Women in law - still big news, apparently

Author: Alex Novarese

17 Jul 2009 | 01:00

I'm going to make every effort to get through this blog without innuendo. After all, it's not an issue that I focus on much - I've managed to go more than two years as editor of Legal Week without expressing an opinion on the matter. But there's no doubt that gender politics still fascinates (can't say excites) the profession like nothing else. Whenever legalweek.com runs a Career Clinic that even tangentially touches on the issue of women in law, traffic goes through the roof. That goes double if the subject has anything to do with appearance. It was a professional low point when I had to explain to a tabloid journalist that, as a dyed-in-the-wool business reporter, I didn't have any pictures on file of female lawyers in fishnets to illustrate the piece they were working on.

The latest reminder of the strong feelings the gender issues generate comes from our upcoming Big Question poll. Despite being well into the summer slow period, the survey on women in law has already received more than double the average number of responses from partners.

In addition, almost 70 partners have submitted comments to the poll, contributing enough text to cover 10 sides of A4. It's an interesting mix of comments, blending the liberal-minded with a fairly sizeable strain of the reactionary and outraged. Some were offended that our questions assumed that there was a tendency of a fair proportion of women to want to have children and, on the whole, that women take on the lion's share of the child-rearing responsibilities. I have no idea why that is controversial - it's a statement of statistical fact.

For what it's worth, I believe that much of the underlying issue is the UK's working culture, which fetishises long hours. Obviously, this is even more pronounced in the City and the legal profession.

This is then exacerbated by the UK's relatively shabby state contribution to childcare, even though there's a clear economic case for making it easier for parents of young children to keep working.

It is also more pressing for the legal profession because it has two countervailing forces. On one hand, it is one of the most attractive careers for women - we know this as women entering the profession now outnumber men. Yet the profession is poor at retaining women, thanks to the expectations placed on those vying for partnership at the point when thoughts turn to starting a family.

There is a consensus that law firms could do more, though I suspect that will be as much about becoming more family-friendly in general and reaching an accord with clients over flexible working.

There is some hypocrisy from law firms on the latter point. It's true clients haven't been that accommodating with flexi-working at advisers. But law firms played their part in creating this monster. Being available 24/7 was used to stress your premium service levels - and therefore charge a premium - and the billing and utilisation culture has hardly helped matters.

Anyway, those who want to know more should look at our next issue on Thursday (23 July). It may even be worth reprinting some of the stream of partner comments at some point as well.

COMMENTS (TOTAL 6 COMMENTS)

What frightens me as 26-year-old woman about to embark on a career in law, is that although there are 'laws' in place to stop such discrimination; men are still more favoured over women. And as a woman I can honestly see why. Let’s face it; a firm’s job is to generate money and lots of money - why would it want to risk paying maternity leave for a woman, whilst at the same time pay for her maternity cover? Even if you did not want children, a firm will still not want to take a 'risk' - frankly if you are a woman you are doomed! I am aware that many women are entering the profession, but how many are actually reaching the top of this profession? Very little. And the ones that have reached the top with kids probably had them very late in life. I can hear the cries of disgust at my comments, but seriously, just think about it for one second. You can’t blame the profession. YES, the government has given a lot of rights to new mothers, and yes it’s great. But while giving these rights it has made women less appealing to law firms and many other professions too! We are viewed as a liability, the stakes are too high - “she’s great a perfect candidate but she will be wanting a family in a year or two.” It’s a sad but true fact. I can tell you what needs to be done - men need to be given the same rights too, not this stupid one week/month paternity leave, but as much as women. For example, a man and woman could take one year off, but not at the same time, split the maternity leave, or the man can take it all or the woman can take it all (it's rather complicated but I am sure you understand my point). Maybe if this was to happen or something similar men and women would REALLY be seen as equals.

Glo -20 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Glo: your comments make a lot of sense. Look at Finland, where I believe they have equal maternity and paternity rights. Of course, you have to bear in mind that some women make the choice not to return to work after their maternity leave (or maybe after their second or third child), which partially accounts for why there are fewer women at the top (although, of course, it does not provide the full explanation). To a large extent, it is not just a change in law that will be required, but also a change in attitude. Otherwise, too many men would not take such long paternity leave for fear of looking like they had gone 'soft' in the meantime, and women will continue to be discriminated against for having taken full maternity leave.

Political Realist -21 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Alex: this is a hackneyed article which lends nothing more to the debate - poor for a blog contribution. What do YOU believe firms could do to counter the long hours culture and to make law firms more "family-friendly"? Maybe your 23 July issue will actually provide something of interest to read instead of this same old trollop.

Re the point about the 24/7 availability for premium service issue: this only works if clients regard it as being a premium service and recognise that they will pay more for it. Currently, clients demand the premium service and the 24/7 availability but are not willing to pay for it. Without a change in that attitude, on the part of the clients more than the law firms, this will never help retain good lawyers and maintain their interest in the profession, whether male or female.

Political Realist -21 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Realist, you’re presupposing that I think law firms should do more to be “family-friendly”, which I didn’t state. Actually, I don’t believe that parents in the legal profession, at least at commercial law firms, are the worst impacted by the UK’s long hours culture. They can, by and large, afford good childcare – for those on lower incomes, combining family life and work demands is more of a challenge.

As to the debate with clients, I certainly don’t believe that the dynamic between law firms and clients is one of clients dictating terms and law firms meekly taking down notes. Frankly, anyone who thinks that is naive. Law firms have shown a pronounced willingness and success in carrying out practices that they want to continue, even when it’s not what clients want. If law firms choose to re-frame the debate regarding flexibility with clients, they would have some leverage. Does that mean that law firms should push in that direction? To be honest, I’m undecided but I don’t doubt that they could secure some progress if they wanted to sufficiently.

Alex -21 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Alex: that is my point exactly. For an opinion piece, you have offered no opinion whatsoever on what law firms should be doing. If you don't believe that it is their obligation or place to do anything more, you should state that and the reasons why. Instead all you are saying is that there is a consensus that law firms (as with all employers) could do more - everybody already knows the position, the question is what, if anything, to do about it. Childcare is not really an answer to the UK's long hours culture either in lieu of hands on parenting from both parents.

Sadly, I think that law firms are too ready to give in to clients' demands, even when increasingly unreasonable, and I see it far too often in everyday practice. This is not a naive view - it is the reality. The fact is that law firms are not going to redress the balance alone. If those in management roles can insist upon their lawyers providing round-the-clock service to keep pushy clients happy, they are hardly likely to risk upsetting and losing clients to a competitor just to make their employees happy.

Political Realist -21 Jul 2009 | 01:00

We’re in danger of turning into pen pals at this rate. For what it’s worth, I think the economic benefit of retaining more women and being more family-friendly in general would outweigh the hassles it would involve for law firms, though probably not by a massive extent. Law firms are also more than able to lead a proper debate on the issue with clients.

The issue here is not the need for quick turnaround of client work – often there is such a need – it is that a crass, chest-thumping 24/7 culture means a lot of work that doesn’t need to done immediately is routinely promised in that manner. Half the time it’s the law firms themselves that do this.

Alex -21 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Post Comment

RELATED JOBS

Post Events	Legal Week daily news alert
Post	In-house weekly news briefing	Sign up

Women in law - still big news, apparently

Subscribe now