Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is considering introducing targets for the number of female candidates put forward for partnership promotion each year.
The move comes in response to the firm’s poor showing in rankings of top firms by their proportion of female equity partners, which show that the firm lags behind all of the magic circle in this area.
Freshfields global people partner Richard Norbruis is heading a campaign to improve female retention at the firm alongside senior management and diversity champion Avril Martindale.
Other options on the table include more flexible working methods, mentoring for up-and-coming female associates, presentation training for women and devising methods for increasing the number of women in leadership positions.
The firm is also considering broadening a scheme facilitating flexible working and mentoring for female associates - currently in place in Germany and Austria - to the rest of the network. The project, known as the ‘smart balance’ scheme, was launched in Austria and German last year.
The latest plans were set to be discussed at the firm’s annual partnership retreat in Paris last Thursday and Friday (24 and 25 May). Formal quotas are not on the agenda.
Freshfields could not confirm how many female candidates it aims to have on the slate each year as the firm is still consulting with partners. Just three of the firm’s 20 newly-promoted partners this year were female (28 March 2012), compared with two in 2011 (4 March 2011).
Norbruis said: “We are considering introducing a target for the number of women candidates put forward for partnership each year. Our hope is that this may increase the number of women elected.
“We will be discussing gender diversity with our partners. We’re not the only firm that has chosen this as a focus. We are considering introducing targets - we’re still discussing whether it’s useful. However, our main focus is on measures to help retain our talented women.”
Research by The Lawyer showed that 11 per cent of Freshfields equity partners were women in 2011, putting it in joint 16th place out of UK firms, behind magic circle rivals Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Linklaters and Slaughter and May (14 September 2011).
Clifford Chance has already set a long-term target to fill 30 per cent of its partnership with women but has no set target for the number of female candidates for partnership each year. 12 per cent of its equity partners in 2011 were female.
Readers' comments (12)
Anonymous | 25-May-2012 10:18 am
I wonder what the golden target number will be? And would it really be enforced?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-May-2012 10:35 am
Can this really be right? While I understand the need for greater diversity I am not sure I can understand the point of targets to fulfill quotas. Surely there is a legal risk to it, what about a male claiming unfair discrimination because a female who is less qualified is given promotion just to fill a quota?
Surely promotion should be about merit and not about whether you have genitals or not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-May-2012 11:20 am
I think there's a difference between a target and a quote. Presumably the target is an aspiration - as such I would assume you make your target 50% - why put it any lower? I assume that the firm has done some research on the cause of gender imbalance at partner level. If one of the reasons is the lack of female role models within the firm, then forcing the issue by targets/quotas may be the only way to address that. Flexible working initiatives will only work in this context if firms show some commitment to promoting people who work flexibly - I suspect that is some way off. Otherwise, flexible working is just a way of avoiding someone leaving for a few years until it dawns on them that they've been led down a path with no prospects.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-May-2012 12:06 pm
So the solution to discriminaiton against women is discrimination against men?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
@anonymous 10:35am | 25-May-2012 12:37 pm
So according to you, women don't have genitals? Someone's clearly still a virgin...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 25-May-2012 1:22 pm
So the next step is to ensure there is a quota of 93% of partners state-educated?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-May-2012 3:35 pm
Engineering the number of female candidates to go forward to partnership is a disastrous methodology to work from - why not just look after associates along the way, support them, don’t overwork them month-in month-out, and then be able to choose the best candidates for the job!!
The turnover of associates at this firm is absolutely ridiculous, and one of the biggest reasons is that, women especially, feel that they are not supported in their long term aspirations, and if they have kids, that is basically partnership out the window, regardless of whether they even wanted it in the first place.
The Law Firm model as we know is also not helping put more women on the legal map. Partnership is such a hard title to get your hands on, (anywhere in the City), and there is a big “up or out” mentality. The really unfortunate part about it, is that when women are at the senior associate stage, just when they are at the point of really building out a business case, building out a reputation, and a contact list that they can then use to try to get into partnership, is also just at the point when (speaking frankly), it’s having kids time. They (women) then, quite often end up missing out on partnership opportunities, which they would have wanted just as much as men.
My guess is that most women in firms like Freshfields, can’t get excited about partnership because they know that having kids (or even just having a life between the ages of 25-35), means that getting to the holy grail of partnership is an even harder slough than their male colleagues will have to go through.
If we want to see more female partners in law firms, change the business model under which they operate…
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fat Cat | 26-May-2012 3:21 pm
If I were male freshfield associate I would sue the firm. If women need to be elected it should be on fair basis. This is not womens tennis after all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Female lawyer | 28-May-2012 12:46 pm
Mentoring and presentation training for female lawyers? Why do women need this and not men? This approach is old hat and is based on the idea, which is itself discriminatory, that women need extra help. They don't. They just need the same help that their male colleagues get and to be judged on an equal basis. There is plenty of research showing that this doesn't happen and that women leave because they don't feel valued. Have they asked the women what they want and what they think is holding them back?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28-May-2012 3:03 pm
It is not female lawyers that need training in this field it is senior male partners. I really think that targets are the only solution and targets do not mean that women will be promoted because they are women. It will means firms will wake up and ask why so few women are being promoted.
I have been told I will never make partner because I work 4 days a week. I have also been told that because I work 4 days a week and have been on maternity leave twice ( I took 6 - 7 months off) that I am "deskilled". Unless there are real advances in how women are treated I will not be encouraging my daughter to become a lawyer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment