How Top U.S. Law Firms Get Away with Paying Women Less(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
How Top U.S. Law Firms Get Away with Paying Women Less
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-05/how-america-s-top-law-firms-get-away-with-paying-women-less
66 comments
The article omits a key point. Compensation at Chadbourne was based on a point allocation, which was supposed to be tied to revenue generation. Campbell alleges that she was awarded less compensation points despite being a top revenue generator at the firm. Moreover, she was compared unfavorably with men who brought in less revenue than her but were, essentially, better at playing up their potential to being in revenue in the future.
I have a little familiarity with such systems. Revenue generation is defined not only as the revenue the individual lawyer collects from their clients, which is relatively straightforward to calculate, but more significantly as the business the lawyer generates for the firm - by being a 'rainmaker'. Calculating who gets how much credit for a new client is much harder, and much more prone to biases both unconscious and intentional.
A lawyer, like an IT professional, has only 2000 hours per year to bill; you can't increase that number more than marginally. But you can generate far more billable hours for your firm by bringing in new business; a large corporate client could keep many lawyers busy for their entire careers. I know of lawyers who were poor at practicing law but they were highly paid partners and it was well-earned: They brought in far more than 2000 hours for their firm.
A lawyer, like an IT professional, has only 2000 hours per year to bill; you can't increase that number more than marginally. But you can generate far more billable hours for your firm by bringing in new business; a large corporate client could keep many lawyers busy for their entire careers. I know of lawyers who were poor at practicing law but they were highly paid partners and it was well-earned: They brought in far more than 2000 hours for their firm.
Isn't this usually still quantified and shared though? I doubt her 2 million in revenue from the article is just what she personally billed.
> I doubt her 2 million in revenue from the article is just what she personally billed.
I've heard of top lawyers billing $1,000 per hour or more, so $2m is within reach.
I've heard of top lawyers billing $1,000 per hour or more, so $2m is within reach.
The article doesn't answer the question they pose. If the Women could get paid more at a different firm, presumably they would switch. Presumably, if a $300k Woman provides as much value as a $1M man, a different greedy firm will offer a price between $300k and $1M, and pocket the savings.
Are they suggesting there is collusion between firms to drive Womens salaries down?
If the women do as good of a job at 1/3 the price, why don't they setup a cut-rate shop that does the work for 2/3 the price, doubling their compensation and providing customers a discount?
Are they suggesting there is collusion between firms to drive Womens salaries down?
If the women do as good of a job at 1/3 the price, why don't they setup a cut-rate shop that does the work for 2/3 the price, doubling their compensation and providing customers a discount?
A recent study showed that people stick to their biases even if it costs them monetarily (don't have a link right now). You don't need collusion when there is widespread bias.
Was the study experimental and awarded participants millions of dollars for acting rationally (i.e. against their biases)?
It sounds like every study shows this from this article, but this might be the most recent one.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146124-we-ignore-what-...
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jou...
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jou...
Apart from the incendiariness, this is a garbage argument for a number reasons, the main culprit being the major assumption that money made has anything to do with value provided. I've dealt with this argument before on HN a few times, and the easiest counter-argument is a bank robber: someone that walks away with thousands and provides negative value.
More examples: the bankers of the 2008 crash, Marissa Mayer, just about anyone that got their job due to nepotism.
More examples: the bankers of the 2008 crash, Marissa Mayer, just about anyone that got their job due to nepotism.
While there may be very good counter arguments, I dont buy your bank robber argument. If I were putting together an ocean's 11 team, I would try to attract better bank robbers by offering them a greater cut. Sure this is negative value for the bank, but positive value to me and my team.
I think you're extrapolating a bit too much. This is what I meant: an idiot with a ski mask walks into a bank, waves around a shotgun and yells "Give me all your money!"
I would argue it provides negative value because not only does the bank get hurt, but, more importantly, his fellow citizens do -- after all, he's stealing my money and your money. If someone gets physically hurt (e.g. shot), even more so.
I think I could beat your Ocean's 11 caper argument, too, but it would have to involve more discussion about what "value" is. For example, there's probably more "value" in being a doctor than in being a stock broker (even though one makes more money than the other). Similarly, being an art thief, let's say a world-class one, (weirdly) provides more value than being a run-of-the-mill bank robber, but it's still negative. It seems plausible that this kind of argument could work, but I'd have to think about it more.
PS: This discussion reminds me a bit of Peter Geach's Good and Evil[1] (1956).
[1] http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil
I would argue it provides negative value because not only does the bank get hurt, but, more importantly, his fellow citizens do -- after all, he's stealing my money and your money. If someone gets physically hurt (e.g. shot), even more so.
I think I could beat your Ocean's 11 caper argument, too, but it would have to involve more discussion about what "value" is. For example, there's probably more "value" in being a doctor than in being a stock broker (even though one makes more money than the other). Similarly, being an art thief, let's say a world-class one, (weirdly) provides more value than being a run-of-the-mill bank robber, but it's still negative. It seems plausible that this kind of argument could work, but I'd have to think about it more.
PS: This discussion reminds me a bit of Peter Geach's Good and Evil[1] (1956).
[1] http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil
Mmmm, I guess I don't see how value to society-at-large is a central factor in determining a person's value to a private company, where the primary goal is to maximize profits.
My simple assumption is that gross earnings are maximized by employing the most talented group of individuals possible, while profits are maximized via some function relating each person's talent (roughly translated as their propensity to foster earnings for the company) vs. each person's cost (salary).
If Woman-A, Woman-B, Man-A, and Man-B are all attorneys of similar cost (require same salary to recruit), the most pragmatic move is to hire the most talented among them. If this isn't happening, there is some underlying inefficiency lurking; and it could very well be gender bias.
Now, as for a metaphor, I think the bank robber thing is far too abstract; instead how about this... Say there is a law firm specializing in criminal law. Specifically they defend people charged with murder. Consider that innocent people charged with a murder are, on average, easier to defend than people who actually did commit murder. This means that... the better this lawfirm is at their job, the more actual murderers they will successfully defend.
I think it's safe to assume that absolving actual murderers has a net negative value to society. As a law firm, I don't give a single shit about that. OJs of the world are simply not interested in paying thousands of dollars to law firms concerned with whether their acquittal will have a net positive value to society-at-large.
My simple assumption is that gross earnings are maximized by employing the most talented group of individuals possible, while profits are maximized via some function relating each person's talent (roughly translated as their propensity to foster earnings for the company) vs. each person's cost (salary).
If Woman-A, Woman-B, Man-A, and Man-B are all attorneys of similar cost (require same salary to recruit), the most pragmatic move is to hire the most talented among them. If this isn't happening, there is some underlying inefficiency lurking; and it could very well be gender bias.
Now, as for a metaphor, I think the bank robber thing is far too abstract; instead how about this... Say there is a law firm specializing in criminal law. Specifically they defend people charged with murder. Consider that innocent people charged with a murder are, on average, easier to defend than people who actually did commit murder. This means that... the better this lawfirm is at their job, the more actual murderers they will successfully defend.
I think it's safe to assume that absolving actual murderers has a net negative value to society. As a law firm, I don't give a single shit about that. OJs of the world are simply not interested in paying thousands of dollars to law firms concerned with whether their acquittal will have a net positive value to society-at-large.
There's a few issues with this hard-line utilitarian POV, mainly what's called the "utility monster", first discussed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia[1] (1967). This is getting pretty complicated (and I could very well be wrong), but I think that "value" is probably some kind of combination of what you do for the firm (e.g. how much money you bring in) with what the firm does for society.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp...
> I think that "value" is probably some kind of combination of what you do for the firm (e.g. how much money you bring in) with what the firm does for society.
If a female lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer, does that provide more societal value than when a male lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer?
If a female lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer, does that provide more societal value than when a male lawyer successfully defends an actual murderer?
There's a lot more to sexism (and other bigotry) than simple economics.
Presumably, we have all had coworkers who weren't great workers, weren't very bright, etc., but managed to get ahead by schmoozing and playing politics. Their brighter and harder-working colleagues who didn't play that game didn't progress up the ladder as quickly. Bigotry presents a similar issue, but on an even larger scale.
Presumably, we have all had coworkers who weren't great workers, weren't very bright, etc., but managed to get ahead by schmoozing and playing politics. Their brighter and harder-working colleagues who didn't play that game didn't progress up the ladder as quickly. Bigotry presents a similar issue, but on an even larger scale.
Women lawyers can get together and start their own law firms. The same goes for any lawyer who is convinced he/she is unfairly underpaid.
You clearly don't have experience in law firms. White shoe Wall Street lawyers, for example, generally can't just hang their own shingle and do corporate M&A as a solo practitioner.
Law firms get started somehow. None spontaneously appeared. Besides, what better way to prove one's worth than start a competitor and kick the former employer's behind?
Thanks for confirming that you don't have experience in law firms.
Maybe they think Better Call Saul is a documentary.
Doesn't seem impossible to me:
http://info.legalzoom.com/can-lawyer-sole-proprietorship-248...
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/resources/solosez/...
That last link is the American Bar Association explaining how to do it.
(Experience in law firms may actually work against you there. In big companies I've worked for, none of the people working there had any idea how to start their own business, and would try to convince others it was impossible.)
http://info.legalzoom.com/can-lawyer-sole-proprietorship-248...
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/resources/solosez/...
That last link is the American Bar Association explaining how to do it.
(Experience in law firms may actually work against you there. In big companies I've worked for, none of the people working there had any idea how to start their own business, and would try to convince others it was impossible.)
I don't have a strong view about the particular case of women attorneys, but this argument that discrimination can't be real because the free market would stamp it out is tired and obviously wrong. Do people who forward this line of thought believe that job discrimination (against women, racial minorities etc.) never existed anywhere?
This comment makes a good argument, yet it is downvoted without any explanations–as is the similar argument by delazeur.
Here's the famous "blind orchestra audition" study: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml. It showed that women are 50% (!) more likely to be hired when auditioning behind a curtain.
Surely this couldn't happen in reality, because some other orchestra would use the chance to hire all these highly qualified women, right?
Here's the famous "blind orchestra audition" study: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml. It showed that women are 50% (!) more likely to be hired when auditioning behind a curtain.
Surely this couldn't happen in reality, because some other orchestra would use the chance to hire all these highly qualified women, right?
> This comment makes a good argument, yet it is downvoted without any explanations–as is the similar argument by delazeur.
Because the residents of this forum are drowning in unexamined ideology.
It's actually comical just how blinkered and warped the thinking can get around here.
Because the residents of this forum are drowning in unexamined ideology.
It's actually comical just how blinkered and warped the thinking can get around here.
From the article she switched to the firm specifically with the understanding that her compensation would be much higher, and then they ended up reneging on the agreement as she understood it.
If for the same amount and quality of work the law firms has to pay 40% more for men, shouldn't they hire women exclusively?
Or why don't the women band together and setup their own firm? They can charge 20% less and still earn double.
Discrimination exists, but markets are usually pretty good at squeezing it out and punishing it.
Discrimination exists, but markets are usually pretty good at squeezing it out and punishing it.
The entirety of human history puts lie to this false assertion, and the continued necessity of laws to prohibit such behavior shows that nothing has changed. The market is more than willing to put up with a gross inefficiency if it reinforces the dominant narrative and market participants have shown themselves ready to collectively make less if it means that members of disfavored groups make much, much less.
>The market is more than willing to put up with a gross inefficiency if it reinforces the dominant narrative and market participants have shown themselves ready to collectively make less if it means that members of disfavored groups make much, much less.
I read your post as pinning it on the selling-side, but I'm not sure thats true; it seems more reasonable to me that the market would naturally stamp out discrimination on the seller-side unless its being enforced by consumers; ie if the population in general distrusts women leading a firm, and thus gives them less business as a result, then their market value is actually lower, because they can't fairly compete. So the market is being efficient given the nature of the environment. It might be better off in a different environment.
I read your post as pinning it on the selling-side, but I'm not sure thats true; it seems more reasonable to me that the market would naturally stamp out discrimination on the seller-side unless its being enforced by consumers; ie if the population in general distrusts women leading a firm, and thus gives them less business as a result, then their market value is actually lower, because they can't fairly compete. So the market is being efficient given the nature of the environment. It might be better off in a different environment.
The free market usually fails to discriminate, because people are more greedy than they are bigots. This is why government help is enlisted to enforce bigotry - often in the form of required licensing, limiting the number of people entering a career, etc.
The free market discriminated against black people in the US very effectively, even after the government attempted to enforce non-discrimination (see redlining).
Jim Crow made discrimination legally mandatory, because greed kept undermining voluntary discrimination.
See "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" by Woodward.
See "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" by Woodward.
[deleted]
If discrimination exists in firms hiring policies, it also likely exists with clients hiring policies.
> A 2016 survey of the 350 largest U.S. law firms found female partners on average received $659,000 in annual pay. Male partners, meanwhile, averaged $949,000, or 44 percent more.
> “Studies find that male lawyers are two to five times more likely to become partner than female lawyers,” [Professor Deborah] Rhode [director of Stanford Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession] says. “I think a lot of women lawyers are fed up.”
For almost 20 years, around half of law school graduates have been women.[0] At least in IT, part of the problem (certainly not the whole thing) is that there are few women in the pipeline. What excuse does the legal industry have?
The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population.
[0] http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us
> “Studies find that male lawyers are two to five times more likely to become partner than female lawyers,” [Professor Deborah] Rhode [director of Stanford Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession] says. “I think a lot of women lawyers are fed up.”
For almost 20 years, around half of law school graduates have been women.[0] At least in IT, part of the problem (certainly not the whole thing) is that there are few women in the pipeline. What excuse does the legal industry have?
The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population.
[0] http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us
White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population, 43.14% of the employed work force. 88.6% of lawyers are white.
2014, US, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/...
2014, US, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/...
I'm not sure how that data changes my points in the GP.
> White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population
That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely.
> White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force
I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty.
> 88.6% of lawyers are white
Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem.
Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking:
> white men represented about 74% of all partners
> over 80% of equity partners are male
> White men were 38.52% of the civilian noninstitutional population
That's pretty close to the 33% number I gave for the entire population. Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely.
> White men were ... 43.14% of the employed work force
I'm not sure how that applies. It may demonstrate the high degree of discrimination against people who aren't white men. Is your point that there some discrimination is further down the pipeline than hiring and promotion of lawyers? That is a certainty.
> 88.6% of lawyers are white
Regarding racial discrimination: About 66% of the U.S. population is white-skinned, and I believe the proportion is lowest among children and therefore higher in the workforce. Given white-skinned people's great advantages in access to education and to the social connections that are so valuable to success (as we know, people tend to hire other people who are like them), the 88.6% isn't a surprise, but it's a serious problem.
Regarding gender discrimination: That number represents all white-skinned people, not just men; it says nothing about gender discrimination. The numbers in my GP comment and another comment quoting the same data are pretty shocking:
> white men represented about 74% of all partners
> over 80% of equity partners are male
>Also, non-white Americans are imprisoned at much higher rates than white-skinned ones, so that would seem to corroborate my number closely.
That is probably a factor, but there are other factors too such as the demographic shift currently occurring in the US due to higher non-white birth rates and thus a higher percentage of the non-white population still being younger than 16 and thus falling out of the "civilian noninstitutional population".
>That is a certainty.
Sorry, but "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either.
Same for your other claims.
What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". While it is absolutely necessary to look for and fight against discrimination, making bold claims without supporting evidence and suggesting those are facts, while neglecting to look for other potential factors, is not really helpful in my humble opinion (it is a little as to raising awareness and starting conversations in the first place).
That is probably a factor, but there are other factors too such as the demographic shift currently occurring in the US due to higher non-white birth rates and thus a higher percentage of the non-white population still being younger than 16 and thus falling out of the "civilian noninstitutional population".
>That is a certainty.
Sorry, but "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either.
Same for your other claims.
What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all". While it is absolutely necessary to look for and fight against discrimination, making bold claims without supporting evidence and suggesting those are facts, while neglecting to look for other potential factors, is not really helpful in my humble opinion (it is a little as to raising awareness and starting conversations in the first place).
> "That is a certainty" doesn't cut it for me. That's merely a claim or thesis, not a statement of fact, not necessarily wrong but not necessarily true or the whole picture either.
We don't need to provide evidence or the complete picture for everything. If I say 'That is a certainty' that London has a larger population than Dover, it's not necessary to provide a citation or a detailed picture. The existence of discrimination in the areas I mentioned easily falls into that category. I didn't say it was the whole picture; that would require writing books, not HN comments.
> Same for your other claims.
Almost all my other statements were reasoning about data.
> What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all".
I didn't say that and I didn't leap to my conclusions; I'm not sure how you imagine to know what my thinking process was or how long it took. I saw data, shared it, and reasoned a bit about the evidence.
We don't need to provide evidence or the complete picture for everything. If I say 'That is a certainty' that London has a larger population than Dover, it's not necessary to provide a citation or a detailed picture. The existence of discrimination in the areas I mentioned easily falls into that category. I didn't say it was the whole picture; that would require writing books, not HN comments.
> Same for your other claims.
Almost all my other statements were reasoning about data.
> What I find interesting is you instantly leaping to "discrimination/oppressions explains it all".
I didn't say that and I didn't leap to my conclusions; I'm not sure how you imagine to know what my thinking process was or how long it took. I saw data, shared it, and reasoned a bit about the evidence.
I didn't claim it changed anything. I didn't agree nor disagree with anything, for that matter.
My "point" was that I got curious about these numbers, googled them, then posted them here in case anybody else was curious too.
My "point" was that I got curious about these numbers, googled them, then posted them here in case anybody else was curious too.
Lawyers have a long shelf life. Peak-career partners probably started law school more like 30 years ago. The number of women in new partner cohorts is over 1/3 (similar for new Fortune 500 general counsel).
In my view, you’ve got the causation backwards. Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces.
Of course, challenges remain, as shown in this article.
In my view, you’ve got the causation backwards. Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces.
Of course, challenges remain, as shown in this article.
The link in the GP says that 120 of Fortune 500 general counsels - not the equivalents of partners but of the heads of firms - are women, which I'm guessing is a far higher proportion than their major law firm equivalents. I always assumed that was because there is less discrimination in the Fortune 500 general counsel offices. I know a woman who is an attorney in a U.S. federal court; a large majority of her co-workers are women; is that because they face less discrimination than in firms?
(Note that on HN we often have to speculate about the experiences of women; there are so few here who can talk about it. I expect to find male attorneys on this thread, but I would be happily surprised if a female attorney appeared to share an on-the-ground perspective with us.)
It reminds me of Justice Ginsburg (obviously from a different era) who said she was a judge mostly because, despite her elite law school credentials and talent, she couldn't get a desirable job in a law firm.
EDIT:
> Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces.
That culture isn't working well (as you said, 'challenges remain'). Per the link in the GP, over 80% of equity partners are male.
But I agree, it's still nothing like tech.
(Note that on HN we often have to speculate about the experiences of women; there are so few here who can talk about it. I expect to find male attorneys on this thread, but I would be happily surprised if a female attorney appeared to share an on-the-ground perspective with us.)
It reminds me of Justice Ginsburg (obviously from a different era) who said she was a judge mostly because, despite her elite law school credentials and talent, she couldn't get a desirable job in a law firm.
EDIT:
> Having a 25%-33% chance your boss or client will be a woman creates the kind of culture necessary to attract a gender-balanced pipeline. A woman going into law hoping to make partner is signing up to be in a (large) minority, but the ratio is nothing like a woman going into tech hoping to become a Senior Engineer faces.
That culture isn't working well (as you said, 'challenges remain'). Per the link in the GP, over 80% of equity partners are male.
But I agree, it's still nothing like tech.
On your point about less discrimination in federal courts, I think it’s less than 30% of federal judges that are women. I don’t know the staff composition.
>The cite has some other interesting information. For example, "In 2015, white men represented about 74% of all partners." Remember that white males are only 33% of the U.S. population.
You just brought up the fact that there are few women in the pipeline for IT, and in the very next paragraph you're glossing over the possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms.
Furthermore, how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? You can't put in 70+ hours a week with young children unless you're not spending any time with them. And once you're off the partner track, it's a herculean effort to get back on for a lawyer of either sex.
You just brought up the fact that there are few women in the pipeline for IT, and in the very next paragraph you're glossing over the possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms.
Furthermore, how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families? You can't put in 70+ hours a week with young children unless you're not spending any time with them. And once you're off the partner track, it's a herculean effort to get back on for a lawyer of either sex.
> possibility there are fewer non-white people in the pipeline at law firms
> how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families?
There are infinite possibilities. We need a factual basis to distinguish which ones are worthy of consideration.
> how many of those women fell off the partner track when they had families?
There are infinite possibilities. We need a factual basis to distinguish which ones are worthy of consideration.
Where can I find the percentage of women who leave law to have families?
law firms are desperate to retain women but they value work life balance and having children too much
I know multiple paralegals who are some of the best in the field. Fuck the female partners, I want more outrage about the suppression of the wages of the people doing 3/4ths the work but getting 1/10 the pay. For example, I found out firms were calling other firms to artificially keep paralegal salaries low.
If your example is true, the subject paralegals know exactly why they have standing to sue.
Law firms tend to avoid breaking the law pretty well, though.
Law firms tend to avoid breaking the law pretty well, though.
This assuming that "standing to sue" is equal to justice, which it isn't
People sue, and win, over this kind of price fixing all the time.
Makes me think the evidence isn't as clear cut as he believes.
Makes me think the evidence isn't as clear cut as he believes.
My real point is that the chances of law firms breaking the law over paralegal compensation is basically nil. Paralegal salaries make up an itty bitty fraction of the money that moves around these firms.
Wasn't that the point?
Also, the wage suppression is related to the fact that the paralegals produce far more value than they are paid, not a legal issue. You might say, hey that's a common feature of the economy. You'd be right.
Also, the wage suppression is related to the fact that the paralegals produce far more value than they are paid, not a legal issue. You might say, hey that's a common feature of the economy. You'd be right.
The issue I was discussing was the allegation that firms were calling around in a wage suppression conspiracy. Like Google/Apple/etc got caught doing.
> the chances of law firms breaking the law over paralegal compensation is basically nil. Paralegal salaries make up an itty bitty fraction of the money that moves around these firms.
I understand the theory, but the reality IME is much different. Plenty of doctors drink too much, take drugs, and otherwise don't care for their own health, and plenty of lawyers are reckless with the law in managing their own businesses. (Plenty of people on HN probably use crappy passwords.)
I understand the theory, but the reality IME is much different. Plenty of doctors drink too much, take drugs, and otherwise don't care for their own health, and plenty of lawyers are reckless with the law in managing their own businesses. (Plenty of people on HN probably use crappy passwords.)
[deleted]
In addition, many BigLaw firms also undercut their staff on benefits:
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/04/biglaw-firms-offer-second-cla...
>I want more outrage about the suppression of the wages of the people doing 3/4ths the work but getting 1/10 the pay.
Amen to that. Thank you.
>I want more outrage about the suppression of the wages of the people doing 3/4ths the work but getting 1/10 the pay.
Amen to that. Thank you.
So from this story, we now know that:
1. A woman at a law firm earned less points for reasons and thus got paid less.
2. The firm claims this was commensurate with her performance.
3. She says it was not.
4. Other women at the same firm disagreed with her.
5. Therefore all female partners at all law firms in the US are being paid less? Or is the title of this article just click-bait?
Also in this case, lets not forget she has had six kids. Regardless of how PC you want to be you cannot possibly argue that this HASN'T had at least SOME practical impact to her career and ability to perform her in her role. To be fair, it's probably had a similar impact on her husband as well - kids take up a lot of your thoughts and time it's totally normal.
1. A woman at a law firm earned less points for reasons and thus got paid less.
2. The firm claims this was commensurate with her performance.
3. She says it was not.
4. Other women at the same firm disagreed with her.
5. Therefore all female partners at all law firms in the US are being paid less? Or is the title of this article just click-bait?
Also in this case, lets not forget she has had six kids. Regardless of how PC you want to be you cannot possibly argue that this HASN'T had at least SOME practical impact to her career and ability to perform her in her role. To be fair, it's probably had a similar impact on her husband as well - kids take up a lot of your thoughts and time it's totally normal.
> Also in this case, lets not forget she has had six kids
Elon Musk has six kids. What's your point?
Elon Musk has six kids. What's your point?
Musk has 5 kids and 2 ex-wives. How many ex-husbands does our lawyer have, and how many of her ex-husbands themselves have an 8 figure net worth from the divorce?
He's also been divorced twice, what's your point?
His point is that the argument about children competing with career priorities is an argument used almost exclusively against women. As it says in the article, she has a husband who doesn't work.
It's an argument used "against" women with good reason, I'm sure the stay at home father in the article wasn't the one carrying the children and giving birth?
"...Two retired women partners at the firm have joined her lawsuit, but a larger number of current women partners have actually condemned it."
So it's not "law firms vs. women", more women actually support the law firm in this case. Of course that's not proof of anything, but it does suggest it could simply be a normal case of people disagreeing about compensation. In these sorts of cases, you tend to go for any "weapon" you can, and "discrimination" is a pretty powerful one, even if there's nothing to it.
Of course the stats don't look good, but we all should know that correlation ≠ causation. Jordan Peterson, who apparently works with law firms, gives a very different reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q
TL;DW: Law firms try their darnedest to keep women, but most women just aren't as mono-maniacal as the few men who make it to the very top.
So it's not "law firms vs. women", more women actually support the law firm in this case. Of course that's not proof of anything, but it does suggest it could simply be a normal case of people disagreeing about compensation. In these sorts of cases, you tend to go for any "weapon" you can, and "discrimination" is a pretty powerful one, even if there's nothing to it.
Of course the stats don't look good, but we all should know that correlation ≠ causation. Jordan Peterson, who apparently works with law firms, gives a very different reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q
TL;DW: Law firms try their darnedest to keep women, but most women just aren't as mono-maniacal as the few men who make it to the very top.
[deleted]
From the article: “It took me a lot longer than it’s supposed to to reach equity partner,” Campbell says. “Part of that was due to choices I made, putting a priority on raising my kids, for a lot of years as a single mom.”
So the usual fuss about nothing, looking at meaningless income averages, neglecting the individual choices and circumstances that actually explain things.
So the usual fuss about nothing, looking at meaningless income averages, neglecting the individual choices and circumstances that actually explain things.