{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0352760736196319, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005751533742331288, 'mean_word_length': 5.011520737327189, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: The birth of American law: An Italian philosopher and the American Revolution

about their legal careers. The modern group was also more likely to have expectations that were not met—disappointment with salary, dissatisfied with sexist conditions, and so on. Drawing on previous studies of lawyers’ satisfaction, Kitzerow tries to make sense of the concept of career satisfaction and the paradox of the contented woman lawyer. Kitzerow found three patterns in how her respondents dealt with ‘‘Balancing Work and Family’’ (Chapter 6). First, 23% of the women (more so in the pioneer group than the transition and modern groups) did not have children. Second, some respondents worked part-time or took off long periods of time to look after their children. Again integrating previous studies in her analysis, Kitzerow identifies some of the problems with part-time work—for example, the arrangement often ends up with women working full time for part-time pay. The third pattern was to use childcare (often live-in help) and to continuing working full time—in some cases trying to ‘‘work like a man.’’ Nevertheless, women who combined work and children often ended up strained, both physically and mentally. Chapter 7 examines the respondent’s thoughts on how gender impacted their decisions and career. The majority (62% of the pioneer group, 69% of the transition group, and 78% of the modern group) said they would have been treated differently if they were men. Most of them also believed that gender still matters in the legal profession. Although the 2011 focus group of law students thought that law schools were now more egalitarian, many anticipated problems with integrating family and work. In Chapter 8, ‘‘High Hopes, Mixed Outcomes,’’ Kitzerow examines the link between family and work and women’s progress or lack thereof in the legal profession. She examines other studies on why gender equality has stalled and become a ‘‘no-problem’’ despite data to the contrary. As solutions become available, new ideologies (e.g., hyper competitiveness and competitive stereotypes) arise. There is little doubt that one’s gender still plays a role in the legal profession. I would highly recommend this book for prelaw students, law students, lawyers, judges, policy makers, and legislators. It is filled with thoughtful comments from both Kitzerow and her respondents, and provides a well-crafted integration of the literature on women in the legal profession. Much of Kitzerow’s commentary is also relevant to other professions where women are still disadvantaged by a male-dominated culture.