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 | 1-Jun-2012 12:10 pm
@Anonymous 28-May-2012 3:03pm
That is outrageous! Can't believe anyone is so short sighted to think that 4 days a week and short bouts of mat leave mean you will never be promoted. Please, for your own self-respect, seriously think about moving firms - there are so many city firms I know how have promoted partners on the basis of 4 days a week. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is possible. Even if you're not interested in promotion, they don't deserve you!!
I agree a lot with a previous poster who identifies the Law Firm Model as the problem here. Taking mat leave at precisely the pre-ordained time when you are supposed to be building a business case etc automatically bars women from the promotion path. This is ridiculous. Why not just accept that some people will take some time off (a matter of months in most cases), come back and resume a career. the Path to Promotion can then re-start. Yes, it will take a bit longer, but why is this a problem?
The model is rooted in the past when lawyers (men) just ploughed on regardless and, at approx 7-8 years PQE got made up. THIS DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE!! It makes me so cross, all this messing about with quotas and flexible working, when all it takes is a tiny, minuscule change of perspective to mean that more women become partners.
I am really quite cross about the whole thing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GM | 1-Jun-2012 2:03 pm
Given the comparative small number of male trainee solicitors, it is only a matter of time before the numbers of females promoted to partner level within firms increase naturally, without needing a shot in the arm from artificial positive-discrminatory targets.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment