Government report labels legal profession as 'socially exclusive'

The last thing our profession needs is a load of chavs lowering the tone.

City firm -22 Jul 2009 | 07:13

Surely these percentages are a reflection of the quality of education in the average state school. There are far more kids coming out of private schools with four or five A-levels than there are coming out of state schools. As competition for training contracts increases each year, it is only natural that selection of the brightest pupils will therefore favour those coming from private schools - it's simply a numbers game.

Anonymous -22 Jul 2009 | 10:15

"The last thing our profession needs is a load of chavs lowering the tone."

Lots of us were grammar school 'chavs' when I was articled back in the 1970s.
A dying breed now obviously.

I do get asked to fill in forms about my ethnicity and sexual leanings though.
Can't see how that will help entrants from the bottom of the social ladder.
Seems that race and sexual behaviour matter more than class nowadays.

Old Geezer -22 Jul 2009 | 12:20

I like the idea of a profession which reflects society.

Unfortunately when I choose to instruct a solicitor I want the one who is the cleverest and will do the best job for me. More often than not, that person is the one who received the most expensive education.

There must come a point when you judge someone on ability rather than background. I think by your mid-twenties it is time to drop the excuses.

Gordon Gecko -22 Jul 2009 | 21:44

Miss

The most socially exclusive element of the legal profession is the occasional nepotism exercised to make sure the children of partners and HR managers get jobs.

A centralised interviewing process, like doctors have, would enable these issues to be ironed out. It would be rather Orwellian though.

Cathy -22 Jul 2009 | 21:47

Surely the answer is more grammar schools. It pains me that politicians cannot see the obvious merit of the grammar school system and the benefits it has for talented children from poorer backgrounds.

Future Trainee -22 Jul 2009 | 22:50

The findings of Alan Milburn’s report shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed, but neither should they be taken out of proportion. There’s no doubt that social mobility is an issue that should be properly addressed. However, most firms already take it incredibly seriously, with many setting themselves strict diversity targets that drive a lot of their recruitment activity.

More than most industries, the legal sector is dominated by a need for specific qualifications and experience. It’s these that now form the basis of hiring decisions rather than social background. The days of firms made exclusively of Oxbridge graduates are firmly behind us, and the top players in the industry are putting a lot of work into ensuring they cast their net as widely as possible when it comes to finding the best talent in the market. It has meant that the number of people in the profession from socially disadvantaged backgrounds has steadily increased in recent years.

Equality of opportunity is a mission most in the industry are already committed to. There’s no doubt that there’s still work to do in the area, and this report will help to focus minds more keenly on that mission, but it shouldn’t overshadow the good work already being done.

Colin Loth - Badenoch & Clark -23 Jul 2009 | 09:04

I went to uni and law school in the late '80s. The LEA paid my tuition fees for both and I received a basic grant on top. My family is definitely 'working class' and I was the first child in my family to go to uni. Without that financial assistance I simply would not have gone to university or law school at all. (I had a job in a bank for a year between 6th form and uni -I would have just stayed there!) It's all about the money: without parents to help you out, how on earth can students today afford to qualify as solicitors or barristers without running up nightmare debts? This government and its predecessor should hang their heads in shame at the abolition of tuition fee assistance.

HCB -23 Jul 2009 | 11:19

Is anybody really suprised?

This report is not a surprise - we all know that this profession is socially exclusive. A lot of firms are getting involved in "diversity initiatives" but there's no point of getting involved in such schemes if it does not translate to widening access to the profession. It is rare to see a non-white trainee from a "working class" background.

I am not suggesting that firms should open their doors to trainees that don't have the relevant grades (e.g.AAB+ and a 2:1) but law firms should recognise that there is an under-utilised pool of talent out there and they need to get with the programme! After all, its our individual differences that make teams strong.

Joan Carol Clayton -27 Jul 2009 | 12:48