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)
Anonymous | 9-Jun-2008 5:57 pm
Diversity
Eversheds' diversity credentials are fairly tarnished when it comes to employing, promoting and retaining both ethnic minorities and women.
With typical Sheds' spin they are making a virtue out of a necessity, given that renewal of their highly prized (but disasterously priced) contract with Tyco and its voluble GC Trevor Faure demanded positive action in relation to diversity.
Rather than bashing the recruiters (who can only work with the talent pool available) why don't Eversheds put their money where their mouth is and do something useful in the community? Painting infant school toilet blocks isn't going to do much to improve the career prospects of inner city kids. Eversheds might also look hard at their own selection and promotion processes to open up opportunities to a wider group.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Jun-2008 6:42 pm
Feeling the pinch
It is entertaining that the large/top law firms, having trained up a large pool of middle-class, white and mediocre lawyers are now going to scrabble for 'diverse' candidates.
While it is good to see that Tyco has the power to cause a wholesale change in a law firm’s approach to recruiting, it is sad to see that the first thing Eversheds does is pass the buck and recruiters whine like spoilt brats about how difficult it all is.
If they don’t want to work for their money, all they have to do is walk away from the proposal.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Jun-2008 6:53 pm
Diversity
One of the major problems with diversity in the legal field is that no-one is actually owning up to the facts:
1. There is positive discrimination in favor of men. Women are graduating at a far higher rate than men in law and broadly at university as a whole yet law firms try to maintain a near 50/50 ratio of men to women.
2. A large part of the problem with BME students starts long before they apply to a law firm. BME students, especially black ones, are underrepresented in LLB and GDL programs. This is particularly the case at the traditionally well respected unis.
Law firms and recruitment agencies can only work with the people that have met the required standards to be there.
The solution is to begin to address the problem of lack of BME students at an earlier point. Trying to fix serious educational inequality at the law firm stage is too little, too late.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Jun-2008 7:12 pm
Speaking as a recruiter...
Speaking as a recruiter for a top UK consultancy I can honestly say that we always provide our clients with the best shortlist of candidates regardless of age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. What the Law firms decide to do with those shortlisted candidates is up to them.
Recruiters are an easy target to pass the buck to, and are a much maligned group by the legal profession as a whole. The lack of professionalism exhibited by some recruitment agencies give those who genuinely add value for both their candidates and clients a bad name.
In a talent-scarce market we save partners valuable billing time in sourcing high calibre candidates whose ambitions and personalities match that of the firm.
Contrary to popular belief, we do not cold call candidates with irrelevant roles, nor do we pressure them into accepting unsuitable roles - to do so would be to undermine our hard earned reputation and undercut our long term growth for the sake of a quick buck.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adil Khan | 9-Jun-2008 7:31 pm
DIVERSITY
I think the approach Eversheds is taking due to the pressure of its client is well weighted, however like most of the individuals have pointed out below, I agree that its the firm who has the last say.
I am of an ethnic origin, I graduated from a University with not such a well repute, i went on to complete my LPC but had no joy gaining a training contract due to the diversity issue, so i took to the route to qualify in a commonwealth jurisdiction as an Advocate - finally i can qualify in the UK as a solicitor.
The point is how much time and funds I have wasted to qualify in the UK just purely due to the fact that my name did not sound as the law firms wanted it to, I do welcome this change but putting it into practice is another story.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Jun-2008 9:09 pm
Diversity
As a senior in-house lawyer, I don't care whether firms are diverse or not - what I care about is that I receive a first class legal and commercial service. Counting numbers of people from different ethnic backgrounds etc. is irrelevant tosh - if law firms miss out on good people as a result of their own prejudices, service will deteriorate, firms will lose clients/work, and firms will need to recruit better to redress their failings. Recruit on merit, and ignore everything else.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2008 9:01 am
Response to: 'Diversity: let's not kid ourselves'
An interesting post, I am from an ethnic minority background and I went to a public school. I totally disagree with the post below 'Diversity: let's not kid ourselves'. Most of my peers from public school dropped out of higher education and never completed their degrees.
Their academic education might have been 'better' but it does not mean that the school instilled a sense of confidence, hard work and discipline in them at all. Therefore, going to public school does not give you a better foundation in life. All it does is install a false sense of superiority and confidence in you which isn't going to get you far in the big wide world, chump.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nick Root, Taylor Root legal recruitment | 10-Jun-2008 9:44 am
Don't tar us all with their brush
I was interested to read the article on the front page of The Lawyer regarding diversity and legal recruitment consultancies. There only appeared to be a few recruiters mentioned, which I suspect doesn't necessarily give a fair and accurate view of how seriously diversity is taken into account by all recruiters.
At Taylor Root, and across the whole of The SRGroup, we have our own diversity policy and have monitored all new candidates since 2004, looking at race, gender, sex and age. This information is completed by the candidates at registration stage on a voluntary basis and all information is stored anonymously.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Doris Johnson | 10-Jun-2008 10:01 am
Re: 'Diversity: let's not kid ourselves'
Re the post at 9.01, you're hyperbolising massively. If you are really saying that MOST of the people you went to public school with didn't finish their degrees, which is hard to believe, you went to an untypically bad public school.
Though we can argue about the fairness and the explanations behind it, no-one can seriously deny that public schools have on average consistently better academic results than state schools - insisting otherwise just isn't credible.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Margaret Hilda Roberts | 10-Jun-2008 10:07 am
Discrimination... in favour of men?
Re yesterday evening's post about 'positive discrimination' in favour of men, I'd question how positive that really is. Women might be overtaking men in terms of new law graduates, but even with a 50/50 ratio among new lawyers, most firms remain dominated by men for several years to come. I for one thing that a legal world of the future dominated by women would only be pay-back!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment