"The House of Commons is not representative of the electorate," began a high-minded letter in yesterday's Guardian. The missive, whose signatories included Michael Mansfield QC, John Cavanagh QC, Sean Jones QC and Robin Allen QC, continued: "The House of Commons has 650 MPs. Of these 650, there are 504 male MPs, so women are seriously underrepresented."
What the letter failed to address was the plight of women in the aforementioned barristers’ chambers – where underrepresentation of women at senior levels is far more acute than in the House of Commons...
Mansfield’s set, Tooks, has no female silks (all nine of them are men).
11 King's Bench Walk, where Cavanagh and Jones practise, has just one, Elisabeth Laing QC. The other 18 are men.
Things are slightly better at Allen’s set, Cloisters, where two out of 11 (18%) silks are women. But that’s still worse than the House of Commons, where 22% of members are female.
It's not all bad - 1 Crown Office Row (my chambers) has 22 QCs, 6 of whom are women - still under 1/3, but not quite as bad, given that QCs are generally the most senior members and will have begun their careers in quite different times for equality of opportunity.
Fair comment Mr. Wagner.
Oh, where to begin.
Firstly, I do not believe in quotas or positive discrimination (as I believe these can be harmful in and of themselves); however, until the bar (and indeed parliament) starts making changes, gender equality in either of these roles is a mere dream.
Whilst the bar now has an intake that is broadly demonstrative of gender equality, we are far from addressing the retention rate, which is where the biggest problem lies - how do we keep women once they have had children, so that we will one day have a bench that also reflects gender equality?
Under the Equality and Diversity Code, the BSB has publishes the Maternity, Paternity and Parental Leave guidance: http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-equality-and-diversity-code/the-equality-and-diversity-code/c-maternity,-paternity-and-parental-leave/ .
However, a mere glance shows the contents are recommendations - for example:
1.54 The Maternity, Paternity and Flexible Working Policy approved by the Bar Council recommends that Chambers should offer their members taking maternity leave or leave following adoption, a minimum period of six months' free of Chambers' rent and expenses...
1.55 The Maternity, Paternity and Flexible Working Policy approved by the Bar Council recommends that members of Chambers should be offered a minimum of one month's leave free of Chambers' rent and expenses following the birth or adoption of a child by their partner, where they have or share responsibility for that child and so that they can discharge that responsibility.
1.57 The Bar Council recommends that a woman should have the right to return to her Chambers as a tenant following the birth or adoption of a child.
(emphasis added).
Whilst many chambers may well adopt those recommendations, and some may well go further, it is saddening that in this day and age that they are mere recommendations. There is no reason whatsoever why the bar cannot put protections in place as part of the code, and one has to question why the profession still, in 2012, hasn't done so.
Maternity/paternity policy aside, there is also the issue of what the clerks do to maintain the barrister's own practice while s/he is absent, which does not even enter the guidance.
Leaving those issues aside (before this becomes and essay-length rant), there is then the issue of the actual work.
Taking just one problem - judges decide on a whim to sit early/sit late without a thought for the responsibilities of those appearing before him or her. Whilst I see the argument of cracking on with a case, it can cause real problems for working parents - most nurseries close at 6 and not many are on the court doorsteps.
Women feel like they are letting the side down if they dare raise the issue of childcare problems, so unless they have people who they can call on, they are simply stuffed - and that is before we mention the fact that some mothers would actually like to see the child they delivered to someone else to care for that morning.
Regular sitting hours is such a minor step for the judiciary to take, yet it would be a huge step forward in terms of improving the working lives of so many parents. The more of those minor steps we take, the more attractive remaining in the profession becomes and the retention rate starts bottoming - hello bench reflecting gender equality.
Of course, one can simply say that to have a career sacrifices must be made, and one cannot have it all. That's fine, but lets be honest about it and admit that the job is hard for those with commitments outside of work and accept that the retention rate means we are unlikely to ever achieve gender equality at the top of the profession.
But if we do want one day to see a bench reflective of the gender make-up of society, we need to have a great many conversations about achieving that, rather than falling back on what Helena Kennedy refers to as the 'we've got one' mentality. Who knows, if the bar becomes the gold standard in terms of retaining women, perhaps parliament will look to follow.
I think there's a good case for quotas, women's feelings aside. Taking the (very important) equality argument out of the equation, diversity is good for business, especially those that are struggling in a changing environment. Quotas should be presented as a business strategy rather than positive discrimination.
The Deloitte report The Gender Dividend is a quite a useful read: http://www.deloitte.com/investinginwomen?id=theme_gender
I am a woman. I do not have children yet in my early 30s and may well not do so at all for a number of reasons. I have no interest in flexible working and am unlikely to need to take maternity leave. I would hope at times the attention on advancing women's careers can be about something other than addressing childcare concerns. I understand many of my female colleagues have childcare considerations that need to be addressed and I fully support them, but many women without children struggle to advance in their careers so it is not all about maternity leave or needing to leave at 5 to pick kids up etc but in part more broadly how women are viewed in the legal profession. That view may be to some extent based on an idea that women will become mothers and need to balance work with other commitments but it is also based on whether women are perceived as hungry, go-getter etc and the tendency in law to promote in one's own image.
Hi,
I accept there are issues facing women in the profession outside of motherhood. However, the evidence appears to suggest the biggest issue affecting retention is parenthood and the issues flowing from parenthood; the biggest issue impacting directly on the make-up of the top of the profession including the bench is retention; hence often, that's where the focus falls. No-one is suggesting we focus only on keeping mothers in the profession, but if that is where most impact can be made, it is going to be where efforts are concentrated.
I do understand and agree that most women are, or will be, mothers, and that childcare concerns or difficulties around flexible working are frequently cited as reasons for failure to retain women in the profession. However I also see numerous childless women of my age or slightly older of say seven or eight years' call or qualification or more who are not doing as well in their careers as their male counterparts. A lot of these women work harder and more diligently than many of the men, don't want flexible hours and haven't taken maternity leave. Perhaps they are seen as likely to want to go and have children imminently or at some point, but in any case these are not women trying to balance work and family and yet still career progression is a struggle. I would be interested to know the reasons cited by the (mostly) men who don't promote women as to why they don't. Is it because the woman has had to leave early on Thursdays to pick up their children or had that day off six months ago to look after their ill child, or is it just that they are female and the man in charge prefers to promote a good chap who barks at people a bit more junior and holds his own on the golf course...
Judges do not usually decide on a whim to sit early or late. It is usually because there is a need to finish something on that day, or a danger that it might not be finished on a particular day. The needs of Counsel with child care issues have to be balanced against the needs of the clients and the needs to use court time properly - and the decision will not always fall in favour of Counsel. One of the main problems is that there is still a feeling that child care and children is somehow a private issue and often Counsel do not raise the issue. If it is a factor which needs to be considered by the judge then it must be raised. Time to be brave. I have heard barristers raise far less important issues and have a judge agree to them.