Revealed: females make up less than 10 per cent of top 100's equity partner ranks
Female partners remain a minority at top UK firms, with just 23.5 per cent of all partners and 9.4 per cent of all equity partners across the UK’s largest 100 law firms by revenue being female.
Among the magic circle, including Slaughter and May, female lawyers constituted 14.6 per cent of total partners and around 13.5 per cent of equity partners in the 2011-12 financial year, figures from this year’s The Lawyer UK 200 have revealed, with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer having the lowest proportion of female partners at just 12 per cent.
“It’s tempting to say that this is because of a 24/7 culture or an ‘all boys’ network, but I think that’s quite superficial,” said King & Spalding partner Suzanne Rab, a former lawyer for both Freshfields and Slaughter and May. “I think it’s more to do with the fact that the legal profession is very slow to change - it changes slower than society. Change normally only happens if it makes business sense - why would a firm in a relatively good position want to change? It takes real courage to change something that may not be perceived to be broken.”
Outside the magic circle, the firms in the top 20 with the highest proportion of female partners are Berrymans Lace Mawer (38 per cent), Irwin Mitchell (30.9 per cent), Kennedys (38.2 per cent) and Shoosmiths (32.4 per cent). The proportions improve among firms ranked 50-100 by turnover, with Manches (45.6 per cent), Pannone (40.8 per cent), Russell Cooke (40 per cent) and Sackers (50 per cent) either edging towards or hitting a 50/50 gender split.
Despite these figures, the equity remains a male-dominated domain. At Taylor Wessing, for example, while 15.7 per cent of the total partnership is female, just 8 per cent of the equity partnership is. Similarly, 8 per cent of Simmons & Simmons’ equity partners are women while 14.2 per cent of its total partners are.
Caroline Rawes, director of human resources and development at Taylor Wessing, highlighted the recent recruitment of Alix Prentice in the firm’s financial institutions and markets group and Amanda Nelson in the private client team as examples of steps the firm is taking to try to redress this gender imbalance, but accepted that there was more to be done.
“We’re aware that female partner numbers for the firm are low and this is an area to which we’ve been committed to improving for some time,” she told The Lawyer.
The figures suggest it is traditional City firms that are finding it the hardest to retain senior female staff, with anecotal evidence suggesting that the masculine atmosphere at such firms can put some women off.
“I saw that women in senior positions had to adopt male attributes to get ahead,” said one former magic circle lawyer who has since left the City. “I didn’t want to change myself to stay.”
However, Avril Martindale, an IP partner and co-head of Freshfields’ London diversity leadership committee, said firms are taking steps to create an inclusive working enviornment.
“Creating an environment in which everyone can realise their full potential and feel that their work is valued is a business imperative for us,” she said. “Like many organisations, and law firms in particular, we still have plenty more to do. There’s still a disproportionate gap between the number of women we’re recruiting at trainee level and the number who make it into our partnership ranks.”
It is a similar picture at Clifford Chance. A spokesperson for the firm said: “Improving the gender balance of our partnership is an important goal for the firm – we have previously stated our ambition that women should make up at least 30 per cent of our partnership. Our priority is to secure a sustainable improvement while maintaining our strongly meritocratic culture.”
Alison Eddy
However, Alison Eddy, who became the first woman to hold a top regional position at Irwin Mitchell when she was made London managing partner earlier this year, said that setting targets for female representation is not necessarily the best way of dealing with gender imbalances within firms.
“In our view, [having a high number of female partners] is not about setting quotas,” she said. “It has to be about identifying the best people, regardless of gender or background, and giving them the opportunities to progress in our firm. More than half of the associates promoted to partner level in the past two years have been female but they weren’t promoted just because they were female. They were promoted based on their strong performance and contribution to the firm. For us, it’s not about who you are or where you’re from, it’s about what you can achieve and what you can bring to our business.”
Irwin Mitchell has recently been given ABS approval as it looks to implement ambitious growth plans. Eddy said the changes in the legal sector mean that there will be more female lawyers than male by 2015 and that firms need to adapt.
For the full data see this year’s The Lawyer UK 200
Bottom 30 firms in the UK 100 by proportion of female equity partners
| Firm | Turnover 2011-12 (£m) | Total partners | Total female equity partners | Proportion female equity (%) |
| Ward Hadaway | 30.00 | 69 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Optima Legal | 22.85 | 12 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Howard Kennedy | 27.80 | 57 | 1 | 1.8 |
| Foot Anstey | 22.88 | 48 | 1 | 2.1 |
| Gateley | 61.50 | 143 | 3 | 2.1 |
| Speechly Bircham | 57.60 | 91 | 2 | 2.2 |
| Weightmans | 77.10 | 151.1 | 3.6 | 2.4 |
| TLT | 44.50 | 68 | 2 | 2.9 |
| Field Fisher Waterhouse | 97.60 | 146.9 | 4.38 | 3.0 |
| DWF | 102.00 | 152 | 5 | 3.3 |
| Holman Fenwick Willan | 123.90 | 127 | 5 | 3.9 |
| Trowers & Hamlins * | 80.80 | 121 | 5 | 4.1 |
| Fladgate | 25.90 | 48 | 2 | 4.2 |
| Farrer & Co | 49.60 | 71.8 | 3 | 4.2 |
| Freeth Cartwright | 36.73 | 91 | 4 | 4.4 |
| Hill Dickinson | 110.10 | 172 | 8 | 4.7 |
| Bond Pearce | 46.50 | 72.21 | 3.36 | 4.7 |
| Clyde & Co | 287.00 | 230 | 11 | 4.8 |
| Parabis Law | 108.00 | 61 | 3 | 4.9 |
| Simmons & Simmons | 251.70 | 203 | 10 | 4.9 |
| Berwin Leighton Paisner | 246.00 | 209.2 | 10.4 | 5.0 |
| Taylor Wessing | 212.50 | 311 | 15.5 | 5.0 |
| Hugh James | 28.50 | 40 | 2 | 5.0 |
| Winckworth Sherwood | 23.90 | 40 | 2 | 5.0 |
| Pinsent Masons | 220.50 | 256 | 13 | 5.1 |
| Ince & Co | 91.60 | 97 | 5 | 5.2 |
| Herbert Smith | 480.00 | 270 | 14 | 5.2 |
| Bird & Bird ** | 235.00 | 230 | 12 | 5.2 |
| Macfarlanes | 102.20 | 70.6 | 3.7 | 5.2 |
| Russell Jones & Walker | 45.00 | 52 | 3 | 5.8 |
* Trowers & Hamlins have 35 female partners, 29.2% of the total.
** Bird & Bird have 53 female partners, 23% of the total.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (45)
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2012 9:56 am
What would be really interesting would be an analysis of how many female associates at the firms wanted to become partner there, and the reasons why that didn't happen, rather than just bare stats.
It's not that surprising that women who have made it to equity partnership don't think quotas are needed, because they obviously didn't need them.
The resentment a quota system would cause probably means it's not worth it, even if well intentioned - it's not as if all male lawyers just walk into partnership.
Still, the firms in the table should ask themselves whether there is something inherently sexist about the way they are promoting - figures such as 0 female partners out of 69 are fairly surprising.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 25-Oct-2012 10:05 am
The women who are EPs bring in work and contribute financially to the firm other than billing on other partner's client's files. That's why they are EPs as the firm can't afford to lose the work they bring in and so rewards them accordingly.
The vast majority of female associates and FSPs I have worked with bring in very little work. They may bill well and be excellent lawyers, but that's only half the battle. Unless they put the partnership in a position where they cannot afford to lose them because of the work they bring in, they won't make EP. Firms don't just give up equity points to good fee earners as the partnership would become diluted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2012 10:46 am
Why are there decimal points on the number of partners?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Clients = money = equity partnership | 25-Oct-2012 10:53 am
Seems like the consensus is that the central problem is clients are not giving enough work directly to female partners to make them sufficiently valuable to a law firm to then make into equity partners.
I.e. client relationships are not going to be lost if they don't promote women to the equity. After all, law firm partners are greedy b*ggers and if having more women made the men more money they would do it in an instant. Frankly they would cut their left legs off it made them more money.
Maybe the real problem is with the clients? Maybe the male GCs don't bond well with the women, so no client loyalty, hence no equity partnership. QED....?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mary | 25-Oct-2012 11:00 am
The decimals represent full-time equivalent ie there are some part-time partners
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2012 11:17 am
Catherine - If an associate has 2-3 years less experience than another associate then it is hardly fair to disregard that discrepancy when making partnership appointments. While firms should do everything they can to support women who take time out (e.g. by keeping them involved in firm activities, good maternity packages etc) when it comes to making appointments, anything other than a strictly meritocratic approach would undermine the firm's business and create a hostile, resentful working environment.
Your sexist generalisation is also unhelpful. I imagine many women who put their careers first and delay having children would be just as opposed to anything other than a meritocratic partner selection process.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2012 11:22 am
There seems to be a pretty fundamental flaw in the maths here - the percentage proportion shown is the number of female equity partners compared to the total number of partners (equity and non-equity), not the total number of equity partners. Unless any of the firms listed are 100% equity partnerships (which I doubt), the percentages given are meaningless. Either show the proportion of all partners who are female or the proportion of equity partners who are female - don't mix the two.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Good point | 25-Oct-2012 11:32 am
@Anonymous | 25-Oct-2012 11:22 am
Good point, the percentages don't work.
Would guess therefore they are far, far smaller than ones given here for female EPs, if relative to all EPs at the firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2012 11:43 am
Anon @11:17
You seem to assume that PQE alone forms the basis for a meritocratic approach and that the woman with 2-3 years less experience in real terms is, by virtue of that alone, less worthy of partnership than her male peer who has had that 2-3 years on the job experience. That is hardly a meritocratic approach.
In my experience very average male associates are made partner purely as a result of time spent, whereas a female associate needs to be exceptional.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anonolady | 25-Oct-2012 12:07 pm
As a female junior equity partner I have to say that having children is not the main reason it is difficult to progress. I don't have any children and am just as committed to the long hours and the BD as my male colleagues (if not more so).
However despite having fantasic relationships with my existing clients, I struggle to get acquire new clients because, quite simply, it's still a man's world out there at boardroom level. Most decision makers in clients are men - and they simply feel more comfortbale building their network with their men. As do the men in the partnership.
The Boys Club is still alive and thriving. I don't blame the men - I think both genders find it easier to build trust with their own gender to a certain extent. But it does mean that even women who choose to play by the law firm rules are not playing on a level field. Add to that the different behavious between genders and you find that partnerships made up mostly men reward male behaviours.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment