New Survey Finds Even Bigger Gender Gap in Big Law Partner Pay
Male partners are earning 53 percent more than female partners in 2018, according to new data. Much of the difference can be attributed to men continuing to originate more business than women.
December 06, 2018 at 09:20 AM
5 minute read
Awareness of the gender pay gap among law firm partners may be rising, thanks in part to a number of high-profile lawsuits. But the pay gap itself?
It may be getting worse.
That's the lesson from a new partner compensation survey out Thursday from Major, Lindsey & Africa. The legal search firm found that male partners are earning $959,000, on average, at large U.S. firms, compared to $627,000 on average for female partners—a 53 percent difference.
In 2010, the first year the biennial survey was conducted, that gap was only 32 percent, and in subsequent years it has fallen between 44 and 48 percent.
Study author Jeffrey Lowe, global practice leader of Major, Lindsey & Africa's law firm practice, cautioned against drawing a stark conclusion that the trend is worsening, noting that the 1,400 to 2,000 partners who have responded in the five iterations of the survey are not fixed. (Survey respondents hail from Am Law 200 and similarly-sized firms across the United States.)
“There could be some response bias,” he said.
But the results do suggest that the problem is not going away, even after firms including Proskauer Rose, Jones Day and Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart have been sued over their imbalances in partner compensation.
The study pins much of the gap on originations. Male partners reported average originations of $2.788 million—a gain of 8 percent over 2016. That compares to $1.589 million for female partners—a decline of 8 percent from 2016.
A statistical analysis of the data, controlling for gender and originations, demonstrated that 75 percent of variation in compensation among partners can be explained by originations and hourly rate and that gender by itself did not have a statistically significant impact on compensation.
“There is definitely a sense, as the report has shown in the last four surveys, that originations tend to direct compensation at most, if not all, firms,” Lowe said. “And there's a feeling among women partners and partners of color that the ability to achieve these originations is more difficult for them.”
He pointed to the relative shortage of mentorship opportunities for members of these groups, as well as the relative absence of people like them to hand down lucrative client relationships.
Another potential explanation for part of the difference is the persistence of unconscious bias that may direct women towards less remunerative practices like labor and employment.
The 2018 study, which was conducted in partnership with legal market research specialist Acritas, for the first time included a focused set of questions on the gender pay gap. Asked whether a gender pay gap was present in their firms, 28 percent of the 1,261 responding partners said yes. Of these, men were far more likely to minimize the effect than women: Only 3 percent of women thought it was 10 percent or less, compared to 21 percent of men. Conversely, 35 percent of female partners believed the gap in pay exceeded 20 percent, compared to 13 percent of male partners.
The response among law firm management to the imbalance has been muted, according to the study, with only 23 percent of 1,248 partners saying their firm management has addressed the possibility of a gender pay gap. Of those respondents, 60 percent said the issue has been discussed in partnership meetings, 52 percent in working groups and 28 percent via internal memoranda.
Nonequity Partners vs. Equity Partners
The study also dug into the distinctions between equity and nonequity partners, with the former earning an average $1.136 million, an increase of 3 percent from 2016, and the latter averaging $371,000, an increase of 1 percent compared to 2016.
That gap dwarfs the difference in billing rates between the two groups: $775 an hour vs. $599 an hour.
It's a reflection of the greater emphasis that firms continue to place on rewarding individual business generators, Lowe said.
For the first time, the 2018 survey looked at the perceived obstacles that nonequity partners face to becoming equity partners. The majority felt generating more business was a barrier, with 64 percent identifying it as the chief obstacle to progression and 79 percent putting it in their top three.
And for nonequity partners who look conclude that the difference between what they bill and what they earn makes them undervalued, tough luck.
“Realistically, there aren't going to be many places that aren't going to be concerned about originations,” Lowe said. “That's just where the industry has gone overall.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Eckert Seamans Snags Reed Smith Global Financial Intelligence Director
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250