Early Law Careers of Male and Female Lawyers in the United States

Transcription

LSAC GRANTS REPORT SERIES
 Early Law Careers of Male and Female Lawyers in the
United States and Germany: A Comparative Study of
Work, Family, and Childbearing
John Hagan
Gabriele Plickert
American Bar Foundation
 Law School Admission Council
Grants Report 12-01
March 2012
A Publication of the Law School Admission Council
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) is a nonprofit corporation that provides unique, state-of-theart admission products and services to ease the admission process for law schools and their applicants
worldwide. More than 200 law schools in the United States, Canada, and Australia are members of the
Council and benefit from LSAC's services.
© 2012 by Law School Admission Council, Inc.
LSAT, The Official LSAT PrepTest, The Official LSAT SuperPrep, ItemWise, and LSAC are registered
marks of the Law School Admission Council, Inc. Law School Forums, Credential Assembly Service,
CAS, LLM Credential Assembly Service, and LLM CAS are service marks of the Law School Admission
Council, Inc. 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests; 10 More Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests; The Next 10
Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests; 10 New Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests with Comparative Reading; The
New Whole Law School Package; ABA-LSAC Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools; Whole Test
2
Prep Packages; The Official LSAT Handbook; ACES ; ADMIT-LLM; FlexApp; Candidate Referral Service;
DiscoverLaw.org; Law School Admission Test; and Law School Admission Council are trademarks of the
Law School Admission Council, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this work, including information, data, or other portions of the work
published in electronic form, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system
without permission of the publisher. For information, write: Communications, Law School Admission
Council, 662 Penn Street, PO Box 40, Newtown PA, 18940-0040.
LSAC fees, policies, and procedures relating to, but not limited to, test registration, test administration,
test score reporting, misconduct and irregularities, Credential Assembly Service (CAS), and other matters
may change without notice at any time. Up-to-date LSAC policies and procedures are available at
LSAC.org.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Gender and Practice in the United States and Canada .............................................. 4
Gender and Practice in Germany ................................................................................. 6
Study Description.......................................................................................................... 7
Findings ....................................................................................................................... 10
Results and Discussion .............................................................................................. 11
Modeling First Births Among German and U.S. Female Lawyers....................... 11
The German Sample .......................................................................................... 13
The U.S. Sample ................................................................................................ 15
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 17
References ................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix B: German Survey ...................................................................................... 25
i
Executive Summary
This study compares young German lawyers practicing in Frankfurt and Berlin with
young U.S. lawyers practicing in New York and Washington, DC. These lawyers are at
ages and stages when they are most likely to marry and have children. The U.S. law
profession often is characterized in terms of hierarchically structured “mega law firms”
that reward closely monitored performance. German firms tend to be smaller, with less
rigid performance expectations, and with more flexibility in work arrangements. There is
much to be learned from a comparative look at German and U.S. lawyers. The biggest
and perhaps most notable difference is that young German female lawyers are more
likely to have had children, and to have had them earlier than their U.S. counterparts.
The biggest and most notable similarity is that both in German and U.S. larger firms,
women are less likely to have children and more likely to have them later. The higher
incentive for young female lawyers in large U.S. firms to have no children—or only one
child later in life—is the greater potential for professional advancement. The higher
incentive of young female lawyers in smaller German firms to have one or more
children, and to have them earlier in life, is their more flexible part- and full-time work
arrangements. The more traditional legal culture of Germany may ironically offer greater
autonomy for parenting but reduced economic rewards, while the mega law culture of
the United States may offer less autonomy for parenting but enhanced economic
rewards.
Introduction
This study compares young German lawyers practicing in Frankfurt and Berlin with
young U.S. lawyers practicing in New York and Washington, DC, at similar life and
career stages, when they are most likely to be forming families, having children, and
making important work decisions. The lawyers from both countries were 5–10 years into
their law practice. The selected cities are prominent business and political capitals of
the United States and Germany. The differences in employment and fertility patterns
between German female lawyers and their U.S. counterparts make these two national
settings especially interesting sites for comparison.
Lawyers in Chicago (Heinz & Laumann, 1982; Heinz, Nelson, Sandefur, & Laumann,
2005; Nelson, 1988) are perhaps the most studied legal practitioners in the world.
However, lawyers have also been studied in several other regions in the United States
and Canada—such as Detroit (Ladinsky, 1963), New York City (Epstein, Sauve,
Oglensky, & Gever, 1995), suburban New York City (Seron, 1996), Boston (Spangler,
1986), and Toronto (Hagan & Kay, 1995)—as well as in state-wide settings (Reichman
& Sterling, 2002) and rural areas (Landon, 1990). One of the goals in the current
research was to take a broader look by comparing the lives of U.S. lawyers relative to
legal practitioners in other world settings, and for this study Germany was chosen as a
comparison.
1
The Chicago survey research tradition yielded seminal findings about the
development of two distinct hemispheres of professional law practice: larger firms,
which predominantly serve organizational clients; and smaller practice settings, which
include smaller numbers of lawyers and solo practitioners who tend to serve mainly
individual clients. This bifurcated organization of legal practice is widely assumed to
characterize the United States, Great Britain, and to a lesser extent other industrialized
nations (see, e.g., Galanter & Paley, 1991; Heinz & Laumann, 1982). Yet there is little
comparative empirical research on which to base or develop our understanding of the
organization of the legal profession and its relationship to the lives of lawyers more
broadly.
The Chicago research tradition raises the question of whether the pattern of
hemispheric practice development in the United States is at the cutting edge of global
ideological and institutional change. Parsons (1954), writing in the aftermath of World
War II, concluded that the German legal profession was likely to develop in ways
parallel to developments in the United States. However, Parsons’ impressions may
have been Americentric, as he had no comparative empirical research on which to
ground his views.
Post-war Germany has since reemerged as the largest economy in the European
Union and the leading European trading partner of the United States, with its own
distinctive national and cultural concerns and priorities. Germany’s historical uniqueness
and economic significance make it an extremely interesting site for comparative
research.
There is no doubt that the economics and politics of globalization have sweeping
effects. Comparative theory and research on law and legal institutions make this point.
For example, Abel and Lewis (1988, 1989) compiled an impressive multivolume
compendium of theory and research about the multinational civil and common law
practice of law (see also Abel, 1994; Silver, 2000; Trubeck, Dezalay, Buchanan, &
Davis, 1994), and more recently Dezalay and Garth (1996) have examined how legal
elites have extended the global reach of U.S. legal norms and practices.
These analyses, each in their distinctive ways, are all relevant to the issue Parsons
raised. That is, they directly or indirectly consider the following question: How will the
practice of law evolve in industrialized nations, such as Germany, which must interact
with an increasingly globalized world economy and polity, but which also each have
their own distinctive social and legal national and cultural traditions? The relatively
recent entry of women and men into the rapidly expanding and changing legal
professions of industrialized nations adds to the timeliness of this question.
Quack (2007) persuasively argues that there is a distinctive European approach to
organization of work in law firms that challenges the taken-for-granted practices of U.S.
law firms. The U.S. model is often characterized as a large “mega law firm” approach,
with decision making controlled by an elite group of dominant partners. This model is
hierarchically structured, with rewards based on closely monitored performance
standards. European firms, in contrast, tend to be smaller and more localized
(Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2007). There is much to be learned comparatively about such
differences. For example, little is known about how these alternative models may
differentially shape the legal careers of women and men and the balancing of work and
family in the United States and Germany.
2
There are further important and potentially interconnected differences between
Germany and the United States that make comparative work in these countries and on
the role of gender and family in legal careers especially timely. For example, there is
much discussion of the unfriendliness of U.S. employers to working mothers. Yet
Germany is not free of such problems. Although there is a national maternity leave
policy in Germany, there is a widespread belief that this policy actually harms
professional women who choose to take extended leaves (e.g., Landler, 2006). For this
reason and others, Esping-Andersen (1990, 1999) categorizes the German system as a
“conservative” welfare state.
The point is that mixing work and family can also be quite problematic in Germany.
The gendered norm of “Kinder, Küche, und Kirche,” or “children, kitchen, and church,” is
still strongly felt in Germany. Many Germans still use the derisive term Rabenmutter
(“raven mother”), a term used to refer to working mothers who leave their children in an
“empty nest.” Early school dismissal times (often by noon) are an institutional practice
that is perhaps intentionally unhelpful to working mothers in Germany.
It is therefore unsurprising that as female labor force participation has increased in
Germany, fertility has dropped, with delays as well as reductions in childbearing (Balter,
2006, p. 1897; Sorrentino, 1990, p. 42). In the 1960s, the United States also
experienced declining fertility, although overall fertility began a slow rebound in the
1990s and is now approximately at the “population replacement” level of about 2.1
(Shorto, 2008, p. 40). Education, immigration, and employment are all associated with
reduced childbearing, and the fertility of professional women in the United States is, as
a result, still lower than the replacement level (Percheski, 2008, p. 508). From a
German post-war peak of 2.5 in 1961, fertility rates declined and then stabilized at about
1.4 (Balter, 2006, p. 1897). This is a recognized lower national boundary of “lowest-low”
fertility in Europe (Sobotka, 2004), and as in the United States, the fertility of female
lawyers in Germany may be lower than that of the general population, although there is
no national German data source from which to conclude this.
Internationally, there is a clear relationship between rising labor force participation
and declining fertility. Sorrentino (1990) writes:
In particular, family size is getting smaller, with consequences for parents—
especially mothers—and children. Probably the most significant effect of falling
fertility is the opportunity it has afforded women for increased participation in the
labor market. And the converse relation holds as well: increased participation
leads to lower fertility. (p. 42)
This appears to be even truer in Germany than in the United States. About one third
of young people in Germany reportedly do not intend to have children (Stobel-Richter,
Beutel, Finck, & Brahler, 2005). Relatively recent estimates are that about 40% of
German women born in 1965 do not have children (Dieckmann, 2003). This
phenomenon may be especially common among highly educated German women.
There are estimates that about 75% of women in top jobs have no children at home
(Pommereau, 2006).
3
It is possible that the situation of female lawyers in Germany reflects an even greater
conflict of work and family demands than in the United States (e.g., Hagan & Kay, 1995,
2007). That is, the price of “opting in” in delayed and foregone family formation may
actually be greater for female lawyers in Germany than in the United States.
Although we are able to find no survey or quantitatively based comparisons of
German, European, and U.S. lawyers’ careers, comparative theory and analysis of
globalization and law encourages cross-national research. Dezalay and Garth (2002) in
particular emphasize the need to understand the impact of globalization processes in
specific national settings. Quantitative as well as qualitative research is needed,
perhaps especially including studies that undertake comparisons at the level of
individual lawyers’ careers.
The challenge with regard to increasing our international understanding is that
unless we undertake empirical studies beyond the United States, and in closely
coordinated ways (e.g., by using parallel sample and survey designs), it will be difficult
or impossible to draw comparative conclusions about the legal profession and legal
careers across national settings. We are at a critical historical juncture in the
globalization process when comparative research can be quite useful.
Before we further discuss our survey research using U.S. and German samples, we
will review some relevant findings from U.S. and Canadian research about gender and
work and the additional questions they raise for comparative exploration.
Gender and Practice in the United States and Canada
Not long ago a front-page story above the fold in The New York Times reported what
many female lawyers have assumed for some time: namely, that there is a persistent
income gap between U.S. men and women who are advancing into the peak earning
period of their careers (Leonardt, 2006). The Times reported that in 2005, collegeeducated women between 36 and 45 years old—an age range when fateful decisions
are made about work and family—earned 74.7 cents for every dollar received by men in
the same age group (Blau & Khan, 2000).
The year before, these well-educated women actually had earned one cent more
relative to men. In fact, the last period of notable gain in the relative earnings of better
educated women was the 1980s. This was, of course, the period when women were
surging into professions such as law. This research raised the specter that the march
toward gender parity has stalled, just as women are finally approaching higher levels of
the income pyramid.
There was good reason to believe that this analysis held for lawyers as well as other
professionals. From 2000 through 2005, female lawyers’ average weekly earnings
hovered between 73% and 77.5% of the weekly earnings for their male counterparts,
even dipping below 70% in 2002 (ABA Commission on Women in the Profession,
2006). The persistence of this gap, which is paralleled by a gender disparity in law firm
partnerships, recently led the Commission to lament that “men still hold the great
majority of leadership positions in the profession and overwhelmingly surpass female
lawyers in compensation.”
4
However, a little more than six months after the appearance of the above-noted front
page Times story, a second story was published in the Times indicating that younger
women in New York and other large cities had actually forged ahead of men in wages.
This research (see Roberts, 2007) indicated that a shift had occurred in New York City
since 2000 and also in Los Angeles, Dallas, and elsewhere. The speculation was that
the strength of young women’s earnings in these cities had created an incentive for
women to begin their careers quickly in advance of starting families. A female lawyer in
a New York City firm observed:
It seems that women tend to take less time off between college and law school,
and therefore become more senior, and, hence, make more money at a younger
age ... I would, of course, like to think that means that women know what they
want sooner than men. But it probably has more to do with the unfortunate fact
that women need to keep in mind biological time constraints and feel a great deal
of pressure to build an entire career before refocusing on marriage and children.
(Roberts, 2007:A16).
This research might be treated as an anomaly if it did not include several U.S. cities and
also have a clear parallel in research undertaken with lawyers in Toronto, Canada.
The Toronto research is a 20-year panel study based on a representative sample of
585 male and female lawyers practicing in Toronto in 1985, the year in which this study
began and in which “early cohort” female lawyers first attained parity in U.S. and
Canadian law schools (Hagan & Kay, 2010). The study tracked these lawyers through
their careers until they were last interviewed in 2006. The focus of the Toronto study
was on exploring the effects of family formation on male and female lawyers’ careers—
as suggested in the above excerpt. The Toronto study compared the career patterns of
male and female lawyers with and without children.
Overall, the Toronto findings reveal that female lawyers who either have no children
or have only one child work longer hours than their male counterparts and are also
more likely than the men to invest in work for corporate clients. As well, these women
do well relative to the men in earnings. The higher earnings for female lawyers in
Toronto with one child, relative to male lawyers with one child, are consistent with the
New York findings of higher earnings for young female lawyers. The investment of these
Toronto female lawyers (who do not have large families with two or more children) in
long hours of work and their apparently higher earnings challenge conventional
stereotypes about suppressed earnings for female lawyers.
Yet the above findings are also consistent with the speculation that young mothers
who are at the juncture in their careers when they are considering whether to have two
or more children might also be feeling, as noted above in the New York City study, a
great deal of pressure to build an entire career before refocusing on marriage and
children. Given the unfolding of gender differences in earnings and work hours—with
the births of second and subsequent children—the pressures to choose between work
and family seem formidable and consequential.
5
The overarching question we examine in this study is whether lawyers working in
U.S. and Canadian settings dominated by large firms and high inequalities have
implications for the practice of law in other nations such as Germany. The question we
ask is whether the early career patterns we have observed in Toronto are also now
apparent in the United States, and if so, in turn, what should we expect in German cities
where women are already well below the U.S. and Canadian curve when it comes to
reduced and delayed fertility?
Gender and Practice in Germany
Although Parsons (1954) and others have reasonably speculated that Germany
might become more like the United States and Canada in the organization of its legal
profession, there are also reasons to expect variation. There are fundamental historical
differences in the nature of the legal profession and the representation of citizens in
Germany.
Large companies in Germany often have substantial legal departments with scores
of lawyers. Blankenburg and Schultz (1988) wrote in the mid-1980s that this pattern has
important implications in terms of the “style” of lawyering in Germany:
That so many lawyers work in salaried positions indicates a particular
management style: rather than contracting lawyers, consultants, or accountants
for specific services, German business firms tend to incorporate these services
within their permanent organizations. Company lawyers enter business firms at
the beginning of their careers and tend to move up internal company ladders. (p.
135)
Europeanization as well as globalization may be producing changes in Germany, but
these trends are recent whereas the traditions of German legal practice are deeply
rooted (Schultz, 2003, p. 297).
Overall, the legal profession in Germany is less hierarchical than in the United
States. The primary source of hierarchy in the United States—the large private law
firms—is less common in Germany. Furthermore, although there is something of a
reputational ranking of the more than 30 law schools in Germany, there is little
indication that this ranking notably influences legal careers. In a general and historical
way, German legal culture may be much less school and firm centered than is the case
in the United States.
In the mid-1980s, Blankenburg and Schultz (1988, p. 141) suggested that
differentiation and innovation were being strongly resisted among German lawyers and
that this acted as a restraint on the emergence of what we might call the hierarchy of
the hemispheres as the foundation for the professional dominance of the mega law
firms in Germany. There is not yet much “mega lawyering” (Galanter, 1983) within the
bar, nor are there “street corner lawyers.” German advocates still resemble a guild of
craftsmen. The persistence of the latter image, complete with the male reference, is
perhaps telling (Blankenburg & Schultz, 1988, p. 145, cf. Schultz, 2003).
6
Women now constitute nearly one third of all practicing lawyers in Germany
(Hommerich & Kilian, 2007; Schultz, 2003). Yet there is continuing uncertainty about the
effects of this compositional change in the German legal profession. On the one hand,
Schultz (p. 310) suggests that “women’s voice in law is still feeble” and that “women are
under a constant and unacceptable pressure and strain.” On the other hand, she also
indicates that there “is a process of rapid change the effects of which are difficult to
isolate, describe and evaluate” (p. 317) and that “we are facing a dynamic process that
needs to be closely watched and evaluated” (p. 318). The premise of our research is
that individual career-level analysis of data on practicing lawyers in countries such as
Germany and the United States is essential to understanding the dynamic highlighted
by Schultz.
Study Description
Our research in Frankfurt and Berlin was designed to allow comparisons with
samples drawn for the After the JD (AJD) study (Dinovitzer & Garth, 2007) in New York
City and Washington, DC. The latter cities were selected as two of the four largest legal
markets in the United States, and lawyers were sampled who passed their bar exams in
2000. While the AJD study was designed as a nationally representative survey of the
U.S. legal profession, our goal was to comparatively study the practice of law in the
business and political centers of the United States and Germany.
We selected Frankfurt and Berlin as the business and political centers comparable
to New York and Washington, DC, respectively, and we randomly sampled lawyers who
had passed their second of two exams after serving a 2.5-year “apprenticeship” in a
court or legal office setting. It takes most German lawyers several years longer than
their U.S. counterparts to pass their entry exams. We sampled by year of entry into the
profession so that we could compare lawyers who had been in practice for about the
same length of time in the four settings.
The samples were drawn through the Rechtsanwaltskammern (the German
equivalent to U.S. state bar associations). The New York and Washington, DC, samples
consisted of 412 and 402 lawyers, respectively; the Berlin and Frankfurt samples
consisted of 504 and 824 lawyers, respectively. The data collection for the German
sample was similar to that for the AJD study. Two survey mailings and two reminder
postcards were sent to selected sample members. The surveys included 41 closed and
30 open-ended questions.
In addition to the survey, 42 face-to-face interviews were conducted to create a
subsample for the purpose of enhancing our understanding of the German settings and
experiences. The face-to-face interviews concentrated on the professional and personal
life-course experiences of these male and female lawyers.
The first wave of the AJD study resulted in a response rate of 71%; the second wave
resulted in a 50% response rate for lawyers with active mailing addresses. The sample
from Berlin and Frankfurt that we designed to compare with the second wave of the AJD
study (i.e., entry into the profession circa 2000) had a 37% response rate. The
combined sample attrition across two waves of the AJD study makes the response rates
of the two studies relatively similar. Since we included all lawyers entering practice from
7
June 1999 through June 2001 in Berlin and Frankfurt, this sample constitutes more than
one third of all the entering lawyers during this period.
The gender and age distributions in Berlin and Frankfurt were quite similar to each
other (see Appendix A); the same was true in New York and Washington, DC. Table 1
therefore combines Berlin and Frankfurt into one sample, and New York and
Washington, DC, into one sample. We found negligible differences within the two
countries between cities. A (nonsignificant) city variable is included in the models
analyzed below. The Berlin and Frankfurt distributions by gender and age are also
consistent with Rechtsanwaltskammern aggregate membership data. The implication is
that the sampling of the German lawyers is representative of the lawyer populations of
Berlin and Frankfurt who are approaching 10 years of legal practice.
Our analysis uses discrete hazard event history models to analyze the fertility
patterns of lawyers in Germany and the United States.
8
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics, German–U.S. Study, 2009 (N = 1,953)
Berlin–Frankfurt Sample (N = 1,337)
Gender
Adult age
Age of first child (months)
a
Censor
Marital Status
Single
Married or partnership
Divorced/separated/widowed
Current Employment Status
Full time
Part time
Not employed
Firm Size (Number of Employees)
1–21 individuals
22–99 individuals
100–200 individuals
>200 individuals
Mean
0 .431
40.264
90.942
0 .460
Women
SD
0 .495
3.707
68.605
0 .499
Mean
0.569
40.586
75.485
0.432
0.207
0.716
0.064
0.406
0 .451
0 .246
0.535
0.414
0.051
0.559
0.124
0 .072
0.245
Men
SD
0.495
3.396
56.191
0.496
Min
0
33.00
1.00
0
Max
1
50.00
300.00
1
0.179
0.785
0.030
0.384
0.411
0.171
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.499
0.493
0.220
0.960
0.033
0.007
0.195
0.179
0.081
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.497
0.330
0.259
0.431
0.558
0.125
0.067
0.249
0.497
0.332
0 .250
0.433
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Women
Men
New York–Washington, DC, Sample (N = 616)
SD
SD
Mean
Mean
Min
Max
Gender
.485
0.500
0 .515
0.500
0
1
Adult age
36.418
4.044
37.352
4.467
32.00
50.00
56.436
56.765
68.885
56.257
12.00
252.00
Censor
0.684
0.466
0 .578
0.495
0
1
Marital Status
Single
0.336
0.473
0 .228
0.420
0
1
0.613
0.488
0.731
0.444
0
1
0.051
0.221
0.037
0.189
0
1
Employment Status
Full time
0.865
0.343
0.990
0.099
0
1
Part time
0.135
0.343
0.010
0.099
0
1
Not employed
—
—
—
—
—
—
1–21 individuals
0 .130
0.337
0 .179
0.384
0
1
22–99 individuals
0.144
0.352
0.118
0.323
0
1
0.082
0.275
0.094
0.293
0
1
>200 individuals
0.644
0.480
0.608
0.489
0
1
a
A censor measure (i.e., a count of the occurrence of an event versus its nonoccurrence) distinguishes between women who had experienced a first birth (i.e.,
censor = 0) versus women who had not yet experienced a first birth (i.e., censor = 1) by the end of survey completion in 2009.
9
Findings
A notable difference in the descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 between the
samples is that the German lawyers were on average 3–4 years older (40.264–40.586)
than the U.S. lawyers (36.418–37.352). As noted above, this difference reflects the
greater time taken in Germany to receive the “practical training” (Referendariat) before
completing exam requirements and entering the profession. This means that the
lawyers in the U.S. and German samples were similar in terms of their time in practice
but differed somewhat in age. As reflected in the tables and figures presented below,
the discrete hazard event history models that we apply explicitly take into account the
year-by-year ages of the lawyers’ fertility experiences.
The German lawyers were more likely than the U.S. lawyers to be married and to
have had children, and their children were somewhat older (see Table 1). This makes it
important to adjust our models not only for age but also for having had children. The
models we analyze use a censor measure to distinguish between respondents who had
experienced a first birth (i.e., censor = 0) and women who had not yet experienced a
first birth by the end of survey completion in 2009 (i.e., censor = 1). In the United States,
68% of female and 58% of male lawyers had not yet experienced a first birth, compared
to only 32% of female and 42% of male lawyers in the United States who had
experienced a first birth. In Germany, 46% of female and 43% of male lawyers had not
yet experienced a first birth, compared to 54% of female and 57% of male lawyers who
had experienced a first birth. These percentages indicate significant differences
between respondents in the two countries. Note that these are substantial differences
and that they reverse the direction of the overall difference in fertility in the two
countries, with German female lawyers more likely than U.S. female lawyers to have
had children.
Thus the higher fertility of young lawyers in Germany than in the United States is
inconsistent with the overall fertility declines cited earlier in this paper in Germany.
Furthermore, the low birth rate among U.S. female lawyers is also inconsistent with the
reported rebound of childbearing found in the United States since the 1990s. We further
examine the fertility trends in the next section of our results. In this following analysis,
we also take into account differences in aspects of the lawyers’ employment between
the two countries.
The overwhelming majority of the U.S. women (86.5%) were working full time, with
only a small minority working part time (13.5%). In contrast, over half of the German
women were working full time (54%), with a large minority working part time (41%) or
not working (5%). The settings in which male and female lawyers work in Germany and
the United States are also quite differently distributed.
U.S. lawyers work predominantly in large firms, with about 40% of all lawyers in New
York and Washington, DC, employed in these settings and only about 10% in small
practice settings. In contrast, nearly three quarters of lawyers in Berlin and Frankfurt
work in smaller settings such as solo practice or chancelleries (Bürogemeinschaften,
Sozietäten), while less than about one fifth work in large firms or businesses.
There are thus a variety of differences in the family and work experiences of German
and U.S. lawyers. We next explore how age and work structure childbearing decisions.
10
Results and Discussion
In the previous section, we observed significant cross-national differences between
German and U.S. lawyers in employment and childbearing. These differences are most
apparent among female lawyers, where the connections between employment and
childbearing decisions are likely most direct. We therefore next use a discrete-time
event history approach to examine the effects of marriage, employment, and firm size
on the probability of childbearing during the early stages of female lawyers’ careers in
Germany and the United States.
We are interested in the early professional and personal life-course trajectories of
these young lawyers, and event history analysis with survival and hazard models can
provide revealing information about if and when these events occur. Traditional
regression approaches, for example, involving the prediction of outcomes in logistic
regression models, do not incorporate information about the timing of events and
therefore cannot reveal aspects of the life-course stages that particularly interest us.
An important part of an event history model is the recording of the onset, duration,
and termination of a risk period for a defined event in a sample of observations. In our
analysis, we examine the first childbirth (i.e., the onset of the risk period) until the time
of the survey reporting in 2009. If a first birth (i.e., an event) occurs within the examined
time period, the observed case is recorded as uncensored. Conversely, if there is no
childbirth within the defined time period, the observed case is recorded as censored
(i.e., a nonevent). As indicated in Table 1, 68% of women in the United States sample
compared to 46% of female lawyers in German sample had not yet experienced a first
birth (i.e., are censored). We next more fully examine the patterning of these first births
using survival and hazard models.
Modeling First Births Among German and U.S. Female Lawyers
Table 2 presents the main effects models for first childbirth of female lawyers from
both countries. The initial Model 1 shows the ages of the women and the probability of
childbirth at each age. The Model 1 coefficients decline in negative size from ages 30 to
39, and these coefficients turn positive after controls for full-time work, single marital
status, and country are introduced in Model 4, indicating that the highest probabilities of
first births are among the German female lawyers in our sample who are in their middle
and late thirties. The likelihood of childbirth is smaller at other ages, especially among
female lawyers in the United States.
We are interested next in clarifying how the likelihood of childbirth is influenced by
employment, marital status, and nationality of female lawyers. Model 2 introduces the
possible effect of number of employees in the workplace on women’s childbirth. An
indication of the influence of firm size is that when we enter this variable alone, its
coefficient is −1.904. In Model 2 of Table 2, with age of the female lawyers included
along with firm size, the size of the firm size coefficient is reduced to −.661. Firm size
clearly exerts a strong influence on the timing of the first births of female lawyers by
delaying the ages at which they first have children.
11
TABLE 2
Main effects proportional hazard models of first childbirth among U.S. and German female lawyers
Model 1
Estimates
***
−5.627 (.38)
***
−5.935 (.45)
***
−5.055 (.29)
***
−5.338 (.33)
***
−5.044 (.29)
***
−4.257 (.20)
***
−4.167 (.19)
***
−3.539 (.14)
***
−3.167 (.12)
***
−3.109 (.12)
***
−2.782 (.11)
***
−2.753 (.11)
***
−2.532 (.10)
***
−2.376 (.10)
***
−2.546 (.12)
***
−2.555 (.13)
***
−2.470 (.14)
***
−2.791 (.19)
***
−2.818 (.22)
***
−2.671 (.23)
***
−4.013 (.58)
***
−3.961 (.71)
—
—
—
—
Model 2
Estimates
***
−4.285 (.41)
***
−4.435 (.45)
***
−3.637 (.31)
***
−4.084 (.38)
***
−4.079 (.38)
***
−3.120 (.24)
***
−3.101 (.24)
***
−2.313 (.17)
***
−2.035 (.15)
***
−1.906 (.15)
***
−1.686 (.14)
***
−1.611 (.14)
***
−1.205 (.12)
***
−1.171 (.13)
***
−1.376 (.15)
***
−1.395 (.16)
***
−1.368 (.17)
***
−1.648 (.22)
***
−1.801 (.26)
***
−1.425 (.26)
***
−3.018 (.72)
**
−3.154 (1.01)
***
−0.661 (.03)
—
—
—
Model 3
Estimates
*** (
−3.481 .41)
***
−3.652 (.45)
***
−2.850 (.31)
***
−3.304 (.38)
***
−3.296 (.38)
*** (
−2.327 .24)
***
−2.308 (.24)
***
−1.495 (.18)
***
−1.195 (.16)
***
−1.048 (.16)
***
−0.812 (.15)
***
−0.688 (.15)
−0.214 (.13)
−0.118 (.14)
−0.281 (.16)
−0.243 (.17)
−0.209 (.18)
*
−0.436 (.23)
−0.509 (.27)
−0.116 (.27)
*
−1.729 (.73)
−1.931 (1.03)
***
−0.327 (.03)
***
−1.536 (.07)
***
−1.946 (.15)
—
Model 4
Estimates
***
−2.751 (.42)
***
−2.925 (.46)
***
−2.124 (.32)
***
−2.575 (.39)
***
−2.568 (.39)
***
−1.602 (.26)
***
−1.586 (.26)
***
−0.784 (.19)
**
−0.492 (.18)
*
−0.352 (.17)
−0.122 (.16)
−0.010 (.16)
**
0.422 (.15)
**
0.485 (.15)
0.303 (.17)
0.339 (.18)
*
0.382 (.19)
0.153 (.23)
0.079 (.29)
0.47 (.28)
−1.035 (.73)
−1.088 (1.02)
**
−0.105 (.03)
***
−1.104 (.08)
***
−1.803 (.15)
***
−1.240 (.10)
Model 5
Estimates
0.815 (.71)
0.645 (.73)
*
1.444 (.65)
0.996 (.69)
1.003 (.69)
**
1.964 (.63)
**
1.980 (.63)
***
2.769 (.60)
***
3.052 (.60)
***
3.186 (.60)
***
3.396 (.59)
***
3.496 (.59)
***
3.936 (.59)
***
4.029 (.59)
***
3.878 (.60)
***
3.905 (.60)
***
3.975 (.60)
***
3.706 (.62)
***
3.610 (.64)
***
3.986 (.64)
**
2.512 (.92)
*
2.405 (1.17)
−0.032 (.03)
***
−0.727 (.10)
***
−1.758 (.15)
***
−2.695 (.30)
Age 23
Age 24
Age 25
Age 26
Age 27
Age 28
Age 29
Age 30
Age 31
Age 32
Age 33
Age 34
Age 35
Age 36
Age 37
Age 38
Age 39
Age 40
Age 41
Age 42
Age 43–44
Age 45–46
Firm size
Full time
Single
Country
(U.S. = 1)
***
Berlin
—
—
—
—
−2.649 (.30)
***
Frankfurt
—
—
—
—
−2.717 (.30)
Washington, DC
—
—
—
—
0.119 (.18)
Firm size*
—
—
—
—
—
country
−2 log10,777.28
6,777.38
5,783.80
5,609.81
5,202.39
likelihood
*
**
***
p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.
Note: Standard errors in parentheses; firm size: 1–21 = 1; 22–99 = 2; 100–200 = 3; >200 = 4; New York is the
omitted comparison city.
Model 3 introduces the effects of full-time employment and being single. As
expected, both full-time employment and not being married reduce a woman’s likelihood
of childbirth in Model 3. Model 4 introduces the effect of nationality and indicates a
cross-national difference in the likelihood of childbirth between German and U.S. cities.
German female lawyers are more likely than U.S. female lawyers to experience
childbirth. This national difference is net of differences in full-time work and marital
status, which are also included in Model 4. We next included dummy variables to
capture the effects of the individual cities in the two countries, using female lawyers in
New York City as the omitted comparison group. Table 2 shows that the coefficients for
Berlin and Frankfurt are quite similar and the coefficient for Washington, DC,
nonsignificant, while the country coefficient remains significant and increases in size.
The implication is that the difference in the likelihood of childbearing among young
female lawyers in the two German and two U.S. cities is national and not specific to
within-country differences between these nations’ political and business capitals.
12
We have used Model 4 from Table 2 to create the line graph in Figure 1.This figure
displays the different net likelihoods of childbirth by age of the female lawyers in our
samples of young U.S. and German lawyers. That is, this figure presents the estimated
rates of childbirth by age with controls for city, marital status, employment status, and
firm size. While the ages of first childbirths are similarly concentrated between the mid30s and 40 years of age for female lawyers in both countries, we see significantly lower
likelihoods of childbirth among U.S. female lawyers compared to their German
counterparts.
Our results to this point indicate that firm size and nationality are both strong
influences on the timing of first births. To clarify how this joint influence is separately
expressed among female lawyers in Germany and the United States, we used separate
models that hold employment and marital status constant to estimate the line graphs in
the following figures.
FIGURE 1. Main effect hazard function—childbirth trends of female lawyers between Germany and the
United States. Note: Figure includes controls for marital status, employment status, and firm size.
The German Sample
Figure 2 respectively summarizes the above results for German female lawyers by
using survival (see Figure 2A) and hazard (see Figure 2B) estimates of childbirth for
German female lawyers in firms of three sizes: 1–20, 21–99, and 100+ numbers of
employees. Recall that the German female lawyers are much less likely than the U.S.
female lawyers to be in larger employment settings.
13
Thus Figure 2A displays the survival estimates of the probability, by firm size, of
German female lawyers remaining without children. By about age 33, almost none of
the German female lawyers in firms with less than 20 employees have not yet
experienced childbirth. Recall that more than 40% of the German female lawyers work
in these relatively small work settings.
In contrast, it takes until about age 37 for almost all of the German female lawyers in
settings with 21–99 employees to experience a childbirth. Only about 8% of the German
female lawyers are in these midsized settings. Finally, about 15% of German female
lawyers are in work settings with more than 100 lawyers, and here nearly 50% remain
without having experienced childbirth by age 44, where our sampling ends.
While Figure 2A displays “survival” probabilities of women not experiencing childbirth
across ages, Figure 2B indicates the “hazard” by age of female lawyers in Germany
when they have had a child. As we would logically expect, the pattern of results is the
reverse of the previous figure. Now we see the high probabilities of childbirth in the
smaller work settings for these women from their early to late 30s. In contrast, the
hazard rates of childbirth are notably lower for women in large work settings with more
than 100 employees, peaking in their later 30s and remaining low relative to their
counterparts in smaller work settings regardless of age. However, recall that only about
15% of female lawyers in Germany are in these larger settings.
FIGURE 2A. Survival function—probability of not having yet experienced the event of a first birth by firm
size among female lawyers in Germany
14
FIGURE 2B. Hazard function—likelihood of childbirth by firm size among female lawyers in Germany
The U.S. Sample
Figures 3A and 3B again respectively use survival and hazard graphs of probabilities
of childbirth by firm size to provide a summary display of our findings about firm size for
female lawyers in the United States. Figure 3A shows that female lawyers working in
firms with more than 200 employees have substantially lower likelihoods of childbirth
compared to women working in smaller firm settings. Almost 90% of women working in
large firms remain without children by age 42, compared to 52% in midsize firms and
31% of women in small firms. This is a substantial difference in proportions of women
without children between the samples of German and U.S. female lawyers. While we
find women without children in both samples, the number of women without children is
significantly larger among female lawyers in the United States, especially for those in
larger firms. Figure 3B illustrates the hazard of childbirth by firm size. As in the survival
model, we find women with children are most likely employed in firms of smaller sizes.
In contrast, fewer births are observed in larger firms.
15
FIGURE 3A. Survival function—probability of not having yet experienced the event of first birth by firm
size among female lawyers in the United States
FIGURE 3B. Hazard Function—likelihood of childbirth by firm size among female lawyers in the United
States
16
Conclusions
Our collection and analysis of survey data on young lawyers gathered in German
and U.S. cities has revealed both similarities and differences in relationships between
work and family. The biggest and perhaps least expected difference noted was the
experience and timing of first births, with young female lawyers in Germany more likely
to have experienced first births and to have these births earlier than young female
lawyers in the United States. The biggest and most predictable similarity was that young
female lawyers in both Germany and the United States were less likely to have
experienced first births and to have these births later when they worked in larger firms.
What makes the experience of being a lawyer so different in relation to having
children in Germany and the United States is that German lawyers are so much less
likely to work in large firms than are lawyers in the United States. When German
lawyers—women and men—do work in large firms, they are more likely to be in
business firms than in law firms. The mega law firms that are so much a part of U.S.
legal careers in New York City and Washington, DC, are not nearly so large a part of
the German practice of law in Frankfurt and Berlin. This is a major and still enduring
difference in legal practice between Germany and the United States.
The between-nation differences we have found in legal practice between Germany
and the United States and the relationship among female lawyers between work and
having children in these two countries is as striking as the within-nation similarities we
have found between Berlin and Frankfurt on the one hand, and between New York and
Washington, DC, on the other hand. The differences we expected to find between the
business and political capitals within the two countries simply did not emerge, at least
with regard to childbearing. The within-nation replication of childbearing patterns
increases our confidence in the reported results.
The differences in ages between the sampled lawyers in Germany and the United
States by a matter of several years may explain some of the national dissimilarity in our
findings. However, our proportional hazard models are estimated in age-specific terms
and therefore adjust for this difference. It is still possible that high levels of births among
female lawyers in the United States as they grow closer to the end of their likely years of
fertility will narrow the gap in childbearing that we have found. Further research should
test this possibility. Some narrowing of the gap may occur, but the natural limits of
fertility make it more likely that the gap reported here will remain substantial.
Our explanation—which is supported but not yet fully confirmed by this research—is
that the respective national cultures of the legal professions in Germany and the United
States make young female lawyers in the United States less likely to have children and
young female lawyers in Germany more likely to do so. The higher incentive of young
female lawyers in the United States to have no children—or only one child later in life—
is the greater promise of professional advancement in larger firms. The higher incentive
of young female lawyers in Germany to have one or more children earlier in life is the
greater freedom to make more flexible part-time and even full-time work arrangements
in smaller firms. The more traditional legal culture of Germany may ironically offer
greater autonomy for parenting but reduced economic rewards, while the mega law
culture of the United States may offer less autonomy for parenting but enhanced
economic rewards.
17
Our explanation of national differences in work and family relationships for young
female lawyers in Germany and the United States deserves further study, both to see
whether these predictions and explanations endure as young female lawyers in the
United States reach their natural limits of fertility, and as the traditional legal
professional culture in Germany encounters national and global pressures for change.
References
ABA Commission on Women in the Profession. (2006). Charting our progress: The
status of women in the profession today. American Bar Association.
Abel, R. (1994). Symposium: The future of the legal profession: Transnational legal
practice. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 44, 737–870.
Abel, R., & Lewis, P. (Eds.). (1988). Lawyers in society, vol. 2. The civil law world.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Abel, R., & Lewis, P. (Eds.). (1989). Comparative sociology of legal professions. In R.
Abel & P. Lewis (Eds.). Lawyers in society, vol. 3. Comparative theories. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Balter, M. (2006). The baby deficit. Science, 312, 1894–1897.
Blankenburg, E., & Schultz, U. (1988). German advocates: A highly regulated
profession. In R. Abel & P. Lewis (Eds.). Lawyers in society, vol. 1. The common law
world. Berkeley, University of California Press, p. 124.
Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2000). Gender differences in pay. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 14(4), 75–99.
Dezalay, Y., & Garth, B. G. (1996). Dealing in virtue: International commercial
arbitration and the construction of a transnational legal order. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dezalay, Y., & Garth, B. G. (2002). The internalization of palace wars: Lawyers,
economists, and the contest to transform Latin American states. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Dickmann, N. (2003) Demographischer Wandel – Geburtenraten im internationalen
Vergleich. iw-trends, Vierteljahreszeitschrift zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung,
30(1), 45–56
Dinovitzer, R., & Garth, B. G. (2007). Lawyer satisfaction in the process of structuring
legal careers. Law & Society Review, 41, 1–50.
18
Epstein, C., Sauve, R., Oglensky, B., & Gever, M. (1995). Glass ceilings and open
doors: Women’s advancement in the legal profession. Fordham Law Review, 64(2),
291–447.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of post-industrial economics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Faulconbridge, J., & Muzio, D. (2007). Reinserting the professional into the study of
professional service firms. Global Networks, 7(3), 249–270.
Galanter, M. (1983). Mega-law and mega-lawyering in the contemporary United States.
In R. Dingwall & P. Lewis (Eds.). The sociology of the professions (pp. 152–176).
London: Macmillan.
Galanter, M., & Palay, T. (1991). Tournament of lawyers: The transformation of the big
law firm. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (1995). Gender in practice: A study of lawyers’ lives. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (2007). Even lawyers get the blues: Gender, depression and job
satisfaction in legal practice. Law & Society Review, 41(1), 51–78.
Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (2010). The masculine mystique: Living large from law school to
later life. Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 25(2), 195–226.
Heinz, J., & Laumann, E. (1982). Chicago lawyers: The social structure of the Bar. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation; Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
Heinz, J., Nelson, R., Sandefur, R., & Laumann, E. (2005). Urban lawyers: The new
social structure of the bar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hommerich, C., & Kilian, M. (2007) Frauen im Anwaltsberuf – Ergebnisse einer
Sekundäranalyse. Forschungsbericht des Soldan Instituts für Anwaltmanagement,
Band 5. Bonn: Deutscher Anwaltsverlag.
Ladinsky, J. (1963). Career lawyers, law practice and legal institutions. American
Sociological Review, 28, 47–54.
Landler, M. (2006, April 24). German fights stigma against working mothers.
International Herald Tribune.
19
Landon, D. (1990). Country lawyers: The impact of context on professional practice.
New York: Praeger.
Leonardt, D. (2006, December 24). Scant progress on closing gap in women’s pay: For
college graduates the disparity widens. New York Times, p. A1.
Nelson, R. (1988). Partners with power: The social transformation of the large law firm.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Parsons, T. (1954). The problem of controlled institutional change: Report on the
conference on Germany after the war. In Essays in sociological theory. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Percheski, C. (2008). Opting out? Cohort differences in professional women’s
employment rates from 1960 to 2005. American Sociological Review, 73, 497–517.
Pommereau, I. (2006, April 25). High-tech Germany only now warming to working
moms. Christian Science Monitor.
Quack, S. (2007). Legal professionals and transnational law-making: A case of
distributed agency. Organization, 14(5), 643–666.
Reichman, N., & Sterling, J. (2002). Recasting the brass ring: Deconstructing and
reconstructing workplace opportunities for women lawyers. Capital University Law
Review, 29, 923–977.
Roberts, S. (2007, August 3). For young earners in big city gap shifts in women’s favor.
New York Times, p. A16
Schultz, U. (2003). Women lawyers in Germany—Perception and construction of
femininity. In U. Schultz & G. Shaw (Eds.). Women in the world’s legal professions
(pp. 292–321). Oxford: Hart.
Seron, C. (1996). The business of practicing law: The work lives of solo and small firm
attorneys. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Shorto, R. (2008, June 29). No babies? New York Times Magazine, p. 40.
Silver, C. (2000). Globalization and the U.S. market in legal services—Shifting identities.
Journal of Law & Policy in International Business, 31, 1093–1150.
Sobotka, T. (2004). Is the lowest-low fertility in Europe explained by the postponement
of childbearing? Population Development and Review, 30, 195–220.
Sorrentino, C. (1990). The changing family in international perspective. Monthly Labor
Review, March, 41–58.
20
Spangler, E. (1986). Lawyers for hire: Salaried professionals at work. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Stobel-Richter, Y., Beutel, M., Finck, C., & Brahler, E. (2005). The ‘wish to have a child’:
childlessness and infertility in Germany. Human Reproduction, 20, 2850–2857.
Trubeck, D., Dezalay, Y., Buchanan, R., & Davis, J. (1994). Global restructuring and the
law: Studies of the internationalization of legal fields and the creation of transnational
arenas. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 44, 407–498.
21
Appendix A
TABLE A-1
Descriptive statistics, German–U.S. study, 2009 (N = 1,953)
Women
Berlin–Frankfurt
Merged Sample (N = 1,337)
Gender
Adult age
a
Censor
Marital Status
Single
Full time
Part time
Not employed
1–21 individuals
22–99 individuals
>200 individuals
Men
Mean
0 .431
40.264
90.942
0 .460
SD
.495
3.707
68.605
0 .499
Mean
0.569
40.586
75.485
0.432
SD
0.495
3.396
56.191
0.496
Min
0
33.00
1.00
0
Max
1
50.00
300.00
1
0.207
0.716
0.064
0.406
0.451
0.246
0.179
0.785
0.030
0.384
0.411
0 .171
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.535
0.414
0.051
0.499
0.493
0.220
0.960
0.033
0.007
0 .195
0.179
0.081
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.559
0.124
0.072
0.245
0.497
0.330
0.259
0.431
0.558
0.125
0.067
0.249
0 .497
0 .332
0.250
0.433
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Women
Men
New York–Washington, DC
SD
SD
Merged Sample (N = 616)
Mean
Mean
Min
Max
Gender
0 .485
0.500
0 .515
0.500
0
1
Adult age
36.418
4.044
37.352
4.467
32.00
50.00
56.436
56.765
68.885
56.257
12.00
252.00
Censor
0.684
0.466
0.578
0.495
0
1
Marital Status
Single
0.336
0 .473
0.228
0.420
0
1
0.613
0.488
0 .731
0.444
0
1
0.051
0.221
0.037
0.189
0
1
Employment Status
Full time
0.865
0.343
0.990
0.099
0
1
Part time
0.135
0.343
0.010
0.099
0
1
Not employed
—
—
—
—
—
—
1–21 individuals
.130
0.337
0.179
0.384
0
1
22–99 individuals
0.144
0.352
0 .118
0.323
0
1
0.082
0.275
0.094
0.293
0
1
>200 individuals
0.644
0.480
0.608
0.489
0
1
a
A censor measure (i.e., a count of the occurrence of an event versus its nonoccurrence) distinguishes
between women who had experienced a first birth (i.e., censor = 0) versus women who had not yet
experienced a first birth (i.e., censor = 1) by the end of survey completion in 2009.
22
TABLE A-1
Descriptive statistics, German–U.S. study, 2009 (N = 1,953), continued
Frankfurt Sample (N = 824)
Gender
Adult age
a
Censor
Marital Status
Single
Full time
Part time
Not employed
1–21 individuals
22–99 individuals
>200 individuals
Mean
0 .467
40.384
89.869
0 .459
Women
SD
0 .499
3.704
67.922
0 .499
Mean
0.533
40.623
74.00
0 .422
0.193
0.750
0.060
0.395
0.437
0.238
0.512
0.425
0.063
Men
SD
0.499
3.373
56.890
0 .494
Min
0
32.00
1.00
0
Max
1
50.00
324.00
1
0.171
0.804
0.025
0.377
0.398
0.157
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.501
0.495
0.243
0.966
0.025
0.009
0.182
0.157
0.095
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.337
0.473
0.446
0.498
0.042
0.200
0.175
0.380
Women
SD
Mean
0 .376
0 .485
40.032
3.737
93.539
70.446
0.460
0.499
0.409
0.308
0.052
0.231
0.492
0.462
0.223
0.422
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Men
SD
Berlin Sample (N = 504)
Mean
Min
Max
Gender
0.624
.485
0
1
Adult age
40.522
3.504
32.00
50.00
79.000
55.689
1.00
300.00
Censor
0.455
0.498
0
1
Marital Status
Single
0.233
0.424
0.194
0.396
0
1
0.661
0.474
0.755
0.431
0
1
0.106
0.308
0.051
0.220
0
1
Full time
0.577
0.495
0.952
0.214
0
1
Part time
0.397
0.491
0.045
0.207
0
1
Not employed
0.026
0.161
0.003
0.056
0
1
1–21 individuals
0.545
0.499
0.557
0.497
0
1
22–99 individuals
0.312
0 .464
0.274
0.447
0
1
0.048
0 .213
0.045
0.207
0
1
>200 individuals
0.095
0.294
0.124
0.330
0
1
a
23
TABLE A-1
Descriptive statistics, German–U.S. study, 2009 (N = 1,953), continued
Washington, DC, Sample (N = 243)
Gender
Adult Age
a
Censor
Marital Status
Single
Employment Status
Full time
Part time
Not employed
1–21 individuals
22–99 individuals
>200 individuals
Women
SD
Mean
.479
0.501
36.468
4.373
58.795
56.786
.675
.470
Mean
.521
36.339
48.480
.597
Men
SD
.501
3.602
41.988
.493
Min
0
32.00
12.00
0
Max
1
50.00
240.00
1
.327
.673
—
.471
.471
—
.218
.782
—
.414
.414
—
0
0
0
1
1
1
.877
.123
—
.329
.329
—
1.00
—
—
.000
—
—
0
0
—
1
1
—
.129
.338
.039
.195
.129
.338
.701
.461
Women
SD
Mean
.489
.501
36.580
4.552
54.764
57.214
.690
.464
.104
.094
.052
.750
.307
.293
.223
.435
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Men
SD
New York Sample (N = 373)
Mean
Min
Max
Gender
.511
.501
0
1
Adult age
38.529
6.280
32.00
50.00
81.481
60.350
12.00
252.00
Censor
.566
.497
0
1
Marital Status
Single
.341
.475
.236
.426
0
1
.659
.476
.753
.433
0
1
—
—
.011
.106
0
1
Employment Status
Full time
.856
.351
.989
.104
0
1
Part time
.144
.351
.011
.104
0
1
Not employed
—
—
—
—
0
1
1–21 individuals
.136
.344
.254
.437
0
1
22–99 individuals
.205
.405
.136
.344
0
1
.053
.225
.127
.334
0
1
>200 individuals
.606
.490
.483
.502
0
1
a
24
Appendix %*HUPDQ6XUYH\
Befragung junger Rechtsanwältinnen und
Rechtsanwälte aus
Berlin - New York - Frankfurt - Washington
Kooperationspartner:
750 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
www.abfn.org
Finanziert von:
Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
Law School Admission Council
Freie Universität Berlin
Empirische Erziehungswissenschaften
Fabeckstrasse 13
14195 Berlin
Rechtsanwaltskammer Berlin
Littenstrasse 9
10179 Berlin
Rechtsanwaltskammer Frankfurt
Bockenheimer Anlage 36
60322 Frankfurt am Main
25
Beschreiben Sie die Berufstätigkeit der
Frau/ Partnerin, des Mannes / Partners
TEIL I ANGABEN ZUR PERSON
1. Sind Sie weiblich oder männlich?
1.
weiblich
2.
männlich
4a.
2. In welchem Jahr sind Sie geboren?
1
9
Wie viele Stunden in der Woche arbeitet Ihr
Mann / Partner, Ihre Frau/Partnerin
durchschnittlich in dieser Position?
Stunden pro Woche _____________
3. Was ist Ihr derzeitiger Familienstand?
Alle partnerschaftlichen oder gesetzlich
verbundene Gemeinschaften sind
eingeschlossen (z.B. gleichgeschlechtliche
Beziehungen).
5. Leben Kinder in Ihrem Haushalt?
0.
1.
ledig à weiter zur Frage #5.
verheiratet
geschieden oder getrennt lebend
lebe in Partnerschaft (unverheiratet
und länger als ein Jahr)
verwitwet
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a. Wie viele Kinder leben in Ihrem Haushalt?
__________________
b. Wie alt sind die Kinder?
Bitte tragen Sie das Alter des Kindes/der Kinder in die
Tabelle ein, beginnen Sie dabei mit dem Alter des
jüngsten Kindes. Falls mehr als zwei Kinder in Ihrem
Haushalt leben, nutzen Sie den Platz in der unteren
Tabelle.
Zahl der Kinder
Alter
Erstes Kind
Zweites Kind
4. Falls Sie verheiratet sind oder in einer langfristigen
Partnerschaft leben und Ihr Partner in Ihrem
Haushalt lebt, ist Ihr(e) Frau/Mann/Partner/
Partnerin berufstätig?
0.
1.
Nein à weiter zur Frage #9.
Ja
Ja
6. Kreuzen Sie bitte für jedes Ihrer Kinder an, ob Sie Mutterschaftsurlaub oder Elternzeit genommen haben und
für wie lange. Falls mehr als zwei Kinder in Ihrem Haushalt leben, nutzen Sie den Platz in der unteren Tabelle.
Habe Mutterschaftsurlaub oder
Elternzeit beansprucht
Erstes Kind
Zweites Kind
Drittes Kind
1.
1.
1.
Ja
Ja
Ja
0.
0.
0.
Wie viele Wochen haben Sie
beansprucht?
Mutterschaftsurlaub
Elternzeit
Nein
Nein
Nein
7. Haben Sie wegen Ihres(er) Kindes/Kinder Folgendes
unternommen, oder werden Sie es unternehmen?
Bitte kreuzen Sie alles an, was für Sie zutrifft.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ja
meine Tätigkeit aufgeben
weniger Stunden arbeiten
einen Wechsel der Tätigkeit
Sonstiges
(bitte beschreiben Sie:______________)
8. Fühlten Sie Sich benachteiligt oder haben Sie
folgende Erfahrungen gemacht, weil Sie Kinder
haben? Bitte kreuzen Sie alles an, was für Sie zutrifft.
Nein
Ja
Nein
a. Ihre Leistungsbereitschaft wurde
in Frage gestellt.
b. Es ist schwierig halbtags zu
arbeiten oder flexiblere
Arbeitsstunden zu erhalten.
c. Habe Mandanten verloren.
d. Hatte übermäßig viel Arbeit nach
dem Mutterschafts-/Elternzeit
e. Habe herausfordernde
Aufträgen / Mandate verloren.
f. Sonstiges (bitte beschreiben Sie:
_________________________________________)
1
26
b. Sind Sie hauptberuflich als Awalt/Anwältin
tätig?
TEIL II BERUFSTÄTIGKEIT
9. Bitte kreuzen Sie an, was Ihr jetziges
Arbeitsverhältnis am besten beschreibt.
1.
0.
Ja
Nein àFalls nein, was ist Ihr Hauptberuf
Ich bin...
a.
vollzeitbeschäftigt
à weiter zur Frage #10.
b.
teilzeitbeschäftigt, weil ich
(kreuzen Sie bitte an, was für Sie zutrifft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
_____________________________________
àweiter zur Frage #22.
c. Bitte kreuzen Sie an, ob Sie selbständig oder
angestellt sind?
ein oder mehrere Kind(er) betreue.
ein oder mehrere Familienmitglied(er)
betreue.
keine Vollzeitanstellung finden konnte.
aus anderen Gründen
(bitte angeben:_____________________
àweiter zur Frage #10.
1.
1.
2.
3.
Einzelkanzlei
Sozietät/Bürogemeinschaft
Sonstiges
(bitte angeben:_____________________)
______________________#
weiblich
______________________#
männlich
i. Ich bin nicht berufstätig, weil ich ...
Bitte kreuzen Sie alle Gründe an, die für Sie
zutreffen.
3.
4.
5.
angestellt
12. Wie viele männliche und weibliche Anwälte
arbeiten schätzungsweise in Ihrer Kanzlei oder
Firma?
Falls Sie nicht berufstätig sind, bitte beantworten Sie die
Fragen 9c(i) und 9c(ii). Dann weiter zu den Fragen im Teil
IV auf Seite 10.
1.
2.
2.
d. Wo sind Sie hauptberuflich tätig?
nicht berufstätig bin.
c.
selbstständig
ein oder mehrere Kind(er) betreue.
ein oder mehrere Familienmitglied(er)
betreue.
keine Vollzeitanstellung finden konnte.
keine Teilzeitanstellung finden konnte.
aus anderen Gründen
(bitte angeben:______________________)
13. Üben Sie neben Ihrer hauptberuflichen Tätigkeit als
Anwalt oder Anwältin noch weitere Tätigkeiten aus?
1.
2.
Ja
Nein àweiter zur Frage #14.
a. Welche andere Tätigkeit üben Sie aus?
ii. Als nicht Berufstätige/r geben Sie bitte an, was
Ihre jetzige Situation am besten beschreibt.
Bitte kreuzen Sie alles an, was für Sie zutrifft.
1.
2.
3.
Ich suche eine Vollzeitbeschäftigung.
Ich suche eine Teilzeitbeschäftigung.
Sonstiges
(bitte angeben:______________________)
14. Wie viele Beschäftigte sind in Ihrer Sozietät /
Bürogemeinschaft/ oder bei Ihrem sonstigen
Arbeitgeber angestellt?
Zahl der Angestellten
10. Haben Sie in den letzten 5 Jahren Ihr
Arbeitsverhältnis gewechselt?
1.
Ja
0.
15.Sind Sie in Ihrer jetzigen hauptberuflichen
Tätigkeit personalverantwortlich für
z.B. andere angestellte Anwälte, Fachangestellte
oder Auszubildende?
a. Falls ja, wie viele Male haben Sie
insgesamt in den letzten 5 Jahren gewechselt?
_____________#
1.
Ja àBitte geben Sie an, für wie viele
Personen Sie verantwortlich sind.
0.
11a. Wann haben Sie angefangen, in Ihrem jetzigen
Arbeitsverhältnis zu arbeiten?
Monat
Jahr
2
27
16. Falls Sie für eine oder mehrere Personen
verantwortlich sind, geben Sie dieser/diesen
Person(en) gezielte Anweisungen?
1.
0.
19. Wie viel Prozent von Ihrer gesamten Arbeitszeit
verbringen Sie mit bestimmten Mandanten,
Personen, Institutionen oder Organisationen?
Ja
Nein
a. sehr gut verdienenden Mandanten
b. mittel oder wenig verdienenden
Mandanten
c. große oder mittlere Firmen
d. kleinere Firmen
e. Öffentliche Auftraggeber
f. neue Firmen
g. Versicherungsgesellschaften
h. Gemeinnützige Vereine
i. Sonstiges
a. Hat / haben die Person(en), die Sie betreuen,
weitere Personen zu betreuen (z.B. andere
Anwälte, Auszubildende oder Fachangestellte)?
1.
0.
Ja
Nein
17. Werden Sie in Ihrem hauptberuflichen
Arbeitsverhältnis von anderen Personen betreut?
1.
0.
Summe = 100%
20. Wo arbeiten Sie derzeit?
1.
0.
a. Falls ja, gibt diese Person Ihnen Anweisungen
oder Anleitungen für Ihre Arbeit?
In einer Kanzlei
In einem Unternehmen
21. Gibt es in der Kanzlei Mandanten, die Ihnen
ausschließlich zugeteilt sind?
Ja
Nein
1.
Ja à wie viele sind Ihnen zugeteilt?
______________________ Zahl der Mandanten
0.
Nein
b. Erhält diese Person Betreuung von einer anderen
Person oder anderen Personen (zB. anderen
Anwälten oder Hauptgeschäftspartnern)?
1.
0.
_______%
_______%
_______%
_______%
_______%
_______%
_______%
_______%
(Bitte beschreiben Sie______________________)
Ja
Falls Sie nicht als Anwalt/Anwältin tätig sind
1.
0.
_______%
a. Für wie viele der schon existierenden Mandanten
haben Sie die primäre Verantwortung
übernommen?
Ja
Nein
____________________ Zahl der Mandanten
18. Wie viel Zeit haben Sie in Ihrer letzten
Arbeitswoche mit folgenden Tätigkeiten verbracht?
Bitte tragen Sie für jede Aktivität die Zahl der
Stunden ein. Tragen Sie „0“ ein für die Kategorien,
die nicht auf Sie zutreffen.
22. Haben Sie in den letzten zwei Jahren in Ihrer
beruflichen Tätigkeit eine oder mehrere Arten
von Diskriminierung erfahren?
0.
1.
a. Tätigkeit in der Kanzlei oder Firma
Stunden______________________
b. Arbeitszeit an Wochentagen, außerhalb der
Kanzlei oder der Firma
Stunden______________________
c. Arbeitszeit am Wochenende, außerhalb der
Kanzlei oder der Firma
Stunden______________________
d. Teilnahme an Vereins- oder
Mitgliedertreffen
Stunden______________________
e. Teilnahme an Freizeitaktivitäten mit
Arbeitskollegen oder Mandanten
Stunden____________
f. gesellschaftliche Aktivitäten mit
Arbeitskollegen oder Mandanten
Stunden______________________
3
28
Ja à Falls ja, bitte beschreiben Sie:
25. Hat das Studium einen Einfluss auf die Wahl Ihrer
Schwerpunkte gehabt?
TEIL III BERUFLICHE FORTBILDUNG
23. Gab es eine Einarbeitungszeit, als Sie Ihre
jetzige Tätigkeit begonnen haben?
1.
0.
0.
1.
Ja à Falls ja, welche
Schwerpunkte__________________________
_____________________________________
Ja
Nein à beantworten Sie #23b.
Bitte beschreiben Sie die Art des Einflusses:
a. Falls JA, wie sah die Einarbeitungszeit aus?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Weiterbildungskurs(e)
Selbsttraining
Persönliche Unterstützung
Sonstiges
(Bitte beschreiben Sie:____________)
26. Hat das Referendariat einen Einfluss auf die
Wahl Ihrer Schwerpunkte gehabt?
b. Falls NEIN, beschreiben Sie Ihr Training.
0.
1.
Ja à Falls ja, welche
Schwerpunkte__________________________
_____________________________________
c. Was waren Ihre Rechtsgebiete und
Schwerpunkte in Ihrer Einarbeitungsphase?
1)
Bitte beschreiben Sie die Art des Einflusses:
2)
3)
24. In welchem Rechtsgebiet sind Sie derzeit tätig?
1.
2.
3.
a. Haben Sie sich nach dem Ende des Referendariats
auf Ihre jetzige Tätigkeit gezielt vorbereitet?
Zivilrecht
Öffentliches Recht
Strafrecht
0.
1.
a. Nennen Sie bis zu drei Schwerpunkte Ihrer
anwaltlichen Tätigkeit.
Nein
Ja à Wenn ja,
1.
2.
3.
4.
1)
2)
3)
Weiterbildung
Selbsttraining
Coaching
Sonstiges (Bitte beschreiben
Sie:______________________________)
27. Wie wichtig waren die folgenden Faktoren für die Wahl Ihrer jetzigen beruflichen Tätigkeit?
Bitte kreuzen Sie an, was für Sie zutrifft.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Überhaupt nicht
wichtig
Familienmitglieder
1
2
3
Studium
1
2
3
Referendarzeit
1
2
3
gewählte Rechtsschwerpunkte
1
2
3
professionelle Organisation(en)
1
2
3
Sonstiges
1
2
3
(bitte beschreiben ______________________________________________)
28. Führen Sie einen Fachanwaltstitel nach der Fachanwaltsordnung?
1.
0.
Ja
4
29
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Sehr
wichtig
7
7
7
7
7
7
29. Wie kommen Sie als Fachanwalt Ihrer
Fortbildungspflicht nach § 15 FAO nach?
31. Wie sieht die darüber hinaus geleistete Fortbildung
aus?
a.
Fortbildungskurse der Rechtsanwaltskammern
b.
Fortbildungskurse privater Anbieter
c.
Dozent
d.
Sie:________________________________)
a.
b.
32. Wie kommen Sie der allgemeinen
Fortbildungspflicht nach?
(Bitte kreuzen Sie alles an, was auf Sie zutrifft)
30. § 15 FAO verlangt den Nachweis einer
zehnstündigen Fortbildung des Fachanwalts im
Jahr. Bilden Sie sich darüber hinaus fort?
1.
0.
Ich bilde mich mehr als zehn Stunden auf
meinem Fachgebiet weiter.
Ich bilde mich über zehn Stunden hinaus auf
anderen Rechtsgebieten weiter.
Fortbildungskurse der Rechtsanwaltskammern
Fortbildungskurse privater Anbieter
Juristische Fachzeitschriften
Regelmässiger fachlicher Austausch mit
Kollegen
Ich bilde mich nicht fort
e.
f.
Sie:________________________________________)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Ja
Nein àweiter zur Frage #32.
TEIL IV BILDUNG UND AUSBILDUNG
33. Wann und in welchem Bundesland und mit welcher Note haben Sie Ihr zweites Staatsexamen
abgelegt?
Monat
Jahr
Bundesland
Endnote
34. Bitte geben Sie an, inwieweit Sie mit den folgenden Aussagen übereinstimmen.
Stimme nicht
überein
a. Mein Jurastudium hat mich auf meine
juristische Karriere gut vorbereitet.
1
2
3
4
Stimme
überein
5
6
7
b. Das Jurastudium war zu theoretisch,
es war nicht praxisbezogen.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
c. Ich wünschte, das Studium hätte mehr
praxis-orientierte Inhalte angeboten.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
d. Hätte ich noch einmal die Wahl, würde ich
mich wieder für ein Jurastudium entscheiden.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e. Das Jurastudium hat mir gute technische
Fähigkeiten vermittelt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
f. Das Referendariat war gut für
meine berufliche Karriere.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5
30
TEIL V SONSTIGE HINTERGRUNDINFORMATIONEN
35. Was ist der höchste Bildungsabschluss Ihrer Eltern?
Mutter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Vater
Keinen Schulabschluss
Hauptschulabschluss
Mittlere Reife
Berufsausbildung ohne Abschluss
Berufsausbildung mit Abschluss
Fachschulreife
Hochschulreife
Fachhochschulabschluss
Hochschulabschluss
Andere Abschlüsse (bitte
angeben____________________________________)._____________________________________)
36. War oder ist eines Ihrer Familienmitglieder als Anwalt / Anwältin tätig?
a.
Mutter
b.
Vater
c.
Geschwister
d.
Großeltern
e.
andere Verwandte (bitte angeben_________________________________________)
f.
Keiner meiner Verwandten war oder ist Jurist/Juristin.
37. Wer ist in Ihrem Haushalt hauptsächlich für die folgenden Aufgaben verantwortlich?
Wenn alleinlebend à weiter zur Frage #38
Gleich geteilt mit
dem Partner/der
Partnerin
Mein Mann/
meine Frau
Haushaltshilfe/
Eltern/
NA/
Keine
Kinder
1. Tägliche Hausarbeit
a. Kochen
b. Einkaufen
c. die Wohnung/das Haus säubern
d. die Wäsche
2. Haushaltsreparaturen
3. Finanzen
4. Kinderaufsicht
e. Freistellung von der Arbeit
wegen Kind(ern) Pflege/Krankheit
f. Verantwortlich für Betreuung
am Tage
g. Verantwortlich für Betreuung
am Abend
38. An wie vielen Tagen in der letzten Woche (0-7 Tagen)
Tage
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
haben Sie gefühlt, dass Sie nicht vorwärtskommen?
fühlten Sie sich traurig?
hatten Sie Probleme einzuschlafen oder durchzuschlafen?
fühlten Sie, dass alles schwierig für Sie ist?
fühlten Sie sich alleine?
fühlten Sie sich melancholisch oder traurig, ohne dass Sie glaubten, es
verändern zu können?
hatten Sie Probleme, sich auf das Wesentliche zu konzentrieren?
6
31
39. Wie sehr stimmen Sie mit den folgenden Aussagen überein?
Stimme sehr zu
a. Ich bin für meine Erfolge selbst verantwortlich.
b. Wenn ich etwas will, kann ich es auch durchsetzen.
c. Meine Missgeschicke sind die Resultate
der Fehler, die ich gemacht habe.
d. Ich bin verantwortlich für mein Handeln.
e. Die guten Dinge, die mir widerfahren,
geschehen aus reinem Glück.
f. Es macht keinen Sinn zu planen: die Dinge
die geschehen sollen, werden sich schon von
allein entwickeln.
g. Die schlechten Dinge, die mir widerfahren,
geschehen aus reinem Unglück.
h. Ich habe wenig Kontrolle über die Dinge, die
mir passieren.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Stimme überhaupt
nicht zu
5
6
7
5
6
7
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
40. Wie wichtig ist für Sie jedes der folgenden langfristigen Ziele?
Nicht wichtig
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Intellektuelle Herausforderungen
Menschen helfen
guter Verdienst
eine einflussreiche Persönlichkeit zu werden
die Gesellschaft zu verbessern und zu verändern
eine erfolgreiche Karriere zu haben
eine erfolgreiche Karriere und ein
zufriedenstellendes Privatleben zu haben.
Sehr wichtig
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
41. Wie sehr sind Sie mit Ihrer Entscheidung zufrieden, Rechtsanwalt geworden zu sein?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sehr zufrieden
Zufrieden
Weder zufrieden noch unzufrieden
Unzufrieden
Sehr unzufrieden
42. Was sind die Gründe dafür, dass Sie gegenwärtig nicht hauptberuflich als Anwalt/Anwältin tätig sind?
43. Im Rahmen unserer Studie, sind wir daran interessiert, mehr Information über Ihren professionellen
Werdegang zu erhalten. Wären Sie in diesem Sinne bereit, uns in einem Interview weitere Auskünfte zu
geben? Falls ja, bitte notieren Sie Ihre Postanschrift oder E-Mail Adresse, damit wir Sie gegebenenfalls
kontaktieren können.
Wir bedanken uns sehr für Ihre Mitarbeit bei der Befragung.
7
32

Early Law Careers of Male and Female Lawyers in the United States

Transcription

Similar documents

HAV Info Aktuell 07_2015 - Hamburgischer Anwaltverein eV

Im Fokus: Sachgebiet Blasinstrumente und klassisches

Volksentscheid und Anwaltschaft