By Anna Collins, Esq. (Portland, Maine)

As if the news of recent layoffs at major firms is not enough bad news for the legal profession, there is more bad news according to a new survey from the San Francisco-based Project for Attorney Retention. The bad news is that out of 100 firms studied by the organization, only about a quarter ended up with gender-balanced partner classes. In 23 firms surveyed, women make up 40% or more of the new 2009 partner classes. Yet, such progress for less than a quarter of the firms studied is overshadowed by the majority of those surveyed, including the 14 where no women were promoted or another 12 where women make up less than 20% of new partners.

In a press release announcing the results, the Co-Chair of Project for Attorney Retention, Cynthia Calvert, recognized the progress made by many firms. “We are disheartened, though,” she continued, “by the large number of firms that did not make any women partners.”

Feeling just as disheartened, we decided to contact the firms that made it to “the worst of” list, excluding the 5 for whom this year appears to be an aberration, to ask them two questions. First, what happened at the firm? Second, what is the firm going to do about it? Surely, the survey results had those firms just as disheartened and they have a strategy for the future. We contacted Dechert, Foley Hoag, Milbank, Schulte Roth, Strook, Venable, Wachtell, White & Case, and Wilkie Farr. After leaving messages with communications/media relations representatives at several of these firms and speaking in person to several others who each indicated they needed to check if the firm had any comment in regards to the questions, we have nothing to report from the firms themselves. It is likely that some were unable to get back to us with comment before publication. Based on the tone of some and reaction of others, it was clear that some viewed the questions as somewhat atypical.

Despite a lack of response to the questions, some input was offered by those we interviewed. One representative blamed the economy. “This last year has been strange,” the person offered, “but I am not familiar with how the decisions were made.” Two others took issue with any characterization that their firms do not take the issue of women’s advancement seriously.

Speaking of firms that take women’s advancement seriously, we turned to firms that are on top of the list for advancing women to the partner classes – to determine what works in those firms. Perhaps their practices can offer insight into what needs to change at the rest.The firms on top are described by the Project for Attorney Retention as follows:The best: Cravath (67%), Dickstein Shapiro (67%), Wiley Rein (60%), Andrews Kurth (57%), Bryan Cave (56%), Arent Fox (50%), Baker & Daniels (50%), Hogan & Hartson (50%), Holland and Hart (50%), King and Spalding (50%), Luce Forward (50%), Simpson Thacher (50%), and Sullivan & Cromwell (50%). A special mention goes to Farella Braun, whose only new partner is female (100%).Honorable mentions: Dorsey & Whitney (47%), Kilpatrick Stockton (44%), Seyfarth Shaw (44%), Crowell & Moring (43%), Jackson Lewis (43%), Cooley Godward (43%), Perkins Coie (42%), Arnold & Porter (40%), and WilmerHale (40%).Notable achievement: the following firms have promoted new partner classes that were 40% or more female for the past three years: Arnold & Porter, Crowell & Moring, Perkins Coie, and Sullivan and Cromwell.

What, one wonders, separates “the best” firms from those whose survey data is disheartening? The firms included “in the best” appear to have a culture of advancing women, says Calvert. “We have not noticed that any particular practice area or region advance women better than others,” she explains, “instead, these firms have a culture of advancement rather than policies that are merely window-dressing.”Calvert also explains that firms recognized for advancement of women tend to have several characteristics. First, they tend to support flexible work programs, in a non-stigmatized way. “They understand the importance of supporting such arrangements for both men and women,” Calvert explains “and do so without the stigma we find in other firms, which do not promote women at the same rates.” At many firms, Calvert shares, working reduced hours is a “professional kiss of death, and individuals – whether women or men – who need shorter hours choose to leave rather than sabotage their careers.” The trick for successful flexible work programs, she continues, is an understanding that just offering flexible work arrangements is not enough. “The programs have to be carefully implemented,” Calvert concludes, “so the firm’s nonverbal messages do not undercut their usage.

”The progressive firms also appreciate the importance of offering women challenging and rewarding assignments. Those firms that pay attention to who handles the biggest and most important cases and make sure that women are part of the action in an equitable manner,” Calvert explains, “tend to find women advancing at higher rates.”

Finally, firms with encouraging advancement rates recognize through action — rather than mere window-dressing — that substantive and active mentorship is vital for women. “Some of the best firms have women attorneys actively mentoring women associates,” Calvert shares, “some actually have male mentors who watch their women associates advance.”The bottom line is that all firms, whether they are “the best” or “the worst,” have a chance to improve the advancement of their women associates.

In light of how profitable companies become when women are in leadership roles, it is hard to imagine that any law firm would be satisfied with anything other than gender balanced partnership classes. The good news is that such a reality is possible and “the best” can prove it.