NAWL’s National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms
Every year, I write a blog post on Ms. JD about NAWL's Annual Survey on the Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms. So, 2009 is no different. However, my enthusiasm for the topic is different this year.
The report is available here.
This year I guess I just don't have much to say. Sure the numbers are just about the same as last year. Women make up less than 16% of equity partners in the country's largest law firms. Women partners make less than their male counterparts (this year it is $66K less, on average). However, this year most of the press has been about the finding that "almost half of the firms -- 46% -- count no women in their top 10 rainmakers." As for this particular statistic, I'm just not surprised. As irrational as it may seem I still can't believe that less than 16% of equity partners are women. I can't understand why women aren't managing partners. But... for some reason I am not at all surprised that they aren't the top rainmakers. I understand that this is irrational but let me explain.
I am a mid-level associate in the corporate department of a big law firm. I have always aimed (an expected) to make partner. I even aspire to be a department head and/or a partner-in-charge of my office. Hell, I would even hope to be a member of the management committee (which by the way, women only make up about 15% of nationwide, on average) some day. However, I never saw myself as one of my firms top 10 rainmakers. I just don't know that this is within reach. Therefore, I am not surprised that others like me never get there.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of making it rain and plan to build the skill set in order to make enough rain to reach my goals, and then some. I understand that my aspirations for partner, department head, partner-in-charge and management committee are all linked to my ability to "make rain". I understand that law is a business and that in order to be successful, I have to bring in business. However, while I think I am on track to be a damn good lawyer, good manager, effective leader and productive partner in my firm, I am not sure if I have what it takes to be the best at making it rain. First, I have a transactional practice and not the kind that involves big deals. I am not going to land multi-million dollar litigation, although my clients may turn to one of my one-day litigation partners for that work. Also, while I see myself as really good at building relationships and excellent at client service and count on my competence winnning clients some day, I am no salesman. Call me crazy but I think that I can achieve success professionally and relative to other lawyers without being the top rainmaker.
In the end, I just want women to stick around to make equity partner. I would be happy if they make up half of the management of big law firms in the future. I am not losing sleep that they aren't the top rain makers. Call me naive but, while I appreciate NAWL's study of the topic I want to stay focused on the basic measurements of success. Let's get women on equal footing and in positions to bring in business and then tackle the likely multitude of obstacles to obtaining equality in business development.
With all of that said, thank you to NAWL for conducting this annual survey and for doing such a thorough and excellent job on it year after year. They are providing a great service to women lawyers nationwide and I am extremely thankful.
- Topic: Firms and the Private Sector
_0.jpg "Kirkland & Ellis LLP")
Comments
Totally disagree: I think Rainmakers are THE number to watch
Thanks so much for your annual post on the NAWL survey, Peg. I think the rainmaker number is important for a couple reasons.
1. Women's compensation is directly correlated to having women not just in leadership roles within a firm but to having women rainmakers. The NAWL survey found a significant wage gap between men and women both among partners and associates (note: this data controls for years of experience, hours worked, and office location). That gap was substantially decreased in firms with more than one female rainmakers BUT NOT in firms with above average representation of women on compensation and managerial committees.
2. It's one thing to look at these numbers and say half of firms have a female rainmaker, maybe that's not so bad. But there's another way to present these numbers. NAWL surveyed 116 firms and asked for the gender of their top 10 revenues producing partners. Roughly 50 of those 1160 partners were women. Or something more like 4%. So instead of saying almost half the top firms have a female rainmaker instead consider that 96% of the top earning corporate lawyers in America are men.
But, and correct me if I am
But, and correct me if I am wrong, the pay gap is averaged. Partner pay, at likely almost all of the firms that NAWL contacted, is tied to the amount of business a partner generates. Sure the numbers would be more equal if more women were at the top of the rainmaking ranks, but that doesn't mean that it sucks or is unequal for all of the women at other levels of the partnership.
I guess I am just saying that it is hard to be surprised or troubled by the fact that women aren't the top rain makers when women only make up 16% of partners in general. I can't think of a great analogy but it seems to be putting the cart before the horse or making a big deal about something that is a symptom of the much larger problem and that is the lack of women in the partnership ranks to begin with. Yes, you can say that if 16% of partners are women then 16% of the top rainmakers should be women also -- but I don't think that is a logical leap. First, I am not sure that 16% is enough of a pool to draw from when it comes to the top rainmakers. Second, I am not even sure that it is at all related. Equality in partnership, management, leadership, yes -- but rainmaking is a very different equation and it takes a special sort of lawyer to be the top rainmaker, one that I am not sure should be the definition of the success for women.
Rainmakers come from Queenmakers
The NAWL salary numbers control for years at partner status. In other words it's a weighted mean. Years with a firm is certainly not a perfect measure of client credit, but it correlates.
It's one thing not to be surprised by the disparity revealed here. It's another thing entirely not to be troubled by it. To some extent you're probably right that becoming a rainmaker is the result of a combination of personal and professional traits, hard to find in any group, and particularly unlikely to be found among female partners who are few and far between.
But that analysis totally ignores the role institutions play in creating rainmakers. People refer to powerful partners and in-house lawyers with the ability to bestow significant client credit on up-cand-coming partners as "Kingmakers" for a reason. 80% of new law firm business is derived from existing client contacts. The person who decides who has the kind of contact with clients that leads to new business and new client credit is the person responsible for sheparding the chosen few into the opportunities that, if exploited, lead to rainmaker status.