Gender Gaps in Performance - male associate lawyers bill 10% more hours and bring in twice the new revenue as female lawyers: Evidence from Young Lawy

[Axulus]

Abstract: This paper documents and studies the gender gap in performance among associate lawyers in the United States. Unlike other high-skilled professions, the legal profession assesses performance using transparent measures that are widely used and comparable across firms: the number of hours billed to clients and the amount of new client revenue generated. We find clear evidence of a gender gap in annual performance with respect to both measures. Male lawyers bill ten percent more hours and bring in more than twice the new client revenue than do female lawyers. We demonstrate that the differential impact across genders in the presence of young children and differences in aspirations to become a law firm partner account for a large share of the difference in performance. We also show that accounting for performance has important consequences for gender gaps in lawyers’ earnings and subsequent promotion. Whereas individual and firm characteristics explain up to 50 percent of the earnings gap, the inclusion of performance measures explains a substantial share of the remainder. Performance measures also explain a sizeable share of the gender gap in promotion.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2673619

My my, what misogynists the authors of the paper are:

 

[Jarhyn]

So, and this might just be me going out on a limb here, but sample bias might have more than a little something to do with that result. It is not hard to imagine a world where the already questionable act of being a for-profit lawyer (of any kind) is an act of anything other than engaging in a career of using the letter of the law to defeat its spirit. It makes me wonder if it doesn't ultimately stem not in a difference of cognitive ability, but rather a difference in collective ethical models.

In short, it makes me wonder if women are less enthusiastic about being for-profit lawyers because for-profit lawyers tend to be terrible people.

 

[Axulus]

So, and this might just be me going out on a limb here, but sample bias might have more than a little something to do with that result. It is not hard to imagine a world where the already questionable act of being a for-profit lawyer (of any kind) is an act of anything other than engaging in a career of using the letter of the law to defeat its spirit. It makes me wonder if it doesn't ultimately stem not in a difference of cognitive ability, but rather a difference in collective ethical models.

In short, it makes me wonder if women are less enthusiastic about being for-profit lawyers because for-profit lawyers tend to be terrible people.

I don't think it has anything to do with cognitive ability but rather ambition and competitiveness and willingness to endure the sacrifices it takes to outperform others (for example, regular 60+ hour work weeks, attending networking events routinely, maybe additional willingness to bullshit to bring in new clients?). The paper itself discusses the differences in the presence of young children (meaning the is a gender difference in willingness to endure the sacrifices and not be there as much for the children between men and women) and the differences in aspirations to become a partner are large contributory factors.

Also, do you have evidence that partners at law firms tend to be terrible people?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, and this might just be me going out on a limb here, but sample bias might have more than a little something to do with that result. It is not hard to imagine a world where the already questionable act of being a for-profit lawyer (of any kind) is an act of anything other than engaging in a career of using the letter of the law to defeat its spirit. It makes me wonder if it doesn't ultimately stem not in a difference of cognitive ability, but rather a difference in collective ethical models.

In short, it makes me wonder if women are less enthusiastic about being for-profit lawyers because for-profit lawyers tend to be terrible people.

I don't think it has anything to do with cognitive ability but rather ambition and competitiveness and willingness to endure the sacrifices it takes to outperform others (for example, regular 60+ hour work weeks, attending networking events routinely, maybe additional willingness to bullshit to bring in new clients?). The paper itself discusses the differences in the presence of young children (meaning the is a gender difference in willingness to endure the sacrifices and not be there as much for the children between men and women) and the differences in aspirations to become a partner are large contributory factors.

Also, do you have evidence that partners at law firms tend to be terrible people?

Of course. In fact, I have proof: partners at law firms tend to be for-profit lawyers.

In all seriousness, I have never ONCE met a for-profit lawyer who, as a member of a law firm (as opposed to individual practice) who was not actually terrible. Nor have I ever met even a single human being with a penis whose interests in existing laws, or even GAME rules whose interests did not only exclusively bend towards self interest, other than as a public defender, and even as a public defender or neutral third party (re: judge) I have rarely seen one who did not have amostly personal agenda driving that participation.

In short, while I am sure they exist somewhere, they are about as common as English teachers who actually understand language theory.

 

[Axulus]

I don't think it has anything to do with cognitive ability but rather ambition and competitiveness and willingness to endure the sacrifices it takes to outperform others (for example, regular 60+ hour work weeks, attending networking events routinely, maybe additional willingness to bullshit to bring in new clients?). The paper itself discusses the differences in the presence of young children (meaning the is a gender difference in willingness to endure the sacrifices and not be there as much for the children between men and women) and the differences in aspirations to become a partner are large contributory factors.

Also, do you have evidence that partners at law firms tend to be terrible people?

Of course. In fact, I have proof: partners at law firms tend to be for-profit lawyers.

So you are one of those who think that profit-seeking = evil? You are only going to convince the socialists/communists on the board. I don't buy it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course. In fact, I have proof: partners at law firms tend to be for-profit lawyers.

So you are one of those who think that profit-seeking = evil? You are only going to convince the socialists/communists on the board. I don't buy it.

Not all for-profit activities are evil. Most are entirely amoral, and some are good. But making a study of rules specifically so that you can use creative interpretation, loopholes, cherry picking and other pure rhetoric to convince society to let people avoid being prevented from doing bad things? Yeah, I have a problem with that.

If they want to be ethically acceptable, they should get a job with the state as public defenders. And don't get me fucking started on scum which is the 'tax lawyer', whose mere EXISTENCE is the reason that people ever need a tax lawyer in the first place.

Edit: and as for corporate amd civil lawyers, there's a disgusting amount of awfulness there, however less so than I've seen in other fields by a narrow margin. Even so, there is a distinctive ethical 'flexibility' in 'creative interpretation' of laws, contracts, and such as well as an outright duty to further the utterly ridiculous contemporary model of 'intellectual property', a model which is extortion, and with less of a vaneer than that of an Ikea bookshelf.

 

[Trausti]

Of course. In fact, I have proof: partners at law firms tend to be for-profit lawyers.

So you are one of those who think that profit-seeking = evil? You are only going to convince the socialists/communists on the board. I don't buy it.

Oye. My experience is that partners, or other senior attorneys at law firms, come in all varieties - assholes and gentleman (they're mostly men). I mean, every profession has its assholes and gentlemen. There's nothing unique in the law about that.

As to the OP, without reading the study, I would assume from experience that the authors evaluated civil (as opposed to criminal law) firms representing insurance companies and corporate clients in defense matters. This is typically where the billing model is employed. The model is less applicable to criminal defense, family law, or plaintiff's work. Getting to the top, i.e., exceeding billable hour expectations, is tough and requires sacrificing family time. Perhaps this is why male associates outperform female associates. Though maybe male associates are simply more aggressive in churning the file than their female counterparts.

 

[Playball40]

I think it is easier for men to get new clients as our society automatically assumes men will be more ruthless, aggressive better lawyers. I see the same dynamic in Commercial RE and Engineering.

 

[untermensche]

I think it is easier for men to get new clients as our society automatically assumes men will be more ruthless, aggressive better lawyers. I see the same dynamic in Commercial RE and Engineering.

Yes this can be totally based on client perception and have absolutely nothing to do with actual performance.

It really is suggestive evidence that we still live in a culture biased against women, at least on the individual psychological level.

 

[credoconsolans]

So male lawyers overcharge and thus bring in more profit than women lawyers?

Sounds like women lawyers are being more honest than male lawyers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I know a couple of for-profit lawyers who are good at what they do and are not scumbags.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In all seriousness, I have never ONCE met a for-profit lawyer who, as a member of a law firm (as opposed to individual practice) who was not actually terrible. Nor have I ever met even a single human being with a penis whose interests in existing laws, or even GAME rules whose interests did not only exclusively bend towards self interest, other than as a public defender, and even as a public defender or neutral third party (re: judge) I have rarely seen one who did not have amostly personal agenda driving that participation.

In short, while I am sure they exist somewhere, they are about as common as English teachers who actually understand language theory.

I disagree. I have met lawyers that were reasonable people. The key factor was their main job was contracts of one sort or another rather than the courtroom. In the courtroom one side wins, one side loses. This greatly favors the unscrupulous who will try to gain any advantage over the person who is being fair. Also, in issues other than family court it's basically certain that one side is defending the side of wrong.

With contracts, however, there's no such problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

In all seriousness, I have never ONCE met a for-profit lawyer who, as a member of a law firm (as opposed to individual practice) who was not actually terrible. Nor have I ever met even a single human being with a penis whose interests in existing laws, or even GAME rules whose interests did not only exclusively bend towards self interest, other than as a public defender, and even as a public defender or neutral third party (re: judge) I have rarely seen one who did not have amostly personal agenda driving that participation.

In short, while I am sure they exist somewhere, they are about as common as English teachers who actually understand language theory.

I disagree. I have met lawyers that were reasonable people. The key factor was their main job was contracts of one sort or another rather than the courtroom. In the courtroom one side wins, one side loses. This greatly favors the unscrupulous who will try to gain any advantage over the person who is being fair. Also, in issues other than family court it's basically certain that one side is defending the side of wrong.

With contracts, however, there's no such problem.

The fundamental problem with contract law is that it attempts to make decisions for future parties, and oft disregards stringent investigation of whether or not the original terms can be reasonably expected to be acceptable after the fact. In short. Contracts can and often do rely on one side or the other Maki g bad gambles on the acceptability of terms. This happens most frequently in contract law pertaining to marriages, wills, powers of attourney, and loan contracts, but it can happen in any such situation where the contract is presented verbatim to a party without direct, free, timely access to a lawyer.

Then when the contract is broken because one side or the other is not a lawyer and either didn't get a chance to revise the contract acceptably or didn't understand the implications, again the lawyers come out and attempt to extort the letter of the contract rather than accepting the expected terms of the other party.

It isnt that I don't think there should be contracts, but rather that if someone is offering a contract written by a lawyer to second party, they ought also be liable to offer up a lawyer to act as advocate for the other signatory party. That anyone can work in that industry without seeing, and furthermore objecting to, this asymetry of understanding is telling of all such people who work in the field. I somehow doubt that contract lawyers never contemplate the asymetry of power in most contracts they write, and so by not objecting to it, they are culpable and in not considering it or if they have never been exposed to it, they do not deserve to have passed the bar.

(This exact problem is at the heart of net neutrality expectations, common carrier regulations, and the reclassification of broadband ISPs as a telecommunications; they offer 'unlimited' and 'telecommunications', push forward a lawyered contract, and expect the second party to sign with the assurances that all of what the second party is interested in is supported by the contract when it is actually NOT.)

 

[ronburgundy]

So you are one of those who think that profit-seeking = evil? You are only going to convince the socialists/communists on the board. I don't buy it.

Oye. My experience is that partners, or other senior attorneys at law firms, come in all varieties - assholes and gentleman (they're mostly men). I mean, every profession has its assholes and gentlemen. There's nothing unique in the law about that.

As to the OP, without reading the study, I would assume from experience that the authors evaluated civil (as opposed to criminal law) firms representing insurance companies and corporate clients in defense matters. This is typically where the billing model is employed. The model is less applicable to criminal defense, family law, or plaintiff's work. Getting to the top, i.e., exceeding billable hour expectations, is tough and requires sacrificing family time. Perhaps this is why male associates outperform female associates. Though maybe male associates are simply more aggressive in churning the file than their female counterparts.

Being honest and not harming others to get a desired legal outcome puts massive limits on profit making in the law profession. The truth will only occasionally be on your side, and will rarely justify the largest possible payout. Consistent victories, and the largest settlements requires unethical dishonesty and knowingly harming others and undermining the integrity of the justice system for personal gain. Thus, yes, the best for-profit lawyers tend to be terrible people willing to engage in such actions on a constant basis, which essentially requires a near-pathological lack of conscience.

 

[Trausti]

Oye. My experience is that partners, or other senior attorneys at law firms, come in all varieties - assholes and gentleman (they're mostly men). I mean, every profession has its assholes and gentlemen. There's nothing unique in the law about that.

As to the OP, without reading the study, I would assume from experience that the authors evaluated civil (as opposed to criminal law) firms representing insurance companies and corporate clients in defense matters. This is typically where the billing model is employed. The model is less applicable to criminal defense, family law, or plaintiff's work. Getting to the top, i.e., exceeding billable hour expectations, is tough and requires sacrificing family time. Perhaps this is why male associates outperform female associates. Though maybe male associates are simply more aggressive in churning the file than their female counterparts.

Being honest and not harming others to get a desired legal outcome puts massive limits on profit making in the law profession. The truth will only occasionally be on your side, and will rarely justify the largest possible payout. Consistent victories, and the largest settlements requires unethical dishonesty and knowingly harming others and undermining the integrity of the justice system for personal gain. Thus, yes, the best for-profit lawyers tend to be terrible people willing to engage in such actions on a constant basis, which essentially requires a near-pathological lack of conscience.

That's not right at all. On the defense side, one of the surest ways to lose a client (be it a business or an insurance company retaining counsel for its insured) is to get the analysis wrong. If you tell them that the plaintiff doesn't have a case but then the plaintiff ends up with a high settlement or judgment, you got some explaining do to. I've see this. The defense lawyers who keep their clients are the ones who spot the weaknesses in the defense case early and inform their client of that risk. On the plaintiff side, being dishonest is rarely rewarding because the defense can easily sniff out that dishonesty, juries punish for the dishonesty, and a lawyer's license can be suspended or disbarred for that dishonesty. The legal profession is self-regulating, and it takes that task seriously. At the end of any state bar journal is list of attorneys who have been reprimanded, suspended, or disbarred.

This notion that attorneys are unethical and dishonest is Hollywood bluster.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This notion that attorneys are unethical and dishonest is Hollywood bluster.

Well a significant percent of them are because they're always taking diametrically opposed stances when on opposite sides.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Shouldn't an unbiased measure of performance be success in the courtroom?

 

[Axulus]

Shouldn't an unbiased measure of performance be success in the courtroom?

That's the judge's role, to make sure neither side brings up irrelevancies or is being dishonest or breaking the rules.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Shouldn't an unbiased measure of performance be success in the courtroom?

That's the judge's role, to make sure neither side brings up irrelevancies or is being dishonest or breaking the rules.

So the judge also keeps male and female lawyers equally from overbilling their clients? The paper you cited did indicate that male lawyers overbill more...

But anyway, the paper is using 2 financials only to determine performance. I think success in the courtroom is a better measure.

 

[Axulus]

That's the judge's role, to make sure neither side brings up irrelevancies or is being dishonest or breaking the rules.

So the judge also keeps male and female lawyers equally from overbilling their clients? The paper you cited did indicate that male lawyers overbill more...

But anyway, the paper is using 2 financials only to determine performance. I think success in the courtroom is a better measure.

It said nothing of the sort. It said they get 10% more billable hours, which is mostly accomplished by staying longer hours and working on more cases. You do realize that most law firms create a time budget for each case? If you spend too long on your part of the case that's a bad thing.