Yale Law Group Lists Top 10 Law Firms for Family, Gender Equality
The report comes as a growing list of big firms are publicly battling claims of bias against women and mothers.
April 16, 2019 at 11:25 AM
4 minute read
A Yale Law School group has identified its top 10 law firms for gender equity and family friendliness, finding plenty of room for improvement in Big Law.
Yale Law Women, a group dedicated to the advancement of women at the university and in the profession, surveyed more than 50 Big Law firms, examining their policies around family leave and gender equality. These responses were then weighted against responses from male and female Yale alumni currently working at those firms.
Last year was the first time the report broke out the two lists to include a “female-friendly” category. This year—the group's 14th year releasing the roster—the category was changed to gender equality to capture the experiences of both female and gender nonconforming individuals, said Elizabeth Levin, a second-year law student at Yale and co-chairwoman of the survey committee.
“It's not just the experiences of female attorneys that impact whether a firm is gender equitable, but the experiences of nonconforming women,” Levin said.
The Yale Law Women report comes as a series of gender bias lawsuits and proposed class actions against major law firms has shined a light on claims that firms discriminate against women and mothers. At least one of the firms fighting those claims, Morrison & Foerster, made the Yale gender equality top 10 this year.
To calculate gender equity among the firms, the Yale Law Women report looked at the representation of women within a firm's structure and leadership, as well as promotions and evidence of commitment to equitable training and mentorship.
Yale Law Women's top 10 firms for gender equality in 2019, listed in alphabetical order, are: Bryan Cave (now Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner); Fish & Richardson; Hogan Lovells; Littler Mendelson; McDermott Will & Emery; Morrison & Foerster; Perkins Coie; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton; Squire Patton Boggs; and Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
Several of those firms also topped the family-friendly list, which includes: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Dechert; Fish & Richardson; Goodwin Procter; Morrison & Foerster; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Reed Smith; Sheppard Mullin; Steptoe; and Vinson & Elkins.
Including all of the firms surveyed, 46.3 percent of associates were women, 20.3 percent of equity partners were women and 29.8 percent of lawyers promoted to equity partner were women. That marks a dip from last year's survey, where women made up 36 percent of equity partner promotions.
“I think that a takeaway every year is how much room there is for improvement,” Levin said.
The report also found that women made up only 18.7 percent of managing partners at the firms surveyed.
“At the higher levels the firms are really seeing huge gender gaps,” said Anna Kaul, a first-year law student and co-chairwoman of publications and outreach.
But firms did make some strides over the last year.
Last year only three firms surveyed had more than 25 percent female equity partners. This year eight law firms met that target: Hogan Lovells; Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton; Kirkland & Ellis; Littler; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morrison & Foerster; Ropes & Gray; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
The report also included a new section about the use of mandatory arbitrations within law firms, a practice that has been the subject of much scrutiny across law school campuses.
The report found that 10.6 percent of law firms surveyed required their junior and senior associates to sign a mandatory arbitration contract regarding at least some types of disputes as a condition of employment while over 30 percent of firms required equity partners to sign a mandatory arbitration contracts.
And of the firms that disclosed their arbitration policies, 8.5 percent required junior and senior associates to sign a mandatory arbitration agreements that covered allegations of sexual assault or sexual misconduct as a condition of employment, while 20.9 percent of the firms that disclosed required equity partners to do the same.
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 AllDechert Partners With Wharton School for Associate-Level Business Training Program
Law Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
K&L Gates Partners With AltaClaro to Offer Gen AI Supervisory Course for Firm Partners and Managers
6 minute readNorton Rose Fulbright's New Houston Office Features Views of Urban Park
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 2US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 3Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 4McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 5Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
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