BLM is most female friendly firm in UK top 50
Berrymans Lace Mawer (BLM) has the highest proportion of female partners among the top 50 UK firms by turnover, with 35 per cent of its partnership made up of women.
Terry Renouf
According to research carried out by The Lawyer the firm had a total of 110 partners during the 2008-09. Of those, 39 were female.
Senior partner Terry Renouf said that this was partly as a result of the firm’s focus on defendant insurance work, which allows for greater flexibility in time management.
“We don’t do transactions, we don’t do M&A,” he said. “The bigger cases are very much about project management, it’s bringing together expert witnesses and barristers and there’s probably a greater degree of control over the work we do [than at some firms].”
Several of the firm’s senior managers are women, including London head of professional indemnity Charlotte Capstick, who also sits on the remuneration committee.
The availability of part-time working arrangements is often seen as critical in improving female retention and promotion rates. BLM has offered the option of part-time working to all of its partners - including its 54 equity partners - for several years.
This comes as Allen & Overy (A&O) has become the latest firm to offer part-time working arrangements to all of its partners in an attempt to improve female retention rates (21 January 2010).
Some 15 per cent of the firm’s partners were women last year, ranking it 38th in the top 50 by number of female partners.
Geoff Fuller, an A&O capital markets partner who chaired a steering committee at the firm charged with putting together a proposal on part-time working, said it was “very clear that there was overwhelming support for some form of part-time working” among the partnership.
However, not all firms with part-time working arrangements already in place scored highly. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, where an estimated 1.5 per cent of the partnership works part-time, came in at 45th. Twelve per cent of all partners at the firm were women.
Among the top 50 firms by revenue Ince & Co had the smallest proportion of female partners. Nine of the firm’s 85 partners were women, the equivalent of 11 per cent, while 12 per cent of equity partner were women.
| Firm | Total partners | Total EP | Total female partners | Total FEP | % of partnership | % of equity |
| Berrymans Lace Mawer | 110 | 54 | 39 | 15 | 35 | 28 |
| Beachcroft | 135 | 84 | 44 | 25 | 33 | 30 |
| Shoosmiths | 109 | 37 | 35 | 6 | 32 | 16 |
| Withers | 107 | 52 | 33 | 16 | 31 | 31 |
| Irwin Mitchell | 112 | 55 | 34 | 11 | 30 | 20 |
| Hill Dickinson | 151 | 53 | 41 | 5 | 27 | 9 |
| Charles Russell | 100 | 45 | 26 | 7 | 26 | 16 |
| Halliwells | 154 | 42 | 38 | 8 | 25 | 19 |
| McGrigors | 83 | 47 | 20 | 12 | 24 | 26 |
| Trowers & Hamlins | 109 | 25 | 26 | 6 | 24 | 24 |
| Nabarro | 135 | 95 | 32 | 21 | 24 | 22 |
| CMS Cameron McKenna | 190 | 122 | 45 | 24 | 24 | 20 |
| Mills & Reeve | 87 | 58 | 20 | 10 | 23 | 17 |
| Olswang | 101 | 62 | 23 | 11 | 23 | 18 |
| Salans | 181 | 75 | 40 | 20 | 22 | 27 |
| Eversheds | 350 | 150 | 76 | 22 | 22 | 15 |
| Denton Wilde Sapte | 181 | 86 | 39 | 17 | 22 | 20 |
| Addleshaw Goddard | 182 | 111 | 39 | 18 | 21 | 16 |
| Berwin Leighton Paisner | 184 | 84 | 39 | 12 | 21 | 14 |
| Field Fisher Waterhouse | 124 | 41 | 26 | 5 | 21 | 12 |
| Kennedys | 117 | 40 | 24 | 5 | 21 | 13 |
| Bird & Bird | 192 | 72 | 39 | 15 | 20 | 21 |
| Watson Farley & Williams | 79 | 57 | 16 | 9 | 20 | 16 |
| Pinsent Masons | 283 | 116 | 57 | 10 | 20 | 9 |
| Slaughter and May | 131 | 125 | 25 | 23 | 19 | 18 |
| Dundas & Wilson | 79 | 79 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 19 |
| Lovells | 349 | 240 | 66 | 39 | 19 | 16 |
| Hammonds | 180 | 73 | 34 | 11 | 19 | 15 |
| DLA Piper (Emea) | 595 | 188 | 108 | 17 | 18 | 9 |
| Ashurst | 221 | 144 | 40 | 21 | 18 | 15 |
| Stephenson Harwood | 87 | 43 | 15 | 4 | 17 | 9 |
| Wragge & Co | 112 | 112 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 17 |
| Norton Rose | 264 | 171 | 44 | 26 | 17 | 15 |
| LG | 83 | 45 | 13 | 9 | 16 | 20 |
| Clifford Chance | 637 | 368 | 96 | 51 | 15 | 14 |
| Osborne Clarke | 114 | 56 | 17 | 9 | 15 | 16 |
| Linklaters | 513 | 428 | 76 | 57 | 15 | 13 |
| Allen & Overy | 490 | 372 | 72 | 52 | 15 | 14 |
| Herbert Smith | 238 | 137 | 34 | 14 | 14 | 10 |
| Clyde & Co | 150 | 87 | 21 | 9 | 14 | 10 |
| Macfarlanes | 75 | 52 | 10 | 3 | 13 | 6 |
| SJ Berwin | 170 | 98 | 22 | 16 | 13 | 16 |
| Burges Salmon | 70 | 51 | 9 | 3 | 13 | 6 |
| Holman Fenwick Willan | 114 | 61 | 14 | 4 | 12 | 7 |
| Freshfields | 444 | 417 | 54 | 51 | 12 | 12 |
| Simmons & Simmons | 232 | 134 | 28 | 10 | 12 | 7 |
| Taylor Wessing | 280 | 152 | 32 | 11 | 11 | 7 |
| Barlow Lyde & Gilbert | 88 | 77 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 10 |
| Travers Smith | 63 | 46 | 7 | 6 | 11 | 13 |
| Ince & Co | 85 | 50 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 12 |
(data refers to 2008-9 financial year)
Readers' comments (19)
Jude | 27-Jan-2010 5:06 pm
Interesting to see a cluster of insurance firms at both the top and bottom - why do some of these score better than others?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Yaldara | 27-Jan-2010 5:06 pm
Interesting research. It proves that the transactional excuse is a red herring, there are plenty of firms with 20% women partners which do corporate work, look at Cameron MCKenna and Nabarros.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Jan-2010 5:08 pm
Why is Simmons so far down the league? Partners will be wondering whether all that focus on social factors rather than bringing the bacon in has really been worth it
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jimmy Two Times | 27-Jan-2010 5:15 pm
Yaldara's right. This has smashed that corporate myth. The likes of Freshfields might have to start pulling their finger out on this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 27-Jan-2010 6:02 pm
Is this anything new?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sheila | 28-Jan-2010 9:45 am
Sometimes you wonder what the point is of all this lip service paid to the golden goose of 'Diversity'. These numbers are still shockingly low on the whole, and it seems that all these schemes to encourage more women, ethnic minorities etc to stay at work are more about placating the media than about actually helping those in the firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Jan-2010 11:55 am
Why have you illustrated this story with a picture of a man?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Jan-2010 5:03 pm
Can't we have a different story please? Who cares who is partner and who isn't? There is no agenda against women or whoever in these firms - all they care about is whether you bring in the fees. Period. Move on.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Jan-2010 5:55 pm
All very politically correct an' all that, but the fact is that part-time working is a complete pain an the assterix. I always used to recruit the best candidate - man or woman and ended up with 65% women. Most of whom got pregnant, of course, disappeared for months on maternity leave when they reached partnership (or, for those who couldn't hang on, senior associateship), then wanted to do part-time work, In many cases, three days work for three-fifths of the pay for two fifths of the work they used to do. That is the reality : let's not kid ourselves. And yeah, yeah, will get pilloried by wimmin lawyers, but we all know the truth.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
puddle | 28-Jan-2010 6:09 pm
funny seeing all the shipping firms at the moment - you can just imagine them all necking yards of ale while talking about football, boats and pirates - no place for a bird!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-Jan-2010 6:19 pm
In response to the comment made by Anonymous on 28 January 5.03 pm, those who aspire to retaining the brightest and the best care about who becomes a partner. Based on the current working arrangements in most firms, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for a woman who wants to be there for her children, also to have a gratifying career. As a result, the sieve that separates those who become partners from those who don't is not wholly meritocratic but rather hinges on who's available which turns out to be usually men as the onus of raising a child is largely on women. It would require a paradigm shift to realise an idea where both father and mother take responsibilty (if they so wish) which would then allow the firm management to think outside the box and create working practices that foster equal opportunity for both men and women.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Exasperated | 28-Jan-2010 6:42 pm
to @anonymous 5.03 - grow up. There may not be an overt agenda against women in the big law firms but the plain fact is that current working practices are prejudicial to female career advancement. Period.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HITCH-A-RIDE-TO-REALSVILLE | 29-Jan-2010 9:12 am
Law Firms embracing gender diversity at all levels for its own sake? Do me a favour! It's because they're cheap - they get paid (undeservedly and conisderably less than their male counterparts)... which the conscience whitewash easily justifies on the basis that theirs is a second income...Should women get an equal stake...hell yeah! Are they getting that...hell no!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Britomart | 29-Jan-2010 3:48 pm
Hitch A Ride's cynicism is partly justified. It is about money, but it's about the cost of attrition. Firms spend millions in recruiting and training only to see the talent walk out the door. It's not rocket science!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Jan-2010 3:58 pm
To Exasperated - thanks for confirming my point that there is no agenda against women in these firms. I know plenty of talented women at the top of their game, with children. I have nothing but admiration for them, as I do for anyone who becomes partner - it is a hard slog and becoming harder. Publishing tables with percentages in my view is of no relevance. Surely it is the absolute numbers that matter most is it not? Would you be happier with a decreased absolute number just as long as men are decreased in greater numbers? That would produce a higher percentage of women partners. Or are the Hattie Harperson crew only going to be satisfied once all men are banned from becoming partners?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Jan-2010 4:47 pm
There may not be an overt agenda at the big firms, but the simple fact is that these firms are run by partnerships which are mainly made up of men over 40. Therefore the viewpoint of the partnership towards making up women (some of whom, shock horro, might have children) is going to be the view held by those same men. Until there are more women partners, these views are unlikely to change, therefore the covert agenda - driven by the conservative views of the existing partners towards working women) - is perpetuated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Feb-2010 11:57 am
Anonymous on 28 Jan 5.55pm clearly has a problem with equations. The reality of the situation is that part-time workers who do three days end up doing four fifths of the work for three-fifths of a pay frozen for all time because they are excluded from any real prospects of promotion. Maybe a bit more parental imput was needed in the annonymous' infancy to help with reaching targets in numeracy. Hopefuly the part time workers will be available to provide that support to their own offspring and not perpetuate ignornance of this kind.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Comrade Harperson.... | 2-Feb-2010 1:23 pm
I imagine is righteously indignant about this.
Less flippantly, the survey shows modest progress in a society in which atitudes shift at a glacial pace. There is a distance still to go. The position will only correct itself through regulation (a blunt instrument) or when purchasers of legal services themselves ask these questions. It is a client driven business where the sole motivator is what "the money" wants - hopefully sooner rather than later the balance will get towards tilting.
However as the country is balance sheet (and but for the ability to print money, cash flow) insolvent there are rather bigger problems which need attended to.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DAVIE LAMECK | 5-Feb-2010 4:44 pm
A PICTURE OF A WOMAN WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIVERSION TO THE STORY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUTTING WHOEVER IT WAS IN THE CENTRE STAGE AS IF THIS STORY WAS ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL LADY WHICH IT IS NOT. THE PICTURE OF THE MAN IS RELEVANT BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE OFFERING A REASON FOR THE SITUATION AT THEIR FIRM.BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND THEY NEED TO BE HIGHLY COMMENDED.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment