Law society - Women lawyers' division seat election

[MsFogi]

Has anyone given any thought to who will be getting their votes ie which candidates know what a woman is?

There are lots of candidates and none of them write about this. there is no way to know. I would expect that a lot of them have not thought about it (hardly any female lawyers in my firm seem to think about it!)
I will probably vote for those candidates who refer to sex instead of gender (only one), specifically female experiences such as miscarriage, sexual harassment, violence against women etc etc.

27 options and all of them with loooong personal statements. I would vote for the one who said, your time is precious, here’s one paragraph about what I would do.

@Crouton19 maybe Zarah Morwood who starts with ‘I have been a lawyer for over 20 years and I know that we have to read a lot of documents whilst
juggling family and work. So I will keep this brief.’.

and tbf Zarah does keep it to half a page.

I was thinking ZM, then frankly a fairly random selection of others, focussing on those from ethnic minority backgrounds and not supporting anyone involved in WLD leadership, who appear to have been asleep on watch.

I was tempted to email them all “what is a woman?” and vote on the basis of their response but I was deterred when I saw the number of candidates.

However, am wondering if you might fancy dividing and conquering and emailing 5 or so each @Lawyerontherun22 @ThickTiuri @Crouton19 @MsFogi - what do you think?

(on the plus side, there didn’t seem to be any trans women candidates which was a pleasant surprise).

Good idea, @CraggyIslandTouristBoard. What's the deadline for voting?

Not until 8 Sep by the looks of things, so we have a good while to email them and get and share their responses.

What do you think about including in the letter a reference to the LS' track record on this topic, including their response to the WESC inquiry on self ID? Too distracting?

I think if we asked the question we would need to give background as I think a lot of candidates may not have considered this issue. Maybe we need to formulate a question and send the same question to each candidate?
Separately, I don’t mind emailing but I don’t know if I am comfortable doing it in my own name. I might need to set up an anonymous email account instead. I don’t want to go into too much detail but I have already noted at work the conflict between HR policies and the law/case law/regulations and was soundly rebuffed. Stonewall law is the only law in my law firm.

@CraggyIslandTouristBoard Sorry for the delay in responding I set off on holiday after posting - but happy to do this from my hols.

Great, so it looks like at least 4 of us are in.
Agreed @Lawyerontherun22 we should do more than ask the 'What is a woman' question as at least half the candidates may have no idea what it's getting at (and I think it's a goady question which should be saved for when goady is appropriate, probably not here). And yes, email however you feel comfortable - I was going to email from my own hotmail account but perhaps I will consider an anonymous one too.

Good idea @ThickTiuri to be specific about Law Soc record too. Do you think you could draft a few sentences as a template? My suggestion as follows:

"Some solicitor friends and I share a particular interest in women's sex-based rights, and we have been discussing how to cast our votes in the forthcoming Women Lawyers Division seat on the Law Society Council.

We believe that transgender people should be treated with dignity and respect. However sex is binary, immutable and important and we are concerned that sex is is often wrongly conflated with gender identity, and that women's rights are all too frequently encroached upon and subjugated by transgender rights. [someone could probably better word that bit].

As you may be aware [insert bit about Law Soc track record - my knowledge is limited to knowing that they rowed back on saying law firms had to/should? allow transgender people to use facilities of their 'new gender' following the Forstater EAT decision in 2021).

We should be most grateful if you could briefly confirm your own views on the above and how you would address these issues if you were elected to the Women Lawyers Division"

Just a suggestion, happy for you to redline/rewrite completely (it's what we do after all...!)

I was going to divide up the candidates into 4 lists but helpfully the Law Soc's computer is saying no - I can't even get into the biogs at the mo:
Council Elections 2022
Voting is not available at present due to administrative issues. Please return to this site to cast your vote from Monday 15/08/2022. Apologies for any inconvenience.

I will try to do so Monday, otherwise it may not be until mid week as I'm travelling.

I'll have a go at some sentences on the Law Soc record next week

I will pm @ThickTiuri @Lawyerontherun22 @MsFogi later this afternoon with 7 or so names of candidates, so we can ping off emails once ThickTiuri has had a chance to pen the key middle bit.

I've tried to include their law firm to make it easier to track down email addresses, but many of them don't mention where they are. Hopefully they can be found from a google or possibly on the Law Soc Find a Solicitor search (though when I checked my own profile there it lists the email for our GC/Head of Risk).

How is this? Bit long?

The Law Society’s approach to date has been to take account of only one perspective on this topic. For example, in November 2021, the Law Society submitted a response to the Women and Equalities Subcommittee Call for Evidence on reform of the Gender Recognition Act in 2020 that represented only the views of the LGBTQ+ committee, rather than representing, say, experts in employment or public law. Furthermore, the Law Society’s D&I officer gave oral evidence to the WESC with a similarly partisan perspective. Many people will assume that the Law Society’s view on the law is expert and impartial; it was no such thing. Indeed, the Law Society’s approach of encouraging firms to “go beyond the law” in relation to trans inclusion directly impacts on women and people of particular religious beliefs. We feel badly let down by the Law Society and, in particular, by the Women Lawyers Division Committee, who have failed to ensure that the Law Society represents the views of the whole Society.

Thanks @ThickTiuri ! I think it's fine, things always look longer in posts on here then when they're set out in an email. I've made some minor tweaks to my bit and have suggested two tweaks to yours (in bold). I will send this tomorrow to my list, hopefully @MsFogi and @Lawyerontherun22 can do likewise when they can. And then we can compare responses (assuming we get any...!)

Some solicitor friends and I share a particular interest in women's sex-based rights, and we have been discussing how to cast our votes in the forthcoming Women Lawyers Division seat on the Law Society Council.

We believe that transgender people should be treated with dignity and respect.

However, sex is binary, immutable and important. We are concerned that sex is is often wrongly conflated with gender identity, and that women's rights are all too frequently made subordinate to transgender rights, despite sex being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

The Law Society’s approach to date has been to take account of only one perspective on this topic, ignoring women's rights and the protected characteristic of sex. For example, in November 2021, the Law Society submitted a response to the Women and Equalities Subcommittee Call for Evidence on reform of the Gender Recognition Act in 2020 that represented only the views of the LGBTQ+ committee, rather than representing, say, experts in employment or public law.

Furthermore, the Law Society’s D&I officer gave oral evidence to the WESC with a similarly partisan perspective.

Many people will assume that the Law Society’s view on the law is expert and impartial; it was no such thing. Indeed, the Law Society’s approach of encouraging firms to “go beyond the law” in relation to trans inclusion directly impacts on and risks excluding women and people of particular religious beliefs. We feel badly let down by the Law Society and, in particular, by the Women Lawyers Division Committee, who have failed to ensure that the Law Society represents the views of the whole Society.

We should be most grateful if you could briefly confirm your own views on the above and how you would address these issues if you were elected to the Women Lawyers Division.

That’s really great @ThickTiuri ! And thanks for sorting logistics @CraggyIslandTouristBoard.
I will aim to send it tomorrow or Friday.

Well it was a bugger to track down some of their email addresses but my list is now done! [awards self ⭐].

I wonder how many responses we'll get...?

And (assuming we get any at all) how the sole practitioners differ from those at big City Stonewall-captured outfits....🤔

I’m done too. Some of the email addresses couldn’t be found so I have worked out the company domain then put in the name part of the email in different permutations.
interesting that some people are open to be being contacted and others are not.
Will report back if I hear anything.

@Lawyerontherun22 @MsFogi @ThickTiuri I've now had 4 responses out of 7 and I doubt I'll get any more. I will attach screenshots, but in brief:

• Emma Cartledge-Taylor and Mo Aldridge make a few very slightly encouraging noises but go no further than that and otherwise talk in general terms about eg equality for all including women. Mo Aldridge also uses the phrase 'all lives matter' which for me is a bit of a red flag that she may Just Not Get It generally, but others may disagree on that.
• Karen Bexley and Jewels "she/her/hers" Chamberlain cop out completely and say if elected they would listen to the views of all members, but don't say anything about what their own views are. I can't think of any other politician who has been cheeky enough to run a campaign along the lines of 'vote for me and then I'll listen to a few people and at that point decide what I stand for' so they can eff off.

Ah well, if nothing else it's put the issue on their radar....

Screenshots of responses

Hi All - I am awaiting responses. Hannah Williams issue ooo until 13 September so I may not get one from her - I would note however that she is she/her on Linkedin (always puts me off!). The others that are on LinkedIn have not included their pronouns. I will report back when/if I get responses - no candidate will get my vote without me knowing their position on this.

is not issue!

Well - I got no answers! So I won't be voting for anyone!

I got one response from Faisat Oluokun.
I thought it was positive so will be voting for her.
screenshots attached.

Thanks @Lawyerontherun22 that is a pretty clear response - I'll vote for her too!