FTSE 100 clients demand diversity
26 May 2008
Related Articles
Pink practice
27 April 2009
LGBT lawyers find in-house approval
5 July 2010
Bakers adds ‘listening ears’ to diversity facility
14 December 2009
A&O: LGBT groups face Middle East dilemma
30 May 2008
BT, IBM help firms address gay issues
10 November 2008

THE LAW Society has completed the first draft of its diversity charter with help from a number of FTSE100 companies, including BT, it was revealed at The Lawyer's Diversity in Law 2008 conference.
Companies signing up to the charter will demand detailed statistics on age, gender, race, sexuality, disability and religion from their legal suppliers. Those that are unable to provide the figures might be out of a job.
Barclays general counsel Mark Harding told the conference: "We'd seriously consider how we would instruct a firm that showed no interest at all on this issue."
The charter was due to be launched last year, but the process was delayed when the director of the project fell ill. The Law Society is currently searching for an interim replacement to oversee the programme, but said the charter should be launched by the end of this year.
This approach has been part and parcel of business in the US for some time. The project 'Call to Action' was created by Sara Lee general counsel Roderick Palmore in ;2004 ;and ;is ;now supported by some of the largest companies in the US. Latham & Watkins partner Sharon Bowen said of the approach: "We're going to pay you dollars to do it - for those who don't, we're going to take business away from you."
However, transferring diversity programmes directly from the US to the UK is not that straight-forward. Diversity in the US has different connotations and in the UK it has a different history, with economic background, class and other factors also being important.
Contributors and those attending the conference got to grips with the issues last Monday (19 May) at the Thistle Hotel at Marble Arch in London.
In the panel discussion on how to meet and exceed client diversity expectations, partner and co-head of White & Case's London bank finance practice Magdalene Bayim-Adomako recounted how at first she winced when she heard the US term 'minority lawyer' from the New York office and wondered which of London's many ethnic backgrounds would be covered by it. Nevertheless, she and the rest of the panel believe that global diversity initiatives will be the future.
Herbert Smith partner Ian Gatt QC mentioned being accosted by Sir Ian McKellen at Herbert Smith's lesbian, ;gay, ;bisexual and transgender (LGBT) network ;launch, ;with McKellen demanding to know what the firm would do about the illegality of homosexuality in Singapore.
The US is also far more at ease with affirmative or positive action than the UK. But Lehman Brothers executive director and head of European equity derivatives legal Bhavesh Dattani suggested a less controversial UK alternative in the panel discussion: "Identify those who are not advancing for whatever reason and partner them, buddy them, with high-flyers. In the US this is no problem."
But it is a problem from the US that is threatening the progress of diversity in the UK.
On the one hand it is a time of plenty for legal diversity: LGBT networks, women's networks and initiatives to encourage black and minority ethnic (BME) solicitors to enter the law are springing up all over the place.
On the other hand there is the credit crunch, which is threatening the progress that has been made.
Remembering previous economic ;cycles, ;HR consultant Gillian Shapiro from Shapiro Consulting said: "We've seen that loss of commitment to diversity happens ;in ;difficult economic times."
Pinsent Masons head of public sector David Isaac agreed that "it is the warm and fluffy stuff where the money will run out first".
It is likely that the key to the survival of the diversity agenda will lie outside just the 'warm and fluffy' stuff.
In his talk, Pinsent HR director Jonathan Bond explained how he would convince sceptical partners of the value of diversity. First, comes the so-called academic argument, where studies have shown that heterogeneous ;teams achieve a better work product and higher-quality decisions than homogenous groups, such as ones made up of white, public school, Oxbridge males.
Second, said Bond, it is about respect, which is part of many firms' values. Third, it is often about a firm's HR strategy as a whole.
"In my ideal world, those three ;points ;will ;be sufficient," said Bond. "But the fourth one is the killer point. I'm sorry it is, but in a law firm it's client interest."
But ;HR ;consultant Melanie ;Allison ;of Embankment Associates started off her talk by saying that one should not be apologetic about putting client interest first in promoting diversity. "The world in which a senior executive lives isn't based on 'this is good for everybody', but first on 'how is this good for business?'," she said.
Mrs Justice Dobbs DBE agreed that diversity will become the deciding factor for clients in choosing between firms in the future. "It's like choosing between two cars you like," she said, "you'd go for the car that's greener."
Diversity programmes at law firms may still be in their relative infancy, but sights have been set outwards it seems, towards suppliers. Director of diversity at Eversheds Caroline Wilson commented: "We need to do something with recruitment agencies - they're getting away with murder. We spend £2m-£3m on recruitment - I think we have the right to ask them to put monitoring into place. Before you know it the marketplace will change and we won't be in a position to change what the recruiters are doing."
While recruiters may be behind the curve, with the Law Society charter set to come into force by the end of the year, law firms might not have a choice but to embrace the warm and fluffy world of diversity.


Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 27-May-2008 3:50 pm
Diversity
When I started reading this article, I was a straight Catholic male. By the time I had finished it, I decided it was time to start holding myself as a Buddhist who is questioning his sexuality. Nobody can prove otherwise.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-May-2008 6:09 pm
Warm and Fluffy?
What has credit crunch got to do with diversity? Accepting and, more importantly, promoting talented people from diverse backgrounds in the profession should require no special funds, equality committees, propaganda and so on.
Quite apart from the principles of fairness and non-discrimination, law firms need to reflect the larger world if they wish to compete internationally and this needs to be at all levels, not merely at the recruitment of trainees.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-May-2008 6:34 pm
Positive discrimination is still discrimination
In the same way that anyone who is BME and/or female and/or gay had no choice in the matter, I have no choice about being white, male and straight.
Also, though I am nominally 'middle class' (my parents owned a semi-detached house, and inherited a little money from their own parents), in no sense did I choose that either.
Equally, nor did being middle class give me any headstart over non-middle class people - I was raised by a couple who valued my (state) education and provided family routine and a stable home life, but these are things that don't cost parents money, just time.
As such, it is galling to discover that some firms or employers will choose to pick others over me based on reasons other than talent and experience.
I worked hard to qualify as a lawyer and have worked hard in my jobs since, and while I don't deserve success any more than anyone who is not white, male, middle class or heterosexual, I don't deserve it any less.
Employers should be encouraged to employ anyone who is up to the job regardless of the candidate's background or sexuality, but positive discrimination is not the right way to push that change.
But then which fool who is going to stick their neck out to fight discrimination against the straight white male? That's the modern equivalent of sticking up for communists in 1950s America: total career suicide.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Roy Ebanks | 29-May-2008 6:11 pm
Diversity
I am tired of the same old coded 'this is an attack against the white male' response whenever diversity, particularly cultural (or simply, race!) diversity rears its head.
The fact is, the UK in terms of BME representation is generally woefully under represented across most of the professional groups. The pleasing fact that FTSE companies and the legal profession are increasingly recognising the commercial and societal benenfits of diversity is to be lauded and not lampooned. Change will take time and in the UK, under the existing legal framework (i.e. non-positive discrimination), be incremental. That may not be a bad thing. Equal treatment is a nice statement - but for many organisations proving it actually happens and having the wherewithall to achieve it, is another thing!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Luke Gittos | 30-May-2008 2:58 pm
Diversity
Diversity policy is not implemented in order to encourage any individual of any given denomination into the legal profession.
It is designed to highlight the effective deployment of Equal Opportunities policies within an organization. This distinction between the two is frequently glossed over and the two are often treated as synonymous; this in turn highlights the real problem with Diversity policy. Its only job is to demand moral transparency of law firms in order to ensure that the 'right people' get employed. This demeans equality far more than it promotes it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A.Non | 16-Jun-2008 12:46 pm
Diversity
I am fed up with all of this bleeding-heart liberal nonsense. In the past, law firms recruited the best lawyers they could. If "minorities" were good enough, they would make it. If they weren't, tough. Stop making excuses for them and stop looking to give them an easy ride all the time. They don't appreciate it and neither do the rest of us. Grow up and join the real world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Jun-2008 2:41 pm
Easy ride?
If law firms always did and do recruit the best for the job, why so much worrying about someone checking on them?
You have not lived in the real world and are obviously not "tough enough" to face "real competition" if you lose the majority comfort factor you have lived through.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Jun-2008 5:32 pm
Diversity
The facts are that the initial recruitment process for trainees is not fair. Not all potential entrants / applications are assessed equally. This means there are fewer experienced minority candidates. Everyone would be happy if the best person for the job got it but this doesn't always happen. Just look at the figures that are made available by firms - unbelievable!! We are constantly reminded that Asian children are at the top of the further education ladder but for some reason this does not translate into partnership in city firms, once these children have been in the profession for a number of years. Why?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment