the biggest issue? how part-time partners are treated.
yes. yes. i understand that the title of this post may be offensive to both men (why do we need special rules for women?) and women (why do we need to be singled out – isn’t it a given in the 21st century that women and men should be treated equally?).
more: mandatory retirement: pros and cons (and is it legal?) | partner duties, prohibitions and grounds for expulsion | principals who aren’t cpas | why non-compete and non-solicitation covenants matter | handling pay during the disability of a partner | why voting isn’t such a big deal
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.
the good news is that i don’t see many partner agreements that blatantly discriminate against women.
the bad news is that i still read partner agreements that indirectly and perhaps inadvertently discriminate against women. this post is intended to help firms avoid this.
let’s get this out on the table: virtually all of the examples of discrimination listed in the next section are the result of someone being a part-time vs. a full-time partner. although i have seen a small number of part-time male partners at firms, most part-time partners are women raising a family.
areas where partner agreements may discriminate against women
1. your partner agreement should provide that equity partners can be either full time or part time.
2. the vesting provision in the firm’s partner retirement/buyout system should treat part-time partners fairly.
i have often seen agreements specifying that vesting is based on full years worked. this can obviously be a problem for part-time partners who are raising a family. a common scenario could be this:
- she becomes an equity partner at 32.
- from 35 to 50, she reverts to three days per week to raise a family.
- she works full time from 50 to 60, then retires.
totaling this up, that’s 28 years as a partner, 15 part time and 13 full time. this can be a huge problem if the buyout plan stipulates vesting at one year for every full-time year worked. under this rule, the above partner will have only 13 years of vesting. because many plans require 20 years as a partner to be fully vested, she would be only 65 percent vested (at 5 percent per year) at retirement. if she received partial credit for part-time years, she would be credited with 22 years of vesting: one year for each of her 13 full-time years and nine for her 15 part-time years (15 years @ 60% employment).
3. the partner compensation system should treat part-time partners fairly.
full-time cpa firm partners average 2,400-2,500 total hours per year. that’s quite a bit more than 40 hours a week.
common part-time compensation arrangements work like this: a partner cuts back to three days a week. if her full-time compensation of the partner would have been $300,000, and she works three days a week, then part-time pay is $300,000 x 3/5 = $180,000.
part-time partners almost always work way more hours than whatever their part-time arrangement is. merely computing a part-time partner’s compensation based on the number of days worked per week may not always be fair.
so, i encourage firms to work out the arrangement on a case-by-case basis that is fair to both the firm and the part-time partner.
4. part-time partners should be able to serve on the executive or compensation committee. let me illustrate with an example:
i once facilitated a partner retreat with 10 partners, all men except a highly regarded female partner in her mid-30s who had begun working part time to raise a family. one agenda item was the creation of an executive committee. the selection of two partners to join the mp as a three-person executive committee took a perilous twist when the partners voted the part-time partner onto the executive committee. two of the other partners strenuously objected because they didn’t feel that a part-time partner had enough commitment to the firm to justify being named to such an important firm management function.
you can imagine the heated discussion and hurt feelings that followed. fortunately, the mp and the female partner had a long discussion later that night and worked things out. she was installed on the executive committee.
the message: one need not be a full-time partner to serve in important management positions such as executive committee, compensation committee or department head. can a part-time partner be the managing partner? probably not, but i’ll leave that provocative discussion for another day.