Pay disparity in legal jobs

September 29, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Women attorneys continue to make less than men.



It doesn’t shock or even surprise me. There’s no disputing that on average, women in all types of professions make less than men, often for doing the same job. It’s been that way for as long as women have been in the workforce.



The U.S. Census Bureau released data from its 2007 American Community Survey showing the disparities in pay between men and women in the legal field. Female attorneys make 77.8 percent of their male counterparts’ salaries; miscellaneous female legal support workers make 72.7 percent of what their male counterparts earn.



According to the data, female judges, magistrates, and other judicial workers make just 64.3 percent of what their male counterparts do. That’s incredibly disappointing, but the numbers have been dragged down because “other judicial workers” includes clerks, who have lower salaries.



On the flip side, paralegals and legal assistants make the closest pay compared to their male counterparts in the profession – 93.2 percent. My theory on this one is that’s because women tend to dominate this legal occupation, so there are fewer men around to make more money.



There are a few theories as to why women continue to make less than men in the legal field. Women may work more flexible schedules and fewer hours to keep up with the demands of being a mom. Maybe fewer women are on the partner track than men because of this disparity.



Frankly, take a look around at the managing partners of law firms around Indiana and the overwhelming majority are men. I’m not trying to accuse them of actively discriminating against women, but they are probably just continuing with the status quo of pay that the law firm has had in place since it began.



Once women start having more leadership roles in firms, perhaps this pay gap will close even more and people will be paid equivalent salaries for equivalent jobs, despite their gender.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT