Might it be that the cause of (at least some of this) discrepancy is women choosing to leave biglaw for family reasons?

"Can you imagine what those numbers would look like if the other 141 AmLaw 200 firms had bothered to report their compensation data? "

not really. depends on which AmLaw firms did the reporting.

Elie, did having a vagina installed hurt?

Shut up 2. Get your logical reasons off the comments.

Elie, just a quick suggestion:

Use Irfanview (http://www.irfanview.com/) to resize and modify your pictures. It's free, and maybe you'll be able to make them look respectable and less like you ripped them from ClipArt in Office '95.

HELP: I'm falling in love with my co-worker! I've talked to her thrice. Whatever shall I do?

HELP: I'm falling in love with my co-worker! I've talked to her thrice. Whatever shall I do?

6=racist computer user

How strange. I wonder if some equity partners earning more than others has something to do with bringing in business for the firm. Of course, I'm sure the National Association of Women Lawyers controlled for that in their study, since I am sure they wanted accurate data, and not just to further an agenda.

Elie,

Since you are female, I'm sure news like this comes hard. But just think about it logically...you left Harvard with a law degree and are now a mediocre editor for a legal blog. With qualified ladies like yourself fleeing BigLaw, what can you expect?

Why are you continually ripping stories from the Law Blog? Find your own damn stories.

If a firm can truly get the same quality of hire with a female equity partner instead of a male equity partner, while saving $87,000 on average, wouldn't all the firms be trying to hire women to save money? Wouldn't all-women firms be cleaning house and be at a severe competitive advantage compared to the male-dominated firms?

Since the above scenarios aren't happening, it's obvious that you get what you pay for.

And why don't we factor in the women who leave the field of law permanently before age 30, compared to the number of men, before harping on the 16% discrepancy. When there are more older male lawyers working, why is it a shocker that there are more male partners?

Elie,

so, do you basically just read WSJ Law Blog and copy and paste the story here? Why do I even bother coming to ATL anymore?

ATL's new strategy appears to involve reading the WSJ law blog and then copying their posts onto this site.

Ellie,
Please use your expertise to post on the pay disparity afflicting incompetent fat people.

"Another factor: many firms, she says, don't adequately value women's contributions beyond mere business generation"

Um..."business generation" isn't a "mere" thing. I don't blame law firms for primarily valuing business generation. I know women partners who have become very successful because they have worked very hard to develop client relationships. That's the business we're in -- lawyers (both men and women) may not like generating business, but they're not going to get far if they don't do it.

Elie,

Since you are female, I'm sure news like this comes hard. But just think about it logically...you left Harvard with a law degree and are now a mediocre editor for a legal blog. With qualified ladies like yourself fleeing BigLaw, what can you expect?

Beyond the (very relevant) point raised by 2, it also appears that, on average, more women than men are leaving or altering the amount of work they do because of 'work-life' balance concerns.

Here's a hint: work-life balance is the same thing as pay-time away from work balance.

As a woman, I see a few problems out there that cause this salary differential.
1. like 2 mentioned, women just leave biglaw because of its poor work-life policies
2. women who do NOT leave AND have children are more likely to go part-time, making less. Of course, there are part-time partners as well. So the problem with the part-time is not so much that women take advantage of it, but men don't take advantage of it.

its not really a 'concious bias' here - its more that men don't take advantage of the flex-time policies that are available because women are still the main caregivers in the family.

not something you can change overnight. Title VII helps, but in the end, some people just pay it lip service.

Ask yourself this: when is the last time you heard a man ask about the Firm's "flex time" policy?

There, now you know why there's a pay disparity.

"women are blocked"=women get pregnant and leave.

Also, don't people realize that "greater maternity leave" just means you are worth less to the firm as a business matter?

Bigger elephant in the room: Elie or the fact that women suck at law?

Someone explain to me why different choices (focus on work, split focus between family and work) shouldn't result in different pay scales.

"its more that men don't take advantage of the flex-time policies that are available because women are still the main caregivers in the family."

How is this a problem? There is neither someone with a gun to the woman's head saying "you must have a family," nor is there any duress that forces men to spend most of their time at work.

Gender disparity in personal preferences?! OMG NOT PC!?!!!

My firm had a female associate who went on maternity leave. After four months of collecting full pay later, she got used to staying at home and decided to not return to work. She is now a full-time mom. This is not a rare occurrence.

Her male colleagues, of course, stay at the law firm and eventually make partner (here or elsewhere). Gee I wonder why males are more likely to be partners.

and in all these years, a man has still never had a baby.

(Oregon freak-guy-girl excepted, plus, he's not a lawyer)

"At every stage of practice, men out‐earn women lawyers, a finding that is consistent with NAWL'S previous Surveys and data from other sources."

For example, a first year female biglaw associate makes far less than a sixth year male associate....

wgwag

In (scary, terrible, Godless, Communist, Socialist) Europe, men and women are required by law to get the same amount of time off for maternity leave. (We can call it equal *benefits* for equal work...)

An interesting counterpoint to this study would be to see the pay disparity in countries that have this policy. Of course, the study will reveal the tremendously inflated salaries of American lawyers, which could raise more questions than it answers.

"[S]ome readers insist on finding arguments to make the income gap "acceptable." "

Have you considered that these arguments are held in good faith, not driven by an assumption? Maybe you should engage these arguments, Elie. You bring the same statistics over and over again, but you never bother to address the other side. Your fat ass is content to characterize your opponents as thoughtless reactionaries.

There is probably less pay discrimination at the associate level when comparing associates of same class years because of BIGLAW's lockstep salary culture

29, you can require that they have equal baby-got-born leave availabe to them all you want. On average, men have shown they don't want as much time off in connection with that event as women do. Likewise with flex time: equal availability, inequal availment.

What's your next solution, mandate that everyone work bill the same number of hours per year?

Could somebody please explain to me why so many people assume that huge gaps in terms of pay and partnership can be blithely explained away by "babies."

Women leaving the workforce to have children can maybe explain some of the partnership disparity (but not all). But it doesn't address the pay inequality. Especially since the study reports that there is pay inequality at all levels. 2nd year female attorneys make less on average than second year male attorneys. Babies don't explain that discrepancy.
--Elie

As I have said in previous threads on this topic:

I am for equal pay for equal work, but can we please drop the "women make __ % what men do" line? It is misleading. If someone goes part time (like 3 of the 5 female attorneys I am currently on cases with) while I am putting in overtime, I will gain more experience and contribute more to the firm, and therefore deserve more compensation.

I am not bashing anyone for having kids or wanting to work a reduced schedule to be with them. It is a choice that people should have, and law firms should accomodate that. But I reject the notion that the people who make (and benefit from) that choice deserve as much $$ as I do.

Please find a better metric and I am on board. Until then, statements like these insult everyone's ingelligence and alienate potential supporters.

The false premise here is that if the best-paid and "most prestigious" partner pay packages are given to men, then there must be some discriminatory basis for that. The fact is that, especially at senior levels, the best pay packages will typically go to the partners with the biggest books of business- a completely gender-blind test! Women who complain should go out and generate new business-- and complain to the potential CLIENTS about gender bias if they don't have much luck. (See how far that gets them.) Or they can move to one of the few lockstep firms, and just wait for higer pay as they become more senior.

Anyone who goes to "work-life balance" to explain the discrepancy doesn't know what they are talking about.

Also, I would bet money that #20 is not a mid-level associate or above. Give it some time, 20, you'll see how the game really works, and it will either piss you off or depress you.

This has nothing to do with being "part time" or having kids. At the end of the day, men are more comfortable working with other men, and since men run the show, men thereby get better opportunities, both internally and externally, to succeed. The problem is that men don't recognize this as a problem, so women just get left behind and get blamed for their failure to keep up.

-24

20 here - I will agree with you that gender disparity can result in personal preferences, but we don't know how much of that is 'societal pressure' or just truly biological/hormonal, or whatever you want to call it.

You have to admit that a guy would be looked upon with skepticism and ridicule if he took advantage of flex-time. A bit of duress there I would say.

Of course, I do presume (maybe incorrectly) that men like their children and want to spend time with their children. So, why do men not take advantage of flex-time? Gee..I wonder.

"2nd year female attorneys make less on average than second year male attorneys. Babies don't explain that discrepancy."

If your posts didn't clearly indicate a dull, sloppy mind, I'd say you were being deliberately obtuse.

If women take more time off--via maternity leave, greater use of flex time, etc--than men, even within a given class year, then they'll make less. How are "babies" not relevant to that?

34, you're a more if you think that part-time attorneys, female or otherwise, make as much as you full-time. that's apples and oranges.

Years ago I threw a binder full of docs at a male associate because the work was shoddy. He walked it off, did better work, and eventually became a partner and thanked me for it.

Today's associates simply can't hack it, both male and female. Even many of the men are effeminate and weak. If you tell them their work is terrible, they don't believe you or they cry about it and at the end of the year they still want the same bonus as the good lawyers.

Eventually these worthless bums leave the law firm. It used to upset me that I was paying the salaries of crumb-bums, but I no longer talk to associates that have been here less than 4yrs.

36:

Does your insecurity keep you up at night?

When that women don't self promote as much as men, I assume that by "self promote" she means "work full time throughout their careers."

When she says that women don't self promote as much as men, I assume that by "self promote" she means "work full time throughout their careers."

39 here: that should have been "moron" and not "more". i was going to be more diplomatic but then realized that this was ATL.

"Give it some time, 20, you'll see how the game really works, and it will either piss you off or depress you. This has nothing to do with being "part time" or having kids. At the end of the day, men are more comfortable working with other men, and since men run the show, men thereby get better opportunities, both internally and externally, to succeed."

Hahahaha. "Wahhh, the problem is that we're not comfortable with who we work with! Waaaahhh, the gender balance alone is relevant to the work environment!"

You are pathetic.

Um, Elie, where in the report does it say that second year female attorneys make less on average than second year male ones?

The NAWL Survey says that females make less than males at "every stage of practice," and it goes on to talk about "equity partners." When it talks about a "stage of practice", it is talking about all associates as a whole, all partners, etc. Notice how the report does not break down equity partners by year or seniority. The report is saying that male associates as a whole (in the stage of practice known as "associates") outearn female associates, which is not surprising since there are far more senior male associates than female associates (due to what you refer to as "babies"). Likewise, male equity partners make more than female equity partners, as the report corrected stated, because male equity partners are older and more senior on average.

A cursory understanding of the lockstep and non-discriminatory nature of law firm compensation would lead to the conclusion that there is no sex discrimination in pay.

As a fellow HLS graduate, I am ashamed that not only do you lack basic reading comprehension, but you also feel compelled to make up statistics in order to further your dogmatic drivel. I am also confused by your incessant and needless use of air quotes.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424571088

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424571088

46, that's a comprehensive pwnage. Well done.

Wow, I'm going to go into my office, shut the door part of the way and cry about this. Hopefully this will make my co-workers so uncomfortable that they will leave me alone.

Oh my god! This is why I'm not getting promoted or made parter...

40 -- Are you a total DB, or just coldly efficient?

I love how MysTTTal can compare apples to oranges, then comment on his own post telling us apples really are oranges, and expect us not to see through the BS. Elie, your readers have not become retarded just because you are. A few more posts like this, though, and it might rub off.

cock

I think having boobs more than makes up for any pay discrepancy.

Would a female President of the U.S. receive slightly less in annual salary? Just wondering.

Guys in my high school used to prefer about 1,000 other things more than working 80 hour weeks, it was no big deal.

Elie,

Be a man and respond to 46. Either come up with an argument or eat cock.

(Wait, is it "crow"?)

its a scientifically proven fact that women have much smaller brains than men. maybe this accounts for the pay differential?

36 -- for whatever it may be worth, your comments are dead-on.

13, all women firms are cleaning HOUSES...

If even the (presumably) current / future attorneys commenting on this story cannot open their eyes to the POSSIBILITY that purely discriminatory gender bias remains at law firms, I am truly pessimistic that our profession can promote greater justice outside these firms.

This blind denial and lack of empathy is exactly why our culture is so slow to change - at every level - and why so many feel that attorneys fail as human beings.

Elie,

Your raging bias and general idiocy reminds me of Perez Hilton's commentary.

Maybe he should play the gay card for a Harvard Law degree?

This post reads like an extended "logical reasoning flaw" question on the LSAT.

To follow up on my conclusion in my post #46 that the report is complaining that female associates as a whole are paid less than male associates as a whole, notice how the Survey cites to census bureau data to backup its claim that females are paid less at "every stage of practice". The census data uses only broad categories such as "associates," "judges," etc., and of course does not break down associate compensation based on class year.

All the data in the Survey are telling us that female associates on average are paid less than males. This profound discovery is entirely explainable by the male preference to not go part-time or quit as they get older.

Equity partner compensation is heavily weighted in favor of those partners with the largest books of business. So is membership on the compensation committee. Believe me, if a female equity partner had one of the top 10 books of business and did not like her compensation, she would and could jump to another firm in a heartbeat. At that level, it is all about the annual billings you are responsible for regardless of gender.

Maybe it's that the smart women who statistically out perform us men in undergrad and law school are smart enough to realize that spending 7-12 years trying to make partner in Big Law is a complete waste of time and life. And perhaps it's the dumb women who form groups like the National Association of Women Lawyers who complain that there aren't enough women wasting their lives in Big Law. Just a thought.

Hmmm, seems to me like about 90% of the people who post on this thing are male. Maybe Elie could do a study on why that is? Maybe it's discrimination... uh oh?!

40: You made me laugh. If you're really a stodgy old partner get your @$$ off here or one of us crumb-bums will throw some binders at you. If not, good acting job...

Jesus Christ, what a sausage party

Elie,

Your raging bias and general idiocy reminds me of Perez Hilton's commentary.

Maybe he should play the gay card for a Harvard Law degree?

I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

36, you owe me a rib.

"Today's associates simply can't hack it, both male and female. Even many of the men are effeminate and weak. If you tell them their work is terrible, they don't believe you or they cry about it and at the end of the year they still want the same bonus as the good lawyers."

-- Where do you work?

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

Elie, why would you insist on reprinting a sentence fragment?

what a sausage party

It's anchorman, not anchorlady!

74 -- do you have a sausage? do you like sausages?

This is a sad statement. Hopefully by the time I'm an equity partner, things will be different.

Elie,
It's not blithe to note that women are primary caregivers and that this fact this fact can account for disparities in pay and promotion. Is it reasonable to expect a client to be understanding when his or her lawyer disappears for personal reasons for several weeks or months? It is blithe to discount the possible effect this might have on a lawyer's ability to build a book of business? How does this all break down? I don't pretend to know. But until these factors are quantified and corrected for, your numbers don't have any meaning.

Elie,
It's not blithe to note that women are primary caregivers and that this fact this fact can account for disparities in pay and promotion. Is it reasonable to expect a client to be understanding when his or her lawyer disappears for personal reasons for several weeks or months? It is blithe to discount the possible effect this might have on a lawyer's ability to build a book of business? How does this all break down? I don't pretend to know. But until these factors are quantified and corrected for, your numbers don't have any meaning.

I am a female who voluntarily abandoned a successful biglaw gig for a career in the non-profit sector. These "studies" that portray women as victims of a discriminatory system ignore the fact that many women seek lower-paying jobs in other industries that offer intrinsic benefits that biglaw doesn't provide. Another factor contributing to this "discrimination" is that many (if not most) men in biglaw provide the only source of household income, while most professional women live in two-income households. I had the luxury of leaving private practice for a lower-paying (but more fulfilling) job, while many of my sole-breadwinning male counterparts do not have that option. Stop victimizing women who aren't victims.

Retention problems exist with more than just women, but also minorities.

Why?

They don't want to be lawyers in the first place; they just want a lot of money. Our hiring committee goes out of its way to try and prevent people from leaving through its hiring process, through mentors, and regularly to checking how they are "feeling." But it doesnt work that well because so many law students never wanted to be lawyers in the first place, nor are they willing to work hard so they hang out for a couple years on the payroll and then go work at a place like Club Fed.

Elie, the report says: "Male associates earn, on average, a median income of about $175,000 and female associates earn, on average, a median income of about $168,000."
So on average, male associates of all years, averaged, make more than female associates. Where does it say anything about comparing pay according to class year? Where does it say that a second year male makes more than a second year female?

I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

Fine Elie, you like blunt arguments? Here it is.

Woman graduates from top 10, starts working just as long and hard as new guy. Goes that way for two years. Catches eye of new doctor/corporate VP/bond trader.
Starts planning wedding, must take time off for planning. That's okay though, society requires her to.
Comes back to work. Must take time off to be there for all his events. That's okay though, society requires her to.
Get pregnant, takes one year off, half time for two years. That's okay though, society requires her to.
Repeat for baby number two. That's okay though, society requires her to.
Comes back to work at 40 hours per week. Notices that the male that that got hired with her is making partner. Sure, he has been working 70 hour weeks but that's not fair.
She cries and they make her partner. Turns out under the partner formula she makes less because she does less, and she has no clients since she was never there.
Next step? Cry about how unfair partnership pay formula is.

Elie,

To elaborate on some of the points made above, do you not see that when comparisons are drawn between "male partners" and "female partners," the former group will have a higher average income because it will have a higher average seniority? The reasons for higher average seniority are largely those that you scorn, i.e., an higher drop-out rate among women who have children.

"Anyone who goes to "work-life balance" to explain the discrepancy doesn't know what they are talking about."

False.

Do you not account for it at all? In my office (regional market) every female senior associate (5+ years) and partner is on flex time with one exception (kids are grown and she's on the board of directors). You can't expect to work less and get paid the same. All first years that meet their hours are compensated the same. All second years that meet their hours are compensated the same. Etc. Etc.

Not every place is NYC where many people marry and have children later in life (if at all). VIrtually ever female associate we have is married (even the first years) and most of them have children. How could this not be relevant in explaining any discrepancy?

Any thoughts on whether diet might be playing a role here? Is it possible that women don't eat as much PEANUTS and CHEESE? Discuss.

36 - You are entitled to your opinion, but your post does not really address my point, and you have not shown that you know what you are talking about any more than anyone else.

The problem that I am pointing to is that the statistics do not quantify or otherwise account for the women who chose to leave firms for family reasons, or the women who stay but reduce their schedules. Therefore the comparison of all women to all men is invalid.

Maybe you are right and the problem would be shown to exist nonetheless. All I am saying is that until one of the groups that do these repeated studies accounts for the differences, the comparison that the study and this thread is based on is flawed.

Like I said, I am very much for equal pay for equal work - but you have to be honest in the assessment. Moreover, I'm starting to wonder why these groups keep doing the comparisons the same way . . .

-34

86: Any thoughts on 87's comment?

Women choose to leave the practice of law (or at least the practice of BIGLAW) in higher numbers than men. So, it is no surprise that more men are equity partners nor is it a surprise that men are compensated more highly.

Elie, there seem to be far more stay-at-home mothers than stay-at-home fathers.

Get on it- it's probably because of sexism.

I once again call on MysTTTal to reply to his critics. Come on, you fat coward!

the explanation is a lot simpler than everyone makes it out to be. the same is probably true of gay guys (at least bottoms). here's the reason: if you're already getting fucked at home, you probably don't want to be fucked by your job, too. there's only so much being fucked a person can take.

This report is one more reason why liberal arts majors should not pretend to know how to do social science work. No control for seniority, geographic location or part-time status, at the very least, makes he report useless. What's the point of saying that female associates on average are paid less when the report admits that there is a 12% gender gap among senior associates, and it doesn't tell us how many associates are part-time.

So to sum up the reasons why this is study is bunk:

1) Pay at the associate level is equal. Male and female associates all make the same at the same class level. There may be some hours based discrepancy in bonuses but I don't think that more pay for more work is a bad thing. As a man I'd rather bill 2000 than 2400 anyway. Sometimes I don't get that choice.

2) Any difference across the class of associates can be explained by the fact that on a percentage basis there are more men in the higher levels than there are women. While this might be based on discrimination that "pushes" women out I don't think so. I think that women self-select out of biglaw (babies / part time / flex time) at a much higher rate than men.

3) This may be in large part because biglaw is a job that requires all of your time. This makes it a sucky job at times. But this all means it pays very well. Women (or men) that aren't willing to surrender everything to the firm aren't going to be paid as well as those that do. You might say this is a result of bigger problems with the profession (and I'd say you are right), but this gender pay discrepancy is then just a symptom of a bigger, different, un-gender related problem.

4) There is nothing evil about women choosing to be a primary caregiver instead of a man. I don't think that people are forced into this, but the reality is that many women chose this path. So long as any substantial amount of women chose to balance work and family instead of just focusing on work these alleged discrepancies will continue to appear statistically.

5) Partner pay is about having a book of business and hours. To the extent that women are more likely to be part-time partners or just not focus 110% on work like many male partners do they will always lag in comp. This isn't a bad thing either.

Elie, I'm sure Dean Keagan appreciates your effort here but your logic just fails. Until you can address these counterpoints you are failing yourself, your audience, and HLS.

-Yet Another Disappointed HLS Grad

Women in general have worse negotiation skills (beyond just the "women don't ask" problem). They are more likely seek an obvious, facially fair resolution, and end the dispute quickly. Men tend to bargain harder, which in turn allows the parties to learn more about the other side's preferences and concerns, which allows for more creative options. Women rush to split the pie in half, while men are more likely to discover a way to make the pie bigger.

For simple negotiations, women are better, especially if sitting across from another woman. Quick and easy resolutions are efficient. But, when lawyers are negotiating it's normally over more complicated issues where leaving value on the table can be extremely costly.

(Take a look at Richard Shell's Bargaining for Advantage.)

If, in 99% of those firms, the top rainmaker is also a man doesn't this suggest fair is fair?

Wow, babies are really magical.

Women graduate at the same rate as males, but there are far fewer female partners than male partners. Why? Well, babies of course.

Female associates make less than male associates, why? Well, babies of course.

Women who have MADE PARTNER ALREADY make less than their male counterparts, why? Well, babies of course! Oh, and books of business, but women have smallers books than men because of babies, of course!

I mean,it couldn't possibly be that a male dominated firm develops an atmosphere and culture that is biased towards women and when these women, sick of being treated as second-class citizens, decide to leave big law, their male contemporaries explain it away as "she left so she could have a faimly." I mena, its a great little explanation. We never have to look at the way we treat women in the work force. We can continue on, blissfully un-self-aware.

And as for books of business, everyone knows this is entirely self-generated. It's not like a climbing male associate/partner's book would grow because of favors and benefits passed down from senior male partner who would rather work with women.

And of course, that this is a NATIONAL TREND ACROSS ALL CAREERS certainly doesn't imply that there is still rampant sexism in this country. Or if there is, of course law firms are immune because associate pay is "lock-step" (oh, except for signficant boni).

No, no, the tremendous history of sexual discrimination in law has absolutely no evidentiary basis and shouldn't, even for one second, call us to question our baseless assumption...

It's all because of babies.

"How could this not be relevant in explaining any discrepancy?"

Because it doesn't further MysTTTal's or the article author's claims.

98 - Calm down sweetie. Is it your time of the month? Why don't you just buy yourself a nice pair of shoes?

ATL = autoadmit

Female here. Most of the above is true; there are a variety of reasons for the pay discrepancy -- women taking time off to have babies, women spending more time with said children instead of racking up the hours and experience, men (clients and other partners) more comfortable working with men, women less comfortable with self-promotion.....all of the above. But that's the average -- it's not self-fulfilling. An individual woman can dominate by avoiding those reasons and appealing to the firm's desire to "show" they're not discriminating by having an least one token woman/minority making good. I self-promote, have no kids, and every year about a month before salary decisions are made start musing to my boss (who thinks he can't live without me) about quitting to go in-house .... and make >=20% raises every year---tens of thousands more than my male colleagues of the same years of experience. Quit whining. Play the game. Play it better. Win. Smile pretty.

Actually it is babies 98/36. Who the hell do you think raises the kids of female attorneys? The % of stay at home/part time Dad's is much lower than stay at home/part time Mom's.

If you had a kid, you'd know that. And if you actually read and understood some of the points being raised, you wouldn't appear as ingorant as Mystal.

98 -
How long since you last attended an "I Love Abortion" rally?

98: How are women treated worse than men in firms?

98 needs a healthy dose of peniscillin.

"A male dominated firm develops an atmosphere and culture that is biased towards women."

What's with all the vague, generalized labels?

*What does it mean for a firm to be "male dominated"? Give precise examples.

*What is are a firm's "atmosphere and culture"? How can they be biased, and how can that hurt women lawyers? Again, give precise examples.

You fall back on this sort of generalized, untestable and unproveable explanation because you lack any support for your position.

Why do these surveys continue to compare apples with oranges? Not all equity partners are the same. They have different years of experience. If 15-year equity male partners made substantially more than 15-year equity female partners, I'd be worried. But without breakdowns of experience, these non-stories are garbage.

"We never have to look at the way we treat women in the work force."

Why would we treat them any differently than the men?

It's a profession, not a high school PE test: there are no special standards for women.

Maybe women make less because they are smarter than men. Perhaps they are the ones smart enough to realize that slaving away 70 hours a week at a law firm is not the path to a fullfilling life. Perhaps they realize that focusing on personal relationships with friends and family are more important in the long run than getting a brief ready for a partner.

Interesting how all of these studies about women making less money seem to focus on the "plight" of women, and how the system must be unfair to women. Would it not be equally valid to use the same studies to show that society is unfair to men, by pressuring them to stay at BIGLAW while giving the women the option of staying at a firm or choosing to spend more time with family and children. Men, of course, have this "choice" - - but women also have the choice of forgoing family and children in the quest for a bigger book. My point is that both sides actually have the same choices, but women more often exercise their choices in a manner that results in less profits to their firm and, thus, lower compensation to them. I think the frustration many women feel stems from their desire to have BOTH - - time off with family and children and top compensation. NEWSFLASH: men have never had that option either.

"You fall back on this sort of generalized, untestable and unproveable explanation because you lack any support for your position."

Also, because she is an emotional creature, concerned less with empirical data and more with the sweet mystery of life, fuzzy feelings and rainbows and butterflies.

107: Statistics and data and evidence only have their importance because it was given to them by male-dominated societies with little input from women. Thus women need not use these things to back up their arguments and can create their own standards for what is right or true.

Elie, its like you hate economics

107 and 104-

I'll bite. I'm a woman who never bought into the victim role. I graduated from a top 5 school, was on the law review, and went to the T15 of my choice to the practice group that I wanted. I had no plans for kids, still don't, and I'm very good at my job. Then, for personal reasons, I transferred offices within my firm. What I found was that each male partner/senior associate had a favorite male associate to whom he gave all of his work. Female associates were given the leftover projects. Male associates were often invited to eat lunch, go for drinks, or attend practice development events with male partners/senior associates. There are very few female partners in the group, and they all work in less desirable areas of the practice.

I still manage to survive in this environment, but other women associates in the group have not. They continue to get crappy work and no mentoring, and I'll let you surmise what their chances are of making partner. So, before you write off the possibility that things might be different on the other side of the gender gap, consider the little things that you've probably never even noticed.

Two cents, from a woman not looking for a handout or an excuse.

Amen, 102. Thanks for showing that not all of us women are total whiners.

98 needs a healthy dose of peniscillin

98 needs a healthy dose of peniscillin

107 - Oh, and "babies cause everything" is such a well-supported and documented cause? Women make less at law firms because of babies isn't a over-generalization? Oh, of course not because we all know women who have left the law firm to have a baby, therefore our anecdotal evidence must be sufficient.

I'm not sure how "male dominated" is vague. If the vast majority of partners are males, how is calling a firm male dominated vague? Since I clearly need to simplify everything to second-grade comprehension level . . . When a firm is run by a majority of male partners, those males have a control over the firm. Therefore, it is male dominated. Get it?

My point here is that everyone is quick to jump on the "its babies" bandwagon w/o any empircal evidence that this is the cause.

And if you want proof of bias in the legal profession, check out responses 100, 104, and 106. Sexist jokes are funny!

Oh, and btw, I am not a female.

-98

114, the male partners/senior associates would be more likely to invite the female associates to eat lunch, go for drinks or attend events together if the males weren't justly afraid of being sued for sexual harrassment over any minor rumor or misunderstanding.

When women make their male employers afraid of getting too close to them, why is it a surprise when the male employers are afraid of getting too close to them.

Amen 36! Many men are more comfortable working with other men. The cycle persists as white men become the partners or they become the GCs and then give their business to their old firm buddies...the male partners give work to male associates...male associates get invited to drinks and sporting events with male partners or male clients and get professional and business development...and most women remain excluded from the clique...

119 - Awesome. Let's introduce the "women are total opportunistic sluts" stereotype into this mix. You're such a jackass.

I think 110 hit it on the head.

"
I think the frustration many women feel stems from their desire to have BOTH - - time off with family and children and top compensation. NEWSFLASH: men have never had that option either.
"

Don't hate the playa, hate the game y'all.

45,

It must be nice to be male. No need to be a dick about it.

"Oh, and btw, I am not a female."

Maybe so, but you are definitely a bitch.

119- Nice straw man argument. If 3 partners go to lunch and invite two male associates, where is the sexual harrassment risk if they invite one male associate and one female associate.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

114

95, are there women out there who choose to be men rather than primary caregivers? If so, is there something evil about that?

114: Any theories on why the male partners buddy up with male associates? It's probably not just blind sexism. Maybe they enjoy similar foods, movies, jokes, etc. These types of things are important when you're going to be spending hundreds of hours a year with someone. Maybe they don't want to deal with complaints about being a bully, or what will happen if an off-color joke happens to slip through during drinks after a deal closes. It looks pretty creepy when a male partner keeps asking a young female associate to stay late at the office with him.

45,

It must be nice to be male. No need to be a dick about it.

Haven't you heard, bitch is the new black.

"I'm not sure how "male dominated" is vague. If the vast majority of partners are males, how is calling a firm male dominated vague? Since I clearly need to simplify everything to second-grade comprehension level . . . When a firm is run by a majority of male partners, those males have a control over the firm. Therefore, it is male dominated. Get it?"

If having more men than women as firm partners is the only criteria, "male domination" is a pretty strong label for a context that is, without more, not necessarily biased against women in any way.

By that logic, we'd need to have an equal balance of all races, genders, and sexual orientations at the partner level if we wanted to avoid this terrible, terrible thing called "domination."

Maybe I should push a little harder: so what if a firm is "male dominated" by your definition? Does that mean the men necessarily discriminate against the women? If so, prove it.

Oh, you can't? So sorry.

My issue isn't women (or anybody, for that matter) getting paid less for putting in fewer hours. My issue is the presumption that I, as a married female lawyer with a child, plan to go part-time, plan to slow down, and plan to pitch it all in favor of being my child's primary caregiver. Nobody made that presumption of my husband when we got married and had a child. This presumption, in the absence of any evidence from me as an individual that I plan to scale back, unfairly impedes my career in that it puts me in the position of having to do *more* than a male attorney to convince my employer that I plan to stick it out.

127- I'm not saying they are knowingly giving preference based on gender, but we're not talking about picking buddies for your softball team. This is a profession, and I don't think its too much to ask for equality of treatment.

And I think if you reread your post, you'll see its filled with the type of stereotypes that create gender problems in the work place. I, for instance, love off color jokes, NFL (and fantasy football), poker and The Pick-Up Artist (totally hilarious!). But instead, you (and apparently most of the men on this blog) imagine that I go home and read baby books just waiting for my little miracle to happen.

114

What should be important is work product and client service, not whether the partner shares an interest in movies with an associate. And are men really that immature and socially unaware that they can't save inappropriate jokes until they talk to their friends? A law firm should be a workplace, not a social outing.

126, I am confused. Some women do chose to stay at firms and work just as hard as men. There is nothing evil about that and I believe that they are compensated comparably to men that have the same commitment to work. Of course we don't know anything about this since no study controls for the right variables.

I just take issue with the idea that if women chose to leave (or take more time off from) biglaw at greater rates than men it must be because of gender discrimination or some other insidious thing.

-95

114, maybe the reason you weren't invited to these social events is not because you're a woman, but actually because you're such a bitch that you harangue someone for merely pointing out that some male partners may be reluctant to invite women out of a fear of sexual harrassment.

And it's nice to see that your firm rarely has one-on-one social events, which actually predominate where I work.

133- yes, male lawyers ARE immature and socially unaware. We're talking about the nerdy guys who never got laid in high school. They're the same socially awkward tools now, just dressed in more expensive clothes.
127 proves my point. His post shows that he really hasn't hung around many females....but to be fair, not many high school girls were interested in spending weekends playing videogames in their parents' basements.

129 -- but Black is the new President, bitch!

130: Agree.

There needs to be more than just male domination. Men have been the leaders of most countries throughout most of history, but have done little to help other men. Male lords routinely use male peasants and draft male soldiers to go off and kill other men. There's no evidence that male dominance helps men in general.

Sorry 114, but you can't have it both ways: you say you love off color jokes--but you could just as easily bring a multi-million dollar harrassment claim. As such, nobody wants to take the risk.

It's probably not your fault that such a culture developed, but that's irrelevant.

"Nobody made that presumption of my husband when we got married and had a child."

Newsflash: when men get married, I find that their productivity drops off some, too. I assume anyone who enters a serious relationship is going to compromise their contribution to the firm to some extent.

Tell me with a straight face that you don't have any increased commitment to non-work activity now that you're married.

the girl in the pic is hot

"133- yes, male lawyers ARE immature and socially unaware. We're talking about the nerdy guys who never got laid in high school."

Right, and the female lawyers were all head cheerleaders--which is why the phrase "lawyer hot" is such a compliment!

#40 - "Years ago I threw a binder full of docs at a male associate because the work was shoddy. He walked it off, did better work, and eventually became a partner and thanked me for it."

That was a dickish thing to do. If someone threw a binder at me, I would do my best to make sure they ended up in a hospital, job be damned.

98 - I think you're right that "babies" can't explain away every disparity. However, as long as suveys, studies, posts, etc. continue to fail to account for differences in men and women working part-time, flex-time, etc. people are going to doubt the validity of them. It is entirely possible (even probable) that there is still disparity based on sexism, not solely the choices women make. But, the present study does not show that. It does not take into account someone like me (a woman) who has never had any desire to work in BIGLAW because of the crazy hours. Maybe there are some who leave because of how they are treated and say it's for "balance" or "babies" but there are others who just want to have a life outside of work. I don't know how a study can fully control for that, I'm not good with empirical studies, but the point is that this study did not. And that leaves it open to the at least partially valid criticism of its methods. If you compare the average salary of 5 men and 5 women and one woman is working part-time - that's going to affect the average. Now maybe the woman is working part-time because the men in her firm are all sexist, but maybe it's because she likes her job but only wants to work part-time. Better studies need to be done.

You know what else REALLY pisses me off. Every year (four times a year) I have to hear that female tennis players get paid less for winning a grand-slam tournament than their male peers.

Putting aside the obvious reason for this inequity (that the men's final and semis draw much more revenue to the tourney sponsors), that "inequity" seems perfectly fair because the men play best of five sets and the women only play best of three. Thus, if you paid them equally, it would actually be a windfall to the women that don't have to do as much work. This theory plays out at everyday in some firms where women leave early, bitch and moan if you make them do work on the weekends, and feel entitled to take weeks and months off from work to plan weddings, have babies, etc... If you want to work part time, work part time!

(I do realize that a woman's match of split sets would be the same amount of tennis as a mens match of straight sets - but the mens game never goes straight sets in the semis or final. Also - it's not a good fact for my argument.)

Excuse me miss, but would you photocopy my balls. ASAP

Here Here 102. It is women like you that should give all women hope in the legal profession.

Sounds like you are good at your job, work the hours, play the game, and all around kick ass.

130

I love how you turn "vast majority" into any majority. Name me one major law firm that has anything approaching an equal number of male and female partners. You can't? Oh, so sorry, guess your little straw-man argument has to die.

And I did not say that a male dominated law firm necessarily discriminates against women, I suggested that it might and that this discrimination, whether covert or overt would just as easily explain the pay and partner disparities as "babies."

And I believe several other posters have pointed out how exactly a law firm can discriminate against women. Based on these posts, male lawyers almost universally assume that female lawyers are going to have babies and leave. If you don't think that assumption has a negative impact on the women in the law firm as far as advancement opportunities, you're a delusional moron.

144. mens never goes straight sets in semis or finals? how much tennis do you watch moron?

141, you missed my point. I never claimed that female attorneys are hotties, nor did I say that male attorneys are uggos. I just think a lot of these comments show that many male attorneys are still the awkward insecure 16-year-olds that are too afraid to be friends with women.

135-

If you're 119, I apologize for being hard on you. I just didn't think it was possible that you were making a serious argument. Whether social events are group events or one-on-one, I don't think its appropriate to deny women professional opportunities because of some misplaced fear that they may bring sexual harrassment claims. Furthermore, if its that big of a concern, turn a one-on-one event into a group event. I don't know that many situations where more than 2 people is impossible to accommodate. And finally, I think if you consider whether fear of sexual harrassment claims is really what's going on here, you'll have to admit that its not. Its gender preference, where gender preference has no place.

114

If a guy said to another guy that an argument he had made was embarrassing, would he be a bitch too? Would he be unworthy of being invited to social events? Given the insults that get thrown around on this blog, I think my comment was fairly tame.

Look little lady I told you once already!

Photocopy My Balls.

Make sure the contrast is sharp or you'll just have to do it again.

147, why is a vast majority required, rather than any majority? What's special about "vast"? Hell, what IS "vast"?

Because their looks are gone by the third year.

144,

You forgot another argument. Male tennis players are much better than female tennis player. They serve faster, move faster, return harder and more accurately. Athletes of greater acument produce a more watchable match.

err, acumen. Sorry.

Who said such a fear was misplaced, 151?

132/114: You note that you like a lot of the same things as most men, but do you not realize this makes you an outlier? Men are more likely to enjoy the same things as other men.

I happen to like Project Runway and baking, and am not a fan of poker or professional sports. Chances are I will not become a partner's go-to guy.

136: See above. Most of my friends are female.

-127

PS: The Pickup Artist is a crappy show and at least 5 years too late.

114 - I had a similar experience. I'm also a grad from top 5 school (no LR, though) and went to work in a mid-size firm where almost all the P's in my group were men (with stay-at-home-wives). Result? Zero mentoring and absolute crap assignments.

I left for . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a baby. Yep, I opted out. No reason to return bc I knew those guys wouldn't make me a partner . . . ever. So, post-baby I started clerking for a federal judge and now I'm planning my move back to private practice - obviously, to a different firm.

I'm a tough, competitive person and a good lawyer. But, in order for me to bust my butt for a law firm, I need the carrot of partnership to be real, not illusory.

Right, 151. Thank god there's no gender preference w/r/t women lawyers! I mean, if we had our own special firm events, groups, mentors, etc. . . . well, it surely would make you look silly.

listen ladies

you bitches get SeamlessWeb ass by the time you billed your career 2500th hour. fact.

Even if you Stairmaster yourself into a harden version of a bad shape or starve into a husk of baggy dry skin, I am not going to touch you with my pole.

I'l take my quarter million a year and bang a starbucks barista that looks 1 rent check away from Chatsworth employment.

YAHTZEE!!

""Nobody made that presumption of my husband when we got married and had a child."

Newsflash: when men get married, I find that their productivity drops off some, too. I assume anyone who enters a serious relationship is going to compromise their contribution to the firm to some extent.

Tell me with a straight face that you don't have any increased commitment to non-work activity now that you're married."

Though I'm loath to respond to jackasses who preface statements with "newsflash", here goes: I agree with you that men, as well as women, increase their commitment to non-work activity when they get married and have children. My point was that men are far, far less likely to be pathologized for it. I, for one, have never heard somebody say: "Oh, great - Bob's getting married. Now he's going to spend all of his time planning for his wedding instead of working. Then, when his wife has a child, he's going to take paternity leave and then come back part-time and eventually leave the profession entirely."

"I need the carrot of partnership to be [certain due to AA], not illusory."

Fixed your typo, 158. Enjoy your return to practice, I'm sure you'll make partner at a firm that is so totally different!

listen ladies

you bitches get SeamlessWeb ass by the time you billed your career 2500th hour. fact.

Even if you Stairmaster yourself into a harden version of a bad shape or starve into a husk of baggy dry skin, I am not going to touch you with my pole.

I'l take my quarter million a year and bang a starbucks barista that looks 1 rent check away from Chatsworth employment.

YAHTZEE!!

159-

Maybe at your firm, those worthless groups, events, etc. mean something. Here, they're a forum for ... wait for it ... talking about babies and nannies and work/life balance, and possibly how many calories are in the new sandwiches in the cafeteria. I'm talking about getting good projects from the men who give them out. And if you reread my original post, I pointed out that the extremely few women partners in my group all work in undesirable (read: boring and unrespected) areas of our group. Those are not exactly the people I want to emulate in my career.

A partner just asked me to photocopy his balls? Is this allowed?

All else equal, it's easier for a female to make partner than a male. Its just that all else is not equal. Men work harder and pursue big firm jobs and stay in big firm jobs at a higher rate.

114/150, it's actually quite sad that you're so quick to dismiss the fear of sexual harassment argument and to call it embarrassing. Why don't you look at the extensive literature on mentoring, such as here
http://www.km-com.com/uploads/Mentoring_WP.pdf
"A mentoring program requires mentors to pay a lot of personal attention to their protégés, but this may be misinterpreted by a female mentee as sexual attraction.
As a result, many male mentors may avoid taking on a female protégée in order to protect themselves from sexual harassment claims.
...To avoid sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits, mentors may engage in what Segal calls “mirror-image mentoring,” where they will only work with protégés who come from the same background that they do."
Or here
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/47/6569/00259958.pdf?temp=x
Or here http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=1410421
Whether or not the fear is overrated, it is a real and prevalent fear. There is also a fundamental difference between a one-on-one mentoring event and a group event. A group event is not mentoring.

"A partner just asked me to photocopy his balls? Is this allowed?"

It is, but be careful not to jam the copier with any loose "leather."

bitches ain't shit

Remember children.

When you photocopy balls, the glass might be cold, so hit enlarge 150% to get a good image.

167: The sad thing is that large law firms only exacerbate this tension: awkward male partners who don't know how to act around women and then seem creepy, awkward female associates who don't know how to deal with men and think they're all hitting on them.

All of you shouting that women bring in less business. Look around. Most of you men will not have noticed the boys' club that enables you to "do business" while playing golf, forming relationships with the guys over at the client companies that brings in business. Even if I play golf, I will always be excluded from those outings, and therefore it is much more challenging to bring in business. That's systemic, and that sucks. But don't tell me women aren't as good as being lawyers as men. And don't tell me women are lazy and take part time options more often. Maybe women take part time options more often because we see that there isn't much of a future for us since we can't be rainmakers because we are excluded from the boys' club. I know none of you guys will think this exists. Go ask your wives, girlfriends, and female friends and you will see something that has always been right in front of your eyes.

172
Go iron my shirts because the only thing you are right about is there isn't much of a future for you

I will only photocopy SHAVED balls.

-- Superstar Female Associate

171: Don't forget outsiders to the relationship. If you have a close work friend of the opposite sex other people will think there might be something going on, which could lead the firm to think there is a potential sexual harassment suit looming. My guess is a firm would see the male in the non-relationship as a bigger liability.

C U Next Tuesday, Diane!!

172, if your firm's clients select their lawyers based on how well they play golf, instead of how good they are as lawyers, I would try to look for a job that does not rely on clients that are soon to be bankrupt.

Newsflash: it is not the 1950s anymore, and most partners do not spend time at this so-called "boys' club", because any GC that selects lawyers this way will be fired very quickly.

superstar female associate:
are you hot? law firm hot? or fugly?

At my firm several of the female associates have complained that there is a "boy's club" and the men just give work to other men.

But, when I asked them who they wanted to get work from but couldn't, they couldn't think of anyone. They didn't bother remembering that they'd received work from "boy's club" before complaining about it. They just used the slogan "boy's club" as an excuse to engage in women-first sexism (such as having women-only events sponsored by the firm, or having women partners/senior associates target other women for assignments).

Elie:

These pay comparison articles really lose their shock factor after their 80th iteration. What you CAN do is put together a comprehensive feature piece that looks beyond the study and seeks input from individuals in the industry. Hell, there are female partners out there--few as they may be. What better way to push your story forward than to ask THOSE women why they are where they are now and how they feel they stack up against their male counterparts.

Damn... I don't mean to come off mean-sounding, but numbers are just numbers if you have no context or research to either counter or back up the findings.

The blind stereotypes and dumb-ass justifications posted by the (presumably mostly male) posters here is really something. You guys must be really threatened to come up with such sorry excuses. You really are still as pathetic as you were in high school, aren't you?

177: Do you really think lawyers who bring in a lot of business bring in that business because they as individuals are exemplary lawyers? Give me a break. There are many exemplary lawyers. It's about making the connection and getting that client to distinguish you and your firm from the zillion other lawyers and firms just like you. Female associates are kidding themselves if they think that keeping their noses to the grindstone alone will get them partnership.

172 - I would call my wife and ask her but she isn't allowed to have a cell phone. I gave her one a while back but it kept distracting her from cooking, cleaning and laundry. I noticed a drop off in her productivity so I took her cell away. Maybe I'll ask her when I get home. The problem with asking her what she thinks is that she might get the idea that her opinion matters. So i probably won't ask her after all. Thanks for the idea though. Good effort.

is the boys club full of insiders? you betcha
i'm like, very qualified and the qualification I have are important to the healthcare and my shoe budget and [wink] my baby birthing is just, i'm like, say it ain't so mr. man

I don't see what the point of actually throwing the binder at the associate was. I'm perfectly willing to accept criticism and do better work, but I don't appreciate people disrespecting me. Regardless of whether my work was high-quality or shoddy, if a partner threatens or uses violence against me you can be sure I won't just sit there and take it.

I am a hot female associate. I basically get to do whatever I want, whenever i want, to whomever i want. Men are my slave and I am their master.

Elie:

These pay comparison articles really lose their shock factor after their 80th iteration. What you CAN do is put together a comprehensive feature piece that looks beyond the study and seeks input from individuals in the industry. Hell, there are female partners out there--few as they may be. What better way to push your story forward than to ask THOSE women why they are where they are now and how they feel they stack up against their male counterparts.

Damn... I don't mean to come off mean-sounding, but numbers are just numbers if you have no context or research to either counter or back up the findings.

Elie,

46 is right-on. Why are you such a moron?

LAT WE NEED YOU!!!!!!!!

Pull-lease....... these chicks make plenty of money. Bring in business and you'll make even more than the guys.

181 - In high school I was varsity in three sports. top of my class. getting laid left and right by hotties with tight bodies not daria lookalike trying to get into yale.

keep projecting your sexual inadequacies on men. no one will ever want to fuck you because you can draft a memo on discovery rules. Smart girls and hot girls and smart hot girls don't become lawyers let alone bitch about becoming partners.

186 - if that was true you would be a hot female partner. Don't kid yourself, you may think that you have a partner or two wrapped around your little finger but you don't.

Dear 186
Gravity wins in the end. get married soon and don't sign a Prenup.

best,
your fairygodmother

p.s. you probably are only a 6 at best in reality

Elie,

46 just kicked your ass. That's gonna hurt in the morning!

Elie,

46 just kicked your ass. That's gonna hurt in the morning!

Serious question: are there any studies comparing recent earnings of (a) male associates-to-partners, and (b) female-without-children associates-to-partners? I don't want to generalize, but in my own personal experience, over half of our female associates either (a) left practice to have children or (b) sharply scaled back their hours when they returned from having children.

167-

First, I disagree that mentoring can only take place in one-on-one settings. Does it not count if two male partners take two male associates to lunch?

Second, I take your point regarding harrassment worries. Perhaps as a woman, the fear men feel on this issue is outside my general experience. And I'm open to hearing more about it, so long as its not just a way to mask more nefarious gender preference.

But lastly, I'm just not sure that the harrassment claim justifies the type of behavior I described in my original post. It doesn't explain why male partners give the good work to male associates, which is the crux of my complaint. It doesn't explain why a group a partners and associates having lunch together are all men.

114

duh, just cause the same amount of women ENTER the profession, doesn't mean the same amount want to STAY or MAKE PARTNER. You keep posting these retarded studies which ignore this crucial fact. The top law firms are all generally lockstep and/or based on hours (associates) or work brought in (partners) --> this means women are either (1) not staying in practice to the higher pay levels (2) dont bill as many hours, and/or (3) don't bring in as much work.

this does not mean DISCRIMINATION, it means self-selection.

you suck.

You are all suckers. Elie posted this exact same post a month ago, and got 200 comments. Everytime ATL blog hits dip, he trolls out this same old shit.

"Single Female Lawyer, fighting for her client, wearing sexy miniskirts and being self-reliant..."

196 - the concern about sexual harassment is huge among male partners. The allegations alone can be very damaging to one's career. I have spoken with other junior partners about it and most of us prefer to mentor/work with men because of the sexual harassment concern. It is just easier to get work done when you don't have to constantly be watching your back to protect against false allegations. Why do I need the hassle of giving work to a woman when it can come back to bite me in the ass because she decides that she is pissed off at the firm and a sexual harassment allegation would be a good way to retaliate? A false allegation happened to a classmate of mine who happened to be at my firm. He did nothing wrong, but the allegation is still preventing him from being made partner.

"It is just easier to get work done when you don't have to constantly be watching your back to protect against false allegations."

Wow. And many posters are calling women paranoid.

200- I hear your concern, but can you imagine how that impacts the career of a young female lawyer that you refuse to mentor ... because of the "hassle." I've never made a sexual harrassment claim. No one I know has ever made a sexual harrassment claim, which I guess shows how far anecdotes can take us. Also, I'm hoping you can elaborate on how simply assigning someone work can lead to a claim. I can understand (I guess) the one-on-one events, or lunch, or drinks, but giving out assignments seems like a stretch.

114

196: See my post @179.

The lunches at my firm are usually 2 on 2, and I've never been paired up with another male junior associate. This doesn't stop the female associates from complaining about how much the boys just go to lunch with each other. They do however use their imagined "boys' club" problem as a reason to exclude male associates from their lunches. There were also several lunches and one SA event where I was the only male present.

Obviously I don't know what goes on at your firm, but I'm quite reasonably skeptical when I hear complaints about how the boys' club hurts women.

196 - its not just fear of sexual harrassment lawsuits (though that is very real.) When I staff an associate on one of my cases, it means that in all likelihood we will be in the office late together several times a week, we will be going on trips alone together several times a month, we will have to eat lunch and dinner together many times a month...

If I select a female associate, all this time alone can be very akward. It is very easy for the appearance of impropriety to overwhelm the actual proper conduct. Legal assistants, spouses, other attorneys - all look at a male partner and an attractive young female associate going on trips alone together and draw the same conclusions.

I can do without that headache.

204: So, you're willing to risk a valid discrimination lawsuit in order to avoid either (perceived) awkwardness or an invalid sexual harassment suit?

We need to overhaul sexual harassment and hostile workplace law to allow the behavior of Gregory House. If your boss is an asshole, the market will correct for that. Keep in place bans on quid-pro-quo offers and battery, but we shouldn't criminalize general harassment and hostility in the work place. Don't like your boss? Then leave.

Do this and men won't worry about offending women or being the target of a sexual harassment suit.

203-

I think you're confused by my comments. I'm talking about informal mentoring, where male partners give their good projects to male associates and ask male associates to have lunch, nothing sponsored by the firm. And I've never once been to an all female lunch.

And I don't think I've ever used the term "boys club" or really ever complained about this problem publicly. In fact, I just continue to go about my work doing the best job that I can. But the responses on this blog make it pretty apparent that men largely do not recognize the gender preference shown by male partners, or if they do, they think its okay (see 200).

110 nailed it. Working at a lawfirm sucks, and women are quicker to see that and get the hell out. Men are more likely to narrow-mindedly pursue the goal of making moeny without every stopping to worry about how miserable their lives are.

Women should be celebrating the fact that there are fewer women parters. There are fewer women in supermax prisons, too.

202- 204 pretty much covered my response to your question There is a lot of "face-time" with associates that I put on my cases. I might take a more hands on approach than some but I don't just give out substantive assignments and never see the associate again.

202- 204 pretty much covered my response to your question There is a lot of "face-time" with associates that I put on my cases. I might take a more hands on approach than some but I don't just give out substantive assignments and never see the associate again.

205, yes. The threat of a sexual harassment suit is many times the threat of a gender discrimination suit.

Yeah it sucks, but such is the way of the world today.

114 is my hero

205 - You're never going to get me on a discrimination suit. I always pick a competent associate to do the work. Chances are I can find a perfectly good male associate. The choice of who to give work out to is completely discretionary and never really questioned. I do assign work to females, it is usually boring menial work that I will not have to deal with again until it is done, meaning there will be much less interaction (think doc review). If my choices are questioned I will always have a good reason for assigning the work the way that I did, and it will be completely nondiscriminatory. I'm covered, trust me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that women just moan and groan about the way men practice law (or the old boys club) basically because they can't control the situation and make me do it their way, i.e., a woman's way. If I want to go for beers and otherwise interact with clients and colleagues, tough shit.

213: If you are that frightened by the possibility of a woman falsely accusing you of sexual harassment, then you are either paranoid or creepy enough to warrant such an accusation.

That being said, your approach makes me feel a lot better about all of those menial assignments I blew off in BIGLAW and all that document review I did shoddily. Hope it never comes back to haunt dudes like you.

215: it won't. Most partners just assume that women are turning in shoddy work anyway.

215, even if the risk of a sexual harassment accusation is miniscule, like 0.1% chance, why should a male partner take the risk? That's a small risk of a very big loss.

A partner can use a male associate, with a 0.001% chance of a sexual harassment accusation, or a female, with a 0.1% chance, and he'll pick the male since there is no actual benefit to the partner for picking the female. The risk-reward ratio is not worth it.

209-210

I think this will be my last post, since I'll likely have to be here late to compensate for all the posting today.

I've worked as an associate for several years now, so I understand the face-time issue. But I work in a practice area where there are no business trips, which means that all interaction is happening in the office, the majority during business hours when the office is full of other attorneys. While there may be a risk of a harrassment lawsuit, however remote, I don't think that provides an excuse for actively discriminating against female associates, which is what you have described. You've said, I don't staff female associates on my projects because of the hassle, because of the perceptions of other people. That is discrimation, it just is. You may feel you're justified because of your fear, but you're not. You are the boss to a number of employees that you refuse to teach, refuse to mentor, refuse even to deal with because of their gender. Before today, I at least thought that the actions of my male superiors were unconscious. That they were good guys who didn't realize that they were disadvantaging the women that work for them. But your comments have shown a much more distateful reality, where those men may be discriminating against me and my fellow female associates knowingly and purposely. Its painful. I usually never invoke this idea, because I think its overused, but how would you feel knowing that your wife's boss or your daughter's boss thought as you do. That despite how intelligent, capable or professional your wife/daughter was he would not work with her, not mentor her, and actively inhibit her professional growth.

The fact is, you will walk away from this discussion feeling you have done nothing wrong. That its not your fault, its ours for inventing sexual harrassment. But ask someone, other than one of your fellow male junior partners, maybe someone female that you trust and whose opinion you value, whether you've done anything wrong here. And whether, perhaps, the views you espouse are exactly the reason for the statistical disparities discussed in the original post. Whether the women in this profession get fed up with being "a hassle" to incredibly important male partners who never needed anyone to get where they are now.

114- I'm out.

WHY WHY WHY DO WE HAVE TO SEE THIS SAME STORY EVERY 6-8 WEEKS? WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO MAKE THE SAME STUPID COMMENTS EVERY TIME?

Each time it goes like this:

1. "Some guy at my high school ... [insert sexist comment here] it was no big deal. "
2. Some self-righteous girl says "women have it so hard wah wah wah"
3. A few rational men and women point out that there are other factors influencing this study, which Elie fails to mention EVERY time for the sake of amping up the comment count.
4. "Nervous 1-L thanks god he was born with a penis"

Lazy, lazy, lazy writing, Elie. No imagination, no critical reasoning skills, just a poorly presented article with a few snarky attempts at humor.

FAIL.

Re work-life balance/women having children being to blame: How many of the male partners have stay at home wives? Of course they don't need to worry about work-life balance, they have wives to balance things for them. Until those men start doing their fair share at home, the women they work with don't have a chance.

216: You just confirmed that you hesitate to give work to women not because of the (alleged) threat of sexual harassment, but because you're a sexist piece of shit.

218: Excellent points, though men like 216 et al. think of their wives and daughters as kindergarten teachers and SAHMs, not as professionals in high-pressure, high-stakes fields. That's for the menfolk.

218/114 actually made me feel bad about myself. I hate that.

-200/209/210

220, it's not the fault o the woman's employer or other law firms if she married a guy who does not do his fair share at home. Maybe she should have married a guy who does his fair share at home.

220: They are doing their fair share at home. It's called paying for everything!

"Re work-life balance/women having children being to blame: How many of the male partners have stay at home wives? Of course they don't need to worry about work-life balance, they have wives to balance things for them. Until those men start doing their fair share at home, the women they work with don't have a chance."

And it's impossible for women to marry low ambition, stay at home husbands . . . why?

220: Many men would prefer to spend more time at home and with the kids but are not given the opportunity. Many women do not trust their husbands to be the primary care giver for their children and are afraid that their husbands will injure or neglect the child. Also, men face significant career costs if they become the primary care giver. Firms will look more harshly on a man who takes time off to be a dad. It's expected of women, but it will be presumed the man is just looking to get out of work and is not serious about his career.

I'd much rather clean up a child's shit than a partner's shit. Being a parent is way more enjoyable and rewarding than doc review.

220: They are doing their fair share at home. It's called paying for everything!

"Hell yeah!" to 114/218. She has totally argued everyone here under the table using logic and sound reasoning (not made up statistics and lame excuses).

228 - argued under the table? How so? What was her point besides "you guys make me feel sad."

How is that an argument?

1) The conclusion that Elie is attempting to draw is not supported by the statistics. Many have pointed that out, Elie is too dense to understand, and 114/218 did nothing to change that.

2) Overly broad sexual harrasment laws make some men feel uncomfortable working with female associates. 114/218's response to this insightful point? "But that's mean!" Ok ... then what?? How about a constructive defense of those sexual harrasment laws? Or a suggestion for changes that would make male partners less afraid?

114/218 did not argue anyone under the table. If this is what you define as argument, its no wonder you are having trouble in the legal world.

Here's a sarcasm detector, 229. Please use it.

I love it. Sexual harassment laws make MEN feel uncomfortable.

Elie: "Could somebody please explain to me why so many people assume that huge gaps in terms of pay and partnership can be blithely explained away by 'babies'?"

Let me give it shot:

Professor Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University compared the gap in wages between men and women with the same education for two groups, mothers and women without children. She found that, in 1991, women without children made 95% of men’s wages, but mothers made 75% of men’s wages.

According to a federal government National Longitundal Survey of Youth study as far back as 1991, among all wage-earners ages 27 - 33 who have never had children, women's earnings approach 98% of men's.

A 2004 study published in the International Journal of Manpower found that heterosexual women make only 89 cents for every dollar that lesbian women make.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98% of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

A 2003 GAO study found that, controlling for differences in male and female work patterns, women earned 96% of what men earned.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

232 - pwnage

MysTTTal, you'd better delete 232.

You can't respond to the points raised therein, and it demolished your sad little post, showing you to be a pathetic excuse for a lawyer, much less a HLS graduate.

-Embarrassed to share an alma mater with Elie.

The worse news is the gender wage gap is only going to get worse under President Elect Obama.

Women on Obama's staff made 82 cents for every dollar that Obama's male staffers made and, even though women made up 48.4% of total staff, they accounted for only 20% of those paid $100,000 or more. In comparison, 65.2% of McCain's staff was made up of women who made $1.04 for every dollar that male staffers made. Women on Obama's staff additionally made $10,375 less, on average, then female staffers working for the McCain campaign.

Why did America elect a sexist president??!!!

Wow 232, total pwnage.

I mean, a study showing that, when external variables are properly controlled, women still make 2-4% less than what men earn, all other things being equal, totally validates the argument that the law firm pay disparity is entirely caused by babies.

So for everyone who thinks this isn't a big deal, how about we arbitrarily lower your salary 4% just because of your manbits?

Obama is going to ruin everything. Even his supporters are starting to liquidate.

236 - the 2-4% is accounted for when you consider that women are just not as good at their job as men.

236 - if i take a 4% salary decrease I need two promises from you

1. women will stop bitching about everything

2. you will never use the term "manbits" again, ever

"According to a federal government National Longitundal Survey of Youth study as far back as 1991, among all wage-earners ages 27 - 33 who have never had children, women's earnings approach 98% of men's."

There is a simple explanation for this - the non-parent women who have had miscarriages or abortions were so distracted by their respective tragedies that their performance dropped, thus affecting total pay.

Enough.

Every post by Elie is followed by a long, pointless string of insults posted by people who claim to be Harvard grads, yet write at about a third-grade level.

It's difficult to follow the thread of any conversation with all this "First," and "Elie you suck," and obvious troll bait.

I reading enjoy this blog, and I enjoy reading about every 43rd comment. Would it be possible to delete the posts that are obvious trolling? Could comment moderation be installed? Anything.

To all the guys who "fear" sexual harassment, here's an idea: If you wouldn't say it to a male coworker, don't say it.

There's really not a whole lot to it. And all the, "We would let you girls hang out on our project but you might get offended when we talk about boobs," is ridiculous.

It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to learn how to behave and sound like a professional when you are at work. It's not anyone else's problem if you can't figure out how to talk to a woman, or a black person, without making an ass of yourself. Attempting to blame the woman or the black person, simply because you're too lazy to learn how to behave yourself in public? Not a sympathetic argument.

Grow up. Act like it. It's easier, I swear.

158 wrote: when men get married, I find that their productivity drops off some, too. I assume anyone who enters a serious relationship is going to compromise their contribution to the firm to some extent.

But does that assumption lead to the same consequences (e.g. less "choice" work) that women have to face? There is at least one recent (mini)study that shows male associates are getting a "daddy bonus" - http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2008/11/buchanan-on-why.html

Of course, this is a small sample size and I didn't read the full article so I can't speak to the exact stats & potential variables but other than suggesting that all of the males that graduated from U. Mich. Law from 1970 through 1996 billed massive hours after the baby was born, the "daddy bonus" appears to support the existence of "the boys' club" (whether intentional or not).

Everyone has glossed over what struck me as the most important point in the post: After 20 years of near-equal levels of education and training, women are STILL 16% of all partners? You really think pregnancy accounts for 84% of half of the profession not reaching the top levels in a law firm? And the other half of the profession experienced NO difficulties of health or other mishap that similarly interrupted their careers?

This doesn't seem credible.

1) Not all women have babies. There appear to be very few studies, but I've heard that at least 25% of all women never have a child. I'd imagine that number would be higher among lawyers.

2) It's possible to pay other people to take care of your children. Not everyone feels comfortable with this option, but I know that many lawyers do hire nannies and so on.

3) Some women drop out of the law firm lifestyle for the nonprofit world, but 80% of ALL associates eventually leave the profession. Turnover happens, yet somehow, all the people left to climb to the top are male?

That seems weird. I think Elie wrote a good post, and I love that so many people defending the charge of sexism in the profession made a bunch of generalizations, many offensive, based on sex.

242:

"To all the guys who "fear" sexual harassment"

Sharpen your reading skills. No one has said they "fear sexual harrassment" or expressed a concern that they will find themselves "too lazy to learn how to behave yourself in public."

They have said they feared and/or iin their dealings with a female associate.

Is it really possible to read those fears as you apparently did -- that the posters did not want to talk with women because they wouldn't be free to harrass them? That's a goofy reading.

You can teach them to do research; you can't teach them to have great tits.
-V10 hiring policy

Who doesn't love "lawyer barbies"? We need something to look at when we're stuck in an office all day doing doc review. That's the whole point...they're not supposed to make partner.

131 and 172 are right on. I can tell my partners are are counting down the days until I announce a pregnancy since I am married and of prime breeding age (even though my husband and I have made the decision not to have children). A few other women at my firm have recently gone the "mommy-track" and it seems almost expected for new female associates.

I'm sure 90% of you poking fun at Elie have stay at home wives which explains your ignorance...maybe you should try finding a professional woman to get her take on the pay-disparity issue.

"all of the males that graduated from U. Mich. Law from 1970 through 1996 billed massive hours after the baby was born, the "daddy bonus" appears to support the existence of "the boys' club" (whether intentional or not)."

They're not getting a bonus or being supported by a "boys club"--they're staying the fuck away from the annoying kid and the needy mother. Can you blame the poor bastards?

There's a flip side to the part-time issue, too: men often don't feel they can take it. Even at firms that make a conscious effort to treat part-time moms well, it's much more unusual--and much less accepted--for dads or non-parents to do so.

If I felt I could go part time without any injury to my career, I might well do so. I'm a biglaw associate and a dad of a toddler. But I don't feel as though it's a serious option for me, even though my firm has a part-time policy and some associates--all women--who appear to be successfully taking advantage of it.

If this study/survey were done by men, it would have controlled for education, seniority, and part-time status. The men may have paid attention to regression analysis and variable controls. Kinda like the GAO study.

If this blog post were written by someone who had an LSAT higher than 160, the blogger would have noticed the statistical flaws, instead of making a fool of himself by fabricating statistics in the comments and stubbornly not admitting his mistakes.

Even Phil Telfeyan ultimately admitted his own error. When Phil is a better analytical thinker than you, there's something wrong with you.

Maybe its because men can make it rain more. A bunch of old white corporate perverts control the purse strings. Business is going to go to someone that looks like them.

250, I hear you, but there's very little evidence that scaling back is anything but a detriment to women's careers. Sure, women are more likely to take advantage of those benefits, but it's not as though they don't take a perception hit for doing so.

253: The issue isn't that women won't take a hit to their careers for taking advantage of maternity leave or flex time; it's that men will (or at least have a reasonable belief that they will) take a much bigger hit for doing the same. Paternity leave is like a cold offer. Firms put it out there, but it's understood that you just don't take it.

I am sick of women bitching about not making equal pay and yet they don't have a problem at all with sleeping with their managing partner to help them make partner. You dolts, you are part of the problem

Mybe females sucks at lawyersing?

252, yes, people like to support others who look like them. That's why all those Jewish and Indian doctors are out of business, since 96% of the population don't look Jewish or Indian. That's why Asians never succeed in America. That's why Barack Obama lost the election, since white people wanted to support and vote for someone who looks like them.

And anybody who points out that Barack Obama won a greater share of the white vote than any other Democratic nominee in the last 30 years is a racist.

242 - do not conflate race and gender. As a partner, I have no qualms or discomfort about staffing my cases with minorities. I never worry that I will get sued for race-harrasment if I become too friendly with a minority associate. There is nothing akward about going on a business trip alone with a minority associate, or spending late nights alone in the office with one. I never fear that when I invite a minority associate out to dinner to celebrate a deal, or to talk business, he will misinterpret the invitation as a sexual advance. I can tell a minority associate that I like his suit without worrying that it will be regarded as a come-on. I can form friendships with minority associates and talk about the things male friends talk about without worrying that I have to censor my conversation.

Bottom line: race really is just skin deep. Gender is not.

258 is a sexist.

Of course there is a massive market opportunity here. Start a law firm for women. They'll flock to you because you won't discriminate against them.

You could probably make a funny TV show out of this.

Of course there is a massive market opportunity here. Start a law firm for women. They'll flock to you because you won't discriminate against them.

You could probably make a funny TV show out of this.

Of course there is a massive market opportunity here. Start a law firm for women. They'll flock to you because you won't discriminate against them.

You could probably make a funny TV show out of this.

::: After 20 years of near-equal levels of education and training, women are STILL 16% of all partners? You really think pregnancy accounts for 84% of half of the profession not reaching the top levels in a law firm?

What's the gender breakdown on the lawyers who start law firms?

::: Not all women have babies.

Yet a law firm cannot tell upfront whether or not a woman will end up along this path. Look up the Market For Lemons or Gresham's Law on Wikipedia.

Women are the inferior sex. They'd get paid more if they were more agressive and self-promoting.

I completely agree with 241. The morons, yahoos, and trolls are ruining this blog. Moreover, I can't imagine why Elie puts up with all the personal abuse (which itself is often racist, sexist, homophobic, or all three).

Former big firm associate here. I left my firm after a partner told me that "the firm has good reasons for not promoting mothers." I had been the highest-billing associate in the department, with stellar performance reviews for several years, while raising my 2 kids at the same time. The firm's good reasons? The partner had a secretary once upon a time whose daughter ran away, and said secretary was distracted from her work (according to the partner) during the time her daughter was missing.

I completely agree with 241. The morons, yahoos, and trolls are ruining this blog. Moreover, I can't imagine why Elie puts up with all the personal abuse (which itself is often racist, sexist, homophobic, or all three).

Former big firm associate here. I left my firm after a partner told me that "the firm has good reasons for not promoting mothers." I had been the highest-billing associate in the department, with stellar performance reviews for several years, while raising my 2 kids at the same time. The firm's good reasons? The partner had a secretary once upon a time whose daughter ran away, and said secretary was distracted from her work (according to the partner) during the time her daughter was missing.

It's funny to me all the totally ignorant and sexist comments made in response to the article. Yes, many women do leave law firms because they have babies - but many others leave because they are unhappy (and maybe use having babies as an excuse). Many of the partners (and most are men) are not comfortable with female associates and do not invite them to work on the interesting deals or go to board meetings -- as a result, the female associates do not meet clients and develop relationships the way the male associates do. Of course, this may eventually bite the firms in the end because many corporate counsel are now women -- hopefully they will hire other lawyers they feel "comfortable with" (i.e. other women) and those of you who blame the women for the pay and other discrepancies can then blame yourselves, using the same logic. How do I know? I was an associate at two very good firms and then left to become general counsel at a high-tech company. Law firms are incredibly sexist compared to corporations -- so often "success" in law firms is measured by relationships with partners (that you feel "comfortable" with) compared to in companies (where success is measured by ability to work through deals and further the company's sales). My suggestion to 266 - get a job in house, work up to executive VP or general counsel (and if you work hard, you WILL get there), and then NOT hire your old partner and watch him suck up to you the next time he runs into you and finds out what you are doing. If law firms don't change the way they operate, they will eventually die like Big Auto dinosaurs...

267, way to join the party after everyone has left. Why don't you read the already mentioned reasons why male partners are more comfortable with males and reluctant to work with female associates -- no gain plus small chance of huge loss (lawsuit).