Gender pay gap reports have revealed how much less women are paid than men in percentage terms at firms including Slaughter and May, Allen & Overy and Ashurst.

Following legislation that came into force in 2017, firms are now obliged to produce annual reports stating the pay gap between male and female employees (partners are excluded on the basis that they are categorised as business owners rather than employees). Many of the results aren't pretty, although firms have been quick to explain that they are skewed because a larger proportion of women occupy lower-paid roles.

"We should add partner salaries for full transparency."  

Slaughter and May has disclosed that women there are paid 14.3% less on average (on a mean basis*) than men. They also receive 33.3% less for their bonuses. But Slaughters said that its all-female secretarial staff had impacted the results, and that there was a "dramatic change" when secretaries were excluded. Broken down, the results revealed that female associates were actually paid 2.1% more than their male peers, and their bonuses averaged 2.7% higher. Amongst business services staff, too, women (excluding secretaries) were paid more than men on average: by 7.6% in salary terms and 5% in respect of bonuses. Slaughters' executive partner Paul Stacey said that the firm's analysis demonstrated that its "one-firm" culture "remains strong", with "the gender pay gap for associates and business services professionals yielding encouraging results".

Allen & Overy's report revealed that its men were paid 19.8% more than its women, on average, while bonus pay was a whopping 42.1% higher. A&O said that over 25% of its London staff were women in business support roles, and that this had a "significant impact" on its gender pay gap. The firm did, however, acknowledge that women were "less well represented in more senior positions" and said that "this is something that we are actively working to improve". 

Unveiling a huge disparity, Ashurst reported that its female staff received bonuses which were, on average, 64.4% lower than men, and were paid 24.8% less than men on average. Like the others, Ashurst said its pay and bonus gaps were "impacted by the structure of the firm and roles that are predominately filled by one gender", with 60% of its female employees occupying business services and secretarial roles. It said that women and men "are paid equally to do the same role" but the "greater proportion of men than women in senior roles creates a gender pay gap". Close behind, Linklaters women were paid 23.2% less on average than men, with bonus pay 57.9% less for women. Linklaters said "we are confident that we pay men and women fairly for equivalent roles", and also pointed to its secretarial and junior business teams being predominately women. 

Raising the same justifications, Mishcon de Reya revealed that its men were paid 17% more than its women on average, and 42% more in bonuses. Herbert Smith Freehills' report showed that its female staff were paid 19% less than its male employees, and 30% less in bonuses. It said "we are confident that men and women are paid equally for doing equivalent jobs".

*Dust off your GCSE maths book for the difference between mean and median.
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 16 March 18 08:27

I find it curious that the role of secretary/PA/legal assistant (the basic requirement being that you know how to use Microsoft Office) is a role dominated entirely by women. I know it has historic reasons, but with the levels of unemployment in the 18-25 bracket and the proficiency that everyone has with computers these days, you would have thought that at least some men would apply for that role. It is in the interest of law firms to balance out the secretary pool with men and women and would be a very easy fix in respect of gender pay gap numbers.

Also I suspect these firms will end up with relatively "good" gender pay gaps because they have dared to publish their results before the deadline. If your firm hasn't published a pay gap yet, it's likely because it is worse than the above!

Anonymous 16 March 18 08:49

"I know it looks bad, but that's only because we tend to put women in the worst-paid roles. So really, it's absolutely fine."

Anonymous 16 March 18 08:53

these ashursts numbers really stand out. 60% of business support functions are female, so 40% are male (or, I guess, "other"), so how does that result in the 24% lower pay, and 64% lower bonuses? I'm not a numbers whizz, but instinctively (with a 60/40 gender split in support, and say 50/50 in professional staff), it feels like the gap should be a LOT narrower.


Can ROF ask ashursts for the same data (pay/bonus gaps) on (a) the professional pool only; and (b) the support staff only?

Roll On Friday 16 March 18 09:14

nonny at 8.53.

Interesting. Can ROF contact all the firms and ask for that sort of data? the firms are publishing this and hiding behind "oops, but secretaries!!!", drill down in the detail. And shame those who fail to disclose.

Anonymous 16 March 18 09:54

The Slaughters figures are helpfully divided by roles and for women (other than equity partners) lawyers they earn more than men so that's about time.

I am concerned generally not just in law that men seem to get higher bonuses than women. Bonuses ca be rather empheral and discretionary and hard to prove as sexist so I do wonder if companies keep basic pay level and then give the big money to men by way of bonus as it can be easier to hide the discrepancy that way.

Anonymous 16 March 18 10:14

If a business has one shareholder or a handful of owner-manager directors, it makes sense to exclude them. If however you have a business like a law firm where around 10% of the workforce are highly-paid owner-managers, it does rather mean the current gender pay gap figures only tell a partial story. Also, has anyone asked what the rationale is for excluding salaried/non-equity partners....?

Anonymous 16 March 18 10:20

Re the Ashurst stats, secretarial staff aren't eligible for bonuses, so the bonus pay gap is predominantly legal staff and a few people in the management team. The internal justification was that men simply got better ratings in their appraisals...

Anonymous 16 March 18 10:56

yes, the mostly male partners decided that mostly the male associates were better at their jobs so on average, they did better than the female associates. Great!

Anonymous 16 March 18 10:58

Yes - looks like we need a ROF Roving Reporter to doorstep these firms and get the raw data. You make weeks and weeks of news out of who has the nicest toilets, biscuits and pens - this is something that actually matters.

Anonymous 16 March 18 11:26

Anon @ 08:27 A&O's Dubai office has one male secretary...at least they did while I was there.

Anonymous 16 March 18 11:36

"revealed how much less women are paid than men". Fake news. Someone in the media really needs to stop it with the nonsense click-bait headlines implying women are paid less than men for the same jobs. It's just lying for attention - the real line should be "Gender pay gap reports have revealed how much less PA's are paid than Solicitors". Accurate, but oh dear, so much more difficult to generate fake outrage, sorry about that.

Anonymous 16 March 18 12:47

Anonymous 8:53 - interesting comment, completely irrelevant. It doesn't say 60% of business services are women, it says 60% of women are in business services - that could be 100% of business services or 1% of business services (top tip, learn how percentages work).

Anonymous - anon 10:20 > you have therefore explained why the gap looks so large on bonuses - if the secretaries aren't eligible for bonuses then their bonus figures will be recorded as 0 and massively drag down the average bonus payments, thus where there is a gender imbalance within the sample pool, they will drag down the women's average but not the men's and therefore contribute to the massive disparity in bonus. So actually this stat is the opposite of what you think it shows, it certainly isn't demonstrating that male associates get way bigger bonuses than fee earners, it merely tells you that a large group of workers, which in this instance are disproportionately women didn't get bonuses at all.

Anonymous 16 March 18 13:26

The justification of "we pay men and women the same for the same job" (as is legally required) isn't what is being asked here and shouldn't be used to gloss over the issue that men hold more of the senior/better paid positions.This is the part that needs to be focussed on (and addressed). It's a shame that the legislation doesn't require partner data to be included - I suspect that would highlight an even bigger issue.

Anonymous 16 March 18 13:54

Such a terrible abuse of statistics. The only information that could really be of use is comp data for business support (PAs, print room, general office etc) and comp data for junior solicitors/trainees. All the current data says is that there is a significant gender imbalance between fee earners and PAs (which is hardly news). Sure it raises societal questions about why more women are in lower paying jobs but it says nothing about the firm itself. What are they supposed to do, discrimnate by favouring the employment of male PAs, pay PAs the same as solicitors etc? The comp data is also likely misleading for more senior solicitors. Women being paid more at the top end might just be because there are fewer women being made up (at my shop there are quite a lot of women in senior counsel type roles which are seen as an alternative to partnership and under this analysis they would be shown as the highest earners).

Anonymous 16 March 18 16:11

Women who are self-employed, are their own boss and who run their own businesses - these businesses are on average far less profitable and make less money on average than similar businesses set up and run by men. Don't believe me? do some research.

Anonymous 16 March 18 18:42

What anon@13:26 said. There are 37 partners in Linklaters' Capital Markets department by last count. Only 3 are women, and who knows if they are even all equity partners.

Anonymous 16 March 18 21:47

Anon @16.11 - I wish you had told me that a few years ago when I set up my own law firm with some others. As it is, because we didn't know that as a predominantly female partnership we would be less successful than men would be, we have doubled our profits every year.

and yes, of course the stats are helped by the vast number of women funnelled into senior counsel/legal director roles whilst their male equivalent make partnership, but are still terrible despite that. The majority of law graduates have been women since the mid1980s, but we are still in this shameful place, with so many people insisting that it is fair, because they don't like to think of their firms as sexist and racist, where white men from the right backgrounds still make nearly all the decisions.

Anonymous 16 March 18 22:07

There may be a pay gap, but gender is just one out many reasons why there may be a differential. The gap is not solely due to gender.
For example, men are more assertive and aggressive than women and ask for pay rises more frequently and push for promotion. Men are much more likely to move firms because they are not happy with their salary or because they are not progressing where they are. More men than women are prepared to work 60 hour+ weeks and not care about work/life balance. Men statistically take less sick days than women. Men have more mobility of labour and on average are prepared to travel further to find work and also spend more time away from home and their family. Outside of law, men work in more dangerous occupations / lines of work than women and are far more likely to get injured or killed in the workplace.

Anonymous 16 March 18 22:22

Anon @ 18:45 - yes, the truth and facts are uncomfortable aren't they? It's much easier to live in denial and not experience cognitive dissonance. Like I say, do some research into it. There's plenty of information out there which backs up what I have said.

Anonymous 17 March 18 03:34

@ the charming chap at 22:22, put your money where your mouth is and show us the peer-reviewed research yourself, m7.

Anonymous 17 March 18 10:27

to the lazy person at 03:34, simply google "self employed women v. self employed men income". that wasn't so hard now was it?

Anonymous 17 March 18 11:04

I am now convinced Mr Misogyny here is a Linklaters partner. He has the same patronising air of self-important pomposity, without any substance to back it up.

Anonymous 17 March 18 23:53

Not employing men as secretaries is also sexism.

It has a pernicious effect on women within the law firm, keeping alive the idea that women's role is to serve.

It also keeps male unemployment high which has social problems outside.

Anonymous 18 March 18 12:19

It's very well documented that self employed women earn less than self employed men. All the government statistics back this up, not just in the UK, but in pretty much every country in Europe. Perhaps instead of reading this month's Cosmo you should all have a little read of this:

http://crse.co.uk/sites/default/files/Women’s%20Self-Employment%20and%20Freelancers_0.pdf


Anonymous 18 March 18 14:31

Oh dear me. I can't work out if this is a parody account or there really is someone out there with so little self-awareness (other than Dux, of course).

Anonymous 18 March 18 14:48

Here's a tip, Mr Misogyny - if you are going to cite an article as evidence of a statement, you might want to check if the article actually supports your contention.

You've given one example of an article that focused entirely on single-person businesses and uses a staggering small sample size of 626 people from a state in Austria. So not remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, and in no way coming close to supporting your claims about self-employed women generally. And, even if it was relevant, hardly counts as well-documented.

Your statements are as ridiculous as me contending that all men must be stupid, biased, and insecure based on your angry rantings. Now, please, help keep the traffic on this story up by making one more frothy-mouthed sexist and irrelevant little pop.

Anonymous 18 March 18 16:38

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/female-freelancers-self-employed-gender-pay-gap-men-women-a8044021.html

Anonymous 18 March 18 17:34

Even assuming female entrepreneurs make less profit, is that a bad thing? Is profit the only stat to measure? Maybe they invest more in their business and people. Maybe they take on more challenging markets? Maybe they create more new markets?

For that matter do women work shorter hours? Maybe they are more efficient and don’t waste time during the day because they still have to get 7 chargeable hours in before collecting the kids. Perhaps if their men pulled their weight at home they too would have time to travel and generate business at male dominated booze driven events....

Anonymous 19 March 18 10:30

Funny how they exclude the secretaries from business services (all females) but they strangely forgot to also exclude the floor messengers (all male) which are the other half of the "low paid" category. That "omission" is probably why Slaughters say that in business services, women are paid more then men...

Anonymous 19 March 18 12:10

anonymous @ 12.47 that's incorrect, the bonus pay gap relates only to those who received a bonus. I.e, support staff etc were not included.

Anonymous 19 March 18 15:59

Immediately above -

Actually I am not - bonus includes "all relevant employees" which amounts to "all employees employed by your organisation on the snapshot date – these are referred to as ‘relevant employees’ "

Sources:
per https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gender-pay-gap-reporting-make-your-calculations#bonus-pay-figures-you-must-calculate

and

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gender-pay-gap-reporting-data-you-must-gather#relevant-employees-full-pay-relevant-employees-and-their-gender

That seems reasonably clear to me and I'm not sure that there is any suggestion in the ROF article that there was a misapplication of the rules re: bonuses. (P.s. - I hope you haven't been advising clients otherwise).

Anonymous 19 March 18 20:18

There is a pay gap, but gender is only one of many reasons why men earn more than women. The overall picture is complex and many factors are at play. To see the gap and conclude that the reason it exists is solely due to gender is both wrong and delusional.

Anonymous 22 March 18 21:44

Do enlighten us. What other reasons are there other than gender? More men are employed in senior roles? Yep, that's gender related. Women tend to be primary care givers which interrupts working patterns? Again, gender.

If you were arguing the gap isn't solely down to illegal sexual discrimination, you might have a point, but arguing that a gap in gender pay isn't down to gender is both wrong and delusional.

Anonymous 27 March 18 15:38

re: anon at 22/03/18: Men are more assertive and aggressive than women and ask for pay rises more frequently and push for promotion. Men are much more likely to move firms because they are not happy with their salary or because they are not progressing where they are. More men than women are prepared to work 60 hour+ weeks and not care about work/life balance. Men statistically take less sick days than women. Men have more mobility of labour and on average are prepared to travel further to find work and also spend more time away from home and their family. Outside of law, men work in more dangerous occupations / lines of work than women and are far more likely to get injured or killed in the workplace. These are just a few off the top of my head. There are plenty of others.