Is The Pandemic Good Or Bad For Equal Pay?
The coronavirus pandemic threatens to slow progress in pay equity for female lawyers, but also provides a unique opportunity for law firms to effect change.
July 27, 2020 at 05:29 AM
5 minute read
Progress towards closing the gender pay gap in law firms could be yet another unforeseen casualty of the global coronavirus pandemic. With the suspension of gender pay gap reporting in 2020, the equal pay claim brought against Asda in the Supreme Court this month – the largest ever in the private sector – has shone a welcome spotlight back onto the issue of pay disparity.
It is already clear that across all sectors women are losing out as families try to juggle childcare and work. In the legal sector the consequences of that struggle on gender pay gaps may only be felt next year, as firms assess the performance and contribution of lawyers in determining promotions, pay and bonuses.
The UK government suspended gender pay gap reporting legislation this year, just a week before the reporting deadline. While many businesses, including law firms, will have welcomed this move given the myriad of matters they were dealing with in April, this brings with it the danger that law firms will let their efforts towards gender parity slide just as they need to reinforce them.
Last year The Times reviewed the gender pay gaps at the 10 largest law firms and found that they were worse than in several other male-dominated sectors. This year several magic circle firms voluntarily published their 2019 gender pay gap data, despite the suspension of reporting requirements. Whilst there were some improvements compared to 2018 figures, the mean gender gap, in general, remains higher than the national average.
Of course, a large gender pay gap does not automatically mean that female associates and partners are not receiving equal pay to their male peers. However, it does evidence what we already know; that City law firms have fewer women than men in higher paid senior associate roles and in partnership.
If firms are therefore committed to making a meaningful change to their gender pay gap when they come to report in 2021, it is abundantly clear that this can only be achieved through improving gender equity at senior levels of the firm. While the issues relevant to improving gender equity have not changed as a result of the pandemic, certain issues warrant renewed focus as a result of the particular challenges arising out of the period of lockdown and ongoing remote working, including:
- recognising and addressing structural issues which may have a greater impact on women and the value attributed to their role, including the impact of prioritising billing figures when making promotion and bonus decisions, rather than looking at other measurable contributions, including knowledge management, team building and individual support.
- where financial metrics will unquestionably continue to be a key factor in measuring performance, ensuring a sufficiently long look-back period to ensure that figures are not skewed by the challenging recent period (particularly where this may relate to child-care related issues).
- ensuring work and business development opportunities are distributed evenly, as with remote working there is a greater danger of siloed working; partners should be reminded to spread work and opportunities across the team.
- Being doubly mindful of unconscious bias: this includes well-meaning biases that might lead partners to pre-suppose that a lawyer with children at home might not be the right person to lead on a new case or transaction.
With the pandemic said to have the potential to set women's economic progress back half a century, the Asda case is a timely reminder, if we needed one, of the importance of tackling the issue of gender pay disparity.
And while the likelihood of a rise in equal pay claims brought by lawyers appears unlikely where firms are able to rely on non-discriminatory material factors (for example differentiating practice areas) as the basis for pay differential, sex discrimination cases remain a very real risk for firms who do not actively address the underlying reasons for gender disparity amongst senior lawyers.
In addition to recognising and addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, firms should now take advantage of the unique opportunity to shift the gender dial following the legal sector's wholesale shift to remote working during the pandemic.
Where the most common reason cited for pay disparity in the legal profession is the traditionally inflexible nature of law firms in accommodating female lawyers' child-caring responsibilities, firms now have the chance to permanently change that status quo by cementing flexible ways of working post lock-down alongside reviewing their approaches to performance and remuneration structures.
Anna Birtwistle is a partner and Hannah Taylor an associate at Farrer & Co.
Read More:
3 Jones Day Leaders Can Overrule Others in Pay Decisions, Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs Say
Pay Gaps for Minority and Women In-House Attorneys in Canada Are Unchanged After 2 Years
White & Case London Gender Pay Gap Jumps 8% For Contract Partners
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
© 2025 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 AllPallas Partners Founder On the Disputes Trends to Look Out For in 2025
4 minute readWhat to Expect From Teresa Ribera, the EU‘s New Competition Commissioner
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cybersecurity Breaches, Cyberbullying, and Ways to Help Protect Clients From Both
- 2AI in 2025: Five Key Predictions on How It Will Reshape International Law Firms
- 3Justice Known for Asking 'Tough Questions' Resolves to Improve Civility
- 4Robinson & Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel
- 5'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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