How Top U.S. Law Firms Get Away with Paying Women Less

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-05/how-america-s-top-law-firms-get-away-with-paying-women-less

by petethomas • 9 years ago

44 63 9 years ago

A 2016 survey of the 350 largest U.S. law firms found female partners on average received $659,000 in annual pay. Male partners, meanwhile, averaged $949,000, or 44 percent more.
“Studies find that male lawyers are two to five times more likely to become partner than female lawyers,” [Professor Deborah] Rhode [director of Stanford Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession] says. “I think a lot of women lawyers are fed up.”

For almost 20 years, around half of law school graduates have been women.[0] At least in IT, part of the problem (certainly not the whole thing) is that there are few women in the pipeline. What excuse does the legal industry have?

The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population.

[0] http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us

rayiner2• 9 years ago

Lawyers have a long shelf life. Peak-career partners probably started law school more like 30 years ago. The number of women in new partner cohorts is over 1/3 (similar for new Fortune 500 general counsel).

In my view, you’ve got the causation backwards. Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces.

Of course, challenges remain, as shown in this article.

forapurpose8• 9 years ago

The link in the GP says that 120 of Fortune 500 general counsels - not the equivalents of partners but of the heads of firms - are women, which I'm guessing is a far higher proportion than their major law firm equivalents. I always assumed that was because there is less discrimination in the Fortune 500 general counsel offices. I know a woman who is an attorney in a U.S. federal court; a large majority of her co-workers are women; is that because they face less discrimination than in firms?

(Note that on HN we often have to speculate about the experiences of women; there are so few here who can talk about it. I expect to find male attorneys on this thread, but I would be happily surprised if a female attorney appeared to share an on-the-ground perspective with us.)

It reminds me of Justice Ginsburg (obviously from a different era) who said she was a judge mostly because, despite her elite law school credentials and talent, she couldn't get a desirable job in a law firm.

EDIT:

Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces.

That culture isn't working well (as you said, 'challenges remain'). Per the link in the GP, over 80% of equity partners are male.

But I agree, it's still nothing like tech.

rndgermandude3• 9 years ago

White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population, 43.14% of the employed work force. 88.6% of lawyers are white.

2014, US, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/...

forapurpose8• 9 years ago

I'm not sure how that data changes my points in the GP.

White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population

That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely.

White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force

I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty.

88.6% of lawyers are white

Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem.

Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking:

white men represented about 74% of all partners
over 80% of equity partners are male

gozur883• 9 years ago

The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population.

You just brought up the fact that there are few women in the pipeline for IT, and in the very next paragraph you're glossing over the possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms.

Furthermore, how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? You can't put in 70+ hours a week with young children unless you're not spending any time with them. And once you're off the partner track, it's a herculean effort to get back on for a lawyer of either sex.

forapurpose8• 9 years ago

possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms
how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families?

There are infinite possibilities. We need a factual basis to distinguish which ones are worthy of consideration.

oculusthrift• 9 years ago

law firms are desperate to retain women but they value work life balance and having children too much

rayiner2• 9 years ago

The article omits a key point. Compensation at Chadbourne was based on a point allocation, which was supposed to be tied to revenue generation. Campbell alleges that she was awarded less compensation points despite being a top revenue generator at the firm. Moreover, she was compared unfavorably with men who brought in less revenue than her but were, essentially, better at playing up their potential to being in revenue in the future.

forapurpose8• 9 years ago

I have a little familiarity with such systems. Revenue generation is defined not only as the revenue the individual lawyer collects from their clients, which is relatively straightforward to calculate, but more significantly as the business the lawyer generates for the firm - by being a 'rainmaker'. Calculating who gets how much credit for a new client is much harder, and much more prone to biases both unconscious and intentional.

A lawyer, like an IT professional, has only 2000 hours per year to bill; you can't increase that number more than marginally. But you can generate far more billable hours for your firm by bringing in new business; a large corporate client could keep many lawyers busy for their entire careers. I know of lawyers who were poor at practicing law but they were highly paid partners and it was well-earned: They brought in far more than 2000 hours for their firm.

itsdrewmiller3• 9 years ago

Isn't this usually still quantified and shared though? I doubt her 2 million in revenue from the article is just what she personally billed.

arca_vorago• 9 years ago

I know multiple paralegals who are some of the best in the field. Fuck the female partners, I want more outrage about the suppression of the wages of the people doing 3/4ths the work but getting 1/10 the pay. For example, I found out firms were calling other firms to artificially keep paralegal salaries low.

heartbreak4• 9 years ago

If your example is true, the subject paralegals know exactly why they have standing to sue.

Law firms tend to avoid breaking the law pretty well, though.

arkis22• 9 years ago

This assuming that "standing to sue" is equal to justice, which it isn't

fern12• 9 years ago

In addition, many BigLaw firms also undercut their staff on benefits: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/04/biglaw-firms-offer-second-cla...

I want more outrage about the suppression of the wages of the people doing 3/4ths the work but getting 1/10 the pay.

Amen to that. Thank you.

tuna-piano2• 9 years ago

The article doesn't answer the question they pose. If the Women could get paid more at a different firm, presumably they would switch. Presumably, if a $300k Woman provides as much value as a $1M man, a different greedy firm will offer a price between $300k and $1M, and pocket the savings.

Are they suggesting there is collusion between firms to drive Womens salaries down?

If the women do as good of a job at 1/3 the price, why don't they setup a cut-rate shop that does the work for 2/3 the price, doubling their compensation and providing customers a discount?

delazeur3• 9 years ago

There's a lot more to sexism (and other bigotry) than simple economics.

Presumably, we have all had coworkers who weren't great workers, weren't very bright, etc., but managed to get ahead by schmoozing and playing politics. Their brighter and harder-working colleagues who didn't play that game didn't progress up the ladder as quickly. Bigotry presents a similar issue, but on an even larger scale.

skookumchuck5• 9 years ago

Women lawyers can get together and start their own law firms. The same goes for any lawyer who is convinced he/she is unfairly underpaid.

jon_richards• 9 years ago

A recent study showed that people stick to their biases even if it costs them monetarily (don't have a link right now). You don't need collusion when there is widespread bias.

tomp• 9 years ago

Was the study experimental and awarded participants millions of dollars for acting rationally (i.e. against their biases)?

Buldak• 9 years ago

I don't have a strong view about the particular case of women attorneys, but this argument that discrimination can't be real because the free market would stamp it out is tired and obviously wrong. Do people who forward this line of thought believe that job discrimination (against women, racial minorities etc.) never existed anywhere?

matt40772• 9 years ago

This comment makes a good argument, yet it is downvoted without any explanations–as is the similar argument by delazeur.

Here's the famous "blind orchestra audition" study: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml. It showed that women are 50% (!) more likely to be hired when auditioning behind a curtain.

Surely this couldn't happen in reality, because some other orchestra would use the chance to hire all these highly qualified women, right?

dvt3• 9 years ago

Apart from the incendiariness, this is a garbage argument for a number reasons, the main culprit being the major assumption that money made has anything to do with value provided. I've dealt with this argument before on HN a few times, and the easiest counter-argument is a bank robber: someone that walks away with thousands and provides negative value.

More examples: the bankers of the 2008 crash, Marissa Mayer, just about anyone that got their job due to nepotism.

subroutine3• 9 years ago

While there may be very good counter arguments, I dont buy your bank robber argument. If I were putting together an ocean's 11 team, I would try to attract better bank robbers by offering them a greater cut. Sure this is negative value for the bank, but positive value to me and my team.

itsdrewmiller3• 9 years ago

From the article she switched to the firm specifically with the understanding that her compensation would be much higher, and then they ended up reneging on the agreement as she understood it.

tudorconstantin• 9 years ago

If for the same amount and quality of work the law firms has to pay 40% more for men, shouldn't they hire women exclusively?

tuna-piano2• 9 years ago

Or why don't the women band together and setup their own firm? They can charge 20% less and still earn double.

Discrimination exists, but markets are usually pretty good at squeezing it out and punishing it.

evgen• 9 years ago

The entirety of human history puts lie to this false assertion, and the continued necessity of laws to prohibit such behavior shows that nothing has changed. The market is more than willing to put up with a gross inefficiency if it reinforces the dominant narrative and market participants have shown themselves ready to collectively make less if it means that members of disfavored groups make much, much less.

boomboomsubban• 9 years ago

If discrimination exists in firms hiring policies, it also likely exists with clients hiring policies.

fgjjgutjvnu• 9 years ago

From the article: “It took me a lot longer than it’s supposed to to reach equity partner,” Campbell says. “Part of that was due to choices I made, putting a priority on raising my kids, for a lot of years as a single mom.”

So the usual fuss about nothing, looking at meaningless income averages, neglecting the individual choices and circumstances that actually explain things.

synicalx3• 9 years ago

So from this story, we now know that:

1. A woman at a law firm earned less points for reasons and thus got paid less.

2. The firm claims this was commensurate with her performance.

3. She says it was not.

4. Other women at the same firm disagreed with her.

5. Therefore all female partners at all law firms in the US are being paid less? Or is the title of this article just click-bait?

Also in this case, lets not forget she has had six kids. Regardless of how PC you want to be you cannot possibly argue that this HASN'T had at least SOME practical impact to her career and ability to perform her in her role. To be fair, it's probably had a similar impact on her husband as well - kids take up a lot of your thoughts and time it's totally normal.

matt40772• 9 years ago

Also in this case, lets not forget she has had six kids

Elon Musk has six kids. What's your point?

jfnixon• 9 years ago

Musk has 5 kids and 2 ex-wives. How many ex-husbands does our lawyer have, and how many of her ex-husbands themselves have an 8 figure net worth from the divorce?

synicalx3• 9 years ago

He's also been divorced twice, what's your point?

mpweiher• 9 years ago

"...Two retired women partners at the firm have joined her lawsuit, but a larger number of current women partners have actually condemned it."

So it's not "law firms vs. women", more women actually support the law firm in this case. Of course that's not proof of anything, but it does suggest it could simply be a normal case of people disagreeing about compensation. In these sorts of cases, you tend to go for any "weapon" you can, and "discrimination" is a pretty powerful one, even if there's nothing to it.

Of course the stats don't look good, but we all should know that correlation ≠ causation. Jordan Peterson, who apparently works with law firms, gives a very different reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q

TL;DW: Law firms try their darnedest to keep women, but most women just aren't as mono-maniacal as the few men who make it to the very top.

How Top U.S. Law Firms Get Away with Paying Women Less

Related Stories