BLM is most female friendly firm in UK top 50

  • Print
  • Comments (19)

Readers' comments (19)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Is this anything new?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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

  • Why have you illustrated this story with a picture of a man?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (19)