How to achieve the aim of gender equality

It has been difficult not to notice, in recent months,
a number of law firms introducing measures to boost female representation at partner and/or board level.

And it is not before time. Although the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 enabled women to qualify as barristers and solicitors, progress has been slow. In 2013, 94 years after
the Act was passed, females accounted for just 17.6 per cent
of partners in the profession
(up just 1.6 per cent from 2006) and just 13 per cent of the equity partners in the top 20 firms.

At Wedlake Bell, it has also taken time to evolve. In 1985, there were no women ‘on the notepaper’, although it did not take long to change. The first female partner was appointed
in 1987, and much progress has been made since.

In terms of remuneration
there is, admittedly, a small gender pay gap: in favour of
female partners.

Rewarding merit

Has this come about by virtue of a programme to fulfil quotas or to achieve targets? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’; it is the product of a policy of reward based solely on merit: the best person for the job gets the job.

Does the progress achieved
by a few firms mean that nothing proactive needs to be done, that we, as a profession, may simply rely on the universal application of reward based solely on merit and the passage of time?

Similarly, the answer must
be an emphatic ‘no’. While some firms have made progress, others have made no progress at all.
As a profession, we have some way to travel.

A complex set of factors
are at play. Significant change
is occurring in wider society. More women are becoming
main breadwinners and an increasing number of men are engaged in full-time childcare. Social attitudes are altering. Technology is moving at an incredible pace, facilitating greater flexibility in working practices.

This levelling of the playing field has taken time and it will take more time to develop further. Not all of the delay in progress can be laid at the door of individual law firms or the profession as a whole. However, it is clear that the pace of change is substantially slower than it should be.

Preferred route

Announcing targets or quotas seems to have become the preferred route for law firms. Usually these are scheduled to
be achieved over four years or more (though, in some cases, over an indeterminate period). Generally targets are preferred
to quotas, perhaps because the latter connotes inflexibility and
a consequent reduction in the importance of individual merit.

Survey results suggest that quotas are far from being universally supported by female solicitors. No one, male or female, wants their promotion to
result from, or to be regarded
as resulting from, anything other than the product of their own merits and effort.

Setting a target, however,
does at least amount to a public declaration of an intention to change. For firms whose statistics are currently less than flattering, that must surely be a good thing. If nothing else, it creates some form of public accountability. Public comparison must also
play its part; as we know, law firms do like to do well in tables in the legal press.

Progress is happening and,
as it becomes more widespread, underperformers are being exposed. If firms want to avoid that they must act now and seriously consider how such change should be achieved, creating and implementing policies designed to advance
the situation.

Hopefully, increased female representation at partner and board level will result in a virtuous circle: an environment where the playing field is as level as it reasonably can be and the rewards go to the people who most deserve them. Targets
will then cease to be relevant.
As some firms are beginning
to demonstrate, this is perfectly possible. SJ