Women in BigLaw: Pounding Against the Glass Ceiling?

[WSJ_law_blog]

A survey released today offers a snapshot of how women are faring at corporate law firms. In short, the picture is fairly bleak.

Top law firms have worked hard to create a more inviting atmosphere for women, including offering more generous maternity-leave and flex-time policies along and networking events designed to introduce women to key client contacts.

But there is still progress to be made. According to a survey of 137 of the 200 large corporate defense firms by the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), about 48% of first and second-year associates are women. But the percentages dwindle from there; 27% of non-equity partners and less than 16% of equity partners are women.

There is also a considerable pay gap. At 99% of the firms, the top-paid partner is a man; on average, male equity partners earn more than $87,000 annually than female equity partners. (Fifty-nine firms in the AmLaw 200 reported compensation data.)

Lisa Horowitz, the president of the Association, chalks up the pay differential in part to the fact that women, come compensation time, are less prone to brag about their contributions. “Research has found that women don’t self promote” as much as men, she says. Another factor: many firms, she says, don’t adequately value women’s contributions beyond mere business generation, such as mentoring associates or participating in firm management.

The economy may only compound these gender differences, since firms are more apt to demote partners who aren’t big business generators; that means women, disproportionately. “Leaders of women’s bars are concerned about how economy will impact women lawyers,” says Stephanie Scharf, chair of the NAWL committee that conducted the survey.

LBers, let us hear your thoughts.

Photo: iStockPhoto

[forum_admin]

Comments

Report offensive comments to lawblog@wsj.com

This issue is a dead issue. Women have been accepted into the legal workforce and are valuable members of firms large and small. The “glass ceiling” you reference is an imaginary barrier erected by the liberal press to have something about which to write. The only “progress to be made” is the press focusing on real news and real stories. Real stories like Judicial Hellholes and how liberal trial lawyers are dragging down our economy. They have caused the mortgage meltdown, are responsible for the health care crisis, and have driven up the cost of insurance for us all. So please, leave this imaginary gender issue behind and write about something of substance. Your readers don’t care about issues like this. I’ll bet this “story” gets very few posts due to its un-newsworthy nature. Lets have more stories about how jury trials are ruining America and how the liberal trial bar has driven our legal system into a ditch. That’s news worth reading about!
Comment by Tort Reform - November 17, 2008 at 5:08 pm


the prez of nawl says that the reason women partners either don’t exist or make significantly less than their male colleagues is because they don’t properly sell themselves or their work at review time and/or are not sufficiently recognized and compensated for the nurturing aspects of bigflaw’s “we are family” myth really misses the point. how about this — decisions about women lawyers’ compensation and admission to partnership are made by small groups of white men.
Comment by blaming the victim - November 17, 2008 at 5:13 pm


On average, male equity partners earn more than $87,000 annually than female equity partners.

I wonder what that figure is when experience is taken into account. I.e., how much more does a male equity partner make when compared to a female equity partner from the same JD class (or the same number of years at partner)?
Comment by anon - November 17, 2008 at 5:14 pm


So it might not be “pc”, but certainly at the equity partnership level wouldn’t less pay for women make sense if the idea behind flex time /reduced hours / pro family policies are that women should be able to make partner while balancing the needs of a family?

Even if a firm is “good” in that it allows part time women to make equity partner surely you wouldn’t expect these part time equity partners to actually take home the same paycheck as a man that works full time would you?
Comment by Anonymous - November 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm


Why would you want to ruin the “results” of this “survey” with your silly “logical explanation?” Shame on you.

Tort Reform, believe it or not, there are many lawyers on your side. There are plenty of ways to sustain a legal career without advocating for socially harmful verdicts for the little guy who stubbed his toe.
Comment by BigLaw Associate to 5:22 - November 17, 2008 at 5:46 pm


The National Association of Women Lawyers (the survey author) has been operating for 100+ years and is highly respected; thus this study should be taken very seriously.

Their findings are nothing less than shocking, and for every commentator who thinks this is not important or a “dead issue,” may I remind you that the fact that women earn so much less than their male peers impacts men as well. Many female lawyers are married, perhaps with children, and may be major - or the only - breadwinners for their families (especially at a time when so many are being laid off).

Thus that 87K less impacts women’s husbands and families just as much as it impacts the women and their careers.
Comment by Anon - November 17, 2008 at 5:57 pm


“Many female lawyers are married, perhaps with children, and may be major - or the only - breadwinners for their families (especially at a time when so many are being laid off).

Thus that 87K less impacts women’s husbands and families just as much as it impacts the women and their careers.”

Seriously?

These women’s families are hurting because they are only making $900k a year instead of $1MM?
Comment by Anonymous - November 17, 2008 at 6:06 pm


OK, it is happening. But why is it happening? They need to talk with women that have left firms and find out why fewer women are not sticking around to try and make partner. Are the things that come along with partnership less attractive to women? Do women feel more or less empowered to opt out of the partnership track than men? Do women that graduated five years ago and are working at large defense firms feel like they will be blocked from partnership or given less opportunity to make equity partner (and why do they feel that way)? It is awfully hard to divine much from all of those without delving deeper behind the raw number.
Comment by anon - November 17, 2008 at 6:08 pm


First of all, if women (or men) are taking advantage of policies such as flex-time and reduced hours schedules that’s great, but their compensation should be appropriately reduced. There’s no good reason why, all else being equal, a partner that has taken three maternity leaves in ten years and doesn’t have any clients should be compensated as much as someone with clients who hasn’t taken any maternity leave. Flex-time and leave policies result in an employee making less of an economic contribution to an economic entity; demanding economic parity after differing contributions doesn’t make sense. Second, many women voluntarily leave large law firms. There are quite a few brilliant and professionally capable women who choose other paths in life, such as raising their own children or working in a less demanding environment.
*******
Equality means that equal contributions to a firm should be rewarded equally, and that people who actually WANT to work at a large law firm are judged on their credentials, not their gender. It does NOT mean that there are an equal number of male and female partners, or that partnership decisions should be made without regard for the ability of a lawyer to generate business.
Comment by Again? - November 17, 2008 at 6:26 pm


It’s important because even those women who have made equity partner are at the lower levels of the equity chain and in this environment would be the first on the chopping block to be “de-equitized.” Then they would lose all of the little leverage they had by being part, albeit a small part, of the “club” since many firm committees require committee members to be equity partners and those committees make all of the decisions about the firm. Most equity partners, especially those in the lower tiers, are not making close to $900K or $1 million so that $87K can make a huge difference.
Comment by Anon - November 17, 2008 at 6:32 pm


Read more...
Law Blog - WSJ.com : Women in BigLaw: Pounding Against the Glass Ceiling?