Time for a new deal for women lawyers

There's been much talk in recent years about the remoteness of partnership, a factor thought to be driving young lawyers away from the law. But reading this week's in depth special on women in law, it is clear that partnership at major City firms is anything but unobtainable – providing you are a man. To a male trainee at a major City firm you're implicitly entering a competition to, in a decade or so, become a very well-remunerated owner of the business. Not a breeze, certainly, but your odds will be massively improved by the fact that 55% to 60% of the group you are competing against – meaning women – will choose to quit the race in vast numbers. The only mystery is why more men aren't flocking to the law with odds like these.

To combat this, firms have tried mentoring, diversity training and flexible working, though the latter has widely varying levels of support on the ground. There is nothing wrong with any of these measures in themselves, but there is a limit to what such cosmetic initiatives can do in isolation. And in some cases chucking irritating diversity jargon at the problem has not only failed – it has also been counter-productive, as it has made it harder to get the required buy-in from partners at the coalface.

The net result is clear. While regional and national firms have made substantive ground in engaging and retaining women at senior levels, City firms have largely not. And on current trends there is little sign that it is getting much better, despite the fact that women have been entering the profession in serious numbers for decades.

Of course, the profession didn't set out to disenfranchise female staff but, in essence, law firms have made little or no accommodation to reflect the rather basic fact that half their lawyers are now women.

What is the solution? The only way there will be serious progress will be if law firms adapt the fundamentals of their working practices to reflect this new reality. For law firms that means adjusting the career track, including partnership, and the existing models of client account handling, neither of which are rocket science. The irony is if law firms were ready to implement changes to these core elements of their business, the level of change would only need to be relatively modest. That is why I would say Allen & Overy is on the right track with its attempt to usher in reduced-hours working for equity partners – it's a modest shift, but one that goes to the heart of its business.

The other aspect is that law firms are going to have to monitor retention of female lawyers and set themselves some modest aspirational targets. I know lawyers comically recoil at such notions, but the status quo isn't delivering. In the meantime there are factors – demographics, alternative billing, client pressure – that will ratchet up the pressure to reach a new deal with female staff. And if all that isn't enough to spur law firms into action, how about this: sooner or later some City firms are going to work out how to position themselves as first-choice employers for female lawyers. And if your firm becomes the second choice employer for more than half the available talent pool, you will have a very sizeable competitive disadvantage on your hands.