Hogan Lovells has announced that it aims to have women making up 30% of its partnership in ten years' time.
Given that around 60% of the firm's graduate intake is currently female, that might not seem like an overly ambitious target. But women currently make up only 21% of the firm's partnership, and only represented 23% of those who were promoted this year (eight out of 35). However by City standards even those depressing figures are pretty much class-leading: in a RoF survey of a dozen firms last year, most (with the notable exception of Herbert Smith) struggled to beat this.
The firm has now confirmed to The Times that it aims for 25% female partners by 2017 and 30% by 2022. David Harris, CEO of Hogan Lovells, said that the target was "ambitious but achievable". Clifford Chance has also confirmed that it is aiming for 30% in the long term, and Eversheds is aiming for 25% by 2016.
Firms in Australia have already started raising their game, and there seems to be a genuine desire across the profession to try to fix the imbalance. Although whether anything significant will be achieved until firms start taking flexible working and job sharing seriously remains to be seen.
Tip Off ROF
Given that around 60% of the firm's graduate intake is currently female, that might not seem like an overly ambitious target. But women currently make up only 21% of the firm's partnership, and only represented 23% of those who were promoted this year (eight out of 35). However by City standards even those depressing figures are pretty much class-leading: in a RoF survey of a dozen firms last year, most (with the notable exception of Herbert Smith) struggled to beat this.
The firm has now confirmed to The Times that it aims for 25% female partners by 2017 and 30% by 2022. David Harris, CEO of Hogan Lovells, said that the target was "ambitious but achievable". Clifford Chance has also confirmed that it is aiming for 30% in the long term, and Eversheds is aiming for 25% by 2016.
 |
Some HogLove yesterday |
Firms in Australia have already started raising their game, and there seems to be a genuine desire across the profession to try to fix the imbalance. Although whether anything significant will be achieved until firms start taking flexible working and job sharing seriously remains to be seen.
Comments
128
123
126
142
132
139
More than half the firm's new joiners are female. Less than a quarter of those made up to partner are.
This clearly has nothing at all to do with their being less able, and everything to do with the a promotion process that is skewed in favour of men. Anything that can be done to rectify this has got to be a good thing.
113
147
No, those figures probably have nothing to do with the ability of female lawyers. Rather it concerns how many 'able' female lawyers are available for appointment.
Given that a significant proportion of female lawyers will take time out for maternity leave etc, it is inevitable that the pool of potential partner appointees will be smaller than for men - even where female joiners make up the majority. This can be addressed to some extent (flexible working etc) but I imagine a reasonable number of women will still end up dropping out of the profession.
Imposing a quota/target doesn't fix this problem - it just grabs headlines.
138
141
There are no easy answers, but there's a lot more that all firms should be doing to address this. These targets may grab headlines but if they help change things they should be applauded.
133
142
Would ROF fancy updating their survey on % female partners of the latest round? Perhaps with a comparison to the % of female partners overall as well? (I last read the average was 12% across city firms?)
133
142
"do you really think that promotions will be based on sex rather than ability"
Why else would there be a gender quota, other than to promote based on sex?
"More than half the firm's new joiners are female. Less than a quarter of those made up to partner are."
Why should the proportion of joiners determine who, eight or ten years later, get made up to partner? The relevant proportion should be how many women are at the eight or ten year level and eligible for partnership (if proportions matter).
"everything to do with the a promotion process that is skewed in favour of men."
How so? We would need to see the statistics for eight and ten year PQE solicitors to even be close to verifying that.
We both know what the real issue is, and that is women dropping out of the law in large numbers before partnership. Having been around law firms for a while, that reflects that it takes a lot of hard work, long hours, and an ability to put up with tedium, that a lot of people won't put up with, especially it seems young women. Who can blame them for deciding there are betting things they'd rather be doing?
But surely it is unfair to say to the male associates who did stick it out in greater numbers, that their promotion chances are going to be reduced because of gender quotas.
Isn't that illegal?
125
138
"I applaud this too - there has been quite a bit of research now about women in management improving the bottom line due to different attitudes to risk, team management and technology".
What an appallingly sexist thing to say. The same as saying we should exclude women from the law because men think more logically than women.
In any case, it can be left to law firms to decide which people will improve their business as a matter of individual merit, without the need for quotas.
127
137
why is the dominance of women in in-house jobs not considered a problem?