I think "Generation XX" alludes the female chromosomes, XX (as opposed to the male chromosomes, XY). It is interesting that XX means female and XXX means sex. Coincidence?

I agree with your conclusion about the business plan. What great insight. I had no idea this was the case with women and high grades in higher proportion!

Failing female retention--perhaps it's the result of not being able to understand the empathy women feel for their families, and their own well being--something foreign to the male business model--or business man...?

 Well they can empathize with this--They are failing to retain quality attorneys and that doesn't speak good for any legal business model!

It's like if they discuss the issue of females in a general, hands-off kind of way, that's enough.  They're dealing with "womens issues".  God forbid they should closely examine the discriminatory mentoring and retention patterns thriving at law firms nationwide.

FYI - There's a comma in the link in your post where there should be a period.  Should be: http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/07/06/061107a

 http://ptlawmom.com

Thanks for catching the URL typo. It's fixed.

I like your posting, and wanted to point-out to other Ms. JD readers that last summer the Times had a multi-article series called "The New Gender Divide" that looked at mens and womens roles in society, work, and families since the women's movement. Some of the more interesting findings (even if we already knew it):

1. More women attend and complete university then men, and do better in school (only 42 % of college students are men, and women get over a majority of honors degrees, for example)

2. Many people see all this as a "crisis" needing to be fixed ("what's wrong with our sons?" Nothing-your daughters are just smoking them)

3. Some colleges are now giving males a "boost" in admissions to get a gender-equal student body-since their pool of qualified female candidates is larger. Others even create football programs to attract more men!

4. Men socialize more than women in college (possibly linking to higher post-graduation salaries?), yet women are seen as more driven and study harder.

5. Men do better in pay and promotions (b/c among other things they work more hours and don't have the career interruptions of raising a family)

6. More than 70% of women aged 25-54 are working today, and women's income accounts for 43% of household income.

All of this tells me that we're in the midst of a big change demographically and socially, and I agree with the OP that the legal profession is going to have to adapt if it wants to retain its best (and increasingly female) employees. Yes, there are more women entering the profession, and their lack of equal outcome with men is largely attributable to those aspects of society and work that have not adapted to the post-women's movement reality of working, bread-winning women. For better or worse, this includes the reality for many of us that women remain primary childcare providers and homemakers in addition to their professional roles (there has been so much discussion on Ms. JD and other boards about the pros/cons of "opting-out" that I won't repeat).

  Apparently this hasn't yet been enough of a problem for firms to radically change the system, since along with their big raises comes an increase in billable hour requirements traditionally thought to be most harmful to women (and their prospects of attaining partner). Discrimination (gender or otherwise) isn't economical, so if firms haven't changed their ways then there could be several legitimate reasons: first, there are too many lawyers and, unfortunately, we are not indespensible. I think everyone can agree with the first part of that sentence if not the latter. If, even with all the "opting-out" that is going on, if there is a more than ample crop of new associates to fill the ranks then there is no pressing reason for firms to change their ways. Remember, women working doubles the pool of potential employees than before, and thus doubles the competition. In a perverted sense, our bargaining power weakens with each additional freshly-minted law school graduate who seeks employment at a big firm, unless of course, everyone starts pushing for the same reforms. This is the chief reason why I think our efforts need to go beyond women and reach-out to all attorneys and law students to address many of the issues brought-up on this board as FAMILY issues, not women's issues.

Second, men might bring something to the table that women don't in terms of sociability etc that firms find valuable. While this sounds of discrimination, I think we all know that there's more to getting the job or promotion than having the highest GPA or being the smartest person. Men might have more of this "je ne sais quoi" that firms are looking for than women do. This is another reason why I am against female-only networking events, for example: you learn better from others (yes, even men) and can actually interact with the male partners and attorneys you're trying to impress (and who still hold the keys to the kingdom). I'm all for pedicures, but we've got to play with the whole team if we're going to succeed.

All that said, I'll leave you with some reading material. If you have TimesSelect, you can read a couple of the more relevant articles in the series:http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00712F93B540C7A8CDDAE0894DE404482http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00611FA3C5B0C748EDDA80894DF404482