My examination of individual female career trajectories reveals extensive disillusionment, especially among older women.

One salaried partner in a commercial firm said: 'My generation came in thinking they could do anything and that all the options were open to them.

A lot of women are now finding that it is too much because the structure of working very long hours, which one accepted at 28, was OK until one had to try to match it up with something very different...now a lot of us are in our 30s and see a different reality.'In my research, questionnaires were sent to all managing or senior partners of firms and all women fee-earners in Leeds, Keighley, Skipton and Settle in 1990.

The response rate was about 75% for women and about 60% for employers.

All women who were out of practice but who could be contacted in these areas were also surveyed.

In 1994 half the respondents were sent a further questionnaire.Only 12.5% of the women surveyed had favourable comments about the current position of women in the profession, 20% combined positive and negative observations whilst 67.5% expressed a wholly negative view.The individual career destinies of privileged and often childless women who had made it to the top were overshadowed by the returners whose prospects narrowed drastically, especially if they worked part-time.

One woman described this type of work as being absolutely at the bottom of the heap.Women with children were generally believed by their employers to lack commitment, which emerged as the identifying characteristic of professionalism for most employers.

However, a large majority of the female respondents said they no longer accepted many aspects of mainstream professional culture as gender neutral or unchangeable.

In particular, working long hours, and the six to eight-year partnership qualifying period were both seen as discriminatory.Many women felt their behaviour was often regarded as inappropriate.

If they were feminine they were 'too conciliatory'.

If they were masculine they were 'too aggressive'.Practice development was the subject of particular concern because of the after-work hours it could consume, and the blatantly sexist nature of many of the activities involved.

These included boxing dinners and drinks with the Rota ry Club.

One woman was officially excluded from a practice development event because the after- dinner speaker was 'too blue'.The survey revealed a great divergence between women and their employers on what constitutes the essential components of professionalism.

Employers argued that current ways of working resulted from client requirements, and that alternative working patterns, such as job sharing, would mean that clients would fall between two courses.

Women pointed out that no one person could be at a clients' beck and call all the time, and there was in any event an increasing trend toward team work on cases.

They also argued that consistency in staffing should be seen as a greater benefit than absolute continuity of particular jobs.

'I saw almost 200% turnaround in staff, that can't be good for business,' said one respondent.I conclude that the fact that by l994 there were several examples of unorthodox working patterns significantly undermines the argument that women's position is due to their choices and non-conformity rather than to professional inflexibility.TERRY CARTERF LOOKS AT WOMEN LAWYERS IN THE USA, WHERE MENTORING IS A KEY FACTOR IN ADVANCEMENTRECENT studies of the status of women in the US legal profession have shown that despite women comprising 45% of law students and having parity in numbers as associates joining large law firms, male predominance persists when it comes to equity partnerships and top decision-making positions.

When it comes to partnership only 5% of the women make the grade, compared to 17% of the men.

Not all of this can be attributed to lifestyle choices such as child rearing.These statistics come from a recent study of eight large New York firms by sociologist Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, who was commissioned by the committee on women in the legal profession of the City Bar of New York.

Ms Epstein also found that when the economy slowed in 1990, after a decade of growth in law firms, women's issues were moved to the back burner and the fall-out from tighter economic times affected women disproportionately through diminished career advancement and opportunities.Ms Epstein also found significant differences between older and younger female lawyers.

The older women believe the younger ones expect too much from law firms in accommodating their desire to begin families, and the younger women believe their elders are willing to sacrifice too much for their careers.Earlier this year a study by the American Bar Association's commission on women in the profession published a study entitled, 'Unfinished business: overcoming the Sisyphus factor'.

In its study the commission insisted that the accomplishments of a number of women in high positions in the ABA should not stop vigorous efforts to ensure future women leaders are continuously brought into the pipeline.

The study also reported that while women comprise 45% of law students and 23% of all lawyers, only 13% of law firm partners are women, 10 to 12% are judges, 19% are tenured law faculty and 8% are law school deans.In the hope of changing these percentages, the ABA woman's commission is to publish a pamphlet of techniques for gender-neutral evaluation in law firms, law schools, government and elsewhere.Of course, there are exceptions to the negative statistics.

Martha Barnett of Florida firm Holland & Knight is a department head and a member of the firm's management board.

She holds the second most powerful position in the ABA.

Ms Barnett attributes her success partly to the fact that when she was recently qualified one of the founding partners of her firm took the trouble to introduce her in person to the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

'It had an enormous impact on my career to have the founding partner take an interest in me and my career,' she says.The key to breaking the glass ceiling lies mostly in the mentoring which women receive as young lawyers.

The chairman of the ABA's commission on women in the profession, Laurel Bellows, says: 'While big law firms are interested in equal training, they have not recognised the significance of subconscious bias or personal choices when selecting who gets a file.'MICHAEL SIMMONS ARGUES THAT THE GREAT DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SEXES IS STILL EVIDENT IN THE LEGAL PROFESSIONWomen have come late to the law and in increasing numbers.

Women recruits now outnumber men, but many feel that they have to run harder to stand still.

In the short-term, this makes women a better investment.

Women candidates for trainee places present themselves in a far superior way.

On average, they display a greater level of maturity.In the short term there is little doubt that women trainees are a better investment than the men.

Many male candidates feel complacent about their chances of future partnership.

Women trainees seem to have tried to cram six years' experience into the compulsory two years, while men, conversely, seem to be slow developers.

Some firms are so impressed by the calibre of women trainees that, once qualified, they put them on the fast track to partnership.

This is where disappointment sometimes sets in.A number of women, after trying too hard for too long, find themselves distracted or disillusioned.

Dillusionment is sometimes caused by the fact that a large proportion of our practice is commodity based, requiring perspiration rather than inspiration.

Solicitors can get by using a quarter of their brain-power, provided that they are methodical and do the hours.

Firms have only themselves to blame if their high-flying women do not want to pursue the partnership opportunities offered when they are little more than factory workers.The distraction factor is more sensitive.

Women lawyers can succumb to pressure to put their husbands' careers first or be forced to change jobs if their husbands relocate.Marriage, or any other sexual partnership, is supposed to equate with equality where the partners' careers are concerned.

Sadly, this is often not the case.

Many lawyers are marrying as proximity breeds opportunity.

Men do not like being second best in the marital or quasi-marital context.

A subtle campaign of denigration could persuade the female lawyer to abandon or modify her ambitions.

Relocation will also always be a problem.

Despite the moves towards equality the husband is often posted abroad or to another city to further his career and the wife resigns from hers to follow him.When this happens the partners who have invested in the wife feel cheated and disappointed.

A number of firms feel so let down, they do not wish to repeat the experiment with another woman.

The doors are closed, the glass ceiling is lowered and opportunities for future generations of women, at least in the short-term, are diminished.Every female lawyer is still an ambassadress for her sex.

Many will complain that men, similarly, ought to be looked upon as ambassadors.

Unfortunately, this cannot be the case while the majority of partnerships is held by men.

When equality in terms of both numbers and seniority is reached at partnership level the distinction will finally evaporate.However, at present the great divide still exists.

In many cas es women are a better investment for law firms than men both in the short and long term.

However, the disappointment factor among women must not be overlooked.THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR A WOMAN'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE LAW SOCIETY'S COUNCIL, SAYS ALISON PARKINSONThere are only 65 women MPs in Parliament, out of a total of 650.

And there are only ten women on the Law Society Council, out of 75 Council members.

Women appear to be doing better in the Law Society than in Parliament.

However, all seats on the Council are not elected.

There are 15 seats for non-constituency members and the brief of the Council membership committee is that the non-constituency seats should be used to ensure that the Council is representative of the profession as a whole.The Council membership committee has consistently resisted the calls for a seat on the Council to be set aside to represent the views of women solicitors.

However, such a seat is necessary to represent the 32% of female solicitors holding practising certificates.The women who have made it on to the Law Society Council are exceptional women.

They have all risen by election in their local constituencies or been nominated for their special interest areas.

However, they do not represent the average women solicitor attempting to make her way through practice in the high street.

Most of these women feel they could not find the time to keep up practice, serve a constituency and fulfil the role of a Council member.The Council badly needs a voice to speak out on the issues.

For many young solicitors, both male and female, flexible working patterns are a central issue.

They believe these can benefit everyone and bring the profession closer to the public it serves.Legal work in particular can be done anywhere, with the use of new technology.

However, the Council does not want to hear about this, preferring to maintain those offices and the familiar hierarchy they bring with them.

Yet the practitioner who can function without expensive overheads is not a threat but an opportunity which the Council may wish to hear about.Hilary Sommerlad is an associate senior lecturer at Leeds Metropolitan UniversityTerry Carter is a US journalist.

He is liaison to the ABA for the West Publishing CorporationMichael Simmons is a partner in Finers and a consultant on professional practice problems.Alison Parkinsond is the chairman of the Association of Women Solicitors.