The male-dominated world of the Bar has always been a difficult place for women barristers to progress. But have recent schemes to incorporate more ‘family friendly’ policies been a success, or is there more still to be done to ensure equality? Dominic Carman reports
“The glass ceiling remains a serious problem at the Bar. There still appears to be a preference by some clients to instruct male barristers, particularly in the senior echelons of commercial work.” This damning indictment from Tim Dutton QC, chairman of the Bar Council, echoes the belief of Cherie Booth QC that “the law is sexist” and a “very family-unfriendly” profession.
In her autobiography, published this year, Booth recalls not being given any concessions by New Court Chambers following the birth of her first two children. Not only was there no maternity pay but she had to continue paying rent.
Only after the birth of her third child in 1988 was she allowed three months rent free, with New Court Chambers one of the first to introduce this idea.
Booth is correct. My father, George Carman QC, was her New Court Chambers head in the 1980s when Booth’s three eldest children were born. Like most male barristers of his generation, for years he did not accept the argument that women barristers should be given concessions or subsidised by others during maternity.
But times have changed. It is now a professional obligation for pregnant barristers to be given a rent-free period by chambers, and the Bar Council’s Equality and Diversity Code prevents any discrimination arising out of maternity.
Are Dutton and Booth therefore right about women at the Bar in 2008? Is it problems of childcare and lack of financial support, rather than outright discrimination, that prevent female barristers from reaching the glittering heights of the profession?
One recent development, spearheaded by three barristers at 39 Essex Street — Jess Connors, Kate Grange and Victoria Butler-Cole — is the Bar Nursery Association. Established in autumn 2007, the association’s objective is to establish nursery facilities in the Inns of Court for the young children of barristers and their staff. Similar proposals have been made previously, but without success.
To accommodate barristers’ long hours, the facility will be open from 7am to 7pm and will be located near sets of chambers to provide flexibility — so that if a case goes short or a conference finishes early, parents can immediately pick up their children.
A survey conducted earlier this year, circulated to all chambers in London, saw the nursery proposal receive considerable backing. A second survey has recently been distributed to assess the likely demand and to find out which chambers might be interested in financially supporting the scheme.
According to Grange, 207 people have so far said they were interested in using such a facility over the next three years. Prominent supporters include Baroness Hale, Lady Justice Arden, Lord Walker, Sir Igor Judge, Mrs Justice Cox and Edwin Glasgow QC.
Among junior barristers supporting the initiative is 32-year-old Shaheed Fatima, a rising star at Blackstone Chambers. “Not only is such a facility long overdue, but it fills an important need felt by many parents who work in and around the Inns of Court. I would be extremely interested in using it for my own 18-month old son,” says Fatima.
Dutton suggests that various factors limit the progressison of women into the senior ranks of the Bar, not least the long hours and the unpredictable nature of being self-employed. The Bar, he argues, is not family-friendly.
“In order to break down the glass ceiling, the idea of a nursery fits perfectly,” says Dutton. “It needs to have all Bar institutions’ backing.”
The childcare will be run by a nursery provider, which is yet to be finalised, with guarantees given by the Inns. If successful, it will become self-funding. According to the business model, it will break even in year three.
“All of the Inns are supportive in principle of a 40-place nursery,” says Grange. “Inner Temple is very keen to help us find a space. We have proposed that each Inn puts up £80,000 which would cover capital expenditure and running costs.
“We are looking at how to apportion costs between the Inns and the nursery provider. The aim is for the provider to manage and run the facility, with finance to some extent being provided initially by the Inns.”
Although a Bar nursery would undoubtedly provide benefits, Booth’s question remains: is the law sexist?
Dutton believes it is: “Whether it is consciously so, I am not sure. It takes time. We have too many women leaving after between five and 15 years in practice. This in turn reduces the size of the pool for silk and, indeed, the judiciary. Roughly 50% of those entering the profession are women. But we are not getting enough women into silk. It is 50/50 at five years’ call, then the percentage declines.
“What you need is the 50% of barristers who come in to remain at 50% for all levels. Retention into senior ranks is the issue that we are attempting to solve.”
Michael Todd QC, head of the Chancery Bar Association, says: “We recognise the benefits that women bring to the Bar; they are experienced and they look at things from a slightly different perspective. It is not a question of positive discrimination. We want a more diverse profession because of the benefits it brings. We are behind solicitors because the Bar was seen as a male profession and that scared women — it put them off coming. Women went to law firms instead.”
Todd suggests that in some ways the Bar is more family-friendly than other occupations because more advisory work can be conducted at home. “At law firms you need to be seen to be around,” he says, although he adds that the Bar cannot compete on paid maternity leave. Still, Todd argues that seeing the Bar as sexist is “an out of date view”.
“Even if some members of the Bar — especially senior barristers — still need more education, the old attitudes are very much in the minority.”
So what do women who practise at the commercial and Chancery Bars think? Until her appointment in 2004 as the first woman judge of the commercial court, Mrs Justice Gloster was the highest-rated of all female commercial silks. “Women have now got every chance and there isn’t a glass ceiling,” she says. “There has to be an appreciation by women that if they want it, they can go and get it. The Bar is terribly meritocratic.”
Is there a problem for barristers who take time off to have children? “Well, yes there is,” says Gloster. “I took off four weeks for one child and two months for the other. It would have been difficult to get back into the competitive swing if I had taken longer. The market dictates. If you take time off you lose the relationships with solicitors.”
A star performer in several disciplines and a fellow silk of Cherie Booth at Matrix Chambers, Clare Montgomery QC (pictured) believes that “as a woman, this job exposes you to personal turmoil”. She took three months’ maternity leave with her two daughters. “As far as solicitors are concerned, you are not diminished when you have children; you vanish.”
The picture is similar for commercial stars in the City. Elizabeth Barrett, head of dispute resolution at Slaughter and May until May 2008, has four children: the longest of her maternity leave periods was two-and-a-half weeks.
Janet Gaymer, former senior partner at Simmons & Simmons and now Commissioner for Public Appointments, once took her six-week-old baby to an arbitration hearing in Paris. “Women and families in law are the great unresolved problems,” says Gaymer. “Firms say they are trying to adapt, but they are just tinkering round the edges.”
Efforts by law firms to address work-life balance and stop high attrition levels among assistants include the introduction of flexible working, the development of alternative career paths and associate involvement in the running of the firm.
Gloster characteristically isolates the key point: “There is a real career choice about children. A lot of women quite rightly take the decision that they would rather give up their work for their children — a reality that will continue.”
Barbara Dohmann QC, a former chairman of the Commercial Bar Association, a silk for 21 years at Blackstone Chambers and the only woman to appear in the top 50 of the legal directories, offers the following explanation of why there are so few women stars at the commercial Bar: “There is so much confrontation, which is unnecessary but, boy, is it there.” Pointing to the aggressive competition that is a feature of the job, she adds: “The work is more masculine and, as a result, I have often been treated as an honorary man. People see me as very tough. How many women are really tough — or want to be?”
Grange suggests that “a glass ceiling exists, particularly in commercial chambers, where to work part-time or have flexible working arrangements is very difficult”.
At 38, a mother of two and new in silk at Brick Court Chambers, Helen Davies QC (pictured), disagrees: “I firmly believe that if there ever was a glass ceiling at the commercial Bar, it no longer exists.” The Bar, she suggests, is one of the most child-friendly professions there is. Davies points to two members of Brick Court with children who work extensively from home.
“We are self-employed,” says Davies “and you do not have any of the issues that women elsewhere face, such as getting to things at school, dealing with the nanny, having a sick day or dealing with an ill child who cannot go to nursery. At the Bar there is so much more flexibility. And it is a meritocracy.”
Janet Turner QC, who took silk at 38, then left the Bar and is now a partner at Taylor Vinters, offers a different perspective. “Standards in the commercial field are very high,” says Turner. “If you are going to succeed as a woman you have to be better than your male colleagues. You are instructed by large City firms where there is a significant glass ceiling. You see a reflection of that in terms of the people they instruct at the Bar.”
Critics point to successful women like Davies, Dohmann, Gloster and Turner as examples of what psychologists call the drawbridge syndrome: you bring up the bridge behind you as you cross it and advance up the legal ladder. So what do commercial juniors think?
3 Verulam Buildings’ Sonia Tolaney, 34, offers a personal insight on female attrition and the law: “As a junior you have your own room in commercial chambers. Some people find it very isolating to be stuck there, sitting drafting something for days. It can be quite dry. All of my friends who read law are solicitors or they have given up, mainly because of children.”
Grange tells of “horror stories about some women in chambers where there is a total glass ceiling, no members of child-bearing age and policies that make it impossible for anyone who has children to come back”.
Not so at Blackstone Chambers, home to four women silks and a clutch of very successful women juniors with children, including Fatima.
“I speak as a woman and as a member of an ethnic minority,” says Fatima. “Contrary to popular belief, I think the Bar is a meritocracy. In my opinion it is not gender per se that can make life at the Bar difficult. Rather, it is challenging to be a full-time barrister and a hands-on parent.”
And sexism? “I don’t think the Bar is sexist,” adds Fatima. “The work can be hard and working life is made harder if you have childcare commitments. The issue is parenthood (rather than gender) and how you handle that role alongside being a full-time barrister. Before children, the Bar is as level a playing field as you will encounter in any area of working life. In our chambers there is a culture of parenting and working: going home at 6pm is seen as healthy.”
