Equality or Equality

[MeRichard]

It is 100 years next year since women were first accepted as solicitors. The incoming president of the law society is female. Forty eight percent of lawyers are too (vs 47% of the general workforce). This all looks like progress. Predictably, the picture is lagging in top roles with just one third of partners being women.

We often think of law as very well paid, but lawyers often work very long hours and salary variations are huge. While a corporate solicitor in London, when starting, can be paid £90,000, a new provincial lawyer may earn below minimum hourly wage.

Seven percent of children attend private school, yet they make up 44% of those in the high-paying law firms. For well paid junior roles, the recent shift has not been toward women but specifically toward rich, privileged women. Ethnically the story is similar with privately educated Asians dominating, leaving behind state-schooled black girls, for example.

Law looks likely to achieve equality without any danger of becoming a meritocracy.

How much does the exclusion of the majority of the best women from a profession threaten gender equality?

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

For example: Pupils from ten private and grammar schools are 100 times more likely to apply for the most prestigious graduate schemes than their peers who were educated at the bottom ten per cent of schools, regardless of which universities they went on to, new analysis has revealed. www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/05/06/pupils-ten-private-grammar-schools-dominate-applications-top/

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.

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

I cannot speak for the Law Society of England but the Law Society of Scotland has never asked me which school I went to. And even if it did I wouldn't tell them.

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

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.

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

England & Wales has a different legal system from Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland issues surveys around every 5 years which include questions about ethnicity, sex, sexual persuasion. It does actually ask whether school was private or state in amongst questions about family background; whether participates at all or whether one replies to all questions is voluntary.

There was a 25% participation rate to the one 2013. I did not respond to it.

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.

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.

Apologies, missed a not:

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