(no subject)
Jul. 15th, 2003 05:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
liadnanTwo vaguely professional things, unrelated save in my head. But at least one of them ought to be of general interest rather than only to the handful of lawyers among you... The appropriate catch-all (catch both?) title is probably something like "Gender and the Law".
The first is that a screaming tirade of alarums and excursions broke out a couple of minutes ago in the sedate and peaceful environs of Lincoln's Inn. Thinking it sounded like a Major Incident alarm I went to have a look and discovered it was in fact a group called Fathers 4 Justice, whose main purpose is essentially to complain about what they see as unjust treatment meeted out to them in the Family Courts. (The fact that Lincoln's Inn is almost exclusively full of Chancery -ie property- practitioners rather than family ones was almost certainly lost on them, and fair enough I guess). Why they blame us, as a profession in general, rather than the judges and HMG, is not entirely clear to me.
The second comes from my weekly newswire, lawzone.co.uk, who I hope don't mind me quoting parts of their editorial:
1 EDITORIAL: SEXISM IN THE CITY OF SHEFFIELD
"But you're a woman."
That was response of one male client on being introduced to the
senior partner of a large City law firm. That this prejudice is
reflected within the law comes as little surprise.
Sadly, you didn't have to look too far for another ugly example
last week. Solicitor Harriet Davies-Taheri, who was fired and a
week later lost her baby, has been awarded 31,500 pounds
compensation for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal by an
employment tribunal.
Her employer, the Sheffield law firm Prodow Mackay, suspended
her on the grounds of "poor work", one month after her telling her
firm she was pregnant. She then developed life threatening pre
eclampsia and lost her baby.
She is convinced that her illness was stress-related and the firm is
to blame for the death of her son. Her boss was reported to have
said: "I suppose I shouldn't ask if you are going to go off and have
millions of babies, but if I give you this job and you leave I will go
absolutely ballistic."
Clearly, the firm's 'family friendly' policy had fallen down the
back of a filing cabinet when they came to interview Ms Davies-
Taheri for the job.
2. EXODUS: WOMEN LAWYERS LEAVING THE
PROFESSION IN DROVES
Almost two-thirds of women leaving the legal profession do so
because they feel it is impossible to combine bringing up a family
with a legal career, according to new research that for the first
time interviews women who have opted out of the law.
According to a study by the Young Solicitors Group, the
Association of Women Solicitors and the Law Society, some 59
per cent of the 439 women who had left the profession and were
interviewed cited childcare as the reason for their departure. What
was more, 67 per cent were put off from coming back for similar
reasons.
Almost half of all respondents (44 per cent) claimed that they were
put off by the profession's attitude to women.
Unsurprisingly given the results, the failure of firms to hold on to
women staff was reflected most strikingly at partner level. It was
revealed that 57 per cent of women who had stayed with a firm for
between 10 and 19 years, compared to 85 per cent of men in the
same range, despite the fact that approximately 60 per cent of
entrants to the profession are women.
I note that this is about the solicitor's profession. It is probably easier to have a child and come back to a career as a barrister, I know two people in these chambers who have done so and one of them's the head and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge. You aren't "on a track" in the same way. Nevertheless, who am I to know? I simply pass these things on, as I think they're interesting.
Incidentally, there were more female than male entrants to the Bar in my year, for the first time. Which is important, applications have been higher among women than men for some years I believe, but applicants and getting through the three (or five) years of training to finally having a tenancy are entirely different things.
But what do you do about it? People after partnership in major city law firms are expected to work their arses off, day after day. Nannies all round? Or expect less (for the firm) from the women than the men? Or what? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this (rather than opt for a job as a government lawyer, or in a provincial law firm, with the smaller workload - and income-).
That's an honest question, not an opinion by the way.
There's at least one person reading this who will undeniably have definite opinions on this...
I said I was going home an hour ago, didn't I. Bugger. Off now, anyway.
The first is that a screaming tirade of alarums and excursions broke out a couple of minutes ago in the sedate and peaceful environs of Lincoln's Inn. Thinking it sounded like a Major Incident alarm I went to have a look and discovered it was in fact a group called Fathers 4 Justice, whose main purpose is essentially to complain about what they see as unjust treatment meeted out to them in the Family Courts. (The fact that Lincoln's Inn is almost exclusively full of Chancery -ie property- practitioners rather than family ones was almost certainly lost on them, and fair enough I guess). Why they blame us, as a profession in general, rather than the judges and HMG, is not entirely clear to me.
The second comes from my weekly newswire, lawzone.co.uk, who I hope don't mind me quoting parts of their editorial:
1 EDITORIAL: SEXISM IN THE CITY OF SHEFFIELD
"But you're a woman."
That was response of one male client on being introduced to the
senior partner of a large City law firm. That this prejudice is
reflected within the law comes as little surprise.
Sadly, you didn't have to look too far for another ugly example
last week. Solicitor Harriet Davies-Taheri, who was fired and a
week later lost her baby, has been awarded 31,500 pounds
compensation for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal by an
employment tribunal.
Her employer, the Sheffield law firm Prodow Mackay, suspended
her on the grounds of "poor work", one month after her telling her
firm she was pregnant. She then developed life threatening pre
eclampsia and lost her baby.
She is convinced that her illness was stress-related and the firm is
to blame for the death of her son. Her boss was reported to have
said: "I suppose I shouldn't ask if you are going to go off and have
millions of babies, but if I give you this job and you leave I will go
absolutely ballistic."
Clearly, the firm's 'family friendly' policy had fallen down the
back of a filing cabinet when they came to interview Ms Davies-
Taheri for the job.
2. EXODUS: WOMEN LAWYERS LEAVING THE
PROFESSION IN DROVES
Almost two-thirds of women leaving the legal profession do so
because they feel it is impossible to combine bringing up a family
with a legal career, according to new research that for the first
time interviews women who have opted out of the law.
According to a study by the Young Solicitors Group, the
Association of Women Solicitors and the Law Society, some 59
per cent of the 439 women who had left the profession and were
interviewed cited childcare as the reason for their departure. What
was more, 67 per cent were put off from coming back for similar
reasons.
Almost half of all respondents (44 per cent) claimed that they were
put off by the profession's attitude to women.
Unsurprisingly given the results, the failure of firms to hold on to
women staff was reflected most strikingly at partner level. It was
revealed that 57 per cent of women who had stayed with a firm for
between 10 and 19 years, compared to 85 per cent of men in the
same range, despite the fact that approximately 60 per cent of
entrants to the profession are women.
I note that this is about the solicitor's profession. It is probably easier to have a child and come back to a career as a barrister, I know two people in these chambers who have done so and one of them's the head and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge. You aren't "on a track" in the same way. Nevertheless, who am I to know? I simply pass these things on, as I think they're interesting.
Incidentally, there were more female than male entrants to the Bar in my year, for the first time. Which is important, applications have been higher among women than men for some years I believe, but applicants and getting through the three (or five) years of training to finally having a tenancy are entirely different things.
But what do you do about it? People after partnership in major city law firms are expected to work their arses off, day after day. Nannies all round? Or expect less (for the firm) from the women than the men? Or what? Is it possible to have children and go all the way in a profession like this (rather than opt for a job as a government lawyer, or in a provincial law firm, with the smaller workload - and income-).
That's an honest question, not an opinion by the way.
There's at least one person reading this who will undeniably have definite opinions on this...
I said I was going home an hour ago, didn't I. Bugger. Off now, anyway.
