Issuu

The Class of 2002

Are we treating the symptoms of inequality and not the cause?

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Martin Luther King Jr.

1.1 1.2 1.3

Executive summary of findings Introduction Definitions

2.1

“If I had stayed at Herbert Smith, I would have made partner.”

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

My Story

Where are the Class of 2002?

The Class of 2002 Currently at HSF Working population 2021 Continued in law Who made it to the highest level in law? Where are all the people that stayed in law? What about University?

Why are the numbers like they are?

4.1 The corporate case study 4.2 Is it the hours that are to blame? 4.3 Is it culture?

5.1

Couldn’t make it, or wouldn’t want to?

Solutions?

6.1 Solutions related to hours 6.2 Cultural change 6.3 Having conversations

7.1

Final thoughts

Things I heard

6 10 11

16 16 17 17 18 19 19

21 22 25

37 38 40

1.1

Executive summary of findings This report aimed to find out whether

If I had stayed at Herbert Smith, I would have made partner. I started as a trainee with the firm in 2002. My research, tracing the journeys of my fellow trainees (the Class of 2002) suggests that I would not.

The Class of 2002 started out as 57% women. 73% of the Class of 2002 stayed in law, leaving a population with a roughly equal gender split. However, of the total Class of 2002, only 23% of women have hit the highest level in law, whilst 59% of the men have achieved that status. Whatever way the data was cut, men outperformed women. It wasn’t that women had left private practice, or fee earning; some did, but so did some men. The research shows that corporate as a practice group retained the least number of women and had the most disparate gender split. The report finds that the reasons for this were due to hours and culture. These are seen as being an issue across the legal sector, but compounded in this particular practice group. Evidence supports the conclusion that the 24/7 culture played a part in gender inequality at a senior level. However, the “always on” culture affects both men and women. There were some key differences in how people saw themselves and how they saw partners. These differences go some way to explaining why women were less likely to become partners, and it also highlighted that there might be some unconscious bias at play.

Whilst we found some evidence to suggest women are prevented from reaching the top, we also found lots to challenge the assumption that they wanted to get there. Non-partners showed higher life satisfaction than partners (across both genders). We found that women feel able to say “no” to partnership in a way men are not. This means the culture isn’t challenged at partnership level. 4

Firms make allowances for individuals, whilst well meaning, it is a counter-productive approach. They are colluding with the system. Rather than thinking about solutions at an individual level, for real change to happen there needs to be a fundamental rethink at a systemic level. We need a shift in the 24/7 culture and in the way partners are rewarded. Firms need to create an environment to which both sexes want to say “yes”. An environment where both can thrive. Cultural change is possible, and COVID has shown that it can happen quickly and employees and organisations are resilient. Models that enable honest conversations to be had are fundamental to paving the way forward. Firms need to ask the right questions and be open to listening to the answers. This will benefit not only diversity initiatives, but mental health initiatives too.

In summary, we are treating the symptoms and not the cause.

57%

of the Class of 2002 were women

73%

stayed in law with a roughly equal gender split But only

23%

of women hit the highest level in law whilst 59% of men did

Executive summary of findings

The Class of 2002 HSF 2002 trainee intake

54 female 40 male

Working population*

36 female 38 male

* Those who I have been able to find – others who have left presumed not to be working

Continued in law

33 female 36 male

Highest level in law*

12 female 24 male

Stayed at Herbert Smith

* Partner or General Counsel

1.2

Introduction What follows is a journey back into the lives of the intake with whom I joined Herbert Smith Freehills in 2002. With the help of HSF, I have managed to identify all the people I joined with and I have been able to track most of them down. A third of my peers answered a survey. Some have spoken directly to me.

I do not name any names in this report: I wanted people to speak candidly with me. The only lived experience with a name is my own. I have also spoken to coaches. When I coach, my clients often share with me things that they don’t feel able to share with their employers or peers (and often also friends or family). I wanted to add to my knowledge that of others who also coach legal leaders (and professional services leaders more broadly) to get a clearer sense of those conversations that aren’t being had inside firms. I am conscious that this report will add to a great volume of material that already exists on this topic. Some of that material is referred to in this report. I am not a social scientist, I am not a leading academic, I am not a psychologist. While I have worked in different environments and in different sectors. I have never been far away from the legal profession. I am curious. I am passionate about equality. I am a coach, which means that I hear people’s hopes, dreams and fears.

I am a number in this report (and in any other on the topic of equality – so are you). Fundamentally, I just cannot accept inequality at a senior level. Whilst HSF has a gender target of 35% of women in partnership, is this equitable when going in we were more than 50%? This report focuses on gender. That is not because other types of diversity don’t matter. Hopefully the conclusions contained in this report will add to broader diversity initiatives. However, due to the nature of the data set in this report, I have excluded intersectionality to avoid identifying anyone.

1.3

Definitions

Who should read this? Anyone who can make a difference. A female lawyer who wants to challenge the numbers. A male lawyer who is questioning why they cannot have a work / life balance. A client who wants to be part of the solution. This report might not make a difference. As the mother of two boys and two girls I want to try. This is a complex issue and I don’t have a magic solution. Hopefully, I can generate some new thinking and spark new conversations. Maybe the statistics will add weight to what you are hearing anecdotally. Maybe they will provide another reason to try again.

One conversation might lead to two, those two might multiply to four…

Accommodation An alternative working pattern offered that is different from that which the majority of fee earners adopt. Class of 2002 All those who started as trainees at Herbert Smith in London in 2002, including those who started in March 2003. The latter were included to increase the data set and because they would have been in the same law school intake as those who joined in September 2002. This is 94 people. Highest Level in Law Partner or General Counsel. We have also included Head of Legal and Lead Counsel as in-house “highest level” job descriptions. HSF Herbert Smith Freehills and Herbert Smith. Herbert Smith hadn’t joined with Freehills in 2002 so the two are used interchangeably. My Statement “If I had stayed at Herbert Smith, I would have made partner.” Survey A survey sent to the Class of 2002. We had 28 responses: all but 2 respondents had children; there was an equal mix of gender; there was a good mix of job roles (partner, GC and other). Working Population The part of the Class of 2002 that we have been able to identify as working. 74 people. 24/7 Culture vs. Long Hours A 24/7 culture is one where employees are ‘always on’ and there is an expectation that work will take priority over other commitments. Long hours are where employees need to work outside of the “standard” 35-hour-week.

2.0

My story

2.1

If I had stayed at Herbert Smith, I would have made partner. Maybe that statement is arrogant. Maybe that statement is naïve. However, it is a statement that I have carried around with me for more than 15 years. I joined Herbert Smith in September 2002. I was the first lawyer in the family. I had attended my local comprehensive school. I read law at Cambridge – not because of a burning desire to be a lawyer, I actually wanted to be a psychiatrist! – but because I wanted to go to Cambridge. I decided this before ever having been there, and not having a clue what it all entailed, but I had heard it was the best, so that was where I wanted to go. My A-level choices didn’t lend themselves to anything in particular, so I opted for law because I figured it would be a useful choice if ever I went into business. I got in, and it turned out that I enjoyed law and the legal sector. I graduated with a respectable 2:1 and got on the treadmill. I went to law school and joined Herbert Smith. I had chosen Herbert Smith because it didn’t seem to have “a type”. It had a reputation for accepting a mix of people and being friendly. That decided it for me. I figured I would fit in. I did, on the whole. I relished my training and qualified into my group of choice: corporate. Why corporate? I liked the buzz, the variety and the people.

Then 2005 happened 2005 was the year I married Andres, a Chilean who I had met on my gap year. I left Herbert Smith, London, and my career behind me. If that all sounds rather sudden, it is, because it was! Why did I throw it all away? Was it because I was blinded by love? Was it because deep down that statement, that has haunted me for so long, wasn’t one I really believed? Maybe, subconsciously, I didn’t want to put my assertion that I was partnership material to the test. Shortly before I left, I had a conversation with the head of my corporate group, who had been my supervisor when I was a trainee. He asked me what he could do to stop female talent leaving. That conversation has stuck in my mind ever since, not least because of my response. I said, quite resolutely, that there was nothing to be done. If you enjoyed corporate law then you wanted to be in the thick of deals. Deals meant long hours and you couldn’t offer things like job shares or part-time working; the deal would have moved on during your ‘off days’. Women would have to make a choice whether that was for them, or it wasn’t. Just like the men had to.

Fast forward 10 years I stopped practicing as a lawyer, but soon found another career: business development. I managed to make a success of that in Chile working as a Senior Commercial Officer in the British Embassy. That wasn’t easy. I was in charge of promoting financial and legal services in the very male world of finance and legal in Latin America. I have many photos where I was the only female in the room. It was noted in many a conversation. Jokes fell flat when the men realised I was there, with rushed apologises for the swearing and/or sexist overtones. There were some men who wouldn’t speak to me. One particular senior banker only spoke to me after he tired of my ambassador at the time constantly telling him to engage with me, not him, on financial services sector matters. At this time, I was also in the midst of a divorce. I had two young children and was at a loss as to what to do next. More hard decisions (turns out you can’t avoid those) and I returned to the UK. Back into the world of law that I had left. This time in a business development role. 11

Facing facts I had always assumed that sexism was something that happened in Latin America and that in the UK (being a child of the 80s, Thatcher and shoulder pads) that sort of thing didn’t happen. However, initiatives like the 30% Club made me question my truth. Whilst not as overt as in South America, something was going on. 30%?

I never faced the sort of barriers in the UK, as a woman, that I did in Chile, but certain events have combined to make me question the truth I was sold growing up. That women could be anything or do anything.

The first event was when, remarried, I fell pregnant with twins. I was stunned by the comments – from men and women alike – about whether I would be returning part-time. It was just assumed. It was also assumed I would take a year off. With my first two children I didn’t have a choice: maternity leave in Chile was 12 weeks and that was that. But, why, when I already had two children, enjoyed my career, and had a support network in place, would it be assumed that I would take a year off and then go part time? Those comments have continued. I am continuously asked how I “cope” with four children. Not in the way that my husband is asked, but, how do I cope with working and having four children. People assume I have my own company so that I can work less and be with my children more. I have my own company because I am ambitious, I want to work on a variety of projects, and I love what I do. I work more than I did as a full-time employee; although it is true that I do see my children more, that was not why I set up on my own!

My husband never faces the same line of questioning.

The second event was becoming a coach. I have been coaching for over five years. Speaking to people – leaders, future leaders – where the mask completely falls away is a privilege. It is also eye-opening. Whilst people are honest and open with me, I realise that they aren’t so in the workplace. I see the impact of this in the coaching room. Finally, as part of the podcast I host, I interviewed Miriam Gonzalez, international lawyer and campaigner. Miriam is passionate about gender equality and about doing something about it. I asked her whether there would be a role for my daughter in 20 years’ time. My passionate, 11-year-old daughter, who wants to be a feminist when she grows up. Not only that, but someone who fights for the underdog. Her answer was “yes” – feminists would still be needed. That simple answer, given without hesitation, saddened me. Not because I don’t want my daughter to fight for what is right, but because I don’t want the fight still to be there. Miriam also said something that left me thinking. I have picked up on it in this report. To find out what that was you will have to read on.

So, if I had stayed at Herbert Smith, would I have made partner? Let’s find out...

3.0

Where are the Class of 2002?

3.1

The Class of 2002 The Class of 2002, of which I was part, started off like this:

57% female 43% male Fast forward 20 years and the picture has changed quite a lot. Only 9% of the Class of 2002 stayed at HSF. HSF has made up an equal number of male and female partners from that 9%. It has also retained more women than men, so it could yet increase the number of female partners from the Class of 2002. Of the non-female partners, one is in a senior non-fee earning position and another is Of Counsel.

3.2

Currently at HSF In terms of proving the truth of My Statement, so far so good. Had I stayed, there is a good chance I would have made partner.

2 female partners 2 male partners

other females However, statistically, I was more likely than not to have left HSF. What would have happened then?

Only

of the Class of 2002 stayed at HSF

HSF has made up an equal number of male and female partners from that 9%.

3.3

Working population 2021 49% female 51% male I was unable to track down all of the people from the Class of 2002. It was particularly difficult to track down women. Only 5% of men were unaccounted for, yet 33% of women could not be traced. Part of this might be down to women changing their names, however, there are also statistics that show that 30% of female lawyers leave their careers2. These numbers would be in line with that. I have described the population that we have been able to find as the “Working Population”.

30%

of female lawyers leave their careers

3.4

Continued in law 73% of the Class of 2002 continued in law. The final pool is almost equal in terms of gender. It is often said that women leave the profession which is why parity at the top cannot be achieved. “They all go off to have children” is something one senior woman said to me when I was compiling this report. That is not the case with the Class of 2002. There were slightly less women than men remaining in private practice, with only a small percentage in non-fee-earning roles. These numbers suggest parity at partner level should be achievable.

47% female 53% male

Private practice

20 * Non-fee earning

In-house

13 13

The Quiet Resignation: Why Do So Many Female Lawyers Abandon Their Careers? Bambauer & Rahman – 30% of female lawyers leave their careers.

3.5

Who made it to the highest level in law? 10%

Highest level in law

23% 59%

Highest level in law/other

26% 63%

Highest level in law

36% 67%

(as % of Class of 2002)

(as % of Working Population)

(as % of those who stayed in law)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

When seen as a percentage of the total Class of 2002 the numbers did not look good.

We ran the numbers again as a percentage of the Working Population.

Only 23% of women had hit the highest level in law, whilst 59% of the men had achieved that status.

Here women did a little better (26% hit the highest level), but still the men were outperforming (63%).

The gap closes slightly, but once again more of the men had hit the highest level (67%) than their female counterparts (36%).

However, we have seen that a proportion of the Class of 2002 were not traceable, presumed not to be working.

Thinking back to My Statement, statistically, I would have been unlikely to have made it.

Finally, we looked at the numbers as a percentage of those who stayed in law.

SRA data3 has indicated that female solicitors are on average four times less likely to progress to partnership than their male counterparts.

For the Class of 2002, the women were three times less likely.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/research/diversity-profile-of-the-solicitors-profession-2019

Where are the Class of 2002?

3.6

Where are all the people who stayed in law? We have already seen that only a small percentage of the Class of 2002 stayed at HSF. The remaining individuals who carried on in private practice went into a range of firms. The statistics above reflect those in fee earning roles, as well as nonfee earning roles. There were only three lawyers in professional support roles, all female. One in corporate, one in real estate, and one in litigation.

Whilst most men and women remained in fee earning roles, across the board men outperformed their female colleagues. Corporate was the practice group which had least women and the lowest representation at partner level.

Given I had started off life in corporate, these numbers once again suggest that My Statement is untrue. It seems unlikely that I would have made it as a mainstream corporate M&A partner in HSF.

Corporate

In-house

Litigation

Real Estate

Other

Total (female) Highest level (female) Total (male) Highest level (male)

3.7

What about University? I started my legal life at Cambridge University. It is often said, anecdotally, that Oxbridge graduates outperform. They are part of the “in group” in law firms. Maybe if I look at those figures I would see something to back up My Statement? I was one of the 34% of the Class of 2002 that had been to Oxbridge. How did that 34% fare?

Of the men who had attended Oxbridge, 73% had made it to the highest level in law. This compares to 26% of Oxbridge women. Cambridge would not have been a guaranteed path to partner.

4.0

Why are the numbers like they are?

In this section, once again I look at data from the Class of 2002. This time the data is a combination of quantitative (the Survey) and qualitative: interviews with my peers from the Class of 2002, fellow coaches, and others in the professional services space.

4.1

The corporate case study The statistics for corporate are worse than for any other practice group, so perhaps what is going on elsewhere is amplified in corporate practices. I did not have the data for where people qualified into, so I have assumed that each group was broadly equal in terms of attractiveness and that the data reflects a retention problem rather than an attraction problem.

Why are the figures so bad for corporate? I asked this question of those interviewed and there was a broad consensus that this came down to two things:

Hours

(the unpredictability of those hours and the length of the hours needed) 4

Culture

It was said that the culture in corporate was particularly hard for women to navigate, with the culture in corporate teams being macho/ “a boy’s club”, and with strong characters that made the environment challenging. This was not targeted at HSF, rather generalising about corporate being a practice area that seemed to attract “alpha males”, something that appeared synonymous with “rainmaker” and “competitive”. One person commented “rainmakers do not tend to be people persons”. Whilst the comments and data in this report extend beyond HSF, there was an interesting reflection that did relate to HSF because of its global footprint. The reflection was that in Australia the situation was better. At HSF there are more female corporate partners in Australia than in London. Looking at the gender balance across professional services firms in Australia, one firm is close to gender parity at partner level (45% female partners), and there are 28 firms with more than 30% female representation at partner level4. This is better than in the UK. When asked about this in interviews many were unable to identify why this might be. However, a couple of ideas were posited. Where people live In Sydney, and other major cities, people tend to live closer to home. This makes it easier to balance work and competing priorities on time. The commute is not there in the same way as it is in London. This perhaps helps with that unpredictability of hours flagged as a potential issue for corporate. Cost of living Interviewees wondered whether the cost of living was slightly higher in Australia, as against wages, so both men and women needed to work. Perhaps this meant that women did not have “the choice” to be able to leave or to take on a reduced role. Class Some wondered about the implications of class. This was seen as stronger in the UK than in Australia and it was mooted that perhaps there was more of a desire to “live in a certain way” in the UK (having children in private school, for example). It was questioned whether perhaps this made it harder to choose to leave, or step back, in the UK.

www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/mid-tier-law-firms-lead-industry-in-gender-equity-20210630-p585iq

Taking the two issues identified in the case of corporate, but thinking about law firms more generally...

4.2

Is it the hours that are to blame? The survey said... Hours were cited as a reason for leaving law altogether (only a minority of those who answered the survey had left law). More women than men agreed with the statement “The long hours culture at City law firms affected my career choices”. Only 20% of those women were currently in a partner role. Non-partners were more likely than partners to agree with the statement “The long hours culture at City law firms affected my career choices”.

Children and hours: Women found it harder to work the hours “needed to be partner” after having children. Albeit a large number of men also agreed. Women were more likely than men to say that they wanted more freedom after having children. Women were more likely than men to have formally changed their working patterns as a result of having children (80% said they had, compared to only 20% of men).

5 6

This is the Miriam Gonzalez question I referred to earlier. https://hbr.org/2020/03/whats-really-holding-women-back

Suggestions surfaced from the question “if HSF only hired women it would need to...”5 focused on hours and work/life balance. There was only one man who offered a suggestion (which was also not related to hours). The females who responded came up with the following suggestions: – Wouldn’t demand that people work such long hours – Provide more support to working parents, more flexibility, less focus on contribution by number of chargeable hours and more on wider contribution to the firm. – Have a good policy on part time, offer term-time-only positions, have no requirement to be in the office to work late but options of wfh

The literature says... There are a number of studies that mention the impact of hours on the career advancement of women, often putting forward the argument that women don’t advance because of their devotion to family which makes it impossible for them to do the hours. Perhaps the most interesting is that of Robin Ely and Irene Padavic, which was summarised in the Harvard Business Review6. They contended that this argument (which they call the work/ life narrative) is actually a mechanism (a social defence) to keep leaders from looking at what is really going on.

Women weren’t being held back because of trouble balancing work and family; men, too, suffered from that problem and nevertheless advanced. Women were held back because they were encouraged to take accommodations, such as going part-time and shifting to internally facing roles, which derailed their careers. The real culprit in women’s stalled advancement, the authors conclude, is a general culture of overwork that hurts both sexes and locks gender inequality in place. To solve this problem, they argue, we must reconsider what we’re willing to allow the workplace to demand of all employees.

Why are the numbers like they are?

To underpin this argument they note:

The Law Society says

The unease thus created [by the 24/7 culture] set the stage for protective measures to kick in – measures that would keep the firm’s leaders from having to face up to the devil’s choice they were handing their employees, and employees from having to face up to the price of whichever choice they made.

Where business culture is based on rewarding employees for long hours, flexible workers are penalised.

There are plenty of studies which show how the 24/7 culture harms both sexes.

In a recent study LawCare found that the legal profession was burnt-out

69% of those surveyed had experienced mental ill health, yet 57% didn’t talk about it. They also found that “Being exposed to high levels of work intensity (having a high workload and working long hours) was associated with higher burnout, regardless of how much autonomy a person had, or how psychologically safe their work environment was.” Almost 60% of participants reported being more concerned about increased pressures around work life balance7. 28% agreed or strongly agreed that their work requires them to be available to clients 24/7. Another example of both sexes being affected by hours? Linklaters created a scheme in Germany where lawyers could cap their hours to 40 hours a week. More men than women took it up, even though this meant that they were unable to be partner8. Law Society 9 data seems to support Ely & Padavic’s conclusions too: a higher proportion of women (61%) made use of flexible working opportunities compared to 55% of men. In our survey the data was even more stark.

8 9

My lived experience says... Time spent working was a factor for me. I was resigned to the fact that working in corporate meant working on deals that would involve long hours. Paradoxically, it was the element of corporate that I loved. Could I see myself having a family and navigating that? I didn’t when I left. When I left, I didn’t have children, but a family is more than just having children. Having a husband, who wasn’t a lawyer, and who didn’t work long hours, was in my head equally incompatible with what was needed of me as a corporate lawyer.

I didn’t want to be ʻalways on call’. Working long hours and 24/7 culture is something that is often conflated. For me they are two separate things. I have always worked full time. I have always worked long hours. My job in the Embassy required frequent trips overseas. For all the time I was in Chile, I used to have a day job; earn extra income doing translations at night or at weekends; and my husband had his own company, that I used to help administer. The difference? I chose when I worked late or at weekends. I could plan when I was going to put the hours in. I didn’t cancel plans or holidays because of work. Why is this conflation an issue? I have always felt that if you do not want to buy into a 24/7, “always on”, culture, you are seen as lazy. You are seen as wanting to go part-time. That has not been my experience and I think it limits discussions around the ‘accommodations’ that are offered.

www.lawcare.org.uk/life-in-the-law/ – 75% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that their workload is unpredictable, 80% agreed or strongly agreed that their work is fast-paced with tight deadlines, almost 65% agreed or strongly agreed that they need to check their emails outside of regular work hours to keep up with their workload www.lawgazette.co.uk/women-in-the-law/an-uphill-battle/5103673.article www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/research/diversity-profile-of-the-solicitors-profession-2019

Why are the numbers like they are?

Conversations that aren’t being had... In my interviews with men and women, and in my conversations with coaches, something strange was emerging.

A lot of the women who had chosen not to work the hours – either by stepping away, or by opting not to become partner – were happy with their choice. When asked, they didn’t feel they had been pushed into making the choice, or forced to take an accommodation.

The men with whom I spoke had different reflections. Many had taken decisions based on similar considerations to the females. They wanted a work life balance, or they didn’t like the culture, or they didn’t feel “part of the club”.

Women also shared a common reflection: nobody had fought for them to stay, questioned their choice, or tried to find a solution as a result of their choices.10

However, unlike the women, they felt that they were going against what was expected of them.

In coaching female leaders, particularly post Covid, I have been struck by how many are saying that they want to step back from their positions. They feel they no longer have boundaries between home and work. The 24/7 culture of the professional services firms they are in is too much. They are prepared to give up partnership to solve that problem. How many of those will do so with no fight for them to stay? I challenged one as to why they weren’t fighting the system.

Nothing will change if I do, what’s the point?

One male interviewee said “I have never really cared what people think of me” but they acknowledged that others might find it harder. They felt that they had been brave to turn down partnership and that others questioned that choice. One man who stepped away from partnership really struggled with the fact he was no longer fulfilling “the male stereotype” of “main breadwinner”.

Men seem to struggle in a way that women don’t. One male partner described an epiphany where he realised he did not want to be a “weekend Dad” anymore. He made the choice to stay, but also to ensure that he does have balance. Leaving the partnership didn’t seem to be an option that he considered. Covid helped him to implement changes and he felt that the changes he implemented were easier

Example of someone who went further and offered their own solution which was refused www.abajournal.com/voice/article/how-to-retain-more-women-in-law-firms

Coaches I have spoken to reflected on the fact that a number of their male clients (many in partner roles) are exploring how to balance work with life as parents of young children, many with the other parent also working. Some are thinking of turning their back on partnership. Others are questioning whether what they have is what they want. This throws up issues around identity, with many people struggling to turn their back on “being a partner” because that is a fundamental part of who they are. One man I spoke to was close to tears when he described his struggles with identity and stereotypes.

4.3

Is it culture? Culture is often described as being “how we do things around here”.

The 24/7, “always on” approach to work would fall underneath the umbrella of culture.

For law firms, I believe culture also extends to include “who does things around here” (i.e. what is a partner and where does the power sit).

Covid effect...

The survey said...

Covid has changed things.

Women said that it was harder to show that they were good enough after having children.

One very senior partner who I spoke to said that it was the first time in many years that he had sat down regularly for dinner with his family. Will he want to give that up? Another male partner had said how Covid had enabled him to do school runs and be present in the week and he wasn’t going to give that up. That said, hours don’t seem to have reduced over the past two years and boundaries between home and work have perhaps just blurred even further.

Just hours? If hours were the only issue, surely in those firms where there isn’t such a 24/7 culture we would see gender parity at partner level. Regional firms pride themselves on offering an alternative to the 24/7 culture of City firms. Those I spoke to who had been in both City and Regional firms, acknowledged that the hours are better outside of London. However, whilst such firms do better in terms of gender at the top, they too have not achieved 50/5011.

Something else must be going on alongside hours.

Both men and women felt they had access to work that was at least as challenging as that of their peers (indeed nobody felt they had suffered in this area). Women were less likely to see “someone like them” in a partner role, but, overall, this didn’t appear to be a bar to becoming a partner for either men or women. Having children made partnership less attractive to women. We asked people to select traits that they identified in themselves and then also traits they identified in partners. Men and women see themselves similarly. However, women include empathy in their list and men include logical. Men and women described partners in similar terms, with some key differences: – Women include “strong” in their description of partners – More women highlighted “assertive” than men – Men include “collaborative” in their top descriptors of partners

www.law.com/international-edition/2021/07/13/which-law-firms-have-the-most-female-equity-partners/

Partners have a similar view of themselves as the whole data set. Whilst the top traits are the same, assertive appeared as the second most prominent trait listed by partners of other partners. Ambitious is highlighted as the top trait for a partner by both men and women and also by partners of their fellow partners. 57% of men identify with this trait vs. 50% of women. The traits present in descriptors of self yet missing in the descriptors of partners were “Friendly/Supportive/Empathetic/Logical”. These were replaced by “Ambitious/Assertive/ Strong” as the top partner traits. The top 7 traits people identified in themselves (missing from top partner traits)

Empathetic

Friendly Collaborative Intelligent Focused Relationship building

Logical

The top 7 traits people identified in partners (missing from top descriptors of self)

Strong

12 13 14 15

Ambitious Focused Assertive Intelligent Competitive Relationship building

Collaborative

Assertive12 and strong are traits commonly associated with men. Empathy is something that is associated with women, who frequently out perform men in tests of empathy13. The traits missing are positive in nature: friendly and supportive. They are replaced with traits that perhaps speak about a different type of firm culture: ambitious, assertive and strong.

The literature says... Ambition: We didn’t find an ambition gap in our survey. Women and men described themselves as ambitious in equal measure. A BCG survey14 found similar: that there is no ambition gap between men and women. BCG refers to a narrative that is often espoused (that they didn’t find): women are less ambitious after having children. In our survey women saw partnership as less attractive after having children, but the majority of those same women still saw themselves as ambitious. In other words, whilst partnership might not have been as attractive, this didn’t mean they were not ambitious. In one paper exploring the difference between males and females and ambition, the author looked at ambition “in its earliest, simplest form” and found that ambition had two elements: mastery of skill and recognition15. The paper went on to explore women’s relationship with this latter element and found women tended to deflect recognition. It described how women receive less recognition for their accomplishments than men. They cited one study were “When women [were] assertive and acted as leaders the negative reactions outnumbered the positive ones; women end up with a net loss.”

Is there something about what women are “ambitious for” and what is rewarded and recognised when people “make partner” that is less attractive to women?

Holt, C.L., Ellis, J.B. Assessing the Current Validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex Roles 39, 929–941 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018836923919 www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2016/03/11/new-study-shows-women-consistently-outperform-men-in-emotional-intelligence/?sh=20738e20335d www.bcg.com/publications/2017/people-organization-leadership-change-dispelling-the-myths-of-the-gender-ambition-gap hbr.org/2004/04/do-women-lack-ambition

Why are the numbers like they are?

Assertiveness: Another key difference in the survey was around assertiveness. We have seen above that this might have negative connotations for women. There are other articles that have explored women and assertiveness in the workplace. A Harvard study16 found that women are generally less assertive than men and found that, whilst women can be assertive, that women “actively adjust their behaviour according to conversational context.” The example here was in salary negotiations, where women are more assertive negotiating for others than for themselves. Unconscious bias: Others have described a disconnect between leadership stereotypes and gender stereotypes:

effective leadership [competencies] endorse stereotypically masculine attributes like assertiveness, ambition, and competition and simultaneously discount stereotypically feminine traits like collaboration and homemaker. Because masculine stereotypes align with leadership stereotypes, a man is more likely than a woman to be assessed as a potential and competent leader. Feminine stereotypes, in contrast, negatively interact with leadership schema.17 The Law Society18 describes how the sector often sees narrow definitions of leadership based on characteristics that are traditionally seen as ‘male’ such as being decisive, strong and assertive. It goes on to say there are assumptions that women do not want to become partners and are not ambitious. There is also a presumption that female solicitors want children and as a result considered less committed and therefore less valuable.

My lived experience says... There are lots of things going on here. Role models: The first is that lack of role models does not seem to be a bar to making partner (yet they are commonly put forward as a solution). Who would be a role model for me? Another female? Another female with children? Another female with children and a husband who works? The list of possibilities is endless. For me providing role models suggests we are all alike and risks focusing on something visible or known (like gender, or sexuality). The role models I have had (organically) in my career have been: a male Ambassador who demonstrated great empathy and allyship and a male partner at a law firm who used to block out time to drop his children at school. Neither of these would have been “chosen” to be role models for me, nor on paper did they have any obvious link with me (other than where they worked). What did seem to be more important was having a sponsor. If someone internally supported you, you were more likely to be successful. Those females who had a sponsor found their path to partnership easier. This was also true for the men. There was a suggestion that this sponsorship falls away once you “make it”. Ambition and assertiveness: I am ambitious and competitive. I am assertive, perhaps less so when it comes to negotiating things for myself. I have never felt that I have had to hide who I am because I am female. However, I have had assumptions made about my commitment to my career as a result of having children. These have been vocalised by men and women. It has been for me to disprove why I didn’t want to go part-time or to explain why I work full time, rather than the other way around. Being a non-fee earner in a law firm: I have had senior non-fee earning positions in law firms. I have been at tables with senior management where my voice was equal to others in the room. I have had central roles in winning clients. However, that wasn’t rewarded in the same way as it would have been had I been partner.

16 17 18

https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/negotiating-gender-roles-gender-differences-assertive-negotiating-are-mediated-women%E2%80%99s-fear-backlash https://cultureplusconsulting.com/2018/03/10/gender-bias-work-assertiveness-double-bind/ www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/research/diversity-profile-of-the-solicitors-profession-2019

Why are the numbers like they are?

Have I experienced being part of the “out-group” because I wasn’t a partner or “rainmaker” in the traditional sense? Absolutely.

Covid effect... Has the impact of Covid meant that a firm’s culture has been diluted because people haven’t been in the office, or has it meant that negative elements of a firm’s culture have been amplified? What about good or bad leadership? If we look at lack of diversity and poor mental health as symptoms of a culture that is broken, then sadly the answer to this is that the negative elements have not gone away.

Conversations that aren’t being had... In the conversations that I have had for this report, with peers, partners, former partners, coachees and other coaches, some interesting things have emerged.

There are conversations that aren’t being had around culture (how things are done and who does things).

There is a definite sense of there being “a club” that you are either part of, or not. Navigating internal politics are key to becoming a partner.

Men struggle with cultural fit and negative behaviours as much as women, but it is harder to walk away because this is not “what is expected” of them.

There were a lot of reflections about what being a partner involved. This comes back to reward. The need to work long hours and bring in work was universally highlighted as being the most important part of “being a partner”. One woman said they had chosen not to be partner because it involved “finding and winning work” and “negotiating fees”. Neither of these were things she felt she would be strong at. In her mind, there didn’t appear to be another type of partner that she could be. This was despite acknowledging that she was strong in many other areas. What is rewarded is who brings in the most work. This not only attracts certain people, it also means that other behaviours are excused. It is not just about what is rewarded, but also what is not questioned or challenged. This means hard conversations aren’t always had. We heard this many times in our conversations. It was felt that there was nowhere to go to voice concerns. The partners who “have the power” close rank, or exclude “trouble makers”. Human resources is rarely empowered to make a difference. If it is a partner who brings in money who is behaving badly, those behaviours are often ignored. That said, examples were given to me by some people I interviewed of partners who had been ‘moved on’ because of their behaviour. A number of the female partners spoke about women only partner preparation programmes. One woman ceased to want to become a partner after that programme. Another said they felt it had flipped the narrative to “let’s fix the women” rather than the underlying system. A female coach whom I spoke to (who had been a director on a number of FTSE boards) suggested that programmes targeted to women only can result in women moulding themselves into “what is expected”. She thought programmes should be broader in scope and teach men how to work on diverse teams. She spoke about the lack of knowledge from most male leaders of what it is like to be a minority.

How many men have been on a female only board?

5.0

Couldn’t make it, or wouldn’t want to?

5.1

Couldn’t make it, or wouldn’t want to? There are some things going on in this report which point to exclusion:

women find it harder to show they are good enough after having children;

the traits we identify in partners could give rise to some unconscious bias;

there is a sense that there is an “in group” at the top which women find it harder to get into.

However, there are also elements which disprove the assumption that they want to be at the top.

Partnership was less attractive to women after they had children (but they were still equally ambitious);

women wanted more freedom than men after having children;

There was a sense when speaking to men, or coaches of male leaders, that men tend to step back “once they have made their money”, or “when the kids go to university”, with one of the men I spoke to breaking the mould and saying “they have things the wrong way around, why wait?, carve out time for personal interests whilst you can enjoy them.”

the 24/7 culture is something that women actively say “no” to. The people we spoke to were happy with their choices.

Can’t or don’t want to?

Kaleidoscope Career Model

Choice

The Kaleidoscope Career Model (KCM) provides insight into choice. I have spoken a lot about children, of course not all women have children and not all women with children fail to make partner. I believe the insights into the impact of children are powerful (the reality is that many people do have children) and now, increasingly eldercare too.

What was clear is that a lot of this might actually come back to choice. Men and women perhaps chose different things at different times. Part of this might be changing priorities at different times in life. Part of this might be the perception of choice that each gender has.

The KCM model thinks about decision making around careers in the wider sense. It describes how three parameters (authenticity, balance and challenge) influence the way we view our careers and suggests these things shift over the course of an individual’s lifespan. The model suggests these parameters guide us in our careers with certain things taking precedence at different times.

Women become interested in balance mid-career. This is not just about family but about “nonwork issues” which “encompass a woman’s own physical and psychological wellbeing, her friends – especially if she is single or has no children – volunteer activities, hobbies, and spirituality.”19

Men take a different journey and balance is less important for them mid-career. Mid-career is exactly where the Class of 2002 are. It is also when men and women are thinking about whether partnership is for them.

If there are negative issues that are affecting men and women, are women are in the “lucky” position if they can say no to partnership? Are they perhaps in the unlucky position because they have to make that choice sooner and are therefore “out of the game”? Our survey found that partners and non-partners are both equally likely to be satisfied with their job, but non-partners are more likely to express high levels of satisfaction with their life overall. This potentially suggests that non-partners may have an improved work life balance.

Fundamentally, shouldn’t we be creating an environment that both sexes want to say “yes” to? An environment where everyone can thrive, regardless of when choices are being made, so that we can have an environment which is truly diverse?

This model might provide insight into why, despite the 24/7 culture, men chose partnership when women don’t. One coach we spoke to thought that one solution to gender inequality would be to think about “bringing women back”. These women would have different perspectives, perhaps gained from different sectors, which would enhance the partnership and take it in a different direction. Perhaps these women are “in sector” those who are now in senior associate or Of Counsel positions.

Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to Understand the Changing Patterns of Women’s Careers, Sullivan and Mainiero (2008) and https://ct.counseling.org/2006/12/when-work-doesnt-work/

Can’t or don’t want to?

Hours harm mental health.

I want more freedom.

I don’t see myself as one of them – different traits.

Reasons to go or to choose not to be a partner.

Harder to do hours with children. It’s harder to show I am good enough now I have children.

Hours cause burn out.

Rainmaker cannot be challenged. Partners are not friendly, supportive or empathetic.

Why it is easier for women to go and harder for men to leave? Nobody will fight for me to stay – it’s assumed I will go.

I have lots of reasons to give to go.

I was never part of the club in the first place.

Can’t or don’t want to?

Expected to stay.

Stereotypes about what is expected.

Main breadwinner: can’t leave.

Being a partner is who I am.

...so the culture remains unchallenged 33

6.0

Solutions

6.1

Solutions related to hours I started this section thinking about solutions to the individual issues that were emerging from my research. However, I then realised that solutions like this don’t work. Many have been tried before. Some have made inroads. None individually have solved it. The 24/7 culture continues. Lawyer burnout continues. The diversity statistics at the top remain well below where they could (and should) be based on who enters and stays in the profession.

Solutions need to treat the cause not just the symptoms. What if the lack of gender equality at the top is just one symptom of a bigger problem? The symptom of a culture that isn’t working. Do these individual solutions (be they looking at diversity, or mental health) actually collude with the system that requires them? Let’s take solutions related to hours.

Are we tackling long hours, or are we tackling the 24/7 “always on” culture? What solutions have you put forward already? What did they look to tackle? What did they leave unresolved? Tackling long hours is perhaps possible at an individual level (individuals can reduce their hours and take Accommodations). However, how do you implement those individual changes without making them an automatic bar to partnership? How can you be “fair” to those who haven’t made individual changes or sacrifices? How do you do all of that without having a “tiered partnership” with not all partners being equal?

Some of the solutions I have heard / thought of through the course of this research, would help tackle long hours: Enable people to choose when to work long hours. This could involve flexibility about when to start, or when to finish. Enable employees to ring-fence certain times in the year when they don’t want to work. Half-term, religious holidays, or special occasions, for example. Allow people to pick which deals to be on (particularly relevant to corporate). However, tackling the 24/7 culture can only be tackled at a broader systemic level. It requires conversations to be had, not only with employees, but with other stakeholders, principally clients, but other advisors too. It is a harder thing to do, but the benefits would be broader in their reach. Firms cannot simply blame the 24/7 culture on clients – after all, most lawyers are working on a range of matters at any one time. Firms currently choose to have a 24/7 culture. However, if this leads to lack of diversity and burnout, is it time to re-think? As Martin Luther King Jr. said,

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Solutions to start to challenge and change the 24/7 culture might be: Shut the office at 6pm and at weekends. This is not necessarily about telling people to stop work at this time, but to change the message “you will get free dinner and a taxi if you stay late” to “you only need to work these hours if necessary and if done remotely”. This would help eliminate presenteeism. However, with Covid all work was done remotely and hours and burnout have gone up. This is not far reaching enough. Discuss the necessity of hours being done in the evenings/at weekends. Introduce a “Go/No-Go” test for working late hours. This would challenge the assumption that all hours are necessary. Start with the assumption that hours done outside “office hours” are not necessary. What would make them necessary and is it possible to bring other stakeholders/ clients into those conversations? How can technology impact on culture? Corporate was an area where technology was described as being something that could potentially be transformative in the way deals are run (already being seen in due diligence: the days I remember sitting in a room full of boxes are long behind us). How could this influence timetables? Negotiations? Pave the way for a new future?

6.2

Cultural Change Cultural change is hard. It starts with acceptance of the fact that what currently exists isn’t working. It requires difficult and honest conversations to be had internally and with clients. Covid has shown that change is possible and that firms are well equipped to handle it. It has also provided a driver to question what type of firms people want to lead and be part of. Corporates are moving away from a ‘profit at all cost’ approach and thinking about all their stakeholders and how to create value beyond the financial20. Professional services firms have seen this already start to shift the way they are being asked to tender for work, with ESG considerations increasing in importance in pitches. It is no longer all about profit. Money is a big factor in law firms. Many people we spoke to said “leaders don’t want to change because they are making money”. Is that all we want our law firm leaders to be, money making machines? It was noted that hours cannot be the only thing that is at play because Regional firms also have a problem. What the 24/7 culture and Regional firms have in common however is a focus on fees and the fact that those who bring in the most money are generally the most powerful. The 24/7 culture is perhaps the ultimate extension of that. The 2021 Eldeman Trust Barometer21 showed a shift in employee expectations. Employees want employers to keep workers safe and they want a diverse and representative workforce.

Is it necessary to have a complete rethink of what being a partner is, what is expected of them, and what is rewarded?

20 21

This is seen in B Corporations and the Better Business Act Initiative. www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer

Solutions

I would suggest the answer to this is yes. There are two parts to this though. The first is what is rewarded (which in most firms is linked to fees brought in and hours worked). This is a reward on an individual level and provides financial incentives to individually act in a certain way. The second is what is permitted. Those behaviours which go unchallenged because the partner exhibiting them is shielded due to what is rewarded (principally fees brought in). How many of the behavioural traits identified as being “partner traits” are those which help partners to do the actions which are rewarded? Assertiveness would be a good skill to have when negotiating client fees, for example. Many people I spoke to (partners included) spoke of “sharp elbows” coming out when clients or fees were involved.

When I coach female partners, I shift the attention from the “how” to the “what”. When female leaders say they are not great leaders because they don’t fit the stereotype of what “good leadership” looks like in their organisation, I challenge them to consider what outcomes they want to achieve as a ”good leader” and to be authentic in how they get there. Could this approach be multiplied? One male partner I spoke to said that changes to remuneration do provide hope.

A move away from lock-step structures and a bit more flexibility in structure gives you the opportunity to change what a partner is. Client expectations have changed. You aren’t expected to be on call all the time anymore. You could work three days and be a very successful partner.

What else can be rewarded that isn’t just fees and hours and how can those be given equal prominence? The need and desire to have diversity is driven by the outcomes that it brings. Different solutions to problems. Better performance across teams. If only one type of outcome is rewarded, how can this attract diverse talent? How can traits like empathy be measured so that they can be rewarded? Not just rewarded, but rewarded equally to fees brought in? Do we need all of the partners in the firms to be doing the same thing? What other skills do we need to recognise22?23 What about the partner who enables their team to win work? What about the partner who is able to manage a team to deliver innovative solutions? What about the partner who facilitates discussions across teams? What about the partner who listens? What about those who contribute to the sustainable growth of the business (HR, business development, knowledge management, others)? 22 23

The O Shaped Lawyer has set out skills that in-house lawyers value www.oshapedlawyer.com See also www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/human-capital/deloitte-au-hc-six-signature-traits-inclusive-leadership-020516.pdf

Solutions

6.3

Having conversations A lot of the solutions above will require conversations that perhaps aren’t being had. Perhaps they are being had, maybe they are being had with coaches, or family members, or with friends.

Maybe people are speaking but nobody is really taking the time to listen. I think that the most powerful solution, or the most powerful way of coming to the right solution, is to better enable honest conversations. For those conversations not to be punished. To build the psychological safety in teams needed to enable them.

Firms need to ask: What conversations are not happening that need to happen? With whom? What is the thing that is being left unsaid? What are people afraid to voice? What is needed to make lawyers (male and female) want to stay? Why have previous initiatives failed? Were they trying to solve individual discomforts, whilst leaving the broader culture unchallenged? Were they putting groups into boxes and reinforcing stereotypes that were already holding people back? What do we want to reward and why? AND do we need to reward everyone for the same thing? What are the things we are unwilling to accept? What happens if that conflicts with financial performance? What is more important? 38

7.0

Final thoughts

7.1

Things I heard I was honoured to have lots of conversations and people were open and honest with me. I would like to thank everyone who spoke to me, without whom this report wouldn’t have been possible. Rainmakers are people with power who make the most money. They are not usually people persons.

As a man there is a social expectation that unless you hit the top you lack ambition or your aren’t successful.

I am not going to give up because I want this. We had women promotional things – they flipped the narrative, it was the woman’s fault that they hadn’t made it. It was all about internal politics. I got better at playing the game.

There needs to be a systemic change in attitude. The world can change quickly. Systems can change quickly. We need to get to a culture where work is part of life, but not the only thing you do. How do you do that in a profession that counts time in 6 min units and where your targets grow every year.

Things take place after work – I couldn’t hang out in the pub, restaurant, it was already late “on top of work I now have to hang out with them.”

Women having a choice – interesting lens. I didn’t have a choice. I only have a choice now kids are through University. I had no choice when they were younger. People just accepted it because that’s how it was. Men were the main breadwinners.

You get women into the profession and the conversation stops. It should be to get women through the profession.

It was assumed that I would step-out when I got pregnant, I didn’t and I am pleased that I didn’t. It would have been harmful.

There are real issues. Some people are aware of them. But there needs to be real change.

The hours are completely ridiculous and not what I wanted to do.

Final thoughts

Men can now say they can work from home. Is there enough courage amongst senior male lawyers to say I am going 4 days a week? I don’t know.

[Female leader] finds it hard to deal with latent sexism that prevents her from progressing. Displaying masculine characteristics at times is inhibiting her. She wants to contribute as a Mum. She struggles to be taken seriously.

There are layers of politics. You feel you can’t have conversations.

There are different partner roles, that is starting to change. You do loose good people if the criteria are rigid.

Why do we have to work in the way we do? Why are these things written in stone?”

I didn’t have competing things for my time, so I could work late and start early.

There isn’t a collective bravery.

I chose a secondment for an escape [from hours].

If you are a white bloke you will just climb up the pyramid.

I never really knew what I had let myself in for. I felt massively out of place. I didn’t have the hunger for being a successful lawyer.

There is a deep need for peer approval, if I craved that, then I might have been swayed to stay.

People in corporate constantly have to cancel personal things. It is always harder if you are in deal territory. It’s a pretty brutal way of working.

Sponsorship stopped when I was made up.

This is an industry problem not an HSF problem. This report is about my story. It just so happens that I started my journey at Herbert Smith. This report seeks to find out what happened to people who started with me at Herbert Smith, however the statistics here reflect what happened after people left. The conversations that have informed this report are broader than just the Class of 2002.

HSF was where I started my career, it’s a firm which has always been passionate about diversity, it is why I chose it in the first place. I think the fact they are engaging in this report is testament to the fact they want to make a difference. However, for this report to make a difference, it is important that this is recognised as an industry problem.

Only 9% stayed. Of that 9%, there are an equal number of male and female partners at HSF and more women chose to stay at HSF than men, so it could yet increase the number of female partners from the Class of 2002. Of the non-female partners, one is in a senior non-fee earning position and another is Of Counsel.

Of the conversations that I have had, some of the most interesting have been with the diversity and inclusion team at HSF. It is a team that didn’t exist 20 years ago and since its inception in around 2010 it too has been on a journey. I have been struck by the openness of the team and the interest they have had in this report. They don’t proport to have all the answers and whilst they have a wealth of experience, they have at every turn been open to listen. That for me is fundamental.

Only

of the Class of 2002 stayed at HSF

HSF has made up an equal number of male and female partners from that 9%.

I speak here about “city firms”. I also speak about regional firms. The people that I have spoken to came from firms large and small. The research that I have read is about gender inequality in law and outside of it.

We are all on this journey and those who listen will be the ones who succeed. Since its inception the D&I team has tried new things and is having conversations of the type contemplated within this report (inside and outside the firm). One of the latest developments are its 8 Drivers for Gender Equality. These drivers include targets – HSF were one of the first firms to have targets for women in leadership in 2014 – and accountability. The firm wants to hold all the firm’s leaders accountable for progress. They cover some of the things that have come out of this report – sponsorship and working parents, agile working (without unintended consequences that disadvantage women).

Diversity matters Some of the other initiatives the firm has undertaken to increase the gender balance include: Addressing unconscious bias and developing their inclusive leadership capability to create an inclusive culture Scrutiny of their talent pipeline to ensure they are developing all of their talent to succeed through development support, mentoring and sponsorship Focusing on what every partner can do to make a difference They have a range of networks in different offices focused on gender equity including their GEM Network (Gender Equity Matters), Women in Business, Women Lawyers, Women in Business Services and Women Trainee Lawyers. Whilst HSF have yet to achieve gender parity at partner level the picture is brighter than 20 years ago. The targets they set are ambitious and grow year on year. I know they, like me, want to get there.

There have been numerous reports written on why diversity matters. Achieving equity is not only the right thing to do morally and ethically, it is the best thing to do from a business perspective.

I believe in the power of diverse thinking. There are numerous books and studies which can explain why more adequately than I. This report works on the assumption that firms should want to achieve gender parity. Not just for the solicitors coming in, but for the solicitors at the top too. The equity partners.

HSF itself have said: Our vision – to be the leading global law firm for diversity and inclusion – is ambitious. We recognise the power of diversity and inclusion to drive innovation, collaboration and results. By enabling our people to be their unique selves every day, we are leading for inclusion.

t +44 (0)208 092 6650 e info@clienttalk.co.uk clienttalk.co.uk