The author is David Burgess, Managing Director at Law Dragon, and is titled “The Structure Is the Bias: Why a Generation of Initiatives Hasn’t Moved the Numbers.”

Although I do not share all of the author’s assertions, I certainly understand the problem. I have been writing about the advancement of women lawyers for the past 20 years, and, fortunately during that time, I have seen women lawyers advance and prosper in the profession on a more consistent basis and without as many of the challenges and impediments that women lawyers of my generation encountered. I also understand that there is still a long way to go before equity is experienced for women in the profession, and I sincerely hope I am around to see it and to applaud it.

Here are some excerpts from the article.

On the subject of the billable hour:

A lawyer who reduces her hours to raise children is not judged against some abstract standard of contribution. She is measured, in six-minute increments, against colleagues with no comparable demands at home. Part-time and flexible working, the policies firms reach for first, do not solve this. They simply let a woman pursue the same impossible number on a pro-rata basis, with less visibility, less of the high-value work that flows to those who are always available, and a quiet question mark over her commitment.

On the subject of up-or-out partnership:

Its design is almost perfectly calibrated to exclude women. The decisive years, when associates must out-bill, out-network and out-originate their peers to win one of a handful of slots, fall precisely on the years of childbearing. And childbearing is only the most visible of the competing claims on those years. The same window, stretching from the late thirties into the forties, is so often when women become the primary carers for ageing parents as well, frequently while they are still raising school-aged children of their own … at the exact moment a partnership case has to be built and defended.

In summary:

The verdict on a generation of initiatives is in. They were not too cautious or too few. They were aimed at the wrong target. Until firms are willing to confront the billable hour and the partnership tournament … the numbers will keep telling the same story, year after year.

There is a lot to think about in this article. You can find it at https://www.lawdragon.com/news-features/2026-07-05-the-structure-is-the-bias-why-a-generation-of-initiatives-hasn-t-moved-the-number”

I have an inactive status, so I pay a reduced fee, but that fee is still substantial. I have chosen an inactive status because I have no intention of returning to law practice but I still want some of the benefits of bar membership. So, inactive status works fine for me and is not a financial burden.

However, what if I was a lawyer temporarily between jobs, who was expecting to return to practice soon? That person would not want an inactive bar status even though the reduced fee might be attractive under those circumstances. That lawyer would be hoping for a a short off ramp term and would want to be able to jump right back into practice without the hassle of converting from inactive to active status and the associated requirements and delays. That lawyer would want to keep an active bar status even though paying the fee might be very challenging under those special circumstances.

And what about the lawyer who is only able to practice part-time due to family responsibilities like childcare or care for elderly relatives? Would that part-time lawyer, who has a reduced income, be able to easily afford bar fees and the other add-ons that are typical for most mandatory bar association memberships?

Bar membership should not be a burden or a challenge to lawyers who have special circumstances and are just trying to hang in the profession. Mandatory bars should not discourage lawyers from keeping their licenses active in hope that their circumstances change and they can return to either part-time or full-time practice. And it does not seem fair to force lawyers, who are only able to have part-time incomes, to pay as much as those who practice full-time and have full-time incomes.

Why would we force any of these special circumstance lawyers to go through the pain of re-activation, including CLE requirements and waiting periods, if we could make it more comfortable for them to keep their licenses active and be ready to rejoin the profession on a moment’s notice?

It’s time for mandatory bar associations to give lawyers a break. It’s time for them to reexamine their fee schedules in recognition of the challenges faced by attorneys with special circumstances.

If this issue bothers you, too, contact your bar associations and register your discontent. Even though escalating bar association fees may not amount to a burden for you, they are a challenge for many lawyers, who we should want to keep in the profession.

I have written and passed two bar exams, but that was a long time ago and not worthy of this discussion. However my two children have taken bar exams and passed them in the last 15 years. So, I consider their experiences relevant, particularly about issues of the performance of bar examiners. Their experiences were completely different. One of them experienced no memorable issues with bar examiners, and the other one nearly had to abandon ship because of inept bar examiners.

So when I read an article about the NY State Legislature urging updated methods and responsibilities for bar examiners to address emergencies, it caught my attention. The article, link below, describes the very unfortunate incident that flagged the issue about the adequacy of bar examiners in NY State, which I am sure many of you knew about already because it got a lot of press at the time. However, situations do not have to be quite this dramatic for it to be obvious that bar examiners need to up their games.

Here is what happened to one of my kids. In what should be an anticipated situation, the computer software failed in the exam room AND the bar examiners had no idea how to fix the problem or even who to call for help. The Bar Association office was closed for the week (which also was a factor in the situation described in the article), and no one was available to troubleshoot with the technology provider, which happened to be in another part of the country. So, what to do? Call mom and dad, right? My husband and I were on a road trip, but my husband knew a guy (my husband always knows a guy!), and the guy was able to contact another guy who was able to contact the head of the Bar Association office and that guy got permission for our kid to complete the bar exam by writing the answers in blue book pages —— but only on one side of the page and NOT in the margins because the bar examiner was “Johnny on the Spot” to deliver the admonishment that nothing on the back of the page or in the margins would be read or considered. So, afterthoughts in response to a question, as brilliant as those thoughts might be, were worthless.

It is stressful enough to write a bar exam, and there is a reason why none of us ever want to write another one. So, adding additional stress because of ill prepared bar examiners, the inability to call on the Bar Association for assistance, and the utter nonsense of imposing stupid rules on a handwritten exam book rises to the level of cruel and unusual treatment and should be prohibited on constitutional grounds.

I urge you to read the article and then find out if the bar association where you are licensed has similar problems that need to be addressed —- like in the next three weeks before the July bar exams. Other governing bodies should follow the example of the NY State Legislature, and it should not take a near death during the bar exam to initiate such changes. It should not be asking too much for bar examiners to be capable of “human responses” as noted in the article.

Our kid made it through. All ended well. My husband knew a guy who knew a guy, and those guys performed well. But, let’s face it, all test takers do not have dads who know a guy who knows a guy.

It is time to stop throwing up new challenges for a profession that is already too challenging for young lawyers. We can do better. Let’s hope we do.

Here’s the article: https://abovethelaw.com/2026/06/so-maybe-bar-examiners-need-an-actual-plan-for-emergencies

But that was not the worst blow that America suffered yesterday. The worst blow came from a decision of the US Supreme Court that sent shock waves through me and delivered a blow to the quality of care for elderly Americans like my Mom, who died while living in an assisted care facility in our home town in the Midwest, cared for by loving aides and enjoying the comfort and sense of well being that she deserved. It was what she wanted, and we were grateful for the quality of care she received.

Yesterday the Supreme Court sided with the Trump Administration and revoked the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over one million immigrants living in America, many of them from Haiti and working in the elder care space in our country. That was the biggest blow.

The TPS is a U.S. humanitarian program that provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to foreign nationals already in the United States who cannot safely return to their home countries. And this action was taken by our highest court without apparent remorse and in turning a blind eye to the reprehensible motive of hate for Haitians made clear by the slurs that our Chief Executive hurled at those immigrants when he accused them of eating dogs and cats and being from “shithole” countries. This, fortunately, did not escape the notice of Justice Kagan, as detailed in her dissent.

It has been well documented by the New York Times and other news outlets that Haitian immigrants are a critical part of the healthcare workforce, making up a vital percent of all immigrant healthcare workers nationwide. They have essential roles as hospital staff, in-home health aides, and fill valuable jobs in homes for the elderly like the one where my Mom lived.

They care for the beloved moms and dads throughout this country, who live too far away from their children and grandchildren to be cared for by family. The halls of hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities are filled with healthcare aides who have fled from countries where their lives and the lives of their children were threatened by ruthless governments and gangs.

Now many of those immigrants are headed home. Now they have lost the grace of the TPS and will trade it for the terror of the country they fled.

I care about this because I knew the workers who made sure that my Mom was able to live a long life in comfort and with the care she needed and deserved. And I appreciated them.

And now workers like them will be gone. Because the Court’s majority did not make the connection about the essential role those immigrants play in caring for our elderly and, instead, gave a nod to bias and hate.

It was a sad day. It was the big blow.

Results of a survey of more than 2,000 law students conducted last fall by the Law School Admission Council and the National Association for Law Placement were released recently. According to the survey, 56% of first year law students said that accelerated large firm recruiting timelines for summer associate positions had a negative impact on their first year of law school. And just 4% of students reported a positive impact.

The negative impacts reported in the survey included the inability to prioritize academic work and also focus on career planning. Even those students without aspirations to work at a large law firm said the new practice injected additional stress and pressure on campus. One student put it very bluntly, “Someone stop them from doing this again because it sucks, and nobody can actually focus on learning.”

Hopefully BigLaw has read the same survey results and will do the right thing and reverse the new recruiting practice. Keep your eyes on late summer and early fall to gauge whether they care more about young lawyers or about exercising their competitive edge.

Sometimes I hated it when I’m right. This is one of those times. This never should have happened in the first place and the geniuses at BigLaw should have known it would put students at risk.

And what about the law school placement officials? Shouldn’t they have known that this would be a problem?

Makes me wonder what other kinds of sweetheart deals are going on.