A National Conversation 

on Gender and Diversity 

Berkeley, California

July 25, 2001 

Legal Services Corporation
A National Conversation on Gender and Diversity 

July 25, 2001, Berkeley, California 

Introduction 

LSC in partnership with NLADA launched a yearlong examination of the impact 

of gender on the legal services community. This is part of a broader initiative in which 

LSC and NLADA are examining diversity in the equal justice community. The first 

national conversation on gender and justice was held in March 2001, in conjunction with 

the ABA/NLADA Equal Justice Conference. The goal was to focus on the role of and 

problems faced by women as members of the legal services work force as well as the 

effects of gender as they relate to clients, three-fourths of whom are women. Many of the 

men and women who participated in the March 2001 conversation have been working in 

the legal services community for many years; many hold managerial positions in their 

workplace. LSC and NLADA decided to hold a second conversation at the Substantive 

Law Conference to learn about the experiences and concerns of another group of women, 

those who had recently joined legal services programs. 

Background 

Prior to the July 25 session, LSC spoke individually with men and women around 

the country who planned to attend the session or who were unable to participate, but had 

expressed interest in the topic. Several themes emerged from these discussions. 

Program environment is very important. An authentically diverse workforce 

results in greater acceptance of different approaches to lawyering. An executive director 

and management staff that includes women and supports approaches to problem solving 

and staff interaction with which women feel comfortable makes a critical difference in 

the perception of diversity in the program. Further, some participants noted that 

programs that have sexual orientation diversity tend to be more tolerant of all other kinds 

of diversity, as well as to alternative approaches to leadership, the practice of law and 

other aspects of program culture. Staff with openly gay and lesbian members and 

managers, where women are in leadership positions as well as throughout the supervised 

staff, and which have multi-cultural staff throughout the workforce (all ranks) tend to be 

better places for women to work. 

The environment of the legal profession is still very traditional. This culture 

extends to the legal services community. It is not uncommon for programs dominated by 

a traditional management team to stifle many of the opportunities that lead to a truly 

diverse staff. 

 

Real diversity requires more than “talk time.” Mechanisms created to address 

gender, race and other diversity problems must have the capacity to make change. 

Leadership must invest in and support the possibility of change or it will not occur. 
A National Conversation on Gender and Diversity Page 2 

Mentoring or training of young professionals is sorely needed. Currently, the 

mentoring programs that exist are informal, ad hoc systems that depend more on 

personalities than on structure. There is no one to teach women new to the field how to 

be professionals. This goes beyond substantive law mentoring to include helping young 

lawyers learn to assert themselves without jeopardizing a client, how to handle 

inappropriate behavior from a colleague, judge or opposing counsel. 

New approaches to leadership will help eliminate the significant barriers

experienced by those who do not adopt the traditional lawyer role associated with white 

male law firm partners. Historically there has been only one posture for lawyers – 

aggressive and litigious. Lawyers who admit that they do not always know the answer, 

who seek guidance from others, who perceive clients’ problems as part of a process are 

often not considered for leadership positions. While these values are diminishing, 

movement is slow. Selecting leaders who behave in the conventional male attorney way, 

from this pool reinforces the old approaches and marginalizes the efforts of those who opt 

for alternatives. Programs led by this type of executive director have a culture that 

supports it. 

Report on Discussions at July 25 Meeting 

 The July session was designed to be a small to allow candid conversations about 

gender and justice in the legal services community. About twenty men and women 

participated. They began by addressing several points. 

How can we broaden the concept of diversity? Our client communities are 

becoming more diverse and they demand that we grow in ways that reflect their diversity 

and that enable us to provide culturally competent services. This requires us to move 

beyond the historical definitions. 

Diversity is a state of being – where we want to be and where we are going. The 

ultimate goal of diversity is not to get from another for me, but to expand the circle of 

inclusion. Diversity values a broad range of people so that no one is left out; it makes 

connections between various aspects of our individuality. Affinities are recognized on 

gender lines, along race and ethnicity patterns; there is an acceptance of how they link us 

as well as make us unique. 

How can we achieve diverse programs and state justice communities? Doing so 

requires some form of accountability like affirmative action goals to ensure that the 

workforce is diverse. However, there are other methods. The state planning process 

raises the issue, particularly in the context of leadership. Partners can also put pressure 

on organizations. While it is true that conversation sparks education, dialogue cannot be 

the end. There must be a commitment to action and, ultimately, action. 

Within the framework of diversity, there are some issues that women in the legal 

services community experience harshly. One in particular is the glass ceiling effect. 

Moving up is very difficult for women in our programs. This situation is exacerbated by 
A National Conversation on Gender and Diversity Page 3 

the failure of almost every program to have an institutionalized, formal mentoring 

structure. A lack of networking opportunities also contributes. 

Another problem for women who aspire to leadership positions is that we 

currently do not have a culture that supports selecting new leaders and recognizing 

approaches that differ from those that have persisted throughout the legal profession. The 

model is based on the historic white male attorney – litigious, aggressive and assertive. 

The ability to collaborate and to highlight the success of others, to seek common ground 

and to opt for holistic approaches to resolving client legal needs is not usually valued 

when managers and boards appoint or hire for staff leadership slots. 

Combating this requires opening up networking opportunities, especially on a 

national level. There must also be strong support from more senior women in our 

community for nurturing women leaders and to support differences in leadership models 

– a critical mass dynamic that can ensure that future leaders are more frequently women 

leaders. Senior women in our community can also act as mentors to guide less seasoned 

attorneys on the nonlegal issues that confront women as they enter the profession and 

advance in rank. A challenge facing women new to legal services is 1) finding willing 

mentors, 2) hesitating to ask for help and 3) a lack of receptivity. This challenge imposes 

on each of us a responsibility for building internal working relationships in our programs 

and communities. 

What are the benefits of diversity? The nature of the legal practice is changing, 

particularly in legal services. More and more, we are asked to provide “holistic” services 

to clients. State planning initiatives and the complex problems our clients bring us 

require collaboration with colleagues and partners outside the organization. Often social 

work meshes with the legal work we practice. Non-traditional lawyers tend to be more 

successful with this kind of practice, and clients benefit from our successes. 

 What are our expectations for the future? We need to prompt conversations 

among ourselves and in our communities that examine program culture and lead toward 

change. Our goal is to keep less experienced staff, particularly those who reflect our 

diversity goals, engaged and allow their needs to be heard. Creating mechanisms for 

change requires the buy-in of leaders, those in the program, in the state and nationally. 

National organizations may be the most influential as it can often be a catalyst for 

change. 

Sharing information is useful. Best practices and “red flags” are good for setting 

benchmarks and measuring results. Listing resources for easy dissemination is also 

productive. We need to have a list of consultants who reflect diversity values and can 

train staff and leaders on these issues. A newsletter on general diversity concerns might 

help advance the diversity agenda. Finally, we need to bring to the diversity table those 

who can make changes, those who may not see the benefits to change, and those who 

resist change. 
A National Conversation on Gender and Diversity Page 4 

Actively valuing and promoting diversity institutionally is critical. This is even 

truer when the institutions are national leaders. LSC and NLADA’s diversity initiative 

has allowed program directors and other decision-makers to increase diversity in their 

staff in ways that might not have been allowed previously. National emphasis on 

diversity gives program directors “permission” to take risks and expand the circle of 

individuals from whom they select managers and other program leaders. One program 

director described her personal experience in this regard and listed the benefits her 

program realized because of her selection of a manager woman of color. Although she 

was concerned that the candidate did not have a manager “personality,” she was inspired 

by the March 2001 Gender and Justice Dialogue and the supportive environment it 

created to take the risk and hire the candidate. She reported very positively on the 

results.1

 

1

 Held in conjunction with the NLADA/ABA Equal Justice Conference, San Diego, March 31, 2001. 

Reported on the LSC website.