Gender pay gap reporting: what are the implications for law firms?
As new rules are ushered in on gender pay gap reporting, Legal Week investigates what it means for law firms
April 06, 2017 at 06:22 AM
4 minute read
Today (6 April), new regulations have been introduced that require UK companies with more than 250 employees to publish details of the pay gap between their male and female employees.
Employers have 12 months to publish six key calculations, including mean and median gender pay gap figures, the proportion of men and women in each quarter of their pay structure, and details of bonus pay gaps, with the information required to be posted on both their own websites and a government site.
With diversity rising to the top of the agenda for many law firms, what is the new legislation likely to reveal, and what are the key implications for the legal sector?
PwC employment law head Ed Stacey is working with a number of law firms on how to best navigate the new landscape. An amendment to the legislation passed last year means LLP members, or equity partners, are exempt – but all other employees and fixed-share partners are included.
Stacey says: "We know that at the more senior end of law firms, there is a larger gender imbalance in the demographic. It's likely that firms with a significant amount of fixed share partners will see a higher gender pay gap overall, because you are putting your more highly paid people into the pool you take the average from. There are relatively few firms that have all-equity models – at all of those, you may see slightly lower pay gaps, as all their partners would be excluded from the data."
For firms that have 'black box' remuneration systems, this will be seismic
Stacey cites a number of issues that are likely to have an impact on the width of the pay gap at some firms.
"We're spotting problems arising with big team hires into firms. Broadly speaking, women tend to be much more loyal at senior levels, and will move less in their later careers, while men will move more frequently to obtain incremental pay rises. When a firm takes on a team of people who they've brought in on higher rates, this could make the gap grow."
Herbert Smith Freehills EMEA employment co-head Andrew Taggart and employment partner Christine Young suggest that the new reporting requirements will shed more light on the different career paths followed by firms' male and female lawyers.
Taggart says: "It will be interesting to look for trends in progression at firms and where a gender pay gap starts to appear – it will focus partnerships on retention issues."
While some in the legal sector have been making significant efforts to improve diversity, the new rules are likely to present unique challenges for more secretive firms.
King & Spalding employment counsel Kim Roberts (pictured), who advises global corporates and large employers in the UK and across Europe, says firms that have not been historically transparent about pay may struggle.
She says: "For firms that have 'black box'-type remuneration systems, this will be seismic. Bonuses are also something firms are generally quite secretive about, so it will be interesting to see them publish the difference there."
The new legislation does allow firms to provide an explanation for the findings, and to give details about actions being taken to reduce or eliminate any pay gap.
Young says: "It will focus the mind of all organisations about how to address any issues that arise. If it's going on their own website, one would expect them to be looking at how best to explain to their employees why there are gaps and how they plan to deal with them."
While the new rules are likely to be welcomed by firms keen to position themselves as progressive employers, doubts remain over how much impact they will have in reality.
Roberts argues: "I think it's unlikely to change the culture of an organisation. Some firms might then roll out diversity plans next year to show how they plan to improve, but it won't be a game changer."
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 AllClifford Chance Further Modifies Lockstep to Better Reward Top Performers
2 minute readUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute readAggressive, Assertive: Is There a Private Equity Lawyer Stereotype, and is it Deterring Talented Juniors?
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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