Lady Hale, the first female President of the UK Supreme Court, has long been an advocate for increased diversity at the bench. A self-avowed feminist, it is unlikely that she would have taken a different viewpoint, but when one of the finest legal minds in the United Kingdom says something, it is important to listen.
There are different kinds of diversity, Lady Hale reminds us - from race and ethnicity, to gender, socio-economic class and legal specialism. A family lawyer, Hale took the lead on some of the most significant family law cases in modern legal history, from Stack v Dowden, which established that factors other than financial contributions can be taken into account when dividing a property, to R (Gentle and Or) v The Prime Minister & Ors, where although the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful in her attempt to open an independent inquiry into the Iraq War, the position of Lady Hale as a judicial force was cemented, crediting her family specialism with her unique empathy and her attempts to "rebuild shattered lives." It is clear that Lady Hale's background, as both a woman and a family lawyer has shaped the law of England and Wales, but without such diversity, would the law really be very different?
Firstly, there are a variety of different aspects of diversity that must be taken into account, and all of these are equally important in doing two things: forcing accountability, and encouraging diversity of thought. Accountability is enforced through diversity because the presence of minorities at the table where decisions are made, be they judicial decisions or decisions on how to advise clients, compels each member of the group to justify their decisions with increasing specificity. A fascinating study reported by Samuel Sommers of Tufts University reveals that, in racially diverse groups individuals came to a much more reasoned conclusion than in racially homogenous groups, and the same is true for the diversity of other characteristics too. In an article by Katherine Phillips of UC Berkeley, she details a series of studies that show that diversity of gender can increase the profitability of companies, diversity of political opinion encourages participants to better prepare their thoughts, and diversity can even lead to higher-quality scientific research.
The evidence speaks for itself, in all manners. Global law firms such as DLA Piper go out of their way to recruit a diverse set of trainees, both in terms of minority characteristics and in terms of personality, legal specialism, and personal background. Indeed, ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the legal profession, but despite successes in graduate recruitment, particularly by solicitors firms, diversity in the law is still a long way from being perfect. While female associates are beginning to outnumber male associates, and numbers are relatively steady at a 50-50 split, there is still a 70-30 split between male and female partners in UK private practice law firms. There is a 3% gap between the proportion of lawyers who identify as LGBTQ+ and the proportion of the UK population who identify as such, and disabled lawyers are dramatically underrepresented. The diversity at the bar is even worse than in the Law Society. Women comprise just 38% of barristers; individuals from BAME backgrounds are just 8% of Queen's Counsel; and although there is a higher proportion of disabled barristers than solicitors, this group makes up just 6% of the Bar.
Evidence suggests that by improving diversity statistics, the legal profession can not only improve their profitability, but also provide a significantly higher standard of advice to clients, and the same is true for the judiciary. But improving numbers isn't going to fix the problem. While having more diverse individuals at the table might encourage the others to prepare better, think harder, and come to better conclusions, it is not going to be enough to simply have minorities sit silently in the corner, and this is where inclusion comes in.
Inclusion is defined as "the act of including." While diversity refers to the makeup of the group, inclusion examines how those group members feel, and whether they are valued or not. It comes as no surprise to anyone that a valued employee is going to work harder, and be more loyal to their firm, than an employee who feels excluded. Inclusion fosters an environment in which individuals feel they are able to speak up, and provide their own perspective without fear of being judged, and it is this diversity of experience and perspective that will improve the decision-making of the overall group, rather than just the non-minority members. Inclusion will also inevitably lead to increased profitability, as employees come to work eager to do their best, rather than drag themselves out of bed and force themselves to spend another day in the office. In fact, this is the very plot of the film 9 To 5.
In conclusion, Lady Hale was, as she often is, right. By increasing diversity in all areas of the legal profession, including academia, practice, and the judiciary, the law is destined to become more just and more thoughtful, coming more often to the right conclusions with the empathy and experience to "rebuild shattered lives." Diversity and inclusion are the gateways to increased profits, accountability, and a better service for legal clients in every setting, and while important debates continue as to the best methods to increase diversity, the evidence speaks for itself as to the great things that await.
Click Here For The Audio Version Of This Post
The opinions of this article are solely those of the author and are not intended to provide accurate legal advice for anyone to rely on. While the content is intended to be factually correct, the author does not accept any responsibility or liability arising from the use or misuse of this article or any loss/inconvenience/damage stemming from this. Legal advice should be sought from a qualified professional, not this blog. The opinions represented in this blog are personal and belong solely to the blog owner, and do not represent those of the people, institutions, or organisations that the owner may or may not be associated with in a professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. The views expressed by any podcast guest are their own entirely, and do not necessarily reflect those of the blog owner. The blog owner is not responsible and liable for any discrepancy, if any. Any content provided by this blog or its companion podcast is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organisation, company, individual, or anyone or anything.
Comments
Post a Comment