Slaughters welcomes five to partnership, three in corporate

  • Print
  • Comments (40)

Readers' comments (40)

  • So, not a single woman gets promoted. And not a single woman was promoted last year. And two female partners have just left. What does this do to their diversity stats??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Probably lessens them by two females

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Marjorie - Why complain? The place is a meritocracy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So in an exceptional year 5 people get partnership. In a normal year its more like 2. And over 100 trainees join the firm each year. And some of the new partners inevitably wont have trained at the firm.
    So the odds of a new trainee becoming a partner are?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Marjorie, as often seems to happen, has missed the story here.
    Slaughters is the place it is precisely because it doesn't pander to the statisticians, do-gooders and political correctness apologists that populate other firms. If five women had been the best candidates, five women would have been made partner. Dave is right when he says it's a meritocracy. Long may it continue to be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Debbie Harry | 24-Mar-2011 1:33 pm - Slaughter and May MIGHT be a meritocracy once you are hired - although it is very unlikely that there are no internal politics or other issues which also affect progession - but it certainly isn't in terms of recruitment.
    How many Slaughter & May partners went to comprehensive schools?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "How many Slaughter & May partners went to comprehensive schools?"
    Precisely: the fact that it's a meritocracy means that none of the ill-educated candidates ever makes it to the top.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a product of the comprehensive system, and a partner in a law firm (albeit nowhere on the scale of Slaughter and May!), I take exception to Colquhoun's comments, but I do agree with the others that progression and promotion in the profession should be based solely on ability and not on any other discriminatory grounds

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "but it certainly isn't in terms of recruitment. How many Slaughter & May partners went to comprehensive schools?"
    The fact that relatively few S & M partners went to comprehensive schools does not prove that S & M is unmeritocratic. It could equally be taken as proof of the failure of the comprehensive system.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Slaughters is the equivalent of latin tags, received pronunciation and other forms of mock classicism which in lazy minds are taken to be an indication of intellect or rigour. In truth, 'Slaughters' is a carefully preserved brand. Its supposed unattainability is very little to do with intellect and more to do with the perpetuation of class prejudices deeply rooted in the English psyche, something akin to the Raj, or other racial elites. Anyone who has worked at the top end of the legal profession knows that the lawyers there are very ordinary , and that the limited internationalism of Slaughters has removed the opportunity for the firm to do the most complex work. This is a long-winded way of saying that we should be very sceptical of the meritocracy argument. Unfortunately, women, minorities, and those lacking the confidence of a public school education, simply don't fit within the brand.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (40)