Happy New Year to all our subscribers!
The team here at LNTV HQ would like to take this opportunity to congratulate LNTV Expert Panel Member for the Family channel, Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE (@lawabduction), a partner at London firm Dawson Cornwell (@Dawson-Cornwell), on being made honorary Queen’s Counsel.
Well deserved, and a great start to 2016!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queens-counsel-in-england-wales-2015-to-2016
http://www.dawsoncornwell.com/en/about_amh.html
Here at LNTV HQ we are starting to work our last few days before closing the doors on another great year, which saw us deliver 78 excellent continuing professional development/executive education television programmes to hundreds of subscribers, interview more that 150 legal experts including Mr Justice Coulson, upload our programme highlights to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmxZF_16AYBqklYdMeDqybw), continue to engage with our subscribers on Twitter (@LegalNetworkTV), and welcome two new Writer/Presenters to the LNTV family.
We return refreshed on 4th January, already excited at the plans we have for 2016.
So a big thank you to all our subscribers, readers, and followers – it’s been a great year, and we can’t wait to follow it up with an even better one.
Wishing you the very best for the holiday season, and we hope 2016 brings you everything you hope for.
From all at LNTV HQ.
We were recently lucky enough to have Lucy Greenwood, a partner with the International Family Law Group, in the studio to share her knowledge and expertise of marital agreements (http://www.iflg.uk.com/portfolio/lucy-greenwood). Lucy is also a member of our Legal Expert Panel for the Family channel, and we are delighted to have her on board, feeding in ideas for future Family channel topics for continuing professional development (http://www.lawcolmedia.com/%5Cfamily.aspx). Lucy actually suggested we make this programme!
Here is a sneak peak of the on-camera interview we conducted with Lucy, ahead of the programme’s release on 25th January:
Interviewer: How best can a marital agreement address the issues of needs and fairness?
Lucy Greenwood: Well, this is the very difficult question that we face with every pre-marriage agreement. For example, it’s commonplace to treat the marital home a little bit differently from any other assets, even if there has been some pre-acquired money going into that property. You’ve basically got to consider – at each stage of the marriage – is the person that’s leaving the marriage without as much money going to be able to meet their needs? So obviously they’re going to have to have somewhere to live. What is deemed reasonable for their needs – and when we hear the phrase ‘real needs’ which is another phrase about a discretionary test for needs – it’s very hard to assess. So you look at the standard of living to some extent and you consider what a court would do if it were looking at the scenario without a pre-marriage agreement, and because it’s a compromise you would look to see what the lower end of that bracket that the court award would comprise. And it’s those sorts of weighing up kind of decisions that you have to make, and there is no right or wrong answer. But if you don’t meet needs it’s pretty clear from the case law that there’s a great risk that the court will still intervene either partially or totally in the agreement. But it mustn’t be forgotten that even if it does intervene, because you’ve got this agreement, it’s likely to calibrate the award that is made. And so they are still very useful tools even today.
Interviewer: What common misconceptions do you find clients have in relation to foreign marital agreements or the enforceability and other jurisdictions of agreements entered into here?
Lucy Greenwood: Well, this is a very common myth. For a start, many people think that they could only divorce in the country they married, which is obviously not true. And similarly, they forget that it’s not actually where you enter into the marital agreement that counts, it’s where you are if and when the marriage breaks down. And so what we tend to do is we will address which country somebody is most likely to live in and get advice from those countries as to what their rights would be. We have very many situations where clients will come into the office and say ‘it’s alright, we’ve got a community of property or we’ve got a separation of assets, property categorisation, property regime in a European country, so they can’t touch my assets on…’. And we say unfortunately it doesn’t work like that in England, it’s nothing but a factor. It’s just one of the many section 25 factors that we have to look at. And, of course, depending on the weight and the understanding and the disclosure and all of the fairness aspects around the creation of that agreement the court may or may not abide by that agreement, but many have a real shock when they come in and find that it didn’t really mean as much as they thought it did. There’s also the issue of Brussels II legislation, and first in time to issue, which can’t be usurped by a marital agreement. So this can have a very significant effect. So even if you’ve got a marital agreement in a particular country if you don’t get first in time when it comes to issuing a divorce procedure there’s still a risk that another country, like England, might be looking at your French marriage agreement. And, of course, there’s the maintenance regulation, and if you’ve got maintenance aspects in the pre-marital agreement, spousal maintenance I’m talking about, not child maintenance, but if you’ve got a spousal maintenance agreement there that’s a prior agreement and therefore you could find that different parts of the case are being dealt with in different parts of the world.
Interviewer: So what specific clauses should practitioners ensure that they draft into marital agreements where there’s a possibility that the couple may move abroad?
Lucy Greenwood: There are certainly no hard and fast rules in relation to this particular question. You really have to look at the scenario that you’re faced with. You need to consider whether you’re going to put in a sort of catch-all phrase to say that this agreement should be recognised around the world. That’s not going to be enough, but it gives an indication. You look at choice of law clauses and in relation to EU countries you can actually sometimes, if you’ve got a strong enough connection, actually choose the country’s laws which will apply to the pre-marriage agreement but, again, Brussels II can usurp that. So there is nothing easy about looking at jurisdictional aspects in marital agreements. And many people think that you can do one and it’s definitely going to be binding all round the world, it is not. You really have to tailor it to the countries that are most likely to be the countries in which the parties are living and consider the factors and the pros and the cons of choosing a jurisdiction, if that’s what you’re trying to do, over being silent on that issue.
Interviewer: And what particularly public policy or religious issues might need to be taken into account?
Lucy Greenwood: Well, this is quite interesting. Generally with pre-marriage agreements the consensus is that child maintenance should not be dealt with in a pre-marriage agreement or if it is it’s definitely something a court could review because it would be against public policy to bar the courts from doing that. But there are other more perhaps less obvious ones when you’re dealing with certain countries. So in countries, for example, like Singapore and Dubai where same sex marriages or even homosexual relations are not actually recognised or accepted or legal then you’re not going to be wanting to do an agreement or seek to uphold it in that country if it’s for a same sex couple. But there are others that are not so obvious. And, for example, adultery clauses are becoming something that’s been debated recently and some people are advocating where clients want to make a point that somebody should not benefit as much if they commit adultery, that should go into the agreement. But, again, be cautious with places like Dubai where adultery, again, is illegal and the implications for your potential client of even having that word or the court learning that they’re getting less because of it could have very major implications for that client. So it’s those sorts of factors, cultural factors, religious factors. You might want to cover, for example, dealing with the Get in the Jewish pre-marriage agreement so that it’s clear as to how that process is going to be undertaken. Just those sorts of things.
Until next time…
In June of this year we released programme 5909 in the Local Government channel: Non-delegable Duty of Care. Here’s a short clip from that programme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0syB_RUaHXQ
The programme looked at non-delegable duty of care in the tragic case of Annie Woodland, a ten year old Basildon schoolgirl who suffered hypoxic brain damage after diving into the deep end of a swimming pool during a school swimming lesson. The school did not have its own pool, and so had arranged for the swimming lessons to be carried out by a third party company. As a result of her accident Annie brought a claim against the school, the preliminary issue to be decided being whether or not a non-delegable duty of care was owed by the school to her. Mr Justice Langstaff rejected the claim on the basis that there was no non-delegable duty owed. She appealed to the Court of Appeal and her appeal was rejected, the majority holding that the most important factor was that the school did not have control over the swimming lesson and over the place where the accident had taken place. However the Supreme Court took a fresh look at the law and decided that a school does owe a non-delegable duty in respect of the care of its pupils. The swimming lessons were an integral part of the teaching function of the school and, in those circumstances, even though the school had delegated the performance of that duty to an independent company, which itself may have further delegated responsibility, either to employees or other sub-contractors, the duty remained that of the school and, therefore, if there was negligence on behalf of anybody who was involved in the delivery of that duty the school would retain responsibility.
Having established a non-delegable duty towards her, Annie went on to succeed in her civil claim based on the swimming teacher and lifeguard failing to properly supervise her, which caused a delay in her being spotted hanging in the water. The judge said that the swimming teacher and the lifeguard should have noticed that Annie was drowning sooner than they did, and their actions “…fell far below the standard of care reasonable to be expected of a teacher…“. Essex County Council would therefore be held liable for their negligence, however interesting an issue then arose as to whether it was just and equitable for the lifeguard (who was insured, whereas the swimming teacher was not) to indemnify the Council.
It was held that the swimming teacher was 2/3rds liable (she was in charge of the class) and the lifeguard was 1/3rd liable (she was on the opposite side of the pool to where the swimming lesson was being carried out). The Court therefore stated that the lifeguard’s insurers should contribute 1/3rd of the Council’s liability to the claimant. This amount is to be assessed at a later date (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/273.html)
Our programme also considered the case of NA v Nottinghamshire County Council (2015) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1139.html), which concerned a claim brought by Natasha Armes who was born in 1977 and spent various amounts of time in foster care and residential care during her teenage years. In connection with two particular periods of foster care, one for around one year, and one for around three/four months with Mr and Mrs B, Ms Armes alleged that she had suffered physical abuse at the hands of the foster carers and, in the case of Mr B, sexual abuse. In order to succeed in establishing liability for what had happened in these foster placements, which was the most serious part of the case in terms of harm, she alleged that the local authority was vicariously liable for foster carers, and her claim on that ground failed, but she also alleged that the local authority owed her a non-delegable duty of care so that when she was placed with independent contractor foster carers and those foster carers assaulted her, the local authority was automatically liable for that negligence. She also failed on this second issue.
The claimant then appealed against this decision, but the Court of Appeal have dismissed that appeal, and unanimously rejected the notion that local authorities could owe a non-delegable duty of care for foster parents. The Court said this would be contrary to public policy, as such a wide duty would effectively impose strict liability.
Until next time…
In response to just how popular last week’s post ‘Marketing Your Firm’ (https://lntvinsight.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/marketing-your-firm/) proved to be, we thought we’d follow it up with another further brief extract from that same forthcoming programme ‘Marketing your Firm’ in the Practice Management & Compliance channel. This time the extract comes from our interview with Ian Stephens, Managing Partner of Saffron Brand Consultants, who talked to us about branding (http://saffron-consultants.com/approach/ian-stephens/)
Interviewer: Talk us through how you go about creating a brand.
Ian Stephens: Well, at the heart of a brand process there are four steps, the first one is what we call discover, so that’s about market research, both understanding what your clients might want and do want. Understanding who you are, what you do, how you do it. So it’s basically the market research end of things. Second step is what we call define, so working out from all those possible things what actually is your strategy. So you define your brand strategy, what message you want to take out to the world. The third stage is design, and that doesn’t only mean visual identity, it means how do we design the service, the experience that we want our clients to have of this service? And then the last one, often the most difficult, is deploy, so how do we make that all happen in the real world as opposed to the PowerPoint presentations we’ve been working with up until now. So a four step process which can be done over weeks or months or even years, but at the heart of it you’re still following that four point process.
Interviewer: So what do you need to think about when assessing the market in which you operate and your role within it?
Ian Stephens: Well, the legal market is a very big and diverse and global market, so there are lots places to be in that market. So part of the research and the defined stage is very important to choose your territory, to choose your story. And there are three, there are three, if you like, overlapping circles, one is what do your clients need, because they’re actually going to pay for something they need, not just what you think they need, so ask them. Those things may be what you think they are, they may be something else. The second thing is what are you good at, and that’s not such a stupid question because you can’t be great at everything and there might be, for whatever reason, you’re particularly entrepreneurial or you’re particularly good at an area of law, you’re particularly good at a type of situation. And then the last one is what can other people do less well than you? And you’re not looking for something unique that nobody else can touch, but you’re looking for emphasis, so you’re trying to find things that clients genuinely do need and that you are, to some extent incredibly able to deliver, and then ideally something that not very many other people can do. Get all those three right and then you start to have a proposition as we might call it, that is quite valuable.
Interviewer: And once you’ve settled on your brand, how do you go about managing it?
Ian Stephens: Well, this is the really tough bit because, actually, defining a story is not so complicated as actually making that real, because a law firm of even 50 people, you’ve got 50 personalities to deal with, 50 human beings to deal with, a law firm of 10,000 people, you multiple that so many times. And so the big challenge in implementing your strategy is to actually deploy it with ruthless precision across all the touchpoints of what we call the client journey, how you manage that client experience at every single touchpoint so that it’s in line with your brand values, and that where things are not in line with those brand values you have to try to take steps to correct them.
We were recently lucky enough to have Sue Stapley, a solicitor and founder of reputation management firm Sue Stapley Consulting (http://www.suestapely.com/) in our studios to discuss how best to market your law firm. Here is a brief extract from that interview, which will be released in full as part of our programme ‘Marketing your Firm’ in the Practice Management & Compliance channel:
Interviewer: Now we all have occasions when we need to make a good impression in a short space of time. What exactly is a mini-pitch or an elevator speech as it’s sometimes known?
Sue Stapley: I think they are sort of interchangeable. My understanding – and I’m not an expert on succinctness – is that it is being able to explain – in one or two sentences at the most – precisely who you are or who the organisation you are representing is or what it does. The phrase ‘elevator pitch’ came from the Americans, of course, who said you should be able to describe your business in the time it takes to travel between floors in a lift or elevator. And the opportunities probably arise most often nowadays at receptions where, I don’t know about you, but I seem to spend probably far too much time standing with an empty glass in my hand in a crowded room talking about my business to other people. And one obviously wants them to remember what it was that one said in case, at some point in the future, they might find your services of use and need to be able to contact you. It is a very succinct statement of who you are and what you do, such that they can remember enough to come back to you if they want to.
Interviewer: So what do you think it should include?
Sue Stapley: The name, and if there’s anything that makes the name more memorable, use that. I’ve been criticised several times for being nothing like serious enough, but my own name is mis-spelt regularly and sometimes mispronounced, and I simply say if you think of shapely, Stapely will probably come to mind. It’s very arrogant but it works, they remember. And one sentence which you will probably need to actually physically write down and work on to get right until it trips off the tongue without your hesitating over it and without you being feeling embarrassed about it, but if you are a small niche practice that specialises in insurance claims then that’s how you want to be seen, and you would say ‘I’m with Seek, Grabbit and Run I’m in a small niche practice that specialises in insurance claims, we’re based in Norwich’. And that’s probably all that you want people to know. That’s enough for them to remember the name, you can make a joke of it if it’s a name that has some joke potential – to make it more memorable – they need to know where you’re placed and they need to know the sector of the business that you’re in.
Interviewer: Have you got any other tips for lawyers that might be thinking about putting together a pitch?
Sue Stapley: Just a few. I think the first and most important is make yourself impossible to dislike. Remember that the client or the potential client is making a choice about a person, a human being or a team of people. Secondly, never forget the support staff, even when you have to do the walk from the lift, which may be with the PA of the person who’s interviewing you, talk to them, be friendly, be nice, they may actually have a voice in the decision-making process so it’s worth being friendly to them as well. And the PA may be the one that’s making the appointments every time you go back into the building, and if she likes you and put in a good word for you it could be helpful. Another quick one is never forget to rehearse your presentation. Just because you’re skilful lawyers and expert in your field – and I would hope you all are – don’t assume that you can do a pitch without rehearsing. Actually put yourselves in the room, get some colleagues to role play the potential client and grill you, and make sure that you go through it clearly so that you know who’s going to say what at what point in the presentation and how. And then finally, follow up: after you’ve done your presentation, hopefully well and successfully, there’ll probably be several weeks delay while they’re seeing other people or considering, you may not hear at once, but the very same day that you’ve done the presentation I would recommend either sending an e-mail or making a phone call – whichever is appropriate – thanking them for their time, saying how much you enjoyed meeting them, maybe seeing their business if you had an opportunity to do that, and how much you’d enjoyed working with them. If there were any questions that you weren’t able to answer at the pitch let them have that information, whether it’s the name of a referee or two who will talk about you positively, or whether it’s a problem that came up that you couldn’t actually offer a solution in the meeting but you’ve had a chance to think about. That demonstrates, again, your enthusiasm for working with them, and that’s always very seductive.
A huge thank you to Sue for making the time to come and be filmed answering our questions, we know the finished programme will be a great one and useful to all those that watch it.
Until next time…
Here at LNTV HQ we are busy starting to write our new Crime channel programme on the Sentencing Guidelines for theft offences, when along comes another Sentencing Guideline – two in a month – we are being spoilt!
On 3rd November 2015 the Sentencing Council (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/) finally published their Definitive Guideline for the Sentencing of Health and Safety, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene offences (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/HS-offences-definitive-guideline-FINAL-web.pdf). They will apply to all sentences on or after 1st February 2016, no matter the date of the breach.
Fines are to be linked to a defendant’s turnover, continuing the recent trend of large increases in the level of fines being imposed by the courts in cases such as those involving Hugo Boss (fined £1,200,000) and Lindsey Oil Refinery (fined £1,400,000).
Under the new Sentencing Guideline, organisations are categorised as follows:
Micro = turnover of less than £2,000,000
Small = turnover between £2,000,000 and £10,000,000
Medium = turnover between £10,000,000 and £50,000,000
Large = turnover of £50,000,000 or more
To give just an example, for large organisations, fines are suggested from a starting point of £10,000 up to £4,000,000 for health and safety offences, extending up to £10,000,000 for those with high culpability and which have caused a high level of harm. In addition, fines of up to £20,000,000 are suggested for those convicted of corporate manslaughter.
The guideline confirms that the fine must be “sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with health and safety legislation.”
Look out for our future programme on these new sentencing guidelines.
In Schrems v Data Protection Commission (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-362/14), the European Court of Justice looked at whether the Irish Data Protection Commissioners Office had the authority to examine claimant’s concerns regarding the transfer of his personal data under the Safe Harbour Framework from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to its parent company, Facebook Inc., in the United States of America.
The Court ruled that the Safe Harbour agreement on data transfers from the EU to the US is invalid, as it fails to ensure adequate protection for that data, as required by the Data Protection Directive. The Court has invited the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to consider suspending the transfer of European Facebook users’ personal data to the US. The Court also found that national data protection authorities must examine claims from subjects that a transfer of their personal data to a non-EEA country violates their right to privacy even if the country receiving that information has been found by the European Commission to ensure an adequate level of protection for that data.
This judgment has far-reaching consequences. Thousands of companies share data with US group companies and US-based service provides, such as Microsoft and Google, relying on the Safe Harbour arrangements to enable transfer of that personal data. Now they will need to consider whether they can continue with this, and develop ways of doing so. Just as interesting will be the effect the decision has on the flow of data between the EU and the US, and on the relationship between the countries. UK companies who transfer such data to the US should look to review their data privacy compliance process and ensure that the fundamentals are in place and being followed, all the while eagerly awaiting a new Safe Harbour Framework, which it is hoped will be released sooner rather than later.
Meanwhile, here at LNTV HQ, preparations for Halloween are in full flow. This does not mean dressing the office in cobwebs and pumpkins, but buying trick or treat chocolates and sweets, eating them, and then returning to the shop for more. It’s all in the interests of supporting the British confectionary industry you understand 😉
Have a spooky week….
Recently we were lucky enough to have Steve Wilmott, Director of Intelligence and Investigations at the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the studio to discuss cyber security matters as part of our upcoming Practice Management & Compliance channel programme, ‘Cyber Security for Law Firms’. Here is an exert from that forthcoming interview:
Interviewer: Why might law firms be targeted for cyber security attacks and what parts of the firm are particularly vulnerable?
Steve Wilmott: Well, law firms are very reliant on information and they use that information to simply move clients’ money from one account to another, whether it be to a client or whether it be to another law firm, for example, if there was a conveyance in a house purchase. And they rely on that information to have the right bank account and the right details so that an individual or a firm receives the money when they should. Now what we’ve seen in relation to phishing, and we call it – and another terminology is e-mail diversion, is within the course of that transaction a firm may receive an e-mail very late in the transaction to say we are the corresponding firm, we’ve just changed our banking details, don’t send the money to our usual account, this is our new account, please send it there. Law firms are hugely attractive to criminals and organised crime, and the main reason is they hold huge amounts of money in their client accounts, sometimes many, many millions of pounds. Only two years ago the Financial Action Task Force – when they undertook a money laundering evaluation of law firms internationally – said the same, that law firms are hugely attractive to organised crime for that very reason.
Interviewer: Attacks and breaches can come from different sources, so what are the main categories that these fall under?
Steve Wilmott: Well, the one that we’re seeing by far is criminal attacks, and they’re simply designed to obtain money criminally, through a criminal act, from solicitors’ firms. We get one or two where it may well be a disgruntled employee and that usually involves a destruction of data, destruction of information, which can have an effect on a law firm, but the principal one is trying to obtain money from law firms through a criminal act.
Interviewer: And in what ways do a law firm’s own employees present a risk to cyber security?
Steve Wilmott: Well, all law firms should have practices and procedures in place to make sure that the person they are speaking to is genuine, and that they keep their passwords, in particular, secure. If they receive, for example, instructions to send money to another bank account via e-mail or the internet then it’s very wise to make sure that there is a policy in place to ensure the veracity of that change by making further inquiries and not just relying on the initial contact. What we’ve also found as well is that clients of law firms are receiving information from criminals, for example, they’re just about to pay a deposit on a house, or Stamp Duty to a solicitor, and what we found there is that they’ve also received similar e-mails and those e-mails have said we are your solicitor, we’re just about to receive money from you, but we’ve just changed our bank account, please send it to this account. It’s still the same law firm, but it’s another bank account, and of course that bank account is operated by criminals, and substantial amounts of money have been stolen direct from clients in that respect rather than law firms.
Interviewer: So if a solicitor or a law firm thinks they’ve been the subject of an attack what’s the best thing for them to do?
Steve Wilmott: If you think you’re under attack and whether this be by e-mail or by telephone contact then immediately stop the contact. If it’s a telephone call then stop that telephone call. Do not use the telephone that you are using, so do not use any numbers to call that have been given by the individual that has contacted you. So terminate the call and use another telephone, and use trusted contacts that you can call to try to ensure the veracity of that original call. Now they can be very clever, sometimes the telephone screen that identifies the caller, the criminals can manipulate that so that it looks as if it is from a genuine bank, so ignore that. Also ignore any other call, telephone numbers, other than the ones that you know and trust. But the main thing is if you have any form of concern whatsoever then you must terminate that transaction and seek independent means of establishing the veracity of that contact. The second thing is if you have been the subject of a fraud then immediately contact the police, your insurer and your bank, importantly, and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, all of which can help you in various means to assisting in trying to establish, one, who’s done this, two, what the impact on that business will be and, thirdly, trying to recover some of the money that may have been taken. Perhaps, the three most important things is security software, keeping passwords safe and also, actually, making sure that your banking details are as secure as can be.
A big thanks to Steve for giving up his time to come and speak to us on this important subject. Until next time…
It all started with a comment on a LinkedIn profile, and from that acorn, mighty oak trees seemingly started to grow.
On 8th September, Charlotte Proudman, associate tenant barrister at Mansfield Chambers, named Alexander Carter-Silk, senior partner of Brown Rudnick LLP, as someone who had sent her a message on business-oriented social networking site LinkedIn, which she deemed to be inappropriate. The message, titled ‘PICTURE’ read:
“Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect, but that is a stunning picture !!!
You definitely win the prize for the best Linked in picture I have ever seen
Always interest [sic] to understant [sic] people’s skills and how we might work together
Alex”
Ms Proudman replied:
“Alex
I find your message offensive. I am on linked-in for business purposes and not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men. The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.
Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.
Charlotte”
Seeking an apology from Mr Carter-Silk, Ms Proudman also said she had contacted the CEO of Brown Rudnick LLP to complain, and would also be referring the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Mr Carter-Silk commented “Most people post pretty unprofessional photos on Linked in, my comment was aimed at the professional quality of the presentation on linked in which was unfortunately misinterpreted.”
The internet then virtually exploded with people expressing their views, with some calling Ms Proudman’s retort ageist, and her “a twit“, “a silly little lady with an exaggerated sense of self-regard“, a “jumped up feminist” and “a stupid immature female“, and others calling Mr Carter-Silk “a twit“, “a sexist pig from another era“, “inappropriate“, and “a fool“. And so the argument continued between those on either side of the debate.
And then, just as we thought the whole issue was about to cool, Lord Sumption gave an interview in the Evening Standard in which he said that rushing to achieve equal representation for women at the top of the legal profession could inflict “appalling consequences” on the quality of British justice. He said that to avoid inflicting damage, those wanting equality would have to be wait, stating:
“It takes time. You’ve got to be patient…We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them. If we do that we will find that male candidates do not apply in the right numbers.” He continued “The Bar and the solicitors’ profession are incredibly demanding in the hours of work and the working conditions are frankly appalling. There are more women than men who are not prepared to put up with that. As a lifestyle choice, it’s very hard to quarrel with it, but you have to face the consequence which is that the top of the legal profession has fewer women in it than the profession does overall.”
Comments such as these in the interview piece led to Ms Proudman writing an article expressing her concern at the comments:
“His comments encapsulate his deepest fears that power vested in the old boys’ network could come under siege“. Shadow Justice Secretary and former lord chancellor Lord Falconer also commented that hearing “such comments from one of our senior judges is deeply worrying, not least because the record on diversity is already poor.”
So let’s take solicitors as an example. As at 2013, 51.4% of solicitors were male, and 48.6% female. The overall proportion of female court judges is just over 25%. It therefore seems that female solicitors in the legal profession are willing to put up with the “incredibly demanding” hours of work and the “frankly appalling” working conditions, but even worse, they are then not being given the opportunity to reach the highest potential of those careers. Which raises the question, how patient do women have to be, Lord Sumption?
Until next time…
LNTV insight 