So, it is that time of year and NAWL released it's 2008 Survey report yesterday.  Truthfully, there isn't much to write about this survey that you can't learn by reading the report and posts about it from last year.  The numbers have not really changed.  However, there are two things in the report that I would like to discuss: (1) the "tier" structure of a law firm's partnership and how that impacts women hoping to make partner; and (2) the market for lateral hires and how that impacts women hoping to make partner.

First, I found the aspect of the report that deals with the impact of a firm's equity structure to be intriging.  The report describes three forms of equity structure: one-tier, two-tier, and mixed-tier.  One-tier firms are the traditional structure, those that have all partners contribute capital to the firm and all partners share (likely, in varying degrees) in the profits of the firm.  Two-tier firms have "equity" and "non equity" partners.  The non-equity partners carry the title of "partner" but are really just super associates.  They are still paid a base salary and bonus and do not contribute capital or share in the profits.  Usually, there is another decision to be made to "promote" somebody from non-equity to equity within two-tier firms.  The report also discusses a firm structure that is rarely discussed, that of the "mixed-tier" partnership.  Mixed-tier firms are one-tier or two-tier firms on paper but in fact they have "equity" partners who have contributed capital to the firm but do not share in the profits.  Instead, these partners get a fixed salary/bonus as compensation and lesser (or no) say in the management of the firm.  According to the report, fully 15% of the largest law firms are "mixed tier" firms.  The fact that these mixed-tier firms exist is not all that interesting but, what is fascinating, are the report's findings about how this structure impacts women:

The numbers, although preliminary, suggest that working in a mixed-tier firm is somewhat disadvantageous for a woman lawyer.  In mixed-tier firms, women constitute fewer than 13% of equity partners and 24% of non-equity partners, lower levels than in one-tier or two-tier firms. 

This statement is, I think, even more troubling than it sounds on first read.  This is because the survey results also find that women who are recent grads have a greater chance of becoming equity partners than older graduates (suggesting some progress).  Because it is the newer "equity" partners in these mixed-tier law firms are the ones that are really just non-equity partners, this mixed tier structure is likely masking the truth.   The 13% of "equity partners" being reported by mixed-tier firms includes those equity partners that really aren't equity partners at all.  If you extrapolate that some of the women partners at these firms are junior partners, surely some of the women partners fall into that "mixed" category.  In my mind, any partners that are reported as "equity" partners but are not sharing in the profits should be reported as "non equity" partners as that is the more accurate description. 

Admittedly, the NAWL report is not so quick to come to the conclusion that I have come to.  It suggests that perhaps the partners in the "mixed" category are "a few senior attorneys in the process of winding down their practices".  However, I do not believe that is the case.  Instead, I think that the mixed tier is for new "equity" partners, a trial period, or pergatory, if you will, where a one-tier firm sticks new partners without having to share profits with them while avoiding the stigma of being a two-tier firm or where two-tier firms stick senior non-equity partners to avoid having to turn them down for equity-partnership for the time being.  I think that many women partners may be stuck in the mixed tier but are reported as being equity partners -- a way for these mixed-tier firms to game the reporting system, if you will.

Additionally the report states:

It is also the case that women who begin practicing law at mixed-tier firms have a substantially lower chance of advancing to equity partnership within those firms than do women in either one- or two-tier firms.

I do not know why this would be the case and agree with the report that more study is needed on why firms choose the mixed-tier structure and what the long term impact is on women.  Still, inferences can be made about the culture of a firm that implements a mixed-tier structure that results in a confusing or secretive compensation structure for partners that seemingly allows it to publicize inaccurate statistics about its partnership. 

 I'll talk about the lateral-hire partner issue in Part II.  Stay tuned...