ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours, 25 minutes ago

   This is ridiculus.  I read the study and see that women have to work TWICE as hard to make the same dollars as men.  Put another way, MEN work HALF as hard as women to bring home the same amount of dollars.  That is REALLY UNFAIR!.

   WOMEN, we must band together, as we are getting screwed by the man.  This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along; maybe finally the silent majority of women will not only listen but take ACTION. 

   We deserve equal work for equal pay.  What is so complicated about that?  Is equality something we WOMEN are afraid to stand up for? 

   When I discussed this with my boyfriend, he COMPLETELY agreed.  He knows that women MUST be treated fairly.  WHY cant the other men be so understanding and supportive?  I call upon all women lawyers to stand up for what is RIGHT.  Equal pay for equal work. 

   And Kudo’s to McCane for having the guts to hire a woman.  I may not agree with everything he says, but he knows that it is time to put a woman in the White House.

2. Posted by McLean - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 34 minutes ago

   Poster # 1,

   “Kudos” to McCain for hiring a woman? So ANY woman is good enough for the White House? Are you kidding me?

   I’m a woman, and I say no to Palin as a VP candidate. She lacks the intellect of other GOP women such as Olympia Snowe or Kay Hutchinson; she lacks the knowledge and understanding of national and international issues, as was woefully displayed last night during the Charlie Gibson interview on ABC; and I confess that I am dismayed that any woman could celebrate someone whose agenda is so anti-feminist. She opposes abortion in cases of rape or incest. So little girls should have their fathers’ babies? Women should have their rapists’ babies?

   When she was mayor of Wasilla, rape victims had to pay for the forensic exams that are necessary if they want to prosecute their rapist. Even women’s rights groups in Alaska are opposing her VP candidacy.

   No, poster #1, I don’t want or need *that* woman in the White House.

3. Posted by Jon McCane - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 15 minutes ago

   And Kudo’s to Poster 1 for both using an apostrophe correctly, and properly spelling the name of the GOP nominee for President of the United States.  Break the glass ceiling, sister!

4. Posted by Jim Eddinton - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 9 minutes ago

   I was going to say “How long before Barshevsky shows up whinging about da man holdin’ dem chix down, but she beat me to it… whinging about men holding women down.

   Note the article above makes no comment or comparison about the gender ratio of hours billed or hours worked or professional experience or education or location or firm or likability, or rain making ability or anything else.

   Put another way, if the women lawyer who makes $93,600 (or any lawyer who makes it) wants to make the $120,400 salary that the male lawyer makes, her (any lawyer’s) hours billed or hours worked, professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain making ability, and everything else/some combination thereof had better be at least as good as the lawyer making $120K. If not, there’s no reason to pay them as much.

   Ellen, you should just hire all women attorneys, and just pay them 250K, regardless of hours billed or hours worked, professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain making ability, or anything else.

   Why aren’t you?

5. Posted by Barry Obama - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes ago

   With #3 as to #1,

   And ridiculous. 

   To the ABA,

   Is this really news?

6. Posted by State Attorney - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 44 minutes ago

   Right. Tell us something we don’t know. Heck, the only reason I’m reading this is because ABA is still sending me my free subscription.  I couldn’t afford it otherwise!

7. Posted by Bill - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 26 minutes ago

   Allright folks!  Let’s hear it for Ms. Barshevsky!  Give it up!  Isn’t she great?  Yeah!  Don’t worry, folks; she’ll be back.

   I ESPECIALLY like the EMPHASIS on certain WORDS.  It really help convey the whiny tone.  Well done madam!  Well done!

   At my firm, women are paid equally to men.  In fact, I know several women making WAY (emphasis word) more than I am.  Of course, they’re senior partners and have been here longer.  Those darn sexist men tried but couldn’t keep them from becoming partners and making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

   OH - by the way, what the article does not discuss is any possible rational and reasonable explanation for the skew in the data.  Like, for example, the fact that “legal occupation” includes paralegal jobs, which overwhelmiingly are held by women.  It’s no secret that paralegals are not paid anything like lawyers are.  So if we’re looking at the “average” salary of women in “legal jobs” and a larger percentage of women in “legal jobs” are paralegals compared to the percentage of men in “legal jobs” who are paralegals, the “average” women’s salary will be skewed lower compared to men. 

   We all (hopefully) know how statistics work.  So, Ms. Bashevsky, before you climb on your high horse, don’t assume this study offers anything resembling conclusive proof of male bias keeping women poor.  Let’s first find out how the data was actually collected and what it actually means before jumping to unfounded conclusions about what it might represent.

8. Posted by Jon Edwards - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 7 minutes ago

   As soon as I saw the article, I wondered how quick Ellen would be to comment.  As an attorney in a small town, when the time comes for me to hire an associate, I intend to hire a woman, but it sure won’t be someone like Ellen.  And, I will be paying her less than I pay myself.  Just as I pay my female paralegal less.

9. Posted by Unpopular View - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 44 minutes ago

   Maybe if you women were actually working instead of writing these diatribes, you would be making more.

10. Posted by Jeremy - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 42 minutes ago

    Could it be, *gasp*, that some women take off time to have children, thus lowering annual earnings?  I notice that this survey did not adjust for unpaid FMLA leave time taken (far more women than men take unpaid FMLA leave), for differences in experience due to time taken off for child bearing, or for differences in the amount of hours worked (the workaholic man who stays at the office till 8pm vs. the mom who picks up the kids from daycare at 6pm).

    These are meaningless stats without some context.

    Is this article claiming that when a firm advertises a starting salary of $150,000/yr, that when the applicant walks through the door, the firm adjusts salary upwards for men and downwards for women?  Absurd.

11. Posted by Tolerance - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 37 minutes ago

    Wow, you liberals sure are tolerant of other people.  I like how you jump all over Ms. Barshevsky for mentioning Governor Palin, while ignoring her other remarks.

    I just think this ABA Journal has rapidly declined to becoming a spokesmouth for the Democrat Party, and its many misguided minions.

    Just my opinion.

    As to the substance of the “study,“ anyone with experience in science and/or statistics realizes that this study is completely meaningless.  Yes, women may have lower salaries.  You know what, my mother is also an attorney and she has a lower salary than I do.  But she’s done that by choice.  Having and spending time with her family was more important than ambition.

    Most men look for reasons to get out of the house and away from child-rearing responsibilities.  Work is an easy way to do it, and then we expect a big “thank you” from the family.  Meanwhile, our work is rewarded by the firm.  We get it both ways.  It is unfair.  Nu?  Who says life is fair?

    The study is ridiculous because it attempts to portray this as a man v. woman issue.  It’s simply not.

12. Posted by Tolerance Cont'd - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago

    What I mean about not being a man v. woman issue is that it is not simply based on gender.

    It is based on he inherent differences between the genders.  Something whining and complaining is not going to change.  (And the world is better off if it doesn’t change—we need some people who care about something other than money and ambition)

13. Posted by in house - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 34 minutes ago

    I knew people would attribute these differences to so called personal choice and differences in so called merit. I call BS on both items. These “choices” do not occur in a vacuum. They occur as a result of policies and practices at law firms, in the appointment of judges and the utter lack of support in our society for child rearing, among other things. Merit too is suspect, when law firms reward only things like billable hours and origination. Check out the latest NAWL study to find out how flawed these supposed objective categories can be.

14. Posted by Male 3L - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 17 minutes ago

    Good news for me, I guess….

15. Posted by HT - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 12 minutes ago

    NoBamAbsolutelyNoBiden ‘08

16. Posted by The Dude - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 8 minutes ago

    Great news for me.  Not my problem :  )

17. Posted by Rick - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 8 hours, 5 minutes ago

    “Ellen, you should just hire all women attorneys”

    Exactly - in a free job marketplace woiuldn’t a smart business staff itself with quality employees it could pay less?  Unless, of course, there is no real disparity…

18. Posted by Female 2L - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 59 minutes ago

    It only makes sense that the median for all male legal professionals is higher than for women, because the most experienced and most highly paid are men—from the days when very few women went to law school or even entered the work field. Maybe this study would be more useful, if it gave data on women and men of like age and experience.

19. Posted by Dave - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Female lawyers earn less because they work less hours and leave the profession in fewer years then men.  The salaries for female lawyers in the same year with the same experience as thier counterparts is equal.

20. Posted by Kim - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 57 minutes ago

    Sadly, this is not news.  But what this story doesn’t reflect is the career paths that were taken.  Are there more women in public interest law?  Government?  Solos?  Are these discrepancies more prevalent in firms?  I’ve been in-house counsel for most of my career, and have been paid as well as most of my male colleagues.  I’ve found that there were a lot more lucrative opportunities - and the ability to demand reasonable compensation - than in a law firm environment, where too much depends on which partner you get stuck with.

21. Posted by susan - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 55 minutes ago

    Palin is to women as Thomas is to African Americans.  She is perfect for the far right wing and religious fundamentalist element of the Republican Party.  It would be nice if there was some other choice; a party that is based on fiscal conservatism (can’t wait for the bidding war for Michigan’s votes when the Dems and Republicans get together to bail out Ford and GM) and believes in individual liberties.

22. Posted by Sarah - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 50 minutes ago

    It’s hard to pay professionals equally because they bring different skills to the table. With that said, here’s a big but: if one attorney is better at management and the other at legal issues or rainmaking can’t you determine that both skills are important and pay the same, with bonuses builkt in to performance in those areas? In my very small firm, the other associate (a male)gets more money and a cut on more of the work he does than I do, even if he doesn’t bring it in. That is wrong. My choice? Find another position with a better firm, something I am working on.  And my clients go with me. In the meantime, I do a great job.

    Note to mcLean at #2, you sound so angry….how can you possibly make some of those statements about Gov. Palin - it really diminishes your credibiity.

23. Posted by NoBama 2008 - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 50 minutes ago

    NoBamAbsolutelyNoBiden ‘08 - Are you scared or concerned - If not, you should be!!!!!

24. Posted by Hadley V. Baxendale - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes ago

    Wait—I thought all lawyers started at $160,000? How could the median be less?
    As others have siad, these are meaningless numbers (and thus typical for this magazine) especially when lumping paralegals (mostly female) as “legal professionals.“  Right now, in NYC, women between 25-35 IIRC earn more than men—the ceiling has been broken.  As to judges, the pool is drawn from an older group, when the demographics were different.  Today, half the law students (and presumably grads) are women.  Run this study on grads ,10 years out. But it still won’t account for personal choice; many of my female colleagures over the past 25 years gladly and voluntarikly chose a lifestyle that invloved working fewer, or no, hours in a law firm.  There is no conspiracy and the glass ceiling is long gone.

25. Posted by Margret - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 38 minutes ago

    The law firm salary formula is simple:  If you want to earn as much money as your male counterparts, bill more hours, spend your free time networking, stop running home to cook dinner for your lazy husbands and stop having babies.  If this is objectionable, stop complaining and take your 77.8%.

26. Posted by Old and Apparently Irrelevant - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 33 minutes ago

    Comment #3 is a classic indeed. The irony in all this is that the profession is being demonized for doing huge favors to women who want a reduced work schedule, which by the way is something that no male would have been permitted to do in the old days. Re comment #10, yes It is unfortunate that the ABA has been hijacked by the Left, but on a macro scale it is just another symptom of the passing of the torch in this country from the Greatest Generation to the Whiniest Generation.

27. Posted by khazeh - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 30 minutes ago

    The apologists were saying the same thing back when my mother practiced law - oh, you ladies don’t work hard enough and you quit all the time to have babies, and if you DO work hard and DON’T put your family before your job, why, we’ll just assume you must be slacking off somehow. It never changes.

28. Posted by Jade - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes ago

    I’m female, and I have to agree with Tolerance on this one (regarginh thr article, not liberals). Some women are career focused and others are family focused. Unfortunately, you can’t devote 100% to both. The men who are at the top probably don’t spend enough time with their families. The men I know have wives who are either disgruntled or impatient. I am 28 right now and not married and don’t have kids. I am career focused right now and make good money. If I get married and take time off to honeymoon or maternity leave or whatever, I don’t expect to get paid as much asa male co-worker that billed 2500 hours that same year. Regardless of FMLA, if I bill 2000 hours and someone else bills 2500 hours, why should I expect to get equal pay? I doubt firms are saying, “We will pay our male summer associates $3,000 a week and our female summer associates will get $2,500…“

29. Posted by Kathleen - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes ago

    DUH!!!  As a lawyer and a woman entering the profession in the late 1970s I was constantly challenged to pick between time to my career and time for my family.  It was impossible to work for a “big firm” and have a reasonable family lifestyle.  I think it still is .. for males and females.  I have no regrets for making choices for more sanity and lower income.  Too bad we are forced to make that choice.  And to “Dude” (comment 15), it is your problem because talented lawyers are not available in the pool of candidates to work with your firm.

30. Posted by STL - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 21 minutes ago

    I was so excited when I saw the title of this article because I knew Barschevsky would provide some entertainment for the morning.

31. Posted by TMB - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes ago

    Your article begins “The highest earners in 2007 were men in legal occupations, who earned a median salary in 2007 of $105,233, according to a Census Bureau report.“  You are apparently not very careful

    The report you reference lists male physicians and surgeons as earning $181,200.  It lists male dentists as earning $150,500.  Based on the report you cite, I would say that men in legal occupations are NOT the highest earners.

32. Posted by Bill - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 17 minutes ago

    Ellen, the WSJ article is such utter crap, as most salary reports tend to be, I certainly wouldn’t use it as a basis for getting angry about women’s perceived lower salaries. I worked for ten years with a bachelor’s degree before going to law school and never came close to earning $47k, nor have most people of my generation. And I’m certainly not making six figures as a lawyer. If there’s any truth to the idea that women get paid less for doing the same job, it’s for reasons related to them not staying at the same company for as long, switching professions, not being as aggressive in asking for raises, etc., as much as their male counterparts, on average. I have NEVER been employed somewhere where women get paid lower salaries than men in the identical position. That’s the impression that these articles try to create, but it’s very misleading.

33. Posted by Pro-Ellen - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 12 minutes ago

    It is astonishing that she manages to get the first post in on this one. Are you checking your email at 3am?

    Usually Ellen’s tirades are somewhat randomly inspired. But the numbers don’t lie, even if the census is silent on explaining the discrepancies in pay. First off, it’s a census. Not a privately funded research study where you’re paid to come up with the results your financial backers want. It’s also based on such a large population that the impact of anomalies, individual motivations, and corporate policies are going to be diluted. The aggregate circumstances are such that men make more than women as a result. And I didn’t need a study to tell me that.

    And any Democratic woman who is anti-Palin is a hypocrit. The only reason most liberal women backed Hilary was because she was a woman. Having a woman run was a gimmick to get a Democrat in the White House the same way Obama is on some vague concept of “change.“ She wasn’t exactly qualified. To bash Palin, because the Republican party is attempting to cash in on the same gimmick, is just to be mad that your plan backfired. And to be honest, if you’re going to run someone on gender (or race) alone, shouldn’t it be as vice? Our president HAS to qualified and experienced in running our nation and remaining dominant in world affairs.

34. Posted by TMB - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 7 hours, 3 minutes ago

    > “any Democratic woman who is anti-Palin is a hypocrit”

    Any any social conservative who backs Palin needs to thank the Democrats and liberals who made it possible for Palin to be a mayor, a governor, and a candidate despite vehement opposition from the conservatives - at every step of the way - to granting women equal access to the workplace.

35. Posted by Pro-Ellen - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 50 minutes ago

    I knew someone would draw the inference that I’m a conservative or a Republican. I’m not, and I thank every woman Republican, Democrat, or fence-sitter, who have pushed themselves to get ahead. “Some women are becoming the men they always wanted to marry.“ - Gloria Steinem

    The sad fact is that whatever side you sit on, having a woman run is a gimmick. And it shouldn’t be. We have qualified women and minorities out there, but they’re not being called on to run.

36. Posted by Pro-Ellen - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes ago

    The same way they’re not being paid equally in the workforce.

37. Posted by MommyEsq - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes ago

    Some women are paid less because we choose jobs or careers within the legal profession that offer more flexibility in exchange for less pay.  I personally did make that choice, working in-house rather than for a law firm. I make less money but the trade-off is worth it.  The study cited in this article probably does not take into account the hours worked or the choices made; it sounds like it was just a broad overview.  I would be interested in reading a more detailed study comparing actual apples-to-apples (i.e., similar billable hours or similar jobs among men and women).

    I take offense to comment 32.  I supported Clinton in the primary because she and I share many of the same political views and she has actually supported women’s rights.  I would not vote for McCain regardless of whom he had chosen for VP.  He is not a supporter of women’s rights and neither is Palin (she is merely a beneficiary of the women’s rights movement).

38. Posted by Jack - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes ago

    I can only speak from my experience at a mid size law firm in the Midwest in a mid size city (lits of mids).  Our firm pays men and women equally for equal work, but overall, men do make more than women at our firm for two reasons.  First, we have part time associates and part time partners.  They bill less and generate less revenue, therefore, they make less.  What’s wrong with that?  Second, in general, there are fewer female attorneys between the ages of 50 and 65 (prime earning years) because there were fewer women in law school in the 1970’s and early 1980’s.  Now women comprise 50% or more of law school classes.  As time goes by, the differences in pay will equal out due to demographics.  I would imagine that no matter what market you are in, if you consider the two foregoing factors, there is not much of a difference between men and women in compensation.

39. Posted by Mike - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 21 minutes ago

    To number 20:  There is a party of fiscal conservatism and personal liberty.  It’s the Libertarian Party.  Unfortunately it has yet to get much traction.

40. Posted by NJ - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 16 minutes ago

    Dear “Pro-Ellen”...

    What rock have you been living under?  Last time I checked the headlines, there is someone running as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States by the name of Barack Obama.  I know you’re too busy fighting for equal women’s rights to realize this, but actually there is a very well qualified minority candidate for president.  His name is Barack Obama.  I’m voting for him.  Certainly not voting for McCain and Palin.

41. Posted by angry attorney - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 14 minutes ago

    I am living proof that male lawyers get paid more than female lawyers for the same exact position.  I recently joined a personal injury firm making $60k/ yr.  The firm also hired a male associate on the same day they hired me.  I am a 2006 graduate.  My male colleague is a 2007 graduate.  He is getting paid $70k/yr.  How do I know? The office manager mistakenly gave me his paycheck.  I was furious.  What’s more, he and his wife just had a baby and he has been on PAID TIME OFF for the past three weeks and I have been doing both of our jobs!!!  What’s even worse, a female partner made the salaray decisions and puts him on a pedastal while I’m placed on the back burner!!!!  How can a female do this to another female?  Not only do I have more experience than my male colleague, but I’m also a harder worker.  Needless to say, I’m looking for another job.

42. Posted by Pat - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes ago

    This report is extremely misleading.  The problem with the report is that is does not compare apples to apples.  The report compares all legal positions.  Even comparing just lawyer positions is not a neutral comparison.  Women, more than men, take jobs in legal aid and the public sector, which pay notoriously low salaries.  Also, women, more than men, take jobs in which they have more time for families, which also pay much lower than large firms, where billable hours are increasingly high.  This creates a large discrepancy in the numbers.  Compare female attorneys at large firms to male attorneys at large firms and we will likely see a very small discrepancy if any.

43. Posted by sb - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours ago

    Statistics—naked statistics—skew understanding when not taken into context.  Men and women are attending law school and graduating with JDs at roughly an equivalent rate.  Men and women are paid the same for the same job.  However, like it or not, more women are taking public sector and other low-paying jobs for several reasons.  First, women are often more idealistic and passionate about their work than men, leading them more often to become advocates for the disadvantaged.  Second, women often get married, have children, take breaks from work to raise or have children, etc., which interferes with and sometimes completely removes them from their partnership track.  Third, married women often view their jobs as “second jobs,“ meaning that they don’t need to make the high dollars because the husband’s job is either adequate by itself or enough to support a lower-paying job for her, which allows them to take positions paying less.

    I feel sorry for Ms. Barshevsky, and others like her, who mistakenly believe that money and power are the only measures of a woman’s importance, and then spew naked statistics to complain about the “inequality” of the sexes.  Those who understand a woman’s true power and importance—the attributes and aspects that make her greater than any man could ever hope to be—won’t be fooled by bald numbers.

44. Posted by rs - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours ago

    This study is statistically flawed for too many reasons.  Its also flawed logically, a judge depending on state or federal is paid the same regardless of whether the judge is a man or woman.  I’m sure if you compare a male federal judge’s salary to a female circuit judge somewhere in the middle of nowhere Wyoming, then of course the male makes more.  Furthermore, big firms start associates the same.

45. Posted by ck - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 56 minutes ago

    #10 - you can’t have it both ways, and I’m sure you would have a fit if you were allowed 3 weeks of maternity leave.  I’m sure there are far more men on here that have had to work extra hours and cover for a female colleague while she was on maternity leave - not that I have a problem with doing that, but some of you need to take a consistent opinion.

46. Posted by anon - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes ago

    The ABA merely prints inaccurate articles like this to incite people like Ellen and other.  Ellen, your ability for logical thought is absurd.

47. Posted by hvb - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes ago

    sb: you feel sorry for Ellen? I fell sorry for her boyfriend!
    This isn’t the first time his opinion has been vetted as if it matters.  Poor guy.

48. Posted by ellen's dad - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 44 minutes ago

    We should have aborted her.

49. Posted by sb - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 34 minutes ago

    Speaking of bald numbers, here’s an example of what I’m talking about: My wife has a paralegal degree.  She isn’t working outside the home, which means her income is zero.  Why isn’t she working?  Because I am, and therefore she doesn’t have to so she chooses not to, and she is taking care of our five children, because someone has to do that job.  I may be making the money, but her job is the hardest and the most important.  Now, when you look at the statistics, you don’t see anything like that, which helps explain the real reasons for the disparity in “average” income, you just see the numbers.

50. Posted by Jim Eddinton - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 29 minutes ago

    @12:

    “I call BS on both items. These ‘choices’ do not occur in a vacuum.“  No one said they did. Reality imposes itself onto us and the universe does not care about the aggregate results of the choices that people make.

    “[...] They occur as a result of policies and practices at law firms…“ Of course they do. Just like I told Ellen: you should just hire all women attorneys, and just pay them 250K, regardless of hours billed or hours worked, professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain making ability, or anything else.

    Why aren’t you?

    “[...] in the appointment of judges…“ Of it does. You should try to appoint the most experienced lawyers imaginable—not the least—regardless of gender.

    “[...] and the utter lack of support in our society for child rearing, among other things.“ This is an entirely different discussion. Every single person in this society that chooses to have kids knows in advance about “the utter lack of support…for child rearing,“ therefore, that decision is on them. Not some law firm, or any other company.

    “Merit too is suspect, when law firms reward only things like billable hours and origination.“
    It’s a business. They reward billable hours and origination because that is important to the business. And, of course, you knew that going into it as well.

    “Check out the latest NAWL study to find out how flawed these supposed objective categories can be.“ Oh yeah, what a great source there. When I’m done with that, I’m going to go ask Exxon about the health of Prince William Sound, and the Klan about race relations in the U.S.

    That’s brilliant.

51. Posted by anonymous - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes ago

    The commentary on this article unfortunately reflects what is wrong still in our profession. 

    As a single woman with no husband and no kids, I have worked twice as hard my entire career as many of my male colleagues, and I have not been paid anywhere close to the same over many of those years.  Even with a top law school degree in hand.  Yes, it is true that some firms have lockstep systems, but others do not.  In a lockstep system, you have some assurance that you are being paid the same initially; however, as you get closer to partnership status, you start running into disparities again.  In a non-lockstep sytem, you really have no assurance that you are being paid the same as the male colleague at the next office.  I worked under both systems at various stages of my career.

    Early on, I bought this whole rationale that if you worked as hard as a man you would be paid/treated the same.  I quickly learned that was not quite true.  Even without a marriage and kids, assumptions are made that there will be a marriage and kids and you still can easily run into the same issue.  Certain parts of the country are worse about this than others (I relocated ultimately for better opportunities), but the issue is always out there and can come up at any time.

    Eventually, I ended up going off on my own and launched a firm where I can set my own charges and make as much as I can generate.  There are no disparities in that kind of environment.  However, it is still not quite fair in the outside business world.  For example, when I tried to borrow under the SBA program to start my firm, I was asked the salary of my husband.  When I told them I didn’t have one, I was told that they weren’t interested in making me a loan.  I went to another SBA program to talk to them and ran into some similar issues.  I never did manage to land the loan I needed.  Did it stop me?  No.  However, it would have been nice to have had a little extra money to start my firm with, and a little more of a cushion to work with.  I was a little dismayed to see how things were not exactly fair even in the business loan environment. 

    Anyway, the good news I can tell anyone who has experienced any of these disparities is that things do seem to even out in the end.  Yes, I worked twice as hard but I also have built a much stronger legal reputation for myself as a result than some of my male counterparts did who seemed to have things so much easier earlier on.  At least in my experience, things seem to have worked out okay in the end.  It just would have been nice if things had been a little easier along the way to getting here.

52. Posted by Jim Eddinton - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes ago

    @40.

    “I am living proof that male lawyers get paid more than female lawyers for the same exact position.  I recently joined a personal injury firm making $60k/ yr.  The firm also hired a male associate on the same day they hired me.  I am a 2006 graduate.  My male colleague is a 2007 graduate.  He is getting paid $70k/yr.“

    Maybe he is a better negotiator than you are. Women are often offered less than men are. Why? Because almost universally they will accept the offer, and almost universally men will counter and ask for more. All of that comes into play in business, and I my loyalty isn’t to gender stats, it’s to getting the best attorney I can for as little as possible.

    “What’s even worse, a female partner made the salaray decisions and puts him on a pedastal while I’m placed on the back burner!!!!  How can a female do this to another female?“
    Because, if she’s smart, she isn’t making her business decisions on gender. She’s making them based on what is best for the business.

    “Not only do I have more experience than my male colleague, but I’m also a harder worker.“
    Yeah, sez you.

    “Needless to say, I’m looking for another job.“
    Exactly.

53. Posted by Politically Frustrated - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

    Susan (#20) Nice to see some insight and political intelligence!  How about becoming the congressional representative for California’s 6th congressional district?  You’ve got my vote!

54. Posted by Jim Eddinton - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 47 minutes ago

    @50:

    “As a single woman with no husband and no kids, I have worked twice as hard my entire career as many of my male colleagues, and I have not been paid anywhere close to the same over many of those years.  Even with a top law school degree in hand.“
    Even if that self-serving conclusion is true, that doesn’t take into account professional experience, education, location, firm, likability, rain-making ability, your negotiation skills or anything else.

    “Even without a marriage and kids, assumptions are made that there will be a marriage and kids and you still can easily run into the same issue.“
    Yeah. Duh. Because x significant number of women do just that. It’s no different that any other parts of reality. For example, some firms shy away from women because of sexual harassment liability. That makes good business sense whether you agree with it or not, just as the assumption that x number of women will get married, have kids, and jet, is good business.

55. Posted by NCLawyer - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes ago

    As a white woman who was an Obama supporter almost from the start, I am annoyed at the suggestion that voting for Obama is only about getting a black man in the White House.  As a woman, sure, there was the kneejerk impulse to support Clinton, but in the end I preferred Obama’s message and his courage and good judgment in opposing the war in Iraq when it actually mattered.  I would have been reasonably well pleased with either of them in the White House, not because I am always a “liberal,“ but because I would like to have a smart person with a legal education in our government’s highest office.  I’m done with flyboys and their sideshow freak VPs.  Also an independent female voter, I’m insulted that McSame overlooked more qualified Republican women for this smalltown beauty queen who probably doesn’t know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims any better than McSame does.  Yes, I’m sure that all those foreign heads of state that Ms. Palin will be called upon to meet will be truly impressed by her marksmanship and feistiness.  Perhaps they will even pat her on the head.

    As to the actual topic of the article, it seems to me that for younger female attorneys the difference has a lot to do with not being as aggressive in asking for raises, as another poster suggested.  It’s much harder to overcome all those early years of pleasing your elders and making do with what you’re given “like a good girl” than any study can ever measure.  Unless maybe you are a sparky small town beauty queen who’s never had a moment of selfdoubt, and who enoys her current role as “Daddy’s Little Girl” in the current presidential campaign.

56. Posted by Dan K. - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Geez, sounds like I’m going to want to hire all women at my firm.  Because they do exactly equal work and have equal experience for less pay, right?

    
    This is me rolling my eyes at the fact that many of the women posters here are confirming the stereotype that women are bad at math - they completely lack the ability to analyze statistics.

57. Posted by Michael Arkin - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 43 minutes ago

    When those of us who are now Seniors started practicin law, the goal of the profession wa to provide assistance to persons in need of our professional help.  Money was secondary [my state bar number in Oklahoma is 320; in California 46,411].  Later, maybe in the 1980s, being a lawyer became all about money. Today, it is ONLY about money. Quite frankly, I never changed my focus and I find the change of focus disgusting and personally demeaning. That the majority (men) are supressing the minority (women) is just part of the same problem. True - I didn’t get rich serving my clients. But I sleep well at night and am proud of my service.

58. Posted by Pat - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes ago

    Jack said: “Second, in general, there are fewer female attorneys between the ages of 50 and 65 (prime earning years) because there were fewer women in law school in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. “

    I respectfully disagree.  Parity in law school admissions was reached a long time ago.  The reason there are fewer female attorneys in this age range is that women have a CHOICE unavailable to most men- namely, to drop out, stay home, and spend someone else’s earnings.

    A few years ago I went to the tentth anniversary of my graduation from law school.  Most attendees were women.  I could count on the fingers of one hand those women who were still practicing law full time.  Most had figured out that, after five or six years, the novelty wears off and a legal career is a lot of work.  Since they had the OPPORTUNITY to quit working and spend their husband’s earnings, that’s what they did.  Boo hoo hoo!  Poor dears!  Three of the five that were still working full-time were in government jobs- great benefits, easy hours, low stress-  and lower pay.  Boo hoo hoo!

    When I graduated and joined a firm, first year salaries for all men was $90k, and for all women was $95k.  All first year associates had similar credentials, the same billing rate, and the same collections target.  When this came to light mid-year, the firm couldn’t offer any credible reason women were being paid more than men for the same work.

    If women want to see wage parity, all they need to do is start financially supporting men, so that men have the opportunity and choice to sit around at home watching Oprah, Dr. Phil, Maury, and Montel.

    This type of drivel is why I stopped being a member of the ABA years ago.

59. Posted by Hanoch - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 34 minutes ago

    To MommyEsq. #36:

    McCain and Palin are against “women’s rights”?  That is news to me.  What “rights” would those be?  The “right” to kill a child in the womb?  Since when is the taking of life a “right”?  What about the child’s right to live?  Perhaps you should give some thought to where your children would be today had you decided to exercise those “rights”.

60. Posted by GBY - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 29 minutes ago

    Preach on Pat.  I totally agree with everything you said.

61. Posted by Female Associate - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 26 minutes ago

    My personal experience is that the male associates are coddled because they are “good ol’ boys” while the female associates have to work harder.  When a male associate says they are too busy to complete a task, the male partners of the firm shove the task down another’s throat (usually a female).  When the female associate says she is “too busy” to complete a task, she is told to “just do it.“

    That’s my personal experience on this issue, so all of you saying that the females work less or not as hard may be overgeneralizing a bit!

62. Posted by A smiling woman attorney - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 26 minutes ago

    Old and Irrelevant,

    How many hours did you have to bill to make partner?  How much was the opportunity cost for you to go to law school (law school loans)?  I know how it was in the good old days when you did not have to compete with top talent because you did not allow the women and minorities a place at the table.  It must have been really hard to have everything handed to you on a silver platter while billing 1600 hours a year. 

    You are right—you are old and irrelevant.  The dinosaurs became extinct for a reason.

63. Posted by khazeh - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 3 minutes ago

    Pat, you have that same CHOICE. It is not illegal for you to be a stay-at-home husband while your wife earns the paycheck. If you’re not finding a woman who’s willing to let you do her laundry and raise her kids while she earns the money and has the prestigous law job, perhaps you need to look a bit harder. I suggest you keep the comments about spending and Oprah under your hat, though;  a chip on the shoulder about the opposite sex is not something most people find alluring.

64. Posted by Female Associate - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 1 minute ago

    To #54: When a female is “as aggressive” as a male, she is labeled an unpleasant word, while the male is labeled “aggressive.“ Hard to “be as aggressive as a male” when the male superiors will call you names and/or otherwise discredit you because you are not the gentile little girl he wants you to be.

65. Posted by ABA Critic - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

    Screeching FEMINAZI, STOP!  Is there injustice in the world?  Sure.  Do some women get the proverbial shaft at work?  You bet.  Is Debra Cassens Weiss and the ABA once again spounting political drivel?  ABSOLUTELY.  Agree w/#5 - Is this news?  And w/#s 17, 36, 57 and especially 45…these numbers are crap and the muckraking ABA better pull there heads out.  This BATTLE OF THE SEXES junk is unworthy and only incites kooks like Ellen.

66. Posted by Female Lawyer age 54 - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

    Women lawyers - you owe a lot to women who came before you.  But now it’s up to you to get what you want out of life.  No one hands it to you.  GET SMART, stop whining, learn how to maneuver in a man’s world, and beat ‘em at their own game!  Damn the statistics - find your own place and be happy!

67. Posted by Make your own bed and lie in it - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

    Coincidence is NOT causation.  DUH!

68. Posted by Horrified Again - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 1 hour, 32 minutes ago

    Almost speechless. We haven’t as a nation passed the ERA or the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. Thus, women once again are second class.
    In work, in divorce, in life. The ignorance, the hatred.
    What happened to men raised by single women?
    Obama gets it.
    Palin is not a good choice merely because she has the right genes.
    The women lawyers I met in my career were more like me than women, may be because they had to be, but no women ever offered to mentor me.
    Just being a woman is not sufficient.
    Competency is the criteria.
    The real reason women don’t get paid equally iis that they don’t negotiate.
    Women must learn to stand up for themselves and negotiate from the first salary forward.
    Studies show that women fail to negotiate and even a small discrepancy in pay- $1k in the first job equals a loss of up to $250k over a career.
    So women learn to negotiate.

    As a class lawyers are not nice people. So I am not surprised by some of the comments, just disheartened that in the past 30 years nothing has changed.

69. Posted by NCLawyer - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 1 hour ago

    to #64—you are correct, women who act as aggressively as their male counterparts are denounced as strident and bitchy.  But if they don’t, they don’t get equal pay.  And no, it’s not fair.  All I said was, it is hard to undo social conditioning to be more aggressive when it comes to negotiating for ourselves. (By contrast, I find I have no problem at all being aggressive on behalf of my clients, and my clients seem to appreciate my “bitchiness” in those circumstances.  But I digress.)  Re-read what I wrote and I think you’ll understand I’m actually sympathetic to the cause of equal pay. I just think that the situation is more complicated than the kind of “man bad? woman good! life unfair!“ kind of discussion that this kind of article generates.

70. Posted by NCLawyer - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 49 minutes ago

    As an aside, the talk about parity in law school admissions happening a long time ago and older female lawyers just opting out makes me laugh.  I interviewed in firms that had never hired a woman (or black) lawyer as recently as 2001.  The female lawyers I talked to who’d attended my law school in the 80s said that there were professors there who openly gave female students lower grades on account of their gender and generally treated the female students as interlopers simply looking for husbands.  So I guess those female lawyers over the age of 50 that had a hard time finding jobs or going it alone did opt out.  Just proves the point that breaking into the legal profession has not been any easier for women than any other profession (medicine, architecture, theology, engineering, etc.)  Sadly, not news.

71. Posted by MC - 2 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 43 minutes ago

    The point on data including paralegals would make sense, except that the article goes on to compare attorney versus attorney. To those men posting personal attacks on the women who say women need to unite, do I hear oinking? And regarding Palin, I was unaware of the rape victims paying for forensic tests—Leave it to a reputedly misogynist Republican to rub it in to women everywhere that you can be “one of the boys” if you are even more misogynist then them.

72. Posted by Diana Brodman Summers - 2 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 38 minutes ago

    I was shocked to see the number of male posters who seem to think it is ok for an unequal treatment of lawyers based on their sex.  As a married female attorney who neither has or even likes children, I too have been forced to take over work for a Suzie Q. who has to leave work early for her kids.  It is annoying and it makes you question Suzie Q.‘s commitment to her job. HOWEVER, that is no sufficient reason for a disparity in pay between males and females.  If this were the only reason behind the disparity then people like me, who have no kids, would be making the same salary as the males. 
     
    As an employment attorny I see how employers who are able to get away with discrimination in one area are much more likely to do it in other areas.  So the males who “understand why women lawyers are paid less” really cannot breath a sigh of relief.  They too may be caught up in discrimination, it could be age discrimination, or maybe your nationality will be the next target, or maybe you will have an illness or disability. 
     
    As attorneys (male & female) we cannot allow any discrimination in our profession.  There is no legitmate reason for an attorney to be paid due to their genitalia.

73. Posted by LS - 2 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 22 minutes ago

    Pat, comment no. 58, may respectfully disagree with Jack’s observation that “ in general, there are fewer female attorneys between the ages of 50 and 65 (prime earning years) because there were fewer women in law school in the 1970’s and early 1980’s,” but Jack is correct.  Pat’s assertion, “Parity in law school admissions was reached a long time ago” is wrong.

    According to the data published by the ABA’s Commission on Women (http://www.abanet.org/women/womenstatistics.html), the proportion of first year law students represented by women did not reach 50 percent until 1999 (see “A Snapshot of Women in the Law in the Year 2000”).  In 1971 only 10 percent of first year law students were women, and even by 1980 only 38 percent of first year law students were women.  As a result, the proportion of female lawyers between the ages of 50 and 65 is much smaller than the proportion of male lawyers in that age group.  Absent any sex discrimination, that fact alone would cause the average salary of male lawyers to be greater than the average salary of female lawyers.  It might very well be the case that female lawyers face discrimination, but the comparison of average salaries of female and male lawyers provides no support for that claim.

74. Posted by lady lawyer - 2 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 21 minutes ago

    I never believed in the disparity between salaries until I got out in the workforce and experienced it for myself.  I’ve been at the same firm for three years and they recently hired a new (male) associate at fifteen thousand dollars more than what they paid me when I started.  I don’t have a family and I live alone, so all I do is work and network, and I have no friends or social life.  The new guy bills about the same as me but does no networking or extracurricular community activities at all.  It boggles the mind.

75. Posted by Richard Wadsworth - 2 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 23 minutes ago

    The trouble with women is that they are always sniping at each other.  You don’t see that with men.  If the women would stop sniping at each other and stick together, they might accomplish something.  I suppose that’s why cats are so independent, but get no where.  Stop bashing every woman whose ideas are slightly different from yours, ladies.

76. Posted by reena shah - 2 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 19 minutes ago

    DUH!

77. Posted by Michelle - 2 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes ago

    AS A WOMAN, WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO SUPPORT THIS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.  I HAVE BEEN AT 4 LAW FIRMS AND EACH ONE PAID MEN AND WOMEN ON AN EQUAL BASIS.  I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE AUTHOR GETS HER INFORMATION FROM BUT FURTHER NEEDS TO BE DONE.

78. Posted by female_law_prof - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 22 hours, 51 minutes ago

    What a lot of angry men who clearly look down on women on this board.  Wow. 

    All that money you earn sure hasn’t done anything for your collective personalities. What a lot of jerks.

79. Posted by jess - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 19 hours, 34 minutes ago

    B-I-N-G-O!

80. Posted by female_law_prof_idiocy - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 20 minutes ago

    What a lot of angry women who clearly look down on women on this board. Wow.

    All the non-business oriented choices you make sure hasn’t done anything for your collective personalities. What a lot of jerks.

81. Posted by Jim Eddington - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 15 minutes ago

    @74 Lady Lawyer: “I never believed in the disparity between salaries until I got out in the workforce and experienced it for myself.  I’ve been at the same firm for three years and they recently hired a new (male) associate at fifteen thousand dollars more than what they paid me when I started. ... The new guy bills about the same as me but does no networking or extracurricular community activities at all.“

    All you’ve actually demonstrated here is that likely he was a better negotiator than you were when it came to starting salary.

82. Posted by jim ortego - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 34 minutes ago

    this sort of report is as misleading as the annual report that women earn about 70% what men earn. earn, not gender is actually the operative word. In that annual survery women work more than 20% less than men. women also change jobs far more often than men and leave their jobs for temporary respites than men do.
    last year a national study indocated women college graduates earned much more than men with similar educational background and experoence- but dont tell the aauw.
    the most telling stat inthis study is the 64% of male judges salary allegedly earned by women judges. does anyone of sound mind actually believe this nonsense.
    what almost certainoy happened was that the grouping in this category- and grouping is everything in these stats-almost certainly compared together women secretaries with male supreme court judges. that alons accounts for the disparity.
    american women have for more than 50 years have owned more of the capitol and more land than americanmen and for many years have owned more businesses- but don’t tell the feds who still have “affirmative action” for women seeking to start a business- but no\t for men.
    another stat always ignored by the politicos and feminists- men transfer more wealth to women inthe form of child supprt and spousal support than all welfare programs in the country combined- and that massive change of wealth is never counted as income for women in any national study published by the feds.

83. Posted by khazeh - 2 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 1 hour, 20 minutes ago

    Jim, as long as we’re playing the Rampant Speculation Game, it’s also likely that his negotiation skills were *perceived* as better because he’s a man. Men who demand more aren’t seen as bitchy or overly aggressive. Women are.

84. Posted by Richard Wadsworth - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 24 minutes ago

    khazeh, what’s your point.  That women are bitchy but men are not?  You should see my brother.  He has PMS every day of the month.  It goes both ways.

85. Posted by Angela - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 24 minutes ago

    I hate to be like all those cry babies, but I feel it for the first time in my life.  Every attorney position I apply for, they hire a man instead…or little boy.  I am getting fed up with this obvious discrimination and I can’t secure a job.
    Ach!

86. Posted by Old and Apparently Irrelevant - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago

    Re: Comment #62 posted by “A smiling woman attorney”. The anger dripping from your posting is staggering.  But you are right about one thing—I had no law school loans. Of course, the reason is that I spent three years on active duty in the military, was a decorated Vietnam Veteran, and had the GI bill and summer and school year jobs to pay the tuition. But you wouldn’t have any idea what that is all about. You are Exhbit B in the Whiniest Generation. Congratulations!

87. Posted by Shame on ABA - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 2 hours, 41 minutes ago

    Kudos to Jack #38.  It is very likely that the earnings are skewed due to the low number of women in law schools in the 1970s and 1980s.  This reflects a societal gender issue, but not necessarily discrimination in 2008.  The ABA Journal should be embarrassed to have printed this without giving at least a bit of thought to the possible reasons for these numbers.

88. Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 2 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 19 minutes ago

    This is ridiculus. 

    The University of Baltimore School of Law is hosting their Second Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference in 2009.  The conference, which will bring together law students, legal academics, practitioners and activists, “will look at discrete areas of the law and ask how feminist legal theory operates or could operate to expand existing law, create new law, or combat contractions in the law.“ 

    This conference will address these issues from the perspectives of activists, practitioners and academics. The conference will provide an opportunity for participants and audience members to exchange ideas about the current state of feminist legal theory by looking at how those theories are being actualized in practice and in specific areas of the law. From the conference, we hope to further the discourse about the future of feminist legal theory and its practical applications to the law.

    
    Additionally, the University is seeking submissions from those interested in presenting. Academics, law students and practitioners are encouraged to apply. A one page abstract is due by October 17, 2008, with a working draft due in February 2009.

89. Posted by lady lawyer - 2 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 21 minutes ago

    Jim, I can see how you could have made that assumption.  However, my attempts at negotiating my starting salary were turned down.  My colleague’s, apparently, were not.