Partner complains about salary matches; suggests matches are bad for people that “look different” Forum

[JorgeMichael]

To be clear, how medical residents are paid is also BS.

[Anonymous User]

The firm's inability to retain people who "look different" might be bad for the firm, but that doesn't mean the matches are bad for those people. (Not that I understood what that line really meant, either.)

I agree that if that's what she's saying, then the title is wrong. I read the post as "if firms need to pay first years so much, they're going to need to focus on hiring billing machines, which (for some unexplained reason) will result in fewer jobs for people that 'look different.'" Again, I have no idea what she's actually saying. That's just how I read it on my first read.

I took her statement as commenting on the implicit bias that exists in big law. Outside of the truly stellar candidates (grades wise), since big law hiring is often based on how people connect during a 20 minute interview, we are more likely to hire/recommend people that look like us. Since big law is still mostly white, if you couple that implicit bias with the pressure of having to pay 1st years associates more money, then you are more likely to go with who you are comfortable with rather than taking a "risk" on someone who doesn't look like you. There are also studies that show that minorities (especially African-Americans) are critiqued more harshly than their white counterparts, so even if a minority gets through the door, there may be even more pressure on not just the minority associate to prove their worth but also the partners who are trying to determine if this person is going to cut it.

[Anonymous User]

Faegre’s breadth really doesn’t make sense for it. It’s become very hard to make partner in some of its traditional Midwestern offices because its partners are expected to have unrealistic books for its markets and it’s protective of PPP. And as an associate, why would you want to work at a firm where it takes more than a decade to make partner and you don’t make above the top of the local market?

I’ve also heard they’ve lost some of the traditional Faegre clients post-merger because they cross-staff offices and e.g. New York associates charge too much and don’t have the local industry expertise. I don’t think anyone thought pre-merger “gee, what this firm was missing was a strong Philadelphia presence.” And it’s not like it’s a top player in New York or Chicago anyway.

On the other hand, a real New York firm would never be like “You know what we really need? A Fort Wayne office.” It’s a Frankenstein.

[Ultramar vistas]

The firm's inability to retain people who "look different" might be bad for the firm, but that doesn't mean the matches are bad for those people. (Not that I understood what that line really meant, either.)

I agree that if that's what she's saying, then the title is wrong. I read the post as "if firms need to pay first years so much, they're going to need to focus on hiring billing machines, which (for some unexplained reason) will result in fewer jobs for people that 'look different.'" Again, I have no idea what she's actually saying. That's just how I read it on my first read.

I took her statement as commenting on the implicit bias that exists in big law. Outside of the truly stellar candidates (grades wise), since big law hiring is often based on how people connect during a 20 minute interview, we are more likely to hire/recommend people that look like us. Since big law is still mostly white, if you couple that implicit bias with the pressure of having to pay 1st years associates more money, then you are more likely to go with who you are comfortable with rather than taking a "risk" on someone who doesn't look like you. There are also studies that show that minorities (especially African-Americans) are critiqued more harshly than their white counterparts, so even if a minority gets through the door, there may be even more pressure on not just the minority associate to prove their worth but also the partners who are trying to determine if this person is going to cut it.

They should rename a yoga move after this comment because equating high junior associate salaries to being bad for diversity is the greatest stretch ever.

[Anonymous User]

The firm's inability to retain people who "look different" might be bad for the firm, but that doesn't mean the matches are bad for those people. (Not that I understood what that line really meant, either.)

I agree that if that's what she's saying, then the title is wrong. I read the post as "if firms need to pay first years so much, they're going to need to focus on hiring billing machines, which (for some unexplained reason) will result in fewer jobs for people that 'look different.'" Again, I have no idea what she's actually saying. That's just how I read it on my first read.

I took her statement as commenting on the implicit bias that exists in big law. Outside of the truly stellar candidates (grades wise), since big law hiring is often based on how people connect during a 20 minute interview, we are more likely to hire/recommend people that look like us. Since big law is still mostly white, if you couple that implicit bias with the pressure of having to pay 1st years associates more money, then you are more likely to go with who you are comfortable with rather than taking a "risk" on someone who doesn't look like you. There are also studies that show that minorities (especially African-Americans) are critiqued more harshly than their white counterparts, so even if a minority gets through the door, there may be even more pressure on not just the minority associate to prove their worth but also the partners who are trying to determine if this person is going to cut it.

They should rename a yoga move after this comment because equating high junior associate salaries to being bad for diversity is the greatest stretch ever.

Ha! Fair enough... I wasn't saying I agree with the sentiment expressed, I was just offering one possible (but clearly unconvincing) interpretation of her vague and conclusory statement.

[Anonymous User]

The firm's inability to retain people who "look different" might be bad for the firm, but that doesn't mean the matches are bad for those people. (Not that I understood what that line really meant, either.)

I agree that if that's what she's saying, then the title is wrong. I read the post as "if firms need to pay first years so much, they're going to need to focus on hiring billing machines, which (for some unexplained reason) will result in fewer jobs for people that 'look different.'" Again, I have no idea what she's actually saying. That's just how I read it on my first read.

I took her statement as commenting on the implicit bias that exists in big law. Outside of the truly stellar candidates (grades wise), since big law hiring is often based on how people connect during a 20 minute interview, we are more likely to hire/recommend people that look like us. Since big law is still mostly white, if you couple that implicit bias with the pressure of having to pay 1st years associates more money, then you are more likely to go with who you are comfortable with rather than taking a "risk" on someone who doesn't look like you. There are also studies that show that minorities (especially African-Americans) are critiqued more harshly than their white counterparts, so even if a minority gets through the door, there may be even more pressure on not just the minority associate to prove their worth but also the partners who are trying to determine if this person is going to cut it.

They should rename a yoga move after this comment because equating high junior associate salaries to being bad for diversity is the greatest stretch ever.

Yeah -- it feels to me like the partner was throwing every possible argument to see what would stick. I feel it was pretty low to try to use racial drama to further her own financial wellbeing in this manner. Maybe her firm should pay people what they feel is right and then tell recruits "we'd love to pay you more but, among other things, high pay is bad for the career tractory of minorities, so we can't." See how that goes over.