Report this comment to a moderator

Travers 'discriminated against pregnant trainee', tribunal hears

Regarding clients paying for flexibility, I am not sure this has been suggested. Now that I have left private practice I see more clearly that the problem isn't the clients or work usually but the partnership's desire to run things on a shoe string staff to maximise profits rather than resource work correctly. This is more and more a problem in the recession where clearly the partnership are unable to countenance the reality of reduced money in the business. Consistently understaffed departments are the reason that my organisation is seriously considering changing law firms, they would be prepared to pay a bit more elsewhere actually for better service. That way there should be enough lawyers so that a more flexibility is available and we are not relying on overworked hyper stresspots and a void when those individuals cannot be there, which will happen from time to time. The law firms in question are foolish to think clients will not notice and be concerned by the undue stress placed on individuals where for example three fee earners are replaced by one and support staff cut. But what do I know, being a female solicitor who got out of private practice early rather than face being sidelined later on, no family yet and got better work than ever, can't see how this does anything but cause a loss to the firms that trained me where female trainees far outweighed the males and even HR admitted it was easier for males to get the training contract in the first place as firm desperate for boys who could cut it, so who will be left then all the women leave and why ever would they stay?

26-Feb-2013

11:38 am