MPs ask Allen & Overy to hand over partner gender pay gap data — magic circle firm says no

By on

Outfit to publish new salary stats in September

Allen & Overy has told a parliamentary select committee to wait until its next gender pay gap report before it reveals its partnership stats.

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee requested partnership data from all five magic circle firms. Clifford Chance and Linklaters had already included partnership data in its public gender pay reports, while Freshfields and Slaughter and May obliged when written to by the committee.

Allen & Overy, on the other hand, has not.

The City firm released a mean hourly pay gap of 19.8% and a median of 27.4% earlier this year, this non-inclusive of partners. These figures, and those released by other major employers this year, relate to pay stats from the year previous (spring 2017). Many companies are now preparing new reports using more up-to-date stats, and it seems this is where Allen & Overy’s focus lies. A firm spokesperson told us:

“We had not included partners’ compensation in the calculations for our first report, based on data to 5 April 2017. However, we are currently working on a gender pay gap report for the year ended 5 April 2018, which will include information on our partners, and have already committed to publish it in September.”

The firm’s statement ends with a note that it’s “keen to receive advice on how best to calculate these figures so that there is consistency of approach between firms”. Indeed, gender pay gap reporting among law firms has been muddled to say the least.

The law compelling major businesses to release their pay stats, the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017, specified firms release employee data. As law firm partners aren’t employed, many firms didn’t include them.

The 2018 Firms Most List

Then, people began to question whether this was fair, given major retailers and other employers were posting pay gaps inclusive of their mega-earning directors. In one particularly heated committee meeting, Rachel Reeves MP told Slaughter and May’s head of human resources that by not including partners the firm had published “bogus numbers” which “masked the true gender pay gap”.

A number of firms have now posted partner data — for example Reed Smith, Travers Smith and Pinsent Masons — but have done so in myriad ways. Many others, however, have stood by their employee-only figures, which makes it difficult to compare firms’ pay gaps.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter



If MP’s fail to create laws that are adequate, then that is an issue for them. They could quite easily amend the gender pay gap regulations so that partnerships and llps are covered.

Are MP’s going to ask other industries that operate using the partnership model for them to voluntarily disclose their data?



How are Alan’s ovaries?



The gender pay gap, unlike the rampant misandry present in various facets of society such as the ‘justice’ system, is a fictional and misleading concept



Most MPs are not fit to govern, legislate, comment, sit on committees or wipe their own arses.



Completely agree. Should be told to do one, virtue signalling fuckwits



Do a poo.


Corbyn. Sympathiser

Will you ever do one from this site, wank stain?



Wow I actually peed myself when I said that, so exciting…

Lets all have a world free of torture and nuclear weapons: unless that helps force people to think like me in whihc case torture and bomb until they give up their money and dignity..capitalist scum deserve to die!



Urr… ok Corbyn.Sympathiser

Thats interesting…

Cant you just debate?



Will you ever do one from this world, wank stain?

How about that for a debate!!!!!!!!


This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.






This is one of the few western nations where the majority of the government appear to require life jackets to eat soup. I doubt A&O will ever get coherent guidance on how to calculate and report the figures.

I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with MPs whilst working with a major industry in-house team that was dealing with several government contracts. Some of the civil servants were useful as long as they could deal with a request before 16:30, but the MPs were perpetually useless.



Why do MPs, and Labour MPs in particular, feel the need to be discourteous to businesses whenever they give evidence? This hectoring just makes MPs look petulant.

And considering the abysmal record of members of the Commons in claiming expenses and trying to deny FOI application to much of what they do, the lack of humility about attempts at fairness and openness by others is laughable.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories