A&O among firms rethinking partner inclusion in pay gap figures as transparency clamour grows
Top firms rethink pay gap reporting as moves by rivals increase pressure to include partners
March 28, 2018 at 05:03 AM
4 minute read
A growing number of UK top 50 firms are considering whether to restate their gender pay gap figures with partner data included, as recent disclosures by rivals raise the pressure on law firms to be more transparent about the disparity among their senior ranks.
More and more firms are going beyond the statutory reporting requirements and including partners in their reporting, including Clifford Chance (CC), which yesterday (27 March) became the first magic circle firm to include equity partners in its report, and Pinsent Masons, which has restated its figures to include partners and called on fellow law firms to follow suit.
Several leading firms are now considering reissuing their figures with partners included, including Allen & Overy and CMS. Both firms have already published their gender pay gap data for UK employees, but have confirmed that they are now looking at whether to disclose the gap at partner level.
Two more top 50 firms have today reported their pay gap figures with partners included. Eversheds Sutherland has revealed that for equity partners, the pay gap is actually 10.3% in favour of women.
The firm, which has a 27% female partnership but a 66% female staff population, has an overall pay gap of 23.2% in favour of male employees. Male lawyers are paid on average 4.8% more than women, while male fixed-share partners receive on average 4.6% more.
Holman Fenwick Willan (HFW) has also included partners in its reporting, finding an 8.7% pay gap in favour of men at partner level, although there is no difference in average hourly pay for male and female fee earners, and female associates are paid 5.3% more on average than their male counterparts.
HFW said it had chosen to publish "significantly more data than the law requires – even if it is negative – in order to be as open and transparent as possible".
This Monday (26 March), Pinsents revealed a 22% partner pay gap in favour of male partners after originally publishing data in early February that only covered non-partner staff. The firm added that it would be "engaging with the Law Society and other City law firms to seek their support in making representations to government to make changes" to what firms are required to report.
CC – which yesterday revealed that the mean gender pay gap for the whole of its London workforce, including all partners and employees, is 66.3% in favour of men – said that it hoped that other firms would "demonstrate their commitment to addressing gender issues by adopting an equally transparent approach".
Of the rest of the magic circle, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Slaughter and May have said they will not release partner data, while Linklaters declined to comment on whether it is considering such a move.
Other leading firms are understood to be keeping a close eye on developments, with Hogan Lovells, which is yet to publish its report, telling Legal Week: "We appreciate the reporting in this area will continue to evolve, and so we will look at this in line with the rest of the legal market."
Yesterday, Dentons joined the growing group of law firms to have disclosed details of the pay gap at partner level, revealing that male partners at the UK arm of the international firm are paid on average 23% more than their female counterparts, a gap broadly in line with the firm's 22% pay gap for UK employees.
Other law firms to have already opted to include partner breakdowns in their data so far include Reed Smith, Irwin Mitchell and Norton Rose Fulbright.
The big four accounting firms led the way by restating their figures to include partner earnings following criticism from high-profile figures such as Conservative MP Nicky Morgan, who said that by not including partners, firms were "taking advantage of a loophole" and "abiding by the letter of the law, but not the spirit".
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 AllUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute read'But We Exist': The Stigma Around Disability and Neurodivergence in Law Firms Persists
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 4Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 5Friday Newspaper
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