General Counsel Pay Is Up, as the Gender Compensation Gap Lives On
A study by legal recruiters Major, Lindsey & Africa finds that general counsel saw their compensation jump almost 10 percent between 2015 and 2016, but women lawyers at all levels of the legal department are still getting left behind.
November 30, 2017 at 03:58 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
General counsel will be pleased to hear that their compensation is continuing to increase, according to a new report, with bonuses growing drastically from 2015 to 2016. But there's a discouraging side to the data too— there continues to be a gender pay gap at all levels in legal departments.
The 2017 In-House Counsel Compensation Report from legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa looked at compensation data from more than 2,200 in-house counsel (including 500 GCs and chief legal officers) between 2015 and 2016. The study reveals that general counsel during this period saw a 9.6 percent increase in total compensation, with base salaries increasing a little over 1 percent and bonuses growing by a whopping 38 percent.
The boost in GC compensation reflects the ongoing trend in which top in-house lawyers are more often considered integral parts of the senior management team, said Andrea Bricca, a partner in Major, Lindsey & Africa's in-house practice group. “The general counsel plays a more important role, and so their stature within the organization increases,” Bricca explained.
But not all in the legal department are faring as well as GCs, according to the report. For those in the lower ranks, both base salaries and bonuses dipped slightly from 2015 to 2016, with the former dropping around $2,000, based on average salaries in both years, and the latter decreasing by about $3,000. Bricca said it's not unique to legal that there's been “a stagnation of wages in the kind of middle of organizations.”
She added, however, that this year, she expects to see an uptick in compensation numbers for attorneys in the lower ranks of the legal department because they are more in demand, which means more leverage for negotiating pay.
Even as general counsel compensation climbs overall, the report also reveals that at all levels, female in-house counsel are making far less than their male in-house counterparts. At the GC level in 2016, total compensation for men was 17.5 percent higher than for women, and male base salaries were 6.3 percent higher than those of female GCs. What's more, bonuses for male GCs were 31 percent higher than those of female GCs, with the highest male bonus coming in at $3 million, compared to the top female bonus of $675,000.
In other roles in the legal department, female in-house counsel made 8.2 percent less than male in-house attorneys in 2016.
One reason for the disparity is likely that in the legal profession, whether at law firms or corporations, there are fewer women than men in senior positions, Bricca said. Another contributing factor might be that women aren't always as apt to ask for a raise as men are, she said, adding that in some situations, men show more of a willingness to work in companies with higher risks, which can translate to higher financial rewards.
Additional findings from the report include:
• Industry makes a difference. Highly regulated and specialized industries seem to be willing to pay more for in-house counsel, as GCs working in the public utilities and transportation industries and the finance/real estate/insurance industries showed some of the highest compensation increases.
• Company revenue matters. Those in legal departments at companies with more than $3 billion in revenue made significantly more than in-house counsel at companies at the lower end of the spectrum.
• More experience = more money? The report also showed that at the GC level, additional years of experience does not necessarily result in increased pay.
Want more news on in-house careers and issues? Check out Inside Track, a new briefing from Law.com on what and who you need to know to thrive in the modern-day legal department. Sign up now for a free trial.
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'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Once 'Unheard Of,' $20M Partner Pay Becomes Standard to Meet at Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher
Wilmer Joins Kirkland, Sidley in Racking Up 8-Figure Fees From a Single Client
Blackstone Racked Up $165M in Kirkland Fees in Just 3 Years
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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