D&I and Representation

[Elmiro]

Hi everyone, I've been on the TCLA as a guest viewer for about a year now, long enough to see the discussions around diversity and what law firms can be doing quite repeatedly. As suggested by moderators, I have created a new thread to support the D&I/Representation discussion that was taking place on the Vacation Scheme thread. I will post the message I posted here, I am really keen on knowing what criteria people use when judging whether or not a VS, for example, is representative. Also, happy to have a discussion around any of the points I've made as I'm aware some people reacted negatively to this message.

Why is it a shock to the system that Slaughter's vacation scheme consisted predominantly of white students, especially considering that white people account for roughly 80% of the UK population? I think we can have a legitimate conversation regarding representation, but I'm keen to understand what a perfectly representative vacation scheme, in your opinion, would have looked like. I think this conversation will only be meaningful if we define the metric by which we judge representation. If the metric is the general UK population, then having a VS consisting of over 50% white students is a perfectly representative one. If the metric is London, which has a 36% white population, then we can begin to say that white students on the VS are over-represented. In any case, there is still the question of why a VS demographic should be artificially made to represent a wider population.

Edit: In response to the moderator comment, they're right - my 36% stat only accounts for the White Brit population, the general White population in London could be anything near 50%, but my overarching point still stands.

Moderator - statistics relating to the White population of London are incorrect and only factor in the 'White British' population of London.

 

[EqualityNonNegotiable]

I agree that we should be able to have a civil debate regardless of differing opinions. Some subjects may be emotive but I believe it's an important skill for a lawyer to present their view in a logical manner.

Therefore, I have a few questions regarding your post. I'll start with the biggest one.

"In any case, there is still the question of why a VS demographic should be artificially made to represent a wider population."

Firstly, just to clarify, does your statement rely on the word 'artificially'?

If so, why would the VS demographic require an 'artificial' representation of the wider population? How do you define or measure artificial nature of this measurement?

To put it bluntly - are you suggesting that the percentage of the White British candidates who meet the firm's criteria is disproportionately higher than that of other ethnic groups?

Hypothetical simplified example - 50% White population 50% Other. White candidates 25% meet the criteria. Other 5% meet the criteria.

Is the example above somewhat representative of what you meant by artificial representation?

 

[Elmiro]

To put it bluntly - are you suggesting that the percentage of the White British candidates who meet the firm's criteria is disproportionately higher than that of other ethic groups?

That's not what I was suggesting and I think you may have misunderstood my overarching point, the main one being that the conversation around representation tends to be extremely ambiguous. If we say 'X is under-representative', the only reasonable question following that is, of what?

If so, why would the VS demographic require an 'artificial' representation of the wider population? How do you define or measure artificial nature of this measurement?

What I meant by 'artificially made' is essentially deliberate and intentional recruiting in such a manner that a VS demographic (be it by virtue of race, gender, etc) resembles X demographic > again I use 'X' because the criteria here is unclear.

 

[EqualityNonNegotiable]

I'm sorry but the answer to your first question seems pretty obvious to me - representative of the wider society.

There is a mountain of literature and research as to why the legal profession ought to be representative of the wider society. Firstly, do you agree with the above statement?

Secondly, in regards to 'artificial' representation, the example I provided appears to be illustrative. Henceforth, I shall adopt the earlier hypothetical scenario as representative of your statement, where X = 'wider society'.

In this hypotethical scenario the facts are as follows:

50% of the population are White
50% of the population Other

The law firm XYZ offers 100 VS places.
XYZ received 1000 aplications from White candidates and 1000 applications from Other candidates.

Are you suggesting there is a huge disparity in the percentage of candidates who meet the criteria between these groups, i.e 20% of the White canditates meet the mark, whereas only 5% of the Other candidates do? Giving a pool of 200 White candidates and 50 Other candidates to fill 100 VS places, which means that for the VS to be representative of the wider society, the law firm must accept all Other candidates who met the criteria and 50 out of 200 White candidates who did?

In other words, are you suggesting White candidates are statistically more capable of meeting the law firms' criteria but are less likely to secure VS as a result of the DEI initiatives?

If not, are you suggesting that law firms receive a disproportionate number of applications from White candidates? I.e. 80% to 20% split.

I am trying to understand the basis of your 'artificial representation' statement and could only come up with the following hypotheses:

a) White candidates are statistically more capable to meet the law firms' criteria.

b) White candidates are overrepresented in the law firms' application process measured against the demographics of the society.

Does either one form the basis of the need for an 'artificial' representation?

 

[Elmiro]

I'm sorry but the answer to your first question seems pretty obvious to me - representative of the wider society.

My statement was in response to the OP being surprised that the vast majority of the people on a VS were white. If the criteria for representation is 'wider society', in this case I assume that to be the general UK population. If over 80% of the UK population is White, it is likely the case that there will be a significant proportion of White applicants in comparison to BME applicants for vacation schemes. It also follows that, if the criteria by which we measure representation is indeed 'wider society', then I see no issue with White students making up 50-80% of a VS demographic. This would be perfectly representative of a 'wider society' where the White demographic is significantly larger than that of the BME demographic. But often times there seem to be people unhappy with this - but why? If one is aiming for representation, and that representation is, almost self-evidently as you feel, measured by wider society, and wider society is predominantly White, then what's the issue? It would somewhat be the equivalent of going to Washington University of Barbados and being shocked that the vast majority of students are Black.

There is a mountain of literature and research as to why the legal profession ought to be representative of the wider society. Firstly, do you agree with the above statement?

Where it concerns the criminal justice system, I think there is a strong case for having a representative legal profession, but insofar as white-collar corporate law, I am not convinced that this is a necessity.

 

[EqualityNonNegotiable]

I highly doubt that by 'vast majority' the OP meant 50-80% as you quoted here. I could be mistaken but I believe the OP would not have had an issue with at least 8 BME applicants in the cohort of 40 (which would fit within the example you provided above).

The idea that people have an issue where proportionate representation is commonplace sounds like an absurd right-wing fantasy backed by anectodal evidence at best. You have not provided any evidence of these supposed unreasonable demands other than 'there seem to be people unhappy with this'.

I will not engage in this conversation any further as you have confirmed your highly prejudicial and bigotted view that people of ethnic minority backgrounds should be represented in criminal law but not necessarily in white collar jobs. You seem to be implying that people from etnic minority backgrounds commit crimes, therefore should be represented in criminal law but do not hold white collar jobs therefore don't require representation there.

In other words, corporate world belongs to the White people and we should keep it that way.

It's laughable really and explains the reaction to your original post. Perhaps when everyone says you're drunk it may be time to sit down.

 

[Elmiro]

I highly doubt that by 'vast majority' the OP meant 50-80% as you quoted here. I could be mistaken but I believe the OP would not have had an issue with at least 8 BME applicants in the cohort of 40

If I can quote OP verbatim, "I completed a VS with them, and most of the people on the scheme were white." My response to that statement was perfectly reasonable, as 'most' would signify a VS consisting of over 50% White students, thus accounting for the "50-80%" statistic I gave as an example. The issue OP has is clearly that most of the people on the VS were White, so reading your assumptions into what OP would have been fine with is just presumptive.

I will not engage in this conversation any further as you have confirmed your highly prejudicial and bigotted view that people of ethnic minority backgrounds should be represented in criminal law but not necessarily in white collar jobs.

Your attempt at painting me out to be someone that is bigoted is laughable and nothing but pure conjecture. I didn't 'confirm' anything regarding the representation of ethnic minorities, I just simply stated that there is a stronger case for ethnic representation in criminal justice as opposed to corporate law. The reason for this is a no-brainer, one is concerned with the administration of justice for average civilians (who will vary across race, gender, etc), the other is purely about representing and advising multinational corporations with no legal personality.

In other words, corporate world belongs to the White people and we should keep it that way.

For someone that is so quick to point out said assumptions, you're very quick to draw on them yourself.

You certainly don't have to engage in the conversation any further as quite frankly, in such a short space of time, you've become riled up and aggressive, and that sort of poor temperament is hardly a desirable trait for someone looking to break into the legal sector.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Where it concerns the criminal justice system, I think there is a strong case for having a representative legal profession, but insofar as white-collar corporate law, I am not convinced that this is a necessity.

Can I ask why you think it isn't necessary to have a representative legal profession in corporate law?

In a highly international sector where lawyers are working with diverse clients across industries, I would have thought it was just as necessary as it would be in the criminal justice system. Although, I am biased, I think it is needed in every part of society and business. But I'd been keen to understand why you think differently.

 

[EqualityNonNegotiable]

The reason for this is a no-brainer, one is concerned with the administration of justice for average civilians (who will vary across race, gender, etc), the other is purely about representing and advising multinational corporations with no legal personality.

The opinion appears to be based on the incorrect statement that corporations have no legal personality. That's business law day one.

 

[fingersarecrossed]

Hi,

I am used to being surrounded by diverse people that I did not view it as a thing that was important for me. However, attending a firm and seeing the lack of diversity really surprised me. Of course, this was originally a white british country so it somewhat makes sense why there are so many in senior roles etc but i just wish firms actually put in the ACTION to make firms more diverse rather than preaching diversity and hosting workshops on diversity. It is just disheartening trying to enter the legal field and seeing the same type of people (no hate to them ofc as they worked extremely hard to get there). It also seems that where firms are successful in hiring BME partners/associates, majority of their BME hires are from top universities, such as Oxford/Cambridge/LSE.

Of course, there are diverse students hired from russel/non-russel group unis too, however it seems so uncommon. Also, many students are from Rare recruitment or other schemes like these (which is a good thing but firms should actively try to promote this more).

I was wondering if anyone knew of any diverse firms / firms that I should avoid due to their lack of diversity.

 

[therealslimshady]

If a law firm can only offer a training contract to one applicant and has to choose between two applicants that both tick every box, would a law firm more likely choose to hire an applicant that is from an under-represented group should one of the applicants fall under this category (e.g. LGBT+ and/or BAME, etc...)?

 

[Jessica Booker]

If a law firm can only offer a training contract to one applicant and has to choose between two applicants that both tick every box, would a law firm more likely choose to hire an applicant that is from an under-represented group should one of the applicants fall under this category (e.g. LGBT+ and/or BAME, etc...)?

I would stress that two candidates being identical in performance just doesn't happen. Both candidates could "tick every box" but one will have a slightly stronger performance over the other. I have never seen an identical performance (coming up 20 years of doing this) and that there will ultimately be something that differentiates them, even if it is quite subjective (e.g. their motivations for the role).

 

[therealslimshady]

I understand there is a greater drive to attract females to the legal profession. I have attended assessment centres in the past and from experience, I have always found that the male to female ratio of candidates attending is more in favour of females. There have been times where there have been only 2 or 3 males with 7 or 8 females in attendance. As a male, I can find this slightly intimidating. Has anyone ever experienced a similar situation?

 

[therealslimshady]

I would stress that two candidates being identical in performance just doesn't happen. Both candidates could "tick every box" but one will have a slightly stronger performance over the other. I have never seen an identical performance (coming up 20 years of doing this) and that there will ultimately be something that differentiates them, even if it is quite subjective (e.g. their motivations for the role).

If faced with the difficult decision of selecting between two excellent candidates, would a law firm choose to hire from the under-represented group should the other candidate not fall within this category?

 

[Zi48]

I understand there is a greater drive to attract females to the legal profession. I have attended assessment centres in the past and from experience, I have always found that the male to female ratio of candidates attending is more in favour of females. There have been times where there have been only 2 or 3 males with 7 or 8 females in attendance. As a male, I can find this slightly intimidating. Has anyone ever experienced a similar situation?

This is probably due to the ratio of applicants, not firms specifically targeting female candidates. Couldn't find more up to date info but in 2021 UCAS found that 69% of law applicants were female compared to 31% male in the UK. This is for university applications but assuming a lot of law students are applying to VS/TCs, there are likely more female applicants, so having more female candidates at assessment centres is probably proportional.

 

[therealslimshady]

I value the importance of D&I questionnaires at the end of an application form. However, why do employers ask about a candidate's sexual orientation?

 

[therealslimshady]

This is probably due to the ratio of applicants, not firms specifically targeting female candidates. Couldn't find more up to date info but in 2021 UCAS found that 69% of law applicants were female compared to 31% male in the UK. This is for university applications but assuming a lot of law students are applying to VS/TCs, there are likely more female applicants, so having more female candidates at assessment centres is probably proportional.

This also does not factor in non-law students that make up a good proportion of applicants

 

[Zi48]

This also does not factor in non-law students that make up a good proportion of applicants

That’s true, but in higher education generally there’s a higher proportion of female students, so even with non law applicants the same probably applies

Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2020/21 - Student numbers and characteristics | HESA

Summary Student numbers and characteristics Where students come from and go to study

www.hesa.ac.uk

 

[therealslimshady]

As this thread is around representation, why is it that law firm HR teams are typically composed of a greater number of females than males?

 

[Jessica Booker]

I understand there is a greater drive to attract females to the legal profession. I have attended assessment centres in the past and from experience, I have always found that the male to female ratio of candidates attending is more in favour of females. There have been times where there have been only 2 or 3 males with 7 or 8 females in attendance. As a male, I can find this slightly intimidating. Has anyone ever experienced a similar situation?

It doesn't help that law degree courses are around 70% female, so the skew is likely to be seen in candidate populations at all stages.

This has been an issue for nearly 20 years and I don't see it changing anytime soon. When I worked at a firm in 2005, we considered doing a targeted marketing campaign to find more male applicants, but it was swiftly dropped when it was pointed out that from about 3 years PQE, the gender split went the other way.