Whats up with the lack of Guys and POC in AC's?

[Dheepa]

I'd be interested to see where you're getting the "very high" numbers for this. I can confidently say that most cohorts in most city firms are predominantly White, even if you group every single person of colour and grouped them up. It's also quite lovely to see an asymmetric view taken towards scrutinising BAME/POC candidates, without really doing the same for wealthier White counterparts. If anything is abundantly clear, socioeconomic issues are a very, very big factor. But people are too quick to frame it as a Wealthy BAME/POC vs White Working Class issue, when this is not helpful and only divisive.

I don't know how anyone can say that "very little affirmative action" is required for even those groups, when you can quite literally see law firm reports showing abysmal retention of BAME lawyers at the more senior levels (and we're not even talking about partnership). Would you maintain the same position for women? Even with more overt gender parity quotas, there's still only 15-20% representation at senior levels. It's almost like you're suggesting there is even any substantive (or overtly compensating) affirmative action in place for BAME/POC lawyers (please show me).

My key point on this is that it's good to look at recruiting drives that look diverse. It paints a wonderful picture if you're an optimist. But the picture is really only a lot more complete (and a lot uglier) when you look at actual fee earner representation statistics. Representation in the actual industry is incredibly far from the optics that future trainees and aspiring lawyers see.

I'd also be remiss to not drop a comment about the wealth gap between BAME vs White ethnic groups (and within the BAME term itself, the difference in average socio-economic statuses).

Lastly, just to add a comment on this: "White working-class individuals are the most marginalised and neglected group in the country" - I'm disappointed to see this rhetoric here (and even more so to see it so uncritically supported). As other comments have pointed out, it's a very intersectional topic. But if you're comparing the opportunities of being White + Male, despite being "working class", versus your Black counterparts who are also "working class", you'll see how there are privileges afford to the White Male that allows them to "succeed" (I use the term loosely given the more damning circumstances of being in a poverty-stricken context has over racial and gender 'perks') over their Black counterparts: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12512

Hi,

You’re right. My statement on the “very high” numbers doesn’t have facts to back it up and is merely a personal observation from the number of BAME international students I see who do get recruited (myself included). I apologise for that generalisation.

I actually wasn’t being asymmetrical in my view at all. In fact I specifically said white or BAME working class individuals. Both generally don’t have the same access to wealth, education and other resources that their wealthier counterparts of the same race/ethnicity do. I don’t think it’s wrong to say more needs to be done for them comparatively. Hyper aware that the success I have achieved as a BAME candidate is in no small part due to the education and wealth I have been privileged enough to receive. My point was that more needs to be done for people (BAME and white - caveat that I do agree with you on the structural privileges a white male benefits from as compared to a black male from poverty/a low socioeconomic background) who don’t benefit from the same and that I don’t think enough is done. Horribly phrased to say very little needs to be done for the wealthier counterparts I agree.

If you read the comments I made earlier in this thread you’ll find that I agree with you wholeheartedly on the lack of senior BAME representation, the fact that firms need to do more for BAME groups (never suggested or even implied that firms are compensating or even that what firms do now is substantial), and on the difference in socio-economic status between BAME groups themselves.

 

[Andrew M]

I'd be interested to see where you're getting the "very high" numbers for this. I can confidently say that most cohorts in most city firms are predominantly White, even if you group every single person of colour and grouped them up. It's also quite lovely to see an asymmetric view taken towards scrutinising BAME/POC candidates, without really doing the same for wealthier White counterparts. If anything is abundantly clear, socioeconomic issues are a very, very big factor. But people are too quick to frame it as a Wealthy BAME/POC vs White Working Class issue, when this is not helpful and only divisive.

I don't know how anyone can say that "very little affirmative action" is required for even those groups, when you can quite literally see law firm reports showing abysmal retention of BAME lawyers at the more senior levels (and we're not even talking about partnership). Would you maintain the same position for women? Even with more overt gender parity quotas, there's still only 15-20% representation at senior levels. It's almost like you're suggesting there is even any substantive (or overtly compensating) affirmative action in place for BAME/POC lawyers (please show me).

My key point on this is that it's good to look at recruiting drives that look diverse. It paints a wonderful picture if you're an optimist. But the picture is really only a lot more complete (and a lot uglier) when you look at actual fee earner representation statistics. Representation in the actual industry is incredibly far from the optics that future trainees and aspiring lawyers see.

I'd also be remiss to not drop a comment about the wealth gap between BAME vs White ethnic groups (and within the BAME term itself, the difference in average socio-economic statuses).

Lastly, just to add a comment on this: "White working-class individuals are the most marginalised and neglected group in the country" - I'm disappointed to see this rhetoric here (and even more so to see it so uncritically supported). As other comments have pointed out, it's a very intersectional topic. But if you're comparing the opportunities of being White + Male, despite being "working class", versus your Black counterparts who are also "working class", you'll see how there are privileges afford to the White Male that allows them to "succeed" (I use the term loosely given the more damning circumstances of being in a poverty-stricken context has over racial and gender 'perks') over their Black counterparts: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12512

It sounds like you've misunderstood what has actually been said here, on my part anyway. I don't think anybody here has intended to frame this discussion as wealthy POC v white working class people. Although it seems like that is how yourself and Karinny have interpreted it. I apologise if I hadn't made myself clear.

My point was that firms need to do more to increase diversity among underrepresented lower socioeconomic economic groups - which absolutely includes ethnic minorities, given that ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to be live in poverty in this country than white people - than they are now.

 

[shadow-demon]

I'd be interested to see where you're getting the "very high" numbers for this. I can confidently say that most cohorts in most city firms are predominantly White, even if you group every single person of colour and grouped them up. It's also quite lovely to see an asymmetric view taken towards scrutinising BAME/POC candidates, without really doing the same for wealthier White counterparts. If anything is abundantly clear, socioeconomic issues are a very, very big factor. But people are too quick to frame it as a Wealthy BAME/POC vs White Working Class issue, when this is not helpful and only divisive.

I don't know how anyone can say that "very little affirmative action" is required for even those groups, when you can quite literally see law firm reports showing abysmal retention of BAME lawyers at the more senior levels (and we're not even talking about partnership). Would you maintain the same position for women? Even with more overt gender parity quotas, there's still only 15-20% representation at senior levels. It's almost like you're suggesting there is even any substantive (or overtly compensating) affirmative action in place for BAME/POC lawyers (please show me).

My key point on this is that it's good to look at recruiting drives that look diverse. It paints a wonderful picture if you're an optimist. But the picture is really only a lot more complete (and a lot uglier) when you look at actual fee earner representation statistics. Representation in the actual industry is incredibly far from the optics that future trainees and aspiring lawyers see.

I'd also be remiss to not drop a comment about the wealth gap between BAME vs White ethnic groups (and within the BAME term itself, the difference in average socio-economic statuses).

Lastly, just to add a comment on this: "White working-class individuals are the most marginalised and neglected group in the country" - I'm disappointed to see this rhetoric here (and even more so to see it so uncritically supported). As other comments have pointed out, it's a very intersectional topic. But if you're comparing the opportunities of being White + Male, despite being "working class", versus your Black counterparts who are also "working class", you'll see how there are privileges afford to the White Male that allows them to "succeed" (I use the term loosely given the more damning circumstances of being in a poverty-stricken context has over racial and gender 'perks') over their Black counterparts: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.12512

I think you are missing the point I and some others have made. The firms that do recruit ethnic minorities, those individuals are generally from very privileged backgrounds. I know many US law firm cohorts that recruit "BAME" candidates who have gone to the very best private schools and come from extremely wealthy backgrounds. By recruiting these individuals, this doesn't solve the wider socio-economic class issues at play.

I would go as far to say that a lot has already been done to support "BAME" individuals to enter the profession. What firms need to focus on is retaining the talent, which is the current main issue firms are trying to address. Just a quick Google search will show you the amount of "BAME" initiatives that are now in place. However, retaining that talent is a whole other issue that firms are starting to take quite seriously. In addition, firms need to focus on hiring those from poorer social economic backgrounds, not just privileged "BAME" candidates.

Thank you for stating the obvious about the wealth gap. I am not going to waste any time even discussing it, because you are just putting words in my mouth and misunderstanding the discussion. It is very frustrating that you and others are putting words in my mouth. I never said for one minute that one issue should be prioritised over another. I just said more needs to be done by firms to address class issues.

AGAIN, I am an ethnic minority from a poorer socio-economic background, please do not talk to me as if I have not experienced first hand many of these issues. It is highly insulting and exhausting.

These issues are hard to discuss online, as there seems to be misunderstandings from all involved, specifically you and "karinny". I will not partake any further in this topic, as I do not believe it is productive, and I am getting tired of words being put in my mouth when people above have perfectly understood and further explained what I meant.

If you are going to continue this debate, please carefully read the comments above before inventing random points and arguments which have nothing to do with the points and issues that have been raised and debated already.

 

[Jessica Booker]

We want this debate to continue and we think it is important for this matter to be discussed.

However, please can everyone refrain from making this personal.

A post can be written with one intention and completely interpreted with another.

We can disagree with each other’s points without personal attacks or suggesting people shouldn’t contribute.

The key about diversity and inclusion is we all have different experiences that shape our thinking. We won’t learn from one another and therefore improve the situation, if we aren’t willing to listen to those different views.

 

[Romiras]

I think you are missing the point I and some others have made. The firms that do recruit ethnic minorities, those individuals are generally from very privileged backgrounds. I know many US law firm cohorts that recruit "BAME" candidates who have gone to the very best private schools and come from extremely wealthy backgrounds. By recruiting these individuals, this doesn't solve the wider social economic and class issues at play.

I would go as far to say that a lot has already been done to support "BAME" individuals to enter the profession. What firms need to focus on is retaining the talent, which is the current main issue firms are trying to address. Just a quick Google search will show you the amount of "BAME" initiatives that are now in place. However, retaining that talent is a whole other issue that firms are starting to take quite seriously. In addition, firms need to focus on hiring those from poorer social economic backgrounds, not just privileged "BAME" individuals.

Thank you for stating the obvious about the wealth gap. I am not going to waste any time even discussing it.

It is very frustrating that you and others are putting words in my mouth. I never said for one minute that one issue should be prioritised over another. I just said more needs to be done by firms to address class issues.

AGAIN, I am an ethnic minority from a poorer social economic background, please do not talk to me as if I have not first hand experienced many of these issues. It is highly insulting and exhausting.

These issues are hard to discuss online as there seems to be misunderstandings from all involved. I will not partake any further in this topic as I do not believe it is productive and I am getting tired of words being put in my mouth when people above have perfectly understood and further explained what I meant.

Don't worry about me missing anything - I am fairly confident that I understand what's being said.

I will briefly address a few things that are blatantly missing thoughtfulness though:

1. US Firms (and others) can recruit candidates (BAME or not, wealthy or not) because they're good candidates. In fact, I reckon that's their primary criteria, and any access scheme that they may run relates to what's on the tin - access. It's still merit driven. What are you even trying to say when you say this: "By recruiting these individuals, this doesn't solve the wider social economic and class issues at play."? I didn't know that firms recruited BAME candidates to solve social economic and class issues. It definitely can't be because they're also legitimately strong candidates, much like their White, Male or Female, Wealthy or Not, counterparts.

There are no firms that currently run a BAME, Gender or otherwise focused vacation scheme or training contract. You quite literally make it sound like they're doing so, at the expense of better (merit wise) candidates.

2. I didn't address you - I'm not sure why you're being on the defensive here. With respect to how you view your posts and what they portray - I think your summary is disingenuous. Statements like: "I really do think firms and people in general need to get away from this "BAME" focus of recruitment. Ethnicity is not the problem. Social and economic background is the real issue here. By hiring "BAME" candidates that have gone to private school and come from wealthy backgrounds, it does not solve the issue, and if anything, makes the problem worse." quite literally say that you believe "ethnicity is not a problem". You do know that if you google "BAME initiatives", you will get hits related to BAME initiatives. I suggest you type in "Social Mobility Initiatives", "LGBTQ+ initiatives", "Gender Parity initiatives", etc. They exist, and co-exist. There's a reason why many firms run multiple of these schemes, and focus on particular issues, because they're difficult to approach in a one-size fits all way. Yet, you've clearly missed the point on that.

3. I am glad that you, stating that you are a disadvantaged ethnic minority, makes you an authority figure on what is actually happening with legal recruitment and intersectional representation in the legal industry. I can only hope that your googling is as diverse as your profile (such that you can see that social mobility is indeed a very big thing currently).

 

[Jessica Booker]

If you disagree with something, try taking the high ground and educate people on why you have a different view.

Patronising language or sly digs aren't really going to bring people around to your way of thinking, and only really undermine you and the points you make.

 

[summer207]

I really do think firms and people in general need to get away from this "BAME" focus of recruitment. Ethnicity is not the problem. Social and economic background is the real issue here. By hiring "BAME" candidates that have gone to private school and come from wealthy backgrounds, it does not solve the issue, and if anything, makes the problem worse.

White working-class individuals are the most marginalised and neglected group in the country. It is time we move away from this woke culture of "BAME" and focus on recruiting and retaining talent from those that come from poor social and economic backgrounds.

I see too many firms these days recruiting private school Oxbridge wealthy "BAME" candidates who jump on the bandwagon of “BAME”, which is not diversity in my opinion. More needs to be done to support those from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds, which also includes white candidates, not just “BAME” candidates.

Just for your info I do come from a minority ethnic background but I do not agree with the way the firms are dealing with these issues.

I understand that focusing aspects of recruitment on people of a lower socioeconomic background is very important but I need to point out some issues with what you’ve said. This is not an attack in any way but hopefully, it helps you understand:

“Ethnicity is not the problem. Social and economic background is the real issue” - what does this mean? If your concern is socioeconomic backgrounds, it is evident that that’s your specific focus and definitely does not account for diversity as a whole. I’m not particularly sure how hiring black, etc, candidates from a higher socioeconomic background is making “the problem” worse. Is there a lack of representation for lower socioeconomic backgrounds regardless of ethnicity? Yes. But you can’t identify that as being the only issue when diversity is multi-dimensional. There’s many issues to address from socioeconomic backgrounds to those with neurodiverse conditions as well as disabilities. It really isn’t a game of ‘who has it worse?’.

“... I do not agree with the way the firms are dealing with these issues”. What is the issue? There’s isn’t only one. If the issue is a lack of representation of black people in a firm and that firm starts to make an effort to recruit and retain black talent, then they are dealing with that specific issue. If the issue is a lack of representation of people from socioeconomic backgrounds and the firm hasn’t done enough? Then they need to focus on that also. I’m just not sure how you concluded that doing something else for another issue is making another issue worse, when the actual concern should be not enough has been done for the latter issue.

I’ve had conversations with associates who’ve worked in firms that didn’t create a conducive working environment for people of black heritage. If that firm was doing more for people of south Asian heritage, I’m not going to say that it is making the initial issue worse. So, if your concern is that the recruitment processes of firms should be doing more for people from a lower socioeconomic background, then make that point without somehow trying to insinuate that recruiting black and other ethnic minorities has somehow “made it worse”. Just to end, oppression in different forms is not some sort of competition. There’s still a lot to be done in different strands of diversity and inclusion, some law firms have done more for some issues than others, some haven’t done enough for any.

Hopefully, that helps you understand.

 

[shadow-demon]

I understand that focusing aspects of recruitment on people of a lower socioeconomic background is very important but I need to point out some issues with what you’ve said. This is not an attack in any way but hopefully, it helps you understand:

“Ethnicity is not the problem. Social and economic background is the real issue” - what does this mean? If your concern is socioeconomic backgrounds, it is evident that that’s your specific focus and definitely does not account for diversity as a whole. I’m not particularly sure how hiring black, etc, candidates from a higher socioeconomic background is making “the problem” worse. Is there a lack of representation for lower socioeconomic backgrounds regardless of ethnicity? Yes. But you can’t identify that as being the only issue when diversity is multi-dimensional. There’s many issues to address from socioeconomic backgrounds to those with neurodiverse conditions as well as disabilities. It really isn’t a game of ‘who has it worse?’.

“... I do not agree with the way the firms are dealing with these issues”. What is the issue? There’s isn’t only one. If the issue is a lack of representation of black people in a firm and that firm starts to make an effort to recruit and retain black talent, then they are dealing with that specific issue. If the issue is a lack of representation of people from socioeconomic backgrounds and the firm hasn’t done enough? Then they need to focus on that also. I’m just not sure how you concluded that doing something else for another issue is making another issue worse, when the actual concern should be not enough has been done for the latter issue.

I’ve had conversations with associates who’ve worked in firms that didn’t create a conducive working environment for people of black heritage. If that firm was doing more for people of south Asian heritage, I’m not going to say that it is making the initial issue worse. So, if your concern is that the recruitment processes of firms should be doing more for people from a lower socioeconomic background, then make that point without somehow trying to insinuate that recruiting black and other ethnic minorities has somehow “made it worse”. Just to end, oppression in different forms is not some sort of competition. There’s still a lot to be done in different strands of diversity and inclusion, some law firms have done more for some issues than others, some haven’t done enough for any.

Hopefully, that helps you understand.

I think what has happened is that I may not have communicated what I had meant properly, and perhaps should have chosen my words more carefully.

Ethnicity and socioeconomic issues are both fundamental issues. I did not mean to suggest that one is more important than the other. Although I can appreciate how this may have been interpreted, given my poor choice of words.

As you, and many others, have rightly pointed out, diversity is a multi-faceted and complex topic. I think what I was trying to say was that in my opinion, more needs to be done to support those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds, as I do not believe enough is being done to support those coming from such backgrounds to enter the profession. I did not mean to suggest socio-economic issues are more important than ethnicity or other diversity issues.

I am by no means an expert, nor am I speaking for the experiences for all "BAME" or those that come from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. I never meant to insinuate that it is some "competition" between the diversity issues. I just think that firms need to start doing more for people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. That was my main point, and I will be sticking to it.

I can see that I have not fully explained what I meant by bringing up ethnicity and socio-economic issues together. I will therefore do some further research so that I can better explain what I meant as I feel the way I communicated myself prior is not reflective of what I was trying to say and how it has been interpreted by some of you on this thread.

Thank you for respectfully responding. I appreciate your comments, and they did allow me to reflect and respond appropriately.

 

[DonnieDarko]

I haven’t attended any virtual VC/AC but did them in person. In my experience, it is based on the firm’s needs in parallel with what the sector seems important. So if a firm lacks gender parity, this may be reflected in the future trainees they seek to hire. Same for gender/sexuality.

As an aside, I wonder what why the OP felt uncomfortable as the only man in those groups? Ironically, it is often the inverse where women/people of colour are often the only one in the room.

 

[kokothemagicdragon]

Wanted to add to this thread something I wrote last year for a speech competition, FYI I am a male international student, 5 nationalities (would not consider myself BAME (make of the term what you like) but I am ethnically/religiously/linguistically diverse).

How do you feel the commercial legal industry has evolved in the last 10 years regarding BAME representation? And What do you feel FIRM NAME can do to attract black talent into the industry? Feel free to discuss initiatives the firm has already implemented.

Hello, my name is Kokothemagicdragon. I’m a second year Law with French Law student with COUNTRY, COUNTRY 2, and COUNTRY 3 origins educated in international schools. Even though I do not represent the “Black, Asian and Ethnic Minorities” category, I believe that I can offer a new voice, perspective and maybe even opinion on the commercial legal industry’s evolution regarding BAME representation, the issue’s significance on all legal workers regardless of identity and how rectifying this issue would positively help commercial law firms in both diversity and business perspectives. In this short speech, I will first speak on the issue of diversity and inclusion at commercial law firms and how data gathered by the Solicitors Regulation Authority mirrors the lack of change. I will then speak on the initiatives FIRM NAME has implemented to attract black talent and potential schemes FIRM NAME could further implement.

Large commercial firms accommodate rich and influential clients, while often overlooking those who need the law the most. Those are the people who are fighting for justice, fairness, and the supposedly inalienable right to equality. This inequality parallels the Black, Asian, and Ethnic Minority representation not only at senior roles in law firms, but also on a general scale. Although I believe that I am far from understanding the nature by which large law firms operate, and have not had to deal with the systematic racism and uphill battles Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority individuals fight in the legal environment, I do believe as a privileged white male who might hopefully one day integrate the legal field that I have a duty both to myself and others to try to find and implement solutions that combat the root of racial inequality in the commercial legal industry.

As with any problem, the first step to identifying a potential solution to the serious lack of BAME representation in the commercial legal industry is to look at its current state. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has routinely released statistics regarding diversity in all categories. In 2017, the SRA released data it collected from over 180,000 people working at 9,000 firms, this data set represented just over 70% of solicitors who hold a practising degree. It determined that the proportion of BAME solicitors increased by over 7%, from 14% to 21% since the SRA’s first data set collected in 2014. While these figures indicate an overall upward trend in diversity and inclusion, they do not accurately paint the commercial legal industry and its evolution during the last decade. The 7% increase is mainly due to the 5% increase in Asian lawyers over the three year span, while Black lawyers on the other hand only increased by 2% from a laughable 1% to a measly 3%. Moreover, the representation is skewed towards criminal and private work with BAME representation being 33 and 37% respectively. In firms operating within a mixed range of sectors and those in corporate law, the representation is lowest at around 12 and 19%. This highlights the commercial legal industry’s lack of inclusion and the statistic that a 1% increase from 7 to 8% of partners at law firms with 50 plus partners, being BAME proves that even cases where BAME lawyers incorporate a law firm, career mobility is limited for them.

So, the data suggests there is an issue with the access to legal employment and one of upward mobility for BAME.

As I previously disclaimed, I naturally don’t know how law firms truly operate both in hiring and promoting lawyers, but the statistics do create a feeling of injustice in me. This disappointment amplified when looking at the SRA’s 2020 statistics, the overall proportions have not changed, and the proportion of BAME lawyers working in corporate law have actually fallen to 15%. Although one can and the SRA has argued that statistics such as these are gathered from huge data sets and therefore require a long time to change, I believe that in western societies that are increasingly polarized and fractured due to racial and ethnic tensions, that with events such as George Floyd’s murder, BLM, Charlottesville Protests, and consequent protests, that all firms would do more.

Perhaps it is too optimistic of me to have regarded these events as sure-fire catalysts for larger BAME diversity and inclusion in commercial law firms, but it is undeniable on the work environment and business plans that diversity and inclusion are positive. Not only does it help those from BAME backgrounds to better integrate and be supported by the firms, but it also aids those who are already in the firm to become more knowledgeable. Knowledge is power, and the commercial legal industry is as much a legal enterprise as it is a customer service job. And having the opportunity to be continuously surrounded by people with different cultures, identities, histories, communities, and values makes one more human, more understanding and perhaps, more empathetic, but in any case, more effective.

Furthermore, an often overlooked aspect which diversity and inclusion carries is the help it brings to the ever growing customer diversity which commercial law firms experience. Our world is globalising, and the need to understand and properly communicate and operate with a variety of international and national businesses is central to commercial law and can only be fostered by a company which promotes diversity and inclusion. Overall, the commercial legal industry has not evolved sufficiently in the past 10 years and having larger BAME representation not only could help cut cognitive biases and wrong judgments and conclusions, but it could lead to better service to the diverse range of corporate customers of law firms.

Having determined that the commercial legal sector is lagging in BAME diversity and inclusion and having spoken on the various benefits which tackling this problem could bring, I’d like to focus on black talent. Black people, unlike Asian people who are statistically overrepresented in law firms, are represented in line with their representation in the overall workforce and population. This however does not mean that all black talent is being employed nor attracted in the legal sector. I believe that FIRM NAME’ inclusion of Rare Recruitment’s Contextual Recruitment System and work with Bright Network is a clearly positive and proven method to promote and support black talent. Moreover, “the inclusion of a new religious and cultural events calendar and increase of the frequency of internal cultural events at the firm; and implementing a BAME reverse mentoring programme facilitated by Afua Hirsch” along with the work with an “external BAME solicitor and career coach to deliver an initiative for all of our BAME solicitors” means that black talent will be able not only to feel included, but to be included. It is a two way road being given the opportunity to understand and being understood.

The attraction of black talent is not a numbers game, the investing in the talent is far more important. If a commercial law firm hires many black lawyers but doesn’t invest in them, give them client facing roles, nor aid their career mobility, it is simply a method to provide statistics that look good on paper. If FIRM NAME however works and mentors the black talent which it employs as it states on its website, then it truly has a chance of rectifying a major issue. I also believe that implementing these mentoring programs at a university and even already at a secondary school level could help black talent not only with the various routes towards working in the industry, possibly even at FIRM NAME but also show why FIRM NAME is different and deserves to be “named as a top 10 outstanding employer for investing in ethnicity”.

I really believe that investing in inclusive opportunities and programmes like FIRM NAME does is important because it opens doors to BAME talent who otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity, adds to a collective and humane work environment, improves the work the firm produces, and is line with FIRM NAME culture.

 

[CorpLawyer00]

Wanted to add to this thread something I wrote last year for a speech competition, FYI I am a male international student, 5 nationalities (would not consider myself BAME (make of the term what you like) but I am ethnically/religiously/linguistically diverse).

How do you feel the commercial legal industry has evolved in the last 10 years regarding BAME representation? And What do you feel FIRM NAME can do to attract black talent into the industry? Feel free to discuss initiatives the firm has already implemented.

Hello, my name is Kokothemagicdragon. I’m a second year Law with French Law student with COUNTRY, COUNTRY 2, and COUNTRY 3 origins educated in international schools. Even though I do not represent the “Black, Asian and Ethnic Minorities” category, I believe that I can offer a new voice, perspective and maybe even opinion on the commercial legal industry’s evolution regarding BAME representation, the issue’s significance on all legal workers regardless of identity and how rectifying this issue would positively help commercial law firms in both diversity and business perspectives. In this short speech, I will first speak on the issue of diversity and inclusion at commercial law firms and how data gathered by the Solicitors Regulation Authority mirrors the lack of change. I will then speak on the initiatives FIRM NAME has implemented to attract black talent and potential schemes FIRM NAME could further implement.

Large commercial firms accommodate rich and influential clients, while often overlooking those who need the law the most. Those are the people who are fighting for justice, fairness, and the supposedly inalienable right to equality. This inequality parallels the Black, Asian, and Ethnic Minority representation not only at senior roles in law firms, but also on a general scale. Although I believe that I am far from understanding the nature by which large law firms operate, and have not had to deal with the systematic racism and uphill battles Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority individuals fight in the legal environment, I do believe as a privileged white male who might hopefully one day integrate the legal field that I have a duty both to myself and others to try to find and implement solutions that combat the root of racial inequality in the commercial legal industry.

As with any problem, the first step to identifying a potential solution to the serious lack of BAME representation in the commercial legal industry is to look at its current state. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has routinely released statistics regarding diversity in all categories. In 2017, the SRA released data it collected from over 180,000 people working at 9,000 firms, this data set represented just over 70% of solicitors who hold a practising degree. It determined that the proportion of BAME solicitors increased by over 7%, from 14% to 21% since the SRA’s first data set collected in 2014. While these figures indicate an overall upward trend in diversity and inclusion, they do not accurately paint the commercial legal industry and its evolution during the last decade. The 7% increase is mainly due to the 5% increase in Asian lawyers over the three year span, while Black lawyers on the other hand only increased by 2% from a laughable 1% to a measly 3%. Moreover, the representation is skewed towards criminal and private work with BAME representation being 33 and 37% respectively. In firms operating within a mixed range of sectors and those in corporate law, the representation is lowest at around 12 and 19%. This highlights the commercial legal industry’s lack of inclusion and the statistic that a 1% increase from 7 to 8% of partners at law firms with 50 plus partners, being BAME proves that even cases where BAME lawyers incorporate a law firm, career mobility is limited for them.

So, the data suggests there is an issue with the access to legal employment and one of upward mobility for BAME.

As I previously disclaimed, I naturally don’t know how law firms truly operate both in hiring and promoting lawyers, but the statistics do create a feeling of injustice in me. This disappointment amplified when looking at the SRA’s 2020 statistics, the overall proportions have not changed, and the proportion of BAME lawyers working in corporate law have actually fallen to 15%. Although one can and the SRA has argued that statistics such as these are gathered from huge data sets and therefore require a long time to change, I believe that in western societies that are increasingly polarized and fractured due to racial and ethnic tensions, that with events such as George Floyd’s murder, BLM, Charlottesville Protests, and consequent protests, that all firms would do more.

Perhaps it is too optimistic of me to have regarded these events as sure-fire catalysts for larger BAME diversity and inclusion in commercial law firms, but it is undeniable on the work environment and business plans that diversity and inclusion are positive. Not only does it help those from BAME backgrounds to better integrate and be supported by the firms, but it also aids those who are already in the firm to become more knowledgeable. Knowledge is power, and the commercial legal industry is as much a legal enterprise as it is a customer service job. And having the opportunity to be continuously surrounded by people with different cultures, identities, histories, communities, and values makes one more human, more understanding and perhaps, more empathetic, but in any case, more effective.

Furthermore, an often overlooked aspect which diversity and inclusion carries is the help it brings to the ever growing customer diversity which commercial law firms experience. Our world is globalising, and the need to understand and properly communicate and operate with a variety of international and national businesses is central to commercial law and can only be fostered by a company which promotes diversity and inclusion. Overall, the commercial legal industry has not evolved sufficiently in the past 10 years and having larger BAME representation not only could help cut cognitive biases and wrong judgments and conclusions, but it could lead to better service to the diverse range of corporate customers of law firms.

Having determined that the commercial legal sector is lagging in BAME diversity and inclusion and having spoken on the various benefits which tackling this problem could bring, I’d like to focus on black talent. Black people, unlike Asian people who are statistically overrepresented in law firms, are represented in line with their representation in the overall workforce and population. This however does not mean that all black talent is being employed nor attracted in the legal sector. I believe that FIRM NAME’ inclusion of Rare Recruitment’s Contextual Recruitment System and work with Bright Network is a clearly positive and proven method to promote and support black talent. Moreover, “the inclusion of a new religious and cultural events calendar and increase of the frequency of internal cultural events at the firm; and implementing a BAME reverse mentoring programme facilitated by Afua Hirsch” along with the work with an “external BAME solicitor and career coach to deliver an initiative for all of our BAME solicitors” means that black talent will be able not only to feel included, but to be included. It is a two way road being given the opportunity to understand and being understood.

The attraction of black talent is not a numbers game, the investing in the talent is far more important. If a commercial law firm hires many black lawyers but doesn’t invest in them, give them client facing roles, nor aid their career mobility, it is simply a method to provide statistics that look good on paper. If FIRM NAME however works and mentors the black talent which it employs as it states on its website, then it truly has a chance of rectifying a major issue. I also believe that implementing these mentoring programs at a university and even already at a secondary school level could help black talent not only with the various routes towards working in the industry, possibly even at FIRM NAME but also show why FIRM NAME is different and deserves to be “named as a top 10 outstanding employer for investing in ethnicity”.

I really believe that investing in inclusive opportunities and programmes like FIRM NAME does is important because it opens doors to BAME talent who otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity, adds to a collective and humane work environment, improves the work the firm produces, and is line with FIRM NAME culture.

I hope this is not too off topic but to add to this, it does not seem much better WITHIN the actual profession.

https://www.ft.com/content/79084bf2-4b93-48fa-9d1d-ea5b482f04ac - law firms lose 4x as many black lawyers as other ethnicities. "Half the black lawyers who qualified in 2016 have since left" I wrote a paper on this last year for uni

 

[kokothemagicdragon]

I hope this is not too off topic but to add to this, it does not seem much better WITHIN the actual profession.

https://www.ft.com/content/79084bf2-4b93-48fa-9d1d-ea5b482f04ac - law firms lose 4x as many black lawyers as other ethnicities. "Half the black lawyers who qualified in 2016 have since left" I wrote a paper on this last year for uni

That's actually really interesting, showcases the difference between attraction vs retention of individuals. I'm quite certain that an interesting study could be done comparing total black TC hires vs black lawyers leaving. Might even point out the negative effect of BAME efforts since they create a facade which is quickly destroyed when joining the firm full time :/

 

[CorpLawyer00]

That's actually really interesting, showcases the difference between attraction vs retention of individuals. I'm quite certain that an interesting study could be done comparing total black TC hires vs black lawyers leaving. Might even point out the negative effect of BAME efforts since they create a facade which is quickly destroyed when joining the firm full time :/

Indeed, I think its impossible to pinpoint exactly what is causing the attrition without a huge study but I would not be surprised if some of it was attributed to the initial facade that firms put on.