Are Gender Pay Gaps Worse for General Counsel at the Largest Corporate Legal Departments?
At U.S.-based companies with more than $10 billion in revenue, male GCs are getting paid 40% more on average than their female counterparts, according to a new in-house compensation survey from legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa.
April 21, 2020 at 07:00 AM
4 minute read
While general counsel in the U.S. have substantially larger paychecks than their counterparts elsewhere in the world, gender pay gaps persist within corporate legal departments and the disparities are especially bad at the largest companies, according to a new report.
A global in-house counsel compensation survey that Major, Lindsey & Africa released on Tuesday shows that U.S.-based GCs and chief legal officers earn about $503,000 in average annual total cash compensation, compared with about $348,000 for GCs outside the U.S.
The report notes that the compensation difference is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that in-house leaders in the U.S. have broader roles and responsibilities than their counterparts in other jurisdictions.
The survey represents MLA's most comprehensive global study of in-house pay to date and is based on responses from 3,900 in-house lawyer participants in 36 countries. The data was collected in the fall of 2019, during precoronavirus pandemic times.
"That's one of the more meaningful things about this," said Melba Hughes, an Atlanta-based partner in MLA's in-house counsel recruiting group who co-authored the study. "When we go back and take a look at this a year from now we will be able to see data that tells us the impact of the coronavirus."
The report also highlights what appears to be a major issue at some of the largest corporations in the U.S. As a company's revenue increases, so do the pay disparities in its legal department, according to the survey.
For companies with less than $1 million in annual revenue, women GCs actually out-earned men by $388,200 to $348,889.
But the pay balance changes as a company's revenue increases.
For companies with $1 million to $10 million in revenue, the pay gap is about $14,000 in favor of male GCs. The gap increases to more than $28,000 for companies with revenues between $10 million and $100 million. At the $100 million to $1 billion revenue level, the gap grows to more than $33,000. The gap widens again to more than $98,000 at companies with $1 billion to $10 billion in revenue.
At the largest companies with more than $10 billion in revenue, the gender pay disparity leaps. While male GCs at these businesses average $1,112,989 in total cash compensation, their female counterparts average $739,436. That's a pay difference of more than 40%.
The finding surprised Hughes, the MLA partner. She noted that the discrepancies appear to be connected to bonuses more than base salaries.
"Oftentimes companies will have a range of bonuses. I think there's a lot of discretion in a bonus award. My guess is there are some biases being entered into that analysis for the bonus portion of compensation," she said.
Other findings include:
- Nearly two-thirds of the 1,419 CLO and GC respondents who answered the gender pay question in the survey were male.
- While pay disparities are pronounced at top in-house positions, U.S.-based females in midlevel positions, such as regional general counsel and associate or deputy general counsel, reported higher total actual cash compensation than their male counterparts.
- Asia-Pacific is bucking the GC pay gap trend. The region's female GCs reported average total actual cash compensation of $437,429, while male GCs reported earning $385,884 on average. The report notes that in Asia "many households have helpers who look after children so women can return to work sooner than they do in other countries."
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 AllHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 2Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 3Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 4Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 5Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
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