The Paradox of the Contented Female Lawyer

This research note calls attention to some basic but rather neglected questions about life in the legal profession: Are lawyers happy in their work? Do patterns of stratification within the profession translate into differences in work satisfaction? Does satisfaction with different components of legal work vary across employment statuses and practice contexts? Given that job satisfaction is a highly subjective phenomenon, some sociolegal scholars may question its value as an object of social scientific inquiry. I argue, however, that to ignore the question of lawyers' happiness is a mistake. Despite their limitations, studies of lawyers' work satisfaction can be useful in several ways. First, job satisfaction can be viewed as a stratification measure, complementing more traditional measures such as income and hierarchical position. If satisfaction is unevenly distributed within the profession in some systematic way (e.g., if women are less satisfied than men or if minorities less satisfied than whites), we might interpret this uneven distribution as a form of inequality and seek to explain its causes and possible remedies. Second, studies of job satisfaction can serve to confirm or refute some popular stereotypes about the profession, such as the notion that most lawyers are wealthy but miserable workaholics. Finally, job satisfaction may be implicated as an important independent variable with respect to a range of issues within the profession, including departures from the profession, job performance, workfamily balance, increased mobility within the profession, the physical and mental health of lawyers, and their overall life satisfaction. In this research note, I narrow my focus to the relationship between gender and job satisfaction in the law. The rapid influx of women into the profession since the 1970s raises the obvious question of how women are doing in the law at this juncture, and the ongoing discussion of women's prospects and experiences as lawyers could benefit from greater attention to the subjective dimension of this question. As Menkel-Meadow (1989x:307) states: "To the extent that success in the profession is measured almost exclusively by participation in the elite but not modal form of practice [the large firm], conventional sociological assumptions of prestige and success serve as the `objective' measure of women's progress. But what if women defined success and satisfaction differently?" After briefly reviewing the existing literature, I present findings from a recent survey of Chicago attorneys and conclude with some suggestions for future research on gender and job satisfaction. Past Studies of Gender and job Satisfaction Most studies of job satisfaction across a variety of occupational settings find no significant gender differences in satisfaction, even though women on average have inferior jobs in terms of pay, status, level of authority, and mobility prospects (Campbell et al. 1976; Bokemeier & Lacy 1986; Mottaz 1986; Crosby 1982; Austin & Dodge 1992; Firebaugh & Harley 1995). Various theories have emerged to account for this seeming puzzle, sometimes referred to in the literature as the "paradox of the contented working woman" (Jackson 1989; Phelan 1994). One of the more popular explanations for women's equal satisfaction is that women and men have different values and therefore care about different things in jobs (Murray & Atkinson 1981; Crosby 1982; Martin & Hanson 1985; Neil & Snizek 1988; Bigoness 1988; Witt & Nye 1992). For example, women may at tack more importance to relations with coworkers and less importance to pay and promotion relative to men. Other theories to account for women's high satisfaction include the idea that women may use different reference groups in assessing their satisfaction, comparing themselves only with other women or with women who stay at home rather than with all other workers (Crosby 1982; Hodson 1989; but see Loscocco & Spitze 1991 ) . …