Largest firms have the least diverse trainee cohorts, SRA data reveals
Large law firms' trainees found to be least diverse as judiciary goes hunting for female and ethnic minority judges
April 09, 2015 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Larger firms have less diverse cohorts of trainees than smaller ones, according to data obtained from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by Legal Week.
The news comes as the judiciary has embarked on a mentoring programme for women, people from ethnic minorities and people from less advantaged backgrounds amid fears the bench is not representative of the diversity of modern Britain.
The SRA data shows that at firms with more than 81 regulated solicitors, the largest firms the regulator monitors, black and minority ethnic (BME) trainees accounted for 22.5% of all trainees in 2014 compared with an industry average of 29.6%.
At firms with between two and four regulated solicitors BME representation among trainees rose to 51.6%, while at firms with between five and 10 regulated solicitors 43.2% of trainees were BME.
The largest firms also had a lower proportion of female trainees. On average last year, 61.6% of all trainees regulated by the SRA were female. This rate dropped to 57.7% at firms with more than 81 regulated individuals.
At firms with between two and four regulated individuals 63.8% of trainees were female.
SRA executive director for strategy and planning Richard Collins said that following the regulator's risk outlook report in July 2014, which identified a lack of diversity in the profession as a key risk to regulatory compliance, the SRA was continuing with a programme of supervision visits to larger firms to discuss compliance with its equality and diversity principles.
Collins added that the SRA is also "committed to supporting firms to collect and publish their diversity data as this will help firms identify the gaps".
The largest firms have seen a marginal improvement in both ethnic minority representation and gender diversity since 2012. The proportion of ethnic minority trainees at the largest firms has increased from 17.5% to 22.5% in 2014, and the proportion of female trainees rose slightly from 56.7% in 2012 to 57.7% in 2014.
Founder of diversity organisation Aspiring Solicitors Chris White said: "From my experience over the last year the large firms are extremely keen on promoting diversity (in its broadest sense) by becoming either a founder or affiliate member of Aspiring Solicitors.
"It is fair to say that everyone recognises this is a marathon not a sprint and it will take years rather than months for our profession to be where it should be in terms of diversity (across all underrepresented groups)."
Across all firms, BME representation among trainees has risen by more than seven percentage points from 22.4% in 2012 to 29.6% in 2014.
The three largest UK partnerships by headcount - Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer - were unavailable for comment.
This week the judiciary also announced a scheme to boost diversity.
Over the coming months the judiciary will run a mentoring and training programme for women, people from ethnic minorities and people from less advantaged backgrounds to try and prepare them to apply for positions on the bench.
The judiciary's mentoring scheme comes in response to concerns that the traditional route into the judiciary through becoming a top solicitor, barrister or general counsel is creating a barrier to underrepresented groups joining the bench.
Lady Justice Heather Hallett said: "We fear that we may be missing out on a pool of talent for whom the traditional route is not an option."
The initiative is designed to complement a new version of the Judicial Appointments Commission's recruitment process, which will be run for the first time this summer.
In July the Judicial Appointments Commission will recruit 14 deputy High Court judges, but for the first time the process will be open to lawyers who have not been Recorders in the court – a move designed to open up routes into the judiciary.
Hallett hopes that the two initiatives combined will "attract more exceptionally high-quality lawyers and legal academics from non-traditional backgrounds to sit in the High Court".
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute read'But We Exist': The Stigma Around Disability and Neurodivergence in Law Firms Persists
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250