News

Average junior lawyer pay at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing HIGHER for women than men

By on
28

As Pinsent Masons also releases gender pay stats

Bird & Bird, Pinsent Masons and Taylor Wessing have released their gender pay statistics which show average hourly pay at all three firms is higher for men than it is for women.

However, Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing have also released lawyer-specific figures which show female solicitors have a marginally higher average hourly rate.

Looking at all the firm’s employees — not partners — City outfit Bird & Bird has a mean hourly pay gap of 14.5%, while its median is 27.6%.

Like many firms who have previously released their gender pay data, Bird & Bird is “confident that men and women are paid equally for doing equivalent roles”. The firm puts the disparity down to workforce structure, i.e. low-paid roles being dominated by women, as well as the higher number of part-time female employees: the London outfit’s part-time staff comprise two men (0.9%) and 60 women (18.3%).

Though not required by statute, Bird & Bird has also broken its data into figures for: junior associates, mid-level associates and senior associates. In doing so, it’s revealed mean hourly pay for junior associates is 2.2% higher for women, while the median is 4.8% higher for women.

The 2018 Firms Most List

This is similarly the case at Taylor Wessing. When you look at all of the firm’s employees, including its catering staff, Taylor Wessing has a mean hourly gender pay gap of 13.5% and a median of 32.8%.

However, the gender pay gap is skewed 0.3% in favour of women when just associates are considered on their own, this figure growing to 1.7% when we just look at senior associates.

Taylor Wessing says:

“Our analysis of our gender pay gap shows that it is largely driven by the fact that there are more women than men in less well-paid roles within the firm. For example, the majority of our business services roles are performed by women.”

Indeed, the firm — whose diversity initiatives include a reverse mentoring system and gender targets — reveals 69% of those in its lower pay quartile are women. In the upper quartile, this figure is 46%.

At Pinsent Masons, there is a higher percentage of women than men in the upper quartile pay band. Though this gender pay data — which by law must be released by businesses with more than 250 employees — doesn’t include partners, it’s worth mentioning Pinsent Masons is one of few firms to break its female partner target. The 23-office firm has now set a new target of 30% by 2020.

But despite the number of females in top jobs, Pinsent Masons still puts its pay gap down to “the gender split across different roles within the organisation”.

With all but one of its PAs being female, women make up more than 70% of staff in the firm’s lower pay band. Pinsent Mason’s gender pay gap is 22.4% for median pay and 22.4% for mean pay.

Bird & Bird, Taylor Wessing and Pinsent Masons are not the only firms to have released their gender pay figures.

Just yesterday, Legal Cheek reported that Linklaters had become the first magic circle firm to throw down the gender pay gauntlet. Like the firms reported on today, Linklaters put its pay gap (23.2% mean and 39.1% median) down to its large number of female secretaries and junior business staff.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

28 Comments

Anonymous

It is a bit nonsensical for law firms to include support staff in these calculations – when 95% of the secretarial pool earning half of what the fee earners get (at the junior end, let alone the senior end) are women it is going to massively skew the figures.

Having worked at several City firms, the number of women to men in fee earning roles (below partner) is about 60/40 outside of the most macho areas of law – I’m not surprised that women are earning more at a junior level, and hopefully it will keep moving with them (on merit) as they get older.

(18)(0)

Anonymous

“It is a bit nonsensical for law firms to include support staff in these calculations” –
a) that’s what the law requires
b) why should there be an artificial divide between one type of employee and another? We are all needed to make the place run.
c) the real problem is why so many of the support staff are women. The only use to come out of these statistic-wank-fests is to look at why the figures are what they are, and whether steps need to be taken to remove those reasons.

(2)(15)

Anonymous

(B) But is the whole point of this not to ensure both men and women are paid equally for the same work / positions rather than simply saying “on average men earn more than women, shame, shame, shame *ding-a-ling-a-ling*? There is absolutely no comparison between the work of a male 5-8 PQE senior associate to a female part time paralegal who has just left university and is due to start a training contract in the coming years, so why shouldn’t firms break this down into relevant banding? Whilst I completely agree that the machine wouldn’t work without all the cogs regardless of their size, contribution to the firm, gender. etc. it is nonsense to suggest the work is the same.

(C) The reasons for the figures showing a mean “imbalance” are well documented, attributed mostly to life choices. It is a trend that (not all) women will choose to prioritise their family and personal life over a career, where men are more likely to do the opposite. If you want real change, gender specific roles are the things that we need to look at.

We’ve already seen change at the lower levels of this and other professions, it now just needs time to filter through to the upper levels. Something that the “instant gratification” society we’ve created would do well to remember.

(13)(0)

Small Firm

Take your point that is what the law requires, but it makes the Sats completly meaningless. If we were required to publish, our stats would show a massive gender pay gap of 170% inbalance in favour of female employees. But that is because of our 2 employees, our male employee is a trainee solicitor and our female employee is a 10 year PQE Solicitor!

(6)(1)

KK

Babes…Essex birds need jobs and there’s only so many salons available. Looking pretty, using the shredder and managing a diary is hard work…

(3)(2)

Not Amused

Identity politics is the ideology behind racism and hatred.

It has spent the last 40 years trying to pretend to be “good” identity politics. Using a focus on disadvantaged groups to disguise from it’s rotten ideological core. But at its core it will always be a path to hatred. For every “good” identity an equal “bad” identity will be found. Once you begin sorting human beings in to groups and assigning one group a virtue, you will not resist the temptation to assign anther group a vice.

We must end tribalism. We must end identity politics. There are no groups – there are only individuals: individuals who should be judged on their character and their actions, not on the basis of a group identity.

(26)(11)

Anonymous

You OK hun?

(9)(6)

Anonymous

What do you mean by “identity politics”? It’s all very well getting your daily hate in (and I hope it’s cathartic), but it’s not at all clear what you’re talking about.

(3)(5)

Red Pill Normie

Fuck off.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Very eloquent

(1)(1)

Anonymous

I implore you, kind sir, to deliver unto yourself beyond this current realm, to that which is entitled with the coarse name for the reproductive act.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

So you won and you can stop writing about this day after day?

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Women need to eat and drink less and tradition dictates that men pay the bill more often than not (rent, restaurants, etc). Women need less money.

(14)(8)

Anonymous

you cunt, are a douchebag.

(3)(7)

Fat in the Hat

Fished in.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Whilst this is statistically true (and on the traditional expectation on men to pay more, a sad truth), it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter who NEEDS more or less money when it comes to remuneration in a free market. It should be about who deserves the compensation.

If lawyer A is in the same department as lawyer B and bills the same, and are same year of qualification, they should in fact be paid the same no matter how they personally identify. That’s how a functioning free market works. It’s when you throw in delusional qualifiers, such as individual needs due to factors external to their work objective, that the market becomes flawed.

If I knew I was being paid less because I didn’t need as much as Lawyer A, then I damn well wouldn’t work as hard as Lawyer A. This is a normal human reaction for those who feel slighted in the work place. Your logic actively hurts productivity.

(7)(3)

KK

On that basis, should we stop sending money to 3rd world countries because they haven’t earned it, despite needing it?

(2)(3)

Anonymous

Except you do not factor in the fact that in a free market in which men require more money, men find a way to get that money. Men will generally push harder for a pay rise and will get one as a result. Employers are not unnaturally going to push back and say “well, I know you have pushed for that raise, but you are of the same value as a theoretical woman in your situation so you aren’t getting it.” The thing is, that theoretical woman doesn’t exist.

Men need the money and they find their way to get it.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Lol. I wish my landlord knew about this point of etiquette.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Just wait and see, due to this gender wage gap reporting rules, businesses are going to outsource lower-paid work dominated by women to other providers, which would likely result in such workers:

1. receiving lower pay , because they are working for an outsourcing firm;
2. receiving less staff benefits , because they are no longer the staff of the business; and
3. having less secure pensions because outsourcing firms are, well, outsourcing firms.

In the end the bra-burning, champagne-swilling brigade will hurt the people (majority women) they claim to be trying to help.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Has already happened at a few firms. Big ups to the Intelligent Office people grinding away for law firms who are too stingy to put you on their own payroll.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

So will Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing be closing the gap to make sure men are equally paid? Or does equality not apply when it’s men that are discriminated against?

(17)(3)

KK

YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT MEN CANNOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

(10)(2)

Anonymous

It’s ok, my man-card obviously gets me an additional 10% interest rate on my savings account.

(0)(3)

Fictional 'mens network' member

No, but we receive additional support and benefits, such as the men’s only network (where women are also invited)! Oh wait, single gender clubs are only permitted when that is the other way around…

(6)(3)

Anonymous

When the gap only exists because there are far more women at the lower pay band, no.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Surprised KK didn’t just neglect to report this fact given her agenda to date!

(10)(0)

Frustrated Writer

She couldn’t believe that her retirement date had finally arrived, but here it was. And now it was time for her last ever article. With some sadness, Katie opened up Microsoft Word 2060, the holographic image of a blank page obediently appearing before her.

Before beginning, Katie wandered over to her food replicator, ordering a flat white, which duly materialised on command. The coffee was better than the old café she used to go to in her 20s, but she did miss the human touch. As she sipped the drink, holding the mug close to her chest, she paused briefly to reflect, looking reflectively around her neat, modern office. She fondly reviewed the life size photograph of herself and Lady Hale, her Beyonce. Her hero was now with her forever, her ashes sitting in a jar at the base of the picture. Eventually, her gaze fell on the vanity wall where her many accolades were displayed. Katie had enjoyed her stellar career, but had long admitted to herself that her rise was in no small part due to the crest of the feminist revolutionary wave she had ridden with her strong beliefs.

In the back of her mind, Katie tried to recall where it had all began. She remembered working a semi-professional legal blog. Legal shriek, or legal geek, or something, it had been called. Katie vaguely remembered its founder, Alex, and Tom, her erstwhile colleague. That was of course before the glorious revolution. Now, it was hard to even picture a man being in a superior position to a woman.

Katie moved to the window that occupied an entire wall in her office, trying to find in her mind a memory or even the slither of one of those days. Outside, a typical view of London life loomed. A team of men, chained together and wearing pale yellow jumpsuits swept the streets and cleared litter, as a group of female guards in prison officer garb vigilantly watched over them. A gaggle of women wandered past, laughing, chatting, and enjoying the beautiful February sunshine. Surveying the scene, Katie half recalled seeing her former colleagues names on a list many years ago, attached to a weekly notification of the latest shipment to what was euphemistically called a re-education camp. Everyone, surely, knew that the men listed had been caught up in the purge, and sent to the labour camps for interment. By that time, the all-female government, health service, military, and police had been implemented, and there was a fresh ban on all male paid employment. With the advancement in cloning, men had simply no place left. With the camps, there was plentiful free male labour, so no need to pay them.

Sitting back down in her desk chair, Katie began writing her article. It was her last. It had to be a trademark article. She began. “The managing partner of a major law firm was today taken for re-education after paying a homeless man to sweep the step of her firm’s office. The half-eaten sandwich she paid him, believed to be a left over from a conference she had attended, means that the gender pay gap has returned”. Katie felt a long lost fire in her belly, that had been gone since the revolution. Why were men so evil? She wondered. She pushed on. “Women everywhere are now back to the dark days of oppression. We no longer have equality. The fight continues sisters!” She stopped. That was enough. A call to arms. She shook her head to herself, wondering how she could have been so oppressed by this one dissident woman. Suddenly Katie realised she could not retire, she had to continue. Her fight for equality had to succeed. It was her job to achieve one goal: no man could be paid anything for work.

(8)(2)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories