Recruiters slam Eversheds' demands for diversity
An Eversheds plan to launch an alliance forcing recruiters to tackle diversity has ignited a row as recruiters argue that the blame for the lack of diversity in the law lies with law firms.
Eversheds' demands for diversity" class="inline_image inline_image_left" src="/pictures/web/images/12339_Wilson.jpg" />An Eversheds plan to launch an alliance forcing recruitment agencies to tackle diversity has ignited a massive row as recruiters argue that the blame for the lack of diversity in the profession lies squarely with law firms.
At The Lawyer’s Diversity in Law 2008 conference last month, Eversheds head of diversity, Caroline Wilson, warned that recruiters were “getting away with murder” by not monitoring race, gender or sexuality, but now the recruitment industry has hit back.
Glass Consultancy’s Jonathan Glass argued: “The only candidates able to be introduced by legal recruiters to their clients are qualified lawyers. If this target market is not a diverse one, that is due to the recruitment systems put in place by the law firms themselves.”
Eversheds is under pressure from Tyco, one of its biggest clients, to increase its number of female partners and lawyers from ethnic minority backgrounds.
It will receive a sixfigure bonus if it meets diversity targets set by thecompany. One senior recruiter slammed Wilson’s comments as “absolutely insane”.
He claimed: “Eversheds is caught up in all this because of Tyco.”
Wilson admitted that the diversity drive had gathered pace because of the influence of companies such as Tyco.
She said: “Our clients are asking us. We now have to ask our supply chain to take diversity seriously.”
Pinsent Masons HR director Jonathan Bond said he expected most agencies to regard it as a positive step. He said: “Traditionally recruiters did not demand this information from candidates.
“If our clients are asking us to do something, that is sufficient incentive [for recruiters] to do it.”
Clifford Chance diversity manager Sarah Twite also said she would consider signing up to the scheme.
But headhunter Nick Woolf of Sainty Hird & Partners said: “Law firms need to look at themselves.”
The problem, Woolf argued, was that firms needed to hire employees from a broader academic base, rather than focusing on those from traditional universities.
Wilson said: “The supply [of staff ] has been short over the last few years while law firms have been expanding. That’s about to change. Everyone is reining in and now the shoe is on the other foot.”
To read more on the Eversheds diversity row, click here. Or read about the FTSE100’s call for diversity click here, and for more on diversity in the law click here.
Readers' comments (125)
Douglas from Edinburgh, a law firm client | 12-Jun-2008 1:51 pm
Diversity
Which law firms are Stonewall Diversity champions? Shame on those who are not!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2008 2:08 pm
comments on post 11 am+ 12.33, average white man
Which places have been reserved for BMEs? I have never heard of something so ridiculous. All the BMEs would be applying for these jobs if they existed. Please name a few in the legal job market please .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2008 2:21 pm
Re the last post
Positive discrimination does not yet happen, but is being speculated about because it seems the likely outcome of Eversheds having to hit diversity targets by a certain deadline.
As evidenced by that and your response to 'average white man' not 'band', you haven't being paying attention!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2008 2:38 pm
re last post
So if places are not currently being reserved for BMEs why are there claims that they are? What difference does it make if the poster has said man instead of band . Is that the best comment you can make on the last post. I despair,I really do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Doggieleesburg | 12-Jun-2008 3:55 pm
Statistics throw some light on the subject
The 2001 UK census broke the population down as follows: White 92.1%, Mixed 1.2%, Black 2.0%, Asian 4.0%, Chinese 0.4%, Other 0.4%. The total non-white poplulation is therefore 7.9% of the UK population.
Eversheds get payments if more than 10 per cent of its 2009 trainee intake are from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds; and if more than 10 per cent of Eversheds’ staff are BME.
So Tyco are in fact seeking for BMEs to be over-represented at Eversheds. Surely that MUST require positive discrimination, particularly if Eversheds aren't meeting these targets already?
I am intrigued as to what "minority" means. Do non-UK nationals count regardless of their colour, for example? If it does they could just hire lots of Australians...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2008 4:16 pm
BME Focus
Pointing out the obvious - diversity is not just about BMEs. It is specifically intended to include, among others, disabled and LGBT lawyers. BME's make up about 5% of the population, LGBTs make up a larger portion of the population and an even larger portion of law students - but face acute discrimination, especially in offshore law firms.
There is a post below about hiring practices in Cayman. It's true: LGBT face terrible prejudices in offshore Caribbean jurisdictions. I should be surprised that The Lawyer has never tackled this issue, but then I appreciate how much money these offshore firms contribute to The Lawyer in their regular offshore special reports.
Large onshore firms are happy to ignore the issue, as diversity flies out the window when tax savings are in issue.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2008 4:21 pm
Re Statistics
Do you really think that Eversheds are basing their activities on stats that are seven years old?! Err - no I don't think so!
Lots of more recent research has broken down the total UK population to approximately 10-11% BME. In any case, law firms and other organisations need to reflect their communities within which they are based!
For example London, Leeds and Birmingham are a lot more diverse than other cities. In London alone, ethnic minorities make up 29% of the 8 million population (ORC Feb 2008), so unless law firms better reflect the BME population in their workforce they will ultimately lose out on BME business.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jun-2008 4:36 pm
Re: post at 12-Jun-2008 @ 12:22PM
You're missing the point when you say "This debate is simply about ethnic minorities being given an equal chance in the job market."
Diversity about minorities being given am equal chance in the job market - and "minority" is not the same as "ethnic minority". You seem to be trying to make other minorities invisible - shame on you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dogggieleesburg | 12-Jun-2008 5:09 pm
Reply to "Re Statistics"
You say "law firms and other organisations need to reflect their communities within which they are based". Does this mean you'd be happy to see a nearly 100% white firm in, say, Exeter and for that firm to discriminate accordingly?
Of course not. Arguing on the basis of supposed "communities" is self-serving bunkum, and is the sort of argument that gives the diversity lobby a really bad name.
It does minority candidates a real disservice.
You can define the "community" in which City firms in lots of ways. There is SE England for a start (just think of all those people who commute into London). That would change the %'s quite a bit.
Then there is the "community" of international financial centres. That would also change the %'s quite a bit. I'd also note that "community" as you define would also mean that the majority of lawyers should not have a degree, and a large chunk wouldn't have A levels either. Is that a proposition you seriously want to put forward?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eleanor Williams - Darwin Gray LLP | 12-Jun-2008 5:11 pm
Diversity....again
As a female lawyer who happens to be disabled, I am amused by the buck-passing attitude of clients blaming lawyers blaming recruiters blaming society.
Let's all just get back to work shall we? Perhaps we should strive for a legal environment that mirrors the environment of our community instead of fostering an artificial blame culture.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment