Fostering a more diverse organisation is now high on the agenda for most large businesses and law firms in both the UK and the US. These organisations are realising that having a diversity policy in place, however eloquently written, is not sufficient to effectively promote diversity. Instead, they realise that they need to make diversity an intrinsic part of a fair and equitable work culture.

The catalyst for creating a more diverse workplace has come not from law firms, but from external forces. On both sides of the Atlantic, those external influences include changing demographics and pressure from diversity-conscious companies such as Barclays, UBS, Starbucks as well as professional organisations such as the Law Society and the American Bar Association (ABA).

In the UK, the Government has stepped in to motivate law firms to improve their diversity programmes and to monitor and publish their progression data. So, what is the primary difference between the UK and US on promoting diversity in law firms? In most cases, the key is that the US has at least a 15-year head start.

UK law firms

Diversity has been brought to the forefront of law firm management in the past few years. The Legal Services Consultative Panel recommended in May 2005 that public authorities should consider inviting tenders only from law firms that have published their diversity data. Later that year, the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) requested that the top 100 UK law firms publish diversity statistics relating to gender, ethnicity, disability and flexible work status on their respective websites before April 2006.

The response from the profession was lacklustre: many of the top 100 firms did not publish their diversity statistics before the deadline, while other firms revealed that they did not monitor their own policies.

A thorough review of the websites of all the top 15 US and UK law firms reveals that all have some kind of diversity policy. The language of the policies differs little from firm to firm, although the difference in scope is illuminating. Law firms tend to focus on attracting a richly diverse pool of talent, mentoring that talent and monitoring the workforce to assess the firm's success in implementing its policy.

The policies sometimes refer to workplace diversity training, but many policies are not clear as to which employees of the firm will be trained and the subjects on which they will be trained. Some law firms have hired dedicated staff to improve diversity and indicate that they will use the Law Society's diversity targets as a guideline. The most sophisticated initiatives go beyond race and gender to address in a meaningful way concerns relating to religion, sexual orientation, age and disability.

Recently, both the Black Solicitors' Network (BSN) and the DCA have challenged law firms' unwillingness to publish their diversity figures in the UK. The BSN's inaugural diversity league table, published in March 2006, highlighted trends related to under-representation of ethnic minorities and women at the senior end of the profession. It is understood that some firms that did not participate in the survey last year have agreed to do so in 2007, showing a growing willingness among law firms to volunteer statistics on their composition.

US law firms

In general, US law firms have been aware of and have dealt with issues of diversity longer than their UK counterparts. The ABA's commission on racial and ethnic diversity in the profession has been challenging firms in the US to improve their diversity recruiting and retention programmes for more than 20 years. In particular, large corporations in the US have long been looking to broaden the composition of their respective workforces while motivating their service providers, including outside counsel, to do the same. US corporate counsel began to review the progress of their law firms' diversity initiatives, and in some cases to limit or terminate relationships with firms that do not demonstrate a genuine interest in becoming more diverse.

The progress that US law firms have made on diversity issues relative to their UK counterparts is a direct result of the head start that US law firms have had. The US-based diversity initiatives have had more time to evolve, and their relative sophistication has included initiatives that attempt to recruit students earlier in their careers.

In the US, a number of firms sponsor minority student fellowship or intern programmes that provide students who are potentially interested in a legal career with an opportunity to gain first-hand experience at a law firm. Some fellowships offer financial sponsor-ship. For example, Kirkland & Ellis has sponsored a minority law student fellowship programme that awards several stipends and summer associate positions to qualified minority students in the US.

Sponsorship of events is also a key area of difference between US firms and UK firms. US firms host numerous events in universities and law schools that are designed to engage candidates who might otherwise be doubtful about their chances of career progression based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and the like. US firms routinely provide significant financial support to these events.

Another difference is the number of independent organisations that exist to further the diversity cause. These organisations address and typically focus on very specific diversity issues and they are wide-ranging in purpose. They are at once a source of information; a pressure group; a recognition and awards group and a networking entity.

However, they are also a conduit through which organisations such as law firms can reach candidates and work closely with them to ensure standards. While UK law firms are beginning to work with these types of independent organisations, it remains an area of potential growth.

Many firms in the US also appear far more inclined to celebrate their diversity and allow time and provide funds to do so. This approach may suggest that relative to their UK counterparts, US firms have achieved a greater degree of comfort than UK firms in supporting such initiatives. Events range from diversity weekends to the self-organisation of 'affinity groups' based on race, gender, sexual orientation and other such characteristics, and allow members to network and to address matters that are specifically of interest to the group. Importantly, the establishment of affinity groups is an inherent recognition on the part of the diversity committees that one size may not fit all when it comes to diversity initiatives, and that members of different minority groups may actually have different needs.

Another point of difference is that many US firms have become voluntary signatories of minority hiring guidelines established by state and local bar associations. This shows that the law firms are proactive and serious in their intent, and it gives staff and prospective students a sense of that intent. While some law firms in the UK have signed up to similar guidelines, most have not.

In both the US and the UK, much of the focus has been on recruiting diverse associates while simultaneously combating associate attrition. There can be no doubt that these efforts must continue in order to be effective. However, the most sophisticated and successful diversity initiatives are supported enthusiastically by management committees, and require employees of the firm to devote substantial amounts of time and firm resources to advising diverse associates about career progression and providing business development training and opportunities.

Tackling the issue of lack of diversity is a relatively new concept for most, and the Government and the media have placed a significant amount of pressure on the profession during the last 18 months. The early signs are that law firms have made rapid progress in the initial steps, with law firms initiating and improving their diversity programmes in a very short time. However, improving diversity requires a long-term commitment. In an overcrowded market, law firms recognise that making diversity a core, ongoing management priority will produce results. We do not suggest that US law firms have all the answers, or that the US approach is guaranteed to work in the UK, but UK law firms should examine and consider some of the historical and longer-term experiences that US law firms have had in attempting to become more diverse.

Pamela Henry is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in London.