Dear Sisters:

Please enlighten me: Why do smart, accomplished women like you choose to work in a firm where information about compensation is guarded like the nuclear code?

I'm mainly talking to you, women of Jones Day. (As y'all know, the firm got sued for gender discrimination by former partner Wendy Moore, who alleges that the firm's closed compensation system favors men. She notes in her complaint that she was paid about the same amount—$810,000—as a sixth-year male associate.) But I also want to talk to the rest of you who toil at those firms that still maintain closed compensation systems, such as Greenberg Traurig and Ropes & Gray.

I know, some of you want me to buzz off. You say that you're fine and, indeed, happier at a firm where no one talks about money. You say you don't want to get all worked up about some colleague who might be bagging $5,000 or $10,000 more. You say that law is a profession, not some kind of monetary pursuit and that the black box reinforces those values.

Good for you.

But, tell me, are you not at all curious what that not-very-smart-nor-hardworking brownnoser is making? And are you truly convinced that the gods on the compensation committee are always fair and wise?

And to the ladies at Jones Day, let me ask this: How did you feel when you learned that a sixth-year associate made $810,000, a sum that only got revealed because he joined the Trump administration and had to file a financial disclosure form? Be honest now, weren't you at least a bit shocked?

Closed compensation systems are based on the premise that “what you don't know won't hurt you,” says Kerrie Campbell, who settled her lawsuit for gender discrimination against Chadbourne & Parke (now Norton Rose Fulbright) a few months ago. “How paternalistic is that mindset?” Campbell says. “In fact, the black box prevents accountability and facilitates unchecked, unfair and unacceptable gender pay disparities.”

Of course, the black box has its defenders. One is William Henderson, a professor at the University of Indiana Maurer School of Law and an expert on the legal profession. He was a summer associate at Jones Day and he says he generally admires its system. “Their model is coherent,” Henderson says, adding that Jones Day is serious about promoting collegiality. Not only is the subject of compensation verboten at the firm (“I was told that a partner can be fired for talking about compensation to another partner”), he explains, “Jones Day does not track origination credit.”

Henderson admits, however, that he might have a white, male perspective on the issue. “I told my class that I liked the black box, and one woman said to me, 'Of course you do. You're a man.'”

Well, that sums it up right there: Many men think the system works just fine, so why change it?

The problem with the black box system is that it “does not have the community controls [of an open system],” says a male Am Law 100 partner who worked at Ropes & Gray, a closed system firm. “Presumably, people believe it is based on trust and a fair presentation of the data.” But who's presenting the “softer” data? he asks. The problem, he adds, is that there is always lingering suspicion that the decision makers will be more swayed by their buddies.

But do women thrive more in a transparent system? “I've worked at firms with closed compensation and open compensation systems,” says Jennifer Selendy, a founding partner of Selendy & Gay, who was also a former partner at Quinn Emanuel and at Kirkland & Ellis. (Selendy says neither Kirkland nor Quinn offers “transparent criteria” about compensation, though neither comes close to the closed system of Jones Day.) “In my experience, women are screwed either way.”

Yes, women are probably cheated no matter what. But wouldn't you want to know by how much?

Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.