Across the board: Gender diversity in law firm management teams

England and Wales’ law society president, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, caused a stir earlier this year when she announced a proposal to introduce targets for female appointments to senior management teams in law firms. The profession’s collective jaw dropped when she berated law firms for too often “promoting mediocre men at the expense of talented women”. Meanwhile, there has been discussion in the wider business world about the wisdom (or otherwise) of requiring FTSE100 boards to meet minimum quotas for female membership.

Positive action in recruitment and promotion is allowed by The Equality Act 2010. An employer can treat a person with the relevant characteristic (in this case gender) more favourably than others, provided that person is “as qualified as” other candidates and the employer does not have a policy of treating such people more favourably.
Even though the law permits favourable treatment of women in recruitment, is that what most women want and is it the only way to encourage more women into senior positions?

Haemorrhaging talent

The legal profession is still perceived as inherently masculine in character in the sense of its working patterns and general culture. The law society’s annual statistics revealed that, in 2008-09, women made up 46 per cent of solicitors currently on the roll and 60 per cent of admissions to the roll; this trend has continued to increase. There is clearly a large talent pool of woman and we should all do what we can to make the most of it.

Many women are leaving the legal profession in their mid 30s when they reach the ‘maternal wall’ and find it hard to perform at the same level with a family. This is particularly apparent in law firms which send out the message that the only way to show you are a top performer is to work ridiculously long hours.

As both a woman in the legal profession and a manager of female and other talent in my firm, I can see that we clearly have a problem. More women than men are applying to enter the profession today, yet only ten years later, more women than men will leave it.

Why are we haemorrhaging talent? Not only is it wrong from an equality perspective but it cannot make commercial sense as, surely, firms need ?a better return on their investment in ?these women.

It is a fact that many women with children still retain the greater responsibility for childcare in most cases. To be able to further their careers, they need to be given support to be able to balance their work and family commitments. Why are they not able to receive this support?

Proper flexible working is key, ?together with the assurance that flexible working for both men and women is a choice that does not impede long-term career progression. I believe that firms should be encouraged to positively promote alternative working patterns and that usage of these should not be equated with lesser commitment and, consequently, removal from the ?career track.

Career progression

My own experience as a woman in law has been very positive. When I joined my firm in 1991, there were two female partners; there are now nine female partners, representing 32 per cent of the partnership. Of the equity partners, 46 per cent are female and all have children.

After 15 years of practice, I was supported in my wish to change my discipline from a litigator to an employment specialist, which is still quite unusual in the profession. I am also our firm’s first female managing partner.

I often wonder if my experience is in part a consequence of being in a firm based in the provinces, rather than in the City, with a culture much more focused on people and relationships than on headcounts, numbers and hours in the office. However, I am all too aware of the experience of friends and peers in big London and global law firm machines and how different their experiences are from mine and how difficult this can be.

Our firm still has a long way to go ?to embrace flexible working fully, but we know we have to do so if we want to continue to benefit from our talent pool of women. We also need to adopt formal mentoring and leadership programmes so that our women are looked after and have career progression.

Some women can be far more self-critical than their male counterparts and thus feel that they are weaker contributors if they have to balance childcare commitments. For example, they may feel that, in taking maternity leave, they are letting their firm down. Of course they are not; it is a right. But, as a consequence of this discomfort, some women are often very accepting of what their firm foists upon them when they return from maternity leave and accept that their career is, at best, put ‘on hold’.

Law firms owners need to shrug off entrenched, outdated and prejudicial attitudes – not only on how to judge what men and women are capable of, but also on how to assess an individual’s contribution to the business.

The role of the partner is ever changing. Today, it is not just about ?being an effective fee earner, people manager and client minder; increasingly, you also need to be seen to be out in ?the marketplace socialising with clients and referrers.

There is also an on-call mentality. This level of commitment can be difficult with childcare responsibilities, regardless of whether you are male or female, but where is the long-term view? You may have to accept that a female fee-earner may not be able to generate as much revenue or contribute as much in terms of time commitment to the business for a few years after the birth of a child. But, an investment in her career at this stage could create staunch loyalty and golden returns in future.

Positive discrimination

Is positive discrimination the answer? Or does this in fact only undermine women’s credibility in the workplace? There may sometimes be a case for forced quotas to break negative cultures and cycles in certain organisations, to enable the business to benefit fully from its investment in legal talent.

The best argument I have heard in support of quotas is from Margaret Cole, former managing director at the Financial Services Authority’s conduct business unit. She expressed the view that people have a tendency to choose those that they most identify with so, whether they realise it or not, recruiters have a tendency to choose people like themselves.

I would personally prefer for ?changes to be voluntarily implemented. This seems to be working for FTSE companies. By 2015, the UK is on ?target to meet a minimum of 25 per cent female representation in FTSE100 companies; women currently account for 17.3 per cent.

Business secretary Vince Cable has agreed that a voluntary-led approach is the best way, but quotas are still a possibility if the target is not met. It is understood that only six FTSE100 companies have all-male boards; Cable has written to each of them to ask what steps they are taking to increase diversity in their boardrooms.

Education must be key. Let us learn from some our commercial clients and see how flexible working by both men and women has made a real benefit to their businesses. Let us re-evaluate how we measure contribution, as it is not just about hours in the office. Many women who work flexibly are more fulfilled and happier, which is reflected in the quality of their work.

From a female perspective, if ?quotas were to be introduced, I am certain you would not find many talented women content with being promoted as ?a token gesture.

Managing partners want the best talent pool they can have in their business – it should not matter whether they are male or female. So, let us take practical steps to ensure it is achieved in reality. Do not let it only be good childcare, supportive spouses and families that make legal careers work.

?Joanna Worby is managing partner at UK law firm Brachers (www.brachers.co.uk)