Sometimes law firms' efforts to boost female representation in the partnership can seem a little trite. We all know the statistics – more than half of new trainees are female and yet many City firms are struggling to get women to make up 20% of their partnerships, despite numerous initiatives in recent years to try to rectify the problem.

And the higher up the chain you go the worse the problem inevitably becomes, meaning you don't even need all the fingers on one hand to count the number of female leaders of top 50 law firms.

Mentoring, women's groups and flexible working are all now on offer to some degree at most firms in a bid to meet the challenge, with a few going further and introducing targets for the percentage of female partners they want or for women in management roles. 

But privately, senior partners concede they are still far from having a solution – as is also the case in much of the rest of the City – because, regardless of the initiatives on offer, women are still leaving the law in their droves, often when they find the career path incompatible with family life. As such, one would think that anything firms do to encourage women to return after maternity leave would be applauded. And yet, at times, even the most seemingly innocuous offerings can prove divisive. 

Take Wragge & Co. As referenced in this week's lifestyle feature, which looks at how female lawyers lag their male counterparts in terms of salary as well as partnership prospects, the national firm has made it easier for women to stay in touch during maternity leave by removing bureaucratic hoops standing in the way of them taking their BlackBerrys with them – if they choose to do so. 

The discovery provoked heated debate within parts of Legal Week's team – with some incensed by the idea that women could feel forced into checking their email while changing a nappy. Wragges of course insists that the emphasis is very much on individual choice and trying to prevent women from feeling cut off so that they are more likely to return. A move that I for one would entirely support. But the upset the idea caused some is exactly the problem – in the same way that for every woman supporting the idea of a quota, you are likely to find two repulsed by the concept. 

As demonstrated by Travers' surprise loss of a pregnancy discrimination case brought by a former trainee earlier this month though, firms are somehow going to have to crack it, because otherwise they could find themselves facing similar problems.