or not much 72 72% 14 82% treated by colleagues somewhat or a great deal 28 28% 3 18% Respect and dignity with which you were not al all or not much 78 80% 17 100% treated by public somewhat or a great deal 20 20% 0 0% Working relationship with female not al all or not much 92 95% 15 88% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 5 5% 2 12% Working relationship with male colleagues not al all or not much 73 74% 13 76% somewhat or a great deal 26 26% 4 24% Working relationship with administration not al all or not much 90 92% 15 94% somewhat or a great deal 8 8% 1 6% Working relationship with support staff not al all or not much 96 97% 16 100% somewhat or a great deal 3 3% 0 0% Working relationship with court personnel not al all or not much 98 100% 16 100% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 0 0% Table 4.16 provides the responses from lawyers with different religious affiliations about the factors influencing their decision to move to inactive status. Fifty percent or more of the respondents were influenced somewhat or a great deal by more personally rewarding opportunities elsewhere, the nature of work, the hours of work, the stressful nature of work, and balance with personal life. A slightly greater proportion of the lawyers with no religious affiliation and Christian lawyers than the non-christian lawyers were influenced by adversarial nature of work. A slightly greater proportion of the Christian lawyers than the other two groups were influenced by control over work. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 33

Table 4.16. Reasons for not practising law by religion Reasons for not practising law Retirement due to age Involuntary loss of employment Unable to find job Practising law Illness or injury Disability Better pay elsewhere More personally rewarding opportunities Birth of a child Care of children Care of dependent adults Spouse s career Discrimination Nature of work Hours of work Job security Prestige of work Stressful nature of work Adversarial nature of work Balance with personal life Intellectual challenge Control over work Credit for work Contact with clients Opportunity for advancement Employment benefits Religion Non -Christian Christian No religious affiliation Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent not al all or not much 9 82% 55 85% 34 87% somewhat or a great deal 2 18% 10 15% 5 13% not al all or not much 6 60% 52 83% 30 77% somewhat or a great deal 4 40% 11 17% 9 23% not al all or not much 6 60% 56 89% 29 74% somewhat or a great deal 4 40% 7 11% 10 26% not al all or not much 9 90% 54 83% 31 78% somewhat or a great deal 1 10% 11 17% 9 23% not al all or not much 10 91% 56 90% 35 90% somewhat or a great deal 1 9% 6 10% 4 10% not al all or not much 7 70% 48 75% 32 82% somewhat or a great deal 3 30% 16 25% 7 18% not al all or not much 4 40% 21 32% 9 22% somewhat or a great deal 6 60% 45 68% 32 78% not al all or not much 8 62% 45 68% 31 79% somewhat or a great deal 5 38% 21 32% 8 21% not al all or not much 7 58% 37 59% 27 69% somewhat or a great deal 5 42% 26 41% 12 31% not al all or not much 10 100% 58 91% 39 100% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 6 9% 0 0% not al all or not much 7 64% 49 78% 28 72% somewhat or a great deal 4 36% 14 22% 11 28% not al all or not much 9 82% 54 84% 27 71% somewhat or a great deal 2 18% 10 16% 11 29% not al all or not much 5 42% 29 45% 14 34% somewhat or a great deal 7 58% 36 55% 27 66% not al all or not much 6 50% 27 41% 11 28% somewhat or a great deal 6 50% 39 59% 29 73% not al all or not much 10 91% 50 76% 25 64% somewhat or a great deal 1 9% 16 24% 14 36% not al all or not much 11 100% 59 91% 31 79% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 6 9% 8 21% not al all or not much 5 38% 30 45% 17 43% somewhat or a great deal 8 62% 37 55% 23 58% not al all or not much 7 58% 30 45% 16 39% somewhat or a great deal 5 42% 36 55% 25 61% not al all or not much 4 33% 17 25% 8 20% somewhat or a great deal 8 67% 51 75% 32 80% not al all or not much 9 82% 53 79% 34 85% somewhat or a great deal 2 18% 14 21% 6 15% not al all or not much 8 67% 32 48% 20 51% somewhat or a great deal 4 33% 34 52% 19 49% not al all or not much 9 82% 43 65% 24 62% somewhat or a great deal 2 18% 23 35% 15 38% not al all or not much 9 82% 56 84% 28 72% somewhat or a great deal 2 18% 11 16% 11 28% not al all or not much 8 73% 50 77% 25 63% somewhat or a great deal 3 27% 15 23% 15 38% not al all or not much 11 100% 51 76% 23 59% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 16 24% 16 41% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 34

Table 4.16. Reasons for not practising law by religion, continued Reasons for not practising law Mentoring available to you Law Society fees Law Society insurance dues Exposure to liability Standing among colleagues Religion Non -Christian Christian No religious affiliation Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent not al all or not much 7 64% 51 77% 22 55% somewhat or a great deal 4 36% 15 23% 18 45% not al all or not much 9 69% 56 85% 30 77% somewhat or a great deal 4 31% 10 15% 9 23% not al all or not much 9 69% 51 74% 29 74% somewhat or a great deal 4 31% 18 26% 10 26% not al all or not much 10 91% 53 80% 30 77% somewhat or a great deal 1 9% 13 20% 9 23% not al all or not much 11 100% 63 94% 37 97% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 4 6% 1 3% Respect & dignity with which treated by not al all or not much 9 82% 51 76% 26 65% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 2 18% 16 24% 14 35% Respect and dignity with which treated by not al all or not much 11 100% 53 80% 32 82% public somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 13 20% 7 18% Working relationship with female not al all or not much 11 100% 64 97% 33 87% colleagues somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 2 3% 5 13% Working relationship with male colleagues Working relationship with administration Working relationship with support staff Working relationship with court personnel not al all or not much 10 91% 51 77% 25 63% somewhat or a great deal 1 9% 15 23% 15 38% not al all or not much 11 100% 60 91% 35 92% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 6 9% 3 8% not al all or not much 11 100% 65 97% 37 97% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 2 3% 1 3% not al all or not much 11 100% 67 100% 37 100% somewhat or a great deal 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Respondents wrote a number of other factors that influenced their decision not to practise law, and some elaborated on them. Some of the comments offered by male respondents highlighted discrimination experienced by women, people with disability, older lawyers and Inuit people. Although I am a white male, I was and am very disturbed by the way that women -especially young women having children - and persons of colour are treated. I think I got let go of my last job because I was diagnosed as an epileptic while I was on the job, but I also declined to buy into partnership, so who knows? The Government of Canada and the law societies that I am aware of do little or anything to help Inuit on obtaining law degrees and practising law afterward. Other comments by male respondents suggested that there is no discrimination, and that there is a preferential treatment of minorities. I did not encounter discrimination. It is my feeling that appointment of minorities to the bench have far overshadowed the ability to perform their duties. Women respondents also offered a number of comments. Six of these respondents highlighted parenting and family responsibility as reasons for loss of job: Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 35

As a mother of two it was not possible for me to continue a demanding commercial practice and be a good mother. I was on a contract and told that I would be given a full time job. I became pregnant and that offer was rescinded. (My probationary period was over when I became pregnant). More work went to male associates and single associates with few family ties. My husband is in the military and I have been constructively "let go" because the sole practitioner I was working for brought in a new male partner who didn't run the risk of being posted out. They gave me one option: buy into the firm or get out. Five women lawyers commented on the difficulties relating to age and gender, and sexual harassment. As a woman over 40 it was difficult to get a job; people thought there must be something wrong because you had a history. As an older female beginning practise, I believe some male partners chose to work mainly or only with younger lawyers and sometimes with younger male lawyers. I think age was more of a factor then gender. [There] appeared to be more opportunities for young men in the firm than for young women - easier to fit in. There seems to be a lack of regard for female articling students and practitioners. You are perceived as "weak" if you are nice or a "bitch" if you stand your ground. I think law firms need to revisit their sexual harassment policies to include educating lawyers on "workplace bullying." Both male and females need to be educated. Women in the law firm were treated as lightweights. Two female lawyers wrote about derogatory comments made to them on the basis of gender and disability. A couple of provincial court judges were offensive, rude and made personal comments which were derogatory to me and to my female colleagues far more often than to older male colleagues. In my last two years with my firm, I experienced overt sexual discrimination. I was told I would not make partner unless I dressed like a modified nun because my breasts were too distracting to the male partners and I was told I dress too sexy to be professional even though I wore suits with blouses, tank tops (not low cut). I also experienced comments made to me about time taken off for a car accident with injuries and broken leg. One female respondent talked about workplace issues for lesbian lawyers. As a woman in a same-sex household, I have chosen to work in places where I can be "out" rather than places where I will be tolerated or be in danger. Other respondents identified sexual, racial and other types of discrimination in the legal profession as reasons for leaving. First job articling - sexual and racial discrimination; second job as associate in small private firm - sexual and racial problems. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 36

4.5 Doing it over again and returning to the practice of law Respondents were asked if they would become a lawyer if they could do it over again. Twenty-four percent of the women and 19% of men said no, 47% of the women and 56% of the men said yes, and 28% of the women and 25% of the men were unsure. In 1991 (with only two possible responses, yes and no), 52% of the women and 60% of the men said that they would do it over again. Only two of the five gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers would become a lawyer if they could do it again. There was little difference between the lawyers of colour and the Caucasian lawyers on this question. Lawyers with a disability were more likely than those without to say they would become a lawyer and do it all over again (62% compared to 49%). Table 4.17. Doing it over again by diversity characteristics Sexual Orientation Age Race If you could do it all over again would you become a lawyer No Yes Unsure Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 11 19% 33 56% 15 25% 18 24% 35 47% 21 28% Heterosexual 26 20% 65 51% 36 28% Gay, lesbian, bisexual 3 60% 2 40% 0 0% under 30 1 17% 2 33% 3 50% 30-39 11 30% 17 46% 9 24% 40-49 8 19% 20 48% 14 33% 50-59 6 29% 8 38% 7 33% 60+ 2 8% 20 80% 3 12% Caucasian 26 22% 61 52% 31 26% Other 3 21% 7 50% 4 29% No 26 23% 54 49% 31 28% Disability Yes 3 14% 13 62% 5 24% Language spoken at home English Not English 28 1 21% 50% 67 1 51% 50% 36 0 27% 0% Religion Non-Christian 1 7% 9 60% 5 33% Christian 19 26% 37 51% 17 23% No religious affiliation 9 20% 22 49% 14 31% Respondents were asked if they intended to return to practise now or in the future. Twentyseven percent of the women and 10% of the men said yes, 39% of the women and 60% of the men said no, and 34% of the women and 29% of the men were unsure. Lawyers of colour were more likely to say yes (29% compared to 19% of Caucasian lawyers), as were lawyers with a disability (35% compared to 17% of lawyers without a disability). Lawyers of other religions were more likely to say yes (33%) than Christian lawyers (21%) or lawyers without a religious affiliation (14%). Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 37

Table 4.18. Returning to practise by diversity characteristics Do you intend to return to practise now or in the future No Yes Unsure Sexual Orientation Race Disability Language spoken at home Religion Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 35 60% 6 10% 17 29% 29 39% 20 27% 25 34% Heterosexual 62 49% 25 20% 39 31% Gay, lesbian, bisexual 2 40% 1 20% 2 40% Caucasian 59 50% 22 19% 36 31% Other 5 36% 4 29% 5 36% No 57 51% 19 17% 35 32% Yes 6 30% 7 35% 7 35% English 64 49% 25 19% 41 32% Not English 0 0% 1 50% 1 50% Non-Christian 6 40% 5 33% 4 27% Christian 38 52% 15 21% 20 27% No religious affiliation 20 45% 6 14% 18 41% Respondents were asked whether they were currently looking for a position in the practice of law, if they were looking whether they were encountering any problems, and if they intended to return to the practice of law what position they would prefer. Only six women (8%) and four men (7%) were currently looking for a position in the practice of law. Three women and two men reported that they were having problems. Only two lawyers of colour and eight Caucasian lawyers were looking for a position in the practice of law; one of the former and four of the latter were having problems. None of the lawyers with disabilities were looking for a position in the practice of law. Some of the respondents elaborated on the problems they were experiencing: I need to find a place that will be completely accepting of my sexual orientation and will accommodate my parenting. Lack of flexibility in firms and little emphasis on quality of life. [Lack of] job opportunities, not enough respect in interviews. No opportunities. No such thing as a part-time work week. No mentoring for OLD people including among educational section. Research lawyer positions are not in high demand. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 38

Table 4.19. Search for a position and related problems by diversity characteristics Are you currently looking for a position in the practice of law If you are looking for a position in the practice of law, are you encountering any problems in your search No Yes No Yes Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Sexual Orientation Age Race Disability Language spoken at home Religion 55 93% 4 7% 5 71% 2 29% 68 92% 6 8% 8 73% 3 27% Heterosexual 117 92% 10 8% 13 76% 4 24% Gay, lesbian, bisexual 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% under 30 5 83% 1 17% 0 0% 0 0% 30-39 35 95% 2 5% 2 25% 3 75% 40-49 38 90% 4 10% 7 88% 1 12% 50-59 19 90% 2 10% 2 67% 1 33% 60+ 24 96% 1 4% 2 100% 0 0% Caucasian 110 93% 8 7% 12 75% 4 25% Other 12 86% 2 14% 1 50% 1 50% No 101 91% 10 9% 13 72% 5 28% Yes 21 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% English 121 92% 10 8% 12 71% 5 29% Not English 2 100% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% Non-Christian 14 93% 1 7% 0 0% 2 100% Christian 66 90% 7 10% 12 86% 2 14% No religious affiliation 43 96% 2 4% 1 50% 1 50% Respondents identified changes that they would like to see in the legal profession that would make it more attractive to them. Twenty-three of the lawyers mentioned the need to accommodate family and personal life, or the need for shorter hours, part-time work, more acceptance of men being home with the kids, and job sharing. Nine lawyers suggested a reduction or elimination of billable hours or the pressure that goes with billable hours. Seven lawyers were concerned with the adversarial nature of the practice of law; some mentioned the issues surrounding competition and the dog-eat-dog world of practising law. Comments included: Eliminate contingent fees - too many ambulance chasers, more emphasis on law being a profession rather than the greed to make money. End the culture of greed, hypocrisy and unethical behaviour. The legal profession deserves its poor reputation. A return to a more ethical practise, less "cut throat" and less driven by individual profit I realize this will not happen. I find the large full page ads in the yellow pages degrading to the profession. Truly we are ambulance chasers looking at these ads. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 39

Four lawyers offered options for the inclusion of non-practising lawyers: Recognize legitimate aspect of practising law outside of law firms - accommodate periods of low income, so it is not necessary to make the choice to become "inactive" for financial reasons. What rights and benefits does a non practising- lawyer have? Would like use of law libraries. More respect given to "non-practising" lawyers. Breaks on cost for continuing education. Reduced law society and or insurance fees for part-time lawyers. Four lawyers commented on solutions to challenges in relationships with other lawyers: A reporting requirement that would force a lawyer to report misconduct just as one reports abuse of trust or other criminal conduct. Less bullying, more integrity. Level of competitiveness promotes "look after yourself at the expense of others." Much less hostility and much more cooperation and respect between lawyers My personality isn't suitable for this profession. Two lawyers recommended more flexibility in hours of work: Flexibility and shorter hours to allow for family responsibilities. Introduction of reduced society fees to enable part time practise. Reduced tuition for LSA professional courses for low income earners. Three lawyers stated that they were tired of the old boys club. Other comments included: Allowed to practise and qualify in only one or two areas, instead of having to pretend to be a jack of all trades. Law practices advertising that they are open to gays, lesbians,, bisexuals and transsexuals. Getting positions based on own merits, not who you know. Better salary, benefits, work hours, opportunity to work different areas (don't get trapped working in one area because of gender or past experience). Greater level of skill and awareness of poor practise, increased intellectual challenge. If you want to practise law, I think it's vitally important to have a good mentor who is committed to your success. Less emphasis on fee billing - particularly with young lawyers, more courtesy, an end to casual dress. More assistance to Inuit in understanding the provincial repercussions of various types of practice. Quit with the "big" firm policies in ruling the society. Stop money and time wasting surveys on "gender" discrimination. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 40

4.6 Personal experiences with discrimination by others in the legal profession Respondents were asked whether they had personally experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment as a lawyer in the last ten years, whether they did anything about the discrimination, and whether any actions they took were effective. Thirty-one percent of the women and 5% of the men reported that they had experienced discrimination, and 11% of the women and 9% of the men said that they were unsure of whether they had experienced discrimination. Respondents were asked about their personal experiences with discrimination by judges, lawyers, clients, other office personnel, and court personnel on the basis of age, disability, gender, marital status, parental status, race, ethnic background, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation. 4.6.1 Personal experiences by diversity groups Seven percent (5) of the women respondents and none of the male respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination by judges. Thirty-one percent (23) of the women and 3% (2) of the men reported that they had been discriminated against by other lawyers; 7% (5) of the women and 2% (1) of the men reported discrimination by clients; 11% (8) of the women and none of the men reported discrimination by other office personnel; and 5% (4) of the women and none of the men reported discrimination by court personnel. Sexual Orientation Because only five gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers responded to the questions about discrimination, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation experienced by inactive members. It appears that one of these lawyers experienced discrimination by other lawyers, by clients, by office personnel and by court personnel. This person was the only one of the five gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers who was out when practising. Disability None of the people with disability experienced discrimination by judges, by clients, by office or court personnel. However, four respondents (19%) with disabilities indicated that they were discriminated against by other lawyers. Race None of the Caucasian lawyers reported having experienced discrimination by judges, other lawyers, clients, other office personnel or court personnel on the basis of race or ethnic background. Similarly, none of the lawyers of colour experienced discrimination by judges, clients, office personnel or court personnel. However 14% of lawyers of colour (two respondents) indicated that they were discriminated against by other lawyers on the basis of race and ethnic background. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 41

Religious beliefs None of the lawyers who practised non-christian religions reported having experienced discrimination by judges, other lawyers, clients, other office personnel or court personnel on the basis of religious beliefs. Similarly, none of the Christian lawyers nor any of those with no religious affiliation experienced discrimination by judges, clients, office personnel or court personnel. However, 3% of Christian lawyers (two respondents) and 4% of those with no religious affiliation (two respondents) reported that they had been discriminated against by other lawyers on the basis of their religious beliefs. Age Only two respondents, both under the age of 40 years, reported that they had experienced agerelated discrimination by judges and by court personnel. None of the respondents from the other age groups reported having been discriminated by judges or by court personnel on the basis of age. One respondent under 30 years of age and one lawyer between 40 and 49 years of age reported experiencing age-related discrimination by office personnel. Four respondents under the age of 50 years reported that they had experienced age-related discrimination by clients. Eleven lawyers spanning all the age categories reported that they had experienced age-related discrimination by other lawyers. Marital Status None of the respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination by judges, court personnel, or clients on the basis of their marital status. Two single women lawyers and two women lawyers in a married or cohabiting relationship reported having experienced discrimination by other lawyers on the basis of their marital status. Also, one single female lawyer experienced discrimination related to marital status by other office personnel. None of the men lawyers reported any type of discrimination related to their marital status. Parental Status None of the men or women respondents with or without children reported having experienced discrimination by court personnel or clients on the basis of parental status. None of the men without children reported any type of discrimination. One woman with children said that she had experienced discrimination by judges related to her parental status; one woman with no children and two women with children experienced such discrimination by other office personnel. One woman with no children, one man with children, and nine women with children reported that they had experienced discrimination on the basis of parental status by other lawyers. 4.6.2 Discrimination by other lawyers: denied an opportunity to work on a file Respondents who reported that they had worked in an organization with other lawyers were asked how often in the last ten years they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer preferred to work with a different lawyer on the basis of age, disability, gender, marital status, parental status, race, ethnic background, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 42

In the last ten years, 82% (60) of the women respondents and 71% (40) of the men had worked in an organization that employed other lawyers. Of the 57 women who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender, 61% of them said it never happened, 7% said this experience was rare, 21% said it sometimes occurred, 5% said it happened often, and 5% were unsure. Of the 39 men who responded to the question, 92% of them said it never happened, 3% said this experience was rare, 5% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and none were unsure. These gender differences are statistically significant. 74 None or very few of the lawyers belonging to historically disadvantaged groups nor the mainstream lawyers who had worked with other lawyers and responded to the question reported that they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, marital status, parental status, or age. 4.6.3 Discrimination by clients: denied an opportunity to work on a file Respondents were asked how often in the last ten years they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their age, disability, gender, marital status, parental status, race, ethnic background, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. In the last ten years, 73% (49) of the women respondents and 77% (43) of the men had worked with clients. Of the 47 women who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender, 53% of them said it never happened, 17% said this experience was rare, 15% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 15% were unsure. Of the 39 men who responded to the question, 85% of them said it never happened, 8% said this experience was rare, none said it sometimes occurred or it happened often, and 8% were unsure. The women respondents had experienced this form of discrimination significantly more often than the men had. 75 No significant differences emerged on any of the other grounds of discrimination. None or very few of the lawyers belonging to historically disadvantaged groups nor the mainstream lawyers who had worked with clients and responded to the question reported that they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, marital status, or parental status. Statistical analysis reveals that lawyers between the ages of 30 and 39 years were significantly more likely 76 to report that clients had preferred another lawyer because of age. However, because of the relationship between age and experience, it is not clear that this preference was attributable to age discrimination. 4.6.4 Experienced sexual harassment in professional settings Respondents were asked how often in the last ten years they had personally experienced unwanted sexual advances and unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature in 74 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney test, p =.002 75 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney test, p =.001 76 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney test, p =.002 Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 43

professional settings by lawyers, clients, judges, and office personnel. Table 4.20 shows the responses by gender. The percentages of women respondents who were subjected to unwanted sexual advances sometimes or often are: 13% of women from other lawyers, 7% from clients, 2% from judges, and 2% from other office personnel. The women were also subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature in professional settings sometimes or often: 31% from other lawyers, 13% from clients, 7% from other office personnel, and none from judges. For the most part, the men were rarely or never subjected to such behaviour, but 7% sometimes or often experienced unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature in professional settings from other lawyers, and 5% experienced this from other office personnel. Table 4.20. Experience of sexual harassment by gender Unwanted sexual advances-by other lawyers Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual natureby other lawyers Unwanted sexual advances-by clients Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual natureby clients Unwanted sexual advances-by judges Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual natureby judges Unwanted sexual advances-by other office personnel Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual natureby other office personnel Count Percent Count Percent Never 56 98% 44 71% Rarely 0 0% 10 16% Sometimes 1 2% 7 11% Often 0 0% 1 2% Never 46 81% 31 50% Rarely 7 12% 12 19% Sometimes 4 7% 13 21% Often 0 0% 6 10% Never 53 96% 47 77% Rarely 2 4% 10 16% Sometimes 0 0% 3 5% Often 0 0% 1 2% Never 46 84% 40 68% Rarely 7 13% 11 19% Sometimes 2 4% 6 10% Often 0 0% 2 3% Never 55 100% 55 96% Rarely 0 0% 1 2% Sometimes 0 0% 1 2% Often 0 0% 0 0% Never 54 98% 54 93% Rarely 1 2% 4 7% Sometimes 0 0% 0 0% Often 0 0% 0 0% Never 50 91% 55 95% Rarely 4 7% 2 3% Sometimes 1 2% 1 2% Often 0 0% 0 0% Never 48 87% 50 86% Rarely 4 7% 4 7% Sometimes 3 5% 3 5% Often 0 0% 1 2% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 44

4.6.5 Taking action against the discrimination experienced from others in the profession Of the twelve lawyers who chose to explain whether they had taken any action to address the discrimination they experienced, one reported taking no action and eleven did take some action. The one individual who did not take any action explained that the discrimination was subtle. The judge and opposing lawyer both belonged to a legal fraternity known as old boys club. The judge s good will rested with opposing council from the start. Four of the 11 respondents quit their place of employment. One comment illustrates their viewpoints: I quit one job where the lawyers told me they didn t feel they had to pay me much because my husband already made a good income. At other times I've just put up with it. Two other individuals addressed the issue through work efforts, as they, for example tried to earn respect through good work and dedication. One spoke to friends: I spoke to friends about the pain it caused me but it was too underground and systemic to address in legal or investigative forum. Two identified the problem to management. Finally, one individual spoke before the Law Society. Five of these individuals indicated that their actions did not result in resolution of the problem, and five said that it did. 4.7 Perceptions about discrimination in the legal profession Respondents were asked about their perception of bias or discrimination in the legal profession against lawyers who were members of specific groups. and lawyers with children Table 4.21 shows that an overwhelming majority of the respondents (90% of the women and 75% of the men) said there is some degree of bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession; 26% of the women, as compared to 42% of the men, said it is not widespread; 42% of the women, compared to 23% of the men, said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and 22% of the women and 10% of the men said it is widespread and readily apparent. Table 4.21. Perceived discrimination by gender Women lawyers Men lawyers Perceived degree of discrimination Count Percent Count Percent There is none 10 19% 1 2% It exists, but is not widespread 22 42% 17 26% It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect 12 23% 27 42% It is widespread and readily apparent 5 10% 14 22% Don't Know 3 6% 5 8% Total 52 100% 64 100% There is none 32 66% 36 61% It exists, but is not widespread 11 22% 9 15% It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect 1 2% 2 3% It is widespread and readily apparent 0 0% 0 0% Don't Know 5 10% 12 21% Total 49 100% 59 100% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 45

These figures show a slight decrease since 1991 in the proportion of respondents who see bias or discrimination against women. However, the 2003 question included a don t know category, not provided in 1991, and this could account for some of the decrease. In 1991, 96% of the women and 80% of the men were of the view that there was some bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession, and the women (24%) were more likely than the men (6%) to think it was widespread and readily apparent. In response to the question about gender bias against men in the current survey, 61% of the women and 66% of the men were of the opinion that there is none. Fifteen percent of the women respondents and 22% of the men said it exists but is not widespread, and 3% of the women and 2% of the men said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect. None of the respondents thought it is widespread. Compared to the figures from 1991, there appears to be a closing of the perceptual gender gap, but the 2003 responses show that 21% of the women and 10% of the men did not know if there is gender bias against men. In 1991, 77% of the women and 50% of the men were of the opinion there was none, and 40% of the men and 19% of the women thought it existed but was not widespread. When asked about their perception of gender bias against lawyers with children, only 14% of the women and 36% of the men said there is none. Twenty-one percent of the women and 22% of the men said it exists but is not widespread, 25% of the women and 8% of the men said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, and 29% of the women and 10% of the men said it is widespread and readily apparent. Although the number of respondents in Table 4.22 is small, men with children were more likely than the other groups to say there is no gender bias against lawyers with children. Table 4.22. Perceived discrimination by parenting status and gender Does respondent have children? Perceived degree of discrimination No children Has children Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent There is none 5 26.5% 2 13% 13 42% 7 15% It exists, but is not widespread 5 26.5% 3 19% 6 19% 10 21% It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect 1 5% 5 31% 3 10% 11 23% It is widespread and readily apparent 3 16% 5 31% 2 6% 13 28% Don't know 5 26% 1 6% 7 23% 6 13% Total 19 100% 16 100% 31 100% 47 100% Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 46

Sexual orientation In response to the question of whether there was discrimination in the legal profession based on sexual orientation, one of the five gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers said it exists but it is not widespread, two said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, and one said it is widespread and readily apparent. Only 9% of the heterosexual lawyers said it does not exist; 28% said it exists but is not widespread; 25% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; 9% said it is widespread and readily apparent, and 29% did not know. Race or ethnic background In response to the question of whether there was discrimination in the legal profession based on race, two of the 12 lawyers of colour said there is none, four said it exists but is not widespread, one said it was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; one said it was widespread and readily apparent, and four did not know. Caucasian respondents were more likely to believe that there is racial discrimination in the profession: only 8% of the Caucasian lawyers said there is none; 45% said it exists but is not widespread; 21% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, 5% said it is widespread and readily apparent, and 20% did not know. Disability In response to the question of whether there was discrimination in the legal profession based on disability, five of the 16 lawyers with disabilities (31%) said there is none, 31% said it exists but is not widespread; 25% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; none said it is widespread and readily apparent, and 13% did not know. Thirteen percent of the lawyers without disabilities said it does not exist; 38% said it exists but is not widespread; 16% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; 7% said it is widespread and readily apparent, and 26% did not know. Religion In response to the question of whether there is discrimination in the legal profession based on religion, 5% of lawyers with no religious affiliation said there is none, 49% said it exists but is not widespread, 14% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, 3% said it is widespread and readily apparent, and 3% did not know. Twenty percent of Christian lawyers said it does not exist, 39% said it exists but is not widespread, 15% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, none said it was widespread and readily apparent, and 26% did not know. None of the lawyers of other religions said discrimination on the basis of religion does not exist, 58% said it exists but is not widespread; 8% said it is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, none said it is widespread and readily apparent, and 33% did not know. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 47

4.8 Type of discrimination, if any, experienced by lawyers Respondents who had said that there was some degree of bias or discrimination against lawyers were asked about the nature of that bias or discrimination. Bias or discrimination against women lawyers According to the women respondents, bias or discrimination against women is most likely to be seen in career advancement (76% of the women identified this as an area of discrimination); followed by remuneration (61% of the women); unwanted sexual advances (57%); unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (57%); attaining partnership (54%); accommodation for family commitments (54%); weight given to opinions (52%); the nature of office/firm functions (51%); access to clients (49%); assignment of files/work (49%); the nature of promotional functions (46%); hiring (45%); access to managerial positions (45%); opportunities to appear in court (31%); setting hourly rates (39%); unwanted teasing, offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (39%); judicial attitudes (28%); and judicial appointments (15%). According to the men, bias or discrimination against women is most likely to be seen in career advancement (47% of the men identified this as an area of discrimination); followed by attaining partnership (35% of the men); assignment of files/work (35%); unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (31%); hiring (29%); unwanted sexual advances (27%); accommodation for family commitments (25%); the nature of promotional functions (25%); weight given to opinions (24%); remuneration (24%); the nature of office/firm functions (24%); access to clients (22%); access to managerial positions (13%); setting hourly rates (15%); unwanted teasing; offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (15%); judicial attitudes (9%); opportunities to appear in court (9%); and judicial appointments (9%). As shown in the following table, there are statistically significant differences 77 between the opinions of the male and female respondents on most of the variables. 77 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 48

Table 4.23. Perceptions about the nature of bias or discrimination against women Count Count % Count Count % Women lawyers-weight given to opinions (p =.001) 13 23.6 35 52.2 Women lawyers-career advancements (p =.001) 26 47.3 51 76.1 Women lawyers-access to clients (p =.001) 12 21.8 33 49.3 Women lawyers-assignments of files/work 19 34.5 33 49.3 Women lawyers-setting hourly rates (p =.002) 8 14.5 26 38.8 Women lawyers-opportunity to appear in court (p =.002) 5 9.1 21 31.3 Women lawyers-the nature of office/firm functions (p =.002) 13 23.6 34 50.7 Women lawyers-the nature of promotional functions (p =.014) 14 25.5 31 46.3 Women lawyers-judicial appointments 5 9.1 10 14.9 Women lawyers-accommodation for family commitments (p =.001) 14 25.5 36 53.7 Women lawyers-remuneration (p <.001) 13 23.6 41 61.2 Women lawyers-hiring 16 29.1 30 44.8 Women lawyers-attaining partnership (p =.026) 19 34.5 36 53.7 Women lawyers-access to managerial positions (p <.001) 7 12.7 30 44.8 Women lawyers-judicial attitudes (p =.006) 5 9.1 19 28.4 Women lawyers-unwanted sexual advances (p =.001) 15 27.3 38 56.7 Women lawyers-unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (p =.004) Women lawyers-unwanted teasing; offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (p =.002) * Count and percent agree only, disagree excluded from table 17 30.9 38 56.7 8 14.5 26 38.8 Bias or discrimination against men lawyers Few of the men or women respondents said that there is discrimination against men in the legal profession. According to the men respondents; bias or discrimination against men is most likely to be seen in accommodation for family commitments and unwanted teasing; jokes or comments of a sexual nature (11% of the men identified these as areas of discrimination); followed by career advancement and unwanted teasing (4%); offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (4%). Two percent of the men thought there is discrimination against men with respect to assignment of work; the nature of promotional functions; hiring; and unwanted sexual advances. Six men said there is bias against men with respect to judicial appointments. According to the women respondents, bias or discrimination against men is most likely to be seen in accommodation for family commitment (9% of the women identified this as an area of discrimination against men); followed by the nature of promotional functions (3%); the nature of office/firm functions (3%); remuneration (3%); and unwanted teasing; jokes or comments of a sexual nature (3%). One woman said that men were discriminated against in the following areas: weight given to opinions; career advancement; access to clients; assignment of files/work; opportunity to appear in court; judicial appointments; hiring; attaining partnership; access to managerial positions; judicial attitudes; and unwanted sexual advances. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 49

Bias or discrimination against lawyers with children According to the women respondents, bias or discrimination against lawyers with children is most likely to be seen in career advancement (60% of the women identified this as an area of discrimination); followed by attaining partnership (46% of the women); accommodation for family commitment (46%); hiring (39%); remuneration (37%); access to managerial positions (36%); assignment of files/work (34%); nature of promotional functions (33%); the nature of office/firm functions (27%); weight given to opinions (21%); opportunity to appear in court (21%); setting hourly rates (21%); access to clients (19%); judicial appointments (15%); unwanted teasing, offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (13%); judicial attitudes (13%); unwanted sexual advances (7%); and unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (7%). According to the men, bias or discrimination against lawyers with children is most likely to be seen in accommodation for family commitment (31% of the men identified this as an area of discrimination); followed by career advancement (27% of the men); attaining partnership (20%); the nature of office/firm functions (18%); hiring (16%); assignment of files/work (13%); access to managerial positions (13%); nature of promotional functions (11%); remuneration (11%); access to clients (7%); setting hourly rates (5%); opportunity to appear in court (5%); unwanted teasing, offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (4%); weight given to opinions (2%); and judicial appointments (2%). Although the numbers are quite small, Table 4.24 shows that generally men with children are less likely than women with or without children and men without children to see discrimination against lawyers with children. Women without children are the most likely to see discrimination against lawyers with children. The gender differences on most of the variables are statistically significant. 78 78 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 50

Table 4.24. Bias or discrimination against lawyers with children by parenting status and gender* p value on gender differences only No children Does respondent have children? Has children Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Weight given to opinions (p =.001) 0 0% 3 18% 1 3% 11 22% Career advancement (p <.001) 8 40% 11 65% 7 20% 29 58% Access to clients 1 5% 6 35% 3 9% 7 14% Assignments of files/work (p =.005) 3 15% 9 53% 4 11% 14 28% Setting hourly rates (p =.012) 1 5% 3 18% 2 6% 11 22% Opportunity to appear in court (p =.012) 1 5% 6 35% 2 6% 8 16% Nature of office/firm functions 4 20% 8 47% 6 17% 10 20% Nature of promotional functions (p =.003) 3 15% 7 41% 3 9% 15 30% Judicial appointments (p =.019) 0 0% 2 12% 1 3% 7 14% Accommodation for family commitments 7 35% 11 65% 10 29% 20 40% Remuneration (p =.001) 4 20% 9 53% 2 6% 16 32% Hiring (p =.005) 5 25% 8 47% 4 11% 18 36% Attaining partnership (p =.002) 5 25% 9 53% 6 17% 22 44% Access to managerial positions (p =.003) 4 20% 9 53% 3 9% 15 30% Judicial attitudes (p =.004) 0 0% 4 24% 0 0% 5 10% *Count and percent agree, disagree excluded from table Bias or discrimination against lawyers with a non-christian religious affiliation Respondents who practise non-christian religions were proportionally more likely to identify areas of bias or discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs than those who practised Christian religions or did not have any religious affiliation. Up to 38% of these lawyers identified one area of discrimination or bias, as compared to 20% of Christian lawyers and 23% of lawyers without religious affiliation. According to the respondents who practise non-christian religions, bias or discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is most likely to be seen in career advancement (38%) and weight given to opinions (31%). Twenty percent of the respondents who practise Christian religions experienced unwanted teasing not of sexual nature and 23% of those without a religious affiliation experienced unwanted teasing not of sexual nature and discrimination in the course of hiring. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences of opinion between Christian respondents, respondents with non-christian affiliations, and respondents with no religious affiliation. 79 Bias or discrimination against lawyers with disabilities Thirty seven percent of respondents with disabilities identified career advancement and hiring as areas of bias or discrimination against lawyers with disability. This was consistent with the perceptions of lawyers without disabilities. 80 79 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. 80 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 51

Bias or discrimination on the basis of racial background Forty percent of both Caucasian and non-caucasian respondents identified career advancement as an area of discrimination on the basis of racial background. Forty percent of the lawyers of colour also identified remuneration and 30% of both Caucasian lawyers and lawyers of colour identified assignments of files or work and nature of professional functions as areas of discrimination. Thirty-one percent of Caucasian respondents identified access to clients, hiring and attaining partnership as areas of discrimination based on racial background. There were no significant differences between the perceptions of Caucasian respondents and respondents of colour on perceptions about racial discrimination in the profession. 81 Bias or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Sixty percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents identified career advancement, assignment of files and work, nature of office or firm functions, accommodation for family commitments, attaining partnerships and unwanted teasing: offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature as areas of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Thirty two percent of heterosexual respondents identified career advancement and 28% identified attaining partnership as areas of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 4.9 Children Hours spent on child care and household chores As noted earlier, 73% of the women respondents and 64% of the men had children. Twenty women and 19 men who had children requiring care worked on a full-time basis. The women provided 63% of the family s child care on average (Med = 60%); the men provided 31% of that care on average (Med = 30%). The 20 women who worked full time spent nine hours on average on household chores (Med. = 7); the 19 men who worked full time spent eight hours on average (Med = 7). Children since 1992: Experiences as result of having children Respondents who had children sometime in the last ten years and who were either practising or articling at the time were asked whether they had experienced a number of different consequences and invited them to list additional consequences. The results are provided in Table 4.25. Thirty women and 11 men answered the question. The largest proportion of women (70%) mentioned stress; followed by loss of income (50%); difficulty obtaining flexible hours or part time work (47%); testing of commitment to work (30%); pressure to work while on parental leave (30%); loss of job (27%); unreasonable work load following parental leave (23%); delay in promotion (20%); loss of seniority (20%); loss of office space (17%); difficulty in obtaining leave (13%); and loss of clients (10%). Women added the following in the other category: 81 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 52

I would have had all of the above if I had chosen to remain on full time with a big firm. Loss of money while time off, loss of job potential. The largest proportion of men (73%) mentioned stress, followed by testing of commitment to work (27%); difficulty obtaining flexible hours or part time work (27%); loss of income (18%); difficulty in obtaining leave (18%); loss of job (9%); loss of seniority (9%); pressure to work while on parental leave (9%). None of the men had experienced unreasonable work load following parental leave, delay in promotion, loss of office space, or loss of clients after having children. Men added the following in the other category: Lots of double talk "we put our family first" vs. "make your target, or else." Table 4.25. Experiences as result of having children by gender Count Percent Count Percent Loss of seniority 1 9% 6 20% Loss of job 1 9% 8 27% Loss of clients 0 0% 3 10% Loss of office space 0 0% 5 17% Loss of income 2 18% 15 50% Delay in promotion 0 0% 6 20% Difficulty in obtaining leave 2 18% 4 13% Testing of commitment to work 3 27% 9 30% Pressure to work while on parental leave 1 9% 9 30% Unreasonable work load following parental leave 0 0% 7 23% Difficulty in obtaining flexible hours or part time work 3 27% 14 47% Stress from competing demands between family and work 8 73% 21 70% 4.10 Summary of findings on the inactive members survey The Equity and Diversity Survey for inactive members was completed by 25% of the inactive lawyers meeting the criteria for inclusion. Forty-four percent of respondents were women; 56% were men. Most of the respondents were heterosexual (96%), Caucasian (89%), Christian or with no religious affiliation (90%), married or cohabiting (76%), had English as their first language (89%), and had no disabilities (84%). Seventy-three percent of the women and 64% of the men had children. The median year of call for women was 1991 and the median year of call for the men was 1985. Before moving to inactive status, the women had practised an average of four years; the men an average of 17 years. In terms of their work status at the time of the survey, the women respondents were most likely to be homemakers (35%), then to be working in a full-time (27%) or part-time (16%) job (27%), to be retired (12%), or to be unemployed (7%). The men respondents were most likely to have moved to other full-time employment (33%) or to be retired (31%), to be working part time (17%), to be a homemaker (9%), or to be unemployed (9%). Sixty-six percent of the women and Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 53

39% of the men found that not practising law had decreased their income. Among those who were working, 84% of the respondents work was somewhat or very related to law. In general, respondents expressed a greater satisfaction with flexibility and balance with their personal lives after leaving the practice of law, but the women were less satisfied in terms of remuneration, advancement, and prestige than the men were. The majority of women and men left law to look for more personally rewarding opportunities and to avoid the nature, stress, and adversarial approach of the practice of law, or to find more balance with their personal life. Women were more likely to leave practice because of children requiring care, the hours demanded by practise, lack of control over their work, involuntary loss of a position, spouse s career, discrimination, credit for work, contact with clients, opportunity for advancement, available mentoring, respect and dignity treatment by colleagues, respect and dignity treatment by public, and working relationship with male colleagues. A greater proportion of men than women were influenced to leave law by retirement due to age and illness or injury. Lawyers of colour (36%) were more influenced than Caucasian lawyers (17%) by their inability to find a job. Lawyers with disabilities were far more influenced than lawyers without disabilities, not surprisingly, by illness or injury and disabilities and, to a lesser extent, by retirement due to age, involuntary loss of employment, inability to find a job practising law, discrimination, credit for work, Law Society fees and insurance dues. Twenty-seven percent of the women and 10% of the men said they intended to return to practise now or in the future, and 34% of the women and 29% of the men were unsure. Lawyers of colour were more likely to say they planned to return to practise (29% compared to 19% of Caucasian lawyers), as were lawyers with a disability (35% compared to 17% of lawyers without a disability). Lawyers of other religions were more likely to say yes (33%) than Christian lawyers (21%) or lawyers without a religious affiliation (14%). Only six women (8% of women respondents) and four men (7%) were currently looking for a position in the practice of law. Three women and two men reported that they were having problems. Only two lawyers of colour and eight Caucasian lawyers were looking for a position in the practice of law; one of the former and four of the latter were having problems. None of the lawyers with disabilities were looking for a position in the practice of law. Lack of flexibility and accommodation for quality of life, parenting, and sexual orientation were cited as issues by the respondents. When asked if there were any changes that they would like to see in the legal profession that would make it more attractive to them, 23 of the lawyers mentioned the need to accommodate family and personal life, or the need for shorter hours, part-time work, more acceptance of men being home with the kids, and job sharing. Nine lawyers suggested a reduction or elimination of billable hours or the pressure that goes with billable hours. Seven lawyers were concerned with the adversarial nature of the practice of law; some mentioned the issues surrounding competition and the dog-eat-dog world of practising law. Thirty-one percent of the women and 5% of the men reported that they had experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment as a lawyer Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 54

in the last ten years, and 11% of the women and 9% of the men said that they were unsure of whether they had experienced discrimination. Respondents were more likely to report discrimination from other lawyers than they were from judges, clients or office and court personnel. Thirty-one percent of the women, 19% of lawyers with disabilities, and 14% of lawyers of colour experienced discrimination from other lawyers. Of the women who responded to the questions, one-third indicated that they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender, and one-third had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with a different lawyer because of their gender. Thirty-nine percent of the women had been subjected to unwanted sexual advances: 23% from clients, 4% from judges, and 5% from other office personnel. Fifty percent of women respondents had been subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature in professional settings from other lawyers, 32% from clients, 7% from judges, and 14% from other office personnel. For the most part, the men were rarely or never subjected to such behaviour. There appears to be a slight decrease in the perception of gender bias since the 1991 study, but an overwhelming majority of the respondents (90% of the women and 75% of the men) in the 2003 study said there is some form of bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession. Seventy-five percent of the women and 40% of the men thought there is some form of bias or discrimination against lawyers with children. Although the numbers are small, men with children were more likely than men without children or women to say there was no gender bias against lawyers with children. This may reflect their experiences, as other studies have shown that having children is more an advantage than a disadvantage for men in the workforce. Only 9% of the heterosexual lawyers said there was no discrimination in the legal profession based on sexual orientation, 62% thought there was some discrimination, and 29% did not know if there was such discrimination. Only 8% of the Caucasian lawyers said there was no discrimination in the legal profession based on race or ethnic background, 71% thought there was such discrimination, and 20% did not know. Approximately one-third of the respondents did not know if there was discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of religion; 20% of the Christian lawyers and 5% with no religious affiliation thought it did not exist, and the rest thought it existed to some extent. Although the numbers are small, it appears as though more women in this study experienced negative consequences as a result of having children than the women in the 1991 study. Final Report on the Equity and Diversity Project. 55

SECTION 5. RESULTS FROM SURVEY OF ACTIVE MEMBERS 5.1 Characteristics of respondents and sexual orientation Questionnaires were returned by 385 women and 520 men; 43% of the respondents were women and 57% were men. In the 1991 study, 25% of the respondents were men and 75% were women. The vast majority of the respondents in the 2003 survey (97%) indicated that they were heterosexual, ten men (1% of respondents) were gay, ten women (1%) were lesbian, and five (.6%) were bisexual (four female; one male). Respondents were asked if their colleagues were aware of their sexual orientation. Seven respondents (28% of the 25 gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers) reported that their colleagues were not aware of their sexual orientation, 11 (44%) said that some trusted colleagues knew, and seven (28%) described themselves as being completely out. Ethnicity, language, and religion The demographic breakdown of the respondents, based on respondents self-reports, was as follows: 94% Caucasian, 2% South Asian, 1% various mixed ethnicities, 1% Chinese, <1% Japanese, <1% Aboriginal. The few remaining respondents described themselves as Filipino, Korean, West Asian, Southeast Asian, Black, Arab, Latin American, South African, or West Indian. Six percent (54) of respondents identified themselves as being people of colour or members of visible minority groups. Thirty-two women (8% of female respondents) and 22 men (4% of male respondents) identified themselves as being people of colour or members of visible minority groups. Fifty-nine percent of the lawyers of colour were women. In the 1991 study, 3% of the women and 4% of the men who responded identified themselves as members of visible minorities by virtue of their colour or race, and 19% of these lawyers were women. Table 5.1. Racial background Count Col % Count Col % Caucasian 488 96% 352 92% Other 22 4% 32 8% Total 510 100% 384 100% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 56

Respondents were asked what language they had learned at home in childhood and still understood. Eighty-nine percent of respondents learned English at home; 22 (2.4%) learned a Slavic language; 16 (1.8%) learned German; 12 (1.3%) French; seven (.8%) a Chinese language; four (0.4%) learned Punjabi or Hindi; and three (.3%) learned Italian. A small number of respondents had learned one or a combination of each of the following languages: Arabic, Bengali, Dutch, Farsi, Gujarati, Japanese, Kachi, Korean, Marathi, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Urdu, or Vietnamese. Respondents were also asked what language they most often speak at home. This question elicited very similar responses as the question about language learned at home and is not, therefore, reproduced here. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents were Protestant, 30% had no religious affiliation, 20% were Catholic, 3% Jewish, 2% members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, 1.4 % Eastern Orthodox, 1.3% Buddhist, 1% Islam, 1% Hindu, 1% Eastern Orthodox, and the remaining 3.6% belonged to a variety of other religions. Lawyers with disabilities Fifty-eight respondents (6%) reported that they had a disability. Seven had vision problems, six had multiple sclerosis, four suffered from depression, four had hearing problems, three had fibromyalgia or fatigue, and one or two others described themselves as having one of the following disabilities: attention deficit disorder, amputee, asthma, auto immune disorder, back/neck problems, bipolar illness, arthritis, neuralgia, colitis, degenerative bone disorder, diabetes, dyslexia, heart disease, use of crutches or wheel chair, Crohn s Disease, irritable bowel syndrome, residual effects from polio, endometriosis, arthritis, organ transplant, hip replacement, cancer, spasmodic dysphoria, and spinal injury. The 1991 study asked the question somewhat differently, and 1.3% of the respondents indicated that they considered themselves disadvantaged for the purpose of employment by reason of a persistent disability. In the 2003 survey, respondents were also asked if their disability was visible when others first meet them and whether they kept their disability hidden. Forty-two respondents (72% of those with a disability) said that their disability was invisible, and 26 (45%) reported that they keep their disability hidden. Age Table 5.2 shows that the women who responded to the questionnaire were younger than the men who responded. Forty percent of the men and only 16% of the women were over 49 years of age. The ages of the women respondents ranged from 26 to 75 years, with an average age of 41 years; the ages of men respondents ranged from 27 to 80 years, with an average age of 47 years. These respondents were, overall, five to six years older than the respondents in the 1991 study where the average ages were 35 years for the women and 40 years for the men. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 57

Table 5.2. Age Count Col % Count Col % under 30 25 5% 38 10% 30-39 116 22% 131 34% 40-49 171 33% 153 40% 50-59 162 31% 55 14% 60+ 44 8% 5 1% Total 518 100% 382 100% Marital status Seventy-two percent of the women, compared to 83% of the men, were married or living in a cohabiting relationship. Table 5.3 shows that in all age categories but one, men were more likely to be married than women. For example, 63% of the women under the age of 30, compared to 72% of men under 30, were cohabiting. There has been little change from the 1991 study where 75% of the women and 84% of the men were living in a married or equivalent relationship. Table 5.3. Age and marital status Are you in a married or cohabiting relationship? Total No Yes Age Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent under 30 7 28% 18 72% 25 100% 30-39 25 22% 91 78% 116 100% 40-49 30 18% 141 82% 171 100% 50-59 21 13% 141 87% 162 100% 60+ 3 7% 41 93% 44 100% Subtotal 86 17% 432 83% 518 100% under 30 14 37% 24 63% 38 100% 30-39 34 26% 96 74% 130 100% 40-49 45 29% 108 71% 153 100% 50-59 10 18% 45 82% 55 100% 60+ 3 60% 2 40% 5 100% Subtotal 106 28% 275 72% 381 100% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 58

Employment status of respondents spouses Table 5.4 shows that of the women who were married or cohabiting, 87% had spouses who were employed full time, compared to only 44% of the men. Seven percent of the women and 27% of the men had spouses who worked part time, and 6% of the women and 29% of the men had spouses who were not employed. In 1991, 91% of the women who were living in a married or equivalent relationship had spouses who were employed full time, compared to 39% of the men. Three percent of the women and 27% of the men had spouses who worked part time, and 6% of the women and 34% of the men had spouses who were not employed. Table 5.4. Spouses employment status Total Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Employed full time 192 44% 240 87% 432 61% Employed part time 117 27% 20 7% 137 19% Not employed 123 29% 16 6% 139 20% Total 432 100% 276 100% 708 100% Number of children Only 55% of the women respondents, compared to 75% of the men, had children. This is similar to the 1991 study, where 53% of the women and 71% of the men had children. Of those respondents who had children, the women had an average of two children, the men an average of 2.5 children; the same averages as respondents in the 1991 study. Table 5.5 shows, for example, that of those respondents under 30 years of age in the current study, none of the women and 16% of men had two or more children. Table 5.5. Parental status and number of children Age No children 1 child 2 or more children Total Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent under 30 20 80% 1 4% 4 16% 25 100% 30-39 61 53% 16 14% 39 33% 116 100% 40-49 34 20% 25 15% 111 65% 170 100% 50-59 15 9% 16 9% 131 82% 162 100% 60+ 1 2% 1 2% 42 96% 44 100% under 30 36 95% 2 5% 0 0% 38 100% 30-39 79 61% 25 19% 26 20% 130 100% 40-49 41 27% 29 19% 81 54% 151 100% 50-59 14 26% 7 13% 33 61% 54 100% 60+ 0 0% 0 0% 5 100% 5 100% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 59

Care of dependent adults There was little difference between the proportions of men (6%) and women (6.4%) who were caring for dependent adults. Table 5.6. Care of dependant adults Age No yes Total Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent under 30 23 100% 0 0% 23 100% 30-39 112 97% 3 3% 115 100% 40-49 159 95% 9 5% 168 100% 50-59 144 91% 14 9% 158 100% 60+ 38 88% 5 12% 43 100% under 30 37 100% 0 0% 37 100% 30-39 125 97% 4 3% 129 100% 40-49 134 91% 13 9% 147 100% 50-59 49 91% 5 9% 54 100% 60+ 3 60% 2 40% 5 100% Summary of respondents demographic profile Forty-three percent of the respondents on the survey of active members were women, 57% were men. Three percent of respondents reported that they were gay, lesbian or bisexual; 6% of respondents identified themselves as being people of colour or members of visible minority groups; and 6% of respondents reported that they had some form of disability. Women respondents were somewhat younger (mean and median age of 41) than the men (mean and median age of 47). The men (83%) were more likely than the women (72%) to be married and were more likely to have spouses that were not employed (29% compared to 6%). Only 55% of the women had children compared to 75% of the men, and the men had an average of 2.5 children, compared to an average of two children for the women. Six percent of both men and women respondents were providing care to dependent adults. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 60

5.2 Employment 5.2.1 Employment history in law Year of call The median year of call to the bar in Alberta for women respondents was 1993, meaning that half of the women had been eligible to practise law for the past 10 years or longer, and the median year of call for the men was 1985, meaning that half of the men had been eligible to practise for the past 18 years or longer. As shown in the following table, 58% of women respondents were called to the bar in the preceding 12 years, as compared with 36% of the men respondents. Only 7% of the women, compared to 33% of the men, had been at the bar for more than 20 years. Table 5.7. Year of call in Alberta Total Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Previous to 1973 56 11% 3 1% 59 7% 1973 to 1979 102 20% 14 4% 116 13% 1980 to 1985 112 22% 74 19% 186 20% 1986 to 1990 58 11% 67 18% 125 14% 1991 to 1995 69 13% 74 19% 143 16% 1996 to 2000 89 17% 92 24% 181 20% 2001 to 2003 31 6% 58 15% 89 10% Total 517 100% 382 100% 899 100% The median year of call for the 63 lawyers of colour was 1995, as compared with 1988 for Caucasian respondents. Twenty-three percent of the Caucasian lawyers, compared to 10% of lawyers of colour, were called before 1981; 41% of the Caucasians and 22% of the lawyers of colour were called before 1986. Most of the lawyers of colour (65%), as compared to 45% of the Caucasian lawyers, were called after 1991, reflecting their later entry into the legal profession. Yet, 90% of the 411 respondents called after 1990 were Caucasians, indicating that lawyers of colour may not be making big inroads into the profession. There were no startling differences in year of call based on sexual orientation. The median year of call for gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents was 1992, compared to 1989 for heterosexual lawyers. Twelve percent of the 25 gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers were called before 1981, but none were called before 1976. Twenty-four percent were called before 1986, and 44% before 1991. Only 3.4% of the lawyers called after 1990 were gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It appears that some of the respondents with disabilities had been at the bar slightly longer than those without disabilities. This is not surprising given that, in the general population, prevalence of disability increases with age. However, the number of respondents reporting disabilities was Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 61

small, and the types of disabilities were highly varied, so the survey findings may be specious. The median year of call for the 57 lawyers with a disability was 1987, compared to 1989 for those who did not have a disability. Forty-six percent of lawyers with disabilities were called between 1981 and 1990 as compared with 31% of the other lawyers, 33% of lawyers with disabilities and 47% of those without disabilities were called after 1990, and only 5% of the lawyers called after 1990 had disabilities. The median year of call for respondents who spoke English at home was 1989, whereas the median year of call for the 88 lawyers who learned another language at home and still understood it was 1998. The median year of call for both Christian lawyers and for the 59 lawyers who belonged to other religions was 1988, whereas the median year of call for those with no religious affiliation was 1992. These findings may reflect changes in immigration patterns from western European to East and South Asian countries over the past two decades, and declining rates of participation in formal religion among younger Canadians in general. Years of practise Women had practised an average 1 of 11 years (Med = 10); men an average of 18 years (Med = 19). Table 5.8 shows the number of years the respondents had practised law in all jurisdictions. More women (24%) than men (14%) had practised for fewer than five years; more men (61%) than women (36%) had practised for 15 years or more. The respondents in this survey were more senior than the respondents in the 1991 survey. In the earlier study, the average number of years of practise was 7 for the women and 12 for the men (Med = 6 and 9 respectively); 36% of the women, as compared to only 17% of the men had practised for fewer than five years, and 14% of the women and 43% of the men had practised for 13 years or more. Table 5.8. Number of years practising law Count Col % Count Col % 0 to 2 26 5% 53 14% 3 to 4 46 9% 36 10% 5 to 6 24 5% 41 11% 7 to 8 18 4% 27 7% 9 to 10 32 6% 31 8% 11 to 12 32 6% 27 7% 13 to 14 24 5% 26 7% 15+ 311 61% 134 36% Total 513 100% 375 100% 1 In this document, average and mean (µ) are used interchangeably. Where median (Med) is used, this is specifically noted. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 62

Lawyers of colour had practised 10 years on average; Caucasian respondents had practised an average of 15 years (Med = 7 and 15 years respectively). Twenty-nine percent of the lawyers of colour and 18% of the Caucasian lawyers had practised for fewer than five years; 34% of the lawyers of colour and 57% of the Caucasian lawyers had practised for 13 or more years. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents had practised law for an average of 13 years, compared to 15 years for heterosexuals (Med = 11 and 14 years respectively). There were too few respondents to comment about the younger gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents, however, 44% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents, compared to 56% of heterosexual lawyers, had been called for 13 years or longer. Lawyers with disabilities had practised 16 years on average, compared to 15 years for those without disabilities (Med = 17 and 14 respectively. Generally, those with disabilities had practised longer than those without: 67% of those with disabilities, compared to 55% without disabilities, had practised for 13 years or more. Lawyers who spoke English at home had practised 15 years on average, compared to a 10 years for those who spoke other languages at home (Med = 14 and 4 years respectively). Lawyers who reported that they were Christian had practised an average of 16 years, compared to 15 years for respondents reporting other religions (Med = 16 and 13 years respectively). Number and type of jobs The respondents held an average (as measured by both mean and median) of two different jobs practising law since being called in Alberta, excluding moves within the same firm or organization. This average did not vary by gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, language, marital status, or parental status. Those who practised religions other than Christianity held an average of two jobs (Med = 1); those under the age of 30 years held an average of one job (Med = 1). Twenty percent of both male and female respondents had had at least one full-time job end for reasons other than their own choice. Seventeen percent of Caucasian lawyers, compared to 12% of lawyers of colour, had this experience. A similar experience was reported by 18% of Christian respondents, 9% of those with non-christian religious affiliations, and 16% of those with no religious affiliations; 21% of respondents with a disability and 17% of those without disabilities; 20% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents and 17% of heterosexual respondents; and 18% of those who did not speak English at home and 17% of those who did speak English at home. Time not practising law by gender; time looking/not law by gender Respondents were asked how long in total they had spent not practising law since their call in Alberta. Women lawyers had spent more time not practising law than the men lawyers (mean = 1.2 years as compared to.9 years); lawyers of colour had spent more time than Caucasian lawyers (mean = 1.3 years compared to 1 year); lawyers with a disability had spent more time Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 63

than non-disabled lawyers (mean = 1.2 years compared to 1); gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers had spent more time than heterosexual lawyers (mean = 1.5 years compared to 1); lawyers who spoke a language other than English at home had spent more time than those who spoke English at home (mean = 2.5 years compared to 1 year). Christian lawyers had spent an average of 1.1 years not practising law, while lawyers of other religions spent.8 years, and those with no religious affiliation spent.9 years. Women with no children spent less time not practising law than men with no children (mean =.7 years compared to 1.3 years), and women with children spent more time not practising than men with children (mean = 1.7 years compared to.7). While women and men who were not married spent approximately the same average amount of time not practising law, married women spent more time out of practise than married men (mean = 1.3 years compared to.9 years). 5.2.2 Current employment Geographic location where respondents work Table 5.9 shows that women respondents were slightly more likely than the men to work in Edmonton (38% as compared to 36%). The over-representation in Edmonton is more exaggerated if one compares lawyers of colour to Caucasian lawyers: 52% of lawyers of colour, as compared to 36% of Caucasian lawyers, were working in Edmonton. Lawyers of colour were also less likely to work in Calgary: 37% compared to 48%. Most of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents (80%) worked in Calgary or Edmonton. Table 5.9. Current location of employment Where do you currently work Total Calgary Edmonton Other city Count Col % Count Col % 239 46.1% 182 47.4% 184 35.5% 148 38.5% 96 18.5% 54 14.1% 519 100.0% 384 100.0% Of the respondents who identified themselves as having disabilities, 43% were employed in Edmonton (as compared with 36% of other respondents) and 38% were employed in Calgary (as compared with 47% of other respondents). Christian lawyers were more likely to work in Calgary than lawyers who practised other religions (48% as compared to 38%), and less likely to work in Edmonton (35% as compared to 45%). Respondents who spoke English at home were also more likely to work in Calgary than lawyers who spoke other languages (47% as compared to 36%), and less likely to work in Edmonton (37% as compared to 55%). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 64

Number of lawyers in firm or organization where respondents work Table 5.10 reveals little difference in the size of the firms in which the male and female respondents were working. Forty-four percent of the women respondents, as compared to 37% of the men respondents, worked in firms with 20 or more lawyers. More men (38%) than women (31%) were employed in firms of fewer than five lawyers. Table 5.10. Number of lawyers in firm or organization Count Col % Count Col % One 82 16% 51 14% 2 to 4 113 22% 64 17% 5 to 9 90 17% 58 15% 10 to 19 42 8% 39 10% 20 to 35 35 7% 33 9% 36 to 49 25 5% 24 6% 50 to 74 18 3% 19 5% 75+ 111 22% 89 24% Total 516 100% 377 100% Fifteen percent of Caucasian respondents, as compared with 7% of respondents of colour, were practising alone. Lawyers with no religious affiliation were less likely to practise in firms with fewer than five lawyers: 28% as compared to 37% of Christian lawyers and 34% of lawyers with other religious affiliations. There were more lawyers with disabilities who practised in firms with fewer than five lawyers: 49% as compared to 33% of those who did not disclose any disabilities. Fewer lawyers who spoke English at home practised in firms with fewer than five lawyers: 35% of English-speakers did so, as compared to 45% of non-english speakers. Fewer gay, lesbian or bisexual lawyers practised in firms with fewer than five lawyers: 16% as compared to 35% of heterosexual lawyers. Type of current employment As shown in Table 5.11 below, a greater proportion of the male respondents (28%) than female respondents (18%) worked as sole practitioners or shared an office with one other lawyer. Men (32%) were also more likely than women (18%) to be partners in law firms, whereas more women were associates at firms (29% of women; 21% of men) and employed by government (24% of women; 12% of men). They were also slightly more likely to be working as corporate counsel (10% of women; 8% of men) and in alternative types of legal employment. In the 1991 study, 18% of the women and 41% of the men who responded to the survey were partners; 35% of the women and 20% of the men were associates; 13% of the women and 8% of the men worked for government. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 65

Table 5.11. Current employment Count Percent Count Percent Sole practitioner on own or office sharing 133 25.8% 61 15.9% Associate in or employee of a law firm 109 21.2% 112 29.2% Partner in law firm 167 32.4% 69 18.0% Government lawyer/employee 55 10.7% 76 19.8% Government lawyer/contract 8 1.5% 14 3.6% Industry or corporate counsel 39 7.6% 37 9.6% Other: Legal education; society or union; judge; contract research; community law office/public interest advocate 4 0.8% 15 3.9% Total 515 100% 384 100% Nb. Four categories have been merged under other to preserve the anonymity of respondents. Twenty-three percent of the lawyers of colour who responded to the questionnaire worked for government, as compared with 14% of Caucasian respondents, and lawyers of colour were more likely to work as associates at law firms than Caucasian respondents (32% as compared to 24%). In addition, they were far less likely to be working as sole practitioners or sharing an office with one other practitioner (8% compared to 25%), and less likely to be employed as corporate counsel (5% compared to 9%). However, lawyers of colour (27%) were as likely as Caucasian lawyers (26%) to be partners in law firms. Thirty-two percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers and 23% of lawyers with disabilities worked for government, as compared to 14% of heterosexual and non-disabled lawyers. Sixteen percent of the lawyers with disabilities, as compared with 27% of non-disabled lawyers, were partners in law firms. Finally, fewer of the lawyers who spoke a language other than English in childhood worked as sole practitioners or with one other lawyer (27% as compared to 13%). There were no apparent differences between the current employment situations of lawyers who practised Christianity, those who practised other religions, and those without any religious affiliation. Factors affecting choice of employment Respondents were asked about the extent to which a number of factors influenced their decision to work in their current employment, ranging from not at all to a great deal. Personal interest was the most influential factor for the majority of respondents. Other than personal interest, statistical analysis 2 reveals that women were significantly more influenced 3 than men by the following factors: availability of a job (p =.013), available mentoring (p <.001), type of work assignments (p <.001), availability of clients (p =.011), gender (p <.001), marital status (p =.001), and parental status (p <.001). Lawyers under the age of 40 years were significantly more influenced than older lawyers by personal interest (p =.008), available mentoring (p <.001), gender (p =.03), parental status (p =.002), age (p =.013), and disability (p =.018). 2 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test for gender, religion, disability, and sexual orientation, and the Kruskal-Walllis Test for age. 3 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 66

Lawyers reporting a religious affiliation other than Christian were significantly more influenced than Christian lawyers and lawyers with no religious affiliation by gender (p =.024), race (p <.001), ethnic background (p <.001), and religious beliefs (p =.006). Respondents who identified themselves as having a disability were significantly more influenced than non-disabled respondents by their disability only (p <.001). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers were significantly more influenced 4 than heterosexual lawyers by availability of clients (p =.003) and their sexual orientation (p <.001). A range of other factors influencing their choice of employment were identified by respondents. The most commonly mentioned factors included the desire for a balanced lifestyle, hours or work, or flexibility of work hours; the colleagues at a particular place of employment; opportunities for growth or advancement; money; location; and prior educational or career background. Preferred employment Thirty-five percent of the women respondents and 23% of the men respondents indicated that they would prefer to be employed differently than they were. This is a decrease from 42% of the women and 35% of the men in the 1991 study. More lawyers of colour (39%) than Caucasian lawyers (28%) would prefer to be employed differently, as would more gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers (48%) than heterosexual lawyers (28%), and more lawyers with a disability (42%) than those without a disability (27%). Areas of practise and preference for more or less work Table 5.12 shows the number of women and men who practised in different areas of law. A greater proportion of men practised commercial law (34% of the men as compared to 18% of the women), corporate law (40% as compared to 24%), real estate (35% as compared to 21%), civil litigation (53% compared to 40%), and estate planning (27% as compared to 21%). The difference between women and men in all the other areas, including criminal law, was smaller than five percentage points. Other studies have shown that women are less diverse in their practice 5 and this might account for the fact that women did not dominate in any of the areas. 4 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 5 Brockman, J. (2001). in the Legal Profession: Fitting or Breaking the Mould (Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia Press), p. 58. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 67

Lawyers of colour were more likely than Caucasian lawyers to work in immigration (9% compared to 2%), criminal (23% compared to 16%), and commercial law (32% compared to 27%). Caucasian lawyers were more likely than lawyers of colour to work in civil litigation (48% compared to 36%), in employment law (18% compared to 9%), in estate planning (25% compared to 16%), on administrative boards/tribunals (12% compared to 5%), and in environmental law (7% compared to 2%). Table 5.12. Areas of practise gender and race Race Caucasian Non Caucasian Count Count % Count Count % Count Count % Count Count % Aboriginal 33 6% 38 10% 64 8% 6 11% Arbitration 30 6% 13 3% 39 5% 3 5% Civil 272 53% 153 40% 397 48% 20 36% Corporate 208 40% 93 24% 278 34% 20 36% Employment/labor 96 19% 58 15% 146 18% 5 9% Entertainment 4 1% 4 1% 7 1% 0 0% Immigration 11 2% 12 3% 18 2% 5 9% International 23 4% 9 2% 30 4% 1 2% Mediation 22 4% 26 7% 46 6% 2 4% Tax 25 5% 16 4% 38 5% 3 5% Administrative boards/tribunals 65 13% 41 11% 103 12% 3 5% Bankruptcy 48 9% 17 4% 62 8% 3 5% Commercial 176 34% 68 18% 223 27% 18 32% Criminal 92 18% 54 14% 131 16% 13 23% Environmental 32 6% 24 6% 54 7% 1 2% Estates 138 27% 81 21% 206 25% 9 16% Intellectual property 46 9% 19 5% 61 7% 3 5% Matrimonial/family 99 19% 88 23% 175 21% 10 18% Real estate 178 35% 80 21% 242 29% 14 25% Oil and gas 49 10% 29 8% 72 9% 6 11% Other 71 14% 68 18% 126 15% 12 21% Respondents were also asked whether they would prefer more work, less work, or the same amount of work in their various areas of practise. Women indicated that they would prefer more work in the areas of mediation (44%), estate planning (34%), environmental law (24%), arbitration (24%), corporate law (24%), international business (23%), commercial law (23%), and entertainment law (20%). Men indicated that they would prefer more work in estate planning (40%), commercial law (26%), arbitration (34%), mediation (34%), corporate law (31%), international business (29%), real estate (26%), entertainment law (22%), and intellectual property law (21%). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 68

Women respondents said that they would prefer less work in the areas of family law (27%), real estate (19%), civil litigation (14%), and commercial law (12%). Men respondents said they would prefer less work in family law (37%), civil litigation (24%), real estate (20%), bankruptcy/insolvency law (14%), criminal law (10%), tax law (10%), and administrative boards/tribunals (10%). Lawyers of colour who responded said that they would prefer more work in the areas of estate planning (45%), international business law (44%), tax law (43%), real estate law (38%), and commercial law (32%). Lawyers of colour preferring less work did not exceed 20% in any area of practise. It should be noted that, given the relatively small number of lawyer of colour respondents, some of these percentages represent only a handful of individuals, and caution should be exercised in making inferences from these analyses. Involvement in hiring and decision making Respondents were asked how often they had been involved in a number of office activities in the last five years. In terms of being sometimes or often involved in these activities, men were more often involved in hiring lawyers (42% of men as compared to 33% of women), assigning files to other lawyers (58% of men as compared to 48% of women), supervising lawyers (46% of men as compared to 35% of women), developing policy (60% of men as compared to 49% of women), management or remuneration decisions (60% of men as compared to 42% of women), and marketing (68% of men compared to 58% of women). Women respondents were more involved in organizing workplace events than men respondents (63% of women as compared to 58% of men). Caucasian lawyers were more likely than lawyers of colour to be involved in hiring lawyers (39% as compared to 30%), mentoring new lawyers (65% as compared to 50%), assigning files to lawyers (55% as compared to 37%), supervising lawyers (43% as compared to 21%), developing policy (56% as compared to 46%), management and remuneration decision (53% as compared to 41%), and marketing (65% as compared to 57%). Lawyers without a disability were more likely than lawyers with a disability to be involved in hiring articling students (38% as compared to 22%), hiring lawyers (39% as compared to 25%), assigning files to other lawyers (55% as compared to 37%), supervising articling students (42% as compared to 34%), organizing workplace events (61% as compared to 54%), and marketing (65% as compared to 50%). Lawyers with disabilities were more likely to be involved in developing policy than lawyers without disabilities (61% as compared to 55%). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 69

Table 5.13. Involvement in hiring and decision making Hiring articling students Hiring lawyers Mentoring new lawyers Assigning files to lawyers Supervising articling students Supervising lawyers Developing policy Management/ renumeration decisions Organizing workplace events Marketing never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often Race caucasian all others Count % Count % Count % Count % 301 62.7% 219 63.7% 478 62.7% 33 64.7% 179 37.3% 125 36.3% 284 37.3% 18 35.3% 275 57.8% 235 66.6% 465 60.9% 37 69.8% 201 42.2% 118 33.4% 299 39.1% 16 30.2% 171 35.3% 135 37.6% 274 35.2% 27 50.0% 314 64.7% 224 62.4% 504 64.8% 27 50.0% 201 41.8% 182 52.0% 345 45.0% 33 63.5% 280 58.2% 168 48.0% 422 55.0% 19 36.5% 270 57.0% 207 61.4% 440 58.8% 29 56.9% 204 43.0% 130 38.6% 308 41.2% 22 43.1% 261 54.5% 227 65.0% 438 57.4% 41 78.8% 218 45.5% 122 35.0% 325 42.6% 11 21.2% 194 39.6% 187 51.2% 345 43.8% 30 53.6% 296 60.4% 178 48.8% 442 56.2% 26 46.4% 198 40.2% 213 57.9% 373 47.0% 32 59.3% 294 59.8% 155 42.1% 421 53.0% 22 40.7% 205 42.1% 136 36.8% 312 39.5% 23 41.8% 282 57.9% 234 63.2% 478 60.5% 32 58.2% 156 32.0% 146 41.7% 274 35.4% 23 43.4% 332 68.0% 204 58.3% 501 64.6% 30 56.6% Hiring articling students Hiring lawyers Mentoring new lawyers Assigning files to lawyers Supervising articling students Supervising lawyers Developing policy Management/ renumeration decisions Organizing workplace events Marketing never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often Do you have a disability No Yes Other Religion Christian No Religious Affiliation Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 480 62.2% 39 78.0% 41 77.4% 315 62.3% 156 61.7% 292 37.8% 11 22.0% 12 22.6% 191 37.7% 97 38.3% 470 60.6% 39 75.0% 41 74.5% 301 59.0% 161 63.9% 305 39.4% 13 25.0% 14 25.5% 209 41.0% 91 36.1% 286 36.2% 18 34.6% 30 53.6% 170 32.6% 100 39.2% 504 63.8% 34 65.4% 26 46.4% 351 67.4% 155 60.8% 350 45.0% 33 63.5% 36 65.5% 219 43.0% 124 48.6% 427 55.0% 19 36.5% 19 34.5% 290 57.0% 131 51.4% 443 58.4% 33 66.0% 35 66.0% 288 57.7% 146 59.1% 316 41.6% 17 34.0% 18 34.0% 211 42.3% 101 40.9% 457 59.0% 30 60.0% 40 74.1% 283 55.4% 159 63.6% 318 41.0% 20 40.0% 14 25.9% 228 44.6% 91 36.4% 358 44.8% 21 38.9% 33 60.0% 219 41.3% 124 48.1% 441 55.2% 33 61.1% 22 40.0% 311 58.7% 134 51.9% 383 47.6% 28 51.9% 30 55.6% 240 44.8% 135 52.3% 421 52.4% 26 48.1% 24 44.4% 296 55.2% 123 47.7% 315 39.2% 24 46.2% 30 54.5% 196 37.0% 107 41.2% 488 60.8% 28 53.8% 25 45.5% 334 63.0% 153 58.8% 275 35.1% 26 50.0% 26 49.1% 170 32.7% 100 39.4% 509 64.9% 26 50.0% 27 50.9% 350 67.3% 154 60.6% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 70

Table 5.13. Involvement in hiring and decision making, continued Hiring articling students Hiring lawyers Mentoring new lawyers Assigning files to lawyers Supervising articling students Supervising lawyers Developing policy Management/renumerati on decisions Organizing workplace events Marketing never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often never or rarely sometimes or often Sexual Orientation gay, lesbian or heterosexual bisexual Language spoken at home English Not English Count % Count % Count % Count % 502 63.2% 14 56.0% 512 62.7% 9 90.0% 292 36.8% 11 44.0% 304 37.3% 1 10.0% 492 61.6% 14 56.0% 504 61.4% 7 70.0% 307 38.4% 11 44.0% 317 38.6% 3 30.0% 296 36.4% 6 24.0% 300 35.9% 7 70.0% 518 63.6% 19 76.0% 536 64.1% 3 30.0% 367 45.8% 13 52.0% 376 45.7% 8 80.0% 434 54.2% 12 48.0% 447 54.3% 2 20.0% 462 59.2% 11 44.0% 470 58.5% 8 80.0% 319 40.8% 14 56.0% 333 41.5% 2 20.0% 469 58.8% 15 60.0% 480 58.6% 9 90.0% 328 41.2% 10 40.0% 339 41.4% 1 10.0% 368 44.6% 10 40.0% 377 44.5% 4 40.0% 457 55.4% 15 60.0% 470 55.5% 6 60.0% 393 47.3% 16 64.0% 407 47.8% 5 50.0% 437 52.7% 9 36.0% 445 52.2% 5 50.0% 329 39.8% 8 32.0% 337 39.7% 4 40.0% 498 60.2% 17 68.0% 512 60.3% 6 60.0% 290 35.8% 10 45.5% 298 35.9% 5 45.5% 521 64.2% 12 54.5% 531 64.1% 6 54.5% These data were also analyzed for significance 6 controlling for number of years at the bar and by employment in the private or public sector. 7 Controlling for number of years at the bar, women respondents who had been practising for 18 to 23 years were significantly less likely than men to be involved in marketing (p <.001); women who had been practising for three to eight years were significantly less likely than men to be involved in marketing (p =.036), and in management and remuneration decisions (p =.017). Lawyers of colour who had been practising for 24 to 30 years were significantly less likely than Caucasian lawyers to be involved in assigning files to lawyers (p =.037), those who had been practising for 18 to 23 years were significantly less likely to be involved in developing policy (p =.015), and those who had been practising for three to seven years were significantly less likely to be mentoring new lawyers (p =.003). Lawyers with disabilities who had been practising for 18 to 23 years were significantly less likely than non-disabled lawyers to be hiring articling students (p =.010) and organizing workplace events (p =.005). There were no significant differences when controlling for number of years at the bar on the basis of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or language. In some analyses, the number of cases available for analysis may have been too few to pick up significant differences. 6 Tested for significance using Kendall s Tau-b and Tau-c. 7 For purposes of analysis, private sector is defined to include sole practitioners, lawyers at firms, and corporate lawyers; Public sector is defined to include government lawyers and the few lawyers employed in alternative legal careers (society or union, contract research, community law office or public interest advocate). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 71

Controlling for private and public sector employment, 8 there were no significant differences on the basis of gender in the public sector, although lawyers of colour working in the public sector were significantly less likely than Caucasians to be involved in assigning files to lawyers (p =.003) and supervising lawyers (p =.006). No significant differences emerged in the analysis when controlling for private and public sector employment on the basis of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, disability, or language. In the private sector, women respondents were significantly less likely than men to be involved in hiring lawyers (p =.001), assigning files to lawyers (p =.001), supervising lawyers (p =.035), developing policy (p =.002), management and remuneration decisions (p <.001), and marketing (p =.001). Division of working time and satisfaction with division of working time As shown in Table 5.14, men respondents (66%) were more likely to be involved in promotion and client development than women (54%), and more likely to be involved in giving free legal advice. Women (40%) were more likely to be engaged in uncompensated work than men (35%), teaching (26% compared to 21%), and keeping up to date (77% compared to 72%). Caucasian respondents were more likely to be involved in administration than lawyers of colour (85% compared to 68%), promotion and client development (62% compared to 50%), and keeping up to date (75% compared to 70%). Heterosexual respondents were more likely to be involved in promotion and client development than gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers (61% compared to 40%), uncompensated law-related work (38% compared to 32%), teaching (23% compared to 16%), and providing free legal advice (54% compared to 40%). Lawyers with disabilities were more likely than lawyers without disabilities to be involved in keeping up to date (80% compared to 74%) and providing free legal advice (63% compared to 53%); however, lawyers without disabilities were more likely than lawyers with disabilities to be involved in uncompensated law-related work (38% compared to 27%). 8 Unfortunately, it was not possible to control for number of years at the bar in addition to private and public sector employment. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 72

Table 5.14. Division of working time Race Language spoken at home Religion Disability Sexual orientation Admin n Practising law Promot n, client development Uncompensated lawrelated Teaching Free legal advice Eng Fr Other Other No Relig. Affil n No Yes Caucasian Non- Caucasian Christian Heterosexual % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Gay, lesbian, bisexual not involved 15% 17% 15% 32% 16% 0% 20% 27% 16% 14% 16% 14% 16% 12% involved 85% 83% 85% 68% 84% not involved 34% 46% 38% 50% 39% 100 % 100 % 80% 73% 84% 86% 84% 86% 84% 88% 60% 43% 39% 39% 39% 41% 39% 60% involved 66% 54% 62% 50% 61% 0% 40% 57% 61% 61% 61% 59% 61% 40% not involved 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 0% 10% 4% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 0% involved 98% 97% 98% 95% 98% not involved 65% 60% 62% 64% 62% 100 % 100 % 90% 96% 97% 99% 97% 98% 97% 100% 80% 61% 64% 59% 62% 73% 62% 68% involved 35% 40% 38% 36% 38% 0% 20% 39% 36% 41% 38% 27% 38% 32% not involved 79% 74% 77% 80% 77% 100 % 100 % 86% 78% 74% 77% 80% 77% 84% involved 21% 26% 23% 20% 23% 0% 0% 14% 23% 26% 23% 20% 23% 16% not involved 44% 49% 46% 48% 46% 100 % 50% 48% 45% 48% 47% 38% 46% 60% involved 56% 51% 54% 52% 54% 0% 50% 52% 55% 52% 53% 63% 54% 40% Keeping 100 not involved 28% 23% 25% 30% 25% 60% 34% 25% 24% 26% 20% 25% 24% up to % date involved 72% 77% 75% 70% 75% 0% 40% 66% 75% 76% 74% 80% 75% 76% Other not involved 91% 92% 91% 88% 91% 100 % 90% 86% 91% 92% 92% 86% 91% 100% involved 9% 8% 9% 13% 9% 0% 10% 14% 9% 8% 8% 14% 9% 0% Hours worked per week Table 5.15 shows the number of hours that women and men worked, if they were working full time. Women worked an average of 49 hours per week; men 50 hours (Med = 50 for both men and women). An equal proportion of women and men (3.4%) worked 70 hours or more; and approximately the same proportions of women (7.2%) and men (8.5%) worked fewer than 40 hours per week. Respondents employed in the private sector worked significantly 9 more hours than those employed in the public sector (p =.038). There is no significant difference between the number of hours worked each week by women and men respondents. In the 1991 study, women and men overall worked an average of 51 hours per week (Med = 50), although 4.4% of the women and 5.2% of the men worked 70 hours or more a week, and 6.5% of the women and 8.1% of the men worked fewer than 40 hours per week. There appears to have been no notable change in the number of hours worked between 1991 and 2003 by either women or men. 9 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 73

Table 5.15. Hours worked per week Total Hours worked per week Total < 40 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Count 42 25 67 % within Are you (sex) 9% 7% 8% Count 160 135 295 % within Are you (sex) 32% 39% 35% Count 175 128 303 % within Are you (sex) 35% 37% 36% Count 100 48 148 % within Are you (sex) 20% 14% 18% Count 17 12 29 % within Are you (sex) 3% 3% 3% Count 494 348 842 % within Are you (sex) 100% 100% 100% Table 5.16. Hours worked per week average and range Race Language spoken at home Religion Disability Sexual orientation Approximate number of hours worked each week Median Mean Maximum Minimum 50.0 49.9 90 20 50.0 49.0 88 16 Caucasian 50.0 49.3 85 16 all others 50.0 51.2 90 20 English 50.0 49.5 88 16 French 45.0 45.0 45 45 Other 50.0 53.3 90 40 Other 50.0 49.8 80 35 Christian 50.0 49.3 90 16 No Religious Affiliation 50.0 49.7 80 20 Not practising 45.0 45.0 45 45 No 50.0 49.6 90 16 Yes 48.5 47.8 80 20 Heterosexual 50.0 49.6 90 16 Gay, lesbian or bisexual 45.0 47.8 63 35 Hours worked and preferred Table 5.17 shows the number of women and men who would prefer to work fewer hours than they were working at the time of the survey. Sixty-four percent of the women respondents and 59% of the men would prefer to be working fewer hours. Both male and female respondents would prefer to work about 17.5 hours less each week. 10 10 Ten of the lawyers surveyed stated that they would prefer to work more hours each week. They are not included in the table or in the discussion. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 74

Table 5.17. Preferred reduction in hours worked per week Count Mean Median Minimum Maximum 306 17.66 10.00 1.00 80.00 247 17.51 13.00 1.00 60.00 Total 553 17.60 10.00 1.00 80.00 Lawyers working full time, billing by the hour Table 5.18 shows the median and mean billing hours of all the comparative groups. For example, the 150 women who worked full time and billed by the hour billed an average of 1,363 hours (Med = 1,400) per year, compared to an average of 1,271 (Med = 1,300) billed by the 241 men who worked full time and billed by the hour. Women without children billed more hours (mean = 1,480; Med = 1,600) than women with children (mean = 1,225; Med = 1,250), men with children (mean = 1,266; Med = 1,300), and men without children (mean = 1,286; Med = 1,300). Table 5.18. Lawyers who bill by the hour hours billed in the last year by demographic group If you bill by the hour, approximately how many hours did you bill in the last year Mean Median Valid N 1271 1300 N=241 1363 1400 N=150 Are you in a married No 1148 1200 N=35 or cohabitating relationship Yes 1292 1350 N=206 Does respondent no children 1286 1450 N=59 have children? has children 1266 1300 N=182 Are you in a married No 1392 1400 N=39 or cohabitating relationship Yes 1354 1400 N=111 Does respondent no children 1480 1600 N=80 have children? has children 1225 1250 N=68 Race Religion Disability Sexual Orientation Caucasian 1306 1400 N=366 all others 1224 1300 N=21 Other 1232 1000 N=19 Christian 1282 1300 N=240 No Religious Affiliation 1378 1450 N=126 No 1312 1400 N=370 Yes 1148 1200 N=20 Heterosexual 1297 1400 N=381 Gay, lesbian or bisexual 1463 1625 N=8 Language spoken English 1306 1400 N=389 at home Not English 950 850 N=3 <30 years 1381 1525 N=30 Age 30-39 years 1498 1500 N=116 40-49 years 1254 1300 N=138 >49 years 1134 1200 N=104 Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 75

Further analyses were conducted to determine whether the differences in billing hours between men and women and between other demographic groups were attributable to gender or to other factors, such as number of years at the bar and firm size. As shown in Table 5.19 below, number of billable hours does, in fact, significantly increase with firm size and significantly decrease with number of years at the bar. 11 Table 5.19. Lawyers who bill by the hour hours billed in the last year, controlling for year of call and firm size Firm size (p <.01) Year called to bar (p <.01) solo 2-9 10-19 20-49 50 or more before 1973 1973 to 1979 1980 to 1985 1986 to 1990 1991 to 1995 1996 to 2000 2001 to 2003 If you bill by the hour, approximately how many hours did you bill in the last year Mean Median Valid N 851 900 N=27 1118 1000 N=118 1247 1200 N=31 1450 1480 N=70 1485 1500 N=144 1070 1000 N=21 1174 1200 N=50 1240 1200 N=81 1262 1300 N=50 1411 1400 N=60 1414 1500 N=78 1356 1500 N=50 However, regression analysis was completed to clarify differences in billing hours between men and women. This revealed that, controlling for number of years at the bar, there is no significant difference in billing hours between men with children and women with children. However, controlling for years at the bar, women without children bill significantly more hours than men without children (p =.024). Income of respondents working full time Table 5.20 shows the pre-tax income from employment of women and men respondents who were working full time, by year of call. The overall average income for women was $105,400 per year, as compared to $147,053 for men (Med = $90,000 for women, $112,500 for men). Measured by both mean and median, the men earned more than the women for every category of years of call with the exception of women called between 1996 and 2003, who earned a higher median income than men, and women called between 2001 and 2003, who earned a higher average income than men. In the 1991 study, measured by both mean and median, men earned more than women except that women called in 1990-01 earned slightly more than the men called in those years. 12 11 Tests using Pearson Correlation. 12 The study was conducted in 1991 and so the 1990 and 1991 years of call were collapsed into one category. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 76

Table 5.20. Pre-tax annual employment income What was your pre-tax income from employment or self-employment in 2002 year called to bar before 1973 1973 to 1979 1980 to 1985 1986 to 1990 1991 to 1995 1996 to 2000 2001 to 2003 Mean Median Valid N 147053 112500 N=458 105400 90000 N=330 169135 160000 N=37 150000 150000 N=2 166011 136500 N=92 123300 117500 N=10 178974 140000 N=96 132667 110000 N=63 188154 169000 N=52 119818 100000 N=55 133000 118000 N=63 126197 100000 N=66 98224 74000 N=85 81038 77000 N=79 61267 56500 N=30 63462 57500 N=52 Even when number of years at the bar, employment in the private or public sector, and firm size are controlled for, regression analysis reveals that male respondents earned significantly more on an annual basis than women respondents (p =.001, p <.001, and p <.001 respectively). Income of respondents working full time in private practice (bill by hour) Table 5.21 shows the pre-tax income from employment of women and men respondents who were working full time and billed by the hour, by year of call. Measured by both mean and median, the men earned more than the women for every category of years of call, with the exception of women called between 1991 and 2000, who earned a higher median income than the men called during those years, and women called between 1991 and 1995, who earned a higher average (as measured by mean) income than the men. In addition, the women called before 1973 were earning a higher median income than the men in this year of call category, but there were only two women as compared with 28 men in this group, so it is difficult to make inferences. When number of years at the bar and firm size are controlled for, regression analysis reveals that male respondents still earned significantly more than women respondents in private practice (p =.041 and p <.001 respectively). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 77

Table 5.21. Pre-tax employment private practice What was your pre-tax income from employment or self-employment in 2002 year called to bar before 1973 1973 to 1979 1980 to 1985 1986 to 1990 1991 to 1995 1996 to 2000 2001 to 2003 Mean Median Valid N 154470 130000 N=279 112683 92000 N=186 151786 140000 N=28 150000 150000 N=2 181138 145000 N=58 120500 112500 N=4 184729 160000 N=59 147625 140000 N=32 203733 182500 N=30 136594 127500 N=32 146800 130000 N=35 151559 140000 N=34 99125 74000 N=48 83432 80000 N=44 63158 58000 N=19 59421 57500 N=38 Billing rates Table 5.22 sets out the hourly billing rates of women and men respondents by categories of years of call. Men had higher billing rates than women for all of the year of call categories, except that women and men called between 1991 and 2000 had equal median billing rates, women called between 1980 and 1985 had a higher median, and women (again, there were only two) had higher mean and median rates for lawyers called before 1973. Table 5.22. Hourly billing rates by year of call If you bill by the hour, what is you usual hourly rate year called to bar before 1973 1973 to 1979 1980 to 1985 1986 to 1990 1991 to 1995 1996 to 2000 2001 to 2003 Mean Median Valid N 245 230 N=277 210 200 N=184 273 260 N=27 300 300 N=2 273 250 N=58 223 238 N=4 253 225 N=59 246 250 N=31 271 253 N=30 241 230 N=31 241 240 N=35 237 235 N=34 202 175 N=47 186 175 N=44 165 160 N=19 153 150 N=38 Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 78

Regression analysis shows that, when number of years at the bar is controlled for, there was no significant difference in hourly billing rates between male and female respondents. However, a significant gender difference remained when firm size is controlled for, with men respondents billing significantly more by the hour than women in the larger firms (p <.001). 13 Table 5.23. Hourly billing rates by firm size If you bill by the hour, what is you usual hourly rate Firm size solo 2-9 10-19 20-49 50 or more Mean Median Valid N 245 230 N=277 210 200 N=184 209 200 N=33 199 200 N=15 225 200 N=110 197 185 N=59 244 238 N=20 218 225 N=17 257 275 N=38 190 195 N=31 284 275 N=76 233 225 N=62 Benefits and policies offered to lawyers at place of work Tables 5.24 and 5.25 show the benefits and policies that respondents were offered at their place of work, by gender. Respondents who are both self-employed and do not have benefit plans indicated that the questions were not applicable to them, and they were excluded from the analysis. It is difficult to draw conclusions from this table because of the large percentage of respondents (in most cases women more so than men) who did not know whether their firm or employer offers the benefits. More than half of the workplaces offered flexible work hours (69% of the women and 77% of the men), compassionate leave for associates/employees (61% of the women and 67% of the men), and health benefits for associates/employees (86% of the women and 81% of the men). However, fewer than one-quarter of the workplaces offered job sharing (reported by 20% of the women and 24% of the men), paid parental leave for partners (20% of the women and 19% of the men), and part-time partnerships (22% of the women and 20% of the men). Fewer than onethird offered paid parental leave for associates or employees (32% of the women and 26% of the men), and 33% of the women and 31% of the men said their workplaces offered leave of absence/sabbaticals for associates or employees. For the most part, respondents did not know whether the above benefits were available for samesex partners. Only 12% of respondents said that some of the benefits were available, ranging from all to selected benefits such as disability and health insurance and pension plans. Some 13 Unfortunately, it was not possible to control for year of call in addition to the other variables in this analysis. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 79

respondents also said that same-sex benefits policies were currently under development and others indicated that the issue had not yet arisen. These figures are not presented in a table. In terms of formal policies or guidelines, over half of the workplaces have adopted policies or guidelines on anti-harassment (58% reported by women and 66% by men), respectful workplace (61% reported by women and 68% by men), and anti-discrimination (51% reported by women and 62% by men) anti-discrimination (51% reported by women and 62% by men), and maternity and parental leave (65% of the women and 59% of the men). Fifty percent or fewer had adopted policies on equality in employment interviews (40% of the women and 50% of the men), gender inclusive communication (29% of the women and 31% of the men), and alternative work schedules (42% of the women and 49% of the men). Table 5.24. Benefits offered Count % Count % No 135 32.1% 97 29.0% Offered-Part time work Yes 228 54.2% 192 57.5% Don t know 58 13.8% 45 13.5% No 71 16.2% 79 22.6% Offered-Flexible work hours Yes 337 76.9% 239 68.5% (full time) Don t know 30 6.8% 31 8.9% No 186 49.5% 165 52.5% Offered-Job sharing Yes 92 24.5% 62 19.7% Don t know 98 26.1% 87 27.7% No 63 23.1% 29 13.9% Offered-Unpaid maternity Yes 115 42.1% 85 40.7% leave for partners Don t know 95 34.8% 95 45.5% Offered-Unpaid maternity No 67 19.2% 33 12.2% leave for associates or Yes 193 55.3% 150 55.6% employees Don t know 89 25.5% 87 32.2% No 84 29.6% 36 16.4% Offered-Unpaid parental Yes 85 29.9% 63 28.8% leave for partners Don t know 115 40.5% 120 54.8% No 90 26.2% 38 14.0% Yes 140 40.8% 111 41.0% Offered-Unpaid parental leave for associates or employees Don t know 113 32.9% 122 45.0% No 97 30.8% 61 26.3% Offered-Paid maternity Yes 133 42.2% 84 36.2% leave for partners Don t know 85 27.0% 87 37.5% Offered-Paid maternity No 133 34.2% 72 23.2% leave for associates or Yes 183 47.0% 168 54.2% employees Don t know 73 18.8% 70 22.6% No 135 42.9% 68 29.7% Offered-Paid parental leave Yes 61 19.4% 45 19.7% for partners Don t know 119 37.8% 116 50.7% No 170 44.5% 89 29.6% Yes 99 25.9% 96 31.9% Offered-Paid parental leave for associates or employees Don t know 113 29.6% 116 38.5% No 131 53.3% 76 43.7% Offered-Part-time Yes 48 19.5% 38 21.8% partnership Don t know 67 27.2% 60 34.5% No 88 26.2% 41 18.4% Offered-Disability insurance Yes 176 52.4% 106 47.5% for partners Don t know 72 21.4% 76 34.1% Offered-Disability insurance No 109 29.1% 58 20.7% for associates or Yes 204 54.4% 168 60.0% employees Don t know 62 16.5% 54 19.3% Offered-Compassionate or No 53 15.5% 27 11.7% bereavement leave for Yes 201 58.9% 113 48.9% partners Don t know 87 25.5% 91 39.4% Table 5.24. Benefits offered, continued Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 80

Count % Count % Offered-Compassionate or No 53 12.7% 31 9.8% bereavement leave for Yes 278 66.5% 192 60.8% associates or employees Don't know 87 20.8% 93 29.4% No 68 19.1% 22 9.1% Offered-Health benefits for Yes 264 74.2% 183 75.6% partners Offered-Health benefits for associates or employees Don't know 24 6.7% 37 15.3% No 72 16.9% 36 11.0% Yes 346 81.0% 283 86.3% Don't know 9 2.1% 9 2.7% No 129 37.2% 57 24.5% Yes 144 41.5% 107 45.9% Offered-Leave of absence/sabbatical for partners Don't know 74 21.3% 69 29.6% Offered-Leave of No 201 48.4% 118 37.6% absence/sabbatical for Yes 127 30.6% 105 33.4% associates or employees Don't know 87 21.0% 91 29.0% Table 5.25. Policies or guidelines adopted Has you firm adopted-maternity and parental leave Adopted-Equality in employment interviews Adopted- inclusive communications Adopted-Alternative work schedules Adopted-Anti-harass ment Adopted-Respectful workplace Adopted-Anti-discrimi nation No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know Race Religion Do you have a disability Language spoken at home Sexual Orientation gay, No heter lesbian Chris Relig osexu or M F Cauc Other Other tian Affil No Yes Eng Other al bisexual 27.4% 18.9% 24.6% 11.1% 25.0% 23.3% 23.8% 23.4% 26.7% 23.7% 20.0% 23.9% 12.0% 59.0% 65.2% 61.5% 64.8% 61.5% 62.6% 60.7% 61.9% 60.0% 61.8% 60.0% 61.5% 76.0% 13.6% 15.9% 14.0% 24.1% 13.5% 14.0% 15.6% 14.7% 13.3% 14.5% 20.0% 14.6% 12.0% 23.6% 23.5% 24.0% 14.3% 19.6% 23.5% 23.5% 23.2% 25.0% 23.4% 30.0% 23.5% 20.0% 49.7% 40.2% 45.7% 44.6% 52.9% 47.7% 39.9% 45.7% 45.8% 45.4% 60.0% 45.7% 48.0% 26.7% 36.4% 30.3% 41.1% 27.5% 28.8% 36.6% 31.1% 29.2% 31.2% 10.0% 30.8% 32.0% 33.0% 30.8% 32.8% 20.0% 28.8% 31.7% 32.9% 31.8% 32.0% 31.9% 40.0% 31.6% 36.0% 31.6% 29.3% 30.3% 36.4% 36.5% 33.3% 23.6% 30.5% 34.0% 30.4% 50.0% 31.2% 20.0% 35.4% 39.8% 36.9% 43.6% 34.6% 35.0% 43.5% 37.7% 34.0% 37.7% 10.0% 37.2% 44.0% 31.8% 33.0% 32.8% 25.5% 40.4% 31.6% 31.5% 32.1% 34.0% 32.5% 20.0% 31.6% 48.0% 48.8% 41.5% 46.1% 41.8% 40.4% 47.2% 44.8% 45.5% 50.0% 45.4% 70.0% 46.2% 36.0% 19.4% 25.4% 21.1% 32.7% 19.2% 21.3% 23.7% 22.4% 16.0% 22.1% 10.0% 22.1% 16.0% 23.1% 20.4% 22.6% 10.7% 20.8% 20.8% 23.9% 22.0% 18.8% 21.7% 33.3% 21.9% 20.0% 65.6% 57.5% 62.1% 66.1% 66.0% 64.6% 56.3% 61.6% 72.9% 62.5% 44.4% 62.4% 64.0% 11.3% 22.1% 15.3% 23.2% 13.2% 14.7% 19.7% 16.4% 8.3% 15.8% 22.2% 15.7% 16.0% 19.6% 21.4% 20.7% 12.5% 23.6% 19.5% 21.0% 20.1% 22.9% 20.2% 30.0% 20.1% 24.0% 68.0% 60.6% 65.0% 67.9% 67.3% 67.7% 58.4% 64.8% 66.7% 64.8% 70.0% 65.1% 64.0% 12.4% 18.0% 14.2% 19.6% 9.1% 12.9% 20.6% 15.1% 10.4% 14.9% 14.8% 12.0% 23.1% 23.2% 23.8% 10.7% 21.8% 22.3% 24.2% 22.9% 22.9% 23.0% 30.0% 22.9% 20.0% 61.5% 51.3% 57.3% 60.7% 61.8% 60.2% 50.0% 57.0% 64.6% 57.4% 50.0% 57.3% 64.0% 15.4% 25.5% 18.9% 28.6% 16.4% 17.4% 25.8% 20.2% 12.5% 19.7% 20.0% 19.8% 16.0% Satisfaction with various aspects of work Respondents reported on their degree of satisfaction with various aspects of their work. Among all respondents, the highest degree of satisfaction (over 80%) was reported in the areas of nature of the work, contact with clients, and working relationships with female colleagues, male colleagues, and support staff. The highest degree of dissatisfaction was reported in the areas of hours of work (22% of respondents were dissatisfied), remuneration (21%), and balance with personal life (22%) Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 81

Table 5.26. Satisfaction with aspects of work dissatisfied neither satisfied Count % Count % Count % Nature of work 67 7.5% 62 6.9% 769 85.6% Hours of work 196 21.8% 131 14.6% 572 63.6% Job security 112 12.6% 112 12.6% 663 74.7% Remuneration 189 21.0% 140 15.6% 570 63.4% Prestige of work 93 10.5% 180 20.3% 612 69.2% Control over work 138 15.3% 123 13.7% 640 71.0% Credit for work 113 12.8% 146 16.5% 624 70.7% Contact with clients 50 5.8% 96 11.1% 716 83.1% Opportunity for advancement 140 17.7% 195 24.7% 456 57.6% Employment benefits 115 14.5% 143 18.0% 537 67.5% Mentoring available to you 121 16.0% 179 23.7% 454 60.2% Working relationship with female colleagues 39 4.9% 51 6.3% 714 88.8% Working relationship with male colleagues 55 6.5% 57 6.8% 731 86.7% Working relationship with administration 68 8.4% 105 12.9% 638 78.7% Working relationship with support staff 45 5.1% 56 6.4% 774 88.5% Working relationship with court personnel 40 5.9% 106 15.7% 529 78.4% Balance with personal life 197 22.0% 157 17.5% 542 60.5% Choice of law as career 125 14.0% 116 12.9% 655 73.1% Standing among colleagues 59 6.7% 145 16.4% 681 76.9% Respect and dignity/treated by colleagues 80 8.9% 131 14.6% 684 76.4% Respect and dignity/treated by public 151 16.9% 183 20.5% 559 62.6% Analysis reveals significant differences 14 in satisfaction with work on the basis of gender, age, religion, disability, first language, and sexual orientation. Women respondents were significantly less satisfied than male respondents with hours of work (p =.011), job security (p =.001), credit for work (p =.019), contact with clients (p =.016), opportunity for advancement (p =.001), working relationships with male colleagues (p =.008), working relationships with administration (p =.003), balance with personal life (p=.006), choice of law as a career (p =.005), standing among colleagues (- =.007), and the respect and dignity with which they are treated by their colleagues (p =.004). Lawyers under the age of 30 years were significantly less satisfied than lawyers aged 30 years of more with job security (p =.002), control over work (p =.001), credit for work (p =.010), contact with clients (p <.001), working relationships with support staff (p =.036), and significantly more satisfied than older lawyers with the mentoring available to them (p =.012). Lawyers under the age of 40 years were significantly less satisfied than lawyers aged 40 years or more with choice of law as a career (p <.001), their standing among their colleagues (p <.001), and the respect and dignity with which they are treated by both their colleagues (p <.001) and 14 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test for gender, religion, disability, language, and sexual orientation, and the Kruskal-Wallis Test for age. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 82

the public (p <.001). These were the only significant differences that emerged with respect to age. Respondents reporting a non-christian religious affiliation were significantly less satisfied than other lawyers with the nature of the work (p =.037) and contact with clients (p =.001). Respondents with disabilities were significantly less satisfied than those without disabilities with remuneration (p =.003), prestige of work (p =.002), opportunity for advancement (p =.001), and the mentoring available to them (p =.027). Gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents were significantly less satisfied than heterosexual respondents with their opportunities for advancement (p =.009). Finally, lawyers who spoke another language most often at home reported significantly higher degrees of satisfaction than other lawyers with respect to their working relationships with administration (p =.026) and court personnel (p =.002). Table 5.27. Satisfaction with aspects of work (5=very satisfied, 1=very dissatisfied) Caucasian Other Non-Christian Christian No Religious Affiliation Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Nature of work 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 4.0 4 3.9 4 4.2 4 4.0 Hours of work 4 3.7 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.4 4 3.6 4 3.5 Job security 4 4.0 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 3.6 4 3.7 4 3.9 4 3.9 Remuneration 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.4 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.6 Prestige of work 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 Control over work 4 3.8 4 3.7 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.8 4 3.7 Credit for work 4 3.9 4 3.7 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.8 Contact with clients 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 4.2 4 3.6 4 3.7 4 4.2 4 4.0 Opportunity for advancement 4 3.6 4 3.4 4 3.6 3 3.2 4 3.3 4 3.5 4 3.6 Employment benefits 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.7 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.7 4 3.8 Mentoring available to you 4 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.5 colleagues 4 4.2 4 4.2 4 4.2 4 4.2 4 4.1 4 4.2 4 4.2 colleagues 4 4.2 4 4.0 4 4.2 4 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.1 4 4.2 Administration 4 4.1 4 3.8 4 4.0 4 3.6 4 3.7 4 4.0 4 4.0 Support staff 4 4.2 4 4.1 4 4.2 4 4.0 4 4.1 4 4.2 4 4.2 Court personnel 4 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.1 4 4.0 4 3.9 Balance with personal life 4 3.6 4 3.4 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.4 4 3.6 4 3.4 Choice of law as a career 4 3.9 4 3.7 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 3.7 Standing among colleagues 4 4.0 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 3.9 4 3.9 4 3.9 4 3.9 The respect and dignity, treated by your 4 4.0 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 3.7 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 3.9 colleagues The respect and dignity, treated by the public 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.7 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.5 Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 83

Table 5.27. Satisfaction with aspects of work, continued No disability Disability Heterosexual Gay, lesbian or bisexual English Not English Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Med µ Nature of work 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 4.2 4 4.1 5 4.5 Hours of work 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.6 4 3.7 Job security 4 3.9 4 3.6 4 3.9 4 3.7 4 3.9 4 3.9 Remuneration 4 3.6 3 3.1 4 3.6 4 3.2 4 3.6 4 3.5 Prestige of work 4 3.8 4 3.4 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.8 Control over work 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 4.0 Credit for work 4 3.8 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.4 4 3.8 4 4.0 Contact with clients 4 4.1 4 4.0 4 4.1 4 3.8 4 4.1 4 3.8 Opportunity for advancement 4 3.6 3 3.0 4 3.5 3 3.0 4 3.5 4 3.9 Employment benefits 4 3.7 4 3.3 4 3.7 4 3.4 4 3.7 4 3.7 Mentoring available to you 4 3.6 3 3.2 4 3.6 3 3.3 4 3.6 4 3.6 colleagues 4 4.2 4 4.0 4 4.2 4 4.2 4 4.2 5 4.5 colleagues 4 4.1 4 4.0 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 4.1 5 4.4 Administration 4 4.0 4 3.8 4 4.0 4 3.7 4 4.0 5 4.4 Support staff 4 4.2 4 4.0 4 4.2 4 4.0 4 4.2 5 4.6 Court personnel 4 4.0 4 3.8 4 4.0 4 3.9 4 4.0 5 4.8 Balance with personal life 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.5 3 3.4 Choice of law as a career 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 3.8 4 3.9 Standing among colleagues 4 3.9 4 3.7 4 3.9 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 4.1 The respect and dignity, treated by your colleagues The respect and dignity, treated by the public Weeks of vacation last year 4 3.9 4 3.7 4 3.9 4 3.6 4 3.9 4 4.2 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.5 Table 5.28 shows that lawyers take little holiday time, ranging from an average of 2.7 weeks to 4.5 weeks (Med = 3, all demographic groups). The table also indicates that a number of lawyers took almost a year in vacation in the last year Table 5.28. Weeks of vacation How many weeks of vacation did you take in the last year Median Mean Maximum Minimum 3 3.6 48 0 3 3.6 51 0 Other 3 3.3 16 0 Religion Christian 3 3.6 51 0 No Religious Affiliation 3 3.5 24 0 Disability No 3 3.5 48 0 Yes 3 4.5 51 0 Race Caucasian 3 3.6 51 0 All others 3 3.0 10 0 Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 3 3.6 51 0 Gay, lesbian or bisexual 3 3.3 10 0 Language spoken English 3 3.6 51 0 at home Not English 3 2.7 5 0 Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 84

Hours spent on care of children and household chores Those respondents who had children who required care were asked how many hours they spent on this care per week. The women who worked full time spent an average of 37.7 hours on child care, as compared to 15.5 hours spent by men (Med = 30; Med = 12). This appears to have changed little since 1991, when the women who worked full time spent an average of 34.7 hours and men spent an average of 15 hours on child care (Med = 35; Med = 17). Women respondents who were employed full time spent significantly 15 more time on household chores than men respondents (p <.001). The 140 women who worked full time and had children requiring care indicated they spent an average of 12 hours per week (Med = 10) on household chores (not including child care); the 254 men spent an average of nine hours (Med = 8) on household chores. The same women spent an average of 35 hours per week (Med = 30) on care of children, as compared to an average of 15 hours (Med = 12) spent by the men. These findings are consistent with the results of the 1991 study. Little appears to have changed. In the 1991 study, women who worked full time spent 35 hours per week on average on child care (Med = 35) as compared with 17 hours (Med = 15) by the men. Likelihood respondent will look for new job in the next year Respondents were asked how likely it was (0-100%) that they would look for a new job within the next year. Women (p <.001); gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers (p =.019); lawyers with disabilities (p =.040) were significantly 16 more likely to report that they intended to look for a new job with the next year. Table 5.28. Likelihood of looking for a new job in the next year Religion Disability Race Sexual Orientation Language spoken at home How likely is it that you will look for a new job within the next year Median Mean Maximum Minimum 0 13.7 100 0 0 22.2 100 0 Other 0 23.2 100 0 Christian 0 17.3 100 0 No Religious Affiliation 0 16.1 100 0 No 0 16.6 100 0 Yes 0 27.9 100 0 Caucasian 0 17.2 100 0 all others 0 21.3 100 0 Heterosexual 0 16.8 100 0 Gay, lesbian or bisexual 23 36.5 100 0 English 0 17.2 100 0 Not English 0 25.0 100 0 15 Tested for significance using an independent t-test. 16 Tested for significance using an independent t-test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 85

Respondents who left a job voluntarily; discrimination as a factor Respondents were asked whether they had ever left a job practising law voluntarily and, if so, whether discrimination was a factor in their decision. Table 5.29 shows the number and proportions of respondents by diversity characteristics. Table 5.30 shows that discrimination was a factor or somewhat of a factor for 28% of the women who responded, as compared with 7% of the men who responded; for 43% of the lawyers of colour who responded, as compared with 16% of the Caucasian lawyers; and 37% of the gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers who responded, as compared with 16% of the heterosexual respondents. These differences are statistically significant. 17 Table 5.29. Left a job practising law voluntarily Have you ever voluntarily left a job practising law No Yes Count Row % Count Row % 278 54% 240 46% 181 47% 204 53% Other 33 57% 25 43% Religion Christian 278 49% 284 51% No Religious Affiliation 145 54% 125 46% Disability No 433 51% 409 49% Yes 24 42% 33 58% Race Caucasian 420 50% 413 50% All others 33 58% 24 42% Sexual orientation Heterosexual 445 51% 426 49% Gay, lesbian or bisexual 10 40% 15 60% Language spoken at English 454 51% 439 49% home Not English 5 45% 6 55% Table 5.30. Discrimination as a factor in decision to leave a job practising law (yes or somewhat p <.001) Religion Disability Was discrimination a factor in your decision to leave a job practising law No Yes Somewhat Count Row % Count Row % Count Row % 239 93% 4 2% 13 5% 158 71% 29 13% 34 15% Other 20 77% 1 4% 5 19% Christian 255 84% 21 7% 29 10% No Religious Affiliation 114 84% 10 7% 12 9% No 366 83% 30 7% 43 10% Yes 29 78% 3 8% 5 14% Race (yes or somewhat Caucasian 375 84% 31 7% 38 9% p =.010) All others 15 58% 2 8% 9 35% Sexual Orientation (yes Heterosexual 385 84% 32 7% 62 9% or somewhat (p =.032) Gay, lesbian or bisexual 10 63% 1 6% 5 31% Language spoken at English 394 83% 33 7% 46 10% home Not English 4 67% 0 0% 2 33% 17 Tested for significance using an independent t-test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 86

5.2.3 Summary of active survey respondents former and current employment and employment experiences Respondents choice of job was most influenced by personal interest, but there were some differences by diversity characteristics. For example, women were significantly more influenced than men by availability of a job, available mentoring, type of work assignments, availability of clients, gender, marital status, and parental status. As expected, lawyers in diversity groups were more influenced by their diversity characteristics than those who were not in such groups. Both the women and men worked a median of 50 hours per week the same as in the 1991 study. However, the majority of women (64%) and men (59%) would prefer to work fewer hours than they were working at the time of the survey in 2003. Contrary to popular belief, among lawyers who bill by the hour, controlling for years at the bar, women respondents worked at least as many hours as the men. In fact, women without children worked significantly more hours than men without children and men and women with children. Controlling for number of years at the bar, there is no significant difference in billing hours between men with children and women with children. Even when controlling for years at the bar, women without children bill significantly more hours than men without children. However, in the large firms, men respondents charged significantly more by the hour than the women. These differential billing rates are likely one of the factors contributing to the finding that the women respondents earned less money than the men. However, even when number of years at the bar, employment in the private or public sector, and firm size are controlled for, regression analysis reveals that, overall, the men respondents earned significantly more on an annual basis than women respondents. These differences are bigger in the private sector than in the public sector. A level of dissatisfaction is indicated by the fact that women, lawyers of colour, gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers, and lawyers with disabilities were more likely than their corresponding comparative group to indicate that they would prefer to be employed differently than they were. The differences in dissatisfaction did not appear in the allotment of working time (for example, the amount of time spent on practising law, promotion and client development, etc.). Controlling for years at the bar, men in private practice were more likely than women to be involved in many of the kinds of workplace roles and activities that the literature and focus groups found to be connected to career advancement (hiring, mentoring, assigning files, supervising, developing policy, making decisions re management and remuneration, marketing). The most pronounced differences occurred between men and women who had been practising for between three and eight years. There were no significant differences when controlling for number of years at the bar on the basis of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or language. In some analyses, the number of cases available for analysis may have been too few to pick up significant differences. More than half of the workplaces offered flexible work hours (69% of the women and 77% of the men), compassionate leave for associates/employees (61% of the women and 67% of the Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 87

men), and health benefits for associates/employees (86% of the women and 81% of the men). However, fewer than a quarter of the workplaces offered job sharing (reported by 20% of the women and 24% of the men), paid parental leave for partners (20% of the women and 19% of the men), and part-time partnerships (22% of the women and 20% of the men). Fewer than onethird offered paid parental leave for associates or employees (32% of the women and 26% of the men), and 33% of the women and 31% of the men said that their workplaces offered leave of absence/sabbaticals for associates or employees. There were some difficulties with this question because of the number of respondents who did not know whether their workplaces offered some of these benefits. In terms of formal policies or guidelines, over half of the respondents workplaces have adopted policies on anti-harassment (58% reported by women and 66% by men), respectful workplace (61% reported by women and 68% by men), anti-discrimination (51% reported by women and 62% by men), and maternity and parental leave (65% of the women and 59% of the men). Fifty percent or fewer had adopted policies on equality in employment interviews (40% of the women and 50% of the men), gender inclusive communication (29% of the women and 31% of the men), and alternative work schedules (42% of the women and 49% of the men). Among all respondents, the highest degree of satisfaction (over 80%) was reported in the areas of nature of the work, contact with clients, and working relationships with female colleagues, male colleagues, and support staff. The highest degree of dissatisfaction was reported in the areas of hours of work (22% of respondents were dissatisfied), remuneration (21% dissatisfied), and balance with personal life (22% dissatisfied). Analysis revealed significant differences in satisfaction with work on the basis of gender, age, religion, disability, first language, and sexual orientation. For example, women respondents were significantly less satisfied than male respondents with hours of work, job security, credit for work, contact with clients, opportunity for advancement, working relationships with male colleagues, working relationships with administration, balance with personal life, choice of law as a career, standing among colleagues, and the respect and dignity with which they are treated by their colleagues. When asked how likely it was (0-100%) that they would look for a new job within the next year, women respondents; gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents; and respondents with disabilities were significantly more likely than their comparative groups to report that they intended to look for a new job with the next year. Diversity groups had also left a job practising law voluntarily more often than the rest, and were more likely to report that discrimination had been a factor in their decision to leave. There has been little change in the division of labour concerning childcare and household chores since 1991. The women who worked full time and had children requiring care spent an average of 37.7 hours on child care, as compared to 15.5 hours spent by men, and an average of 10 hours on household chores, as compared with eight hours by men. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 88

5.3 Children and their effects on career 5.3.1 Number of children and care of children As noted earlier, 55% of the women respondents, compared to 75% of the men, had children. The women had an average of two children, the men an average of 2.5 children. Fifteen percent of the women and 14% of the men had children since 1998. Of those who had children since 1998, the women had an average of 1.2 children, the men an average of 1.6. Help with care of children Table 5.31 shows the proportion of child care done by the respondents who worked full time and various other persons. The women provided just over half of the child care (mean = 54%, Med = 50%), whereas the men did about one-third (mean = 31%, Med =35%). Men lived in circumstances where the person they lived with provided more than half of the child care (mean = 55%, Med = 60%), whereas the people that the women lived with provided fewer than onethird (mean = 29%, Med = 30%). All of the differences between men and women were statistically significant. 18 While the proportion of child care done by both women and men respondents, rather than other paid or unpaid helpers, increased somewhat from the 1991 study, the women were still doing substantially more than the men. In 1991, the women provided an average of 44% of the child care (Med = 40%), compared with one-quarter by men (mean = 26%, Med = 25%), and the men did an average of 26% (Med = 25). The biggest change between 1991 and 2003 was the reduction in the use of alternate child care by the women. In 1991, child care workers performed 29% of the child care duties on average for women (Med = 30%), compared to an average of 12% (Med = 0) in 2003. Table 5.31. Proportion of responsibility for child care borne by persons in household Mean Median Count Mean Median Count You (p <.001) 30.9 25 254 53.9 50 140 The person you live with (p <.001) 55.4 60 254 28.5 30 140 Child's other parents (not living with you) (p=.003) 7.4 0 254 2.2 0 140 Paid child care worker (p <.001) 5.0 0 254 12.2 0 140 Other.5 0 254 1.6 0 140 18 Tested for significance using the Chi Square test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 89

5.3.2 The effects of child care responsibilities on career decisions Extent to which and ways in which child care responsibilities have affected career choices Respondents were asked about the extent to which child care responsibilities had affected their decisions regarding choice of job, choice of speciality, choice of cases, and hours of work. Table 5.32 shows that the proportion of women whose child care responsibilities had a great deal of effect on all four of these areas was generally two or three times that of the proportion of men. The majority of men lawyers reported that child care had no impact on their work, except for hours of work. Here, only 18% of the men (compared to 7% of the women) said child care responsibilities had no effect on their hours of work. However, it had a great deal of effect on hours of work for 57% of the women and 30% of the men. Women s work-related decisions were significantly more likely to be negatively affected by child care than men s decisions. 19 Table 5.32. Extent to which child care responsibilities have affected career decisions Choice of job (p <.001) Choice of specialty (p <.001) Choice of cases (p <.001) Hours of work (p <.001) Count Percent Count Percent Not at all 156 56% 32 20% Not much 26 9% 10 6% Somewhat 36 13% 45 28% A great deal 61 22% 71 45% Not at all 174 63% 46 30% Not much 36 13% 32 21% Somewhat 44 16% 38 25% A great deal 24 9% 37 24% Not at all 163 59% 45 30% Not much 43 16% 25 17% Somewhat 51 19% 49 33% A great deal 18 7% 30 20% Not at all 50 18% 11 7% Not much 44 16% 8 5% Somewhat 100 36% 49 31% A great deal 85 30% 91 57% The impact of child care responsibilities on decisions was also affected by respondents type of employment. Table 5.33 shows that those who worked in the public sector were affected to a significantly greater degree by child care decisions specifically, choice of job, choice of specialty, and hours of work than those in the private sector. On the other hand, child care responsibilities of those in the private sector affected their choice of cases significantly more often, 20 although this did not appear to be influenced by firm size. 21 19 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney test. 20 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney test. 21 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 90

Table 5.33. Extent to which child care responsibilities have affected decisions - current employment Current employment Private Public Count Percent Count Percent Not at all 181 46% 10 14% Choice of job (p <.001) Choice of specialty (p <.001) Choice of cases (p=.009 Hours or work (p=.014) Not much 35 9% 1 1% Somewhat 65 17% 23 32% A great deal 110 28% 39 53% Not at all 206 53% 19 27% Not much 58 15% 14 20% Somewhat 66 17% 23 33% A great deal 59 15% 14 20% Not at all 192 50% 23 33% Not much 61 16% 12 17% Somewhat 81 21% 24 34% A great deal 49 13% 11 16% Not at all 56 14% 4 5% Not much 46 12% 7 9% Somewhat 128 33% 23 31% A great deal 161 41% 40 54% Children in 1998 or later: maternity/parental leave with last child Ninety percent of the women and 24% of the men who had children in 1998 or later took maternity or parental leave. The women took 26 weeks of leave on average (Med = 25), while the men took an average of five weeks (Med = 2). This difference is statistically significant. 22 Table 5.34. Parental leave taken Count Percent Count Percent No 53 76% 6 10% Yes 17 24% 52 90% Table 5.35. Weeks of parental leave taken How much parental leave did you take/weeks (p=.028) Mean Median Count Mean Median Count 4.9 2 70 26.4 25 58 22 Tested for significance using an independent t-test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 91

Those in the private sector also took shorter parental leave an average of about 18 weeks as compared to 28 weeks in the public sector. Table 5.36. Parental leave taken when last child born - current employment Count Mean Median Private 54 18.29 19.50 Public 17 28.35 32.00 Total 71 20.70 20.00 Those who worked in mid-sized private firms (10 to 19 lawyers) took the highest average leave of 26 weeks and those who worked in smaller size firms (2 to 9 lawyers) took the shortest average leave of about 16 weeks. Table 5.37. Parental leave and firm size Count Mean Median One 7 22.00 24.00 2 to 9 24 16.38 15.00 10 to 19 3 26.00 24.00 20 to 49 14 20.18 22.50 50 or more 24 23.41 25.00 Total 72 20.41 20.00 Children in 1998 or later: was leave long enough Respondents who took parental leave in 1998 or later were asked if the leave they took was long enough. Of the 55 women who responded, 55% indicated it was not long enough; 44% of the 18 men who responded indicated it was not long enough. Respondents were also asked if the leave that was available to them was long enough. Of the 54 women who responded, 41% indicated it was not long enough; 33% of the 18 men who responded indicated it was not long enough. Children in 1998 or later: percentage of regular pre-leave income while on leave Respondents were asked what percentage of their regular pre-leave income their income during their leave represented. The 53 women who responded to this question indicated that they received about half of their pre-leave income (mean = 55%, Med = 50%). The 13 men who responded to this question received a much greater proportion of their pre-leave income (mean = 81%, Med = 100%). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 92

Children in 1998 or later: sources of income during leave Respondents identified the sources of their income during parental leave. A higher proportion of women than men relied on unemployment insurance (40% as compared to 18%), while fewer women relied on payment from the firm (44% as compared to 69%). Lawyers working in the public sector were more likely than those in the private sector to receive Employment Insurance benefits while on leave. Table 5.38. Sources of your income during leave Unemployment insurance Count Mean Median Count Mean Median 13 17.7.0 49 40.1 30 Payment from firm 13 69.2 100 50 44.3 40 Disability insurance 13.0.0 50 2.4.0 Other 13 13.1.0 49 6.1.0 Children since 1998: experiences as result of having children Respondents who had children in 1998 or later, and who were either practising or articling at the time, were asked whether they had experienced a number of different consequences and invited them to list additional consequences. Women most often experienced stress from competing demands between family and work (75%), loss of income (54%), and testing of commitment to work (39%). Other consequences reported by women respondents included conflict between family and work demands, decline in the quantity and quality of work assignments after having children, and loss of respect or the unspoken assumption that they were no longer as dedicated to their practices as they were previously. Men reported that they most often experienced stress from competing demands between family and work (64%), loss of income (23%) and testing of commitment to work (21%). One man wrote that his wife who was a lawyer experienced all of the possible negative consequences except for loss of her job. One man stated that he was questioned about his leave when he returned to work. As shown in Table 5.39, there were statistically significant differences in how men and women s careers were affected by having children. Women lawyers were more likely to lose seniority (13% as compared to 4% of men), lose income (54% as compared to 23% of men), experience delay in promotion (27% as compared to 11% of men), lose clients (21% as compared to 8% of men), experience testing of commitment to work (39% as compared to 21% of men), feel pressure to work while on parental leave (21% as compared to 10% of men), and experience difficulties in obtaining flexible hours or part-time work (25% as compared to 10% of men). Differences between men and women were statistically significant with respect to loss of Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 93

seniority, loss of income, delays in promotion, testing of commitment to work, pressure to work while on leave, and difficulty in obtaining flexible hours or part-time work. 23 Table 5.39. Effects of having children on career Loss of seniority (p =.039) Loss of job Loss of clients (p =.037) Loss of office space Loss of income (p <.001) Delay in promotion (p =.023) Difficulty in obtaining leave Testing of commitment to work (p =.025) Pressure to work while on parental leave Count Percent Count Percent No 59 97% 58 87% Yes 2 4% 9 13% No 59 95% 63 94% Yes 3 5% 4 6% No 56 92% 53 79% Yes 54 8% 14 21% No 60 98% 63 94% Yes 01 2% 4 6% No 47 77% 31 46% Yes 14 23% 36 54% No 54 89% 49 73% Yes 7 11% 18 27% No 56 92% 60 90% Yes 5 8% 7 10% No 48 79% 41 61% Yes 13 21% 26 39% No 55 90% 53 79% Yes 6 10% 14 21% Unreasonable work load following parental No 55 90% 56 84% leave Yes 6 10% 11 16% Difficulty in obtaining flexible hours or part No 55 90% 50 75% time work (p =.019) Yes 56 10% 17 25% Stress from competing demands between No 22 36% 17 25% family and work Yes 39 64% 50 75% 5.3.3 Summary of children and their effects on career Fifty-five percent of the women respondents, compared to 75% of the men, had children. The women had an average of two children, the men an average of 2.5 children. The women provided just over half of the child care required for their children, whereas the men provided about one-third of the required child care. Men lived in circumstances where the person they lived with provided more than half of the child care, whereas the people that the women lived with provided less than one-third. While the proportion of child care done by both women and men respondents, rather than other paid or unpaid helpers, increased somewhat from the 1991 study, the women were still doing substantially more than the men. The biggest change between 1991 and 2003 was the reduction in the use of alternate child care by the women. In 1991, child care workers performed 29% of the child care duties on average for women, compared to an average of 12% in 2003. 23 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 94

The proportion of women whose child care responsibilities had a great deal of effect on choice of job, choice of speciality, choice of cases, and hours of work was generally two or three times that of the proportion of men. The majority of men lawyers reported that child care had no impact on their work, except for hours of work. Women s work-related decisions were significantly more likely to be negatively affected by child care than men s decisions. Those who worked in the public sector were affected to a significantly greater degree by child care decisions specifically, their choice of job, choice of specialty, and hours of work had been more influenced by their child care responsibilities than those in the private sector. On the other hand, the child care responsibilities of those in the private sector affected their choice of cases significantly more often. Ninety percent of the women and only 24% of the men who had children in 1998 or later took maternity or parental leave. The women took 26 weeks of leave on average (Med = 25), while the men took an average of five weeks (Med = 2). Those in the private sector took an average of 18 weeks, compared to 28 weeks taken in the public sector. Those who worked in mid-sized private firms (10 to 19 lawyers) took the highest average leave of 26 weeks and those who worked in smaller size firms (2 to 9 lawyers) took the shortest average leave about 16 weeks. Of the 55 women who took leave and responded to the question, 55% indicated that the leave was not long enough, and 44% of the 18 men who responded indicated it was not long enough. Respondents were also asked if the leave that was available to them was long enough. Of the 54 women who responded, 41% indicated it was not long enough; 33% of the 18 men who responded indicated it was not long enough. When those who had children in 1998 or later were asked about the work-related consequences of having children, women most often experienced stress from competing demands between family and work (75%), loss of income (54%), and testing of commitment to work (39%). Men reported that they most often experienced stress from competing demands between family and work (64%), loss of income (22%), and testing of commitment to work (21%). Women lawyers were more likely to lose seniority (11% as compared to 4% of men), lose income (54% as compared to 23% of men), experience delay in promotion (27% as compared to 11% of men), lose clients (21% as compared to 8% of men), experience testing of commitment to work (39% as compared to 21% of men), feel pressure to work while on parental leave (21% as compared to 10% of men), and experience difficulties in obtaining flexible hours or part-time work (25% as compared to 10% of men). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 95

5.4 Discrimination 5.4.1 Personal experiences with discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of employment, and source of the discrimination Respondents were asked about their personal experiences with discrimination in the legal profession in the last five years, whether they did anything about the discrimination, and whether any of the actions they took were effective. Twenty-four percent of all respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment as a lawyer during the past five years. An additional 8% were unsure. 5.4.1.1 Grounds of discrimination As shown in Table 5.40 below, 39% of women respondents, as compared with 12% of men respondents, reported that they had experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment as a lawyer during the past five years. Forty-one percent of non-caucasian respondents, 29% of respondents with a non-christian religious affiliation, 40% of disabled respondents, 44% (4) of respondents whose first language was other than English, and 40% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination. Table 5.40. In the last 5 years, experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of employment as a lawyer Race Religion First language Sexual Orient Non- Caucasian Non-Christian affiliation Disabled Not English Gay, lesbian, bisexual # % # % # % # % # % # % # % experienced discrimination No 429 83.5% 184 48.0% 24 42.9% 33 58.9% 33 57.9% 5 55.5% 11 44.0% Yes 62 12.1% 151 39.4% 23 41.1% 16 28.6% 23 40.4% 4 44.5% 10 40.0% Unsure 23 4.5% 48 12.5% 9 16% 7 12.5% 1 1.7% 0 0% 4 16.0% Total 514 100% 383 100% 56 100% 56 100% 57 100% 9 100% 25 100% Respondents were then asked to report on the grounds of the discrimination that they had personally experienced and by whom: judges, other lawyers, clients, other office personnel, or court personnel. Discrimination on the basis of gender Table 5.41 shows that, overall, 6% of respondents reported discrimination on the basis of gender by judges; 18% by other lawyers; 13% by clients; 6% by other office personnel; and 1% by court personnel. Women were far more likely to have experienced gender discrimination than men. Thirty-nine percent of the women respondents identified other lawyers as the most likely to discriminate against them, followed by clients (27%), office personnel (13%), judges (12%), and court personnel (3%). Three percent or fewer of the men who responded to the questionnaire identified any of these sources of discrimination. In the 1991 survey, 59% of the women had Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 96

experienced discrimination from lawyers on the basis of sex, and 39% had experienced discrimination from clients. This appears to show a decline in discrimination experienced by women; however, the 1991 question did not limit the time framework to the last five years as the 2003 question did. Table 5.41. Source of discrimination while seeking or during employment on the basis of gender Count Col % Count Col % Total Col % Nature of discrimination-by judges-gender Nature of discrimination-by other lawyersgender Nature of discrimination-by clients-gender Nature of discrimination-by other office personnel-gender Nature of discrimination-by court personnelgender No 505 98% 337 88% 842 94% Yes 9 2% 47 12% 56 6% No 501 97% 234 61% 735 82% Yes 13 3% 150 39% 163 18% No 503 98% 280 73% 783 87% Yes 11 2% 104 27% 115 13% No 509 99% 333 87% 842 94% Yes 5 1% 51 13% 56 6% No 512 99% 374 97% 886 99% Yes 2 <1% 10 3% 12 1% Discrimination on the basis of race Table 5.42 shows the percentage of respondents who experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment by various groups on the basis of race, ethnic background, and religion. Lawyers of colour were most frequently discriminated against on the basis of race by clients (30%), followed by other lawyers (26%), judges (12%), office personnel (7%), and court personnel (3.5%). They were most frequently discriminated against on the basis of ethnic origin by other lawyers (28%), followed by clients (23%), judges (11%), office personnel (7%), and court personnel (5%). Five percent of the respondents of colour and 2% of the Caucasian respondents reported that they were discriminated against by other lawyers on the basis of religion. Otherwise, there were almost no reports of discrimination on the basis of race by Caucasian lawyers. In the 1991 survey, 34% of the lawyers who identified themselves as belonging to a visible minority group experienced discrimination from lawyers and 29% experienced discrimination from clients. The results from the two studies are not comparable because the 1991 question did not restrict the time framework to the last five years. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 97

Table 5.42. Sources of discrimination while seeking or during employment on the basis of race, ethnic background, and religion Nature of discrimination-by judges-race Nature of discrimination-by judgesethnic background Nature of discrimination-by judgesreligion Nature of discrimination-by other lawyers-race Nature of discrimination-by other lawyers-ethnic background Nature of discrimination-by other lawyers-religion Nature of discrimination-by clients-race Nature of discrimination-by clientsethnic background Nature of discrimination-by clientsreligious beliefs Nature of discrimination-by other office personnel-race Nature of discrimination-by other office personnel-ethnic background Nature of discrimination-by other office personnel-religion beliefs Nature of discrimination-by court personnel-race Nature of discrimination-by court personnel-ethnic background Nature of discrimination-by court personnel-religion beliefs Race Caucasian all others Count Column % Count Column % No 827 99.6% 50 87.7% Yes 3.4% 7 12.3% No 827 99.6% 51 89.5% Yes 3.4% 6 10.5% No 826 99.5% 57 100% Yes 4.5% 0.0% No 823 99.3% 42 73.7% Yes 6.7% 15 26.3% No 822 99.2% 41 71.9% Yes 7.8% 16 28.1% No 815 98.2% 54 94.7% Yes 15 1.8% 3 5.3% No 827 99.6% 40 70.2% Yes 3.4% 17 29.8% No 826 99.5% 44 77.2% Yes 4.5% 13 22.8% No 875 99.4% 55 96.5% Yes 5.6% 2 3.5% No 878 99.8% 52 93.0% Yes 2.2% 4 7.0% No 877 99.6% 53 93.0% Yes 3.4% 4 7.0% No 876 95.5% 57 100% Yes 4.5% 0.0% No 877 96.4% 55 96.5% Yes 3.4% 2 3.5% No 878 99.8% 54 94.7% Yes 2.2% 3 5.3% No 878 99.8% 57 100% Yes 2.2% 0.0% Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Table 5.43 shows that gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers were most frequently discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation by other lawyers (20%), followed by other office personnel (16%), clients (8%), and court personnel (8%). It is possible that these rates of discrimination would be higher if more of the gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers were out. Although only 14 of the 25 lawyers who identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual also answered the question of whether their colleagues were aware of their sexual orientation, it appears, not surprisingly, that discrimination was only experienced by those whose sexual orientation was known. Respondents were not asked their sexual orientation in 1991, however, three women and 11 men had experienced discrimination by lawyers on the basis of sexual orientation, and two women and seven men experienced discrimination by clients. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 98

Table 5.43. Sources of discrimination while seeking or during employment on the basis of sexual orientation Nature of discrimination-by judges-sexual orientation Nature of discrimination-by other lawyerssexual orientation Nature of discrimination-by clients-sexual orientation Nature of discrimination-by other office personnel-sexual orientation Nature of discrimination-by court personnelsexual orientation Sexual Orientation gay, lesbian or bisexual Count Column % Are your colleagues aware of your sexual orientation No Some trusted colleagues know I am completely out No 24 96% 5 6 2 Yes 1 4% 0 0 1 No 20 80% 5 2 2 Yes 5 20% 0 4 1 No 23 92% 5 5 2 Yes 2 8% 0 1 1 No 21 84% 5 3 2 Yes 4 16% 0 3 1 No 23 92% 5 5 2 Yes 2 8% 0 1 1 Unknown 11 11 11 11 11 Discrimination on the basis of disability Fourteen percent of the respondents with disabilities reported that they had been discriminated against by other lawyers on the basis of disabilities while seeking employment or during the course of their employment. The next most frequent source of discrimination for lawyers with disabilities was from office personnel (11%), followed by clients (5%), judges (5%) and court personnel (2%). Discrimination on the basis of religion Table 5.44 shows the percentage of respondents in the three religious groupings (Christian, other religions and no religious affiliation) who experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment by various groups on the basis of race, ethnic background, or religion. The only group in which more than 5% of the lawyers experienced discrimination was in the other religions category. These lawyers were most frequently discriminated against on the basis of religion by other lawyers (7%) and by clients (3.4%). Because there is an association, albeit imperfect, between affiliation with a non-christian religion and belonging to a visible minority group, discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin are also presented in the table. Fourteen percent of the non-christian respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination on the basis of race and 17% on the basis of ethnic background by other lawyers. Fewer than 3% of the Christian lawyers and the lawyers with no religious affiliation reported having experienced discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic background, or religion. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 99

Table 5.44. Discrimination while seeking or during employment on the basis of religion Religion Nature of discrimination-by judgesrace Nature of discrimination-by judgesethnic background Nature of discrimination-by judgesreligion Nature of discrimination-by other lawyers-race Nature of discrimination-by other lawyers-ethnic background Nature of discrimination-by other lawyers-religion Nature of discrimination-by clientsrace Nature of discrimination-by clientsethnic background Nature of discrimination-by clientsreligion Nature of discrimination-by other office personnel-race Other Christian No Religious Affiliation Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % No 54 94.8% 555 98.9% 268 99.3% Yes 3 5.2% 6 1.1% 2.7% No 55 96.6% 554 98.8% 269 99.6% Yes 2 3.4% 7 1.2% 1.4% No 57 100% 557 99.4% 270 100% Yes 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% No 49 86.2% 552 98.4% 265 98.1% Yes 8 13.8% 9 1.6% 5 1.9% No 47 82.8 550 88.0% 267 98.9% Yes 10 17.2% 11 2.0% 3 1.1% No 53 93.1% 547 97.5% 270 100% Yes 4 6.9% 14 2.5% 0.0% No 41 89.7% 554 98.8% 263 97.4% Yes 6 10.3% 7 1.2% 7 2.6% No 53 93.1% 553 98.6% 265 98.1%% Yes 4 6.9% 8 1.4% 5 1.9% No 55 96.6% 556 99.1% 270 100% Yes 2 3.4% 5.9% 0.0% No 56 98.3 559 99.6% 267 98.9% Yes 1 1.7% 2.4% 3 1.1% Language Only nine lawyers who spoke a language other than English most often at home responded to the question. Two said they faced discrimination from other lawyers on the basis of their race and ethnic background, and two said they faced discrimination from clients on the basis of race. One faced discrimination by clients on the basis of ethnic background. Marital Status Eight percent of the women respondents who were not living in a married or cohabiting relationship had experienced discrimination from other lawyers on the basis of marital status, and 6% of women respondents who were living in a married or cohabiting relationship had experienced discrimination from other lawyers on the basis of marital status. Four percent of the women respondents who were not living in a married or cohabiting relationship had experienced discrimination by clients and 3% from office personnel. Other reports of discrimination on the basis of marital status were from one percent or fewer of the respondents. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 100

Parental Status Fourteen percent of the women with children reported that they had experienced discrimination from other lawyers on the basis of their parental status, and 3% had experienced discrimination from judges and office personnel. Other reports of discrimination on the basis of marital status were by two percent or fewer of the respondents. Age Table 5.45 shows the proportion of respondents reporting discrimination on the basis of age generally declines from the youngest to the oldest age group. Lawyers were most likely to report having experienced discrimination on the basis of age by other lawyers and by clients. Table 5.45. Discrimination on the basis of age Age by Categories < 30 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 Count % Count % Count % Count % Cou nt % Count % Cou nt % Count % Nature of No 58 92% 100 92% 130 96% 149 97% 165 98% 130 100% 85 100% 48 100% discrim-by judges-age Yes 5 8% 9 8% 6 4% 4 3% 4 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Nature of discrim-by other lawyersage No 50 79% 93 85% 122 90% 145 95% 159 94% 125 95% 76 89% 47 98% Yes 13 21% 16 15% 14 10% 8 5% 10 6% 6 5% 9 11% 1 2% Nature of No 50 79% 88 81% 128 94% 148 97% 164 28% 129 98% 85 100% 47 98% discrim-by clients-age Yes 13 21% 21 19% 8 6% 5 3% 5 3% 2 2% 0 0% 1 2% Nature of discrim-by other office personnel-age Nature of discrim-by court personnel-age No 54 86% 103 95% 132 97% 152 99% 165 98% 131 100% 85 100% 49 100% Yes 9 14% 6 5% 4 3% 1 1% 4 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% No 60 95% 107 98% 134 99% 151 99% 167 99% 131 100% 85 100% 48 100% Yes 3 5% 2 2% 2 1% 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5.4.1.2 Denial of opportunities to work on files Denied an opportunity to work on a file due to discrimination by another lawyer Respondents who worked in an organization with other lawyers were asked how often in the last five years they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer preferred to work with a different lawyer because of their age, disability, gender, marital status, parental status, race, ethnic background, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of gender Of the 333 women who responded to the question, 72% said they had never been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender, 4% said it rarely happened, 11% said it sometimes occurred, 3% said it happened often, and 10% were unsure. Of the 418 men who responded to the question, 94% said it never happened, 1% said it rarely happened, 3% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 2% were unsure. These differences are statistically significant. 1 1 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 101

Table 5.46. 2003 Survey: Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of gender 2003 Survey Count Column % Count Column % Never 392 94% 240 72% Another lawyergender (p <.001) Rarely 5 1% 14 4% Sometimes 11 3% 36 11% Often 2 0% 11 3% Unsure 8 2% 32 10% The comparable results from the 1991 study are shown in the following table. The major changes from 1991 to 2003 appear to be that the percentage of women and men who indicated that this had never happened to them increased, and the percentage who were unsure decreased. In 1991, 39% of women and 80% of men said this never happened to them, and 22% of women and 15% of men were unsure. In 2003, 72% of the women indicated never, up from 39% in 1991, and the percentage of men indicating never has gone from 80% in 1991 to 94% in 2003. Table 5.47. 1991 Survey: Felt they were denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of gender 1991 Survey Another lawyergender Count Column % Count Column % Never 1343 80% 217 39% Rarely 63 4% 70 13% Sometimes 25 1% 107 19% Often 4.2% 42 8% Don t know 251 15% 124 22% Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of race Of the 51 lawyers of colour who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer preferred to work with a different lawyer because of their race, 80% said it never happened, none said this experience was rare, 6% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 14% were unsure. Of the 666 Caucasian lawyers who responded to the question, 97% said it never happened, 1% said this experience was rare, none said it sometimes or often occurred, and 2% were unsure. These differences are statistically significant. 2 2 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 102

Table 5.48. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of race or ethnic background Another lawyerrace (p =.002) Another lawyerethnic background (p =.013) Race Caucasian all others Count Column % Count Column % Never 644 97% 41 80% Rarely 5 1% 0 0% Sometimes 3 0% 3 6% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 14 2% 7 14% Never 643 97% 41 82% Rarely 4 1% 0 0% Sometimes 2 0% 2 4% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 14 2% 7 14% Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of sexual orientation Of the 22 gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyers preferred to work with a different lawyer because of their sexual orientation, 64% of them said it never happened, none said this experience was rare, 9% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 27% were unsure. As with discrimination reported by gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers in general, their experiences appear to be related to whether they had revealed their sexual orientation to others. Of the 696 heterosexual lawyers who responded to the question, 98% of them said it never happened; none said it rarely, sometimes, or often occurred; and 2% were unsure. Not surprisingly, gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers were significantly more likely than heterosexual lawyers to be denied an opportunity to work on a file by another lawyer. 3 Table 5.49. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of sexual orientation Sexual Orientation heterosexual gay, lesbian or bisexual Count Column % Count Column % Never 680 98% 14 64% Another lawyersexual orientation (p <.001) Rarely 1 0% 0 0% Sometimes 0 0% 2 9% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 15 2% 6 27% 3 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 103

Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of disability Of the 37 lawyers with disabilities who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyers preferred to work with a different lawyer because of their disabilities, 81% of them said it never happened, 3% said this experience was rare, 11% said it sometimes occurred, 3% said it happened often, and 3% were unsure. Of the 677 lawyers without disabilities who responded to the question, 97% of them said it never happened, and 3% were unsure. These differences are statistically significant. 4 Table 5.50. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of disability Another lawyerdisability (p <.001) Disability No Yes Count Column % Count Column % Never 656 97% 30 81% Rarely 2 0% 1 3% Sometimes 0 0% 4 11% Often 1 0% 1 3% Unsure 18 3% 1 3% Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of religion Table 5.51 shows that none of the lawyers of various religious affiliations were often denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer in their firm preferred to work with another lawyer because of their religious beliefs. However, lawyers practising non-christian religions were either unsure or felt that they were more likely to be denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer in their firm preferred to work with another lawyer because of their religious beliefs. Nine percent of the respondents who practised non-christian religions were unsure, while 2% of those who practised a Christian religion and 3% of those without a religious affiliation were unsure. Four percent of the lawyers practising non-christian religions, as compared with 1% of Christian respondents and less than 1% of those without a religious affiliation, were denied an opportunity to work on a file rarely or sometimes. These differences are statistically significant. 5 Table 5.51. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of religion Another lawyerreligious beliefs (p =.025) Religion Other Christian No Religious Affiliation Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Never 39 87% 430 97% 218 97% Rarely 0 0% 3 1% 1 0% Sometimes 2 4% 2 0% 0 0% Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 4 9% 9 2% 6 3% 4 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 5 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 104

Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of marital status Table 5.52 shows that women respondents who were either single or in a married or cohabitating relationship were more often than males denied an opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer in their firm preferred to work with another lawyer because of their marital status. Nine percent of women in a relationship and 11% of single women were either rarely or sometimes denied an opportunity to work on a file (or were unsure) as compared to 7% of single men and 4% of married men. There was no significant difference between men and women on this variable. 6 Table 5.52. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of marital status Another lawyermarital status Are you in a married or cohabitating relationship Are you in a married or cohabitating relationship No Yes No Yes Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Never 62 94% 340 97% 73 89% 211 91% Rarely 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 4 2% Sometimes 1 2% 2 1% 0 0% 5 2% Often 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 2 3% 7 2% 9 11% 11 5% Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of parental status Table 5.53 shows, and statistical analysis confirms, 7 that women lawyers with children were significantly more often denied an opportunity to work on a file than men lawyers with children because a lawyer in their organization preferred to work with another lawyer because of their parental status. Sixteen percent of the women respondents with children were either rarely or sometimes denied an opportunity to work on a file (or were unsure) as compared to 5% of women with no children, 10% of men with children and 6% of men without children. Table 5.53. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of parental status Another lawyerparental status (p <.001) Does respondent have children? Does respondent have children? no children has children no children has children Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Never 110 95% 289 97% 128 96% 146 83% Rarely 0 0% 3 1% 1 1% 6 3% Sometimes 2 2% 2 1% 0 0% 11 6% Often 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% Unsure 3 3% 5 2% 4 3% 11 6% 6 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 7 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 105

Denied an opportunity by another lawyer on the basis of age Table 5.54 shows that lawyers under the age of 40 years were significantly more likely to report being denied the opportunity to work on a file because another lawyer in their firm or organization preferred to work with another lawyer because of their age. 8 It is recognized that this may be attributable to lack of experience on the younger lawyers part, rather than simple age discrimination. Table 5.54. Denied opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer on the basis of age Another lawyer-age (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Age <30 years 30-39 years 40-49 years >49 years Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 29 80.6% 187 87.0% 230 95.4% 168 94.4% 1 2.8% 10 4.7% 7 2.9% 6 3.4% 5 13.9% 14 6.5% 4 1.7% 3 1.7% 1 2.8% 4 1.9% 1.6% Denied an opportunity to work on a file due to discrimination by a client Respondents were asked how often in the last five years they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their age, disability, gender, marital status, parental status, race, ethnic background, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of gender In the last five years, 89% (344) of the women respondents and 94% of the men (487) had worked with clients. Of the 339 women who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender, 48% of them said it never happened, 17% said this experience was rare, 22% said it sometimes occurred, 1% said it happened often, and 12% were unsure. Of the 463 men who responded to the question, 83% of them said it never happened, 6% said this experience was rare, 4% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 6% were unsure. Statistical analysis reveals that the women lawyers were significantly more likely to be denied an opportunity to work on a file because the client preferred to work with a man lawyer. 9 Table 5.55. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination - gender Client preferred another lawyer because ofgender (p <.001) Count Column % Count Column % Never 386 83% 162 48% Rarely 28 6% 58 17% Sometimes 19 4% 75 22% Often 2 0% 4 1% Unsure 28 6% 40 12% 8 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. 9 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 106

Respondents were asked a similar question in 1991. The two biggest changes appear to be that the percentage of men who responded never increased from 67% to 83%, and the percentage of women who responded never increased from 25% to 48%. In addition, fewer women and men were uncertain. 10 Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of race In the preceding five years, 93% of the lawyers of colour (N=54) and 94% of Caucasian lawyers (N=840) who responded to the survey had worked with clients. Of the 49 lawyers of colour who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their race, 59% of them said it never happened, 4% said this experience was rare, 22% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 14% were unsure. Of the 697 Caucasian lawyers who responded to the question, 94% of them said it never happened, none said this experience was rare, 2% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 4% were unsure. Of the 48 lawyers of colour who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their ethnic background, 63% said it never happened, 4% said this experience was rare, 23% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 10% were unsure. Of the 693 Caucasian lawyers who responded to the question, 94% of them said it never happened, 1% said this experience was rare, 2% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 3% were unsure. Table 5.56. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination - race Client preferred another lawyer because of-race Client preferred another lawyer because of-ethnic background Race Caucasian all others Count Column % Count Column % Never 658 94% 29 59% Rarely 3 0% 2 4% Sometimes 11 2% 11 22% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 25 4% 7 14% Never 653 94% 30 63% Rarely 6 1% 2 4% Sometimes 11 2% 11 23% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 23 3% 5 10% 10 The question in 1991 asked respondents if they felt they had been denied an opportunity and the 2003 question asked respondents if they had been denied an opportunity and this difference in wording could account for some of the difference. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 107

Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of sexual orientation In the preceding five years, 92% (22) of the gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers and 94% (806) of heterosexual lawyers who responded to the survey had worked with clients. Of the 19 gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their sexual orientation, 68% of them said it never happened, 5% said this experience was rare, 5% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 21% were unsure. Of the 721 heterosexual lawyers who responded to the question, 96% said it never happened, none said this experience was rare, sometimes occurred or happened often, and 3% were unsure. Table 5.57. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination sexual orientation Sexual Orientation Heterosexual Gay, lesbian or bisexual Count Column % Count Column % Never 694 96% 13 68% Client preferred another lawyer because of-sexual orientation Rarely 1 0% 1 5% Sometimes 3 0% 1 5% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 23 3% 4 21% Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of disability In the last five years, 98% (N=55) of the respondents with disabilities and 93% (N=777) of respondents without disabilities had worked with clients. Of the 47 lawyers with disabilities who responded to the question of whether they had ever been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their disabilities, 74% said it never happened, 11% said this experience was rare, 4% said it sometimes occurred, none said it happened often, and 11% were unsure. Of the 674 lawyers without disabilities who responded to the question, 97% said it never happened and 3% were unsure. Table 5.58. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination - disability Disability No Yes Count Column % Count Column % Never 649 97% 35 74% Client preferred another lawyer because of-disability Rarely 0 0% 5 11% Sometimes 3 0% 2 4% Often 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 22 3% 5 11% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 108

Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of religion In the last five years, 93% (518) of the Christian respondents, 91% (53) of respondents of other religions, and 95% (252) of respondents who had no religious affiliation had worked with clients. Table 5.59 shows that lawyers of other religions were more likely to be denied an opportunity to work on a file by clients because of their religious beliefs, ethnic background, and race than Christian lawyers or lawyers who are not affiliated with a religion. Table 5.59. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination religion Religion Other Christian No Religious Affiliation Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Never 35 76% 440 95% 217 93% Client preferred another lawyer because of-religious beliefs Client preferred another lawyer because of-ethnic background Client preferred another lawyer because of-race Rarely 2 4% 6 1% 3 1% Sometimes 4 9% 5 1% 1 0% Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 5 11% 11 2% 12 5% Never 33 72% 438 94% 214 92% Rarely 2 4% 2 0% 4 2% Sometimes 7 15% 11 2% 4 2% Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 4 9% 13 3% 11 5% Never 32 68% 442 95% 215 91% Rarely 2 4% 1 0% 2 1% Sometimes 7 15% 10 2% 5 2% Often 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Unsure 6 13% 13 3% 13 6% Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of marital status Table 5.60 shows that while some respondents were unsure whether a client had preferred another lawyer because of their marital status, for the most part this was not a factor in respondents opportunities to work on a file. Table 5.60. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination marital status Are you in a married or cohabitating relationship No Yes Count Column % Count Column % Never 135 89% 563 94% Client preferred another lawyer because of-marital status Rarely 3 2% 6 1% Sometimes 2 1% 4 1% Often 1 1% 0 0% Unsure 11 7% 28 5% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 109

Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of parental status Table 5.61 shows that while some respondents were unsure whether a client had preferred another lawyer because of their parental status, for the most part this was not a factor in respondents opportunities to work on a file. Table 5.61. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination parental status Does respondent have children? no children has children Count Column % Count Column % Never 225 92% 469 93% Client preferred another lawyer because of-parental status Rarely 5 2% 5 1% Sometimes 1 0% 6 1% Often 1 0% 1 0% Unsure 12 5% 23 5% Client preferred another lawyer on the basis of age Table 5.62 shows that the younger the respondent the more likely they were to report that they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred another lawyer on the basis of age. However, this rejection was also reported by some lawyers who were 60 years of age or older. Table 5.62. Denied an opportunity to work on file due to client discrimination - age Client prefered another lawyer because of-age Never Rarely Sometimes Often Unsure Age <30 years 30-39 years 40-49 years >49 years Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 11 26.8% 118 51.5% 228 83.5% 194 87.8% 7 17.1% 38 16.6% 17 6.2% 6 2.7% 16 39.0% 46 20.1% 10 3.7% 7 3.2% 1 2.4% 4 1.7% 6 14.6% 23 10.0% 18 6.6% 14 6.3% 5.4.1.3 Being mistaken for someone other than a lawyer Respondents who had clients or who had gone to court in the last five years were asked how often they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by a judge, other lawyers, clients, or court personnel. Mistaken for someone other than a lawyer - gender Of the 269 women who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by a judge, 79% had never been so mistaken, 11% had rarely been mistaken, 9% had sometimes been mistaken, and 1% had often been mistaken. Of the 384 men who answered the question, 92% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by a judge, 7% had rarely been mistaken, 2% had sometimes been mistaken, and none had often been mistaken. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 110

Of the 270 women who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by other lawyers, 62% had never been so mistaken, 18% had rarely been mistaken, 18% had sometimes been mistaken, and 3% had often been mistaken. Of the 384 men who answered the question, 85% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by other lawyers, 11% had rarely been mistaken, 3% had sometimes been mistaken, and 1% had often been mistaken. Of the 271 women who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by clients, 57% had never been so mistaken, 16% had rarely been mistaken, 22% had sometimes been mistaken, and 5% had often been mistaken. Of the 382 men who answered the question, 86% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by clients, 10% had rarely been mistaken, 4% had sometimes been mistaken, and none had often been mistaken. Of the 269 women who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by court personnel, 67% had never been so mistaken, 17% had rarely been mistaken, 15% had sometimes been mistaken, and 2% had often been mistaken. Of the 383 men who answered the question, 85% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by court personnel, 10% had rarely been mistaken, 4% had sometimes been mistaken, and 1% had often been mistaken. Statistical analysis reveals that the women lawyers were significantly more likely to be mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by judges, other lawyers, clients, and court personnel. 11 Table 5.63. Mistaken for someone other than a lawyer gender In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-judges (p <.001) In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-other lawyers (p <.001) In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-clients (p <.001) In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-court personnel (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Count Count Percent Count Count Percent 353 91.9% 212 78.8% 25 6.5% 29 10.8% 6 1.6% 24 8.9% 4 1.5% 328 85.4% 166 61.5% 43 11.2% 48 17.8% 11 2.9% 48 17.8% 2.5% 8 3.0% 328 85.9% 154 56.8% 37 9.7% 44 16.2% 17 4.5% 60 22.1% 13 4.8% 327 85.4% 179 66.5% 40 10.4% 45 16.7% 14 3.7% 39 14.5% 2.5% 6 2.2% 11 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 111

Mistaken for someone other than a lawyer - race Of the 37 lawyers of colour who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by judges, 62% had never been so mistaken, 14% had rarely been mistaken, 22% had sometimes been mistaken, and 3% had often been mistaken. Of the 605 Caucasian lawyers who answered the question, 88% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by a judge, 8% had rarely been mistaken, 4% had sometimes been mistaken, and 1% had often been mistaken. Of the 38 lawyers of colour who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by other lawyers, 37% had never been so mistaken, 24% had rarely been mistaken, 32% had sometimes been mistaken, and 8% had often been mistaken. Of the 605 Caucasian lawyers who answered the question, 78% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by other lawyers, 13% had rarely been mistaken, 8% had sometimes been mistaken, and 1% had often been mistaken. Of the 38 lawyers of colour who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by clients, 53% had never been so mistaken, 10% had rarely been mistaken, 32% had sometimes been mistaken, and 5% had often been mistaken. Of the 605 Caucasian lawyers who answered the question, 75% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by clients, 12% had rarely been mistaken, 11% had sometimes been mistaken, and 2% had often been mistaken. Of the 37 lawyers of colour who answered the question about whether they had been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by court personnel, 49% had never been so mistaken, 16% had rarely been mistaken, 27% had sometimes been mistaken, and 8% had often been mistaken. Of the 605 Caucasian lawyers who answered the question, 79% had never been mistaken as someone other than a lawyer by court personnel, 13% had rarely been mistaken, 7% had sometimes been mistaken, and 1% had often been mistaken. Statistical analysis reveals that the lawyers of colour were significantly more likely to be mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by judges, other lawyers, clients, and court personnel. 12 12 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 112

Table 5.64. Mistaken for someone other than a lawyer race In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-judges (p <.001) In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-other lawyers (p <.001) In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-clients (p =.001) In the last 5 years-how often have you been mistaken-court personnel (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Race Caucasian all others Count Count Percent Count Count Percent 533 88.1% 23 62.2% 47 7.8% 5 13.5% 22 3.6% 8 21.6% 3.5% 1 2.7% 471 77.9% 14 36.8% 81 13.4% 9 23.7% 46 7.6% 12 31.6% 7 1.2% 3 7.9% 455 75.2% 20 52.6% 75 12.4% 4 10.5% 65 10.7% 12 31.6% 10 1.7% 2 5.3% 479 79.3% 18 48.6% 78 12.9% 6 16.2% 42 7.0% 10 27.0% 5.8% 3 8.1% 5.4.1.4 Judges commenting on clothing or personal appearance Respondents who had gone to court in the last five years were asked whether judges had ever commented on their personal appearance. Of the 276 women who answered the question, 86% had never had the experience, 10% had the experience rarely, 4% sometimes, and 0% had often had judges comment on their personal appearance. Of the 392 men who answered the question, 89% had never had the experience, 9% had it rarely, 2% sometimes, and 0% had often had judges comment on their personal appearance. There was no statistically significant difference between men and women lawyers on this variable. Of the 39 lawyers of colour that answered the question, 77% had never had the experience, 10% had the experience rarely, 10% sometimes, and 3% had often had judges comment on their personal appearance. Of the 618 Caucasians who answered the question, 88% had never had the experience, 9% had it rarely, 3% sometimes, and 0% had often had judges comment on their personal appearance. Lawyers of colour were significantly more likely than Caucasian lawyers to report that judges commented on their clothing or personal appearance. 13 Table 5.65. Judges commenting on clothing or personal appearance gender, race Race Caucasian all others Count % Count % Count % Count % In the last 5 years-judges commented on personal appearance (Race p =.026) Never 348 89% 236 86% 544 88% 30 77% Rarely 34 9% 27 10% 55 9% 4 10% Sometimes 9 2% 12 4% 18 3% 4 10% Often 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 3% Total 392 100% 276 100% 618 100% 39 100% 13 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 113

5.4.1.5 Responding to discrimination Of the 275 respondents who responded to the question of whether they did anything about the discrimination, 67 (24%) did something about it. Twenty-one respondents reported that they quit their positions. Eleven lawyers dealt with the issue internally by bringing it up with office management or partners. In four cases, lawyers refused to work for clients that discriminated or gave them the ultimatum. Two lawyers called the Law Society. In one case the complaints officer did not take any action, and in the in the other case the lawyer regretted reporting the incident because it wasn t a good experience. Others attempted to analyze the issue, practised avoidance ( there are enough people that don t discriminate. I do not need to waste my time or energy on people who discriminate ), explained that the comments were inappropriate, vocalized concerns ( but I m usually dismissed as being overly sensitive and reactive ), went on stress leave, ( laughed about it in case of race, nothing in case of gender. ) One wrote: I passed the word, but only to those I thought would understand and believe it really happened. One respondent refused the sexual advances and another told everyone. One lawyer wrote: what possible remedy is there? The judges who assumed I was the accused or the court interpreter or that I worked for native counselling as a court worker what can I do about that? Another wrote: white males are today s niggers without elaboration. Of the 68 people who responded to the question of whether their actions taken to resolve the discrimination problem had been effective, 32 (47%) said that it had been effective. In some cases the effectiveness was that the lawyer simply moved to a better job or another career (a waitress in one case). For the most part, respondents who commented did not think that the attitudes they left behind had changed. In another case, the lawyer was fired several months later. 5.4.1.6 Modifying religious practise due to fear of professional repercussions Respondents who reported having a religious affiliation were asked whether they had ever modified their religious practises for fear of professional repercussions (e.g., eating restrictions, working particular days). Christian lawyers were less likely to modify their religious practises than lawyers of other religions. Of the respondents with a non-christian religious affiliation, 72% indicated that they had never done this, 9% said rarely, 11% sometimes, and 9% often. Likewise, respondents with a non-christian affiliation were more likely than Christian lawyers to report that they had withheld information about religious affiliation from colleagues for fear of professional repercussions: 74% indicated that they had never done this, 9% rarely, 13% sometimes, and 4% often. The differences between the two groups of respondents are statistically significant. 14 14 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 114

Table 5.66. Modified religious practises or withheld information about religious affiliation Religion Have you modified you religious practices for fear of professional reprecussions (p <.001) Have you withheld information about your religious affiliation from colleagues for fear of professional repercussions (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Other Christian Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 34 72.3% 400 93.0% 4 8.5% 15 3.5% 5 10.6% 14 3.3% 4 8.5% 1.2% 35 74.5% 383 89.1% 4 8.5% 24 5.6% 6 12.8% 20 4.7% 2 4.3% 3.7% 5.4.1.7 Not attending work-related social or business development activities Respondents were asked how often they had decided not to attend work-related social, networking, or business development activities due to a number of possible factors. Respondents were asked whether their non-attendance was because of family responsibilities. Of the 371 women who answered the question, 17% had never done this, 16% had done it rarely, 45% sometimes, and 22% often. Of the 501 men who answered the question, 23% had never done this, 18% had done it rarely, 44% sometimes, and 15% often. Women were significantly less likely than men to attend due to family responsibilities. Of the 378 women who responded to the question of how often they had decided not to attend such activities because of a feeling of exclusion from the activity based on gender, 54% had never done this, 18% had done it rarely, 23% sometimes, and 5% often. Of the 501 men who answered the question, 91% had never done this, 5% had done it rarely, 3% sometimes, and 1% often. Women were significantly less likely than men to attend due to a feeling of exclusion on the basis of gender. 15 Table 5.67. Not attend law-related activities due to family responsibilities or a feeling of exclusion on the basis of gender Not attend activities-family responsibilities (p =.003) Not attend activities-a feeling of exclusion from the activity on the basis of gender (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Never Rarely Sometimes Often Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 115 23.0% 64 17.3% 90 18.0% 60 16.2% 222 44.3% 166 44.7% 74 14.8% 81 21.8% 457 91.2% 203 53.7% 24 4.8% 68 18.0% 16 3.2% 88 23.3% 4.8% 19 5.0% 15 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 115

Respondents were asked how often they had decided not to attend work-related social, networking, or business development activities due to moral or religious convictions. Lawyers with religions other than Christian were the most likely to be affected. Of the 55 lawyers of other religions answered the question, 55% had never done this, 20% had done it rarely, 22% sometimes, and 4% often. These differences are statistically significant. 16 Table 5.68. Not attend law-related activities due to moral or religious convictions Not attend activities-moral or religious convictions (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Religion No Religious Other Christian Affiliation Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 30 54.5% 432 79.7% 229 86.7% 11 20.0% 59 10.9% 13 4.9% 12 21.8% 46 8.5% 19 7.2% 2 3.6% 5.9% 3 1.1% Respondents were also asked how often they had decided not to attend work-related social, networking, or business development activities due to physical access issues or barriers. Of the 50 lawyers with disabilities who answered the question, 70% had never done this, 12% had done it rarely, 10% sometimes, and 8% often. These differences are statistically significant. 17 Table 5.69. Not attend law-related activities due to physical access issues or barriers Not attend activities-physical access issues or barriers (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Do you have a disability No Yes Count Col % Count Col % 717 98.2% 35 70.0% 8 1.1% 6 12.0% 5.7% 5 10.0% 4 8.0% Finally, respondents were asked how often they had decided not to attend work-related social, networking, or business development activities due to a feeling of exclusion from the activity on the basis of sexual orientation. Of the 831 heterosexual lawyers who answered the question, 99% had never done this. Gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers were significantly less likely to attend due to feelings of exclusion: 18 Of the 23 gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers who answered the question, 39% had never done this, 26% had done it rarely, 30% sometimes, and 4% often. Table 5.70. Not attend law-related activities due to a feeling of exclusion on the basis of sexual orientation Not attend activities-a feeling of exclusion from the activity on the basis of sexual orientation (p <.001) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Sexual Orientation gay, lesbian or heterosexual bisexual Count Col % Count Col % 823 99.0% 9 39.1% 4.5% 6 26.1% 2.2% 7 30.4% 2.2% 1 4.3% 16 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. 17 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 18 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 116

5.4.1.8 Does your firm or organization discriminate; if so, in what ways? Respondents were asked whether they thought their firm discriminated against lawyers. Nineteen percent of the women and 9% of the men indicated that their firms did discriminate. The same view was held by 18% of lawyers of colour and 13% of Caucasian lawyers, 13% of Christian lawyers, 17% of lawyers of other religions and 13% of lawyers with no religious affiliation; 16% of lawyers with a disability and 14% of lawyers without a disability; 32% of gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers and 13% of heterosexual lawyers; none of those who did not speak English at home and 14% of those who spoke English at home; 11% of lawyers who were married or cohabiting and 23% of those who were not; and 11% of those with children and 20% of those without children. The younger lawyers were more likely to think their firms discriminated against lawyers: 20% of lawyers under the age of 30 as compared with 5% of lawyers aged 50 years or more thought their firms discriminated. Differences among respondents on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, and age are statistically significant. 19 Table 5.71. Whether firm or organization discriminates against lawyers (p <.001) Race Religion Do you have a disability Sexual Orientation (p =.012) Language spoken at home Are you in a married or cohabitating relationship (p <.001) Does respondent have children (p <.001) Age (p <.001) Caucasian all others Other Christian No Religious Affiliation No Yes heterosexual gay, lesbian or bisexual English Not English No Yes no children has children <30 years 30-39 years 40-49 years >49 years In your view, does you firm or organization discriminate against lawyers No Yes Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 460 90.7% 47 9.3% 303 80.6% 73 19.4% 708 86.8% 108 13.2% 47 82.5% 10 17.5% 47 82.5% 10 17.5% 477 86.6% 74 13.4% 229 86.7% 35 13.3% 714 86.5% 111 13.5% 47 83.9% 9 16.1% 744 87.1% 110 12.9% 17 68.0% 8 32.0% 754 86.3% 120 13.7% 11 100.0% 144 76.6% 44 23.4% 620 89.1% 76 10.9% 240 80.5% 58 19.5% 520 89.3% 62 10.7% 36 80.0% 9 20.0% 207 79.9% 52 20.1% 274 86.2% 44 13.8% 244 94.9% 13 5.1% 19 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 117

Fifteen percent of the female respondents and 7% of the male respondents thought there was discrimination in hiring on the basis of gender at their firms; 11% of the women and 2% of the men thought there was discrimination in day-to-day assignments and opportunity; 14% of the women and 3% of the men thought there was discrimination in advancement, and 8% of the women and 3% of the men thought there was discrimination in partnerships. Limiting the data to the men and women who thought there was gender discrimination in their firms, Table 5.72 shows that 26% of these women and 24% of these men thought there was gender bias in hiring; 57% of the women and 24% of the men thought there was gender bias in day-to-day assignments; 73% of the women and 39% of the men thought there was gender bias in advancement; and 41% of the women and 33% of the men thought there was gender bias in attaining partnership. Differences were significant between men and women in the areas of dayto-day assignments and career advancement on the basis of gender. 20 Table 5.72. Areas in which firm or organization discriminates against lawyers (table limited to respondents identifying gender discrimination in their firms) Hiring-gender Count Count Count Count Percent Percent No 35 76.1% 52 74.3% Yes 11 23.9% 18 25.7% Day-to-day assignments and No 35 76.1% 30 42.9% opportunities-gender (p <.001) Yes 11 23.9% 40 57.1% Advancement-gender (p <.001) No 28 60.9% 19 27.1% Yes 18 39.1% 51 72.9% Attaining partnership (private practise No 31 67.4% 41 58.6% only)-gender Yes 15 32.6% 29 41.4% 5.4.2 Personal experiences with and observations of harassment 5.4.2.1 Experienced sexual harassment in professional settings Respondents were asked how often they had personally experienced unwanted sexual advances and unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature in professional settings by lawyers, clients, judges, and office personnel in the last five years. Table 5.73 shows the responses by gender. Women respondents were subjected to unwanted sexual advances significantly more often than men by lawyers (30% compared to 6%), clients (37% compared to 15%), and judges (5% compared to 1%). Clearly, sexual harassment is still an issue in the legal profession. Women were also subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature significantly more often than men by lawyers (55% compared to 19%), clients (47% compared to 16%), and judges (9% compared to 3%). 21 20 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 21 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 118

Table 5.73. Sexual harassment in a professional setting Count Count % Count Count % Never 474 94.2% 261 70.2% Unwanted sexual advances-by other lawyers (p <.001) Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual nature-by other lawyers (p <.001) Unwanted sexual advances-by clients (p <.001) Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual nature-by clients (p <.001) Unwanted sexual advances-by judges (p <.001) Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual nature-by judges (p <.001) Unwanted sexual advances-by other office personnel Unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of sexual nature-by other office personnel Rarely 22 4.4% 60 16.1% Sometimes 6 1.2% 38 10.2% Often 1.2% 13 3.5% Never 410 81.2% 170 44.7% Rarely 60 11.9% 107 28.2% Sometimes 32 6.3% 80 21.1% Often 3.6% 23 6.1% Never 420 85.0% 227 62.7% Rarely 60 12.1% 92 25.4% Sometimes 14 2.8% 39 10.8% Often 4 1.1% Never 413 83.4% 193 53.2% Rarely 58 11.7% 101 27.8% Sometimes 22 4.4% 58 16.0% Often 2.4% 11 3.0% Never 489 99.4% 334 95.2% Rarely 1.2% 10 2.8% Sometimes 1.2% 5 1.4% Often 1.2% 2.6% Never 481 97.4% 322 91.5% Rarely 8 1.6% 21 6.0% Sometimes 4.8% 8 2.3% Often 1.2% 1.3% Never 444 89.7% 339 92.6% Rarely 38 7.7% 20 5.5% Sometimes 10 2.0% 6 1.6% Often 3.6% 1.3% Never 422 84.9% 306 83.2% Rarely 58 11.7% 39 10.6% Sometimes 15 3.0% 19 5.2% Often 2.4% 4 1.1% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 119

5.4.2.2 Observations of sexual harassment Observations of sexual harassment by lawyers In addition to the sexual harassment that they had personally experienced, respondents were asked how often in the last five years they had observed various forms of sexual harassment by other lawyers, clients, judges, and office personnel in the last five years. Table 5.74 shows the responses by women and men to the questions. Similar to other studies, this study found that women observe sexual harassment more often than men observe it, and women are more often the targets of sexual harassment. Forty-three percent of the women and 26% of the men observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other lawyers, and 65% of the women and 43% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature. The 2003 study asked about observations in the last five years, while the 1991 study asked respondents if they had personally observed or experienced sexual harassment in the last two years. In 1991, 33% of the women and 7% of the men who responded to the question had observed or experience women lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other lawyers, and 67% of the women and 32% of the men had observed women being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature. Although the studies do not offer a direct comparison, it appears as though sexual harassment may have increased between the two time periods. According to the respondents, female support staff continue to face unwanted sexual advances by lawyers: 32% of the women respondents and 27% of the men observed support staff being subjected to this behaviour, and 49% of the women and 39% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by lawyers. In the 1991 study, 24% of the women and 13% of the men observed support staff being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by lawyers, and 56% of the women and 26% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by lawyers. Differences between the percentages of women and men respondents who reported that they had observed sexual harassment of women lawyers and women support staff were statistically significant. 22 22 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 120

Table 5.74. Observations of sexual harassment in a professional setting by lawyers Count Count % Count Count % Never 372 74.4% 206 56.6% By other lawyers-female lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances (p <.001) By other lawyers-male lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances By other lawyers-female lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature (p <.001) By other lawyers-male lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature By other lawyers-female support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances (p=.017) By other lawyers-male support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances By other lawyers-female support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature (p <.001) By other lawyers-male support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature Rarely 87 17.4% 74 20.3% Sometimes 40 8.0% 70 19.2% Often 1.2% 14 3.8% Never 450 90.2% 325 89.8% Rarely 44 8.8% 30 8.3% Sometimes 4.8% 5 1.4% Often 1.2% 2.6% Never 283 56.7% 127 34.5% Rarely 146 29.3% 107 29.1% Sometimes 65 13.0% 103 28.0% Often 5 1.0% 31 8.4% Never 386 77.4% 275 75.8% Rarely 75 15.0% 66 18.2% Sometimes 33 6.6% 20 5.5% Often 5 1.0% 2.6% Never 367 73.4% 246 67.6% Rarely 93 18.6% 60 16.5% Sometimes 36 7.2% 46 12.6% Often 4.8% 12 3.3% Never 474 96.9% 340 96.0% Rarely 11 2.2% 12 3.4% Sometimes 3.6% 1.3% Often 1.2% 1.3% Never 304 61.0% 188 51.2% Rarely 131 26.3% 96 26.2% Sometimes 55 11.0% 68 18.5% Often 8 1.6% 15 4.1% Never 444 90.8% 316 90.5% Rarely 36 7.4% 28 8.0% Sometimes 8 1.6% 5 1.4% Often 1.2% Observations of sexual harassment by clients Thirty-seven percent of the women respondents and 22% of the men observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by clients, and 46% of the women and 29% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature by clients. In the 1991 study, 37% of the women and 8% of the men observed the former, and 55% of the women and 18% of the men observed the latter. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 121

support staff were observed being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by clients by 24% of the women and 24% of the men who responded to the question. Thirty-two percent of the women and 30% of the men observed female support staff being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by clients. In the 1991 study, 22% of the women and 14% of the men observed the former, and 33% of the women and 21% of the men observed the latter. Differences between the percentages of women and men respondents who reported that they had observed sexual harassment of women lawyers were statistically significant. 23 Table 5.75. Observations of sexual harassment in a professional setting by clients By clients-female lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances (p <.001) By clients-male lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances By clients-female lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature (p <.001) By clients-male lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature By clients-female support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances By clients-male support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances By clients-female support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature By clients-male support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature Count Count Percent Count Count Percent Never 377 77.7% 217 62.5% Rarely 81 16.7% 77 22.2% Sometimes 25 5.2% 48 13.8% Often 2.4% 5 1.4% Never 431 88.9% 319 92.5% Rarely 43 8.9% 20 5.8% Sometimes 11 2.3% 6 1.7% Never 343 71.0% 186 53.8% Rarely 97 20.1% 90 26.0% Sometimes 39 8.1% 59 17.1% Often 4.8% 11 3.2% Never 413 85.2% 305 88.2% Rarely 54 11.1% 34 9.8% Sometimes 17 3.5% 7 2.0% Often 1.2% Never 366 75.6% 260 75.6% Rarely 83 17.1% 49 14.2% Sometimes 33 6.8% 31 9.0% Often 2.4% 4 1.2% Never 465 98.1% 323 95.8% Rarely 9 1.9% 13 3.9% Sometimes 1.3% Never 339 70.2% 238 68.4% Rarely 106 21.9% 62 17.8% Sometimes 35 7.2% 42 12.1% Often 3.6% 6 1.7% Never 450 94.9% 315 95.2% Rarely 21 4.4% 13 3.9% Sometimes 2.4% 2.6% Often 1.2% 1.3% 23 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 122

Observations of sexual harassment by judges Nine percent of the women respondents and 5% of the men observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by judges, and 11% of the women and 6% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature by judges. The 1991 study did not include a comparable question. support staff were observed being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by judges by 2% of the women and 1% of the men who responded to the question. Three percent of the women and 2% of the men observed female support staff being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by judges. Again, differences between the percentages of women and men respondents who reported that they had observed sexual harassment of women lawyers were statistically significant. 24 Table 5.76. Observations of sexual harassment in a professional setting by judges By judges-female lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances (p =.013) By judges-male lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances By judges-female lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes,or comments of sexual nature (p =.005) By judges-male lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature By judges-female support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances Count Count % Count Count % Never 456 95.0% 311 90.7% Rarely 21 4.4% 23 6.7% Sometimes 3.6% 7 2.0% Often 2.6% Never 478 99.2% 335 98.8% Rarely 3.6% 3.9% Sometimes 1.2% 1.3% Never 450 93.9% 301 88.5% Rarely 24 5.0% 26 7.6% Sometimes 5 1.0% 10 2.9% Often 3.9% Never 470 97.5% 334 97.9% Rarely 8 1.7% 6 1.8% Sometimes 3.6% 1.3% Often 1.2% Never 474 98.8% 329 97.9% Rarely 4.8% 4 1.2% Sometimes 2.4% 2.6% Often 1.3% By judges-male support staff subjected to Never 469 99.6% 325 99.1% unwanted sexual advances Rarely 2.4% 3.9% By judges-female support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature By judges-male support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature Never 471 98.3% 330 97.3% Rarely 6 1.3% 4 1.2% Sometimes 1.2% 4 1.2% Often 1.2% 1.3% Never 467 99.2% 318 98.5% Rarely 2.4% 4 1.2% Sometimes 1.2% Often 1.2% 1.3% 24 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 123

Observations of sexual harassment by office personnel Respondents reported that other office personnel were also a source of sexual harassment. Thirteen percent of the women respondents and 8% of the men had observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other office personnel, and 19% of the women and 14% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature by other office personnel. Nine percent of the women and 10% of the men had observed men lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other office personnel, and 11% of the women and 12% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature by other office personnel. support staff were observed being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other office personnel by 11% of the women and 10% of the men who responded to the question. Eighteen percent of the women and 16% of the men had observed female support staff being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by other office personnel. support staff were observed being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other office personnel by 3% of the women and 5% of the men who responded to the question. Five percent of the women and 6% of the men had observed female support staff being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by other office personnel. 25 Table 5.77. Observations of sexual harassment in a professional setting by non-lawyer office personnel By other office personnel-female lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances (p =.016) By other office personnel-male lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances By other office personnel-female lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature (p =.038) By other office personnel-male lawyers subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of sexual nature Count Count Percent Count Count Percent Never 445 91.9% 304 87.1% Rarely 32 6.6% 26 7.4% Sometimes 7 1.4% 17 4.9% Often 2.6% Never 435 89.9% 315 91.3% Rarely 34 7.0% 23 6.7% Sometimes 12 2.5% 7 2.0% Often 3.6% Never 413 85.9% 282 81.0% Rarely 51 10.6% 36 10.3% Sometimes 14 2.9% 22 6.3% Often 3.6% 8 2.3% Never 425 87.6% 310 89.3% Rarely 38 7.8% 31 8.9% Sometimes 19 3.9% 6 1.7% Often 3.6% 25 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 124

Table 5.77. Observations of sexual harassment in a professional setting by non-lawyer office personnel, continued By other office personnel-female support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances By other office personnel-male support staff subjected to unwanted sexual advances By other office personnel-female support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature By other office personnel-male support staff subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature Count Count Percent Count Count Percent Never 435 90.1% 307 89.0% Rarely 34 7.0% 24 7.0% Sometimes 14 2.9% 11 3.2% Often 3.9% Never 452 95.4% 327 97.3% Rarely 17 3.6% 8 2.4% Sometimes 4.8% 1.3% Often 1.2% Never 408 84.5% 286 81.7% Rarely 56 11.6% 44 12.6% Sometimes 17 3.5% 16 4.6% Often 2.4% 4 1.1% Never 443 93.5% 313 94.6% Rarely 26 5.5% 16 4.8% Sometimes 4.8% 2.6% Often 1.2% 5.4.2.3 Observations of derogatory statements or jokes Respondents were asked how often they had personally observed lawyers, clients, judges, or other office personnel making a derogatory statement or joke based on age, disability, gender (women), gender (men), race or ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation. Table 5.78 shows the responses of those who responded to the question. Lawyers were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender women (66% of the respondents), followed by sexual orientation (52%), race or ethnic origin (50%), age (47%), gender (men) (38%), religion (36%), and disability (23%). Clients were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender women (58% of the respondents), followed by race or ethnic origin (57%), sexual orientation (45%), age (38%), gender (men) (32%), religion (32%), and disability (22%). Judges were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender women (15% of the respondents), followed by age (9%), race or ethnic origin (8%), sexual orientation (6%), gender (men) (6%), religion (5%), and disability (5%). Other office personnel were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender (women) (35% of the respondents), followed by sexual orientation (30%), age (30%), race or ethnic origin (27%), gender (men) (27%), religion (22%), disability (16%). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 125

Table 5.78. Observations of derogatory statements or jokes in a professional setting Derogatory-other lawyers-age Derogatory-other lawyers-disability Derogatory-other lawyers-gender (women) Derogatory-other lawyers-gender (men) Derogatory-other lawyers-race or ethnic origin Derogatory-other lawyers-religion Derogatory-other lawyers-sexual orientation Derogatory-clients-age Derogatory-clients-disability Derogatory-clients-gender (women) Derogatory-clients-gender (men) Derogatory-clients-race or ethnic origin Derogatory-clients-religion Derogatory-clients-sexual orientation Derogatory-judges-age Derogatory-judges-disability Derogatory-judges-gender (women) Derogatory-judges-gender (men) Derogatory-judges-race or ethnic origin Derogatory-judges-religion Derogatory-judges-sexual orientation Derogatory-other office personnel-age Derogatory-other office personnel-disability Derogatory-other office pers-gender (women) Derogatory-other office pers-gender (men) Derogatory-other office pers-race, ethnic origin Derogatory-other office pers-religion Derogatory-other office pers-sexual orientation Never Rarely Sometimes Often Count % Count % Count % Count % 449 53.0% 231 27.3% 143 16.9% 24 2.8% 638 77.0% 135 16.3% 45 5.4% 11 1.3% 290 33.8% 285 33.3% 231 27.0% 51 6.0% 521 61.8% 207 24.6% 103 12.2% 12 1.4% 430 50.4% 262 30.7% 135 15.8% 27 3.2% 543 64.4% 204 24.2% 78 9.3% 18 2.1% 411 48.1% 233 27.3% 158 18.5% 53 6.2% 498 61.6% 205 25.4% 96 11.9% 9 1.1% 626 78.4% 125 15.7% 42 5.3% 5.6% 342 42.0% 259 31.8% 189 23.2% 25 3.1% 548 68.1% 167 20.7% 81 10.1% 9 1.1% 433 53.3% 230 28.3% 134 16.5% 16 2.0% 546 67.5% 185 22.9% 69 8.5% 9 1.1% 452 55.4% 196 24.0% 143 17.5% 25 3.1% 729 90.9% 54 6.7% 17 2.1% 2.2% 755 95.3% 31 3.9% 4.5% 2.3% 684 85.0% 95 11.8% 22 2.7% 4.5% 752 93.9% 41 5.1% 6.7% 2.2% 736 91.7% 52 6.5% 11 1.4% 4.5% 762 95.0% 31 3.9% 5.6% 4.5% 758 93.9% 33 4.1% 11 1.4% 5.6% 571 70.1% 168 20.6% 65 8.0% 11 1.3% 677 84.1% 93 11.6% 32 4.0% 3.4% 534 65.2% 180 22.0% 87 10.6% 18 2.2% 593 72.8% 142 17.4% 71 8.7% 9 1.1% 581 71.2% 151 18.5% 73 8.9% 11 1.3% 635 77.6% 135 16.5% 41 5.0% 7.9% 572 69.5% 155 18.8% 80 9.7% 16 1.9% 5.4.3 Lawyers perceptions about discrimination in the legal profession 5.4.3.1 Do lawyers believe discrimination exists? Respondents were asked about their perception of bias or discrimination in the legal profession against lawyers who were members of specific groups. On the issue of whether there is bias or discrimination against women or men in the legal profession, Table 5.79 shows that an overwhelming majority of those who responded to the question (92% of the women and 69% of the men) thought there was some form of bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession; 36% of the women, as compared to 51% of the men, thought it was not widespread; 41% of the women, compared to 13% of the men, though it was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and 15% of the women and 5% of the men thought it was widespread and readily apparent. These figures show a slight decrease in the proportion of respondents who see bias or discrimination against women, but the 2003 question also provided a don t know category, not provided in 1991, and this could account for some of the decrease. However, the 1991 data included those who did not respond so the don t know category may not have much of an Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 126

effect. In 1991, 97% of the women and 78% of the men thought that there was some bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession; 25% of the women, as compared to 54% of the men, thought it was not widespread; 55% of the women, as compared to 20% of the men, thought it was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and 17% of the women, as compared to 4% of the men, thought it was widespread and readily apparent. The biggest difference from the first to the second survey was a decrease in the proportion of women who thought that bias against women was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and an increase in the proportion who thought that it exists, but is not widespread. In response to the question about gender bias against men, 74% of the women respondents and 58% of the men were of the opinion that there was none, 13% of the women and 29% of the men thought it existed but was not widespread, 2% of the women and 2% of the men thought it was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect, and 2% of the men thought it was widespread. These figures show little change in the perception of bias against men from the responses in 1991 where 76% of the women and 55% of the men that there was no bias against men; 22% of the women, compared to 37% of the men, thought it was not widespread; one woman (.2%) and 2% of the men thought it was widespread, but subtle and difficult to detect; and two woman (.3%) and 2% of the men thought that gender bias or discrimination against men was widespread and readily apparent. The differences between the perceptions of men and women respondents are statistically significant. 26 Table 5.79. Discrimination against men and women lawyers Against women lawyers (p <.001) Against men lawyers (p <.001) There is none It exists, but is not widespread It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect It is widespread and readily apparent Don't know There is none It exists, but is not widespread It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect It is widespread and readily apparent Don't know Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 116 23.1% 18 4.7% 256 50.9% 138 36.0% 67 13.3% 158 41.3% 26 5.2% 57 14.9% 38 7.6% 12 3.1% 291 57.9% 273 74.4% 147 29.2% 47 12.8% 12 2.4% 6 1.6% 8 1.6% 45 8.9% 41 11.2% On the issue of whether there is bias or discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of racial or ethnic minority groups, Table 5.80 shows that an overwhelming majority of the respondents (93% of the lawyers of colour and 71% of the Caucasian lawyers) thought there was some form of bias or discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of racial or ethnic minority groups; 32% of the lawyers of colour, as compared to 53% of the Caucasians, thought it was not widespread; 54% of the lawyers of colour, compared to 18% of the Caucasians, thought it was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and 5% of the lawyers of colour and 2% of the Caucasians thought it was widespread and readily apparent. Lawyers of colour were 26 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 127

significantly more likely than Caucasian lawyers to believe there is discrimination on the basis of race in the profession. 27 Table 5.80. Discrimination against lawyers belonging to racial or ethnic minority groups Lawyers belonging to racial or ethnic minority groups (p <.001) There is none It exists, but is not widespread It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect It is widespread and readily apparent Don't know Race Caucasian all others Count Col % Count Col % 121 14.9% 2 3.5% 428 52.6% 18 31.6% 146 18.0% 31 54.4% 18 2.2% 3 5.3% 100 12.3% 3 5.3% Table 5.81 shows that Christian lawyers (27%) and lawyers without any religious affiliation (28%) were more likely to think there was no bias or discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of religion, compared to other religions (14%). Lawyers of other religions (22%) were more likely than Christian lawyers (10%) or lawyers with no religious affiliation (7%) to think that this bias or discrimination was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect. However, these differences are not statistically significant overall. 28 Table 5.81. Discrimination against lawyers with specific religious beliefs Religion Other Christian No Religious Affiliation Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % There is none 8 14% 154 27% 76 28% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs It exists, but is not widespread 26 45% 231 41% 110 41% It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect 13 22% 56 10% 20 7% It is widespread and readily apparent 2 3% 10 2% 3 1% Don't know 8 14% 94 17% 61 23% Lawyers without disabilities (29%) are more likely than lawyers with disabilities (18%) to think that bias or discrimination against lawyers with disabilities does not exist. Lawyers with disabilities (29%) were more likely than lawyers without disabilities (11%) to think that this bias or discrimination was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect. Nineteen percent of the lawyers without disabilities and 9% of lawyers with disabilities did not know if such discrimination existed. However, these differences are not statistically significant overall. 29 27 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 28 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. 29 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 128

Table 5.82. Discrimination against lawyers with disabilities Lawyers with disabilities There is none It exists, but is not widespread It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect It is widespread and readily apparent Don't know Do you have a disability No Yes Count Col % Count Col % 235 28.6% 10 17.9% 322 39.2% 22 39.3% 89 10.8% 16 28.6% 20 2.4% 3 5.4% 155 18.9% 5 8.9% Sexual Orientation Eighty-eight percent of gay, lesbian and bisexuals and 68% of the heterosexual lawyers thought there is discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of sexual orientation. Nineteen percent of the heterosexuals and 4% (N=1) of the gay, lesbian and bisexuals did not know if such discrimination exists. However, these differences are not statistically significant. 30 Table 5.83. Discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual lawyers Gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers There is none It exists, but is not widespread It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect It is widespread and readily apparent Don't know Sexual Orientation gay, lesbian or heterosexual bisexual Count Col % Count Col % 117 13.7% 2 8.0% 290 33.9% 4 16.0% 213 24.9% 14 56.0% 76 8.9% 4 16.0% 159 18.6% 1 4.0% Lawyers with children Respondents were asked whether there is bias or discrimination in the legal profession against lawyers with children. Table 5.84 is interesting, in that men respondents with children were the most likely (54%) to say there is no bias, followed by men without children (39%), women without children (16%) and women with children (10%). Only 32% of men with children thought there was some bias against lawyers with children, compared to 49% of men without children, 74% of women without children, and 83% of women with children. One of the respondents suggested, in my opinion, any degree of bias or discrimination against lawyers with children should really be labeled as against women lawyers with children (i.e., having children is far more of a career limiting move for women lawyers than for men lawyers). Other studies have found that marriage and children enhance a man s career, but not a woman s. 31 lawyers with children were significantly less likely to believe that there is discrimination against lawyers with children in the legal profession; whereas there was no significant difference between the perceptions of women lawyers with and without children. 32 30 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 31 Brockman, J. (2001). in the Legal Profession: Fitting or Breaking the Mold (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press), Chapter 6. 32 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 129

Table 5.84. Discrimination against lawyers with children Does respondent have children? Does respondent have children? no children has children no children has children Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % There is none 51 39% 207 54% 27 16% 20 10% Lawyers with children (Men p =.01) It exists, but is not widespread It is widespread but subtle and difficult to detect It is widespread and readily apparent 40 31% 92 24% 57 33% 79 38% 19 15% 25 6% 49 28% 68 32% 4 3% 6 2% 22 13% 27 13% Don't know 13 10% 46 12% 15 9% 12 6% 5.4.3.2 Types of discrimination perceived, if any Perceived discrimination on the basis of gender Respondents were asked about the nature of the bias or discrimination that exists against lawyers, if any. Table 5.85 shows the types of bias or discrimination that respondents believed exist for women in the legal profession. The most common type according to both the women (75%) and the men (36%) is discrimination in career advancement. Fifty percent or more women also thought there was discrimination against women in attaining partnership (59%), unwanted teasing, jokes and comments of a sexual nature (58%), assignment of files and work (54%), weight given to opinions (51%), accommodation for family commitment (51%), remuneration (51%), and unwanted sexual advances (50%). The differences between the opinions of men and women respondents on almost all variables were large and, in all instances, are statistically significant. 33 In terms of discrimination against men, the only categories identified by more than 5% of the respondents was that men thought there was discrimination against men in terms of judicial appointments (16%), accommodation for family commitments (9%), unwanted teasing, jokes and comments of a sexual nature (7%), and unwanted sexual advances (7%). Women thought there was bias against men in accommodation for family commitments (11%). Because there was so little perceived discrimination against men, the results have not been presented in table form. Despite the small numbers of both men (fewer than 5%) and women (fewer than 1%) who thought there was discrimination against men lawyers in any form, significant differences emerged with respect to career advancements (p <.001), access to clients (p =.01), the nature of office/firm functions (p =.003) and promotional functions (p =.006), judicial appointments (p <.001), hiring (p <.001), attaining partnership (p <.001), access to managerial positions (p =.001), and judicial attitudes (p =.014). 34 33 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. 34 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 130

Table 5.85. Types of discrimination on the basis of gender Women lawyers-weight given to opinions (p <.001) Women lawyers-career advancements (p <.001) Women lawyers-access to clients (p <.001) Women lawyers-assignments of files/work (p <.001) Women lawyers-setting hourly rates (p <.001) Women lawyers-opportunity to appear in court (p <.001) Women lawyers-the nature of office/firm functions (p <.001) Women lawyers-the nature of promotional functions (p <.001) Women lawyers-judicial appointments (p <.001) Women lawyers-accommodation for family commitments (p <.001) Women lawyers-remuneration (p <.001) Women lawyers-hiring (p <.001) Women lawyers-attaining partnership (p <.001) Women lawyers-access to managerial positions (p <.001) Women lawyers-judicial attitudes (p <.001) Women lawyers-unwanted sexual advances (p <.001) Women lawyers-unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (p <.001) Women lawyers-unwanted teasing; offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (p <.001) No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 422 82.4% 186 48.6% 90 17.6% 197 51.4% 328 64.1% 95 24.8% 184 35.9% 288 75.2% 434 84.8% 218 56.9% 78 15.2% 165 43.1% 414 80.9% 175 45.7% 98 19.1% 208 54.3% 474 92.6% 298 77.8% 38 7.4% 85 22.2% 494 96.5% 325 84.9% 18 3.5% 58 15.1% 464 90.6% 248 64.8% 48 9.4% 135 35.2% 452 88.3% 242 63.2% 60 11.7% 141 36.8% 494 96.5% 328 85.6% 18 3.5% 55 14.4% 411 80.3% 187 48.8% 101 19.7% 196 51.2% 414 80.9% 186 48.6% 98 19.1% 197 51.4% 427 83.4% 235 61.4% 85 16.6% 148 38.6% 391 76.4% 156 40.7% 121 23.6% 227 59.3% 439 85.7% 236 61.6% 73 14.3% 147 38.4% 455 88.9% 295 77.0% 57 11.1% 88 23.0% 368 71.9% 191 49.9% 144 28.1% 192 50.1% 332 64.8% 160 41.8% 180 35.2% 223 58.2% 401 78.3% 230 60.1% 111 21.7% 153 39.9% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 131

Perceived discrimination on the basis of race Table 5.86 shows the types of bias or discrimination that exist for lawyers of colour in legal profession. The most common type according to both the lawyers of colour (58%) and Caucasian lawyers (31%) is discrimination in career advancement. In addition, between 40% and 50% of the lawyers of colour identified racial discrimination in the areas of weight given to opinions (44%), access to clients (44%), assignments of files (42%), hiring (51%), attaining partnership (40%). With the exception of two variables setting hourly rates and opportunity to appear in court the differences of opinion between Caucasian respondents and respondents of colour are statistically significant. 35 Table 5.86. Types of discrimination on the basis of race Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-weight given to opinions (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-career advancement (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-access to clients (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-assignments of files/work (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-setting hourly rates Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-opportunity to appear in court Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-the nature of office/firm functions (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-the nature of promotional functions (p =.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-judicial appointments (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-accomodations for family commitments (p =.025 Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-remuneration (p =.002) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-hiring (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-attaining partnership (p =.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-access to managerial poitions (p =.002) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-judicial attitudes (p <.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-unwanted sexual advances (p =.001) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (p =.021) Lawyers belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups-unwanted teasing;offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (p =.013) No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Race caucasian all others Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 660 79.9% 32 56.1% 166 20.1% 25 43.9% 564 68.3% 24 42.1% 262 31.7% 33 57.9% 642 77.7% 32 56.1% 184 22.3% 25 43.9% 684 82.8% 33 57.9% 142 17.2% 24 42.1% 792 95.9% 52 91.2% 34 4.1% 5 8.8% 759 91.9% 48 84.2% 67 8.1% 9 15.8% 745 90.2% 40 70.2% 81 9.8% 17 29.8% 731 88.5% 41 71.9% 95 11.5% 16 28.1% 743 90.0% 37 64.9% 83 10.0% 20 35.1% 804 97.3% 52 91.2% 22 2.7% 5 8.8% 734 88.9% 42 73.7% 92 11.1% 15 26.3% 592 71.7% 28 49.1% 234 28.3% 29 50.9% 656 79.4% 34 59.6% 170 20.6% 23 40.4% 702 85.0% 39 68.4% 124 15.0% 18 31.6% 751 90.9% 42 73.7% 75 9.1% 15 26.3% 819 99.2% 52 91.2% 7.8% 5 8.8% 797 96.5% 51 89.5% 29 3.5% 6 10.5% 653 79.1% 37 64.9% 173 20.9% 20 35.1% 35 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 132

Perceived discrimination on the basis of disability Table 5.87 shows that the greatest proportion of lawyers with disabilities (47%) thought there was discrimination against lawyers with disabilities in terms of career advancement, followed by attaining partnership (39%), hiring (37%) and access to managerial positions (35%). Differences of opinion between respondents with and without disabilities were significant on all variables with the exception of: setting hourly rates, opportunity to appear in court, hiring (near significant), unwanted sexual advances, and unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature. 36 Table 5.87. Types of discrimination on the basis of disability No Disability Yes Count Column % Count Column % Lawyers with disabilities-weight given to opinions No 782 94% 46 81% (p =.001) Yes 53 6% 11 19% Lawyers with disabilities-career advancement No 642 77% 30 53% (p <.001) Yes 193 23% 27 47% Lawyers with disabilities-access to clients No 677 81% 38 67% (p =.009) Yes 158 19% 19 33% Lawyers with disabilities-assignments of work/files No 703 84% 41 72% (p =.017) Yes 132 16% 16 28% Lawyers with disabilities-setting hourly rates No 792 95% 51 89% Yes 43 5% 6 11% Lawyers with disabilities-opportunity to appear in No 728 87% 47 82% court Yes 107 13% 10 18% Lawyers with disabilities-the nature of office/firm No 731 88% 44 77% functions (p =.026) Yes 104 12% 13 23% Lawyers with disabilities-the nature of promotional No 736 88% 43 75% functions (p =.008) Yes 99 12% 14 25% Lawyers with disabilities-judicial appointments No 769 92% 44 77% (p =.001) Yes 66 8% 13 23% Lawyers with disabilities-accommodation for family No 817 98% 52 91% commitments (p =.012) Yes 18 2% 5 9% Lawyers with disabilities-remuneration (p <.001) Lawyers with disabilities-hiring (near sig, p =.054) No 747 89% 40 70% Yes 88 11% 17 30% No 618 74% 36 63% Yes 217 26% 21 37% Lawyers with disabilities-attaining partnership No 694 83% 35 61% (p <.001) Yes 141 17% 22 39% Lawyers with disabilities-access to managerial No 739 89% 37 65% positions (p <.001) Yes 96 11% 20 35% Lawyers with disabilities-judicial attitudes (p <.001) Lawyers with disabilities-unwanted sexual advances No 794 95% 46 81% Yes 41 5% 11 19% No 831 100% 55 96% Yes 4 0% 2 4% Lawyers with disabilities-unwanted teasing, jokes or No 823 99% 56 98% comments of a sexual nature Yes 12 1% 1 2% Lawyers with disabilities-unwanted teasing: No 755 90% 44 77% offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (p =.004) Yes 80 9% 13 23% 36 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 133

Accommodation for lawyers with disabilities Respondents with disabilities were asked about their requirements and how they have been accommodated in their current workplace. Table 5.88 sets out their responses. Of the 18 lawyers with disabilities who required other forms of accommodation, five required reduced hours or some flexibility in working hours, three required leave time for periods of illness, and the rest required some form of technological support or changes to facilities to accommodate specific disabilities. In total there were 37 requirements; 11 (30%) were being met to the respondents satisfaction, 10 (27%) were not being met to the respondents satisfaction, and 11 (30%) were being met somewhat to the respondents satisfaction. Table 5.88. Accommodation for lawyers with disabilities Yes, required Supports provided to your satisfaction No Yes Somewhat No answer Require specialized equipment 5 2 2 1 Require additional administrative assistance 8 3 1 3 1 Require access to facilities and buildings 6 2 2 2 Require allowance for guide dogs and dog runs Require other accommodation 18 3 6 5 4 Perceived discrimination on the basis of religion Table 5.89 presents respondents opinions with respect to discrimination against lawyers on the basis of religion. Over 10% of respondents with a Christian affiliation, with a non-christian religious affiliation, and with no religious affiliation thought there was discrimination with respect to career advancement, the nature of office/firm functions, hiring, and unwanted teasing, offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature. A higher percentage of respondents with a non-christian affiliation reported discrimination with respect to weight given to opinions (16%), hiring (17%), attaining partnership (21%), and unwanted teasing, offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature (19%). Significant differences between the three groups of respondents emerged on three variables: the nature of promotional functions, attaining partnership, and judicial attitudes. 37 37 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 134

Table 5.89. Types of discrimination on the basis of religion Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-weight given to opinion Count Other Count Percent Count Religion Christian Count Percent Count No Religious Affiliation Count Percent No 49 84.5% 501 90.3% 245 90.7% Yes 9 15.5% 54 9.7% 25 9.3% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-career No 50 86.2% 479 86.3% 235 87.0% advancement Yes 8 13.8% 76 13.7% 35 13.0% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-access to No 52 89.7% 503 90.6% 246 91.1% clients Yes 6 10.3% 52 9.4% 24 8.9% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-assignments of No 54 93.1% 503 90.6% 249 92.2% files/work Yes 4 6.9% 52 9.4% 21 7.8% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-setting hourly No 56 96.6% 545 98.2% 267 98.9% rates Yes 2 3.4% 10 1.8% 3 1.1% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-opportunity to No 57 98.3% 543 97.8% 266 98.5% appear in court Yes 1 1.7% 12 2.2% 4 1.5% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-the nature of No 52 89.7% 491 88.5% 239 88.8% office/firm functions Yes 6 10.3% 64 11.5% 30 11.2% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-the nature of No 52 89.7% 501 90.3% 258 95.6% promotional functions (p =.028 x2 kendals.004) Yes 6 10.3% 54 9.7% 12 4.4% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-judical No 56 96.6% 521 93.9% 254 94.1% appointments Yes 2 3.4% 34 6.1% 16 5.9% Lawyers with specific religious beliefsaccommodation No 57 98.3% 534 96.2% 258 95.6% for family commitments Yes 1 1.7% 21 3.8% 12 4.4% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-remuneration Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-hiring No 56 96.6% 525 94.6% 262 97.0% Yes 2 3.4% 30 5.4% 8 3.0% No 48 82.8% 491 88.6% 242 89.6% Yes 10 17.2% 63 11.4% 28 10.4% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-attaining No 46 79.3% 504 90.8% 246 91.1% partnership (p =.016 x2) Yes 12 20.7% 51 9.2% 24 8.9% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-access to No 52 89.7% 512 92.3% 250 92.6% managerial positions Yes 6 10.3% 43 7.7% 20 7.4% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-judicial No 55 94.8% 524 94.4% 264 97.8% attitudes (p =.021 kendalls) Yes 3 5.2% 31 5.6% 6 2.2% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-unwanted No 58 100.0% 551 99.3% 269 99.6% sexual advances Yes 4.7% 1.4% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-unwanted No 57 98.3% 541 97.5% 263 97.4% teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature Yes 1 1.7% 14 2.5% 7 2.6% Lawyers with specific religious beliefs-unwanted No 47 81.0% 488 87.9% 241 89.3% teasing: offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature Yes 11 19.0% 67 12.1% 29 10.7% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 135

Perceived discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Table 5.90 shows the types of bias or discrimination that exist on the basis of sexual orientation. The most common type of discrimination according to both gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents (68%) and the heterosexuals (32%) is discrimination in career advancement. The next most frequent was that 48% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents thought there was discrimination in access to clients, assignment of files or work, the nature of office or firm functions, the nature of promotional functions, hiring, and unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature. Differences in perceptions about discrimination between gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents and heterosexual respondents were statistically significant on all variables with the exception of: weight give to opinion, setting hourly rates, opportunity to appear in court, remuneration, and unwanted teasing, offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature. 38 Table 5.90. Types of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-weight given to opinions Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-career advancement (p <.001) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-access to clients (p =.004) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-assignments of files/work (p =.001) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-setting hourly rates Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-opportunity to appear in court Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-the nature of office/firm functions (p <.001) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-the nature of promotional functions (p <.001) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-judicial appointments (p =.012) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-accommodation for family commitments (p <.001) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-remuneration Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-hiring (p =.016) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-attaining partnership (p =.034) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-access to managerial positions Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-judicial attitudes (p <.001) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-unwanted sexual advances (p =.021) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature (p =.002) Gay, lesbian & bisexual lawyers-unwanted teasing; offensive jokes or comments of a nonsexual nature No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Sexual Orientation gay, lesbian or heterosexual bisexual Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 740 85.6% 22 88.0% 124 14.4% 3 12.0% 581 67.3% 8 32.0% 282 32.7% 17 68.0% 675 78.1% 13 52.0% 189 21.9% 12 48.0% 711 82.3% 13 52.0% 153 17.7% 12 48.0% 837 96.9% 24 96.0% 27 3.1% 1 4.0% 823 95.3% 23 92.0% 41 4.7% 2 8.0% 751 86.9% 13 52.0% 113 13.1% 12 48.0% 747 86.5% 13 52.0% 117 13.5% 12 48.0% 776 89.8% 18 72.0% 88 10.2% 7 28.0% 806 93.3% 17 68.0% 58 6.7% 8 32.0% 799 92.5% 23 92.0% 65 7.5% 2 8.0% 641 74.2% 13 52.0% 223 25.8% 12 48.0% 675 78.1% 15 60.0% 189 21.9% 10 40.0% 747 86.5% 18 72.0% 117 13.5% 7 28.0% 793 91.8% 14 56.0% 71 8.2% 11 44.0% 829 95.9% 21 84.0% 35 4.1% 4 16.0% 689 79.7% 13 52.0% 175 20.3% 12 48.0% 713 82.5% 20 80.0% 151 17.5% 5 20.0% 38 Tested for significance using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 136

Disclosing Sexual Orientation As noted earlier, seven respondents (28% of the 25 gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers) reported that their colleagues were not aware of their sexual orientation, 11 (44%) said that some trusted colleagues know and 7 (28%) were completely out. Respondents who chose not to disclose their sexual orientation at work were asked about the reasons for their decisions. They said that they were afraid that disclosure would impede their career advancement, threaten their job security, result in a loss of business from clients. Two people said that they did not share their personal lives with work colleagues and it was no one else s business. Respondents were also asked what would have to change in order to make it possible for them to come out at work. Respondents comments are reproduced below. A different job. A divorce. It is not about the workplace, it is about the reaction of certain individuals. Lawyers and staff would have to become more open to alternative lifestyles. A more open environment. No idea! Really,I do not see this as possibility in my career. Possibly with a different supervisor. If attitudes continue to change. Senior administration would require a lobotomy. Society taking more liberal view; and tolerance, would have to really exist, not just be said to exist. Respondents who had disclosed were then asked if they had experienced any consequences at work as a result. Two respondents said there had been no consequences because they had been careful about whom they had told. Other comments were: I am sure there are always consequences, some of which I am not be aware. On one occasion, a lawyer opposite me on a file disclosed my sexual orientation to his clients. In my previous job it created a tense work environment. Very subtle, cleverly-masked homophobia. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 137

Perceived discrimination on the basis of parental status Table 5.91 provides a breakdown of respondents perceptions of discrimination on the basis of parental status. Comparing the responses of those with and without children, regardless of gender, differences emerged with respect to career advancement, assignments of files/work, the nature of firm/office functions, accommodation for family commitments, hiring, attaining partnership, and access to managerial commitments. In all cases, it appears that this was because the percentage of women with children who agreed that there is discrimination on the basis of parental status was so much higher than the percentage of men with children. In fact, women, both with and without children, were about twice as likely as men, both with and without children, to report discrimination on the basis of parental status with respect to: weight given to opinions, career advancements, access to clients, assignments of files/work, the nature of firm/office functions and promotional functions, accommodation for family commitments, hiring, attaining partnership, and access to managerial positions. Significant differences 39 between women with and without children emerged on two variables only: access to clients (25% of women with children agreed as compared with 11% of women without children) and judicial appointments (8% of women with children agreed as compared with 3% of women without children). Significant differences emerged between men respondents with and without children on a number of variables; in each instance, it was the men without children who were more likely to agree that there exists discrimination on the basis of parental status. These differences were with respect to career advancements, assignments of files/work, the nature of office/firm functions, hiring, attaining partnership, and access to managerial positions. 39 On all parental status comparisons, significance was tested using Fisher s Exact Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 138

Table 5.91. Types of discrimination on the basis of parental status Lawyers with children-weight given to opinions Lawyers with children-career advancements (parental status p =.001; men with and without p =.021)) Lawyers with children-access to clients (women with and without p <.001) Does respondent have children? Does respondent have children? no children has children no children has children Count Colum n % Count Column % Count Column % Count Column % No 128 98% 377 99% 157 92% 182 87% Yes 2 2% 3 1% 14 8% 27 13% No 92 70% 304 79% 74 43% 83 40% Yes 38 29% 76 20% 97 56% 126 60% No 122 93% 364 94% 152 88% 157 75% Yes 8 6% 16 4% 19 11% 52 25% Lawyers with children-assignments of No 109 83% 350 91% 106 62% 129 61% files/work (parental status p <.001, men with and without p =.007) Yes 21 16% 30 8% 65 38% 80 38% Lawyers with children-setting hourly rates Lawyers with children-opportunity to appear in court No 123 94% 370 96% 149 87% 180 86% Yes 7 5% 10 3% 22 13% 29 14% No 129 98% 376 97% 160 93% 194 92% Yes 1 1% 4 1% 11 6% 15 7% Lawyers with children-the nature of No 113 86% 359 93% 122 71% 146 70% office/firm functions (parental status p =.003, men with and without p =.006) Yes 17 13% 21 5% 49 28% 63 30% Lawyers with children-the nature of promotional functions No 119 91% 359 93% 133 77% 146 70% Yes 11 8% 21 5% 38 22% 63 30% Lawyers with children-judicial No 129 98% 379 98% 166 97% 192 91% appointment (women with and without p =.024) Yes 1 1% 1 0% 5 3% 17 8% Lawyers with children-accommodation No 94 72% 301 78% 84 49% 95 45% for family commitments (parental status p =.012) Yes 36 27% 79 20% 87 51% 114 54% Lawyers with children-remuneration No 118 90% 358 93% 124 72% 144 69% Yes 12 9% 22 6% 47 27% 65 31% Lawyers with children-hiring (parental No 108 82% 346 90% 121 70% 141 67% status p =.010, men with and without p.011) Yes 22 17% 34 9% 50 29% 68 32% Lawyers with children-attaining No 105 80% 346 90% 95 55% 120 57% partnership (parental status p <.001, men with and without p =.002) Yes 25 19% 34 9% 76 44% 89 42% Lawyers with children-access to No 115 88% 359 93% 126 73% 147 70% managerial position (parental status p =.013, men with and without p =.021) Yes 15 11% 21 5% 45 26% 62 30% Lawyers with children-judicial attitudes Lawyers with children-unwanted sexual advances No 128 98% 370 96% 167 97% 196 93% Yes 2 2% 10 3% 4 2% 13 6% No 130 99% 377 98% 170 99% 203 97% Yes 0 0% 3 1% 1 1% 6 3% Lawyers with children-unwanted No 129 98% 374 97% 168 98% 200 95% teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature Yes 1 1% 6 2% 3 2% 9 4% Lawyers with children-unwanted No 127 97% 369 96% 164 95% 193 92% teasing; offensive jokes or comments not of a sexual nature Yes 3 2% 11 3% 7 4% 16 8% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 139

5.4.4 Lawyers attitudes toward various diversity-related issues Respondents were asked a number of attitudinal and perception questions about their work and various diversity-related issues. Table 5.92 presents the responses from all respondents on all of these questions. Overall, a majority of respondents agreed that other lawyers judged their abilities on the basis of their work (90%), disagreed that they had to work harder than other lawyers to overcome negative stereotypes about themselves (56%), and disagreed that other lawyers make assumptions about them about their commitment to the profession on the basis of their religion, race, or ethnic origins. Seventy-six percent agreed that they feel comfortable bringing their spouse or partner to work-related social, networking or business events (if applicable). Forty-five percent of respondents agreed that they would consider working part-time hours if they were not concerned about possible detrimental effects to their careers, 48% agreed that their firm or organization offers more than one career path or timetable for success, 59% disagreed that part-time lawyers cannot respond effectively to their clients, and 58% disagreed that lawyers who work part time are less committed to the practise of law than those who work full time. On the other hand, 44% of respondents agreed that lawyers who work full-time are more valuable to their firm or organization than those who work part time. Twenty percent agreed that there are discrepancies between their firm or organization s written policies on reduced schedules and how they are actually implemented. Seventy-six percent of respondents did agree that, in the practise of law, merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one s self to the workplace at the expense of family relationships. Overall, the vast majority of respondents (86%) agreed that it is important that planning for extracurricular activities ensures that lawyers with disabilities should attend, and 57% disagreed that lawyers with disabilities should bear at least some of the costs incurred to accommodate those disabilities in order to practise. Fifty-three percent of respondents disagreed that they would prefer it if gay and lesbian colleagues kept their sexual orientation to themselves. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 140

Table 5.92. Attitudes about diversity Disagree Neither disagree nor disagree Agree Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Other lawyers judge my abilities on the merits of my work 24 2.7% 66 7.5% 786 89.8% I have to work harder than other lawyers in order to overcome negative stereotypes about me Other lawyers make assumptions about my commitment to the profession based on my religious affiliation, race, or ethnic origins My firm/organization offers more than one career path & timetable for success 486 56.0% 191 22.0% 191 22.0% 580 67.6% 221 25.8% 57 6.6% 211 25.2% 228 27.2% 399 47.6% Part-time lawyers cannot respond effectively to their clients 512 58.6% 184 21.1% 177 20.3% Reduced hour schedules present an inconvenience to other lawyers in the office I would consider working reduced hours on a regular basis if I was not concerned about a possible detrimental effect of this on my career Lawyers who work full-time are more valuable to the firm or organization than those who work on a reduced schedule Lawyers who choose to work reduced hours are usually less committed to the practise of law than those who work a full schedule Lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear at least some of the associated costs In the practise of law, merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one s self to the workplace at the expense of family relationships It is important that planning for extracurricular activities ensures that lawyers with disabilities can attend I feel comfortable bringing my spouse or partner to work-related social, networking or business (if applicable) Lawyers with disabilities should bear at least some of the costs incurred to accommodate their disabilities in order to practise law I would prefer it if gay and lesbian lawyers kept their sexual orientation from their colleagues There are discrepancies between my firm or organization written policies on reduced schedules and how they are actually implemented 307 35.4% 240 27.8% 319 36.8% 288 33.3% 186 21.4% 391 45.2% 328 37.6% 161 18.5% 383 43.9% 512 58.4% 170 19.4% 195 22.2% 270 31.1% 220 25.3% 378 43.6% 114 13.1% 97 11.1% 662 75.8% 16 1.8% 105 12.2% 744 86.0% 90 11.1% 101 12.5% 617 76.4% 495 56.9% 256 29.4% 119 13.7% 460 52.9% 303 34.9% 106 12.2% 275 33.3% 379 45.8% 173 20.9% Attitudes about diversity men and women respondents Statistically significant differences between men and women respondents emerged on most questions. 40 As shown in Table 5.93, women respondents were more likely to agree that merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one s self to workplace at the expense of family relationships (women 85%, men 69%), that they have to work harder than other lawyers to overcome negative stereotypes (women 35%, men, 12%), that they would consider working reduced hours if not for a possible detrimental effect on their career (women 58%, men 36%), and that there are discrepancies between their firm or organization s written policies on reduced hours and how they are actually implemented (women 31%, men 14%). Men respondents were more likely to agree that other lawyers judge them on the merits of their work (men 92%, women 87%), that lawyers who work full time are more valuable (men 51%, women 34%), that lawyers who work reduced hours are less committed to the practise of law 40 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 141

(men 28%, women 15%), that reduced hour schedules present an inconvenience to other lawyers (men 41%, women 32%), that part-time lawyers cannot respond effectively to their clients (men 25%, women 14%), and that lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear at least some of the associated costs (men 55%, women 28%). Table 5.93. Attitudes about diversity by gender Other lawyers judge my abilities on the merits of my work (p =.012) My firm/organization offers more than one career path & timetable for success (p =.002) Lawyers who work full-time are more valuable to the firm or organization than those who work on a reduced schedule (p <.001) In the practise of law, merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one self to the workplace at the expense of family relationships (p <.001) Lawyers who choose to work reduced hours are usually less committed to the practise of law than those who work a full schedule (p <.001) Reduced hour schedules present an inconvenience to other lawyers in the office (p <.001) I have to work harder than other lawyers in order to overcome negative stereotypes about me (p <.001) I would consider working reduced hours on a regular basis if I was not concerned about a possible detrimental effect of this on my career (p <.001) There are discrepancies between my firm or organization written policies on reduced schedules and how they are actually implemented (p <.001) Lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear at least some of the associated costs (p <.001) Part-time lawyers cannot respond effectively to their clients (p <.001) Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 9 1.8% 15 4.0% 31 6.2% 34 9.1% 460 92.0% 325 86.9% 98 20.5% 113 31.5% 136 28.5% 91 25.3% 243 50.9% 155 43.2% 147 29.6% 181 48.5% 96 19.3% 65 17.4% 254 51.1% 127 34.0% 84 17.0% 30 8.0% 72 14.5% 25 6.6% 339 68.5% 321 85.4% 247 49.7% 264 69.8% 113 22.7% 56 14.8% 137 27.6% 58 15.3% 138 28.2% 168 44.9% 153 31.2% 87 23.3% 199 40.6% 119 31.8% 344 70.1% 142 37.9% 89 18.1% 101 26.9% 58 11.8% 132 35.2% 201 40.9% 86 23.1% 115 23.4% 70 18.8% 175 35.6% 216 58.1% 187 39.2% 87 25.0% 223 46.8% 155 44.5% 67 14.0% 106 30.5% 101 20.4% 168 45.3% 122 24.6% 98 26.4% 272 54.9% 105 28.3% 244 49.3% 267 71.0% 128 25.9% 56 14.9% 123 24.8% 53 14.1% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 142

Attitudes about diversity - Caucasian respondents and respondents of colour Statistically significant differences between lawyers of colour and Caucasian lawyers emerged on three questions, as shown in Table 5.94. 41 Respondents of colour were less likely to agree that other lawyers judge their abilities on the basis of their work (lawyers of colour 82%, Caucasian lawyers 91%), and more likely to agree that other lawyers make assumptions about their commitment to the profession based on their religious affiliation, race or ethnic origins (lawyers of colour 25%, Caucasian lawyers 5%) and that they have to work harder than other lawyers to overcome negative stereotypes about them (lawyers of colour 46%, Caucasian lawyers 21%) Table 5.94. Attitudes about diversity by race Other lawyers judge my abilities on the merits of my work (p =.006) Other lawyers make assumptions about my commitment to the profession based on my religious affiliation, race, or ethnic origins (p <.001) I have to work harder than other lawyers in order to overcome negative stereotypes about me (p <.001) Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Race caucasian all others Count Count Count Percent Count Percent 19 2.4% 3 5.4% 57 7.1% 7 12.5% 731 90.6% 46 82.1% 548 69.4% 26 46.4% 202 25.6% 16 28.6% 40 5.1% 14 25.0% 459 57.4% 21 37.5% 177 22.1% 9 16.1% 164 20.5% 26 46.4% Attitudes about diversity respondents with and without disabilities Statistically significant differences between respondents with and without disabilities emerged on one question only. Respondents with disabilities were more likely to agree (42%) than those without (20%) that they had to work harder than other lawyers to overcome negative stereotypes about themselves (p =.001). 42 Attitudes about diversity gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents and heterosexual respondents Statistically significant differences between gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents and heterosexual respondents emerged on four questions. Twenty-two percent pf gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers, as compared with 78% of heterosexual respondents, agreed that they would feel comfortable bringing their spouse or partner to a work-related function or event, more than twice as many agreed that they had to work harder than other lawyers to overcome negative stereotypes (gay, lesbian and bisexual 48%, heterosexual 21%), and more than twice as many disagreed that their firm offers more than one career path and timetable for success (gay, lesbian and bisexual 48%, heterosexual 24%). Finally, and not surprisingly, 92% of gay, lesbian and 41 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. 42 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 143

bisexual lawyers, as compared with 52% of heterosexual lawyers, disagreed that they would prefer it if gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers kept their sexual orientation to themselves. Table 5.95. Attitudes about diversity by sexual orientation My firm/organization offers more than one career path & timetable for success (p =.004) I have to work harder than other lawyers in order to overcome negative stereotypes about me (p =.003) I feel comfortable bringing my spouse of partner to work-related social, networking, or business events (p <.001) I would prefer it if gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers kept their sexual orientation from their colleagues (p <.001) Sexual Orientation Heterosexual Gay, lesbian or bisexual Count Count % Count Count % Disagree 196 24.3% 12 48.0% Neither agree nor disagree 218 27.0% 7 28.0% Agree 393 48.7% 6 24.0% Disagree 478 57.1% 8 32.0% Neither agree nor disagree 182 21.7% 5 20.0% Agree 177 21.1% 12 48.0% Disagree 73 9.4% 16 69.6% Neither agree nor disagree 97 12.5% 2 8.7%% Agree 609 78.1% 5 21.7% Disagree 434 51.8% 23 92.0% Neither agree nor disagree 298 35.6% 2 8.0% Agree 106 12.6% 0 0% Attitudes toward diversity religious affiliation Statistically significant differences between respondents with a Christian religious affiliation, a non-christian affiliation, and with no affiliation on one variable only. Christian lawyer were less likely to disagree (48%) or neither agree nor disagree (38%) that gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers should keep their orientation to themselves, as compared with those with a non-christian affiliation (63% disagreed and 30% neither agreed nor disagreed) and those with no religious affiliation (61% disagreed and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed) (p <.001). 43 Attitudes about diversity respondents age groups Very large and statistically significant differences emerged on the basis of age for 13 variables, with near significant differences on several others. 44 The findings are set out in Table 5.96 below. Age differences on attitudes about the common expectation that lawyers must work very long hours are large, clear, and consistent. Briefly, the younger the respondent, the more amenable he or she is to working reduced hours and the less likely he or she is to agree that lawyers who work reduced hours are less committed to the profession and that part-time lawyers can not respond effectively to their clients. Also, they are more likely to agree that, in the practise of law, merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one s self to the workplace at the expense of family relationships, although even 55% of the oldest lawyers (aged 60 years or more) agree with this perception. 43 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. 44 Tested for significance using the Kruskal-Wallis Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 144

Likewise, the age differences on attitudes about diversity issues are large and striking. The younger the respondent, the more likely he or she is to disagree that lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear at least some of the associated costs and that lawyers with disabilities should bear some of the costs required to accommodate their disabilities in the workplace. Younger lawyers also disagree that they would prefer it if gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers kept their sexual orientation to themselves. Younger lawyers are also more likely to agree that there are discrepancies between their firm or organization s written policies and how they are actually implemented. The only question on which statistically significant differences emerged but do not follow a strict linear age pattern is I have to work harder than other lawyers to overcome negative stereotypes about me. Here, the percentage of respondents who agreed spikes among lawyers aged 30 years or younger (31%) and those aged 40 to 44 years (30%). Table 5.96. Attitudes about diversity by age group Age by Categories under 30 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % In the practise of law, merit is often Disagree 8 12.9% 10 9.3% 16 12.0% 18 11.8% 19 11.8% 15 11.8% 19 21.4% 9 20.5% equated expense of family Neither agree nor disagree 4 6.5% 9 8.4% 11 8.3% 13 8.5% 21 13.0% 17 13.4% 10 12.7% 11 25% relationships (p =.002) Agree 50 80.6% 88 82.2% 106 79.7% 122 79.7% 121 75.2% 95 74.8% 50 63.3% 24 54.5% Lawyers who Disagree 44 71.0% 70 65.4% 80 60.2% 91 59.5% 97 59.5% 68 53.3% 39 48.1% 18 41.9% choose to work reduced hours less committed (p =.010) Neither agree nor disagree Agree 12 6 19.4% 9.7% 17 20 15.9% 18.7% 22 31 16.5% 23.3% 33 29 21.6% 19.0% 28 38 17.2% 23.3% 32 28 25.0% 21.9% 13 29 16.0% 35.8% 12 13 27.9% 30.2% Part-time lawyers cannot respond effectively to clients (p =.006) I would consider working reduced hours. (p <.001) Disagree 45 73.8% 69 64.5% 81 60.9% 91 59.5% 98 60.1% 70 55.6% 34 42.5% 20 46.5% Neither agree nor disagree 9 14.8% 20 18.7% 32 24.1% 33 21.6% 27 16.6% 28 22.2% 22 27.5% 12 27.9% Agree 7 11.5% 18 16.8% 20 15.0% 29 19.0% 38 23.3% 28 22.2% 24 30.0% 11 25.6% Disagree 10 16.4% 24 22.9% 44 33.3% 49 32.2% 54 33.1% 47 37.3% 36 46.2% 22 53.7% Neither agree nor disagree 8 13.1% 18 17.1% 19 14.4% 35 23.0% 43 26.4% 31 24.6% 21 26.9% 10 24.4% Agree 43 70.5% 63 60.0% 69 52.3% 68 44.7% 66 40.5% 48 38.1% 21 26.9% 9 22.0% Lawyers who wish Disagree 39 63.9% 66 62.3% 52 39.4% 44 29.1% 24 14.7% 23 18.3% 14 17.7% 5 11.6% to take parental leave should bear some of the costs (p <.001) Neither agree nor disagree Agree 12 10 19.7% 16.4% 22 18 20.8% 17.0% 32 48 24.2% 36.4% 40 67 26.5% 44.4% 44 95 27.0% 58.3% 36 67 28.6% 53.2% 26 39 32.9% 49.4% 7 31 16.3% 72.1% I have to work Disagree 27 43.5% 52 48.6% 71 53.8% 73 48.3% 89 55.3% 83 65.4% 56 70.9% 34 81.0% harder to overcome negative stereotypes (p <.001) Neither agree nor disagree Agree 16 19 25.8% 30.6% 29 26 27.1% 24.3% 34 27 25.8% 20.5% 33 45 21.9% 29.8% 83 34 23.6% 21.1% 20 24 15.7% 18.9% 12 11 15.2% 13.9% 6 2 14.3% 4.8% Lawyers with disabilities should bear some of the costs (p =.001) Disagree 46 74.2% 67 62.6% 81 61.4% 89 58.9% 82 50.9% 67 51.9% 40 50.6% 17 40.5% Neither agree nor disagree 11 17.7% 32 29.9% 37 28.0% 41 27.2% 43 26.7% 45 34.9% 33 41.8% 13 31.0% Agree 5 8.1% 8 7.5% 14 10.6% 21 13.9% 36 22.4% 17 13.2% 6 7.6% 12 28.6% I would prefer it if Disagree 46 74.2% 71 67.6% 90 67.7% 80 53.3% 80 49.1% 45 35.2% 29 37.2% 15 34.9% gay kept sexual orientation to themselves (p <.001) Neither agree nor disagree Agree 14 2 22.6% 3.2% 24 10 22.9% 9.5% 32 11 24.1% 8.3% 53 17 35.3% 11.3% 62 21 38.0% 12.9% 66 17 51.6% 13.3% 35 14 44.9% 17.9% 15 13 34.9% 30.2% There are Disagree 15 24.6% 20 19.0% 44 33.8% 47 32.9% 59 38.6% 45 37.5% 27 37.5% 17 45.9% discrepancies written policies and how implemented (p <.001) Neither agree nor disagree Agree 24 22 39.3% 36.1% 51 34 48.6% 32.4% 55 31 42.3% 23.8% 67 29 46.8% 20.3% 68 26 44.4% 17.0% 51 24 42.5% 20.0% 41 4 56.9% 5.6% 20 0 54.1% 0% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 145

Attitudes about diversity respondents parental status Table 5.97 presents the variables on which there emerged significant differences of opinion between respondents with children and without children, between men respondents with children and without children, or between women respondents with children and without children. 45 Respondents with children were more likely than those without children, and women with children were more likely to agree than women without children, that their firm or organization offers more than one career path or timetable for success. There was no significant difference of opinion between men with and without children. Overall, the men were more likely than the women to agree. Respondents with children were more likely than those without to agree that lawyers who work full time are more valuable to the firm or organization than those who work on a reduced schedule. At first blush, this is a curious finding, but it is because about half of the men (including those with children) agreed with the statement, as compared with about one-third of the women (including those without children) and there were more male than female respondents. There was no significant difference between the men with and without children, or the women with or without children in their responses on this variable. Men s responses skew the findings on several variables. Respondents without children were significantly more likely to agree because more men without children than men with children agreed that, in the practise of law, merit is often equated with the willingness to dedicate one s self to the workplace at the expense of family relationships. There was virtually no difference between the women with (86% agreed) and without children (85% agreed) on this variable. The same pattern is true for the variable: I would consider working reduced hours on a regular basis if I was not concerned about a possible detrimental effect of this on my career. Fifty-nine percent of women without children and 56% of women with children agreed with the statement, as compared with 50% of the men without children and 31% of the men with children. Likewise, significantly more respondents overall disagreed that part-time lawyers cannot effectively respond to the needs of their clients, again because more men without children (54%) than men without children (48%) disagreed with the statement. There was no difference between the women with and without children. Significantly more men without children, more women without children, and more respondents with children overall than their comparison groups agreed that there are discrepancies between their firm or organizations written policies on reduced schedules and how they are actually implemented. The largest difference was between the number of men with children who agreed with the statement (10%) and the number of women with children who agreed (34%). Finally, significantly more men without children, more women without children, and more respondents with children overall than their comparison groups agreed that lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear at least some of the associated costs. The men were far more likely to agree with this statement (46% of men without children and 58% of men with children) than the women were (21% of women without children and 34% of women with children). 45 Tested for significance using the Mann-Whitney Test. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 146

Table 5.97. Attitudes about diversity by parental status My firm/organization offers more than one career path & timetable for success (children/no children p =.004, women with/without p =.041) Lawyers who work full-time are more valuable to the firm or organization than those who work on a reduced schedule (children/no children p =.011) Does respondent have children? Does respondent have children? no children has children no children has children Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Disagree 34 27.6% 63 17.8% 59 36.6% 53 27.2% Neither agree nor disagree 28 22.8% 108 30.6% 41 25.5% 50 25.6% Agree 61 49.6% 182 51.6% 61 37.9% 92 47.2% Disagree 40 32.0% 106 28.6% 85 50.3% 95 47.3% Neither agree nor disagree 24 19.2% 72 19.4% 34 20.1% 30 14.9% Agree 61 48.8% 193 52.0% 50 29.6% 76 37.8% In the practise of law, merit is often equated with the Disagree 17 13.6% 67 18.2% 13 7.6% 17 8.4% willingness to dedicate one self to the workplace at Neither agree nor 16 12.8% 56 15.2% 11 6.5% 13 6.4% the expense of family relationships (children/no disagree children p =.014) Agree 92 73.6% 246 66.7% 146 85.9% 173 85.2% I would consider working reduced hours on a regular Disagree 33 26.8% 168 45.8% 40 24.0% 45 22.3% basis if I was not concerned about a possible Neither agree nor detrimental effect of this on my career (with 28 22.8% 87 23.7% 28 16.8% 42 20.8% disagree children/without children p <.001, men with/without p <.001) Agree 62 50.4% 112 30.5% 99 59.3% 115 56.9% There are discrepancies between my firm or Disagree 33 26.8% 154 43.6% 28 17.5% 58 31.2% organization written policies on reduced schedules Neither agree nor and how they are actually implemented (with 59 48.0% 164 46.5% 77 48.1% 77 41.4% disagree children/without children p <.001; women and men with children/without children p =.011) Agree 31 25.2% 35 9.9% 55 34.4% 51 27.4% Lawyers who wish to take parental leave should bear Disagree 37 29.6% 63 17.1% 88 52.4% 79 39.5% at least some of the associated costs (with/without Neither agree nor 31 24.8% 91 24.7% 44 26.2% 53 26.5% children p <.001; women with/women without disagree children p =.004, men with/without p =.003) Agree 57 45.6% 215 58.3% 36 21.4% 68 34.0% Part-time lawyers cannot respond effectively to their clients (with/without children p =.015) Disagree 67 54.0% 176 47.6% 122 71.8% 144 70.9% Neither agree nor disagree 28 22.6% 100 27.0% 27 15.9% 27 13.3% Agree 29 23.4% 94 25.4% 21 12.4% 32 15.8% Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 147

5.4.5 Summary of discrimination in the profession Although there is a perception, particularly among men respondents, that discrimination against women appears to have decreased somewhat since 1991, 46 39% of the women respondents still experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment in the past five years. Discrimination on the basis of gender was most likely to come from lawyers (experienced by 39% of the women respondents), then clients (27%), office personnel (12%), and judges (12%). There may have been a slight decrease in discrimination against lawyers of colour between the 1991 and 2003, 47 at least from clients and other lawyers. In the current study, 41% of the lawyers of colour experienced discrimination: 30% experienced discrimination on the basis of race from clients, followed by discrimination from other lawyers (26%), judges (12%), and office personnel (7%). In 1991, 29% of the lawyers of colour experienced discrimination from clients, and 34% from other lawyers. Forty percent of the gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents had experienced discrimination; 20% reported discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from other lawyers, 16% from office personnel and 8% from clients. However, many of the gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers were not out and this probably had an impact on their experience of discrimination from other lawyers, clients, and so on. While a number of lawyers experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the 1991 study, respondents were not asked their sexual orientation and so there is no comparable data. Forty percent of lawyers with disabilities reported experiencing discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of their employment; 14% reported that they had been discriminated against by other lawyers on the basis of disabilities. The next most frequent source of discrimination on the basis of disability was from office personnel (11%), followed by clients (5%), judges (5%) and court personnel (2%). Most respondents (76%) did nothing in response to the discrimination they experienced, and if they did anything the most common reaction was to quite their jobs or change careers. About half thought that the action they took, even if the action was to leave their jobs, was effective. Forty percent of the women and ten percent of the men said that in the last five years they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender. In 1991, 52% of the women respondents and 15% of the men felt that had been denied such an opportunity. In 2003, 12% of the women and six percent of the men were unsure whether this had ever happened, compared to 23% of women and 19% of the men. Eighteen percent of the women and 4% of the men indicated that in the last five years they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their gender. Ten percent of the women and 2% of the men were 46 This cannot be said for certain because the 1991 question did not limit the time framework to the last five years as the 2003 question did. 47 The fact that the 1991 question was not time restricted as the 2003 question makes the increase even more likely. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 148

unsure. In 1991, 40% of the women and 5% of the men felt they had been denied such an opportunity, and 22% of the women and 15% of the men didn t know. There appears to be a decrease in such behaviour. 48 Twenty-six percent of the lawyers of colour and 2% of Caucasian lawyers had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their race. Fourteen percent of the lawyers of colour and 4% of the Caucasian were unsure whether they experienced this. Twenty-seven percent of lawyers of colour and 3% of Caucasian lawyers had experienced this exclusion on the basis of ethnic background. Six percent of lawyers of colour and 1% of Caucasian lawyers had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their race; 14% of lawyers of colour and 2% of Caucasian lawyers were unsure whether this had occurred. Only 10% of gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their sexual orientation, and 21% were unsure. Nine percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their sexual orientation, and 27% were unsure. The low percentage experiencing such behaviour is probably partly related to the fact that many of these lawyers sexual orientation was not known to their colleagues, much less their clients. However, the large percentage of unsure responses indicate that there might be some unease regarding whether such behaviour is occurring. Fifteen percent of lawyers with disabilities had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their disability and 11% were unsure. Seventeen percent of lawyers with disabilities had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their disability, and 3% were unsure. Thirteen percent of lawyers of non-christian religions had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a client preferred to work with another lawyer because of their religion, and 11% were unsure. Four percent of lawyers of non-christian religions had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their religion, and 9% were unsure. The younger the respondent the more likely they were to report that they had been denied an opportunity to work on a file because a client preferred another lawyer on the basis of age. However, this rejection was also reported by some lawyers who were 60 years of age or older. Fourteen percent of lawyers under the age of 40 had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their age. 48 Questions in both years were restricted to the last five years, but the 1991 questions asked whether respondents felt they had been denied such an opportunity and the 2003 question asked them whether they had been denied such an opportunity. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 149

Ten percent of women with children had been denied an opportunity to work on a file in the last five years because a lawyer preferred to work with another lawyer because of their parental status, and 6% were unsure. Being mistaken for someone other than a lawyer may reflect stereotypes that convey to a lawyer that he or she does not fit within the legal profession. This happens more often in groups considered disadvantaged over their comparative mainstream groups. Such mistaken identity coming from judges was experienced by 21% of the women and 9% of the men, and by 39% of lawyers of colour and 13% of Caucasian lawyers. Such mistaken identity coming from other lawyers was experienced by 39% of the women and 15% of the men, and by 64% of lawyers of colour and 22% of Caucasian lawyers. Such mistaken identity coming from clients was experienced by 43% of the women and 14% of the men, and by 48% of lawyers of colour and 25% of Caucasian lawyers. Finally, such behaviour coming from court personnel was experienced by 34% of the women and 15% of the men and by 51% of lawyers of colour and 21% of Caucasian lawyers. Comments about personal appearance by judges may detract from the fact that the person before them is first of all a lawyer. Fourteen percent of the women and 11% of the men have had this experience in the last five years, as did 23% of the lawyers of colour and 12% of Caucasian lawyers. Twenty-seven percent of respondents with a non-christian religious affiliation had modified their religious practises and 26% had withheld information about religious affiliation for fear of professional repercussions. Both women and men have family-work conflicts in which they do not attend work-related social, networking or business development activities due to family responsibilities only 17% of the women and 23% of the men had never had this experience. However, only 54% of the women, compared to 91% of the men, had not attended such functions because of a feeling of exclusion based on gender. Lawyers with religions other than Christian were the most likely to not have attended workrelated social, networking, or business development activities due to moral or religious convictions only 55% had never done this, compared to 80% of Christian lawyers and 87% of lawyers with no religious affiliation. Eight percent of lawyers with disabilities had often not attended work-related social, networking, or business development activities due to physical access issues or barriers, 10% had done it sometimes, and 12% rarely. Four percent of the gay, lesbian, bisexual lawyers had often not attended work-related social, networking, or business development activities due to feelings of exclusion, 30% had done this sometimes, and 26% rarely. Fewer than a quarter of lawyers in any of the diversity groups thought their firms or organizations discriminated against lawyers, except for the gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers; Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 150

32% of these lawyers thought their firms or organizations discriminated against lawyers. However, women lawyers, unmarried lawyers, lawyers without children, and lawyers under the age of 40 years were still significantly more likely to believe that their organizations discriminated against lawyers than their comparative groups. Sexual harassment is still an issue in the legal profession. Thirty percent of women respondents and 6% of the men were subjected to unwanted sexual advances by lawyers in professional settings in the last five years; 37% of women and 15% of men were subjected to sexual harassment by clients; and 5% of women and 1% of men were subjected to sexual harassment by judges. Fifty-five percent of women and 19% of men were subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by lawyers; 47% of women and 16% of men were subjected to this behaviour by clients; and 9% of women and 3% of men were subjected to this behaviour by judges. Similar to other studies, this study found that women observe sexual harassment more often than men observe it, and women are more often the targets of sexual harassment. If there has been any change in this area, it has been an increase in sexual harassment between 1991 and 2003. 49 In 1991, 33% of the women and 7% of the men who responded to the question had observed or experience women lawyers subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other lawyers. In 2003, 43% of the women and 26% of the men observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by other lawyers. In 1991, 67% of the women and 32% of the men had observed women being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature. In 2003, 65% of the women and 43% of the men observed women being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature. Some of this change may be attributed to men being more aware of how women experience sexual harassment, rather than an actual increase in sexual harassment. In both 1991 and 2003, 37% of the women respondents observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by clients; the percentage of men observing such behaviour went from 8% to 22%. Again, this may be an indication that men are beginning to see sexual harassment as sexual harassment, rather than an actual increase in the behaviour. This also accords with our common sense understanding of men becoming more aware of the existence and effects of sexual harassment. In 1991, 55% of the women and 18% of the men observed women being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature by clients. In 2003, this behaviour was observed by 46% of the women and 29% of the men. The observation of female support staff being subjected unwanted sexual advances by lawyers has gone up slightly. In 1991, 24% of the women and 13% of the men observed this behaviour; in 2003, 32% of the women respondents and 27% of the men observed it. In the 1991, 56% of the women and 26% of the men observed support staff being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by lawyers; this was observed by 49% of the women and 39% of the men in 2003. 49 However, the 2003 study asked about observations in the last five years, while the 1991 study asked respondents if they had personally observed or experienced sexual harassment in the last two years, so the two time periods are not completely comparable. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 151

Approximately one-quarter of the women respondents in 1991 and 2003 observed female support staff being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by clients; 14% of the men observed this behaviour in 1991 and 24% in 2003. Approximately a third of the women respondents in 1991 and 2003 observed female support staff being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes or comments of a sexual nature by clients. In the 1991 study, 21% of the men observed this behaviour, compared to 30% in 2003. Nine percent of the women respondents and 5% of the men observed women lawyers being subjected to unwanted sexual advances by judges, and 11% of the women and 6% of the men observed them being subjected to unwanted teasing, jokes, or comments of a sexual nature by judges. Lawyers were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender about women (66% of the respondents), followed by sexual orientation (52%), race or ethnic origin (50%), age (47%), gender (men) (38%), religion (36%), and disability (23%). Clients were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender about women (58% of the respondents), followed by race or ethnic origin (57%), sexual orientation (45%), age (38%), gender (men) (32%), religion (32%), and disability (22%). Judges were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender about women (15% of the respondents), followed by age (9%), race or ethnic origin (8%), sexual orientation (6%), gender (men) (6%), religion (5%), and disability (5%). Other office personnel were most likely to be observed making derogatory comments based on gender about women (35% of the respondents), followed by sexual orientation (30%), age (30%), race or ethnic origin (27%), gender (men) (27%), religion (22%), disability (16%). On the question of general perception of gender bias, an overwhelming majority of those who responded to the question (92% of the women and 69% of the men) thought there was some form of bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession. This shows a slight drop from 1991 when 97% of the women and 78% of the men thought that there was some bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession. The biggest difference from the first to the second survey was a decrease in the proportion of women who thought that bias against women was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and an increase in the proportion who thought that it exists, but is not widespread. There has been little change in the perception of gender bias against men; in both time periods three-quarters of the women and 55-58% of the men thought there was no bias against men. An overwhelming majority of the respondents (91% of the lawyers of colour and 73% of the Caucasian lawyers) thought there was some form of bias or discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of race or ethnic background; 32% of the lawyers of colour, as compared to 53% of the Caucasians, thought it was not widespread; 54% of the lawyers of colour, compared to 18% of the Caucasians, thought it was widespread but subtle and difficult to detect; and 5% of the lawyers of colour and 2% of the Caucasians thought it was widespread and readily apparent. Eighty-eight percent of gay, lesbian and bisexuals and 68% of the heterosexual lawyers thought there is discrimination in the legal profession on the basis of sexual orientation. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 152

Men with children were the most likely (54%) to say there is no bias against lawyers with children, followed by men without children (39%), women without children (16%) and women with children (10%). Only 32% of men with children thought there was some bias against lawyers with children, compared to 49% of men without children, 74% of women without children, and 83% of women with children. The most common type of discrimination against women, according to both the women (75%) and the men (36%), is discrimination in career advancement. This is down from 82% of the women and 42% of the men in the 1991 survey. In 2003 (the 1991 figure is the second of the two), 50% percent or more women also thought there was discrimination against women in attaining partnership (59%; 71%), unwanted teasing, jokes and comments of a sexual nature (58%; 58%), assignment of files and work (54%; 54%), weight given to opinions (51%; 60%), accommodation for family commitment (51%; 64%), remuneration (51%; 51%), and unwanted sexual advances (50%; 37%). Access to clients as a form of discrimination against women dropped from 58% of the women in 1991 to 43% in 2003; judicial attitudes dropped from 54% to 23%; and access to managerial positions dropped from 53% to 38%. The percentage of men who thought there was discrimination against men in judicial appointments dropped from 26% in 1991 to 16% in 2003. Eleven percent of men in 1991 and 9% in 2003 thought there was discrimination against men in lack of accommodation for family commitments. The most common type of perceived discrimination against lawyers on the basis of race or ethnic background, according to both the lawyers of colour (58%) and Caucasian lawyers (31%), is discrimination in career advancement. In addition, between 40% and 50% of the lawyers of colour identified racial discrimination in the areas of weight given to opinions (44%), access to clients (44%), assignments of files (42%), hiring (51%), and attaining partnership (40%). The greatest proportion of lawyers with disabilities (47%) thought there was discrimination against lawyers with disabilities in terms of career advancement, followed by attaining partnership (39%), hiring (37%) and access to managerial positions (35%). Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 153

SECTION 6. RESULTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS Focus group consultations were completed with Alberta lawyers and law students as part of the Equity and Diversity Project. The primary objective of the focus groups was to further explore some of the themes emerging from analysis of data from the written surveys. In addition, since very few Aboriginal lawyers completed the written survey, another purpose of the focus groups was to gather information from Aboriginal lawyers about their experiences in the legal profession. One focus group and a few individual interviews were completed in December 2002 and January 2003 as part of a consultation process to inform development of the written surveys. An additional 13 focus groups were held in October and November 2003 in five cities in Alberta. In total, 87 individuals were consulted via focus groups and interviews. 6.1 Focus group methodology Fourteen focus groups were held in five cities in the province of Alberta. Efforts to schedule additional focus groups in a sixth city did not come to fruition due to a reported lack of interest from lawyers residing in that city. This may be attributable to a failure on the consultants part to successfully identify the best contact people to assist in arranging groups in that city. Based on feedback from prospective group participants, it was agreed that individual focus groups would be organized for each target demographic group. In one group, at the request of the women participants, men lawyers were invited to participate, although only one man chose to join the group. With the exception of lawyers with disabilities, participants were invited to attend a focus group by way of a snowball sampling technique; that is, invitations for each group were sent to at least 10 lawyers known to belong to that demographic group, and these lawyers were encouraged to forward the invitation to other lawyers they knew who might be interested in participating. Lawyers with disabilities were individually interviewed. Some difficulties were encountered in locating lawyers with disabilities. In an effort to encourage the participation of men of colour, invitations were sent by fax and email, with telephone follow-up in some cases, to 27 individual lawyers. However, only five chose or were able to attend a focus group or interview. In addition, none of the male Aboriginal lawyers responded to the invitation to attend a group with Aboriginal lawyers. One male Aboriginal lawyer agreed to a personal interview. Although the focus of the equity and diversity study was on practising and non-practising lawyers in the profession, efforts were also made to arrange focus groups with articling students in Calgary and law students in both Calgary and Edmonton, although only the focus groups with women attracted sufficient participants to proceed. At one of the law schools, the studentcentred Equality Committee was invited to participate in a focus group but there was insufficient interest. Efforts were also made to arrange groups exclusive to Aboriginal students in both Calgary and Edmonton, but only one student responded to the invitation. In addition, four targetgroup specific focus groups were scheduled for articling students attending the bar admission course in Calgary, but only seven students responded to the invitation. Two of these students Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 154

were mainstream men, so they were invited to participate in individual telephone interviews, rather than having a focus group with two people. They did not respond to this invitation. Focus groups were about two hours in duration. Participants were provided with a brief overview of the history behind and the purpose of the Equity and Diversity Study, and the purpose of the focus groups. As detailed below, participants were assured that their participation was anonymous. Notes from the discussion were handwritten by the facilitator or by a second researcher. During the focus groups, participants were asked to talk about their process, experiences, reasons behind their decisions, and any bias or barriers encountered at the following stages of their involvement with the legal profession: entering law school, during law school, obtaining articles, articling, obtaining employment, and career progress and aspirations. When no barriers were encountered or barriers were overcome, participants were asked to try to identify specific things or individuals that had been helpful to them. They were also asked to comment on their impressions about if, how, and why bias and barriers had decreased over the past decade, and whether they had any recommendations about how ongoing problems might be overcome. It should be noted that, while all of these questions were addressed in each focus group (with the exception of students), the discussion was lively in many of the groups and answers to many of the questions emerged naturally in the course of the discussion. The names of the focus group participants are known only to one or two of the three consultants who completed the equity and diversity study. At the outset of each focus group, participants were asked and agreed to give their word that they would not to reveal the names of the other participants or any of the discussion to anyone outside of the group. The consultants also promised not to reveal the names of the participants to anyone else, including the sponsoring organizations, and to ensure that the final report was written in such a way that no individual participant could be identified. With the exception of a few people who declined the offer, all participants received a $50 honorarium for attending a group. Although some participants were paid with cash, payment was usually by way of a cheque from the consulting company, with the assurance that none of the sponsoring organizations would ever see the cheques when they had been cashed and returned by the bank to the consulting company. 6.2 Participant demographics Including the 17 lawyers who participated in pre-survey consultations, a total of 87 people (71 lawyers and 16 law and articling students) participated in focus groups and interviews. The demographic breakdown of the focus group participants is presented in Table 6.1 below. Table 6.1. Participant demographics Mainstream lawyers 1 28 29 Lawyers with disabilities 3 0 3 Gay and lesbian lawyers 5 7 12 Aboriginal lawyers 1 7 8 Visible minority lawyers/lawyers of colour 5 14 19 Mainstream women law and articling students 0 12 12 Visible minority/of colour and Aboriginal law and articling students 4 4 Total 15 72 87 Total Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 155

6.3 Focus group findings Gay and lesbian lawyers Five gay male and seven lesbian lawyers were interviewed in focus groups and individual interviews. All of the lawyers but two had been practising for at least 15 years, most of them in private firms. All of the gay and lesbian participants had disclosed their sexual orientation to their colleagues, although only three were out during law school and the issue of sexual orientation arose during articling interviews for only one person. The interviewer made some disparaging remarks but hired her anyway. In this case, the interviewer, who became her principal, found her sexual orientation to be titillating, and she was subjected to sexual harassment during her articles. One man came out during articles by bringing his partner to a firm event. This was not well received by the firm, and he was not kept on after articles. Another man reported that he was outed by someone to his firm, but by this time he had already been a partner for a number of years, and his partners were quite accepting. Most of the other lawyers explained that they came out gradually over a period of time, primarily by no longer lying about their private lives. They explained that the constant need to be secretive and the fear of being outed were uncomfortable and trying, and they just grew tired of it. Most of the lawyers employed in firms had not disclosed their sexual orientation to clients, simply because it does not come up, although a few people worried that homophobia could be shrouded as a business issue and used against them. There was clear disagreement among gay and lesbian lawyers about whether gay and lesbian lawyers should disclose their sexual orientation or not. While all participants agreed that lawyers put their careers on the line if they disclose, some lawyers feel that they are doing all gay and lesbian people a disservice by masquerading as heterosexual, and they have a duty to disclose. Several participants reported that, while there have been significant improvements over the past decade, discrimination against gay and lesbian lawyers continues to be extensive and sometimes quite overt. It is believed that many firms have adopted a don t ask, don t tell policy; i.e., it is all right to be gay as long as you remain entirely in the closet and never mention or otherwise share your personal life. They believe that it is unlikely that a firm would fire someone who is gay or lesbian and very discrete about their sexual orientation (e.g., not revealing this to clients, not bringing partners to events) if they are strong billers. Many examples were cited of lawyers being denied partnership because it was suspected that they are gay or lesbian, and of people who are now partners in major firms going to great lengths to hide their sexual orientation. It is believed that the time may be coming when a gay or lesbian lawyer can come out once they have made partner in some firms, as long as their practice is very lucrative for the firm. Gay and lesbian law students were advised not to directly or inadvertently reveal their sexual orientation at articling interviews or they may not be hired. Students were also advised that, if they want to be happy in the profession, they may wish to consider pursuing opportunities with smaller, gayfriendly firms or in the public sector, or working in solo practice. Several gay and lesbian lawyers commented that things will change when there are more openly gay people in the profession, and when the profession can demonstrate that lawyers will not be Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 156

punished for being gay or lesbian. They also noted that the fact that the Law Society had included sexual orientation in the study was a positive indication that things may change over time. Lawyers with disabilities Lawyers with disabilities reported that, for the most part, significant progress has been made with respect to attitudes about and some progress with respect to accommodation of their disabilities. Two of the three respondents believe that it is far more difficult to work in private practice than in public practice, largely because, in public practice, there are already policies in place to address discrimination and accommodation. One lawyer in private practice reported that his firm has been completely supportive and accommodating and that colleagues and mentors have set the appropriate tone with clients about his disability, such that his disability has not affected his career. He noted, however, that he misses out on networking opportunities because some events, including golf, are not accessible to him. The other lawyers were less positive about private practice. One commented that he was sometimes asked inappropriate questions at articling interviews and there appeared to be an assumption that his disability would hinder his ability to practice. Another lawyer who spent many years in private practice reported that the belief that his physical disability affected his cognitive abilities curtailed his career. He received less desirable case assignments, the social events required for networking were not accessible, and his firm sometimes wanted him to assume accommodation costs. The latter two lawyers are now employed in the public sphere where they find the accommodation to be very good. The attitudes of colleagues and supervisors are positive, most social events are accessible and, most important, they believe they are judged solely on the merits of their work and have been able to progress in their careers accordingly. One lawyer observed that law is a good career for people with physical disabilities because the work is almost exclusively dependent on cognitive abilities. All of the lawyers with disabilities commented that they had to work hard to exceed expectations and to be better than other lawyers in order to change their colleagues initial negative attitudes. Aboriginal lawyers Nine Aboriginal lawyers, one male and eight female, participated in focus groups or were individually interviewed. Most of these lawyers were employed in the public sector, and the number of years at the bar ranged from one to 15 years. All of the lawyers had children, many of them grown and, for most of the lawyers, law was their second or third career. A majority of the lawyers were employed in the public sector; a few had initially sought articles or jobs in large law firms but did not obtain positions, even if they had reasonable marks and strong evidence of biculturalism on their curriculum vitae. Almost all of the respondents commented that they constantly found themselves in the position of educating other, non-aboriginal lawyers about Aboriginal issues and culture, and almost all reported that they had experienced direct discrimination in the profession, usually in the form of racist comments. Most of the lawyers noted that public practice offered a more hospitable Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 157

environment than private practice, although several people commented that they sometimes encounter the perception that they got their positions on the basis of their Aboriginal heritage, rather than merit. One lawyer cited very overt examples of discrimination and barriers that he had encountered when the lawyer on the other side was with a big firm. Lawyers have made overtly racist comments about his Aboriginal clients, describing them as drumpounders, etc. If a client was late, lawyers asked if he was on Indian time or if his horse was tired today. Sometimes the lawyer himself has been subject to the same kind of remarks. Some of the lawyers explained that they try not to respond to insensitive comments for fear of being labeled as oversensitive or defensive. Some of the women lawyers related negative experiences that were related to gender, including sexual harassment and second-class treatment. Several lawyers commented that they are subject to reverse discrimination from other Aboriginal peoples who may resent or feel threatened by their success. They noted that First Nations organizations tend to hire mainstream law firms to fight their claims, perceiving that white people are somehow better. In addition, the lawyers recognize that they are practising law from the perspective of colonizer, and they are often indirectly fostering problems on reserves by, for example, supporting forms of development that harm rather than benefit Aboriginal peoples. One person described being a lawyer as schizophrenic because you stand out in the profession as Aboriginal, yet you are described by your friends and family as a sell-out or as working for the enemy. Also, the Aboriginal people in power who are corrupt correctly perceive you as a potential threat. This can be a very lonely place to be. One established woman lawyer stated that young Aboriginal women suffer considerable sexist oppression and harassment by older Aboriginal men. She said that when women lawyers are employed by these men, who are usually not lawyers, they get little credit for good work. She also feels that, if they want to get ahead in law, Aboriginal lawyers have to do more networking and be more visible in the legal and in other communities. She attributes her success to having had excellent articles, working very hard, and doing a lot of high-profile volunteer work and networking. Another lawyer commented that Aboriginal law students and lawyers have to recognize from the outset that, because opportunities will not be the same for them, they will have to work harder to prove themselves and create their own opportunities: Some lawyers will use whatever they can against you to try to dilute your qualities as a lawyer. The more Native you look, the harder it will be. You have to get past the race issue and develop a thick skin, just apply yourself to doing a good job, and then people begin to treat you better. Several of these lawyers commented that it appears that the Law Society has no real interest in improving the situation for Aboriginal lawyers. They stated that the Law Society is governed primarily by white men employed by big firms which perpetuate racism and they have no desire to change. Men of colour Five male lawyers of colour participated in focus groups or were individually interviewed. Participants had been practising law between one year and more than 20 years. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 158

The men reported that they had experienced no discrimination or minimal discrimination in the practice of law; i.e., some respondents continue to experience both overt and subtle racism in their day-to-day lives, but they have not found this to constitute a barrier in the legal profession. One lawyer reported that a major client at his firm with whom he had been working, and for whom he had been doing good work by all accounts, requested new counsel on the basis of race. The lawyer who assumed the file was able to significantly advance his career on the basis of files with this client, which was frustrating to the lawyer of colour. In addition, one lawyer reported that he has had to compromise his faith in order to practice (e.g., lunches with clients during Ramadan) and in order participate in his firm s social activities. Three of the lawyers reported that they have suspected that race has been a factor in their dealings with clients, other lawyers, or judges, but that it has been very subtle and they cannot be certain; the other two lawyers said they have never had such suspicions. Two of the men of colour who were interviewed reported that they have witnessed racial discrimination against support staff who shared their ethnic backgrounds by colleagues, and that this has made them very uncomfortable. Some of the men stressed that the major reason why they have not been subject to more discrimination is because they were either born in Canada or are fully integrated (i.e., no accent, no differences in dress or mannerisms) and, other than skin colour, they appear to be no different from their colleagues. Others had simply not given it any thought. One lawyer said that, in his experience, some issues that may be perceived as discrimination are not; rather, they are attributable to actual incompetence on the part of the lawyer. For example, proficiency in the English language is vital to competence in practice, so it may take time for some foreign-born lawyers to catch up. On the other hand, this lawyer stressed that some kinds of accents may serve as barriers while others may not, regardless of English-language proficiency. For example, a lawyer with a heavy Irish accent may not encounter any difficulties, whereas someone with an African accent, even if the person speaks English as their first language, might encounter barriers. These barriers may reflect underlying racism. Women of colour Fourteen women of colour lawyers participated in focus groups. Participants had been practising between two months and over 25 years. With the exception of one person, all of the women of colour stated that they have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, most often in combination with gender, within the profession and a majority of them feel that this has affected their careers. One of the women who had practiced for many years reported that, until recently, she had not felt that she had encountered any significant discrimination in her career, but she feels that she may have hit a glass ceiling and wonders if racism has played a role. Several lawyers noted that much lip service is paid to equity and equality, but actualizing it is just not there. One lawyer reported: When I first applied for articles, about ten years ago, several firms simply refused to interview me, although I had excellent grades at school. I was astounded, and could come up with no explanation other than racism. In the end, I did secure good articles though. Several of the younger lawyers who are practising or have practiced at firms reported that women of colour are often described by senior associates and partners as not being a good fit with the firm or being cut from a Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 159

different cloth, and they are not kept on after articles, even when their performance is better than students who are hired. One woman reported that, when she was articling at a big firm, racist jokes were circulated by email to everyone in the firm except the two visible minority women lawyers. Another woman said that jokes are circulated to her and comments about racial minorities are made in her presence, and people do not seem to be aware that this offensive. On the other hand, two women employed in the public sector described an atmosphere of hyperequity in their workplaces, meaning that lawyers and support staff were educated about equality issues in an ongoing way through educational initiatives. Several women said that if they define themselves as women of colour, rather than just trying to blend in, then the racism is more overt. They also noted that when they have called other lawyers on their comments, even if it is done gently, it has come back to haunt them. They have been labeled as troublemakers, militant, someone who can t take a joke, or having a chip on their shoulders. One of the senior women stressed that it is important for people of colour to be restrained in how they react to inappropriate comments, or it just makes things worse. You have to be prepared and competent, and not be expecting people to be discriminatory. Another noted: Only with age, or perhaps exposure, and experience have I become aware of some of the discriminatory barriers that visible minority women face in the profession. They are subtle, but they are real. It is manifested in unusual places; those people who are good colleagues and supportive of me at work continue to voice racism in front of me. The hardest part is when racist attitudes are revealed by people who I thought knew better. Several women observed the dearth of women of colour lawyers in senior positions in the public sector and as partners in major law firms. As one woman said, [w]e have only to look at who has made it in the legal profession to see that there are no women of colour among them. Another lawyer commented: I have not tended to think of myself as a woman of colour in the profession, but I have seen other women, white women, with the same qualifications receive opportunities that don t come my way. It has been a number of years since I experienced overt racism but, when things that I have expected to happen don t materialize, I now find myself wondering whether my visible minority status has something to do with it. The most common form of discrimination encountered is racist comments from colleagues and superiors, some of which reflect ignorance (e.g., What percentage of normal food do you eat? or Do your parents own a restaurant? ), some of which reflect malice (such as racially-based slurs), and some of which directly threaten career progress (e.g., Are women in your culture even allowed to work?) Several women feel that they experienced more racism after September 11. This has included lawyers making comments about immigrants, Muslims, and people of colour directly to them, and senior lawyers at their firms assuming that, because they are Muslim, they are more traditional about their roles as wives and mothers and are less committed to their jobs. Most of the racism experienced is less direct. For example, clients or support staff either mistake them for support staff or make racist comments while other, more senior lawyers are present, and the senior lawyers say nothing; judges and other lawyers mistake them for clerical staff at court; and sometimes they are referred to by their first names when male lawyers are addressed as Mr. Many of the women stated that, when taken collectively, these kinds of experiences serve Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 160

to undermine their professional credibility. They are sometimes taken less seriously and have to work harder to prove their competence. Several lawyers said that it would not be possible for them to work in a large law firm due to discrimination. The women of colour lawyers described many gender barriers that they had encountered, very much akin to mainstream women lawyers, but some women added that certain experiences had racial overtones. Most of the focus group participants feel that gender is a greater barrier than race in the practice of law. For example, one young lawyer explained that, [a]t a large firm, I found that I was left out of a lot of things by the men. I think this had more to do with gender than with racism. They used the excuse of liability to sexual harassment to exclude women from participating in meetings and out-of-work activities. However, several women commented that the combination of race and gender appears to have a synergistic effect that is greater than the sum of its parts. Several women wondered what the effects will be if there are fewer jobs in the profession will it mean that fewer lawyers of colour and fewer women get hired? Focus groups with women law and articling students Sixteen women law and articling students participated in focus group interviews. Of the 16 students, two were women of colour, two were Aboriginal, and 12 were Caucasian; seven were under the age of 25 years, and nine were between 30 and 50 years of age. Most of the older participants had children and had been employed in the workforce prior to entering law school. Almost all of the students reported that their decisions to enter law school related to concerns about or interest in justice, human rights, and equality issues, and a desire to use the law as an instrument to effect systemic change in society. Most of students with children had experienced serious financial barriers to attending law school. These included difficulties in acquiring student loans due to expectations about being supported by husbands or complications ensuing from divorce, along with inability to both obtain loans, bursaries, or scholarships and attend law school part-time. Others took a long time to finish their first degrees because they would work for a while and save money, then go to school, then work and save again, and so on. With the exception of two of the older, married students, each student reported that they will have accumulated a minimum of $50,000 in debt in order to complete law school. On the other hand, once they were in a position to apply and attend, all of the students were accepted to law school without any problems. About half of the 16 students emphasized that any increase in tuition fees would have precluded them from attending law school. The students perceptions about their law school experiences appeared to vary in accordance with parental status and the law school attended, although age may also be a factor. Younger students with no children described their experiences in more positive terms than older students with children. Those without children reported that they had not encountered any gender barriers at law school; in fact, they were encouraged by the high proportion of women professors and law students. On the other hand, some of the students with small and school-aged children commented that law school makes insufficient accommodation for parents. For example, professors sometimes scheduled mandatory activities outside of school hours, creating difficulties for some parents, although it was appreciated that some professors allowed children Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 161

to occasionally attend classes with their mothers, if they were quiet. One student noted that the law school was better at understanding and accommodating minor personal and health problems and emotional distress than parenting challenges, such needing to stay home with a sick child. Some of the problems described by the students cannot be included here because it might lead to their identification, but they do appear to exemplify a failure on the part of the law school to recognize the realities associated with juggling law school with the disproportionate parenting responsibilities borne by women. Students described a range of experiences in seeking articles. Three students who were already articling described the process of seeking, obtaining, and completing their articles as very positive, although hard work. They reported that they had not encountered any discrimination on the basis of gender or race throughout the process. A fourth articling student reported that she was asked about children and her personal life in articling interviews, and had a harder time securing an articling position. This was consistent with the experiences of most of the students who were still at law school but had been interviewed for articling positions. A majority of these students reported that they were asked, usually indirectly, about family, children, and child care plans. In some cases, the students were left alone with a woman lawyer who was a member of the interviewing team. The woman lawyer took the opportunity to share information about her own family and personal life and to try to engage the student in discussion about herself. Other students found that law firms used mixers, dinners and receptions to which prospective articling students are invited, to solicit personal information from the students. Several students who don t drink alcohol said that they were specifically asked why they weren t drinking and whether it was for religious reasons. Age may also be a barrier to securing articles. One middle-aged woman noted that, when she enquired about an advertised opportunity with a firm, she was told: we meant young lawyers. The students believe that this is not atypical. As summarized by one student, [f]irms are often looking for candidates whom they perceive to malleable and who will not have life obligations other than work. Some students noted that they had received guidance in seeking articles from faculty members. Several women reported that they have been told to leave references to their children off their résumés, to wear a skirt to interviews, and not to wear their wedding rings. On the other hand, some of the students reported that, during their interviews with large firms, the interviewers stressed that they had maternity leave policies and that, by hiring a nanny, a woman could succeed in their firm. Some students interpreted this to mean that they could progress to the partnership level; others felt they were being mommy tracked right at the interview, citing examples of women they knew who were working at large firms four days a week at 60% of a full-time salary and noting that this is highly cost-effective for firms. Students expressed misgivings about and frustrations with the match process, which provides students with opportunities to be interviewed by the larger firms. Students reported that some male law students openly talk about using the sports angle in their articling interviews, meaning that they describe their love of and ability to play sports like golf and hockey. In addition, some students reported that they knew of instances where firms had by-passed the match process. For example, male students have been recruited to play on law firms hockey Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 162

teams, then hired for summer jobs, and then directly hired for articles. In another example, some students were drinking at a bar and a partner from one of the firms happened to be there. They started socializing and one of the students was subsequently offered articles with that firm. The women students reported that they felt very much excluded from these inside routes to articling positions. In fact, most of the students, regardless of whether they had participated in the match process, noted that they felt jaded by the experience of seeking articles. Some participants commented that law students of both genders talked about how, if you want to work for a big firm, you need to park your ethics at the door. Most of the students, whether or not they had children or planned to have children, expressed dismay about a perceived conflict between maintaining life balance and practising in their desired area of law. They observed that big firms have a monopoly on certain areas of law, but they do not want to work 100 hours a week for the next 10 years. In one focus group, the students said that a majority of the younger women students at their law school openly recognize that it is difficult to reconcile having children with success in the profession, and state that they will never have children. Several of the students who already had children had decided that they could not work in a big firm and had secured or were seeking positions in the public sector or with smaller firms. A majority of the students who did not have children, whether or not they planned to have children in the future, reported that they had secured or hoped to secure articles and jobs at larger firms where they could obtain experience, and then, depending on how they were treated, might move on to start their own small firms or pursue jobs in the public sector. Mainstream women Twenty-nine mainstream women lawyers, reflecting the entire spectrum of practice options and seniority, participated in focus groups. Years of practice ranged from two months to over 30 years. About half of the women had children, some of whom are now adult. The experiences reported and opinions voiced by participants were very consistent, with the notable exception of some of the women lawyers practising in smaller urban centres. Some of the women practising in smaller centres reported profound discrimination that had severely affected their career progress; their comments are merged with other women s comments, below, so that they cannot be identified. On the other hand, some other women practising in smaller cities also described experiences of overt discrimination, such as being denied a job on the basis of gender or being called by their first names but required to address all the men in the firm as Mr., but they said that these experiences had not affected their careers and that, overall, they did not feel that women were discriminated against in the profession. It should be noted that most of the participants practising in smaller centres believe that it would be impossible for a gay or lesbian lawyer to be out in their cities, and that Aboriginal or visible minority lawyers might also experience significant discrimination. However, one woman of colour practising in a smaller centre stated that she had never encountered any discrimination whatsoever in the profession. Regardless of how long they had been practising law, almost all of the mainstream women lawyers stated that the legal profession is still an an old boys club and reported that little appeared to have changed over the past decade. Most of the barriers appear to be concentrated in Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 163

large law firms, with fewer problems encountered in smaller firms and corporations, and very few or no problems occurring in the public sector. An exception is one senior woman lawyer who works for a corporation and reported that she earns between 30 percent and 50 percent than similarly employed men based on gender alone. In addition, several participants argued that women practising criminal law in small firms or in solo practice command less respect and lower fees than their male counterparts. Many of the young lawyers stated that they were completely unprepared for the barriers they experienced soon after entering the profession. Based on their positive law school experiences and the progress made by women in the workforce in their lifetimes, they simply did not expect to encounter gender discrimination in the profession. Several young women described very positive articling interviews, where the hiring committee emphasized that their firms respected women s equality, only to subsequently discover that these were empty promises. One woman reported that a senior partner at a large law firm sits down individually with each new woman associate to tell her that the law is not a good place for women. Several young women stated that less competent male articling students and lawyers appeared to have the word partner tattooed on their foreheads in invisible ink, and that the best files and opportunities were diverted to these young men, while they received the grunt work. Some women reported that family law files and difficult clients were automatically diverted to them, even when they had specified that they did not want to practice family law. One consequence of receiving primarily low billing files is that these women are then excluded from the firm s bonus structure. The women reported that client development strategies continue to be male-focused; little attention is devoted to attracting women clients. Young male lawyers are more frequently invited to social events with clients, which included events such as hockey games (played and observed), golf games, late night drinking fests, and even, in one instance, a strip club. Some women reported that female lawyers are not invited to attend out-of-town trials, allegedly because others might suspect that they are having an affair, but the effect is to deny women lawyers some opportunities that are afforded to men lawyers. While a few women suspect that their firms have involved them in client development because they are attractive, two women stated that their (former) firms told them that it was inappropriate for them to be seen in public with any male clients or male lawyers, thereby ensuring that they had very limited contact with clients and very few business development opportunities. Several women, including some who had been at the bar for more than 10 years, reported repeated instances of sexual harassment in recent months or years. Examples include inappropriate touching of buttocks and breasts by other lawyers, inquiries about the women s sexual habits and preferences, accusations of having slept their way through law school, and comments about clothing (e.g., are your breasts uncomfortable in that dress?). Some women said that they told the offending lawyer to stop and some reported the problem to senior members of the firm, only to be told that they were exaggerating or that they must have misunderstood the lawyer s intentions. Some women reported that, in one major firm, new lawyers are hazed by being encouraged to drink out of a shoe or a penis-shaped cup. Although the incident was not sexual, one woman described being knocked to the ground outside of the court house by the angry male lawyer who had been her opposing counsel in the courtroom moments earlier. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 164

Although a few participants strongly disagreed, almost all the women lawyers, across the age spectrum, reported that it is still the case that women lawyers have to be more competent than men to get to the same place. You can be assured that a woman who is practising corporate and commercial law is at the top of her game. In addition, it is believed that women lawyers need to be more assertive than men to get ahead, and this is often perceived negatively. Participants said that women without children work harder than everyone else in part because they are chosen to represent the firm when female representation is required, and there are not enough women to go around. In the words of one participant: Dum-dums keep moving up on the backs of new associates because they are good at golf or hockey, but mostly because they have a penis. Participants said that, as a general rule, the only women who advance in the big firms are those who do not have children or whose children are older and reasonably independent. They commented that attrition rates among women lawyers have become a serious issue at some of the larger law firms. The response from partners, however, appears to be that the associates should just buck up and put in the hours, although many of the senior women noted that they would not have been able to meet today s billing targets when they were starting out. Some participants reported that some senior women lawyers, who feel that they have made many personal sacrifices to move ahead in their careers, are disinclined to make things easier for women entering the profession. Some participants pointed out that, due to higher tuition fees these days, the attrition rates for women represent a quantitatively larger loss for women. It is expected that men will join a firm and stay the course; a woman spends $50,000 to get there and then there is no encouragement for her to stay. Women are disposable crew members and no one is surprised any more when they quit. Almost all the women emphasized that the issue of children is the most significant barrier to women in the legal profession. Several women who had been at the bar for a number of years talked at length about the lack of accommodation afforded by their firms when they had a baby, such as being promised maternity leave and then being called back to work a week after giving birth. One woman reported that, when her employer discovered that she was pregnant, her contract was not renewed. Many participants commented that, even today, women who take a maternity leave of more than a few weeks are mommy tracked by their firms upon their return, meaning that they are assigned work of lesser quality. Some of the women lawyers who are selfemployed or work in small firms that include a high proportion of women stated that it was not feasible for them to receive maternity leave but they did take some time off. In their firms, having children was celebrated as a good thing, and it was assumed you would continue to practice, welcoming and supportive. Two women stated that, because they had chosen to work in such firms, they were not required to accommodate their lives to the law, and any financial repercussions associated with having children were dwarfed by this fact. On the other hand, a couple of the women expressed regret that they had returned to work shortly after having a baby, saying that they had missed out on important times in their children s lives. A few women talked about how they had refused to accept the lack of accommodation for children. One woman described taking her new baby to conferences; another said that she had taken her baby to chambers when the opposing counsel refused to adjourn the matter. In the words of one participant, [w]omen who go back to work two weeks after having babies make it harder for all women. But if money is the only value, it will produce these kinds of outcomes. It is inevitable. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 165

Two women explicitly disagreed with the notion that the legal profession should accommodate women lawyers having children. They stated that having children is a choice and if women lawyers choose to have children then they should live with the consequences. Other lawyers should not be obliged to accommodate these women s personal lives. However, many of the women lawyers were quite enraged by the argument that women have a choice about having children. In the first place, male lawyers are never asked about their plans to have children; in fact, it is generally a benefit to a man s legal career to have children and a stay-at-home partner. (Some women also noted that it is a benefit for a woman lawyer to have a supportive husband.) Several women argued that having children is only a choice if women who are comparably situated with men have made the same career choices. Others disagreed, advancing a substantive analysis. As argued by Justice Dickson, women have a procreative imperative, and women should be compensated rather than penalized for it. As summarized by one senior member of the bar, [i]t is not, as some firms say, a matter of why should we treat you any differently than a man who wants to go on a rafting trip? The bottom line is ethics. Is it really worth having a second Mercedes to exclude half the population from the practice of law? Several lawyers noted that government is using good maternity/parental leave with a 90% top-up as an incentive to lure women into positions. As stated by one woman, [i]t s great when you don t have to hide your ovaries. Participants said that women deliberately leave law firms and come to government when they want to have babies. There are a disproportionate number of women in their childbearing years who leave private practice and forfeit larger incomes in order to work in places where the maternity and parental leave policies are already in place. In some of these public places, men are beginning to take advantage of parental leave policies as well. On the other hand, women reported that in one small centre, physicians are unwilling to sign the paperwork required for women to obtain more than six weeks maternity leave, so that even women employed in public practice cannot access benefits that would otherwise be available. Several participants commented that women in other professions appear to have made greater progress than women in law. As summarized by one lawyer, [t]he greater presence of women in other professions appears to have made a difference, although progress is sometimes uneven. But in the law, the critical mass theory has not worked out. Women cannot get high enough in the ranks in sufficient volume, and it may also be that they are eventually co-opted. In fact, some of the senior lawyers who have succeeded in the profession attributed their progress to having become imbued to the culture. They said that they have learned to adapt their behaviour, and if you adapt, you succeed. However, some of these women said that they were not sure that the sacrifices in terms of family and life balance had been worth it. Also, many of the women with children described their lives as being a difficult juggling act and always on the edge, where you can t afford for one thing to go wrong or take too long. One of the key themes that emerged in the focus groups with mainstream lawyers was that absolutely women can succeed in law, but not within the big firms, and only if they create their own reality. Some lawyers noted that small, women-based firms have been successful because the law firms sloughed off the non-profitable work family law and the women lawyers grabbed it. To some extent this is also true of criminal law. Many of the senior lawyers Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 166

advised that women lawyers to start their own boutique firms. They should have a plan to get the skills and get the clients. Practice at a big firm for a while and then take the clients with you when you set up your own shop. Take the clients and run and be successful. Make your own rules and don t put up with the crap that big firms dish out. At this point there really isn t any other option for women who do not want to work in public practice. Another woman stated that the profession exemplifies misogyny writ large and contempt for the humanity of women. The bottom line is that women can t survive in a large firm if they want to have children. The patriarchal hierarchy continues today. In short, there was consensus among most of the mainstream women focus group participants that the big firms continue to be dominated by old boys and new old boys, who define the culture of the legal profession, and have simply not wanted to make the accommodations necessary for women who want to have children. There continues to be a strong drive to maintain a testosterone-charged atmosphere. They still do not want women in the club. This is accomplished by excluding the women associates from fully participating in marketing and networking; these privileges are extended to the male associates, regardless of merit, and the women are just not invited; they are left behind to write the memos. This is true even for young women without children. It is assumed that the women will not stay on a partnership track. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For the most part (there were a few dissenters here), things are equal at law school and success is based on merit. This changes almost immediately upon entering a law firm, when less competent men receive opportunities to shine which are denied to women. Young and older women lawyers reported that they are feeling very discouraged. Many of the senior lawyers are angry and disappointed that it appears that no real progress has been made by women since the Bertha Wilson report. They feel that there is no hope of selling the argument on moral grounds; it will have to be on economic grounds because the powers that be simply do not care about including women or any other demographic group unless it is to their financial advantage. 6.4 Summary of focus group findings Focus group discussions confirmed and provided more detail on the written survey findings. A large majority of focus group participants confirmed that bias and discrimination continue against historically disadvantaged groups, and this serves to prevent some people from advancing in the profession and contributes to dissatisfaction with the profession. The focus groups suggest that the situation may have improved over the past decade to some extent for some groups. Lawyers with disabilities noted that progress has been made with respect to attitudes about and accommodation of their disabilities, both in public and in private practice. It appears that both overt and systemic racism have declined, such that lawyers who are people of colour and otherwise manifest no striking cultural differences from Caucasian lawyers in terms of such things as accents, style of dress, or cultural religious practices, have a better chance of progressing professionally than they did in the past. In other words, skin colour alone appears to be much less of a barrier to practise than it used to be. This may be truer for men lawyers of colour than for women lawyers of colour, and truer in the public sector than in private Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 167

firms, where there seems to be a much greater emphasis on fitting in than in the public sector. Women of colour participants described a much higher incidence of indirect discrimination than the men of colour, primarily in the form of racist comments. It appears that discrimination against Aboriginal lawyers continues to flourish; all of the Aboriginal focus group participants experienced overt discrimination on a regular basis. It appears that, for the most part, Aboriginal lawyers have a much better chance of succeeding in public practice, where there are fewer barriers, or by starting their own solo or small firms if they are in a position to do so. Discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers continues, although it is believed that many firms have adopted a don t ask, don t tell policy. Participants agreed that gay, lesbian and bisexual lawyers put their career on the line by disclosing their sexual orientation. This is somewhat less of an issue in public practice than in private practice, although it appears that even the larger private firms may be willing to set aside their biases if the lawyer is both discrete about their sexual orientation and, most important, if they are big billers. The overwhelming majority of women participants agreed that discrimination against women continues in the profession, and this is far more significant in private, as compared with public practice. Interestingly, it appears that younger women lawyers often enter the profession with the expectation that they will not encounter any gender barriers, and are quite surprised when they arise. For example, many of the younger women enjoyed and flourished during their articles but, in their first few years of practice, realized that they were receiving less favourable assignments than their male counterparts and were being excluded from social and networking opportunities for no apparent reason other than gender. There was a general consensus among the women participants that women lawyers have to be more competent and hard working than men lawyers to get to the same place and that mommy tracking tends to begin well before a woman has even begun to think about having children. It was agreed that, as a general rule, only women who do not have children or whose children are older are able to advance in large firms. Some women said that they needed a wife to manage the home front in order to get ahead at work. There was consensus among a strong majority of the women lawyers that the profession continues to be dominated by old boys and new old boys who define the culture of the profession and simply have not wanted to make the accommodations for women, particularly with respect to women having children. It was agreed that the critical mass theory; i.e., that the culture of law would change as more women entered the profession, has not worked out because women cannot move up the ladder in sufficient volume to influence significant change, and the few who do either grow weary of fighting against the current or become co-opted over time. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 168

SECTION 7. CONCLUSIONS Data from Alberta law schools and the Law Society of Alberta reveal that, over the past ten years, equal numbers of women and men have completed law degrees. Although the records are sketchy, it also appears that the number of Aboriginal and visible minority law graduates has increased. Membership data from the Law Society of Alberta show that, over time, the percentage of all active members who are women has increased, from 20% in 1991 to 29% in 2003. In the five years prior to the 1991 study (1986-1990), 35% of the lawyers called to the bar were women. This percentage rose to 45% in the five years prior to the 2003 study (1998-2002). As in 1991, men still leave the profession in greater absolute numbers and women still leave in greater proportion than the men. However, the gap between women and men has decreased since 1991. In 1991, 33% of the women and 28% of the men who had been called to the bar in the previous 15 years (1976-1990) were no longer active members of the Law Society on May 1, 1991. In 2003, 28% of the women and 25% of the men who had been called in the previous 15 years (1988-2003) were no longer active members of the Law Society on May 22, 2003. These figures also show that the attrition rate has decreased for both women and men between the two time periods. The attrition rate gap between women and men increases among the more senior lawyers. For example, there is no difference between the attrition rate of women and men who were called between 1998 and 2002. However, for those called between 1983 and 1987, the attrition rate for women is 42% compared to 33% for men. Data from the survey of inactive members show that the majority of both the men and women lawyers who moved to inactive status in the past 10 years left the profession to look for more personally rewarding opportunities, to avoid the nature, stress and adversarial approach of the practice of law, or to find more balance with personal life. Only half of the inactive survey respondents reported that, if they could do it all over again, they would become a lawyer. The survey of active lawyers reveals dissatisfaction among many respondents with some aspects of the practice of law, including hours of work, work-life balance, the profit-driven culture of the profession and, for members of historically disadvantaged groups, discrimination that impedes their career advancement. There was a very large divide among younger and older lawyers on most of the satisfaction and attitude variables: younger lawyers, both male and female, are far less amenable than older lawyers to working the long hours associated with private practice and far more amenable to working reduced hours, job sharing, and other alternative work arrangements, and to accommodating lawyers parental leave. Many of the younger lawyers take issue with what they perceive to be an old boys culture, driven more by profits than the pursuit of justice. In addition, younger lawyers are more accepting than older lawyers of diversity in the profession, as indicated, for example, by their attitudes about sexual orientation, disability, parenting, and racial diversity. It is expected that, over time, young men lawyers will increasingly follow the example of young women lawyers and leave the larger firm environment to pursue other opportunities in law, such as employment in the public sector or self-employment as a sole practitioner or in small associations or, like the women, they will leave the profession altogether. This may have serious economic implications for mid-sized and Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 169

large law firms, who will be investing in promising new associates only to lose them within a few years as they seek more personally rewarding opportunities elsewhere. Much of the dissatisfaction expressed by women and some members of other diversity groups stems from ongoing discrimination in the legal profession, most commonly with respect to career advancement. Among active survey respondents, 92% of the women and 69% of the men thought there is some degree of bias or discrimination against women in the legal profession. Ninety-one percent of the lawyers of colour believed that there is racial discrimination in the profession, 73% of lawyers with disabilities believed there is discrimination on the basis of disability, 88% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents believed there is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 83% of women with children and 32% of men with children believed there is discrimination on the basis of parental status. These perceptions reflect respondents first-hand experiences with discrimination. Without reference to the specific ground of discrimination, 39% of all active women respondents, 41% of the respondents of colour, 40% of disabled respondents, and 40% of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents reported that they had experienced discrimination while seeking employment or during the course of employment in the past five years. Although very few Aboriginal lawyers responded to the surveys, all but one of the Aboriginal focus group participants described their extensive experiences with overt and profound discrimination. These finding suggest that discrimination against Aboriginal lawyers in the legal profession is profound and pervasive. For all of the diversity groups, other lawyers and clients were most commonly responsible for the discrimination, which was manifested in the forms of racist and sexist comments, denial of opportunities to work on files, exclusion from opportunities to be involved in workplace activities related to career advancement, exclusion from work-related social or business development activities related to career advancement, and negative career consequences as a result of having children or being a parent. In addition, sexual harassment continues to be a serious problem in the profession. Other evidence of the negative career consequences of discrimination include the finding that, even controlling for number of years at the bar and type of practice, women lawyers worked as many or more hours than men lawyers, and earned significantly less money. Only 55% of the women, as compared with 75% of the men, had children. Men were still far more likely than women, and lawyers without disabilities were more likely than lawyers with disabilities to be partners in law firms, even when small firms are included in the analysis. In addition, women and members of other diversity groups were more likely than other respondents to be employed in the public sector, where it is believed that they can maintain a better balance between work and home life and have better opportunities for advancement than in the private sector. Despite these discouraging findings, the survey results do indicate that discrimination has decreased somewhat since 1991. This may be partially attributable to heightened awareness about equity and diversity in the profession due to the Law Society s model policies and the Equity Ombudsperson program, along with broader social changes. Slightly fewer men and women believe that there is gender bias in the profession, and significantly fewer men and women have personally experienced direct discrimination from other lawyers and from clients than they did in the past. Although the percentage of respondents reporting that they have experienced and observed sexual harassment has actually increased, this may be attributable to Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 170

increased levels of awareness and sensitivity about sexual harassment among respondents, particularly among men lawyers. There is also some indication that attitudes toward and accommodation of the needs of lawyers with disabilities has improved, and that discrimination on the basis of race alone, at least for men lawyers, has decreased. It appears that there is a greater perception that men of colour and people with disabilities fit into a large firm environment, although the same beliefs do not appear to be extended to Aboriginal lawyers or visible minority lawyers who manifest language, cultural, or religious characteristics that are different from the dominant cultural group. Women s advancement in the profession is still seriously hindered by the fact that they bear the children and they are involved in a disproportionate amount of child rearing activities compared to their male counterparts. Little progress has been made in the private sector to accommodate parenting by both men and women, although the consequences are largely borne by women. As a result, women leave the profession in sufficient numbers that they may still be unable to form the critical mass required to effect meaningful change in the profession. It is unclear whether the attitudes of younger lawyers, both men and women, offer some promise for a more balanced and less biased legal profession in the future or whether, as they age, these lawyers attitudes will change to conform to the more dominant views of older members of the profession. Final Report on Equity and Diversity in Alberta s Legal Profession. 171