INTRODUCTION: In 1995, Harvard Law students Suzanne Nossel and Elizabeth Westfall designed a project aimed at discovering what it was like to be a woman at the top law firms in the United States. Gathering funds from Harvard faculty members and alumni, they mailed out the first Presumed Equal survey to women at 57 law firms across the country. Over 600 female attorneys responded to the survey and Suzanne and Elizabeth compiled the responses into the first edition of Presumed Equal, which sold over 1,000 copies. The interest generated by law firms and survey participants, as well as media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and National Public Radio, led to the publication of the second edition of Presumed Equal in 1998. The second edition surveyed 77 law firms and garnered nearly 1,225 responses. The impact of the first two editions of Presumed Equal was nothing short of revolutionary. Not only did the Presumed Equal project call attention to general trends in disparate treatment that many women experienced at their various law firms, but also it highlighted specific weaknesses that plagued particular firms. Many law firms used Presumed Equal as a source to learn about their own deficiencies and also turned to the book as a guide as to how to remedy them. A number of firms responded by instituting Women’s Initiatives or Diversity Committees focused on recruitment, retention, and promotion of female attorneys. The book also rapidly became an invaluable resource for law students seeking candid observations about a particular firm’s culture and advice about how to succeed in the profession. Women were able to harvest information and insights that they might not receive from probing interviewers or poring over promotional materials. The book facilitated an honest discourse between women attorneys and attorneys-to- be, allowing the former to counsel the latter on which firm environments would be conducive to achieving their personal goals, whether it be making partner, finding a mentor, or balancing firm life with outside endeavors. No one had ever compiled such frank, firsthand accounts on such a wide array of top law firms. We aspire to build upon the successes of the previous editions by striving to provide open, honest information about women’s experiences at top law firms. We mined nearly 4,000 responses from over 150 offices, using the responses both to distill some general professional trends as well as to disseminate stories that capture personal experiences. We have allowed our respondents to speak in their own words, choosing excerpts that poignantly express the sentiments of a significant number of responses. Most often, our respondents were not unanimous in their assessments of a firm. Rather than attempt to impose a uniform gloss, we have highlighted the differences in views and presented thoughts from each perspective. We summarize or edit responses only when necessary to protect a respondent’s identity. In this neutral, anonymous environment, our respondents were able to offer sincere praise and level specific criticisms in a way that they are not at liberty to do during an initial interview or callback visit. By providing a forum for this commentary, we hope to assist employment candidates in obtaining thoughtful, candid information about their prospective employers that is unavailable anywhere else. An equally important goal for this third edition is to continue to facilitate a conversation between law students, practicing attorneys, and law firm leaders about issues that are important to women. We believe that projects like Presumed Equal can instigate positive change. Many women who responded to our survey previously participated in past editions of Presumed Equal. For these women in particular, the survey allowed them to contemplate the progresses and pitfalls of their particular firm’s diversity initiatives. It is gratifying for us to note that even prior to print, this project has already generated a substantial amount of personal reflection and interpersonal dialogue; hundreds of women have contacted us to offer personal stories, express their excitement about the project, or ask questions about methodology. Hopefully the book itself similarly serves as a source of enthusiasm and empowerment for our readers, sparking increased informed discussion of women’s issues. After all, most of the concerns that prompted Suzanne and Elizabeth to write Presumed Equal are just as relevant today as they were 10 years ago. As leaders of the Women’s Law Association and board members of the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, we often ask our members what kind of programming they would like these groups to offer. In addition to expressing interest in academic “tip” sessions and networking opportunities, members repeatedly ask for events focused on exploring ways women can ensure success in the law firm environment. They want to know if they will be treated on par with their male colleagues, receiving comparable assignments and mentorship opportunities. They want to know the feasibility of raising children while climbing the partnership ladder. They want to know whether working part-time, because of familial demands or the desire to pursue other interests, is a real option for those wishing to retain rewarding professional careers. While these are certainly not the only issues that concern female law students—nor are they issues that concern only female law students—there is a paucity of information available to those women especially interested in learning more about these aspects of life at a law firm. Unfortunately, even the most assertive law students may find themselves silenced in their inquiries on these gender-charged topics. Generally, we were told in school not to ask pointed questions at the initial screening interview, but to wait until we had a callback or offer for summer employment in hand. However, learning about such important information in the final stages of one’s job search process is less than ideal. Moreover, many women are not comfortable asking these questions at any stage as it can undermine the perceived goal of the interview process: getting a job. Interviewees try to present themselves as motivated, hardworking, enthusiastic potential employees interested in a long-term legal career. Asking questions about the availability of flexible work arrangements, maternity leave, and the impact of billable hours requirements on life outside the firm are thought to rebut assertions that one will be a highly-motivated, diligent, and enthusiastic employee. Many women fear being pigeonholed as temporary employees destined for maternity leave or the “mommy track” simply for voicing such an inquiry. Besides, at no stage in the process does law firm interviewing foster an open and honest environment where female law students can get answers to these tough questions about women’s advancement and retention, even if they should dare to ask. Interviewers may be hesitant to “out” any negative qualities about a firm during an interview, as the main goal at that stage of the process is recruitment. Partners in particular benefit from successfully recruiting a top student and may not want to discourage a promising candidate from entering the firm, even if the firm would not ideally suit the candidate’s needs. Additionally, the firm is likely to have applicants interview with satisfied members of the firm, who may genuinely have found the firm to be well-suited to their own needs, and thus might not be well-versed on the areas where the firm needs improvement. To reiterate, our primary goal in writing and publishing the third edition of Presumed Equal is to disseminate candid and accurate information about what it is like to be a woman at the top law firms in the United States. We believe our 4,000 respondents provide this unique insight. While the response to this endeavor has been overwhelmingly positive, it is worthwhile to note that some did criticize the underlying premise of the book. For example, a few respondents wondered why our survey focused solely on women, when work, family, and diversity concerns apply to both men and women. We agree with the premise of this critique. However, we also recognize that women still disproportionately perform most child-rearing and homemaking duties in our society, causing them to disproportionately feel the burdens of work-life balance issues. Moreover, we stress that despite the gendered focus, our findings should still be of value to men who struggle with work and family conflict, as well as the other issues addressed in the survey. Indeed, many of our male classmates have expressed as much interest in the findings as our female peers. Ultimately, the way a firm treats all of its employees says much about the quality of the firm, and we hope that this book proves useful to all students seeking to understand a particular firm. That said, other survey respondents resented our questions about work and family because they believed it minimized the reality that women (and men) without families also suffer intrusions on their personal lives. We do not intend to imply—nor do we personally believe—that women with families are the only ones who struggle with work-life balance dilemmas. Rather, we hope to provide those women who already have families, or those interested in having children while working, insight as to how various firms have responded to family needs. Additionally, women with interests unrelated to child-rearing should still find the information valuable because it necessarily reflects a firm’s response to outside demands on an attorney’s time and its general outlook on the challenge of retaining women in the legal profession. Nevertheless, at least one woman deemed gender in the workplace a non-issue, declaring that “as long as women continue to answer surveys and engage in activities because they are women and not solely because they are lawyers, disparity will continue.