Equality or Equality

To be clear the Law Society has no information about my background and it has no right to make it compulsory to provide that information

I understand and sympathise with your right not to say. My father and family once had to provide information on their backgrounds. Those who gave answers the government was looking for were then killed. The right not to answer is something I have always held dear.

If I remember correctly, the number who did not say, in the English survey, was something like 0.2%. A 25% response should generate a statistically significant conclusion.

You seem to have a monomania about large London law firms - did you fail to get a job with one of them?

LassWiADelicateAir

Ah, so the two nations are separate. Thank you for pointing that out. It strikes me that if the Law Society of Scotland are not collecting this data then, that is a mistake.

I work in a completely different field. The figures for the large London firms are particularly bad. The figures for very small provincial companies look much better. If there are problems then they are much worse in London.

Your strong suggestion here is that only someone from the profession is entitled to care. I hope that is not your opinion but if it is then so be it. If on the other hand you feel that the numbers (for England) are acceptable then I respect your view - I don't share it but I can respect it.

Indeed. Good article. Very sad numbers.

It is not self-evident that private schools produce 2.5 to 5 times the most suitable candidates that apply.

What exactly is the feminist / women's rights issue you're raising?
Too few state-schooled candidates are becoming lawyers in large London firms for the profession to be fully merit based. They must be rejecting some women candidates who are more suitable than some they have accepted.

That once it is accepted by a profession that not every candidate is the best for the role, then gender bias is easily hidden.

When candidate selection is not simply their suitability for the role but the way they speak, the way they dress, the school they went to or whatever, then gender bias is almost inevitable.

That this form of hidden bias can be exercised as a tendency to select fewer women than men with particular traits, views or career potentials.

That any gender bias matters, but will matter more to society as a whole when these lawyers go on to run the profession, chair enquiries or public bodies and become judges and politicians.

Why are you saying that state school educated people are the best that apply?
I have clearly not said that. I am saying that it is self evident that private schools do not produce two and a half times to five the number of the most suitable candidates.

no one has asked me what school I went to
I say again, surveys are sampled. Is this an ego vs statistics point you are making?

I wonder if your firm's cooperation was requested but they did not respond?

No one is routinely collecting this data.
The Law Society has collected and published this data yearly. The fact that some solicitors, including yourself, have not noticed rather makes my point about the profession not taking due care. The Law Society really should have gotten your attention with these surveys somehow.

As to be expected statistically, LassWiADelicateAir. Thank you for answering such a direct question.

The surveys that I have looked at are sampled, like most I think, so the fact you have not been asked before isn't perhaps a total surprise.

That is a good point Kesstrel. As you suggest though 44% vs 18% still suggests quite a problem.

So did you only go to state schools LassWiADelicateAir?

MrsTerryPratchett

When you have an adversarial system, with...
Just curious, but are you saying that the adversarial system is inherently more discriminatory than say an inquisitorial system? Not an idea I had heard before but maybe worth thinking about.

I was primarily thinking about solicitors and not barristers. I was discussing conventional employment opportunities - a point which doesn't really apply to barristers.

No, I said " in your opinion". Because I don't agree.
Actually, I think we do both agree. I think we are both saying that just balancing the numbers is not enough.

judges letting rapists off entirely or with a slap on the wrist, and property seen as more valuable than people, and all the other hangovers
An interesting discussion I am sure. In this case I was more simply talking about careers and opportunities to enter the profession for the most suitable women.

LassWiADelicateAir; see post seven in reply to post six.

Yes indeed MrsTP.

Law is one of the most prevalent professions in parliament isn't it.

Judges start out as lawyers.

Lawyers are often the ones chosen to head enquiries.

Adequate representation at the top-level in law is not just academic. To achieve, not just a number of female lawyers, but highly effective, capable women in the profession matters.

I guess you are being flippant DieAntword. I know gender discrimination is not a serious topic for every contributor.

However, your point is valid, recruiting the wrong women who then leave is not as useful as recruiting those who stay and instead end up being leaders in the industry.