Raising the bar on diversity – A response to Zoe Saunders

I read with interest Zoe Saunders‘ post Why the bar really is a meritocracy, a ‘retort’ to my observations in Access Denied.  It offered a barrister’s eye view of the pupillage process at St John’s Chambers, and indeed some insight into Ms. Saunders’ own route to the Bar. What it did not offer, however, was an effective rebuttal of the points I had originally made. This is why I feel compelled to reply.

The perception of the bar as an elitist profession is pervasive. Much of this is a legacy from times past, but still shadows remain and for good reason. While Ms. Saunders concentrated on the search for pupillage, my observations were broader in approach and considered too the barriers in place even before becoming a pupil. This included the up-front cost of the BPTC, running currently between £10,000 to £15,000, and the dearth of funding options available to all, let alone those in the position of supporting a family or paying a mortgage. The widespread withdrawal of career development loans has further compounded the issue. Ms. Saunders herself admits to having ‘got into enormous debt’ to do the bar course. It would appear that the option of getting into enormous debt to fund the BPTC is not one that is open to students in 2011 and beyond, whether or not they are taking a circuitous route. In a recent blog post, Professor Julian Webb identified the 25 – 39 year age group as that which accomplishes the most for the sector in terms of social mobility and diversity. If this demographic cannot access funding to complete the professional stage of training due to the financial and parental responsibilities that are common amongst the age group, then this surely is an aspect of accessibility worthy of scrutiny?

It has been suggested that the statistics do not support the ‘easy myths’ that I peddled in my previous piece. At first glance, that appears to be correct. On subsequent inspection of said statistics, however, it seems a little thin as an accusation. The Bar Council‘s report concerns itself only with ‘gender distribution’ and ‘ethnicity distribution’, an either/or approach that considers neither both occurring concurrently nor any of the alternative factors given to affect diversity and accessibility. Far more comprehensive is the information contained here, a University of Westminster research publication funded by the Legal Services Board. This looks beyond the obvious ethnic/gender splits within the profession and consider the combined effects of gender, education, funding, ethnicity, socio-economic class and parenthood on the aspirant student. As tempting as it is to reproduce pages of this document here, I shall instead content myself with a few salient extracts which serve to illustrate the main theme of the findings.

“…respondents spoke of the importance of ‘opening up’ the profession to talented individuals from less wealthy socio-economic  backgrounds… evidently the cost of training adversely affects aspiring lawyers from lower socio-economic and some BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) groups as well as mature students who must self-fund through university and training”.

“… motherhood appears to be taken as automatic evidence of reduced commitment in a way that fatherhood does not, with the result that women of child-bearing age are perceived as making a similar commitment only if they ‘choose’ not to have children and clearly demonstrate that choice”.

“The cost of tuition fees and living expenses was a recurring theme, and clearly had affected the career choices of at least some of our respondents… These financial difficulties were exacerbated by the need to dress up one’s CV to demonstrate dedication and maximise employability through unpaid experiences and costly extra-curricular activities”.

These accounts, expressed throughout the research paper by lawyers past and present, are indicative of recurring difficulties experienced by many in their journey to infiltrate the legal profession. Also charted is the disproportionately high number of women who chose to leave after qualification and the not-unrelated resistance of some chambers to flexible working. For those amongst you who enjoy number crunching, consider this – in 2007/08, 62% of pupil barristers were drawn from the top two socio-economic groups and 68% of pupil barristers attended a Russell Group university. In 2010, 82% of practising barristers were Oxbridge educated. A myth has no discernible basis in fact. This is no myth.

A further publication by the Legal Services Board, entitled ‘Barriers to the legal profession’, made the following observation:

“At each stage of the process of entry and progression, those from higher socio-economic backgrounds are at an advantage: attending a more academic school followed by a Russell Group university… These advantages are likely to account for the over-representation of those from private schools in the profession, leading to the profession being perceived as having an elitist culture”.

This report put the proportion of judges and barristers that had attended an independent school at 70% and 68% respectively.

In an experience that mirrors my own, Ms. Saunders referred to a less than helpful careers service reaction at her university.  I was told by one particularly unenlightened advisor that “students from this university don’t go to the Bar”, despite some very well-known students having done just that. Luckily, I too am perfectly capable of finding out what I needed to know without being ‘spoon-fed’. I have been a member of Inner Temple for a year and have attended several of their functions and events in London. My scholarship application has been submitted. Rather disingenuously, my observations have been casually dismissed by many who feel that I did not research my intended career before starting down this path. On the contrary, my views chart the discrepancy between my (extensive) research and the reality of accessibility to the Bar. It was this discrepancy which served as the source of my disquiet, not a lack of understanding as to the intellectual rigours of the profession, nor my ability to persuade.

A career at the bar is something that @ZASaunders clearly feels passionately about and to that end, we are aligned. I do believe that the Bar has meritocratic virtue, once you are there. That said, to deny that problems still exist is to be guilty of perpetuating the status quo. I criticise the profession because I wish to join it, but join an improved version of it. The landscape is changing, slowly, but much more needs to be done. To quote the illustrious Gerard McDermott QC,

The Bar is changing and it’s up to us as a profession to help… those aspiring to be barristers”.


2 thoughts on “Raising the bar on diversity – A response to Zoe Saunders

  1. annap says:

    Extraordinary response to Zoe Saunders plus the original post is quite the truth of what I saw first hand of the legal profession in this country. Being a foreign attorney myself, highly qualified licensed overseas, holding a LL.M. and awarded recently my Ph.D. (in Philosophy of Law), I noticed with amusement on my job search in UK and then with frustration that I would be better off back in NY, USA that mature women tend to be renegated to few choices for their legal career. The USA legal market is highly competitive but attorneys are not profiled on their personal choices. I myself opted to get my degrees and then make a move back to my legal career at mature age, unfortunately (for me) in the UK jurisdiction. Just to make a comparison with locals, we – foreign attorneys – are supposed to take the Bar again here (more so if you are from outside the Continental Europe and licensed in a civil law jurisdiction), although one could put evidence of expertise in the Anglo-Saxon legal system for the UK Bar appreciation for a sum of pounds. A form of economic exclusion to those that dare to choose another jurisdiction, perhaps due to personal reasons, and perhaps worse off than others to account for the time out of the legal profession. Gender is still much accountable for males to succeed on their careers but most so on the legal career. Recently I was surprised to read at The Wall Street Journal blog, a survey conducted by Felice Batlan that female partners are harder to work for according to legal secretaries, who gave their opinion on gender preference. One of the reasons given was that female partners have to prove themselves more often than male partners so that they stay at the top. Here is the link – http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/10/24/legal-secretaries-really-prefer-working-with-male-attorneys-survey-finds/

    I reckon there is little to change in a legal society that adopts the career lifestyle for few. NY is a market that attracts more foreign lawyers than ever and it is not because of the NY Bar only price (it is pricey), but because if you dare to be different but is talented – you have plenty of legal opportunities.

    I shall suggest to you, in case you are considering options to this loophole to look out for American firms in the City, and let alone the barristers and their wigs.

  2. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s