Pay Gaps for Minority and Women In-House Attorneys in Canada Are Unchanged After 2 Years
Female and minority in-house attorneys in Canada are still paid 11% less than their male and white counterparts -- the same pay disparity that existed two years ago, according to a new survey.
June 04, 2020 at 07:20 PM
4 minute read
Female and minority in-house attorneys in Canada are paid 11% less than their male and white counterparts, according to a new survey released by the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and the recruitment firm The Counsel Network.
That statistic has not changed since the last time the survey was conducted in 2018. The findings also showed that minority lawyers, a group that Canadians refer to as "racialized lawyers," earn a mean salary of $12,000 below non-minorities. And lawyers with disabilities earn $18,500 less than their peers on average.
"I think it represents exactly what we hear and see what's going on," says Dal Bhathal, managing partner at The Counsel Network. "It gives a lot of validity to what people are saying and what they're experiencing."
Vivene Salmon, vice president of compliance at Bank of America Merril Lynch and the first president of color of the Canadian Bar Association, said the survey's findings come as no surprise. But she said she wished for faster change.
"It's hard not to feel angry that women, racialized groups and disabled lawyers are not compensated the same as white men in the legal profession for equal work."
Daniel Bourque, president of the Canadian Association of Corporate Counsel and associate general counsel of KPMG Canada, noted that publicizing the data and the fact that it has not changed over several years brings visibility to the issues and the work that needs to be done.
The survey was conducted in the period right before the pandemic, between Jan. 14 and Feb. 28, and included 1,141 respondents. There are an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 corporate counsel across Canada, according to Bourque.
The findings show that the average in-house base salary for a man is $177,000—$19,000 more than the average base in-house salary for a woman, which is $158,000. This is the same gap reported last time the survey was conducted in 2018. At higher wage levels, the results are worse, with 30% of males earning a mean salary of more than $200,000 and only 19% of females earning that amount.
The gap in pay can partially be attributed to the fact that the lowest-paying sectors—government, crown corporations and not-for-profits—employ the highest proportion of women, according to the report.
"What we don't know is whether those sectors pay more because the majority of the lawyers are male," says Salmon. "Do women have difficulty getting jobs in the higher-paying sectors? We don't have the answer to that question, but surveys like this give us a baseline, and point to where we need to ask tough questions."
Lawyers with disabilities (who only encompassed 5% of the survey-takers) are also subject to lower pay based on the field in which they're working, with mean salaries $18,500 lower than their peers, and higher representation in government and the financial services sector. This is the first year the survey results reported on compensation for lawyers with disabilities.
Most of the minority lawyers included in the survey were in more junior positions compared to white lawyers, according to Bhathal. They were also less represented at the two highest job titles: executive vice president legal (1% compared to 3%) and vice president legal (4% versus 8% of their peers).
"What we need to do is keep reporting on this and then see how those racialized lawyers are progressing—are they making it into the senior ranks? Is their compensation increasing? Because that will then have an impact," Bhathal said.
Salmon noted that the burden of change cannot be put only on those seeking equity within the legal profession.
"From a practical perspective, we gave to work at building leadership skills in members of equity-seeking groups so that they know how to command the respect and compensation they deserve for their work," she said. "Institutions and legal leaders, in particular, have the moral voice and authority to drive change."
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 AllRivals Seize Opportunity as A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells Vacate South Africa
5 minute readSwiss Lawyers Sanctioned by U.S. Treasury Over Russia Denounce 'Political' Accusations
3 minute readExclusive: Mayer Brown Shutters Mexico City Office, Lawyers Scatter
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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