Legal services on platforms: How inequality is reproduced

This paper examines the provision of legal services on People Per Hour (PPH) and asks the question: Do digital labour platforms in legal services reduce inequality, or do they reproduce it in new ways? For optimistic commentators, platform work offers a level playing field, particularly for those excluded from traditional labour markets. As online professional services increase, understanding the consequences for equalities is critical for policy and practice.

Conceptually, rather than view platforms as neutral technologies, we use Joan Acker’s framework of inequality regimes to understand how inequalities are generated within organizations, which are also linked to wider socioeconomic conditions. Law firms are notorious for structural inequalities. Our starting point is that platforms operate in the shadow of the traditional labour market and that this shapes experiences of platform work.

Platform work and inequalities

Platform workers are associated with greater levels of autonomy over the timing, location, and quantity of work. This flexibility appeals to women workers, who are more likely to work part-time from home due to domestic responsibilities.

There is gendered occupational segregation on platforms. Men are clustered around location-based driving tasks, while online work is most common among women, along with cleaning and caring. Women are more financially dependent on platform work than men, who tend to use it to supplement their existing income. The absence of social protection is especially problematic for those who experience greater levels of economic dependency.

There is a persistent gender pay gap on platforms, regardless of feedback scores, experience, occupational category, working hours and educational attainment. There is also geographical variation with workers from lower cost regions earning 60 per cent less than those in developed countries.

Insights from the study

Our qualitative study of legal services providers on PPH revealed a key difference among participants. Men were more likely to be self-employed, having exited the legal profession following a successful career. Women were more likely to work full-time in the legal profession and used PPH for supplementary income.

In terms of inequality regimes, law firms are renowned for their hierarchical structures, with women and minorities concentrated in lower-paid segments. On PPH, traditional hierarchies were seemingly absent, yet structural differences were evident. Men had benefitted professionally and financially from their legal careers, and capitalised on this expertise when working on PPH. They were able to quickly identify worthwhile tasks and utilise standardised templates, thus maximising the time-effort bargain. Male participants identified as ‘veteran PPHers’, and remained committed to using the platform because the work was financially worthwhile

Women were more inclined to participate on PPH while working full-time as legal professionals, checking for tasks intermittently on their phone. They had limited commitment to PPH, which meant few had acquired strong online ratings. Speedy bidding was challenging and so lower-priced tasks constituted most of their activity. Faced with a hostile sectoral environment, some were pursuing self-employment, but they charged lower rates than men. As soon as their clientele was established, they left PPH to avoid fee deductions.

Although freelancers set their own rates, gender pay gaps persisted: women averaged £48/hour, while men averaged £99/hour. In a context of gendered assumptions of value, women were prepared to set and accept lower rates. Faced with low pay and instability, they often exited the platform. Men benefited from their career experience which enabled them to sustain long-term, profitable activity on PPH and build follow-on work.

Women reported isolation on PPH, while men built strong referral networks that reinforced advantage. This was described as: ‘a nice little support network for me, it’s also a nice support network for them’. Long-term gains from client loyalty were more accessible to men, given their sustained presence on the platform.

Why this matters

Although freelance platforms like PPH appear less hierarchical than law firms, gendered inequalities persist. By examining the same occupational category within the same platform, we have shown how systemic inequalities within a particular occupational labour market can be imported to platform work. Applying inequality regimes helped us identify minor disparities on platforms, which, when combined, contribute towards unequal outcomes. This highlights the importance of looking beyond the innovative nature of platforms to consider age-old gendered constraints which are embedded in labour market conditions. Platforms reproduce and amplify the gendered organisation of work which perpetuates significant disadvantages for women.

These findings have wider implications that extend beyond the professions. Given that traditional workplaces are gendered, it would be naïve to assume that platforms operate as a separate sphere that neutralise economic and societal inequalities. As our study shows, working in an environment with an absence of social protection, ambiguous employment status, and an absence of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies, ensures that traditional workplace inequalities are not only mirrored but amplified. This is why worker organizations, regulators and policymakers need to act to ensure that platforms foster fairness and decent work.