Jonathan Karas QC: Dumbing down for diversity

An example, if one were needed, of how stuck in time and resistant to change the Bar really is. Although im sure Mr Karas doesnt speak for the Bar, his views appear representative of many senior decision makers determining who practices in their chambers.Many of the arguments he rehearses here are familiar and raise the same old objections: dumbing down being the greatest fallacy.I am a US qualified lawyer and recall this debate whilst at law shcool in the US (back in the early 1990's!). Many of my black colleagues were as able as myself but initially found it much more difficult to be taken on by the elite corporate firms. During recruitment rounds, I remember having the diversity discussion with a partner at one of these firms who came out with similiar arguments as Mr Karas against diversity.There were however some forward thinking corporate firms that understood the value (and commercial imperative) of having a diverse and dynamic pool of lawyers even back then and many of my fellow 'minority' students secured employment with them. They are now in prominent positions in law firms, industry and government in the US. 10 years later I bumped into this now retired lawyer at a conference in Washington DC and his tune had changed. He is now a strong advocate of diversity. What changed?He admitted back then he 'didnt get it'. He saw the concept of diversity as a threat and not an opportunity. As a non-executive of a global corporation, he looks for diversity in the law firms the corporation uses not as a measure of its lack of quality, but an indication of its dynamism and excellence. He calls this the 'Salad bowl' effect: where all the different elements complement each other.I'm sure Mr Karas is aware that diversity at law firms in the US is an accepted aim and the debate has moved on to how to ensure such diversity is represented in senior management.It is unfortunate to see the same debate at such an underdeveloped stage for the Bar. I'm afraid Mr Karas doesn't get it either, but I hope that in 10 years time, when he sees that diversity hasn't affected but enhanced excellence, he will be converted and make the same admission.The debate can then move on.

Posted by: Senior Partner, US firm

05 Apr 2007 | 12:50

The word "diversity" is bandied about as if it cannot be anything but good.

Posted by: D. Ely

07 Apr 2007 | 00:18

It is disappointing once again to see diversity presented as inextricably linked to falling standards. Increasingly, when diversity is mentioned these days, it seems de rigeur for it to be accompanied by hand-wringing assurances that quality and merit will be maintained - as if the contrary should somehow be presumed.I have yet to receive a convincing explanation as to why the past system, which paid no heed to diversity and which promulgated the success of people of one gender and one background (thereby overlooking considerable talent), should be regarded as inherently more quality-based.In fact, one female Scottish lawyer is reported to have said, "we'll know we've made it when we have as many mediocre women in top jobs as mediocre men."Women make up over 60% of trainees and the number of ethnic minority trainees is also on the increase. Diversity is here. The debate has moved on. The question that faces us now is why diversity is not represented at all levels of seniority.

Posted by: Chairwoman, Association of Women Solicitors

09 Apr 2007 | 20:56

The application of some (very) rough and ready mathematics is instructive here. Apparently seven out of 10 members of major commercial chambers went to Oxbridge. I believe that there are around 500 pupillages each year. That means roughly 340 pupillages to Oxbridge and 170 to every other university in the UK (and beyond). Since there are over 100 UK universities, Mr Karas must believe that the 361st best graduate from Oxbridge is always better than the third best graduate from any other Uni. How else would a change in the status quo cause standards to drop? Anyone for a little objectivity?

Posted by: Trainee solicitor, Scotland

11 Apr 2007 | 12:29

Attempts to widen access to the profession are to be applauded, absolutely, but I don't think that it is right to bash Oxbridge once again. Oxford and Cambridge have taken great steps to open up more to people from a wide variety of backgrounds and "trainee solicitor, Scotland" makes an incorrect assumption in this regard.Insofar as there is an imbalance in society, the Government should take the blame for underinvesting in education and removing the grant system, which provided a gateway to higher education. The Bar should not take the blame for this and should not be forced to alter the academic requirements for membership, as this will not benefit the public.

Posted by: Peter Causton

12 Apr 2007 | 18:15

The real problem diversity proponents face is that this is a management cliche, which isn't respected now in the wider business world. It's regarded as waffle: "allowing people to be themselves." In the US, the preferred term is now "cultural competency"! Thomas A. Kochan, a leading US human resources management expert at MIT's Sloan School of Management, said in 2003 that "the diversity industry is built on sand. The business case rhetoric for diversity is simply naive and overdone. There are no strong positive or negative effects of gender or racial diversity on business performance."In New Labour's world, "diversity" forms part of an increasingly intrusive, resource-intensive and technocratic compliance model. Diveristy consultants make money out of this, and so their words should be treated with some caution.The real problem facing the Bar, I suggest, is its antediluvian approach to the business of selling legal expertise. Arguments about diversity merely divert attention away from basic flaws in the Bar's business model, which utilises archaic terms of work, poor pricing policies, dreadful cashflow management, etc. These are far more of a turnoff for any intelligent member of a "minority" with student loans to repay. Affluent members of minority groups have always been able to treat the Bar as a hobby, in the finest traditions of the profession.

Posted by: Barbara Hewson, Hardwicke Building

12 Apr 2007 | 20:42

"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."If the law provides an objective code which is currently objectively applied, as Jonathan Karas QC argues, why is it that disproportionate numbers of poor black men are in the prison system? Why have judges such a bad reputation for handling rape cases? Why did Lord Denning turn down out of hand the 'appalling vista' that the police had framed the working class, Irish 'Birmingham six'?No serious observer can argue that race, gender and class don't affect the workings of justice.Recruiting "people like us" is widespread at the Bar. "People like us" benefit from an invisible support structure - family, wealth, connections, class, expectations, the 'right' schools and universities - which makes it easier for them to take advantage of opportunities but are nothing to do with their merit.Equally-good female, working class, mature and/or Black and Asian candidates who don't fit the traditional mould of a barrister can face unequal competition for entry to the profession. That is the point of the 'Entry to the Bar' working party. We provide a public service which impacts heavily on people's lives. It is reasonable for the public, in whatever capacity they come into contact with the legal system, to expect the Bar to include advocates who understand their social, cultural or religious mores or their need for special arrangements to be made. Rather than 'undermin[ing] the rule of law', a Bar which better reflected and understood the UK's modern population could both administer justice more fairly and be perceived to do so. To quote Furedi: "'It is not the case that, as conservative cultural critics have often argued, popular participation must be to the detriment of standards."The defence of standards and autonomy, and the straw man (sic) of tokenism, have been trotted out by every occupation to avoid dealing with inequality. It would be a shame to see the Bar wasting its time going over the same ground when it could be dealing constructively with this issue.

Posted by: Christine Kings, chief executive, Doughty Street Chambers

16 Apr 2007 | 14:03

Mister Karas forgets to realize that most people who arrive at a firm or set on day one don't arrive with measurable "quality" stamped on them. I would say a great deal of the partners and associates I work with, whom directories laud and clients reward with repeat instructions are the products of what the received in terms of training, development, mentorship, coupled with drive and ambition, with a liberal application of luck. I know a lot of first-class honours graduates from certain Russell League schools, and an even larger number of Harvard/Yale Summa Cum Laude types who struggled after floundering on the inhospitable shores of a law firm or set, and who would love to be in the shoes of people from "lesser" schools or with "lesser" degrees, or who didn't "wow" the chap who was interviewing them at Cravath, Swaine & Moore or at Essex Chambers, ended up at "Cravath East" or some other set, blazed their own trail and are now sitting pretty on a book of business in the tens of millions of pounds, and cited pretty much by every benchmark as leaders in their profession. Why is there a concern about a correlation between race/ethnicity/class and a "different" quality, or subjectivity? If you remove the outliers from the ends of the distribution, almost every LLB/JD/Maitrisse/etc... is as clueless as the other the day they arrive, ceteris paribus. I'd just like to remind Mr Karas that ultimately diversity simply means access to more clients, access to more markets, access to greater combined knowledge, different approaches to the same problems in the same sets of circumstances, differing ways of buttressing the same "objective" law. To borrow Lord Slynn (? can't remember, my LLB is kinda old) I believe we can all profit from conversations among pilgrims from different lands, striving towards a common goal of better legal thought and discourse, in this delightfully messy legal system called the common law. And yes, the whole commonwealth doth read Legal Week (even when they're visiting the former colonies).

Posted by: Zip Code 10017

28 Apr 2007 | 23:29