Typically, women say, they ignore insults or sexist comments for fear of imperiling their careers or being labeled less than a team player.

“‘You either run with the nannies or you run with the wolves’ is the way one male partner at a San Francisco law firm described the choices to a pregnant associate,” said Ms. Ramey, who is also a former dean of the Golden Gate School of Law in San Francisco.

Ms. Ramey testified at a bar association public hearing in February in favor of the amendment, which would bar lawyers from harassing or discriminating “on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”

If the amendment is adopted, any punishment for such discrimination would be meted out by participating state bar associations and could range from fines to suspension from practicing law.

Opponents of the amendment argue that it could foster unfair punishments. Dozens of lawyers who filed a brief in opposition cited the cases of two Indiana lawyers who were disciplined under that state’s professional conduct rules, one for asking, without an ostensible reason, whether someone was gay, and another for describing himself with a racially derogatory term during a private telephone conversation with another lawyer’s secretary.

Like the Indiana bar association, those in 22 other states and the District of Columbia already have protections against harassment and discrimination by lawyers in the conduct of their profession.

The A.B.A.’s model rules, adopted in 1983 and meant for state bar associations to follow, contain guidance for enforcement. A number of women and minorities, however, say they are inadequate to combat bias, prejudice, harassment and discrimination.