As International Women’s Day passed, I found myself reflecting on my positionality in the male-dominated legal field as a woman; a white passing, biracial woman, to be precise. I will preface this opinion piece by stating I do not share the same experiences as a BIPOC woman, and I am not trying to speak on behalf of women (if you need to be reminded, no one is the spokesperson for women, in general).
Over a month ago during a fragile time of recruitment, the Globe and Mail dropped a bomb in the corporate law war zone. The piece highlighted the pay and power gaps at Bay Street’s top law firms, detailing how female lawyers make substantially less (in 2020, on average 11 per cent less) than their male counterparts at the Seven Sisters: Blakes, Davies, Goodmans, McCarthy Tetrault, Osler, Stikeman Elliott and Torys. It is an open secret that the law profession is male-dominated, in numbers and in pay. Historically, male-dominated professions designed by men for men leave women at a disadvantage – experiencing discrimination, barriers of entry, promotion, and practice opportunities (see Choroszewicz and Adams, “Gender and Age in the Professions: Intersectionality, Meta-Work, and Social Change”). But having a suspicion of a pay gap and reading it in black and white are two distinct experiences. The Globe’s article re-affirmed the notion that in many instances in the legal field, women must build a seat just to be at the metaphorical table, while men have their seat reserved.
Two key points were highlighted in the article: women make less because there are fewer that make it to the top, and the many factors that affect compensation generally favour men. Why is it that less women are making it to the top? There is plenty of research supporting the claim that young women may face hostile working environments, discrimination and skill discounting when entering male-dominated professions (again, see Choroszewicz and Adams). Over time, professional women either learn to ignore everyday sexist comments and micro-aggressions from male co-workers or decide to exit hostile work environments in search of more positive ones. These statements may not reflect every professional woman’s experience, but I am sure many in the legal field can relate.
Junior lawyers are paid a standard amount and their pay steadily increases with each passing year “in lockstep with their peers”. But the discrepancies begin with the discretionary bonuses. I am not suggesting that these firms are engaging in discriminatory practices because many factors widen pay gaps, like longer billable hours, pregnancy and parental leave, and clientele preference. Many times, due to societal and personal pressure, women may work fewer billable hours because of their socially reproductive labour (i.e. childcare). However, regardless of personal choices women make, there is a persistent pay gap for some women who choose work over other obligations. What is needed is for these firms to investigate the various factors that contribute to pay gaps, investigate how these factors adversely impact women’s pay, and (obviously) mitigate or reverse their effects. One factor is the client’s preference regarding their legal representation. As explained, “unless you can culturally relate to clients in positions of power – golfing, whiskey tasting or whatever activity it may be – that’s another layer that’s going to impact your ability to build that book of business and garner that higher compensation.” This concept of “culturally” relating to clients highlights the further concern, beyond the pay gap between self-identifying men and women, of the gap between white women and BIPOC women. As gatekeepers of the law, lawyers should respect their client’s preferences and put their interests first, especially when it comes to choosing who their legal representation is. However, if there are possibilities for multiple lawyers to serve a client, a firm should jump at that de-homogenizing opportunity.
The report and findings are out, and no doubt the Seven Sisters’ (and other law firms’) PR teams were doing over-time. So, what now? The article’s revelations should not prompt pitying women, but rather put pressure on the individuals responsible for fostering this “Boys’ Club” to question the status quo. And it begins with transparency. This is an opportunity for firms to look inward at their firm culture and how they compensate their employees (female or otherwise). And it will not be easy. Equal pay will require sacrifice from higher-earning male employees, thus sharing the wealth with their female colleagues who deserve it. Whether they are willing to make those sacrifices is a different story. This should not be construed as a war against men in the legal field, because women need men to aid them in closing this gap. This is an ask for every individual assisting (directly or indirectly) in this unequal pay culture to empathize with their female colleagues and be open to discourse about what is facilitating this gap.
However, not all is lost. On February 25th, the Globe released another article (“Major Canadian law firms willing to release wage-gap data”) detailing how seven of Canada’s largest law firms are leaving the “door open to the possibility” of reporting the difference between what women and men earn. This article further names the firms willing to share gender wage-gap data, and those who have yet to comment. These firms allowing disclosure of their wage data is a huge step towards learning how to close the gap. This is a good start for the firms willing to share this information that was once kept under lock and key, but more will need to be done for effective and meaningful change.
The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) website has addressed recruitment, retention and advancement strategies to increase equality, diversity and inclusion within the workplace. These strategies would require firms to continuously examine and evaluate their policies and programs. For retention, some recommendations include enabling lawyers from diverse communities to have access to a variety of files and providing concrete support to lawyers “from diverse communities who may experience disrespectful and discriminatory treatment from clients”. When it comes to career advancement, the LSO recommends analyzing career development systems “to ensure against bias and discriminatory outcomes” and developing clear criteria that include “equity and diversity considerations to use to evaluate candidates for partnership or senior management positions”. These recommendations are to be implemented on a discretionary basis, but firms could use readily available resources and guidelines to enhance their workplace environment.
I would be a hypocrite to say I will not be applying to these firms come the 2L recruit. I, along with my almost three hundred other classmates, will apply because these firms are highly reputable and respectable workplaces that provide high-quality legal services. I doubt the equal pay issue will be resolved in less than a year’s time, but I hope going into the recruitment process firms are willing to transparently discuss their new implementation of equal pay within the workforce. One of the best ways to ignite change in these gaps, and for women to want to contribute to large law firms, is for the firms to want us to be there, and to want us they must commit to transparency.