Male Clients Disfavor Women Partners
Are women just lousy at business development? Or are their firms not giving them the opportunity to shine? Well, here's another factor to consider: Male clients still favor male partners, according to a recent survey.
January 17, 2018 at 04:45 PM
4 minute read
Women partners at major law firms ought to have more to show for their efforts by now. For about a decade, they've been knocking themselves out—attending seminars, getting coached, even taking up predominantly male activities such as golf—to gain an edge in business development.
The upshot? A lot of commotion but not much else. As everyone knows, men dominate on the rainmaking front, while women toil as helpers. (Remember, men dominate the top earner spot at 97 percent of major firms, and nearly 70 percent of firms have one or no women in their top 10 earners.)
Are women just lousy at business development? Or are their firms not giving them the opportunity to shine? Well, here's another factor to consider: Male clients still favor male partners.
That's essentially the finding by Acritas, an international legal marketing company. Based on interviews conducted in 2016 with over 2,000 senior in-house counsel at $50 million-plus revenue companies around the world, Acritas reports the following:
- Mixed gender teams significantly outperform single-sex teams on all industry-recognized key performance indicators.
- Teams led by male and female partners performed equally well.
- But male clients are a third less likely than female clients to choose female lead partners. (Male clients chose a female lead in 17 percent of cases, while female clients picked a female lead in 25 percent of matters.)
That difference in the way male and female clients allocate work to their outside counsel is significant, says Acritas CEO Lisa Hart Shepherd. Male clients are choosing women to lead their work at a rate that's even below the national percentage of female equity partners (19 percent), she notes, while women in-house counsel are being much more proactive. “Women are trying to throw business to women, since the 25 percent rate is above the availability figure.”
So for all the talk by general counsel and other senior in-house lawyers about how much they're pushing for more gender equality (and diversity) from their outside counsel, clients—at least male ones—are essentially doing squat to improve the situation. In fact, cronyism still rules.
None of this is surprising to women in law firms. “People give business to friends,” says a former Big Law woman partner. “So, if a client is male—as most clients are—he will often give business to his frat brothers, law school roommates, golf partners, fellow club members, etc.” The only “fix,” she adds, “is to have women rise to more positions of power as clients.” (Women make up about 23 percent of chief legal officers in corporations, reports Acritas.)
Acritas' Shepherd isn't so keen on waiting. She proposes a more radical solution: Quotas.
“People don't realize that they have this bias, and quotas would solve that problem,” explains Shepherd. “The quota should be targeted at a level to help female partners.”
She proposes that both male and female clients mandate that one-third of the lead partners they hire be women. “This will start to balance the power and increase the chances of equity for women,” she adds.
Sounds perfectly reasonable, but is Corporate American ready for quotas?
“The brave clients will do this,” says Shepherd. “If clients use the power they have, the firms will listen.”
Let's repeat Shepherd's words: “The brave clients will do this.”
In other words, the chances are nil.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Corporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
- 2Goodwin, Polsinelli, Fox Rothschild Find New Phila. Offices
- 3Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 4How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 5A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
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