4 ms·

> A 2016 survey of the 350 largest U.S. law firms found female partners on average received $659,000 in annual pay. Male partners, meanwhile, averaged $949,000,

> A 2016 survey of the 350 largest U.S. law firms found female partners on average received $659,000 in annual pay. Male partners, meanwhile, averaged $949,000, or 44 percent more. > “Studies find that male lawyers are two to five times more likely to become partner than female lawyers,” [Professor Deborah] Rhode [director of Stanford Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession] says. “I think a lot of women lawyers are fed up.” For almost 20 years, around half of law school graduates have been women.[0] At least in IT, part of the problem (certainly not the whole thing) is that there are few women in the pipeline. What excuse does the legal industry have? The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population. [0] http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us

rayiner 9y ago
Lawyers have a long shelf life. Peak-career partners probably started law school more like 30 years ago. The number of women in new partner cohorts is over 1/3 (similar for new Fortune 500 general counsel). In my view, you’ve got the causation backwards. Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces. Of course, challenges remain, as shown in this article.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  The link in the GP says that 120 of Fortune 500 general counsels - not the equivalents of partners but of the heads of firms - are women, which I'm guessing is a far higher proportion than their major law firm equivalents. I always assumed that was because there is less discrimination in the Fortune 500 general counsel offices. I know a woman who is an attorney in a U.S. federal court; a large majority of her co-workers are women; is that because they face less discrimination than in firms? (Note that on HN we often have to speculate about the experiences of women; there are so few here who can talk about it. I expect to find male attorneys on this thread, but I would be happily surprised if a female attorney appeared to share an on-the-ground perspective with us.) It reminds me of Justice Ginsburg (obviously from a different era) who said she was a judge mostly because, despite her elite law school credentials and talent, she couldn't get a desirable job in a law firm. EDIT: > Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces. That culture isn't working well (as you said, 'challenges remain'). Per the link in the GP, over 80% of equity partners are male. But I agree, it's still nothing like tech.
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    On your point about less discrimination in federal courts, I think it’s less than 30% of federal judges that are women. I don’t know the staff composition.
rndgermandude 9y ago
White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population, 43.14% of the employed work force. 88.6% of lawyers are white. 2014, US, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/labor-force-characteristics-by-race-and-ethnicity-2014.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/...
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I'm not sure how that data changes my points in the GP. > White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. > White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty. > 88.6% of lawyers are white Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem. Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking: > white men represented about 74% of all partners > over 80% of equity partners are male
  - rndgermandude 9y ago
    I didn't claim it changed anything. I didn't agree nor disagree with anything, for that matter. My "point" was that I got curious about these numbers, googled them, then posted them here in case anybody else was curious too.
  - rndgermandude 9y ago
    >Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. That is probably a factor, but there are other factors too such as the demographic shift currently occurring in the US due to higher non-white birth rates and thus a higher percentage of the non-white population still being younger than 16 and thus falling out of the "civilian noninstitutional population". >That is a certainty. Sorry, but "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either. Same for your other claims. What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". While it is absolutely necessary to look for and fight against discrimination, making bold claims without supporting evidence and suggesting those are facts, while neglecting to look for other potential factors, is not really helpful in my humble opinion (it is a little as to raising awareness and starting conversations in the first place).
gozur88 9y ago
>The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population. You just brought up the fact that there are few women in the pipeline for IT, and in the very next paragraph you're glossing over the possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms. Furthermore, how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? You can't put in 70+ hours a week with young children unless you're not spending any time with them. And once you're off the partner track, it's a herculean effort to get back on for a lawyer of either sex.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms > how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? There are infinite possibilities. We need a factual basis to distinguish which ones are worthy of consideration.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Where can I find the percentage of women who leave law to have families?
oculusthrift 9y ago
law firms are desperate to retain women but they value work life balance and having children too much

rayiner 9y ago

Lawyers have a long shelf life. Peak-career partners probably started law school more like 30 years ago. The number of women in new partner cohorts is over 1/3 (similar for new Fortune 500 general counsel). In my view, you’ve got the causation backwards. Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces. Of course, challenges remain, as shown in this article.

forapurpose 9y ago
The link in the GP says that 120 of Fortune 500 general counsels - not the equivalents of partners but of the heads of firms - are women, which I'm guessing is a far higher proportion than their major law firm equivalents. I always assumed that was because there is less discrimination in the Fortune 500 general counsel offices. I know a woman who is an attorney in a U.S. federal court; a large majority of her co-workers are women; is that because they face less discrimination than in firms? (Note that on HN we often have to speculate about the experiences of women; there are so few here who can talk about it. I expect to find male attorneys on this thread, but I would be happily surprised if a female attorney appeared to share an on-the-ground perspective with us.) It reminds me of Justice Ginsburg (obviously from a different era) who said she was a judge mostly because, despite her elite law school credentials and talent, she couldn't get a desirable job in a law firm. EDIT: > Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces. That culture isn't working well (as you said, 'challenges remain'). Per the link in the GP, over 80% of equity partners are male. But I agree, it's still nothing like tech.
- heartbreak 9y ago
  On your point about less discrimination in federal courts, I think it’s less than 30% of federal judges that are women. I don’t know the staff composition.

rndgermandude 9y ago

White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population, 43.14% of the employed work force. 88.6% of lawyers are white. 2014, US, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/labor-force-characteristics-by-race-and-ethnicity-2014.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/...

forapurpose 9y ago
I'm not sure how that data changes my points in the GP. > White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. > White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty. > 88.6% of lawyers are white Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem. Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking: > white men represented about 74% of all partners > over 80% of equity partners are male
- rndgermandude 9y ago
  I didn't claim it changed anything. I didn't agree nor disagree with anything, for that matter. My "point" was that I got curious about these numbers, googled them, then posted them here in case anybody else was curious too.
- rndgermandude 9y ago
  >Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely. That is probably a factor, but there are other factors too such as the demographic shift currently occurring in the US due to higher non-white birth rates and thus a higher percentage of the non-white population still being younger than 16 and thus falling out of the "civilian noninstitutional population". >That is a certainty. Sorry, but "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either. Same for your other claims. What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". While it is absolutely necessary to look for and fight against discrimination, making bold claims without supporting evidence and suggesting those are facts, while neglecting to look for other potential factors, is not really helpful in my humble opinion (it is a little as to raising awareness and starting conversations in the first place).

gozur88 9y ago

>The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population. You just brought up the fact that there are few women in the pipeline for IT, and in the very next paragraph you're glossing over the possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms. Furthermore, how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? You can't put in 70+ hours a week with young children unless you're not spending any time with them. And once you're off the partner track, it's a herculean effort to get back on for a lawyer of either sex.

forapurpose 9y ago
> possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms > how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? There are infinite possibilities. We need a factual basis to distinguish which ones are worthy of consideration.
- gozur88 9y ago
  Where can I find the percentage of women who leave law to have families?

oculusthrift 9y ago

law firms are desperate to retain women but they value work life balance and having children too much