Davida Brook and Andrew Bruck placed second with this entry in the Ms. JD & PAR essay contest about work/life balance. They write, "we are interpreted as a bunch of spoiled, resume-building, brats who want to get paid gazillions and flee the office for afternoon tee times. We are confused by this reaction, as we see our efforts as simply continuing the efforts begun by our parents decades ago. For example, just as the Boomers could not think of a single good reason why a Mother should not also be promoted to partner, we cannot think of a single good reason why a partner should not also be allowed to be a Father." --Ed.

Last summer, the organization we run, Building a Better Legal Profession, began collecting data about large law firms. We understood that there was plenty of publicly available data about these firms—data about billable hours, pro bono, and diversity—however, no one had organized and presented it in a way useful to law students. So we decided to do it ourselves.

As we crunched the numbers, we discovered surprising trends in the legal community—for example, not a single large law firm in Manhattan had more than thirty percent female partners. We figured the rest of the world would be eager to learn about our results. Like any enterprising twenty-somethings, we organized a press conference. The media response was remarkable, with stories appearing everywhere from the Financial Times Deutschland to Radio New Zealand. The blogosphere similarly erupted with stories.

But what fascinated us most were the comments readers left on the popular blog Above the Law. Many were positive, some were not...

[Continues after the jump]

"Top school law students whining about their $160,000 salaries and 60 hour weeks, when tier 2 students have to work just as hard for one fourth of the money."

Posted by: Loyola 2L | October 10, 2007 11:01 AM

"Regardless of the good they may be trying to do, they certainly come across as a couple of whiny Stanford kids.”

Posted by: Anon | October 12, 2007 04:39 PM

"I'm confused, I thought this was the group that wanted big firm money without working big firm hours? That’s great if they can get it, but what does their quest for a siesta lifestyle have to do with race/gender?”

Posted by: Anon | October 12, 2007 04:40 PM

Suddenly, we became the poster children for lazy underachievers everywhere. According to the comments, we were pushing for reform not because we hoped to encourage greater transparency in the legal community, or because we hoped to create an external economic force pressuring law firms to offer flexible career paths, but because we were slackers. We had worked hard to get into law school, worked hard to do well in law school, worked hard to get offers from top law firms, and now we wanted to coast. Collect our $160,000 a year without staying past 6 PM.

Clearly, we struck a nerve. These criticisms have proved surprisingly enduring, despite our frequent refutations that we are simply trying to increase transparency in the legal recruiting world. In large part, the critique remains because our effort—which seeks to draw attention to the broken economic model of large law firms—seems to fit so neatly into a broader narrative about Generation Y.

As “millennials,” the cohort of Americans born during and after the Reagan presidency, we are supposed to conform to certain generational stereotypes. Raised during an era of unrivaled and virtually uninterrupted economic prosperity, we think that financial success requires nothing more than a good idea, a website, and an IPO. A job isn’t worth taking unless there’s a pinball machine in the hallway and a beanbag chair in your office. We’ll crash with our parents until we find the position just right for us. This profile is, of course, misleading and incomplete. To the extent that these stereotypes are true, the narrative dismisses our generation as narcissistic, apathetic, and egotistic. But plenty of empirical evidence suggests that millennials are as engaged, if not more, in community service and community organizing than our parents’ generation.

If anything, the developments of the past twenty years has taught our generation that work and life are not mutually exclusive; that a healthy balance between the two makes it possible for us to succeed both professionally and personally and to take responsibility for our community. We are compared, often unfavorably, to our parents’ generation, the Baby Boomers. In the standard narrative, the Boomers understand the importance of hard work, professionalism, and experience. In the law firm context, they labored years to make partner and steer their firms to financial success. In contrast, upstart millennials don’t want to put in the necessary time to achieve similar accomplishment. It’s a false dichotomy, though. Long before Boomers became known as the “Me” generation they had cultivated a reputation for upending the status quo. The fact that a generational divide has developed demonstrates how much each cohort has failed to recognize the similarities between the two. Their different attitudes are more the result of historical context than of varying approaches to work and life.

Our parents came of age during a time of extraordinary inequality. Schools and buses were segregated by race, employment opportunities were segregated by gender, and marital rights were segregated by sexual orientation. The most odious of these inequities were resolved before we were born; our society has advanced so far in the past half century it is difficult for us to imagine that less than three decades separate the beginnings of the civil rights revolution and our births. But, as a result, our generation faces new challenges. The most immediate barriers—whether for race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation—have already fallen. We’re left to sort out the more subtle forms of discrimination that still exist in our society and our boardrooms. We need new tactics for these more insidious problems. Even though our goals are different, we derive inspiration from the Boomers—from their willingness to challenge the status quo and their commitment to equality.

So if we are so alike, what is keeping us apart? We have spent a lot of time trying to answer this question. And after much reflection, we want to concede on several points.

Some of the typecasting is true. We came into adulthood at a time when our Mothers had achieved “success.” They built their portfolios and raised their kids with such grace that they actually tricked us into thinking that they were not confronting significant obstacles. The result is that we don’t understand, what, if anything, would prevent us from having our dream job, as well as our happy home. As a consequence, our expectations are off. They are way off. It turns out that our parents did not become CEO in a single day. If the Boomers are willing, however, we are confident that we can learn from them the part of the story that we missed. Through a tool as simple as effective communication, our generation can learn how to set appropriate expectations and to understand what efforts and experience will be required to achieve our individual goals.

However, we also think that the Boomers might be misinterpreting our movement. Over the past several months we have discovered that our parents’ generation is somewhat skeptical when men and women advocate for a similar cause in the workplace. We are a mixed-gender, mix-raced, group of law students looking to use our market power to effect change; but we are interpreted as a bunch of spoiled, resume-building, brats who want to get paid gazillions and flee the office for afternoon tee times. We are confused by this reaction, as we see our efforts as simply continuing the efforts begun by our parents decades ago. For example, just as the Boomers could not think of a single good reason why a Mother should not also be promoted to partner, we cannot think of a single good reason why a partner should not also be allowed to be a Father. We are women and men, black, brown, and white. We are fascinated by the law and enjoy working with it. However, on the usual day, we would like to be home for dinner. At the same time, we understand that there will be exceptions to that rule and we will need to work 24-7 with little notice. While it seems abundantly clear that we want our cake and we want to eat it to, what seems less clear is that we are willing to work very hard for this privilege, and understand that there will be days without dessert.

If there is one point where we are not willing to concede it is that there are not enough female and minority partners. The legal profession—with its overtones of justice and equality—should stand with a generation that seeks to complete a journey begun by the Boomers who now head the most prestigious law offices. Their values, intelligence, grace, and enthusiasm forced a generation of white men to believe that women and minorities could hold their own at the partner table. But the journey begun by the Boomers is still in its beginning. We can and must do much better, and our profession will benefit immeasurably as a result. If we can help bridge the generation gap, and help both sides realize that they have got more in common than they think, we are confident that positive change will happen.

From the current slacker generation, to the once thought of slacker generation, we implore you. Together we can remake the legal profession so that it better reflects our shared values.