A few weeks ago, I was speaking to a group of students about careers in law when I shared a statistic that usually surprises people: for the tenth consecutive year, women dominated U.S. law school classrooms. The shift has been so significant that the American Bar Association has referred to the period from 2016 to 2026 as the “Decade of the Female Lawyer.”
For many students in the room that evening, and for many people reading headlines like these, that fact sounds like the story of progress completed. It suggests a profession that has finally turned the corner, where barriers have fully broken down, and gender equity is steadily rising. I then asked the question that tends to complicate that narrative: if women are entering the profession in such high numbers, why don’t we see that reflected in leadership and positions of power?
Typically, this is the part of the conversation where the room remains quiet. Beneath the encouraging enrollment numbers lies a far more uncomfortable truth: while the pipeline into law has diversified, power within the profession has not. Women are graduating, credentialing, and entering the workforce in record numbers, yet they remain underrepresented in the highest-paid roles. The issue is no longer whether women can make it into the room. It is why, after doing everything right to get there, so many still struggle to rise once inside.
The Paradox of Progress
On paper, the numbers tell a compelling story of advancement. Women now make up the majority of law school students in the United States, representing 56% of students at ABA-accredited law schools in 2023 – a dramatic rise from just 9% in 1970. The profession itself has also changed, albeit more gradually. Women represented approximately 31% of all lawyers in 2010 and 38.3% by 2022, with that figure continuing to rise as younger cohorts enter the field.
Unfortunately, those gains disappear the higher you look. While women now make up a majority of associates in U.S. law firms (51.62% in 2024 and 52.09% in 2025), they accounted for only 28.83% of all partners in 2024 and 29.55% in 2025. In other words, women are entering firms in record numbers, yet remain significantly underrepresented in the ranks where compensation, influence, and institutional power are concentrated.
2025 data from the NALP Report on Diversity found that there was also little evidence of progress with respect to data on racial diversity at law firms. The data demonstrates that racial diversity among partners stagnated in 2025, with partners of color remaining at just under 13%. For women of color, the disparities are even more stark. In 2024, women of color represented 18.76% of associates, but only just over 5% of all partners, becoming the first time that figure had even crossed the five-percent threshold. Progress that looks promising at the entry level narrows dramatically at senior levels. According to Nikia Gray, executive director of NALP, “[...] at the current rate of growth, it will take nearly 27 years for the representation of partners of color to reach parity with that of associates of color today – in other words, much too long.” So why is it that even if women are doing everything “right” (earning degrees, building credentials, entering the workforce), those credentials fail to translate?
Beyond the Glass Ceiling: The “Sticky Floor”
We often talk about the “glass ceiling,” the invisible barrier preventing women from reaching the highest levels of leadership. In law, another dynamic is just as powerful: the “sticky floor.”
The sticky floor describes a phenomenon in which women enter organizations in strong numbers but struggle to advance beyond mid-level roles. They are not necessarily blocked at the very top; they are slowed down much earlier. Importantly, the sticky floor phenomenon is not about a lack of ambition or ability. Instead, it reflects a series of compounding barriers that shape everyday experiences in the profession. Many women working in the legal field report very different workplace realities than their male colleagues. While many men believe their firms are supportive of gender diversity, far fewer women agree. For instance, 88 percent of male attorneys believe that their law firm acknowledges gender diversity as a priority, while only 54 percent of their female peers share this sentiment. Retention, promotion, and advancement look fundamentally different depending on who you ask.
These differences are not abstract. They show up in daily interactions, career opportunities, and long-term outcomes. One of the most challenging aspects of this issue is that many of the barriers women face are subtle, cumulative, and often difficult to name. These barriers can look like being interrupted in meetings or having ideas attributed to someone else. They can look like not receiving credit for originating work or being held to a different standard after becoming a parent. They can look like being mistaken for support staff rather than the attorney. In a roundtable organized by the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Women Judges, during which lawyers and law students took part in small group discussions, participants noted:
“[...] when they went into a meeting, if there was an articled clerk or a junior lawyer who was male, they, as women were assumed by other lawyers and clients to be the junior and the questions would be put to the more junior male lawyer. If the female lawyer provided information, the other party would often look to the more junior male lawyer for further explanations or verification, even though they were less experienced.”
Women also described being talked over during meetings, even when they were in charge of them, and seeing male colleagues being given credit for their work and ideas. They had to work harder for the respect that male lawyers seemed to get automatically. Often described as microaggressions – small, everyday slights that communicate bias, even when unintentional – these interactions may seem minor. However, over time, they diminish a person’s confidence, sense of belonging, and, ultimately, their professional trajectory. Layered on top of this is what some scholars describe as the “invisible labor” or “inclusion” tax. This refers to the additional, often unrecognized effort required to fit into professional environments that were not designed with diversity in mind. This can include everything from code-switching to navigating expectations around appearance, communication, and behavior. None of this shows up on a résumé, but all of it impacts who advances and who doesn’t.
For women of color, these challenges are compounded by intersectionality. The experience of navigating the legal profession is not the same for all women, and the burdens of bias are often heavier for those who sit at multiple marginalized identities. In 2021, the American Bar Association’s Initiative on Achieving Long-Term Careers for Women in Law released the study Left Out and Left Behind: The Hurdles, Hassles, and Heartaches of Achieving Long-Term Legal Careers for Women of Color. This study surveyed 103 self-identified women of color who were practicing law or employed in law-related positions, asking a series of questions to elicit narratives of their experiences as women of color practicing law. Key findings included the fact that women of color comprise 15 percent of all law firm associates, but the percentage of law firm partners who are women of color remains below four percent. Women of color are leaving law firms at higher rates than any other demographic.
When Policies Aren’t Enough
Many law firms have responded to these challenges by implementing diversity initiatives, mentorship programs, and flexible work policies. On the surface, these efforts signal progress, but programs alone are not enough.
For example, research shows that even when flexible work arrangements exist, attorneys often avoid using them out of fear that doing so will harm their careers. The Project for Attorney Retention found that respondents tended to perceive face time as extremely important to maintaining relationships (49%), as well as furthering perceptions of commitment (42%) and productivity (41%) at work. Similarly, diversity initiatives can fall short when they are treated as performative rather than embedded into firm culture. While leadership may believe they are prioritizing diversity, many women within those organizations do not experience it that way. Without accountability and leadership buy-in, even well-intentioned efforts can fail to create meaningful change.
Investing in Meaningful Change
If the legal profession is serious about closing the gap between women’s entry into law and women’s rise to leadership, symbolic commitments will not be enough. The profession does not lack talented, ambitious, highly credentialed women. What it often lacks are systems that consistently convert that talent into long-term advancement. The barriers discussed throughout this piece are structural, meaning the solutions must be structural as well.
Measure the metrics that actually drive advancement → Many firms proudly report recruiting numbers, summer associate diversity, or first-year hiring gains. Those metrics matter, but they only tell the beginning of the story. The more revealing question is what happens after women arrive. How quickly are women promoted compared with men? Who leaves after three, five, or seven years? Who receives the most lucrative client matters, leads trial opportunities, or originates credit? Who is elevated into practice-group leadership or management roles? Without measuring these outcomes, inequity can remain hidden behind surface-level progress. Data allows organizations to move beyond anecdotes and identify exactly where attrition and disparity are occurring.
Tie leadership accountability to outcomes → Culture rarely changes through mission statements alone. It changes when leaders understand that equity is part of their job performance. Too often, diversity initiatives are delegated to affinity groups, human resources teams, or a handful of already overextended women leaders. Meanwhile, the individuals with the most power face little accountability for outcomes. Managing partners, executive committees, and those determining compensation should be evaluated in part on whether they are developing talent equitably, retaining women attorneys, and expanding access to leadership opportunities. Leaders who consistently sponsor women, build inclusive teams, and close advancement gaps should be recognized. What organizations reward signals what they truly value.
Redesign compensation and origination credit systems → Some of the profession’s deepest inequities are economic. Compensation systems shape future opportunities inside law firms. Yet, many of these systems still reward narrow definitions of value that can disadvantage women. If firms are serious about equity, compensation systems must be part of the conversation. Regular pay-equity audits and transparent criteria can help ensure that revenue-generating contributions are recognized fairly. A profession cannot credibly claim to value merit while rewarding invisible labor unevenly.
Equalize access to career-making opportunities → Careers are often built through access and opportunity. These experiences accumulate over time and frequently determine who is seen as “ready” for leadership. Too often, these opportunities are distributed informally through familiarity, comfort, or legacy networks that can reproduce inequity even in workplaces that believe themselves meritocratic. Firms should actively track the allocation of mission-critical work and ensure women are tapped at the same rates as men for assignments that build credibility and advancement capital.
Make flexibility compatible with ambition → One of the clearest reasons women leave the legal field is the perceived incompatibility between success and a sustainable personal life. Too often, reduced-hours schedules, hybrid arrangements, parental leave, or caregiving accommodations exist on paper but carry an unspoken career penalty in practice. When flexibility signals reduced commitment, ambitious attorneys understandably avoid using it. Firms that want to retain experienced women must normalize flexibility as a legitimate and respected way of working. Senior leaders should model caregiving responsibilities, openly use leave, and demonstrate that excellent lawyers can also have full lives outside the office.
Build sponsorship, not just mentorship → For years, organizations have emphasized mentorship. While advice and guidance are invaluable, mentorship alone does not redistribute power. Women also need sponsors: senior attorneys willing to advocate for them when assignments are distributed, compensation is debated, and leadership roles are filled. A mentor may help you navigate the system, while a sponsor uses their influence to help change your trajectory within it. Firms should formalize sponsorship opportunities and recognize and reward attorneys who actively develop future leaders.
Rethinking Success in the Legal Profession
It can be tempting to view gender equity in law as a “women’s issue.” It is not. Diverse teams consistently outperform less diverse ones. They make better decisions, generate stronger outcomes, and provide more effective client service. In a profession built on advocacy and fairness, representation furthers legitimacy. A legal system that does not reflect the diversity of the society it serves risks falling short in its ability to deliver justice. Beyond mere performance metrics, there is a human cost. High attrition rates among women represent a loss of talent, perspective, and potential.
If there is one takeaway from all of this, it is that the issue is not a lack of talent. Women are entering the legal profession in record numbers, equipped with the credentials, skills, and ambition to succeed. The challenge is ensuring that those credentials are translated into sustainable opportunity. Until the profession takes meaningful action steps, the pipeline will continue to fill, but the top will remain unchanged. That is a gap we cannot afford to ignore.
Shea Holman Killian is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies at George Mason University, where she teaches various law and government courses and guides students through the Jurisprudence Learning Community (JPLC). She also serves as a member of the Schar School of Policy and Government’s Gender and Policy Center advisory board, contributing her expertise to advancing gender equity in policy and governance. Outside of George Mason, Shea serves as Counsel at the Purple Method, providing strategic legal guidance, overseeing policy development, and collaborating with stakeholders to create safer and more equitable workplaces.
