Welcome back to The Pink Ghetto, a series where we take a look at some of the most appalling stories from one of the most sexist industries in the world: the legal profession. Today, we’ll be taking a look at what women experience in Biglaw firms during their pregnancies and maternity leaves, and how building a family may affect the gender wage gap and gender bias in promotions. These are real emails that we’ve received from real readers.
When you see things like this happening, say something. Together, we can inspire the change necessary to stop this disturbing behavior from being so prevalent in the law.
Protégé™ In CourtLink® Explains The Whole Case Faster
Designed to reduce manual docket work by prioritizing what litigators need most: on-demand full docket summarization that explains the whole case to date, followed by on-demand document summaries for filing triage, and AI-powered natural language searching for faster search and retrieval.
Pushing off compensation to bonus time (as recently reported for Edelson) contributes to the pay gap for women associates (and others who take extended leaves). I also think that generally the prorating bonus practice as perpetuation of gender pay gap in Biglaw warrants its own independent discussion.
I’m an associate at a Biglaw firm who had a child and as a result will make less over the course of my associate career because of the hit that we take at bonus time — my firm prorates bonuses when associates take a leave, the most common of which is maternity leave. A firm matching the Cravath salary scale and standard bonus structure compensates women who have children more than does a firm who “makes up for it” at bonus time — in a significant way.
I’ve heard through the Biglaw grapevine that other firms (like Skadden) do NOT prorate bonuses for associates on parental leave, but I have not confirmed with any primary sources. Unless and until firms stop prorating end-of-year bonuses for maternity leave, the gender pay gap will continue — and moves like Edelson’s to push a higher percentage of compensation off to bonus time will exacerbate that gap even further.
When I was applying for a summer associate position, I was very conscious of how firms treated female attorneys. As a result, if something about the firm seemed to suggest that my advancement opportunities would be severely limited, I would ask about it in my interviews (no sense working for a firm that doesn’t even pretend to respect women).
I was in one particular interview with a panel of several attorneys. After the interview panel, one male partner stayed behind to wait with me before the HR employee arrived for my tour of the office. I used the opportunity to ask why, despite having a large number of female associates, the firm had a very small percentage of female partners. The partner told me that he believes it is because men have a stronger drive to succeed and women don’t care as much about success.
I am now happily working at a Biglaw firm that does believe women can be ambitious and successful.
LexisNexis Practical Guidance Rolls Out Dedicated Practice Area for AI & Technology
The new generation of AI-related legal issues are inherently cross-disciplinary, implicating corporate law, intellectual property, data privacy, employment, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
I wanted to make sure you saw the recent decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in my discrimination case against my former employer, Mintz Levin. It is a lengthy decision, but contains a fair amount of discussion about some of the evidence of the sexist firm culture and sex-based stereotypes that were employed by firm members. In other words, it is a more in-depth review of the sexist climate that I believe exists in most large law firms than you are likely to see anywhere else.
I would really like to see more attention being paid to these issues. It is no secret why so many women leave Biglaw, but because it isn’t discussed openly, it happens under the radar and can be couched as “opting out.” It isn’t much of an “option” when there are so many obstacles to opting in! The underlying papers also have a lot of information. The SJC touched on some of the statistics in the decision, but did not include the key fact that my section also failed to promote the women they admit were “stars”, while all of the men who stayed were promoted.
I was a mid-level associate at one of the bigger Biglaw firms and pregnant with my first child. The firm was holding its annual attorney retreat when the attorneys gather from all the offices around the country. One afternoon, the managing partner held a Town Hall-style Q&A for the associates. I recall that the room was packed. The managing partner got up on the stage and gave his spiel about the firm’s health and growth, then opened it up to questions from the audience. A female associate stood up and asked, “What advice do you have for a woman associate who wants to advance but would also like to start a family?” He leaned into the microphone and said, “Birth control.” There was some nervous laughter from the crowd, and the managing partner brushed the comment off as a joke. He quickly introduced the next speaker, a female partner from his office who was visibly pregnant. She informed the crowd that the firm had been exceptionally accommodating to her and she loved her job working for managing partner.
After the retreat, I started to really look around my office. There were no females partners who were also mothers. None. About a month later, I left.
Do you have a law school or law firm story you’d like to see appear in The Pink Ghetto? Please email me with “The Pink Ghetto” in the subject line (or find me on Twitter: @StaciZaretsky). You will be kept anonymous. Submissions are always welcome!
Staci Zaretsky is an editor at Above the Law. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments. Follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.