News

Influential entrepreneurs to speak at Future of Legal Education and Training Conference 2019

By on
9

All-female line-up released on International Women’s Day

📸 Yasmin Sheikh (image credit: Lopa Patel), Mary Bonsor and Dana Denis-Smith

Three inspiring female lawyers turned legal entrepreneurs will deliver short talks charting their career journeys during the biggest law training gathering of the year.

Yasmin Sheikh, the founder of Diverse Matters, a training consultancy firm specialising in diversity and disability, will kick off the morning session on the topic of entrepreneurialism at The Future of Legal Education and Training Conference 2019.

The former Clyde & Co solicitor, who herself is a wheelchair user, works with a host of major organisations to encourage staff to embrace diversity and disability through training workshops and seminars. Sheikh, who is the vice-chair of the Law Society’s Lawyers with Disabilities Division, will share her story and explain how law firms can tackle pre-conceptions about disability.

Sheikh will be joined by F-LEX co-founder and CEO Mary Bonsor. The former Winckworth Sherwood property litigator started F-LEX, an online platform connecting law students with law firms and in-house teams for short-term paralegal placements, almost three years ago. Bonsor will deliver a talk featuring her career highlights and give her view on how entrepreneurialism can be embedded to a greater extent in legal education and training.

Appearing alongside the duo at the Conference — which takes place on Wednesday 22 May at Kings Place, London — will be entrepreneurial former Linklaters lawyer Dana Denis-Smith. She founded both the 100 Years Project, which celebrates the achievements of women in law (this year marks the centenary), and the legal flexible working platform Obelisk Support.

Other sessions at this year’s Future of Legal Education and Training Conference — which is supported by lead sponsors BPP University Law School and The University of Law, with further silver sponsorship from LexisNexis and Nottingham Law School — will focus on cross-disciplinary skills and the coming together in particular of law and computer science, mental health, wellbeing and resilience, and clinical legal education. These will sit around a centrepiece debate on the practical effects of the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) featuring Solicitors Regulation Authority education and training chief Julie Brannan. The full schedule was released earlier this week.

Other confirmed speakers include Linklaters global head of learning Patrick McCann; ULaw director of business development Morette Jackson; BPP innovation chief Adam Curphey; Freshfields knowledge lawyer Lloyd Rees; Junior Lawyer Division committee member and TandonHildebrand solicitor Kayleigh Leonie; LawCare CEO Elizabeth Rimmer; head of Bristol University Law School Professor Ken Oliphant; co-head of Clifford Chance’s tech practice Jonathan Kewley; Freshfields chief innovation officer Isabel Parker; and Newcastle University academic Professor Richard Collier. Further speakers will be announced over the coming weeks and months.

First release tickets for the Future of Legal Education and Training Conference can be purchased here.

Highlights from last year’s Future of Legal Education and Training Conference

9 Comments

Anonymous

Why give a platform to those pushing discrimination on the basis of sex? That is exactly what gender quotas for partnership is.

(21)(0)

Anonymous

Do these particular speakers support the proposition you attribute to them? Are you making that assumption because of any particular characteristic they share?

You are right that, at present, gender quotas for partnership are unlawful (equal merit tie breakers aside). That provides no reason to ‘no platform’ those who would argue that that should not be the case. It is beyond any reasonable argument that there was historically discrimination against women. The extent to which the successive legislation has eroded that is debatable, There are perfectly reasonable points to be made on both sides in the arguments for positive discrimination. If we cannot have such debates then the law will never develop.

(1)(14)

Anonymous

Denis Smith was pushing gender quotas for partnership. Just look back on this site a couple of weeks. You are defending deliberate sex discrimination and preventing selection on the basis of talent and ability. That is an offensive proposition.

I liked the sentence “Are you making that assumption because of any particular characteristic they share?”. Just to infer there was prejudice before going on to defend prejudice. Nice touch. Those pushing discrimination push that sort of seedy tactic all the time.

(17)(0)

Anonymous

“You are defending deliberate sex discrimination and preventing selection on the basis of talent and ability. That is an offensive proposition.”

Where do I do that? I thought I was defending the right to discuss it.

Your second point is better. I had not read the earlier article and my question was genuine.

(1)(9)

Anonymous

You were giving credence to discrimination on the basis of gneder by saying that there “are perfectly reasonable points to be made on both sides”.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

A debate! OMG!

(2)(1)

Anonymous

There are. Some forms of positive discrimination are perfectly lawful. I see no reason why the boundaries should not be debated.

(1)(4)

Oppidan

Never heard of them

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Just glad it doesn’t involve Susskind talking about computers and robots.

(3)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories