The legal fraternity has always been a mirror of society reflecting its hierarchies, its progress, its contradictions, and its capacity for reform. As I write this as the CEO of ADRODR India, I do so not merely from a position of leadership, but from lived experience: as a professional woman navigating law, governance, dispute resolution, entrepreneurship, and the deeply human responsibility of balancing ambition with family. Alongside me in this journey has been Amit Sibal, my partner in life, and our three children, who are both my grounding force and my daily reminder of why the future of the legal profession must look different from its past.

The journey of women in the legal fraternity has been long, uneven, and often unfair but undeniably transformative. It is a journey marked by resilience rather than ease, by negotiation rather than entitlement, and by quiet endurance more than public celebration. And yet, change is happening slowly, deliberately, and sometimes stubbornly.

The legal profession has long been regarded as a bastion of rationality, objectivity, and procedural fairness. Yet, paradoxically, its internal structures have historically replicated social hierarchies rather than dismantled them. Among the most enduring of these hierarchies is gender. While women have entered the legal fraternity in increasing numbers over the past few decades, their representation diminishes sharply as one ascends the professional hierarchy. This phenomenon is neither coincidental nor individual. It is structural Professional journeys do not occur in isolation. Family structures, caregiving responsibilities, and partner support play a material role in shaping career trajectories. These dimensions, though often excluded from academic legal discourse, are essential to any honest assessment of gender equity in law.

1. The Historical Backdrop: Entry Without Equality

Traditionally, the legal profession was never designed with women in mind. For much of legal history, law was designed, practiced, and institutionalised by men. Courtroom etiquette, professional timelines, apprenticeship models, and expectations of availability were premised on male life patterns. When women entered the profession, they did so on terms not of their own making. Early inclusion did not equate to equality. Instead, women were required to assimilate into existing structures without corresponding structural adaptation. Courts, chambers, and conference rooms were historically male domains structured around male career trajectories, male networks, and male assumptions about availability, authority, and ambition.

Women entered law later than most other professions, and when they did, it was often through the narrowest of doors:

• As junior advocates without briefs

• As associates without clients

• As academics rather than litigators

• As support roles rather than decision-makers

The early women lawyers were expected to adapt rather than reshape the system. They wore the robe, learned the language, and followed rules that were never written for their realities.

Even today, while law schools report near gender parity in admissions, the drop off curve is unmistakable:

• Fewer women at senior associate levels

• Fewer women as equity partners

• Fewer women designated as Senior Advocates

• Fewer women as arbitral tribunal members

• Even fewer women leading institutions

The issue, therefore, is not access but retention and progression.

2. The Invisible Barriers: Bias That Doesn’t Announce Itself

The most persistent challenges women face in the legal fraternity are not always overt. In fact, the most damaging roadblocks are often polite, procedural, and quietly exclusionary.

A. Credibility Bias

A woman lawyer often has to prove competence repeatedly, while her male counterpart is presumed competent until proven otherwise.

• She is “well-prepared” where he is “brilliant”

• She is “articulate” where he is “strategic”

• She is “emotional” where he is “passionate”

In dispute resolution particularly arbitration and mediation this bias becomes sharper. Authority in these spaces is often unconsciously equated with age, masculinity, and assertiveness. A woman neutral may be scrutinised more closely, challenged more frequently, and trusted more slowly.

In adversarial settings, assertiveness by women is frequently mischaracterised as aggressiveness, while restraint is interpreted as weakness. This double bind forces women to constantly calibrate professional behaviour in ways that men are rarely required to do.

In ADR, where neutrality and authority are central, these biases persist through appointment patterns. Institutions and parties often default to familiar, traditionally male arbitrators and mediators, citing “experience” while overlooking equally qualified women professionals.

B. Networking as a Closed Club

Legal careers are not built on merit alone. They are built on:

• Who briefs you

• Who recommends you

• Who remembers your name

Much of this networking happens in informal spaces like late dinners, social clubs, extended conferences, and unspoken old-boy circuits. Women, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities, are often excluded not by intent, but by design.

I have personally experienced how invitations arrive with unspoken assumptions:

“You may not be able to attend.”

“It might be too late.”

“Perhaps next time.”

Opportunity lost is rarely acknowledged as discrimination, but its impact is cumulative.

3. Motherhood and the Myth of the “Interrupted Career”

Perhaps the most underexamined roadblock in legal careers is the structural penalty imposed on caregiving, particularly motherhood. Legal institutions continue to treat caregiving as a deviation from professional seriousness rather than a dimension of professional life.

Career interruptions whether due to childbirth, childcare, or elder care are viewed as gaps in commitment rather than periods of unpaid labour that sustain society itself. This perception has tangible consequences:

• Reduced briefing opportunities

• Slower promotion timelines

• Assumptions of diminished availability

Yet, caregiving responsibilities cultivate competencies directly relevant to legal practice, including negotiation, crisis management, emotional regulation, and prioritisation.

Let me be candid: having three children while leading ADRODR India, engaging in legal strategy, ADR processes, and institutional leadership has been the most demanding negotiation of my life and I say this as someone trained in negotiation.

Motherhood is still seen as:

• A break in seriousness

• A disruption of continuity

• A risk to availability

What is rarely acknowledged is that motherhood builds:

• Emotional intelligence

• Crisis management skills

• Time discipline

• Negotiation under pressure

I often joke only half in jest that after managing three children and a board meeting in the same day, most commercial disputes seem refreshingly logical.

Amit’s role here matters. Progress for women in law is impossible without supportive partners who see careers as shared enterprises rather than competing ones. True equality is not achieved in courtrooms alone, it is negotiated at home, every single day. Gender equity in law cannot be achieved without parallel shifts in domestic responsibility norms.

My dear friend Dipika Sawhney, Executive Director for SMB Advertising at Google EMEA, once shared with me that when she had two children early in her career and returned to Cambridge University to pursue her MBA, she was often not only the only woman in the room, but the only one with two young children. In contrast, she spoke about her own experience of taking a three year career break to raise her children, and how challenging it was to re-enter the workforce thereafter particularly having to explain the gap and compete with candidates who had remained closely connected to the market. Yet today, she stands as a beacon of light at Google as proof that resilience and perseverance can redefine any career narrative.

4. The Litigation Trap: Hours, Hierarchies, and Hostility

Traditional litigation remains one of the most challenging spaces for women lawyers. It’s structural features include:

• Unpredictable hours

• Courtroom aggression mistaken for advocacy

• Seniority based gatekeeping where informal hierarchies are governed by male seniority rather than accountability

• Minimal institutional support resulting in limited grievance redressal mechanisms

Women litigators often face a cruel paradox:

• Be assertive, and be labelled difficult

• Be measured, and be seen as weak

Young women litigators often encounter environments where professional boundaries are poorly enforced and mentorship is inconsistent. The absence of institutional safeguards contributes significantly to early career exits as all this could potentially make litigation an especially hostile environment for young women.

It is no coincidence that many women migrate from litigation into:

• Corporate advisory

• Academia

• Policy

• Arbitration and mediation

Not because they lack litigation skills or diminished ambition but because they seek professional sustainability.

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Space of Promise, With Caveats

ADR has often been projected as a more inclusive, progressive alternative to traditional litigation and in many ways, it is.

Mediation, conciliation, and arbitration value:

• Listening over domination; dialogue

• Process over performance: efficiency

• Resolution over ego: problem-solving

These qualities align naturally with skills women lawyers are often socialised to develop. However, ADR is not immune to hierarchy.

Key challenges remain:

• Underrepresentation of women arbitrators

• Repeated appointment of the same “safe” names

• Resistance to first-time women appointments

• Lack of transparent appointment criteria

◌ Slower accumulation of “track record”

◌ Higher evidentiary thresholds for credibility

Institutional interventions are therefore essential. At ADRODR India, conscious efforts are made to expand panels, encourage diversity in appointments, and prioritise competence over convention. Such measures are not charitable they are necessary for institutional legitimacy. ADR, done right, can be a powerful equaliser but only if institutions commit to intentional inclusion.

6. Leadership: The Loneliest Tier

Women who attain leadership positions in the legal fraternity encounter a different set of challenges. Leadership does not insulate against bias; it reframes it.

Women leaders are often subjected to contradictory expectations:

• Decisive yet accommodating

• Authoritative yet non-threatening

• Visionary yet compliant

Errors are amplified, while success is frequently attributed to circumstance rather than capability. Leadership legitimacy for women remains provisional, requiring continuous reaffirmation.

Despite this, women leaders play a critical role in institutional reform. Their presence challenges normative assumptions and expands the range of acceptable leadership styles within the profession.

As CEO of ADRODR India, I have learned that leadership for women is not about imitation but about redefinition. One does not need to lead loudly to lead effectively. Institutional credibility is built through consistency, ethics, and outcomes, not theatrics.

7. The Emotional Labour No One Bills For

One of the unspoken burdens women carry in the legal fraternity is emotional labour:

• Mentoring juniors

• Mediating workplace conflicts

• Managing client anxieties

• Absorbing institutional stress

This labour is invisible, unpaid, and often expected. Yet, it is precisely this labour that keeps institutions functional.

Law firms, courts, and ADR bodies benefit enormously from women’s emotional intelligence while rarely acknowledging it as professional capital.

8. Intersectionality: Not All Women Experience Law the Same Way

It is imperative to recognize that women in law do not form a homogenous group. Intersectional factors such as caste, class, geography, and first-generation status compound professional challenges.

Women from marginalized backgrounds face layered barriers, including limited access to mentorship, financial constraints, and social exclusion. Gender reform efforts that ignore these dimensions risk reproducing inequality under the guise of inclusion.

It is important to state clearly: the challenges discussed here are not uniform.

Women from:

• Marginalized communities

• Smaller towns

• First-generation legal backgrounds

Face compounded barriers which are social, economic, and cultural. True reform must move beyond token representation and address access, mentorship, and institutional bias at every level.

9. The Role of Institutions: Reform Over Rhetoric

Real change in the legal fraternity will not come from inspirational speeches alone. Meaningful change requires institutional commitment rather than individual resilience.

Reform must include:

• Transparent briefing and appointment systems

• Flexible work policies without stigma and without career penalties

• Childcare and caregiving acknowledgment

• Clear anti-harassment and robust grievance redressal mechanisms

• Gender-sensitive leadership training with formal mentorship and sponsorship programs

Institutions like ADRODR India have a responsibility not just to reflect change but to engineer it. Institutions engaged in dispute resolution, legal services, and professional governance bear a heightened responsibility to lead such reform.

10. Looking Forward: The Legacy We Owe the Next Generation

When I look at my children, I think not just as a parent but as a legal professional responsible for shaping the ecosystem they will inherit.

The future legal fraternity must ensure that:

• Women do not have to choose between excellence and equity

• Leadership is not gender coded

• Success is not defined by endurance alone

Progress does not mean abandoning tradition it means refining it. The law has always evolved through interpretation, adaptation, and courage. The journey of women in law is no different.

11. Conclusion: Still Standing, Still Shaping

The journey of women in the legal fraternity is neither linear nor complete. It is characterised by progress coexisting with resistance, inclusion tempered by exclusion, and opportunity constrained by structure. It is a series of negotiations, compromises, breakthroughs, and recalibrations. It demands resilience, but it also deserves reform.

Women do not seek accommodation; they seek equity. The legal profession, if it is to retain credibility as a system of justice, must confront its internal contradictions.

As a woman, a lawyer, a leader, a partner to Amit, and a mother of three, I can say this with conviction:

‘Women do not need the legal profession to make space for them. The profession needs women to survive with integrity.’

I remain convinced that reform is not only possible but necessary. The legitimacy of the legal fraternity depends not on its traditions alone, but om its capacity to evolve without compromising principle. The question is no longer whether women belong in law. The question is whether the law can afford to remain unchanged without them.

And perhaps the most traditional legal truth of all applies here:

Justice delayed is justice denied.

The time for systemic change is not tomorrow. It is now.

References

1. Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Harvard Univ. Press 1989).

2. Bar Council of India, Legal Education Statistics (2019).

3. Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873).

4. Hilary Sommerlad, The Gendering of the Legal Profession, 4 Legal Ethics 63 (2001).

5. Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy Training, Women in the Indian Legal Profession (2018).

6. Law Commission of India, Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Report, 246th Report.

7. Linda Babcock & Sara Laschever, Women Don’t Ask (Princeton Univ. Press 2003).

8. Virginia Valian, Why So Slow? (MIT Press 1999).

9. Lucy Greenwood & C. Baker, Gender Diversity in International Arbitration, 35 Arb. Int’l 221 (2019).

10. Indira Jaising, Women and the Indian Bar, EPW (2014).

11. International Bar Association, Us Too? Bullying and Harassment in the Legal Profession (2019).

12. Joan Williams, Unbending Gender (Oxford Univ. Press 2000).

13. Shelley Correll et al., Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?, 112 Am. J. Soc. 1297 (2007).

14. Deborah Kolb & Judith Williams, Everyday Negotiation (Harvard Business School Press 2003).

15. OECD, Balancing Paid Work, Unpaid Work and Leisure (2014).

16. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Whose Dispute Is It Anyway?, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 789 (2007).

17. ICCA, Report of the Cross-Institutional Task Force on Gender Diversity in Arbitration (2020).

18. Rachael Mulheron, Women in Arbitration, 26 Arb. Int’l 463 (2010).

19. Equal Representation in Arbitration (ERA) Pledge, Annual Report (2022).

20. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books 1977).

21. Alice Eagly & Linda Carli, Through the Labyrinth (Harvard Business Press 2007).

22. Deborah Rhode, Women and Leadership, 65 Hastings L.J. 159 (2013).

23. Arlie Hochschild, The Managed Heart (Univ. of California Press 1983).

24. Joan Williams & Rachel Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work (NYU Press 2014).

25. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 1241 (1991).

26. Nivedita Menon, Seeing Like a Feminist (Zubaan 2012).

27. UN Women, Gender Equality in the Justice Sector (2018)

*Chief Executive Officer, ADRODR India