LEAGUE TABLE 2013 £45.00 Eighth edition A report from the Black Solicitors Network

A DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION

New for 2013: ‘Regional differences’, is there a diversity north-south divide?

Umunna stands out

Opening doors with Freshfields By Azadeh Khalilizadeh

Godwin Ohajah interviews Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna MP

We go full circle with Funke Abimbola Roche UK’s Managing Counsel

Why diversity should be business as usual We speak to Lloyds Banking Group’s Lesley Wan

9 780957 088122

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 1 WORKING TOWARDS AN EQUAL PROFESSION

www.lawsociety.org.uk

Working for a more diverse profession We are committed to representing every member of the solicitors’ profession and to supporting the profession in its efforts to reflect the society it serves.

Partnership working We work with BAME groups and associations, consulting and campaigning on key issues, lead a BAME forum, sponsor headline events like the Minority Lawyers seminars and celebrate occasions such as Black History Month.

Widening the talent pool The Law Society Diversity Access Scheme supports promising entrants to the solicitors’ profession who face exceptional social, educational, financial or personal obstacles to qualification. It provides scholarships for the LPC course, mentoring with practising solicitors and work experience.

Find out more at www.lawsociety.org.uk/diversityaccessscheme

Flagship initiative Our Diversity and Inclusion Charter, developed with the Society of Asian Lawyers and BT, is the flagship diversity initiative of the legal profession. It is an instantly recognisable public statement of commitment by its signatories and a framework for positive action across all strands of diversity. Over one-quarter of all solicitors in private practice work in signatory organisations. Do you?

Read the Charter at www.lawsociety.org.uk/diversitycharter

Understand the Equality Act 2010 The Act has transformed the landscape of equality and discrimination law. ‘Equality Act 2010: A guide to the New Law’ provides expert commentary on the guide and includes the text of the Act itself.

Find out more and order your copy at www.lawsociety.org.uk/bookshop

Discrimination legislation and your obligations Our equality and diversity online courses (Equal Opportunities & Diversity Essentials, and Managing Diversity) will ensure compliance with Rule 6 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct and help you understand the key elements of discrimination legislation. The courses are flexible, affordable, convenient and together offer 2.5 CPD hours.

Find out more and book at www.lawsociety.org.uk/cpdcentre

Foreword by

Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP Minister for Women and Equalities

I would like to thank the Black Solicitors Network for inviting me to say a few words to mark this year’s Diversity League Table. I’m a firm believer that combining business and equality is a recipe for success. In my view, it’s simply good business sense to be treating people fairly, creating more inclusive and modern workplaces and ensuring we are drawing on the talents of everyone if we are going to bring sustained growth to the British economy. Now, more than ever, we need to be removing the barriers that can hold people back and prevent them from achieving their full potential. What’s clear to me is that while there will always be challenges, the vast majority of employers want the best for – as well as from – their employees, and they absolutely don’t need convincing of the positive business case for equality in the 21st century workplace. Transparency is a hugely powerful tool in helping us drive forward change. Through our own Think, Act, Report voluntary initiative, we are encouraging companies with more than 250 employees to report on action to improve equality in the workplace. I am delighted that 128 organisations have made that public commitment already, including law firms Linklaters and Eversheds. But the path to full equality in the workplace cannot be achieved by government alone; the business community must play its part too. That’s why the Diversity League Table is crucial to helping us deliver better balance and diversity within the legal profession, which will reap benefits for the economy in the longer term. Publishing data in such a comprehensive and accessible way, such as in this report, ensures that diversity remains in the forefront of everyone’s thinking, so that we can all work together to turn aspiration into reality. Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP Minister for Women and Equalities

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 3

Business of Relationships. At global law firm Reed Smith, diversity is more than a principle or a programme, it’s part of the firm’s culture and business ethos. Diverse contributions are vital to its business. In short, diverse teams get better results for the firm and clients alike. In addition to having a range of market-leading initiatives designed to promote a diverse and engaged workforce, the firm also collaborates and works on initiatives closely with clients and other organisations to promote diversity within the wider legal market. With more than 1,800 lawyers across Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the United States, Reed Smith is known for advising on complex litigation, cross-border transactions and regulatory matters across a broad array of industry sectors. For more information please visit www.reedsmith.com

4 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

editor’s letter Welcome to the eighth edition of the Black Solicitors Network (BSN) Diversity League Table (DLT). One of the challenges facing the legal profession is that of diversity, or lack thereof. So it is encouraging to note that the DLT continues to receive support from the highest levels. We offer our gratitude to the Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP for taking the time to write this year’s foreword. This year’s DLT analysis does show a continued upward trend in both gender and ethnic diversity, but at a year-on-year rate that is painfully slow. The strippedback ethnic minority figures for solicitors and barristers probably make for the most concerning read, with only 0.6% partners and 1% QCs who are black. For the first time we consider “regional differences”: diversity within London firms and chambers compared with those outside of London. This year’s edition of the DLT also draws attention to work being undertaken to help bring about change across different aspects of diversity and inclusion. Considering ethnicity, social mobility and gender, the work of Freshfields, Prime and Morrison & Foersters are featured. The DLT approached two leading organisations to interview their legal counsel and was extremely pleased to discover women – two very different women – who both have their finger on their company’s respective legal power button: Funke Abimbola, managing counsel for Roche (UK & Ireland) and Lloyds Banking Group’s corporate real estate counsel, Lesley Wan. Our cover story photograph depicts a man who, some might say, is the epitome of what could be possible when full access to opportunities are afforded to an already bright and intelligent young black man. Unburdened by the shackles of expected underachievement, Chuka Umunna’s rise is steady and purposeful. He currently holds the position of Shadow Business Secretary and without doubt he is beginning to stand out. The Rt. Hon. Minister makes the point in her foreword that, “Transparency is a hugely powerful tool in helping us drive forward change.” We agree, and that is why we will continue to work tirelessly to encourage more firms and chambers to take part in the DLT in 2014. The BSN is grateful for the support we receive from across the profession and to all of the firms and chambers who have contributed to this year’s publication. We look forward to working with them in the future and extend a warm welcome to others who may also wish to work with us. Best wishes, Cordella Bart-Stewart Executive Editor, Diversity League Table Executive Director, Black Solicitors Network (BSN)

Acknowledgements The BSN acknowledges the continuing support of various organisations and individuals referred to below: • Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP • Law Society of England and Wales • Bar Council • Legal Services Board • Solicitors Regulation Authority • Bar Standards Board • Judicial Appointments Board • Chartered Institute of Legal Executives • Nwabueze Nwokolo, Chair, Black Solicitors Network (BSN) • Hanisha Patel, Chair, Association of Asian Women Lawyers • David Merkel, Chair, Lawyers with Disabilities Division • Peter Herbert, Chair, Society of Black Lawyers • Mary-Ann Wright, Chair, Women Lawyers Division • Funke Abimbola, Managing Counsel for Roche UK • Chuka Umunna MP, Shadow Business Secretary • Lesley Wan, Lloyds Banking Group • The BSN Board • Godwin Ohajah, MD, Satsuma (Europe) Ltd • Dr Peter Urwin, Director, Centre of Employment, University of Westminster • Azadeh Khalilizadeh, Journalist & Writer • Michael Webster, a good friend and founder of the Diversity League Table Importantly, we would also like to thank the Law Society and the Bar Council for their ongoing support with the development of the Diversity League Table. Also, the firms and chambers who participated in this year’s survey, in particular those who came back with supportive feedback about the survey and process, which has helped in its continual development. Our profound gratitude also goes to those organisations, firms and chambers who have endorsed this publication by way of advertising and sponsorship.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 5

contents 36 Executive Editor Cordella Bart-Stewart Managing Editor/Features Godwin Ohajah Head Researcher Professor Peter Urwin Copy Editor Louise Bolotin Journalist & Editorial Assistant Azadeh Khalilizadeh Design & Production Satsuma (Design & Publishing)

40 Cover photograph: Nicholas Kay / GQ © The Condé Nast Publications Ltd.

Sponsored by:

6 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Sales & Marketing Satsuma (Consultancy) Head of Production & Publishing Godwin Ohajah Publisher The BSN Diversity League Table 2013, research project-managed & published by Satsuma, on behalf of the Black Solicitors Network. Satsuma (Europe) Ltd Tel: +44 (0)845 057 0515 Fax: +44 (0)845 057 0525 Email (Research, Editorial and Consultancy): [email protected] Email (Design & Publishing): [email protected] Email (General): [email protected] Website: www.satsuma.eu

9-11

Welcome from the...



9 Black Solicitors Network 10 Law Society 11 Bar Council

13-19

About the results

13 14 15 17

Introduction About the Demographic, Policy and Practice League Tables and the Diversity Quotient™ Recruitment, Retention and Promotion Benchmarks and Location

20-26

Supporting Diversity: the regulators



21 Legal Services Board 22 Solicitors Regulation Authority 23 Bar Standards Board 24 Chartered Institute of Legal Executives 25 Judicial Appointments Commission

27-35

In their own words



28 Mary-Ann Wright Chair of the Women Lawyers Division of England and Wales 2013 30 D. Peter Herbert OBE Chair, Society of Black Lawyers 32 David Merkel Chair of the Lawyers with Disabilities Division 34 Hanisha Patel Chair, Association of Asian Women Lawyers

36-39

Full circle – from medicine to law and back again



An interview with Funke Abimbola

40-43

Why diversity should be business as usual



An interview with Lesley Wan

45-49

The Results: Firms



45 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 49

50-52

The Results: The City 10 and the International Dimension



50 The Top 10, the City 10 and the UK Top 100 52 The International Dimension

Results: Partners The Rankings: Female Partners The Rankings: EM Partners Results: Associates The Rankings: Female Associates The Rankings: EM Associates Results: Trainees The Rankings: Female Trainees The Rankings: EM Trainees Results: Paralegals The Rankings: Female Paralegals The Rankings: EM Paralegals

52-55

The Results: Chambers



52 Results: Queen’s Counsel 53 The Rankings: Female Queen’s Counsel 53 The Rankings: EM Queen’s Counsel

54 54 54 55

Results: Barristers The Rankings: Female Barristers The Rankings: EM Barristers The Rankings: Overall Demographic Rankings for the Full Sample of Chambers

55-56

The Results: sexual orientation and disabilities



55 Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Employees 56 Disability

56-58

Policy and Practice, and the Diversity QuotientTM

61

Regional Differences

62-67

Umunna stands out



An interview with Chuka Umunna

69-90

Firm-by-Firm analysis

93-108

Chambers-by-Chambers analysis

62

109-120 Diversity In Action: Case studies 110 Opening doors

114 Family-friendly policies improve retention 118 Prime example of social mobility

123-140 The Rankings: Firms





124 EM Partners 125 Female Partners 126 EM Associates 127 Female Associates 128 EM Trainees 129 Female Trainees 130 EM Paralegals 131 Female Paralegals 132 Total Ranking for the City 10 Firms 132 Total Ranking for the UK 100 Firms 133 Total Ranking for International Firms 134 LGB Employees 135 Disabled Employees 136 Demographic League Table (Firms) 138 Policy and Practice Rankings (Firms) 140 Overall Diversity League Table (Firms)

143-152 The Rankings: Chambers 144 EM Queen’s Counsel

145 Female Queen’s Counsel 146 EM Barristers 147 Female Barristers 148 Demographic League Table (Chambers) 149 Policy and Practice (Chambers) 151 Overall Diversity League Table (Chambers)

153-155 Conclusions & Recommendations 157

Headline Findings

159

Thank you

114 Disclaimer The Black Solicitors Network (hereinafter referred to as the BSN ) has made every effort to ensure that the information provided within this publication is accurate. However, the content and entries are based on the latest information available at the time of going to print. • Naturally during the lifespan of this publication names, addresses and telephone numbers may change but this edition will not be amended and reissued as a result of any such changes. • This disclaimer is effective in relation to editorial content, research and advertising. • The BSN does not under any circumstances whatsoever accept liability for any damages or loss which may arise from any error or omission of information contained in this publication. The BSN does not represent or act as agents for organisations and/or individuals within this publication. Professional qualifications, trade certification and membership of trade associations, shown against an organisation or individual’s advertisement are not endorsed or supported by the BSN or this publication. • The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily the views of the editor or the publisher. © Black Solicitors Network 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form, stored in a retrievable system or transmitted in any format without the written permission of the Black Solicitors Network except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Applications for the Black Solicitors Network’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 7

At Morrison & Foerster, our diversity makes a difference. Clients entrust us with critical, multidimensional matters. We provide them with innovative solutions by fostering a community that values diverse viewpoints, backgrounds and experiences. Working together, we explore different perspectives that allow us to achieve the best results possible.

We are Morrison & Foerster — a global firm of exceptional credentials. With more than 1,000 lawyers in 16 offices in key technology and financial centers in the United States, Europe and Asia, our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, investment banks, and Fortune 100, technology and life science companies. We’ve been included on The American Lawyer’s A-List for 10 straight years, and Chambers Global named MoFo its 2013 USA Law Firm of the Year. Our lawyers are committed to achieving innovative and business-minded results for our clients, while preserving the differences that make us stronger.

©2013 Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, mofo.com

8 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Welcome

from the Black Solicitors Network

Welcome to the 8th edition of the BSN DLT. We continue to chart the progress that is being made in this jurisdiction to increase inclusion and diversity. We achieve this by showcasing and sharing good practice and constantly making the business case for fair and equal structures in the legal workplace. Our legal profession has had a “could do better” report, not just from the Legal Services Board (LSB) but also from the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. The LSB stressed the importance of gathering accurate data and noted that improvement in diversity in the legal sector had occurred “predominately at the lower levels of the profession”. Data from recent LSB reporting tells us that licensed conveyancers are top of the class in diversity data collection with 56%. Solicitors are second with 42%. Legal executives and barristers have this kind of data for one in twenty of their members. We have had the Legal Education Training Review , which ushered in apprenticeships and the potential for improved social mobility. Scrutiny must be made of these new routes to ensure equality in treatment and diversity in the entrants. Our legal aid system is being overhauled. Chair of the Bar Council, Maura McGowan QC, recently said: “Many female and BME barristers work in family and criminal law, where the majority of cases are publically funded.” Solicitors face consolidation, which will see the closure of nearly 100% of BME criminal law firms when the proposed cull of 1,600 firms to 300 is implemented. These are extremely challenging times for parts of our profession. On behalf of the BSN and our members, I would like to thank our main sponsor, the Law Society, and all of the other supporters and contributors, without whom this important research and publication would not exist. Nwabueze Nwokolo Chair, BSN

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 9

Welcome from the Law Society

The Law Society is committed to promoting diversity at all levels of the profession. That is why we sponsor the Black Solicitors Network (BSN) Diversity League Table, which not only provides detailed data on the performance of law firms and chambers, but also valuable analysis of the key issues affecting diversity in law. I applaud those firms that have taken part this year and demonstrated their commitment to tackling the barriers to equality, diversity and social mobility in the profession. The Law Society’s own Diversity and Inclusion Charter has been embraced by a growing number of firms and now covers more than a third of the profession. We see the Charter and the League Tables as complementary, both providing mechanisms for firms to measure their own progress year on year and to compare their performance with their peers across a range of key areas. We also support the profession with regular Firms’ Diversity Forums across England and Wales, where we have seen a true spirit of cooperation to overcome challenges and drive change in this arena. We are once again delighted to partner with the BSN and we look forward to continuing to work with them to promote greater diversity across the profession. Nick Fluck President, the Law Society

10 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Welcome from the Bar Council

We are proud that once again a number of barristers’ chambers have decided to contribute to this year’s Diversity League Table. The findings reflect our positive commitment and hard work towards striving for greater equality and diversity within the legal profession, and we hope they are encouraging for future generations entering the legal profession. Over the last year, the Bar Council’s Equality and Diversity Committee has continued to assist chambers to embed the Bar Standards Board’s Equality and Diversity Rules of the Code of Conduct via the confidential Equality and Diversity Helpline, and equality and diversity training. In addition, the Member Services Department is running recruitment and selection training. It is exceptionally important that we continue to give students from less advantaged backgrounds the chance to participate in initiatives such as Placement Week, where state school children spend a week shadowing barristers in chambers and at court, and the National Bar Mock Trials competition, which offers a unique insight into the criminal justice system. The Bar is not a profession that should be considered as unapproachable or unachievable. The Bar Council is also persevering to improve diversity within the judiciary so that it better reflects the public it serves. The Bar Council has contributed to recent research that looks into why particular groups do not apply for the judiciary, and will make recommendations based on the findings. We will continue to offer our support, training and mentoring to encourage applications from underrepresented groups. The Bar is committed to ensuring that the profession is modern and diverse. We are always working to widen access to the Bar and to attract the best and the brightest irrespective of background, so that anyone with the ability and potential has the chance to be successful at the Bar. Maura McGowan QC Chairman of the Bar for 2013

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 11

IRWIN IRWINMITCHELL MITCHELLIS IS MITCHELL IS PROUD PROUDTO TOBE BEDIFFERENT DIFFERENT DIFFERENT AtAt Irwin Irwin Mitchell, Mitchell, wewe areare proud proud to to celebrate celebrate thethe diversity diversity of of our our people, people, At Irwin Mitchell, we are proud to celebrate the diversity of our people, our our clients clients and and thethe communities communities in in which which wewe operate. operate. With With thethe support support of of our clients and the communities in which we operate. With the support of our our dynamic dynamic and and creative creative networking networking groups, groups, our our award-winning award-winning diversity diversity our dynamic and creative networking groups, our award-winning diversity programme programme goes goes from from strength strength to to strength. strength. Our Our thanks thanks gogo to to allall those those who who programme goes from strength to strength. Our thanks go to all those who have have made made 2013 2013 such such a success. a success. have made 2013 such a success.

www.irwinmitchell.com www.irwinmitchell.com www.irwinmitchell.com 0870 08701500 1500100 100 0870 1500 100

Best Best Workplace Workplace Diversity Diversity Strategy Strategy

Best Workplace Diversity Strategy

Irwin Irwin Mitchell Mitchell LLPLLP is authorised is authorised andand regulated regulated by the by the Solicitors Solicitors Regulation Regulation Authority. Authority.

| diversity TABLE 2013 Irwin 12 Mitchell LLP isLEAGUE authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

About the results

Last year, the formal requirements on the profession to monitor and publish diversity data ensured that data was more readily available, providing a record response to the survey. This year, despite the regulatory pressures on firms and chambers, we have more or less maintained last year’s high, with a notable increase in the number of participating chambers. 1 Introduction Welcome to the 2013 Black Solicitors Network (BSN) Diversity League Table (DLT). This eighth year of publication sees some improvement in the economic climate, but most commentators continue to suggest that any recovery over the next 18 to 24 months will be, at best, subdued.1 The main risks to growth come from a weakening of Eurozone demand and some potential for slowing growth in emerging markets. In the medium term, legal firms and chambers will continue to face a challenging economic environment. Firms that have come a long way along the diversity journey will be better placed in this environment if they can harness the strategic advantage that diversity brings. Once again, in this year’s publication we consider the diversity of firms according to the gender, ethnicity, LGB and disability status of their employees. This year, 71 firms and chambers took part in the DLT: very close to the highest ever and encouraging given the relatively weak economic outlook and some possible uncertainty across the profession. The Law Society’s 2013 Trends in the Solicitors’ Profession reports that “the number of solicitors working in private practice firms registered in England and Wales declined between 2011 and 2012 for the first time since records began in 1971”. Since last year’s publication, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and the Government Equalities Office have published a review of the business case for diversity.2 One clear message from this review is that “the

firm’s economic and organisational context is crucial in determining how equality and diversity brings about business benefits” and “how diversity is managed is also crucial”. The Diversity League Tables give an idea of firms’ and chambers’ diversity profiles, but also recognises the role that policies and practices play in the effective management and support of workplace diversity. Thus, an overall Diversity Quotient™ is calculated for each firm; this has been developed so that each firm can potentially obtain an overall quotient of 1,000 points. Of the overall quotient score, 50% reflects the rankings in the six Demographic League Tables, which are created for gender and ethnic diversity at the different levels of practice. The other 50% is calculated from the firms’ responses to questions that cover the following five areas of diversity policy and practice: 1. Monitoring 2. Leadership and internal policy/ strategy 3. External face 4. Staff development and support 5. Recruitment, promotion and retention These questions attempt to gauge the effort and commitment of firms to the enhancement and effective management of diversity. They also give credit to those that recognise change is needed, and have put in place the mechanisms to ensure that this happens, but who are only just beginning to see

See for instance the Bank of England Inflation Report, August 2013, and NIESR GDP estimates for September 2013. 2 Urwin, P., Parry, E., Dodds, I., Karuk, V. and David, A. (2013). “The Business Case for Equality and Diversity: a Survey of the Academic Literature”. BIS Occasional Paper No. 4. Government Equalities Office and Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 1

any impact on the levels of diversity within the firm. More detail is provided in the following section on exactly how this latter 50% is calculated and details of the 42 firms (12 international and 23 UK Top 100) that participated voluntarily in the survey can be seen in the composite rank tables at the end of this publication. The average size of firm in our sample has, again, gone up slightly. Last year, the average firm had 447 fee earners and this year the figure is 454, reflecting continuation of an upward trend in the last few years back towards the figure of 470 we saw in 2010 (although the continued lack of responses from three of the City 10 in the last three years of the survey is also a possible explanation of the fall from 2010). This average hides a lot of variation, with the smallest firm having 30 fee earners, and the largest having 1,521. The firms can be broken down into the following categories: • 12 international firms • 23 UK Top 100 firms • 7 of the City 10 firms Each year we approach all the UK Top 150 firms and the 30 leading international firms with UK bases, with the UK Top 100 and UK Top 150 identified by The Lawyer’s 2012 listings. Considering this next to the responses received in each one of these categories of firm, we had a 40% response rate from the international firms approached, compared to a 23% response rate

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 13

among the UK top 100 firms that received requests from us. Among the City 10, only three firms did not respond. This year, 29 chambers responded to the survey. We approached 180 leading chambers, from a list that was originally compiled with the assistance of the Bar Council. The main condition for selecting who to approach, was sets of chambers with 30 or more members. Importantly, this created a manageable sample size, which coincidentally was in total closer to the same number of firms invited to participate. The response rate this year from chambers was therefore 16%, up from last year’s 13%. Importantly, 29 represents an increase of 26% from 2012’s total of 23 firms. Last year, the combination of chambers (of which we had 23) and firms (50) gave us a total of 73 participating institutions. As suggested above, this year we have more chambers (29), but fewer firms (42), resulting in a figure of 71 overall. Once again, we draw on information from the Law Society’s Trends in the Solicitors’ Profession and figures from the Bar Council, so that firms can gauge themselves next to realistic sector-wide diversity benchmarks. This allows us to recognise firms that are doing better than others in the industry, but are worried that they may not compare well to the sample of DLT firms. Chambers and firms are encouraged to contact us if they wish to participate in next year’s survey.

2 About the Demographic, Policy and Practice League Tables and the Diversity Quotient™ For firms, individual Demographic League Tables present information about partners, associates, trainees and paralegals, each disaggregated by ethnicity, gender, disability and sexual orientation. These are designed to show levels of representation of ethnic minority (EM) groups, women, disabled and LGB employees in each of the main occupational levels within each firm. The overall Demographic Diversity League Table for firms provides a composite measure determined by the findings from six of these separate league tables (which reflect the levels of ethnic and gender diversity across partners, associates and trainees). Information from the tables on LGB and disabled employees is not

14 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

LIST OF PARTICIPATING FIRMS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Addleshaw Goddard Allen & Overy Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP Ashurst LLP Baker & McKenzie Berwin Leighton Paisner Blake Lapthorn Charles Russell Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Clifford Chance Dentons DWF LLP Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Flint Bishop LLP Freeth Cartwright LLP Freshfields Hogan Lovells Irwin Mitchell K&L Gates LLP Latham & Watkins Linklaters LLP Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP Mayer Brown International LLP McMillan Williams Solicitors Mills & Reeve LLP Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP Mundays LLP Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Olswang LLP O’Melveny & Myers LLP Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP Reed Smith Russell-Cooke Shoosmiths Sidley Austin LLP Squire Sanders (UK) LLP Trowers & Hamlins Weightmans LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges White & Case LLP Winckworth Sherwood Withers LLP

included in the overall Demographic League Table for firms, as information remains somewhat limited. The ranking of a firm in terms of the diversity of its paralegals (including legal executives) also does not feed into the overall table, as it is often the case that paralegal status is a result of an inability to obtain a training contract. However, as we concede in various parts of the following

discussions, this situation is changing and firms are increasing the routes into the profession for those working as paralegals. This is a debate that will continue, but we need to see more results from these programmes before including paralegals in our overall table. The information requested from chambers is the same as that asked of firms, in relation to ethnicity and gender, and separate demographic league tables are created. In addition to the Demographic League Tables, the questions on Policy and Practice gauge the extent of Diversity Monitoring, with, for instance, scores given for firms and chambers that collect information on each of the four diversity strands of gender, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation. In the area of Leadership and Internal Policy/ Strategy, more marks are awarded for firms and chambers that have a diversity leader/champion at higher levels of seniority and recognition is given to those firms that have diversity goals and targets included in the performance review of managers. External Face reflects formal public statements of diversity intent and the signing up to formal charters and frameworks, while Staff Development and Support covers issues such as employee networks, as well as the proportions of staff receiving formal diversity training. Together with questions on Recruitment, promotion and retention, which are discussed in more detail in the next section of the report, this adds up to a maximum of 28 total points. The policy and practice scores of participants, out of 28, are then standardised to reflect a score out of 500 and this is added to their score out of 500 that reflects performance in Demographic League Tables. This latter 50% of a participant’s points are awarded for rankings in the individual demographic league tables, created for gender and ethnic diversity at each practice level. More specifically, a participant scores 4 points every time they appear in the top 25% of a table; 3 points if they figure in the next 25% and so on (with the bottom 25% giving 1 point). This gives a maximum possible total of 24 points for a firm (as paralegals are excluded), which is then scaled to a demographic score of between zero and 500. The total overall Diversity Quotient™ is made up of the score out of 500 in the demographic tables and the score out of 500 for the policy and

practice table, giving participants a score in commitment to, and achievement of, diversity out of 1,000. As with previous years, participation in this survey was voluntary. Following an improvement in participation between 2008 and 2009, participation across firms and chambers was lower in both 2010 and 2011. Some firms were not able to participate in the survey because the requested data was either unavailable or incomplete. Other firms indicated that they were in the process of improving their data-collection methods, which would allow them to collect information relating to ethnicity more accurately for future surveys. However, 2012 saw a marked increase in participation which is closely matched by 2013 levels, perhaps due in part to wider requirements being placed on the legal profession to collect and publish demographic data. This in turn means that more firms and chambers are likely to have better systems and procedures in place to capture this information, making it easier to take part. The increased scope and size of the publication, the inclusion of chambers and the creation of the new online system required significant funding, and participants were required to contribute towards these costs. This has been a reason given by some firms and chambers who decided not to participate. However, it is worth noting that all of the firms, and many of the chambers, invited to participate have annual turnovers well in excess of £10 million.

LIST OF PARTICIPATING CHAMBERS • 11 KBW • 12 King’s Bench Walk • 23 Essex Street • 25 Bedford Row • 4 Breams Buildings • 4 King’s Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power) • 4 New Square • 9 Bedford Row • 9-12 Bell Yard • Atkinson Bevan Chambers • Atlantic Chambers • Coram Chambers • Cornerstone Barristers • Devereux Chambers • Doughty Street Chambers • Five Paper • Fountain Court Chambers • Hardwicke • KBG Chambers • Linenhall Chambers • Littleton Chambers • Matrix Chambers • New Park Court Chambers • One Crown Office Row • Outer Temple Chambers • Red Lion Chambers • Serle Court • Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers • Tooks Chambers

Figure 1: Solicitors and paralegals (with contract) recruitment and retention by gender

80% 70% 60%

Male Female

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Applicants

Leavers

Promotions

Paralegals with training contracts

An individual profile of each firm can be found in the section of the report entitled Firm by Firm Analysis, which includes a summary of their rankings across the main tables. Similar information relating to chambers can be found in the section entitled Chambers by Chambers Analysis.

2.1 Recruitment, Retention and Promotion The focus of the Demographic League Tables is on firms’ and chambers’ reported staff diversity profiles at a particular point in time. For those firms with a large number of employees, the diversity picture often represents a snapshot of a very dynamic environment, but radical change in the proportion of women, ethnic minorities, LGB or disabled employees in the workplace takes longer because of the numbers involved. For chambers, while there tends to be a lesser amount of turnover (on average), they also have smaller numbers involved in practice and this means that small changes in staff, can lead to diversity profiles changing, quite dramatically.

2.1.1 Firms This year sees an increase, from 36% to 48%, in the proportion of firms that are able to provide a detailed breakdown of the ethnicity of applicants. It would seem that an increasing number of firms are able to ensure that they draw on a diverse mix of applicants, through this process of internal monitoring. When we consider the collection of information on the gender of applicants, this year 69% of firms were able to provide data, almost identical to the 70% last year, and a sustained improvement on 2010 when the figure was only 47%. Considering the collection of information on leavers, only eight DLT firms (19%) do not collect information on ethnic diversity and only four do not systematically collect information on the sex of leavers. Very similar proportions of firms collect information on the sex and ethnicity of those who receive promotion. Figure 1 considers only those firms for which we have clear responses (i.e. leaving out the non-respondents). The pattern of applicants, leavers and promotions is almost identical to the picture in the past three years, with a higher proportion of women found

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 15

Figure 2: Solicitors and paralegals (with contract) recruitment and retention by ethnicity and gender

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%

BME Male BME Female Non-BME Male Non-BME Female Unknown

5% 0% Applicants

Leavers

Promotions

Paralegals with training contracts

“…it is once again striking that we have such a large proportion of BME women (38%) among paralegals with training contracts, compared to zero non-BME females reported.” among all categories. Fifty-seven per cent of all applicants are female (compared to 55% last year), and 54% have left the firm in the last year. Last year we saw an encouraging rise in the proportion of women among all promotions, from 52% to last year’s 59%, and this year we have a figure of 57%. However, there is a surprising fall in the proportion of paralegals with training contracts who are female, from 75% in 2011, 71% last year, to 57% this year. Figure 2 is derived from information provided by fewer firms and therefore the proportions of firms reporting unknown are also included. In previous years, we have suggested that the figures for applicants must come with a health warning as those in the ‘unknown’ ethnic minority category have tended to be significantly above 60%. However, this year there is some improvement, and nowhere in the figures do we see the unknown category rising above 40%. The findings from this year seem to confirm the findings from previous years; that the relative positions of men and women is the same for those from BME backgrounds, as it is for those in the non-BME category – that is, slightly higher proportions of BME women are seen among

16 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

applicants, leavers and promotions, compared to BME men. Similarly, it is once again striking that we have such a large proportion of BME women (38%) among paralegals with training contracts, compared to zero non-BME females reported. However, once again we must take care, as even though the numbers in the unknown category have fallen, they still make up nearly 40% in this part of Figure 2.

Figure 3: Chambers applications, tenancy and leave by gender

2.1.2 Chambers Considering the data from chambers, it is encouraging that only five (17%) cannot provide a gender breakdown of applicants over the past three years. We also have some improvement on last year, as 11 chambers (compared to nine last year) provide responses to the questions regarding the ethnic diversity of applicants over the same period. However, data over three years is perhaps a tall order and considering more recent applications, together with the categories of tenancy and leave, we have answers from a large proportion of chambers. The smaller number of moves

Male Female Unknown

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Applicants last three years

Applicants autumn 2011

Given Up Tenancy

Maternity/paternity leave 2008-2011

Maternity/ paternity returned

Pupils given tenancy

in and out of chambers means that large changes in proportions can result from relatively small changes in absolute values. Therefore the unknown category is included in both Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 suggests that chambers in the survey have had a slightly higher ratio of female (39%) to male (38%) applicants over the past three years. While this is a similar picture to the one we saw last year, the figures for applications in the last year (autumn 2012 to the present) are substantially down for both men and women. In the autumn 2011-2012 period, chambers reported having 55% male applicants, compared to 45% female applicants, with no missing observations. This year, 82% of observations in this category are missing. It is hard to see what is driving such a finding. A higher proportion of maternity/ paternity leave continues to be taken up by women, but the proportions are closer than one might expect, with this year only 59% of these employees being women, compared to 56% last year. We need to be careful in reading too much into this, but the suggestion is that an increasing number of men are taking up the opportunity of leave when they start a family. In previous years, the data suggested that a higher proportion of all maternity/paternity leave was taken up by women, but that a higher proportion of those returning from leave were men. However, this year, there is a less pronounced attrition effect, with women making up 52% of those returning from maternity/paternity leave. Finally, we have an almost identical proportion (55%) of pupils being given tenancy in the last year who were male, compared to both last year (55%) and the year before (54%). In Figure 4, we are faced with a 60% “unknown” category when considering the ethnicity of applicants over the last three years. However, this is not the case for all other categories where we ask for data over the latest year. Across all of these latter categories, non-BME males make up the highest proportion of applicants, those giving up tenancy and pupils being given tenancy. The next highest proportion is then seen among non-BME women, with BME men and BME women making up the smallest proportions in all the categories of Figure 4 that report on the most recent year.

Figure 4: Chambers applications and tenancy by ethnicity and gender

BME Male BME Female Non-BME Male Non-BME Female Unknown

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Applicants last 3 years

Applicants autumn 2012

Given up tenancy

Pupils given tenancy

In addition, there was a sharp drop in the number of admissions in the 12 months to 31 July 2012. The fall of 24%, compared to the same period last year, is attributed to low take-up of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme. As is usually the case, our sectorwide benchmarks across all areas of practice, in terms of both gender and ethnic diversity, are all higher than those in the DLT sample. The sectorwide Law Society figures tend to reflect a continued upward trend in the gender and ethnic diversity of partners, associates and trainees, with the exception that the proportion of women on training contracts has fallen slightly, from 63.5% to 60.3%, over the year. Similarly (and in some contrast to recent years) the diversity averages for the DLT sample are almost all higher than last year. For instance, the proportion

3. Benchmarks and Location Table 1 sets out the main external benchmark statistics that are relevant for the sample of firms included in this year’s DLT. The monitoring of diversity within the firm can be considered next to these benchmarks, giving the company an idea of how it compares to sector-wide averages. As the introduction to this year’s DLT suggests, the 2012 Law Society publication of Trends in the Solicitors’ Profession, identifies the first reversal in solicitor numbers since 1971, when figures were first collected. The publication also points out that “the number of training contracts registered in 2012 was 10.3% lower than recorded ten years ago, and 16% lower than prerecessionary figures for 2008–2009”.

Table 1: Benchmark data for firms (demographics) Females

Ethnic minorities

DLT survey

Law Society statistics*

DLT survey

Law Society statistics*

24.12%

26.7%

5.1%

7.84%

56.41%

60.29%

11.85%

13.44%

Trainees

56.36%

60.3%

17.22%

22.7%

Paralegals

71.76%

-

13.41%

-

-

36.42%

-

12.5%

Partners Associates Assistants

Sole practitioners, consultants and other private practice

* Position of solicitors working in private practice and holding a practising certificate as at 31 July 2012. NB: The category of partners also includes partner equivalents (i.e. members, directors, shareholders).

Source: The Law Society (2012) Trends in the Solicitors’ Profession

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 17

of female partners in the DLT sample was 21.74% last year and this year it is 24.12%. The only area where there has been little or no change is in the proportion of partners who are from an ethnic minority background (although this follows a rise from 4.51% to 5.2% between 2011 and 2012). Previous years have seen a steady increase in the proportion of ethnic minorities and women among paralegals in the DLT sample. This year there is very little change from the previous year’s figures. The question of diversity among paralegals is one we return to in the section on paralegals later in the report, as we need to take into account the fact that routes into the profession continue to be expanded for those working as paralegals and legal executives. The figures in Table 1 are for the UK as a whole. However, many firms will be recruiting in areas of the UK with very different proportions of ethnic minority candidates. For instance, according to the most recent 2011 Census figures provided by the Office for National Statistics,3 across England and Wales, 14% of the resident population are from an ethnic minority background. In Greater London this figure is 40%, and in inner London rises to 43%, compared

Table 2: Benchmark data for firms (geographic) Ethnic minority practising certificate (PC) holders as a proportion of total PC holders within standard regions (Law Society statistics)*

Region

City London

11.1%

Rest of London

21.9%

Greater London

16.4%

South East

9.2%

19%

Eastern

17.6%

5%

South West

2.6%

10%

West Midlands

16.4%

19%

East Midlands

11.2%

12%

Yorkshire & Humberside

9.3%

14%

North West

8.2%

17%

North East

3.1%

7%

Wales

2.9%

5%

70%

Outside England/Wales

17.5%

5%

Figure 5: Overseas locations of non-UK offices

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

18 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

45% 7%

*Source: The Law Society (2012) Trends in the Solicitors’ Profession

“Surprisingly, given London’s wealth of diversity, Law Society statistics suggest that the proportion of those practising in the capital from an ethnic minority background is relatively low.” 80%

Location of company branches (DLT survey)

United States South America Indian subcontinent European Union Other Europe, including Russia Mainland China Other Asian countries Africa Middle East Other No offices outside UK

3 http://www. ons.gov.uk/ons/ rel/census/2011census/ key-statisticsand-quickstatistics-forwards-andoutput-areasin-england-andwales/rft-ct0010. xls. 4 The figures are not directly comparable, as our survey asks about the location of branches. Large firms will have multiple branches in various regions and therefore the figures add up to more than 100%. However, the table still gives a good idea of the spread of our sample, relative to the sectorwide benchmark.

to 11% in the East Midlands and 5% in the North East. Firms in the capital continue to have an incredible diversity from which they can draw recruits, compared to the other extreme of firms in, for instance, the North East. From Table 2 we can gain an idea of what may be driving the lower levels of ethnic minority representation among our sample of firms. The spread of branches across our sample of firms4 is particularly concentrated in areas where, according to Law Society figures, there are lower levels of ethnic minority representation among those in practice. Surprisingly, given London’s wealth of diversity, Law Society statistics suggest that the proportion of those practising in the capital from an ethnic minority background is relatively low. This year we have 12 international firms in the DLT and in the Results section we create a separate diversity table for these firms. Across all of our firms in the sample (whether or not they are categorised as international), Figure 5 continues to show the importance of countries in the European Union and other parts of Europe for firms in the DLT sample. However, again this year we observe a continuation of the rise in importance of “Other Asian” countries, with 64% of firms suggesting that they have offices in these regions, compared to 60% last year and only 47% in 2011.

Weightmans can really make a difference. If you wish to play your part in our success email us on [email protected] Weightmans is an equal opportunities employer

www.weightmans.com

Weightmans is a Top 50 law firm with offices throughout the UK. Having been consistently awarded Top Employer status by the CRF Institute and recently recognised for diversity by the BSN, we are immensely proud of the supportive culture we provide to our people. We recognise that results for our clients comes from having a happy, motivated workforce, where people enjoy working together and treat each other with respect, and are valued and recognised for their ability.

SPACE FOR RENT 1.  Height 87mm  Width 140mm Pref Specs: CMYK Colour Format, 3mm Bleed All Round, .PDF File Type

TO TAKE PART IN THE DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE 2014 please call 0845 057 0515 or email [email protected]

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 19

Supporting diversity: The RegulatORS

20 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

David Edmonds, Chairman of the Legal Services Board

A

s Chairman of the Legal Services Board (LSB), I am pleased again to support the publication of the Diversity League Table. As the independent body responsible for overseeing the regulation of legal services across England and Wales, the LSB has supported the regulatory objectives to encourage a diverse legal profession. We share the Black Solicitors Network’s belief in transparency as a lever for change. We need to shed light on performance and support informed decision-making. Law firms and chambers should collect and publish information on the diversity make-up of their workforce. The concept of collecting and publishing data is now widely accepted as a means to stimulate action. From our review of regulators’ performance in response to this guidance, it is clear that while much progress has been made, with data for the legal sector published for the first time on a number of the protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act, there is still much to be done. Regulators need to identify and understand the issues with diversity that exist in the legal workforce and incentivise the changes in behaviour needed in firms and chambers, when they are making decisions on the recruitment, development and promotion of their staff. The regulatory objectives impose specific obligations on regulators to tackle these issues. The improved transparency of diversity data means that these are objectives on which the legal profession can be held to account.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 21

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

Antony Townsend, Chief Executive, Solicitors Regulation Authority

T

he SRA is pleased to continue supporting the Black Solicitors Network’s Diversity League Table and applauds those who are prepared to stand up and be counted in terms of their progress on diversity. As part of our new risk-based, outcomes-focused approach, equality and diversity has been elevated to one of our key regulatory principles and we are continuing to work with the profession to promote understanding of how firms can “encourage equality of opportunity and respect for diversity” in their everyday practice. We are now in our second year of implementing the Legal Services Board’s requirement on increasing transparency, which requires approved regulators like us to ensure that there is comprehensive diversity data about the profile of the legal workforce. Firms have a regulatory obligation to collect, report and publish data about the diversity make-up of their workforce. This requirement is aligned to our regulatory Principal on Equality and Diversity. In 2012, 9,408 firms participated in the survey and the response rate for each firm was an average of 42%. We look forward to an improved response rate this year. The barriers to diversity and social mobility in the profession was one of the key themes that ran through our recent Legal and Education Training Review. We recently published our response to the review in our statement, Training for Tomorrow. Training for Tomorrow will see some of the most far-reaching changes to legal education and training in more than 40 years and a key priority will be to consider ways in which we can improve access, equality of opportunity and diversity.

22 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT Baroness Ruth Deech, Chair, Bar Standards Board

A

s Chair of the Bar Standards Board, the regulator of barristers in England and Wales, I am delighted to give my full support to the Diversity League Table 2013. We are committed to encouraging, and helping to foster, a proactive approach among chambers to equality and diversity. As the regulator, it falls upon us to ensure that the Bar has the proper systems and structures in place to record and analyse important equality and diversity data. The equality and diversity rules for the Bar have been in place for more than a year now. A recent progress check conducted by the BSB showed that 59% of those chambers we interviewed had conducted diversity monitoring on their workforce and, of that 59% almost threequarters had published the data gathered on their websites. This is good news. But, as ever, there is always more to be done. We will soon be conducting a chambers monitoring exercise, which will give us a clearer picture as to chambers’ compliance with the new rules. These rules are important; they are designed to improve diversity in the profession and to help bring about lasting change in a justice system that is world-renowned. And it is with this in mind that the BSB shares and supports the aims of, and good work behind, the Diversity League Table.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 23

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

Helen Whiteman, Chief Operating Officer, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives

T

he Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is delighted to once again be supporting the Diversity League Table. Diversity is of course about many things, including ethnicity and socioeconomic background, and we are proud to be diversity champions. CILEx is the professional association for chartered legal executives, other legal professionals and paralegals. In our 50th anniversary year, we celebrate that we have enabled aspiring lawyers and paralegals to enter into the law and attain successful careers regardless of background. Central to our ethos is providing individuals and firms with a cost-effective range of qualifications that can be used to grow skills and competency across all levels of the legal profession. With the rise of university tuition fees, our profession faces the risk of becoming less accessible to those from diverse backgrounds. CILEx is unique in offering the only non-university route to becoming a lawyer and has further expanded this route with the launch of two apprenticeships in legal services. We are proud of the diversity of our members who come from all walks of life: 74% of our members are women and 16% are from black, Asian or minority ethnic communities. Just 2% of our members have a parent who was a lawyer and only 15% have a parent who went to university. In fact, 48% of CILEx members say they chose the CILEx route because it was more affordable than the traditional university and GDL/LPC/BPTC route. Chartered legal executives are partners in law firms, higher court advocates, coroners and judges, and CILEx will continue to strive for a profession that reflects those it serves. We welcome recent moves from the government to improve the diversity of the legal profession, and there has never been a better time for law firms to take the lead and improve their diversity.

24 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

Christopher Stephens, Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission

T

he judiciary is becoming more diverse. Almost 10% of tribunal judges are now from a black, Asian and minority ethnic (BME) background and the court judiciary is improving too.

Over the lifetime of the JAC, 10% of the 3,502 JAC selections have been BME candidates. In the most recent Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) exercise, 25% of successful candidates selected by the JAC were BME. Success is slower to come in other areas; BME lawyers make up just 5% of the total number of deputy district judges (civil) compared to 10% of the eligible pool and there is still work to do in transforming senior appointments. We have strong hope for the future. Recent research into “Barriers to judicial appointment” – conducted jointly for the JAC, Law Society, Bar Council and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives – shows that BME lawyers are as interested in judicial office as any other group and significantly more likely to have applied for judicial appointment than white lawyers, but they also have a high fear of failure; 50% would not apply unless they knew they would be successful (compared to 43% for their white counterparts). The JAC will continue to select on merit; the often life-changing decisions being made in courts and tribunals require only the best applicants are chosen. So we would therefore like to see more BME lawyers taking up all the available opportunities to prepare thoroughly before applying, for example by shadowing relevant judges or experiencing the JAC process by being a “mock candidate”. If this happens, we are confident we will continue to see progress being made across both court and tribunal appointments.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 25

“Interview us”

What’s involved in training to be a lawyer at Mayer Brown? We know how important the first steps in your career are, which is why we want you to know as much as you can about the realities of life as a trainee solicitor. If law is for you, we want you to know what we look for in a trainee. Not that we are looking for clones – we are a diverse group of people – but there are some important skills that we all share. Ask us anything.

T +44 20 3130 8524 E [email protected] Mayer Brown values diversity and welcomes applications from all sections of the community.

Americas | Asia | Europe | www.mayerbrown.com Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe–Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

26 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

In their own words In this section we invite people who lead organisations that represent some of the main diversity strands covered within this year’s report to give us their thoughts. They are given an open brief to review recent challenges overcome, or challenges yet to be faced; but essentially it is their views, their experiences, in their own words…

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 27

The Law Society’s Women Lawyers Division Never has equality and diversity been a hotter topic and one so firmly on the political and business agenda that opportunities for positive change must be seized now. The legal profession is notoriously bad at retaining and developing female talent and producing a “talent pipeline” for future leaders. Notwithstanding that more women enter the profession at the junior level than men, women still have to be exceptional to achieve leadership positions, rather than simply being good enough, like their male counterparts. Retention and promotion are the key challenges facing women in our profession in 2013. If a woman takes a career break employers should, wherever possible, enable her to return to the organisation. Legal skills and expertise do not disappear with a career break. Modern technology enables effective, agile working. Many of our clients work in this way. Our members tell us that an old-fashioned “culture of presenteeism” still exists in many firms. This is an outdated way of doing business which discriminates against women. If this is not addressed as a priority, the profession will continue to haemorrhage the talent of more than 50% of its members. This does not make good business sense. It is a cause for cautious optimism that some firms are beginning to realise that their clients expect them to employ, retain and promote a diverse group of lawyers, which is reflective of the policies and values in their own organisations. This supports the effective business case for firms to take the issue of equality and diversity seriously. The importance of the Diversity League Table in highlighting these issues cannot be underestimated. Mary-Ann Wright Chair of the Women Lawyers Division of England and Wales 2013

28 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

“Legal skills and expertise do not disappear with a career break. Modern technology enables effective, agile working. Many of our clients work in this way.” diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 29

Society of Black Lawyers The Society of Black Lawyers, in its 40th anniversary year, welcomes the production by BSN of the league table of employment diversity. Diversity in the legal profession is not a recent event; John Thorpe, a Sierra Leonean, was called to the Bar in 1850 at Inner Temple. Monmohon Ghose, an Indian, was called to the Bar in 1868. Sadly, there are many in the legal profession who still pay lip service to diversity by having a token presence in their chambers or firms The league table is a clear demonstration of the degree of commitment which solicitors, firms and barristers’ chambers actually implement. In the 1960s, one of the calls of the US civil rights movement was the proportional employment of lawyers and judges at all levels of the justice system. That is a call that was echoed in the United Kingdom at all levels of the legal profession and the judiciary by the Benson Commission in 1979, and is still true today. There is still a significant underrepresentation of BME judges in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The diversity within the legal profession directly affects the pool from which the judiciary are chosen. The responsibility of the legal profession to truly reflect the community it serves is an obvious one that goes to the heart of this democracy. Solicitors’ firms and barristers’ chambers that seek to do business in the global market place require a diverse profession able to do business with clients in a global economy. Just having a black or brown face in the office, however, is not sufficient as those who do succeed in being able to access the corridors of power and influence have a responsibility to assist their various communities to move forward. A few successful lawyers divorced from their community will not be more than a cosmetic exercise benefiting the few. The degree of alienation within many BME communities will not be served simply by an ethnically diverse legal workforce who are not accessible or grounded in their own communities. As the civil rights activist Kwame Toure (Stokely Carmichael) said when he addressed the SBL in 1982, “lawyers as member of the privileged few in their communities have a duty to bring on the next generation and not to pull up the ladder behind them”. Firms and chambers seeking diversity must also support the wider social responsibility of BME lawyers to do just that. The Diversity League Table is an important tool to aid that process. D. Peter Herbert OBE Chair, Society of Black Lawyers

30 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

“The responsibility of the legal profession to truly reflect the community it serves is an obvious one that goes to the heart of this democracy.” diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 31

The Law Society’s Lawyers with Disabilities Division The Lawyers with Disabilities Division (LDD) was established in 2009 after several successful years as the Group for Solicitors with Disabilities. LDD promotes equal opportunities for people with disabilities within the legal profession. Our members come from a wide range of backgrounds and include law students, retired solicitors, paralegals and practising solicitors. LDD exists to help people with disabilities to access legal services and facilities, provides a one-to-one mentoring programme and provides a network to enable members working in the legal sector have their voice heard by the Law Society, local Law Societies, the profession, government and other policy-makers. Equality and diversity are issues which the profession needs to continue to address and LDD is doing its part in flying the flag for its members. David Merkel Chair of the Lawyers with Disabilities Division

32 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

“Equality and diversity are issues which the profession needs to continue to address…” diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 33

Association of Asian Women Lawyers The Association of Asian Women Lawyers strives to achieve diversity within the legal profession and ultimately to ensure that the profession as a whole is truly representative of the community that it serves. By this, we mean at all levels – from junior counsel and newly qualified solicitors right the way up to Queens Counsel, partners in law firms and of course, the judiciary. The Association of Asian Women Lawyers commends the work of the BSN in organising the Diversity League Table and encourages more firms and chambers to consider taking part in the future. In the last 12 months, it has been encouraging to hear that more initiatives are being set up to encourage retention within the profession, in particular at mid ranking levels and beyond. The Bar Council has successfully run its Managing Career Breaks course, the Law Society likewise with its Returners course. Not only that, more and more individuals are taking it upon themselves to mentor those who need assistance at a particular point in their profession. The Association of Asian Women Lawyers has recently organised the formal launch of our mentoring programme Inspire, which is being held at the Law Society. We still have a long way to go to retain talent within the profession, and certainly this is not being made any easier with cuts in funding. However, progress is being made and initiatives such as the Diversity League Table assist greatly with putting figures on the table and encouraging law firms and sets of chambers to put into practice their approach to diversity. Hanisha Patel Chair, Association of Asian Women Lawyers

34 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

“We still have a long way to go to retain talent within the profession, and certainly this is not being made any easier with cuts in funding.” diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 35

36 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Full circle – from medicine to law and back again Funke Abimbola, managing counsel for Roche UK, rejected her family’s tradition of working in medicine in favour of reading law although she inherited her work ethic and drive from her parents. After a spell in a legal firm, she now advises Roche on a wide range of issues pertinent to their healthcare business. She sees her role as adding value to the company and believes passionately that diversity is key to recruiting talent in the legal profession. Interview by Godwin Ohajah

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 37

Diversity League Table (DLT): What is your job and what does it involve? Funke Abimbola (FA): As managing counsel for Roche UK, I lead and manage the legal team of six that provides legal advice to Roche’s pharmaceutical operations in the UK, Republic of Ireland, Malta and Gibraltar. My team supports the full R&D process until our products receive marketing authorisation, following which we support post-authorisation activities for our marketed products. We also support the mature products portfolio. Together, we advise on a broad range of matters including commercial law, competition law, intellectual property, data protection, employment law, pharmaceutical law and regulation. I am also data privacy officer for the UK pharmaceutical business, with responsibility for ensuring compliance with data protection laws. DLT: Please tell us about the young Funke. Importantly, when did you first know that you wanted to be a lawyer? FA: Now, this is a very interesting question because I come from a family of doctors so the assumption was that, as the eldest child, I would also read medicine and become a doctor. I was born into a medical family in Nigeria and moved to the UK at a young age with my brother and sister. I was brought up in Sussex before going to Newcastle Law School. I must have known from about the age of 13 that I wanted to be a lawyer but, for various reasons, only worked up the courage to tell my father when I was choosing my A-level options. My poor dad got the shock of his life when I admitted that I had wanted to read law all along. Once he got over the shock, he was very supportive of my choice and was delighted when I secured a place to read law at Newcastle University. DLT: What, or who, has inspired you most during your career to date? FA: My father, who, very sadly, passed away last year, was a huge inspiration for my overall work ethic, drive and ambition as he made significant sacrifices to educate my siblings and me in the UK. My mother also remains a real inspiration to me and I consider myself very lucky as both my parents were excellent role models – exceptional doctors who achieved a lot in their careers while also supporting my siblings and me in any way they could. Focusing specifically on my legal career, I was especially inspired by the one uncle who chose to read law – what he has achieved in his business career is quite extraordinary. My main motivation on a day-to-day basis is my 10-yearold son – it is very important that I am as good

38 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

a role model to him as my parents were to me. DLT: Were there any personal obstacles that you had to overcome on your path to becoming the lawyer you are today? And if so, how did you overcome them? FA: The first obstacle was telling my father I wanted to read law and not medicine. I had the particular support of one of my school teachers who really fought my corner on this and we remain good friends more than 20 years later because of this. Suffice to say that Dad was really upset at first, more because he knew the medical field so well and very little about law – all his contacts and his network were within medicine both in Nigeria and abroad. So it meant that, although Dad was very supportive financially and in other ways, the next obstacle was getting an entry-level position in the legal profession and that was very much left to me. Getting a training contract in the late 90s was, in many ways, more competitive than it is now. Added to this was the fact that I only wanted to qualify in corporate/commercial law and only within either a City practice or the in-house legal department of a well-known company. I was encouraged on many occasions to aim lower but refused to do this, partly down to stubbornness, but also because I think it is so important to practise in an area that you feel passionately about and really enjoy. For me, this meant drawing up a list of the firms and in-house departments that I wanted to work for and cold-calling the heads of each department. I look back now and wonder what possessed me to be so bullish, but this approach resulted in several interviews and offers. I was able to qualify in my chosen practice area and then gain City experience. My dad always taught me that being persistent and determined was the key to success in life and I am so grateful for his advice. Dad really was the eternal optimist. DLT: You are the first managing counsel of Roche, one of the largest biotech companies in the world. So if this isn’t an obvious question, why did you make the move from private practice within a goodsized UK firm to in-house within a global giant? Was there a eureka moment, and why Roche in particular? FA: I enjoyed my time in private practice and was in private practice for more than ten years although I did spend some of this time working in-house. The eureka moment came when I realised that I really wanted to work much more closely with a business and within a specific sector rather than across a range of different sectors. This was not happening in private practice, where I was working with a wide range of clients in different industries. The

healthcare sector is one very close to my heart, especially given my family background, so it was the one that I naturally gravitated towards. And then it seemed that the moment I decided to focus on developing my in-house career within the healthcare sector, multiple opportunities to do so came my way. The role at Roche came along at exactly the right time and I really believe was meant to be. DLT: You joined Roche at a time when the pharmaceutical industry was dealing with the impact of NHS reforms in early 2012. It’s been described in the media as a “challenging time”, which is probably an understatement. Please give us a sense of what your first 12 months at Roche were like. FA: My first 12 months were exciting and full of opportunity and this continues to be the case. The current UK healthcare setting is, undoubtedly, a challenging one with a number of ongoing key changes, all of which impact on the pharmaceutical sector – for example, the value-based pricing discussions, the negotiations around the PPRS, the new NHS commissioning landscape, the future of the Cancer Drugs Fund – the list goes on and on. However, I really saw this as an opportunity for my team and me to learn and develop while also adding value in supporting the UK pharma business. I was forced to hit the ground running, which suited me because I tend to perform best when under pressure, as uncomfortable as it is at the time. For example, the year started with supply constraints across some of our products, which attracted a lot of media attention at the time as did some regulatory and other challenges that the company faced. I felt really privileged to be advising some of the teams involved in those concerns and was given the opportunity to work with a number of senior colleagues very soon after joining Roche. My boss was very supportive and this really empowered me to give proactive, timely advice with a strategic steer. Through this and other challenges in those first 12 months, I have been fortunate enough to build a reputation for myself within Roche and the wider pharma/healthcare setting and to have my contribution recognised with industry awards and nominations, including Legal Businesswoman of the Year at the Law Society Excellence Awards. So, yes, last year was an extremely challenging one, not least because I lost my dad part-way through the year. But challenges, as difficult as they may be at the time, should always be viewed as opportunities to learn, develop, improve and grow. DLT: In terms of the legal function at Roche (UK & Ireland) how is it structured

to deliver legal support to the business and to what extent do you outsource to external firms? FA: My team is broadly aligned to support specific therapy areas within the business covering the various stages of clinical trials, marketing authorisation (MA) and post-MA support. This way, we all get to know the products really well and can be very familiar with the strategy for specific brands. We all come from a commercial law background, which is crucial as the bulk of our work revolves around contracts. Most team members belong to legal and other forums where we can share

knowledge and develop; there is a strong learning and development culture within the team. We make a conscious effort not to outsource work unless we absolutely have to – most of the legal work is now done in-house, which has gone a long way to consolidating strong relationships with our internal clients. We don’t operate a formal legal panel as such. Our approach is to, instead, regularly use certain external firms that we have built a relationship with, for example, Eversheds for litigation, BLP for pensions, Arnold & Porter for niche regulatory advice and McCann Fitzgerald in Ireland. We outsource work when we either need niche advice or simply do not have the man-hours to advise internally. We have also made a real effort to provide more of our legal training in-house rather than relying on external law firms. Again, this has really helped to forge

stronger relationships with the business units that we support as they see tremendous value in this. I am very proud of the fact that we were shortlisted for “in-house team of the year” at both the Legal Business Awards and Halsbury’s Legal Awards earlier this year. DLT: As a global company, Roche is a major purchaser of services and has a significant supplier diversity programme in the US. Do you feel there is a place for large companies like Roche to put a greater requirement on their suppliers (legal or otherwise) to demonstrate, in practical ways, their ongoing commitment to equality and diversity? And do you have any initial thoughts on how this might begin to take shape? FA: Yes, a commitment to equality and diversity is very important and, aside from the supplier side, Roche definitely demonstrates this in the way it recruits. For example, we have about 50 different nationalities represented among colleagues in the UK alone, which made things very interesting during last year’s Olympic games. Looking specifically at suppliers, in my personal opinion, I think it is important to remember, as a starting point, that the quality of what is supplied is in many ways a given and might well be the main consideration for a lot of companies. However, I also feel that the fact that we are living in an increasingly diverse society would, in my view, mean that this diversity should be reflected in business and commercial relationships. There have been many approaches used by businesses over the years and none of them work 100% all of the time – in fact, there is no ideal method that works. The fact is that true diversity is a very difficult thing to measure or even define and I think this is the challenge faced by many companies who may have good intentions regarding equality and diversity but who may struggle to actually come up with a process

that works well. Where a form of diversity monitoring can become an integral part of the procurement process, this could go a long way to informing the final decision about who to appoint as supplier. DLT: In particular, would this be something that Roche might consider in the UK? Particularly if the company moved to a more formal panel structure for firms that you employ, and especially if you added the option to review every few years, which would itself enable a review of their equality and diversity, in terms of policies and practices, and also physical demographic changes. FA: I think, as I mentioned before, that this is always a good thing to consider and factor in, especially given the diversity within society itself and UK society in particular. It would be a case of somehow coming up with a simple enough process that would capture and monitor diversity data as a part of the procurement process itself – easier said than done, I admit. DLT: We are always grateful to successful BME lawyers who take time out from their busy schedules to answer our questions. So we feel it is right to use this opportunity to extend support to the next generation. With that in mind: in-house or private practice? What advice do you have for a young law graduate trying to make up their mind? FA: I would go back a step and ask this question – which area of law do you feel passionate about? Many in-house roles require a strong commercial law background. If you have already decided that you are passionate about immigration, for example, there would not be as many opportunities to practise immigration law in-house. I know people who trained in-house and moved to private practice and vice versa. There is no rule of thumb about which is better and there are far too many variables to summarise. What worked for me was starting off in private practice and then moving in-house but I wouldn’t want to be too prescriptive in providing advice. Every situation is different. For me, the key thing is to find an area of law that you really enjoy and then look carefully at the options available to you within that practice area. Remember that your area of specialism very often dictates your long-term legal career path so I would advise that you choose that carefully at the outset.

Law firms used: Arnold & Porter, Berwin Leighton Paisner, Covington & Burling, DAC Beachcroft, Eversheds, Herbert Smith Freehills, McCann FitzGerald (Source: GC Powerlist 2013)

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 39

Why diversity should be business as usual For Lesley Wan, head of Lloyds Bank’s corporate real estate legal team, promoting diversity in her division comes as naturally as advising the Group on property law. She explains why encouraging women in the profession and offering and programmes and placements to youth are crucial to driving business success. Interview by Godwin Ohajah

40 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 41

Diversity League Table (DLT): What is your role within Lloyds Banking Group and what are your areas of responsibility? Lesley Wan (LW): I head up the corporate real estate legal department for Lloyds Bank and lead a team of ten specialist real estate, real estate finance and social housing lawyers across the UK. My legal team is responsible for a property portfolio of around £31 billion. In addition to the usual “business as usual” requirements, i.e. working as transactional legal advisors embedded in the business, my team is instrumental in areas of business and legal risk management and has developed a number of value-added initiatives such as streamlining legal processes, managing a comprehensive secondee programme, developing training for the business and for our panel firms, legal panel management, etc. One further example of our value add within the business is that, following the financial crisis, we reviewed all our existing internal processes and worked with our business to design an entire suite of legal and commercial templates to cover all aspects of property lending in light of the merger between two significant property banks.

LW: I like to think that organisations do recognise potential and talent in its people, both men and women; I know I am a huge advocate of developing talent and bringing out the best in people and helping them to realise their potential. However, I also believe that the greater challenge for women in particular is to take responsibility for their own career progression at the outset; take credit for your successes and have the courage and confidence to ask for what you want. Sitting in your office, working hard and hoping for someone to shine a light on you may never happen – you could wait forever. I believe that any commercially savvy organisation will not want to lose their talented individuals, male or female, but the organisation needs to know who you are and what you can do and have delivered and that you have the

LW: My biggest career challenge to date, and one of my more interesting life experiences so far, was to make the decision to leave the safety and comfort of private practice and take time out to go to drama school in West Hollywood, Los Angeles, for a year before returning to London to restart my legal career. I think that as a consequence of having had the confidence to make that decision, I have become even more confident and this has really helped me progress and advance to do the things I enjoy doing. When you have experienced landing in a foreign country with just your bags, finding accommodation in a cheap motel on Sunset Boulevard and adjusting to a different culture while basically starting your life again from scratch, everything else seems so much easier! DLT: Do you think being a woman has actually been beneficial to your career, or in some cases maybe hindered your progress?

42 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

The Group recognises that having a diverse workforce creates a happier working environment for its employees, resulting in increased productivity and allowing us to provide a better service for our diverse customer base. DLT: You won an award for Legal Counsel of the Year in 2012. But as well as delivering excellence in your day job, you have also found time to develop diversity initiatives for the company. What were these initiatives and why did you feel it was important to make sure these were in place?

In a nutshell, our focus is to provide first class legal support to our property business. DLT: You started your career in New Zealand before moving around the globe and we now find you in London at Lloyds Banking Group. What has been your biggest career challenge to date?

designed specifically to help our female colleagues, and providing advice, guidance and support with mentoring, parenting and access to role models through our Footprints in the Snow internal career progression programme. Our colleague networks have been in place for a number of years, with the Breakthrough Network being our most recent initiative and one that I am closely involved with. The journey has been fantastic because we have had some great success stories and received really positive support from all our colleagues, male and female, throughout the organisation and across all business areas and levels of seniority.

LW: There are a number of initiatives I am involved with in supporting the bank, and I have a particular interest in supporting children and disadvantaged young people.

desire and commitment to contribute even more to the overall success of the organisation. DLT: Is diversity important to Lloyds Banking Group, and if so why? LW: Diversity and inclusion is extremely important to Lloyds Banking Group and is central to our business success. With 30 million customers, we clearly have a very diverse customer base, and we know that if we are to be successful we need to ensure we represent and understand them in order to be able to meet their needs. I am really proud that we have a range of initiatives and strategies to ensure the Group is inclusive for all colleagues and customers. We have a number of established internal initiatives for our colleagues, including our four colleague diversity networks: Access (disability network); GEM (ethnic minority network); Rainbow (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender network), and the Breakthrough network,

For the past six years, I have organised a summer placement programme for colleagues’ children to join my legal team and learn about banking, property and the legal profession, with the full support of our property business. I wanted to make the legal profession and banking more accessible to young people. Another initiative that I am hugely passionate about is our Breakthrough Network, which I mentioned earlier. I was thrilled to be appointed to lead the Mentoring Initiative for the Group which is designed to support the 61,000 women in our organisation. It focuses on helping to identify, develop and retain talented women in the organisation and to help our women realise their full potential and progress. I have a wonderful team of male and female colleagues who are passionate about the network and are helping us to achieve successes for our women on the programme. We now have 7,000 mentors and mentees on our network. I also set up a programme last year for A-level students from less affluent areas in London. My

objective was to identify talented young people who have the potential to succeed but receive fewer opportunities, and enable them to gain an insight into the working opportunities that are available in the City. We hope to build the confidence of young people through spending time at a range of the City’s top professional institutions with a view to inspiring them to go onto higher education or just come directly to the City to work. DLT: Do you think there is a role, or even a responsibility, for major organisations to use their influence and immense buying power to encourage suppliers and not just law firms to take diversity as seriously as you do? And if so, what approach or ideas might you suggest initially to help bring about any required change in mind-set or approach within those suppliers? LW: My personal view is that major organisations should seek to place diversity even higher on their agendas. After all, it is well recognised that having a diverse workforce helps create a happier working environment and delivers better results for the company. Accordingly, it holds true that our suppliers should be conscious of our approach and

collaborate with us to ensure that our diversity and inclusion policies are complementary. I also believe that change comes from leading by example. I feel that the more I do personally to drive diversity issues, the more I can inspire others to do the same. Eventually, I hope that this will encourage suppliers to align more closely with our values regarding recognising and promoting diversity and inclusion.

Law firms used: Allen & Overy, Ashurst, Cli¬fford Chance, CMS Cameron McKenna, Eversheds, Herbert Smith Freehills, Hogan Lovells, Linklaters, Mayer Brown, Norton Rose, SNR Denton (Source: GC Powerlist 2013)

TAKE THE CILEx ROUTE Where experience counts

Our unique route to becoming a lawyer doesn’t require a law degree.

CILEx is open to all. CILEx member

n

CILEx is the most accessible route to becoming a lawyer

n

Train in-house staff with CILEx apprenticeships or via part-time, full-time or distance learning

n

Over 80 accredited study centres in England and Wales

Contact us now Visit: www.cilexcareers.org.uk Call: 01234 845777 Email: [email protected]

EVERYBODY IS WELCOME Committed2Equality®

Committed2Equality® Shoosmiths is an equal opportunities employer

For more information visit www.shoosmiths.co.uk/recruitment

t 03700 86 87 88 w www.shoosmiths.co.uk

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 43

“…I applaud those firms that have taken part this year and demonstrated their commitment to tackling the barriers to equality, diversity and social mobility in the profession.” Nick Fluck President, the Law Society

44 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

The Results

This year, supported by a high participation level closely matching last year’s, we are able to interrogate the data with some interesting results. The Diversity QuotientTM is doing what we had hoped for; encouraging participants to actively seeking improvements in the area of policy and practice, resulting in our first maximum score in this area. THE RESULTS: FIRMS 1 Results: Partners At 24.1%, the proportion of partners in our sample who are female is only 2.6 percentage points lower than the 26.7% in the profession as a whole. Last year, ethnic diversity among the DLT sample of partners was 5.2% and the sector-wide statistic was 7.5%. This year, we have figures of 5.1% and 7.8%, respectively, reflecting an essentially static situation in both data series. In each year’s DLT, our discussion of individual league tables underlines that in many of the firms where we find ethnic diversity, it is mainly due to the presence of Asian partners and associates. This is reflected in Figure 6, where approximately half of ethnic minority partners are from an Asian background (i.e. 2.6% of all partners are Asian), with the proportions of Black partners continuing to remain particularly low.

3.00% 2.50%

1.2 The Rankings: EM Partners Figure 6: The average percentage of EM partners within firms

2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50%

1.1 The Rankings: Female Partners Last year’s top firm, Winckworth Sherwood LLP, has continued to increase the proportion of women among partners (from 42.5% last year), but this year is knocked off the top spot by a newcomer, McMillan Williams Solicitors. Both Winckworth Sherwood LLP and McMillan Williams Solicitors have offices in the South East region, with head offices in London (outside of the City), but this year’s winner also has a presence in the South West. At 47.06% and 45.24%, the proportion of female partners in these firms is comfortably above the 42.86% of O’Melveny & Myers LLP and 42.59% of Withers LLP, which has its head office in the City of London. However, O’Melveny & Myers LLP warrants particular mention, as its move from sixth place last year to third this year is the result of an approximate ten percentage point increase in female

once again encouraging that there are no firms in the sample at the bottom of the table whose proportion of female partners is zero. This is the third year where some level of female representation at partner level is apparent in all firms of the DLT sample, although it should be noted that in the bottom three firms fewer than 10% of partners are women.

representation at partner level, from one-third last year to just under 43%. Similarly, Russell-Cooke, Weightmans LLP and Flint Bishop LLP have achieved quite substantial increases in the proportions of partners who are women. Once again, Trowers and Hamlins, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and Shoosmiths retain their top 10 status and the spread of proportions between approximately 34% and 47% in the top 10 represents a five percentage point improvement on last year. It is

0%

Asian Black Mixed Other

For an amazing fourth year running, the top spot in our table for ethnic minority partners is taken by O’Melveny & Myers LLP. This firm’s achievement is notable, given the relatively low levels of diversity of firms located in the City of London according to Law Society figures. In second place is McMillan Williams Solicitors, which has a level of ethnic diversity at the level of partner to match its gender diversity. A whisker below in third place is Flint Bishop LLP, which has made significant strides in increasing ethnic diversity among partners since last year, when it just scraped into the top

“It is once again encouraging that there are no firms in the sample at the bottom of the table whose proportion of female partners is zero.” Table 3: Top 10 ranking of female partners for all participating firms Rank

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Firm Name

McMillan Williams Solicitors

47.06%

52.94%

0.00%

2

Winckworth Sherwood

45.24%

54.76%

0.00%

3

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

42.86%

57.14%

0.00%

4

Withers LLP

42.59%

57.41%

0.00%

5

Weightmans LLP

41.54%

58.46%

0.00%

6

Flint Bishop LLP

39.13%

60.87%

0.00%

7

Russell-Cooke

36.54%

63.46%

0.00%

8

Trowers & Hamlins

34.86%

65.14%

0.00%

9

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

34.38%

65.63%

0.00%

10

Shoosmiths

33.60%

66.40%

18.75%

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 45

Table 4: Top 10 ranking of ethnic minority partners for all participating firms Rank

Firm Name

EM %

Asian %

Black %

Mixed %

White %

Other %

Unknown %

1

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

28.57%

0.00%

14.29%

14.29%

71.43%

0.00%

0.00%

2

McMillan Williams Solicitors

17.65%

5.88%

11.76%

0.00%

82.35%

0.00%

0.00%

3

Flint Bishop LLP

17.39%

13.04%

0.00%

0.00%

82.61%

4.35%

0.00%

4

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

16.00%

12.00%

0.00%

0.00%

84.00%

4.00%

0.00%

5

Winckworth Sherwood

14.29%

2.38%

0.00%

2.38%

78.57%

9.52%

7.14%

6

White & Case LLP

10.71%

5.36%

1.79%

0.00%

87.50%

3.57%

1.79%

7

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

10.00%

5.00%

5.00%

0.00%

90.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8

Sidley Austin LLP

9.52%

7.14%

2.38%

0.00%

90.48%

0.00%

0.00%

9

Mayer Brown International LLP

9.41%

2.35%

1.18%

5.88%

84.71%

0.00%

5.88%

10

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

9.38%

9.38%

0.00%

0.00%

90.63%

0.00%

0.00%

“…our top two firms owe their position in the table because of the high proportion of partners who are Black, which is encouraging…”

Figure 7: The average percentage of EM associates within firms

8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00%

10 with 8.7% of its partners being from ethnic minority backgrounds. Flint Bishop has achieved this move up the table by increasing the proportion of partners who are Asian. In contrast, our top two firms owe their position in the table because of the high proportion of partners who are Black, which is encouraging given that profession-wide statistics show an underrepresentation of Black solicitors at all levels of the profession. Arnold & Porter, Flint Bishop and Sidley Austin all retain top 10 positions that they have now achieved for the last four years running.

2 Results: Associates As a proportion of all associates in the sample, 11.9% are from ethnic minorities and this is almost identical to the 11.5% last year. Over half of these ethnic minority associates are from an Asian background, as 7.26% of all associates are Asian. The proportion of associates who are Black continues to be particularly low in our survey and does not suggest the overall picture at partner level will change in the near future, despite the increase in Black partners in some firms. The overall figure for ethnic minority associates has been roughly similar for the last three years, which is something of a disappointment (even though this steady state represents an increase from the figure of 9.86% seen in 2010, which was itself slightly higher than the proportion seen in 2009).

46 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

2.1 The Rankings: Female Associates In this year’s DLT sample, 56.41% of associates are female and this seems to confirm a picture of stability over the past four years, with the figure varying only slightly from 55.7% in 2010, to 56.47% in 2011 and 54.91% last year. In each year, the proportion of female associates in our sample of firms tends to vary between approximately one-third at the bottom of the rankings, to about three-quarters at the top. This year we have a spread that is just slightly above this at the top, with women making up 76.32% of associates in top-placed firm Flint Bishop LLP. Congratulations to Flint Bishop for retaining this top spot for the second year running. Last year’s third-placed Irwin Mitchell moves up to second and a number of firms, including Matthew

4.00% 3.00%

Asian Black Mixed Other

2.00% 1.00% 0.00%

Arnold & Baldwin, Shoosmiths and Winckworth Sherwood, retain their position in the top 10. Weightmans, Freeth Cartwright LLP, DWF LLP and Mills & Reeve LLP all move up from positions just outside the top 10 last year. As we can see, the top 10 firms all have significantly more women than men among their ranks of associates. There have been questions of whether this

Table 5: Top 10 ranking of female associates for all participating firms Rank

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Firm Name

Flint Bishop LLP

76.32%

23.68%

0.00%

2

Irwin Mitchell

73.58%

26.42%

0.00%

3

Charles Russell

69.79%

30.21%

0.00%

4

Freeth Cartwright LLP

67.16%

32.84%

0.00%

5

DWF LLP

66.35%

33.65%

0.00%

6

Winckworth Sherwood

66.27%

33.73%

0.00%

7

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

66.04%

33.96%

0.00%

8

Weightmans LLP

65.91%

34.09%

0.00%

9

Shoosmiths

65.54%

34.46%

0.00%

10

Mills & Reeve LLP

64.55%

35.45%

0.00%

Table 6: Top 10 ranking of ethnic minority associates for all participating firms Rank

1

Firm Name

McMillan Williams Solicitors

EM %

Asian %

Black %

Mixed %

White %

Other %

Unknown %

38.98%

15.25%

20.34%

1.69%

61.02%

1.69%

0.00%

2

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

25.42%

13.56%

3.39%

6.78%

49.15%

1.69%

25.42%

3

Sidley Austin LLP

24.59%

22.95%

0.00%

1.64%

75.41%

0.00%

0.00%

4

Latham & Watkins

23.45%

8.97%

4.83%

4.14%

62.07%

5.52%

14.48%

5

Linklaters LLP

21.26%

9.24%

0.92%

2.93%

50.39%

8.17%

28.35%

6

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

20.00%

13.33%

0.00%

6.67%

80.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7

Allen & Overy

18.76%

12.40%

1.68%

2.01%

78.89%

2.68%

2.35%

8

Edward Wilderman Palmer UK LLP

18.42%

15.79%

2.63%

0.00%

81.58%

0.00%

0.00%

9

Mayer Brown International LLP

17.19%

13.28%

2.34%

1.56%

77.34%

0.00%

5.47%

10

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

17.02%

10.64%

2.13%

4.26%

82.98%

0.00%

0.00%

represents a situation of gender diversity. However, as in previous years, the DLT ranks these firms higher as there is a continued need to boost the number of women at partner level. As we can see from the previous section, even in the top-placed McMillan Williams Solicitors just under half (47.06%) of partners are women.

2.2 The Rankings: EM Associates This year’s top firm in our ranking of ethnic minority associates is newcomer McMillan Williams Solicitors. The high levels of ethnic diversity among associates in this firm gives some insight into its second place in the rankings of ethnic minority partners. The proportion of associates who are from an ethnic minority background is 13 percentage points higher than second-placed Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, which

moves up from fourth last year to take second place this year. It is particularly encouraging that these top two firms have significant numbers of associates who are Black, in contrast to last year where the top two firms had no Black associates. In fact, as we look down the columns in Table 6, we can see that the majority of firms are placed in the top 10 because they have a relatively high proportion of associates who are Asian. With 20.34% of its associates being Black, McMillan Williams Solicitors is something of an exception, as across the whole DLT sample just above 1% of associates are Black. At City-based O’Melveny and Myers, 20% of associates are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and this likely underpins their top position in our rankings of ethnic diversity at the level of partner. Similarly, at Cleary

11.00% 10.00% 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00%

2.00% 1.00% 0.00%

Table 7: Top 10 ranking of female trainees for all participating firms Firm Name

Asian Black Mixed Other

3.00%

“…we can see that the majority of firms are placed in the top 10 because they have a relatively high proportion of associates who are Asian.” Rank

Figure 8: The average percentage of EM trainees within firms

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Irwin Mitchell

81.61%

18.39%

0.00%

2

Shoosmiths

80.00%

20.00%

0.00%

3

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

75.00%

25.00%

0.00%

4

Blake Lapthorn

70.37%

29.63%

0.00%

5

DWF LLP

68.48%

31.52%

0.00%

6

Mills & Reeve LLP

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

6

Olswang LLP

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

6

Russell-Cooke

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

6

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

10

Charles Russell

63.16%

36.84%

0.00%

Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton the levels of ethnic diversity at partner level are underpinned by the fact that just over a quarter of associates (25.42%) are from ethnic minority backgrounds. For the last three years it has been encouraging to see that all firms in the DLT sample have some element of ethnic minority representation at associate level, although it is important to emphasise that this drops to only 3% at the very bottom of the rankings.

3 Results: Trainees The proportion of all trainees in the DLT sample from an ethnic minority background fell slightly between 2010 and 2012, from 16.25% to 15.06%, but in this year’s sample the figure has recovered to 17.22%. It is hard to discern the extent to which any such changes are due to the changing nature of the sample, as opposed to actual changes across the profession. However, there does seem to be a long-term trend increase, as the figures for the 2010 to 2013 period were preceded

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 47

Table 8: Top 10 ranking of ethnic minority trainees for all participating firms Rank

Firm Name

EM %

Asian %

Black %

Mixed %

White %

Other %

Unknown %

1

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

50.00%

25.00%

12.50%

12.50%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1

McMillan Williams Solicitors

50.00%

31.25%

12.50%

0.00%

50.00%

6.25%

0.00%

1

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

37.50%

12.50%

12.50%

12.50%

50.00%

0.00%

12.50%

5

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

27.78%

27.78%

0.00%

0.00%

72.22%

0.00%

0.00%

6

Baker & McKenzie

27.71%

15.66%

2.41%

8.43%

69.88%

1.20%

2.41%

7

Edward Wilderman Plamer UK LLP

26.67%

6.67%

0.00%

20.00%

73.33%

0.00%

0.00%

7

K&L Gates LLP

26.67%

6.67%

0.00%

13.33%

66.67%

6.67%

6.67%

9

Ashurst LLP

25.49%

12.75%

1.96%

4.90%

72.55%

5.88%

1.96%

10

White & Case LLP

25.45%

12.73%

3.64%

7.27%

29.09%

1.82%

45.45%

by a substantial increase from 10% to 16.25% between 2008 and 2010. Figure 8 suggests that of this 17.22%, approximately ten percentage points are accounted for by Asian trainees. This is over one-half of EM representation at this level of the profession and represents an increase from 8% last year.

3.1 The Rankings: Female Trainees Last year we introduced a requirement that a firm can only be ranked if it has five or more employees in the relevant category. This is not something that comes close to impacting on Irwin Mitchell or Shoosmiths, which take this year’s top two spots with women making up 80% or more of trainees. In contrast, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, last year’s first-placed firm, just manages to clear this hurdle and secures third position with six of its eight trainees being female. As in previous years, we can see particularly high proportions of women among trainees in a number of firms, but this does not translate into similarly high levels of representation among associates and partners, suggesting quite a loss of human capital investment for the individual firms concerned.

10.00%

Figure 9: The average percentage of EM paralegals within firms

9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00%

Asian Black Mixed Other

1.00% 0.00%

Firm Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Reed Smith

90.00%

10.00%

0.00%

2

Olswang LLP

83.33%

16.67%

0.00%

3

Mills & Reeve LLP

81.97%

18.03%

0.00%

4

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

80.49%

19.51%

0.00%

4

Winckworth Sherwood

80.00%

20.00%

0.00%

6

Irwin Mitchell

78.63%

21.37%

0.00%

7

McMillan Williams Solicitors

78.57%

21.43%

0.00%

8

Blake Lapthorn

77.23%

22.77%

0.00%

9

Flint Bishop LLP

75.00%

25.00%

0.00%

10

Russell-Cooke

75.00%

25.00%

0.00%

48 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

As with last year, the top-ranked firms in this section of the DLT have 50% of their trainees from ethnic minority backgrounds. In fact this year, the high levels of ethnic diversity among trainees is even more pronounced than last year, with Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, McMillan Williams Solicitors and Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP all reporting that 50% of their trainees are from ethnic minority backgrounds. Last year, only the top five firms had more than a quarter of their trainees from ethnic minority backgrounds, while this year this is true of all top 10 firms.

“…we can see particularly high proportions of women among trainees in a number of firms, but this does not translate into similarly high levels of representation among associates and partners…”

Table 9: Top 10 ranking of female paralegals for all participating firms Rank

3.2 The Rankings: EM Trainees

It is hoped that such trainee figures will translate into greater diversity at higher levels of practice in these firms. This seems to be the case at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, McMillan Williams Solicitors and O’Melveny & Myers LLP, which all figure in the top 10 for ethnic diversity among partners. However, there are firms with large proportions of ethnic minority employees at the level of trainee and associate, but with relatively low levels of representation at the highest levels of practice; this is a key challenge if there is to be an improvement in representation across the profession, but it also implies a significant loss of investment for the firms concerned.

Table 10: Top 10 ranking of ethnic minority paralegals for all participating firms Rank

Firm Name

EM %

Asian %

Black %

Mixed %

White %

Other %

Unknown %

1

McMillan Williams Solicitors

57.14%

35.71%

21.43%

0.00%

42.86%

0.00%

0.00%

1

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

53.66%

34.15%

14.63%

4.88%

46.34%

0.00%

0.00%

3

Olswang LLP

41.67%

25.00%

8.33%

8.33%

58.33%

0.00%

0.00%

4

Russell-Cooke

37.50%

12.50%

12.50%

12.50%

37.50%

0.00%

25.00%

5

White & Case LLP

31.58%

15.79%

5.26%

10.53%

36.84%

0.00%

31.58%

6

Berwin Leighton Paisner

31.25%

25.00%

2.08%

4.17%

68.75%

0.00%

0.00%

7

Reed Smith

30.00%

5.00%

0.00%

10.00%

55.00%

15.00%

15.00%

8

Baker & McKenzie

27.78%

22.22%

0.00%

0.00%

44.44%

5.56%

27.78%

9

Allen & Overy

22.22%

16.67%

1.85%

3.70%

77.78%

0.00%

0.00%

10

Ashurst LLP

21.74%

21.74%

0.00%

0.00%

78.26%

0.00%

0.00%

4 Results: Paralegals As a proportion of all paralegals in the sample, 13.41% are from ethnic minorities, which is almost identical to last year’s figure. As suggested earlier in our discussions, in the overall demographic league tables the ranking of firms does not take account of the levels of gender or ethnic diversity seen among paralegals. This is down to questions over the extent to which greater diversity among this group is a desirable indicator, given the historical lack of a clear link to higher levels of practice in many cases. With greater consideration being given to alternative, or non-university, routes into the profession this is changing, but it may be some time before these routes to the profession become established. We will continue to consult with key stakeholders and keep the situation under review. As is the case at most of our levels of practice, Figure 9 suggests that once again we see those of Asian descent making up more than half of paralegals who are from an ethnic minority background (8.64% of all paralegals are Asian).

in this paralegal top 10 figure in a top 10 ranking somewhere else in the DLT, when we consider higher levels of practice. The suggestion is that these top 10 firms with high levels of gender diversity among paralegals are more likely to be diverse across the board. However, further down the league tables (outside the top 10) the findings are more mixed, with a significant number of firms having very high levels of women among their paralegals, but not at higher levels of practice.

4.2 The Rankings: EM Paralegals When considering whether a high proportion of ethnic minority paralegals in firms is a positive indicator, similar

considerations to those for gender diversity apply. For some of the firms in Table 10, the high number of ethnic minority paralegals tends to be accompanied by higher levels of diversity at trainee, associate and partner levels. For instance, McMillan Williams Solicitors is ranked top for the ethnic diversity of its associates and second when considering partners. Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP figures in the top 10 for the ethnic diversity of its partners and has the highest proportion of ethnic minority trainees. While White & Case LLP, Baker and McKenzie, and Ashurst LLP do not figure in associate or partner top 10 tables, they have top 10 levels of trainee diversity. However, again when considering the entire sample of DLT firms there are a significant number where exactly the opposite is true.

4.1 The Rankings: Female Paralegals This year, the implementation of our rule that we observe at least five employees in an area of the league tables means that we no longer have firms with 100% gender diversity topping our ranking in Table 9. This year Reed Smith tops the table with 90% of its paralegals being female, and all firms among the top 10 have at least three-quarters of their paralegals made up of women. A quick look through the tables in other sections of the report suggests that the vast majority of firms

TO TAKE PART IN THE DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE 2014 please call 0845 057 0515 or email [email protected]

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 49

Table 11: Top 10 Total demographic ranking for all participating firms (Demographic League Table) PARTNERS Overall Rank

Firm Name

Female

ASSOCIATES

EM

Female

TRAINEES

EM

Female

EM

League Score

1

McMillan Williams Solicitors

1

2

16

1

17

1

458

2

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

9

10

7

23

3

1

458

3

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

3

1

18

6

29

4

438

4

Shoosmiths

10

18

9

32

2

27

396

5

Irwin Mitchell

12

34

2

25

1

25

333

6

Sidley Austin LLP

37

8

27

3

20

13

354

7

Trowers & Hamlins

8

12

14

22

37

16

333

8

Flint Bishop LLP

6

3

1

19

42

39

354

8

Winckworth Sherwood

2

5

6

30

36

31

354

10

Mayer Brown International LLP

23

9

21

9

29

23

354

THE RESULTS: The City 10 and the international dimension 5 The Top 10, the City 10 and the UK Top 100. 5.1 The Top 10 Table 11 shows how the gender and ethnic diversity of the top 10 firms, in the three categories of practice, translates into an overall ranking of demographic diversity. Reading through the previous sections of this year’s DLT, one could have guessed which firm would come top this year as it figures so highly in so many of the tables. McMillan Williams Solicitors has the highest levels of ethnic diversity at trainee and associate levels,

and the second highest at partner level. It has the highest proportion of female partners across the entire DLT sample and figures in the top 20 for gender diversity at other levels of practice. Last year’s top firm, Matthew Arnold and Baldwin, comes in second with the same overall league score of 458;5 its high position is down to a top 10 position in almost every table and its particularly high levels of diversity among trainees. O’Melveny & Myers, Shoosmiths, Irwin Mitchell, Flint Bishop, Sidley Austin and Mayer Brown International LLP all retain the top 10 status they secured in last year’s table.6 This year’s top three firms owe their position to the strength of both gender and ethnic diversity in their firms. In contrast, fourth and fifthplaced firms are stronger on measures of gender diversity and sixth-placed

Sidley Austin ranks highly because of its ethnic diversity at all levels of practice. However, further down the table we gain an idea of how complicated the diversity challenge can be, as we find a real variety of diversity patterns across firms at different levels of practice. For instance, Winckworth Sherwood and Flint Bishop figure in the top five when considering the ethnic diversity of their partners, but have relatively low levels of ethnic diversity at the level of associate. However, in most other firms where we see high levels of ethnic or gender diversity higher up the professional ladder, there tends to be an underpinning of this at the level of associate and/or trainee.

Just to remind readers, a DLT firm scores 4 points every time it appears in the top 25% of a table; 3 points if it figures in the next 25% and so on (with the bottom 25% giving 1 point). This gives a maximum possible total of 24 points for a firm (as paralegals are excluded), which is then scaled to a demographic score of between zero and 500.

5

5.2 The City 10 Table 12 describes the performances of the top 10 City firms. Last year, Linklaters was knocked off the top spot by Norton Rose, but it regains its position this year as the most diverse City 10 firm. It is particularly encouraging that the top four City 10 firms are all in the top 20 of the overall DLT, in contrast

“This year’s top three firms owe their position to the strength of both gender and ethnic diversity in their firms.” Table 12: Top 10 total ranking for the City 10 firms PARTNERS Rank

Overall Rank

Firm Name

Female

ASSOCIATES

EM

Female

EM

TRAINEES Female

EM

1

12

Linklaters LLP

27

11

36

5

28

11

2

14

Allen & Overy LLP

30

14

31

7

22

15

3

19

Clifford Chance

28

22

29

21

15

14

4

19

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

26

17

25

24

25

12

5

31

Reed Smith

29

25

11

16

35

30

6

40

Hogan Lovells

20

33

23

36

26

29

7

41

Freshfields

32

38

33

31

19

20

n/a

n/a

Eversheds LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

n/a

n/a

DLA Piper LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

n/a

n/a

Slaughter and May

-

-

-

-

-

-

n/a: No data provided.

50 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Table 13: Total ranking for UK Top 100 PARTNERS Rank

Overall Rank

1

4

Firm Name

ASSOCIATES

TRAINEES

Female

EM

Female

EM

Female

EM

Shoosmiths

10

18

9

32

2

27

2

5

Irwin Mitchell

12

34

2

25

1

25

3

7

Trowers & Hamlins

8

12

14

22

37

16

4

8

Winckworth Sherwood

2

5

6

30

36

31

5

12

Linklaters LLP

27

11

36

5

28

11

6

14

Allen & Overy

30

14

31

7

22

15

7

15

Russell-Cooke

7

28

20

27

6

32

8

16

Berwin Leighton Paisner

21

16

26

26

13

19

9

18

Charles Russell LLP

15

37

3

20

10

39

10

19

Clifford Chance

28

22

29

21

15

14

to last year where this was true of only the first-placed firm. In 12th position overall, Linklaters is very close to being in the top 10 of our overall Demographic DLT and at 14th place Allen & Overy LLP is not far behind. Clifford Chance and Norton Rose Fulbright LLP are just within the overall top 20. Diversity in these large City firms is an essential prerequisite for future diversity in the UK profession as a whole, and the movement of these firms up the DLT is therefore encouraging. As with last year, it is clear that the more highly ranked City 10 firms are achieving their positions mainly because of their ethnic diversity. Linklaters is just outside the top 10 in terms of ethnic diversity among partners and trainees, and secures fifth position for the ethnic diversity of associates. Allen & Overy has a similar pattern of diversity across levels of practice. Similarly, the third and fourth-placed firms do relatively better in rankings of ethnic diversity. This is not too much of a concern for the top five firms in Table 12 when we consider gender diversity at the level of associate,

as we have close to a 50/50 split between men and women. However, at the level of partner, the proportion of women is only about 20%.

5.3 The UK Top 100 This year, Shoosmiths retains its position as the UK Top 100 firm with the highest levels of ethnic and gender diversity across levels of practice (Table 13). As was the case last year, the top four UK 100 firms figure in the top 10 overall Demographic DLT and this is encouraging. It is interesting to note that the top two UK 100 firms owe their position mainly to the high levels of gender diversity (in some contrast to the City 10, where ethnic diversity is relatively more pronounced). Shoosmiths figures in the top 10 for all categories of practice when considering gender diversity and Irwin Mitchell shows a similar profile. Trowers & Hamlins and Winckworth Sherwood owe their positions in third and fourth spot more to gender and ethnic diversity at the level of partner

Firms can be ranked higher in this league table, but have a lower league score. Positions in this table are determined by an unweighted ranking of positions in the various tables of practice rather than the overall league score, which contributes to the overall diversity quotient. See initial section for discussion of how the demographic part of the diversity quotient is calculated.

6

and to a lesser extent gender diversity at the level of associate. Again we can gain some idea of the complicated nature of diversity in different firms, as these two firms have relatively high levels of diversity at the level of partner, but they do not have such relatively high levels of (particularly ethnic) diversity at the level of associate and trainee. While we see higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity at the level of trainee across the profession as a whole, this does not translate into higher levels of diversity further up the profession. The lesson from these two firms is that it is the quality of the links between the levels, not just the numbers coming in at trainee and associate level, that is important. Moving down to consider fifth and sixth places in the UK Top 100 we have two City 10 firms, Linklaters and Allen & Overy, which feature highly mainly because of their high levels of ethnic diversity at various levels of practice.

Table 14: Top 10 total ranking for international firms PARTNERS Rank

Overall Rank

Firm Name

Female

ASSOCIATES EM

Female

TRAINEES

EM

Female

EM

1

6

Sidley Austin LLP

37

8

27

3

20

13

2

10

Mayer Brown International LLP

23

9

21

9

29

23 10

3

11

White & Case LLP

38

6

39

11

11

4

12

Baker & McKenzie

25

24

22

18

23

6

5

17

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

31

30

41

10

6

5

6

27

Edward Wilderman Palmer UK LLP

42

32

35

8

12

7

7

31

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

40

4

42

2

41

17

8

31

Reed Smith LLP

29

25

11

16

35

30

9

34

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

16

26

19

28

27

35

10

36

Morrison & Watkins

41

13

34

15

29

23

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 51

6 The International Dimension While the international firms in Table 14 are reporting on their UKbased operations, we may expect them to have greater levels of ethnic diversity among employees. This is certainly the case for this year’s winner, Sidley Austin LLP, which owes its top position to the particularly high levels of ethnic diversity among partners and associates. Similarly, the next two firms, Mayer Brown International LLP and White & Case LLP, have high levels of ethnic diversity among both partners and associates. In fact, if we look down the entire top 10 of Table 14, virtually all firms at all levels of practice achieve higher rankings in their levels of ethnic diversity, compared to their position in rankings of gender diversity. Again, this is perhaps not so much of a concern at the level of associate for the top four firms in Table 14, where we have close to a 50/50 split between men and women. However, even among these top four firms the proportion of partners who are female ranges from just over 20% to only just over 10%. Also, as with last year, it is interesting to note how the ranking of these top 10 firms spans almost the entire range of our overall Demographic Diversity League Table. The first four firms are placed in the top 15, while the bottom four firms

100% 90%

Table 15: Benchmark data for chambers (demographics) Females Firm Name

Ethnic minorities

BSN Survey

Bar Council

BSN Survey

Bar Council

QCs

14.66%

11.8%+

7.59%

5.2%

Barristers in practice

33.2%

35.1%

11.95%

10.2%

Pupils

40.57%

41%

18.39%

13%

+

Self-employed Bar. In the case of ethnic minorities the figures are a proportion of all valid responses (i.e. excluding the category of ‘unknown’). Source: Bar Barometer: Trends in the profile of the Bar (November 2012) +

in this international table are ranked in the bottom ten of the overall DLT. Once again the lower-ranked international firms come closer to bottom than the top of the overall league table.

THE RESULTS: CHAMBERS Table 15 sets out some of the main benchmarks that we wish to consider when discussing the sample of 29 Chambers included in this year’s DLT. In contrast to the firms in the DLT sample, Table 15 shows that on average the chambers in our sample have levels of gender and ethnic diversity that are more pronounced than in the sector as a whole (the exception being female barristers in practice). This has been a consistent theme since 2010, as the DLT sample has increased in size. Considering the profession as a whole, figures from the November 2012 Bar Barometer show a continued rise in

Figure 10: Circuits served by the chambers in our DLT sample

80% 70% 60%

the proportion of QCs who are women, from 10.9% last year. Similarly, there has been an increase in the proportion of female barristers in practice, from 32% last year. In contrast, there has been virtually no change in the proportion of ethnic minority QCs or barristers in practice since last year, reflecting a stalling of the growth seen since 2007. Perhaps more worrying is the fall in ethnic and gender diversity among pupils, with the proportions falling from 15.4% and 48.5% last year to 13% and 41%, as presented in Table 15 above. With respect to the DLT sample of chambers, we see a rise in the average level of gender diversity among QCs (from 13.7% last year), accompanied by a ten percentage point fall (from 50.7%) in the proportion of pupils who are women, reflecting trends in the sector as a whole. The levels of ethnic minority representation among the DLT sample at the level of QC, barrister and pupil have changed very little since last year. Therefore, the most pronounced overall difference from last year in the profession as a whole seems to be the fall in gender and ethnic diversity among pupils. Figure 10 gives some regional context to our discussions, setting out the circuits served by chambers in our sample. Just over 80% of our 29 chambers are associated with the South East Circuit and for many this is the sole circuit to which they are dedicated. However, 20% of our sample also serve the Northern Circuit and 10% serve the Western Circuit.

50%

7 Results: Queen’s Counsel

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

52 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Northern Circuit North Eastern Circuit Midlands Circuit Western Circuit South East Circuit Wales & Chester Circuit No Other Offices

Of the 29 chambers that responded to this year’s DLT survey, the average proportion of Queen’s Counsel who are female is 14.7%, and as we shall see in Table 16 this corresponds to the midpoint of our distribution of chambers. Considering the specific breakdown of ethnic diversity among DLT chambers, Figure 11 shows that, of the 7.59% of

5.00%

has substantial numbers of female QCs and this makes a contribution to greater diversity across the profession.

Figure 11: The average proportion of Queen’s Counsel who are ethnic minorities within chambers

4.00% 3.00%

7.2 The Rankings: EM Queen’s Counsel This year’s chamber with the highest level of ethnic diversity among its QCs is 25 Bedford Row, climbing from fifth place last year and knocking 23 Essex Street off the top spot into second place. The rise of 25 Bedford Row to the top this year has been achieved through an increase in ethnic diversity of QCs from 17.65% last year to 41.18% this year, which is quite an achievement for a chamber with 17 QCs. It is also worth commending 23 Essex Street, as it achieves its top two performance with 13 QCs, while Atkinson Bevan Chambers secures third place with five QCs. This is not to denigrate the achievement of smaller chambers, but there is still so far to go in increasing ethnic diversity at the level of QC that large numbers help. Also, it is worth noting a further reason for commending the levels of diversity at 25 Bedford Row, as it is one of only four

2.00% Asian Black Mixed Other

1.00% 0.00%

QCs in DLT chambers who are from ethnic minority backgrounds, just over half (3.9% of all QCs) are Asian. Just over 1% of QCs consider themselves to be of Mixed background and a similar proportion of all QCs are Black.

7.1 The Rankings: Female Queen’s Counsel Last year’s new entrant to the DLT, Atkinson Bevan Chambers, secured top spot in the ranking of gender diversity among QCs and, with women making up 40% of QCs in this chamber dedicated to the South East Circuit, it once again comes top of our ranking. Atlantic Chambers (dedicated to the Northern Circuit) retains its position in second place, with 33% of its QCs being female. Hardwicke Chambers sees an increase in the proportion of women among its QCs from 20% last year to 28.57%, and this moves it up to third place from joint fourth last year. This is the fourth year in the top 10 for One Crown Office Row, while Matrix Chambers and 9 Bedford Row retain the top 10 positions they secured last year. It is worth emphasising that Atkinson Bevan Chambers has only five QCs, Atlantic Chambers six and

Hardwicke seven. In these chambers a small change in numbers can result in quite substantial percentage changes, but also if we are looking to drive change across the profession as a whole, greater diversity in larger chambers is going to have more impact. In this respect, Red Lion Chambers (with 18 QCs), One Crown Office Row (23 QCs) and Doughty Street Chambers (30 QCs) deserve particular praise, as they are achieving high levels of gender diversity with a much higher number of QCs and therefore having a more substantial impact on diversity in the profession as a whole. Similarly, Matrix Chambers

Table 16: Top 10 ranking of female Queen’s Counsel for all participating chambers Rank

Chambers Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

40.00%

60.00%

0.00%

2

Atlantic Chambers

33.33%

66.67%

0.00%

3

Hardwicke

28.57%

71.43%

0.00%

4

Red Lion Chambers

27.78%

72.22%

0.00%

5

One Crown Office Row

26.09%

73.91%

0.00%

6

Doughty Street Chambers

23.33%

76.67%

0.00%

7

Matrix Chambers

21.74%

78.26%

0.00%

8

Linenhall Chambers

20.00%

80.00%

0.00%

8

9 Bedford Row

20.00%

80.00%

0.00%

10

4 New Square

15.79%

84.21%

0.00%

Table 17: Top 10 ranking of ethnic minority Queen’s Counsel for all participating chambers Rank

Firm Name

EM %

Asian %

Black %

Mixed %

White %

Other %

Unknown %

1

25 Bedford Row

41.18%

17.65%

5.88%

0.00%

52.94%

17.65%

5.88%

2

23 Essex Street

23.08%

7.69%

7.69%

0.00%

76.92%

7.69%

0.00%

3

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

20.00%

20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

80.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3

9 Bedford Row

20.00%

20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

80.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5

Matrix Chambers

13.04%

4.35%

0.00%

8.70%

86.96%

0.00%

0.00%

6

Tooks Chambers

11.11%

11.11%

0.00%

0.00%

88.89%

0.00%

0.00%

7

Fountain Court Chambers

10.34%

6.90%

0.00%

3.45%

89.66%

0.00%

0.00% 54.55%

8

Devereux Chambers

9.09%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

36.36%

9.09%

9

9-12 Bell Yard

7.69%

7.69%

0.00%

0.00%

92.31%

0.00%

0.00%

10

Cornerstone Barristers

7.14%

7.14%

0.00%

0.00%

92.86%

0.00%

0.00%

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 53

chambers that have a Black QC in the DLT sample, the other three being 23 Essex Street, Thirty Nine Essex Street and One Crown Office Row. There remain a number of chambers towards the bottom of the table that have no ethnic minority QCs, but who, as we have already suggested, have a very small number of QCs. Of more concern is perhaps the larger chambers that have no ethnic minority representation among their QCs.

Table 18: Top 10 ranking of female barristers for all participating chambers Rank

Chambers Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Coram Chambers

70.97%

29.03%

0.00%

2

Tooks Chambers

49.44%

50.56%

0.00%

3

KBG Chambers

48.65%

51.35%

0.00%

4

Doughty Street Chambers

39.50%

60.50%

0.00%

5

Matrix Chambers

39.44%

60.56%

0.00%

6

Red Lion Chambers

37.88%

62.12%

0.00%

7

One Crown Office Row

37.63%

62.37%

0.00%

8

25 Bedford Row

37.50%

62.50%

0.00%

8 Results: Barristers

9

Five Paper

36.54%

63.46%

0.00%

The average proportion of female barristers within sampled chambers and the proportion of barristers from an ethnic minority background has experienced little significant variation over the last three years. Figure 12 suggests that among ethnic minority barristers, there is a similar predominance of individuals from an Asian background, to that seen among QCs in the previous section. Thus, 5.6% of all barristers in our sample are Asian, just over half of all ethnic minority barristers. The next largest ethnic minority groups are Black and Mixed barristers, who make up just under 3% and 2%, respectively.

10

Hardwicke

36.36%

63.64%

0.00%

8.1 The Rankings: Female Barristers When considering the diversity of barristers among the chambers in our sample, we have fewer concerns over absolute numbers, as only one has fewer than 40 barristers. For the third year in a row, top position is secured by Coram Chambers, as more than 70% of its barristers are female. As was the case last year, Coram is the only chamber in the sample with more female than male barristers, making them something of

“Coram is the only chamber in the sample with more female than male barristers…” 8.2 The Rankings: EM Barristers

an “outlier”. The proportion of female barristers at Coram Chambers has dropped slightly from 75% last year, arguably increasing the levels of gender diversity. However, having suggested that Coram Chambers is something of an outlier, Tooks Chambers and KBG Chambers come very close to achieving a 50/50 split, with women making up 49.44% and 48.65% per cent of barristers, respectively. From fourth-placed Doughty Street Chambers down to eleventhplaced Atlantic Chambers there is some bunching around 39% to 36% and in the remaining chambers women make up less than a third of barristers. Among this group of top 11 Chambers, where women make up more than 36% of all barristers, there are some chambers that were not in the survey last year and it is good to see these entering at such a high level. This includes KBG Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers, which both figure in the top 10 of Table 18.

As the following table shows, the exceptionally high level of ethnic diversity among QCs at 25 Bedford Row is matched by very high levels of ethnic diversity among the barristers of this chamber. The position of 25 Bedford Row at the top of Table 19 has been secured through an increase in the proportion of ethnic minority barristers from 16.07% last year, to 29.17% this year, moving it up from third place to first. In fact, all of the top five chambers in Table 19 are those that we have already seen topping tables elsewhere in the DLT. Tooks Chambers takes second place for the third year running, with a rise in the proportion of individuals from an ethnic minority background from 18.06% last year to 24.72% this year, matching the second place it achieves in the ranking of gender diversity among barristers. Third-placed Coram Chambers has 24.19% ethnic minority representation among barristers,

Table 19: Top 10 ranking of ethnic minority barristers for all participating chambers Rank

Firm Name

EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

1

25 Bedford Row

29.17%

8.33%

10.42%

0.00%

68.75%

10.42%

2.08%

2

Tooks Chambers

24.72%

8.99%

11.24%

4.49%

75.28%

0.00%

0.00%

3

Coram Chambers

24.19%

16.13%

6.45%

1.61%

75.81%

0.00%

0.00%

4

23 Essex Street

23.23%

8.08%

5.05%

1.01%

76.77%

9.09%

0.00%

5

Red Lion Chambers

21.21%

12.12%

3.03%

0.00%

78.79%

6.06%

0.00%

6

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

18.18%

0.00%

0.00%

18.18%

81.82%

0.00%

0.00%

7

9 Bedford Row

16.67%

14.81%

1.85%

0.00%

83.33%

0.00%

0.00%

8

One Crown Office Row

15.05%

4.30%

4.30%

2.15%

82.80%

4.30%

2.15%

9

9-12 Bell Yard

13.58%

7.41%

4.94%

1.23%

86.42%

0.00%

0.00%

10

Cornerstone Barristers

12.50%

7.50%

5.00%

0.00%

87.50%

0.00%

0.00%

54 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

6.00%

Figure 12: The average percentage of EM barristers within chambers

5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00%

Asian Black Mixed Other

1.00% 0.00%

having come top in the table for gender diversity among barristers. Fourth-placed 23 Essex Street comes second in the rankings of ethnic diversity among QCs and fifth-placed Red Lion Chambers secured a top 10 finish for the gender diversity of its QCs and barristers. Finally, it is encouraging to see the proportion of barristers from an ethnic minority background in the top five chambers is more than 20%, compared to last year when this was true of only the top chambers. As with last year, we do not observe any chambers in the sample that have no ethnic minority representation among their barristers and, again, it is interesting to note how much greater the representation of Black barristers is, compared to the relative lack of Black solicitors we see in firms.

8.3 The Rankings: Overall Demographic Rankings for the Full Sample of Chambers Table 20 contains the overall demographic rankings for the full sample of chambers. As we have suggested in our previous discussion, when considering diversity among

Queen’s Counsel we are a little cautious of rankings driven by relatively small numbers. However, this issue of low numbers leading to pronounced variability in proportions is particularly problematic when considering diversity among pupils. For instance, this year only five chambers in the DLT sample have five or more pupils. Because of this, we do not present a separate detailed discussion of the pupil diversity tables [but they are included in the Appendix]. However, pupils are so important in providing the barristers and QCs of the future that they are included in the overall table, which therefore covers QCs, barristers and pupils. In first position this year we have 25 Bedford Row, which tops the tables in four out of six areas where we consider a diversity ranking. This is quite an achievement as 25 Bedford Row was placed eighth last year, and did not achieve a top place in any of the categories (although it was in the top 10 of the same four categories). Coram Chambers and Tooks Chambers achieve similar rises up the table compared to last year; moving from sixth to second and seventh to third, respectively. 23 Essex Street, Matrix Chambers, 9 Bedford Row, One Crown Office Row and Five Paper all retain their positions in the top 10. Last year, only the top-ranked chamber achieved a demographic Diversity Quotient™ of 458, but this year the top six chambers achieve this and we have 11 chambers with a score of more than 400 (something that was true of only the top-ranked chambers last year). However, each of the chambers owes its

position at the top of the rankings to a slightly different aspect of diversity. The top three chambers – 25 Bedford Row, Coram Chambers and Tooks Chambers – have particularly pronounced levels of ethnic diversity across barristers, pupils and QCs. However, while this is reflected in higher levels of gender diversity among barristers and pupils, this does not seem to have translated into a higher relative proportion of women among QCs in these chambers. In fact, the next three ranked chambers – Red Lion Chambers, 9 Bedford Row and Matrix Chambers – all rank more highly than the top three when considering the gender diversity of QCs. The top chambers obtain the same score (458) as top firms in terms of their demographic Diversity Quotient™ (see Table 11: Total demographic ranking for all participating firms). While the quotients are not directly comparable it does imply that the position of the leading chambers, relative to the sample as a whole, is comparable to the relative position of the leading firms.7

THE RESULTS: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND DISABILITIES 9 LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL EMPLOYEES Employees can rightly choose not to be open about their sexual orientation, in contrast to the more visible aspects of gender and ethnicity. Giving recognition to firms for having high levels of LGB diversity is therefore a more complicated

“…it is encouraging to see the proportion of barristers from an ethnic minority background in the top five chambers is more than 20%...”

Table 20: Top 10 total demographic ranking for all participating chambers (Demographic League Table) Overall Rank

Firm Name

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

League Score

1

25 Bedford Row

20

1

8

1

1

1

458

2

Coram Chambers

15

10

1

3

3

5

458

3

Tooks Chambers

21

6

2

2

3

5

458

4

Red Lion Chambers

4

17

6

5

3

5

458

4

9 Bedford Row

8

3

18

7

1

3

458

6

Matrix Chambers

7

5

5

20

3

5

458

7

23 Essex Street

11

2

22

4

3

5

438

8

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

1

3

12

24

3

5

417

8

One Crown Office Row

5

20

7

8

3

5

458

10

Five Paper

15

10

9

13

3

5

417

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 55

affair. Our approach to the overall league table for LGB employees is the same as in other league tables for ethnicity and gender, with rank determined by the proportion of LGB employees within the firm. It is possible that a firm may be further down the league tables because there are high proportions of staff that do not report their sexual orientation (rather than the firm having a truly low proportion of LGB employees). However, we feel that the willingness of staff to be open about their sexuality is reflective of an open and understanding workplace culture and that ranking in this respect is justified.8 This year’s top-ranked firm in Table 21 is Withers LLP with 4.89% of its staff reporting that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual. This is an increase on the previous year, where a figure of 4.15% for Withers LLP secured second spot in the table (a continuation of the ranking it achieved in 2011). One cannot be sure whether a culture of openness attracts LGB employees to firms with higher reported levels of LGB employees, or they are simply more comfortable about being openly LGB. It is likely that both of these are driving the choices of LGB employees to some extent. One of the more pronounced increases in the reported proportion of LGB employees is at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, where the figure has risen from 3.5% last year to 4.48% this year. Baker & McKenzie LLP, Linklaters LLP and K&L Gates LLP retain the top five positions that they secured last year and this year we have 32 firms reporting some proportion of LGB employees, compared to 39 last year (although last year’s sample of firms was slightly larger).

10 Disability As is the case for LGB employees, we would ideally have very few firms reporting high proportions of employees whose disability status is “unknown” or “undisclosed”. Disability can be something that is not immediately apparent to an employer, and a culture where employees feel comfortable reporting any disabilities they have is an important first step in the process of achieving the aims set out in the Improving Life Chances report.9 This year’s top firm, K&L Gates LLP (Table 22), continues to make significant headway in creating such a culture of acceptance. Over the

56 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

4 King’s Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power), Five Paper and KBG Chambers have no QCs and this places us in an interesting situation. If we create a league score from only barristers and pupils for these chambers it provides perverse incentives, but it would seem harsh to score these chambers with zero across QCs. The solution is to give these chambers the average ranking for QCs. This is not ideal, but would seem the least worst option.

7

Table 21: Top 10 ranking of proportion of LGB employees for all participating firms Rank

Firm Name

LGB

Unknown

1.63%

1

Withers LLP

4.89%

2

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

4.48%

0.00%

3

Linklaters LLP

3.71%

32.81%

4

Baker & McKenzie

3.66%

34.46%

5

K&L Gates LLP

3.60%

4.32%

6

Ashurst LLP

3.54%

5.03%

7

Latham & Watkins

3.46%

19.91%

8

Dentons

2.91%

17.73%

9

Freshfields

2.90%

35.40%

10

White & Case LLP

2.89%

27.27%

last three years it has increased the proportion of employees reporting that they have some form of disability from 4.38% in 2011 to 6.43% this year. This performance has secured K&L Gates LLP the top position both this year and last year and, as we can see, there is then quite a gap to the next placed firms, Russell-Cooke and Baker & McKenzie, which have 2.7% and 2.49% of employees reporting that they have some form of disability. These are the only other firms in the DLT sample with more than 2% of employees reporting that they have some form of disability.

11 Policy And Practice, and The Diversity Quotient™ 11.1 Firms Table 23 sets out the rankings of firms according to responses to the Policy & Practice questions posed in the areas of Monitoring, Leadership and Internal Policy/Strategy, External Face, Staff Development & Support and Recruitment, Promotion and Retention. As suggested in our earlier discussions, we are attempting to capture the environments that firms are trying to create with a range of

policy and practice measures. The aim is to recognise the efforts of firms and chambers who are attempting to instigate change through policy and practice, even though they may be at the start of the diversity journey. Last year Linklaters came top of the Policy & Practice table with near-full marks of 479 out of a possible total of 500. This year, we have four firms sharing the spoils at the top of the table with 479 points: Hogan Lovells International, K&L Gates, Linklaters and Shoosmiths. It is important to recognise that this part of our DLT rankings favours larger firms, as they are more likely to have the critical mass and resources that are perhaps needed for a big score in this section. However, this does offset the counteracting tendency for smaller firms to score more highly in the Demographic League Tables. Whatever the pros and cons, it is comforting to see companies such as Shoosmiths, Baker & McKenzie and Norton Rose figuring in the top 10 here and also in the Demographic League Table.

11.2 Chambers Table 24 sets out the rankings of

Table 22: : Top 10 ranking of the proportion of disabled employees for all participating firms Rank

Firm Name

Disabled

Unknown

1

K&L Gates LLP

6.43%

10.00%

2

Russell-Cooke

2.70%

38.51%

3

Baker & McKenzie

2.49%

77.06%

4

Hogan Lovells

1.91%

32.70%

5

McMillan Williams Solicitors

1.89%

0.00%

6

Ashurst LLP

1.61%

6.43%

7

Mayer Brown International LLP

1.53%

98.09%

8

Berwin Leighton Paisner

1.45%

0.00%

9

Withers LLP

1.44%

0.00%

10

Charles Russell

1.40%

0.00%

Table 23: Ranking of firms according to responses on policy and practice questions (ranked 10 or higher) Rank

Firm Name

Policy & Practice Score

Monitoring

Leadership and internal policy/ strategy

External Face

Staff Development and Support

Recruitment, Promotion and Retention

1

Baker & McKenzie

479

96

192

38

115

38

1

Hogan Lovells

479

96

192

38

115

38

1

K&L Gates LLP

479

96

192

38

115

38

1

Linklaters LLP

479

96

192

38

115

38

5

Ashurst LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Irwin Mitchell

460

96

192

38

96

38

5

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Reed Smith

460

77

192

38

115

38

5

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

460

96

192

38

96

38

chambers according to responses to the policy and practice questions. Over the last two years, scores at the top end of the table for chambers have been close to those of the highest-ranked firms, even though the chambers have fewer resources to draw on than larger firms. However, this year Outer Temple Chambers has been awarded the first set of full marks, achieving a score of 500, which is higher than the 479 achieved by the top-placed firms. Hopefully this will help Outer Temple Chambers to increase diversity among its 15 QCs. It is good to see Coram Chambers and Matrix Chambers at the top of this table, as they also score highly in a number of the demographic league tables.

11.3 The Diversity Quotient™: The Overall Diversity League Tables Table 25 brings together the rankings of firms from both the

LGB employee information is not collected as standard in many firms, so we therefore include in the following table all firms that have evidence of actively attempting to collect information. In addition, we give some indication of the proportion reported as unknown/ undisclosed, as this is a less desirable but important indicator. 9 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2005). Improving the life chances of disabled people. Joint report with DWP, Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 8

Demographic and Policy & Practice tables, giving us the Overall Diversity League Table for firms. It is particularly encouraging that this year’s top-placed firm, Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP, has achieved a steady rise from tenth place in 2011, mainly because of improvements in its Demographic League Table rankings, while also retaining a consistently high policy and practice score. Similarly, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Shoosmiths, McMillan Williams Solicitors and Irwin Mitchell all owe their position in the overall top

10 here partly to a top five finish in the Demographic Diversity League Tables. Linklaters is clearly putting significant resource into supporting diversity and its position just outside the top 10 (in 12th position) of the Demographic League Tables reflects this. Finally, Table 26 brings together the rankings of chambers from both the demographic and policy and practice tables, giving us the Overall Diversity League Table for chambers. Top spot is secured this year by Matrix Chambers with a score of 918.

“As is the case for LGB employees, we would ideally have very few firms reporting high proportions of employees whose disability status is ‘unknown’ or ‘undisclosed’.”

Table 24: Ranking of chambers according to responses on policy and practice questions (Ranked 10 or higher) Rank

Chambers

Policy & Practice Score

Monitoring Leadership and External Staff Recruitment, Internal Policy/ Face Development Promotion Strategy and Support and Retention

1

Outer Temple Chambers

500

100

220

40

80

60

2

Hardwicke

460

100

200

40

60

60

2

Matrix Chambers

460

100

200

40

80

40

4

Coram Chambers

440

100

200

40

40

60

4

Devereux Chambers

440

100

180

40

60

60

4

Five Paper

440

100

180

20

80

60

7

Cornerstone Barristers

400

100

200

40

60

0

7

12 King's Bench Walk

400

80

180

20

80

40

7

Fountain Court Chambers

400

100

160

40

80

20

7

23 Essex Street

400

100

140

40

60

60

7

4 New Square

400

80

140

40

80

60

7

One Crown Office Row

400

80

180

40

80

20

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 57

“…it is interesting to note that at the top end of the table, the scores for chambers are close to those of the highest-ranked firms, even though the chambers have fewer resources to draw on than the larger firms.” This score moves Matrix Chambers up from fourth position last year, and has been achieved through similar levels of improvement across both the demographic and policy and practice rankings. Last year’s second-placed Coram Chambers retains the second position it secured last year and last year’s top-placed Hardwicke Chambers moves to third. In this year’s table, the top eight chambers achieve overall scores greater than 800, something that was true of only the top-placed chambers last year.

Table 25: Firms’ Diversity Quotient™ Overall Rank

Overall Score

League Table Policy & PracScore tice Score

1

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

899

458

441

2

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

860

438

422

3

Shoosmiths

837

396

441

4

Linklaters LLP

833

354

479

5

McMillan Williams Solicitors

823

458

365

6

White & Case LLP

816

375

441

7

Sidley Austin LLP

795

354

441

8

Irwin Mitchell

793

333

460

9

Baker & McKenzie

792

313

479

10

Mayer Brown International LLP

776

354

422

Table 26: Top 10 Chambers’ Diversity Quotient™ (Overall Diversity League Table) Overall Rank

Chambers

Overall Score League Table Policy & PracScore tice Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 13 13 15 16 17 18 18 20

Matrix Chambers Coram Chambers Hardwicke One Crown Office Row Five Paper 23 Essex Street Outer Temple Chambers Devereux Chambers Tooks Chambers 9 Bedford Row 25 Bedford Row Red Lion Chambers Cornerstone Barristers 12 King's Bench Walk Doughty Street Chambers 4 New Square Atkinson Bevan Chambers Fountain Court Chambers Littleton Chambers 4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

918 898 877 858 857 838 833 815 798 798 778 758 754 754 734 733 717 713 713 676

458 458 417 458 417 438 333 375 458 458 458 458 354 354 354 333 417 313 333 396

460 440 460 400 440 400 500 440 340 340 320 300 400 400 380 400 300 400 380 280

21 22 23

9-12 Bell Yard KBG Chambers Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers New Park Court Chambers 11KBW Serle Court 4 Breams Buildings Atlantic Chambers Linenhall Chambers

672 656 651

292 396 271

380 260 380

634 633 631 614 595 494

354 313 271 354 375 354

280 320 360 260 220 140

24 25 26 27 28 29

58 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Firm Name

Working towards an equal profession Work with us… n Research n Publications n Events n Recruitment

The Black Solicitors Network is the primary voice of black solicitors in England and Wales committed to achieving equality of access, retention and promotion of black solicitors.

www.blacksolicitorsnetwork.co.uk [email protected] The Black Solicitors Network is a recognised Law Society Group and a not-for-profit organisation. diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 59

At DWF our values inform who we are, what we do and how we do it. This reflects a straight forward, but distinctive approach to everything we do for our people and our clients. We are proud to support the Diversity League Table and welcome the opportunity to promote and advance the diversity agenda across the legal profession.

Making a Difference° Creating a truly diverse and equal practice

© DWF LLP 2013. DWF LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC328794. DWF LLP (registered number OC328794) is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Ref:2082

60 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

www.dwf.co.uk

Regional Differences In this new section we consider regional differences between those DLT participants within London compared and those outside of London. The data set for analysis is split as follows: • Firms according to whether the location of the Head Offices is in London (City of London or Greater London) or outside of London (including the rest of the South East) • Chambers according to Circuit, with South East Circuit counted as ‘London’ and Chambers serving other circuits (Northern, North East and Western). For firms and chambers in this year’s DLT, the results are:

Firms

Chambers

Equity Partners (Gender) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 19.5% of Equity Partners are women compared to 27% outside of London.

QC (Gender) DLT Chambers serving the South East Circuit (predominantly located in London) report that 14.5% of QCs are women compared to 17% outside of London.

Equity Partners (EM) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 6.2% of Equity Partners have an EM background compared to 5.5% outside of London

QC (EM) DLT Chambers serving the South East Circuit (predominantly located in London) report that 8.6% of QCs are from an ethnic minority background compared to 0% in the 5 Chambers outside of London.

Salaried partners (Gender) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 31.6% of Salaried Partners are women compared to 36.6% outside of London. Salaried partners (EM) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 7.2% of Salaried Partners have an EM background compared to 7.4% outside of London. Associates (Gender) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 53% of Associates are women compared to 67% outside of London.

Barristers (Gender) DLT Chambers serving the South East Circuit (predominantly located in London) report that 33.7% of barristers are women compared to 32.7% outside of London. Barristers (EM) DLT Chambers serving the South East Circuit (predominantly located in London) report that 13.3% of barristers are from an ethnic minority background compared to 6% outside of London.

Associates (EM) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 15.6% of Associates have an EM background compared to 13.4% outside of London. Trainees (Gender) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 46% of Trainees are women compared to 31% outside of London. Trainees (EM) DLT Firms with head offices in London report that 21.8% of Trainees have an EM background compared to 20% outside of London.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 61

Umunna stands out A former Herbert Smith lawyer before switching to politics, Chuka Umunna was elected as an MP in 2010. His role on the Treasury Select Committee marked him out as “one to watch”. Emerging now as a key figure in British politics, as shadow business secretary he holds one of the most important jobs in opposition. The DLT speaks to Chuka Umunna Interview by: Godwin Ohajah

62 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 63

Diversity League Table (DLT): What is your job and what does it involve? Chuka Umunna (CU): I am the Member of Parliament for Streatham and I’m also the Shadow Business Secretary. This means that I have the great honour of representing in Parliament the area I grew up in, as well as the responsibility on Labour’s frontbench for issues including company law, consumer issues, employment relations and employment law, business support and enterprise, trade policy, higher education, further education, skills policy, science and innovation, and postal affairs. It’s an incredibly broad brief and at this time in particular it is essential that we have a national government getting the right answers on these issues. As a member of the opposition front bench, I have a constitutional duty to hold the government to account for their performance, and also to make sure that Labour goes into government in 2015 with a programme that will deliver for businesses and wider society. DLT: When did you first realise that you wanted to be a lawyer? And what then made you change direction and decide to become a politician? CU: Sometimes I think it would be great to be able to say that I went into law to act on human rights issues or defend people on death row, but the truth is that when I was growing up I was attracted by the thought of a career in the

clients rather than helping to make it. I think a lot of lawyers who do really want to make a difference in the world will recognise that occasional frustration, and for me, as someone who has always thought our country can do better than we are doing now, that’s why I decided to go into politics. DLT: People often comment on your confidence and you appear to have the air of, “Sure, I can get that done. Leave it with me.” We applaud that confident outlook, and it’s something we hope to develop and see more of within young BME graduates coming through the universities and the law schools. Our question therefore is who are your inspirations, personal and professional? And what do you think has helped make you the confident and self-assured man we see today? CU: I agree that we have to do everything that we can to make sure that we have young BME graduates – and young BME apprentices and entrepreneurs too, I don’t think university is the only route to success at all – who can get on, do incredibly well and break down further the barriers that are put in the way of success and achieving great things, for themselves and for society. I think it’s essential. I’ve always been a leech for experience, which is something that’s always helped me. There are few things that can help so much as talking to people who’ve been through what young

“I simply don’t agree with a lot of what Conservative Party politicians believe.” City and in business, and I wanted to do well and work on large transactions. While I was at school, I decided that the best way to do that with my skills set was to become a lawyer and so that’s what I did. For me personally, the reason I made the transition from law into politics was that while I enjoyed my work as a lawyer, I often found it frustrating to be interpreting the law for

64 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

people are doing and have learned from it. Recently, I had the very great privilege of speaking to a room full of young BME students at a Powerlist Foundation event at Deloitte. As a constituency MP, it’s something I’ve always tried to do in the local area. I’ve made more than 100 visits to local schools in my constituency and it’s great to talk to the students there, who are incredibly bright, ambitious and keen to get on in life. I’m conscious as well that I’ve come

from a reasonably comfortable background, so I want to make sure that as many people have access to the kind of experiences that I had when growing up. The media still loves a black stereotype; even the left-of-centre press still occasionally drops its guard. Black high achievers are supposed to grow up on a rough council estate, go to an underperforming school, receive free school meals and then be grateful for a well-meaning government scheme that helps them enter university. They grasp this opportunity with both hands, then “never look back”. This upbringing provides the right credentials to become a traditional Labour MP who wants to “give something back”. Instead Chuka Umunna has defied the stereotype because he enjoyed a solid middle-class upbringing, was educated at a mix of state and private schools before reading Law at a respected university and then went on to join leading City law firm, Herbert Smith LLP. DLT: Mr Umunna, it’s been said that you could have joined the Conservative Party and fitted in quite nicely. This question has been whispered in online forums, so we’ll ask it directly here. Why did you join the Labour Party and not the Conservative Party? CU: I simply don’t agree with a lot of what Conservative Party politicians believe. If you look at what they actually end up doing in government, I think the people at the top of the Conservative Party have a very “me, myself and I” view of society, even if people who give them their votes do not. I totally disagree with that outlook. I believe in the Labour Party because I believe that as a whole society we rise and fall together, that we are all mutually dependent and that all the institutions in our society are, too. Business relies upon society and society on business. I was politicised growing up in Lambeth in the 1980s and early 1990s when the area was on the receiving end of the harsh side of that government. In addition to that, though, visiting my father’s native Nigeria, I saw the grinding poverty there and I realised the huge capacity for change there was with the right government

and I wanted to be a part of making that difference. DLT: You captured the public eye a few years ago while on the Treasury Select Committee looking into the banking sector with your “skewering”, as it was reported in the media, of the then Barclays boss, Bob Diamond. Did starting your career as a lawyer help prepare you for a career as a politician? In particular, your forensic-like approach to carrying out the work on the aforementioned select committee? CU: I enjoyed my work on the Treasury Select Committee, and I think the skills I’d picked up from my previous career were helpful in that. Having worked in the City as a lawyer has been very helpful. For instance, politician after politician at election after election has said that they will cut red tape, but most business people will tell you that it hasn’t actually seemed to happen, under governments of all stripes. I think one of the things that struck me working as an employment lawyer was that the issue is as much to do with the quality of regulation, as it is to do with the quantity of regulation. I think there are very clear examples of legislation being necessary, desirable and having wide public support but I do think it is important that regulations are simple and easy to understand. I don’t think business people want to be constantly going to lawyers to interpret things for them so I want to focus on improving the quality of regulation as much as the quality, because that’s ultimately the better way to reduce the burden on businesses without compromising on the benefits of regulation. DLT: You are leading an exciting initiative called Small Business Saturday, an idea taken from the US that on a single day helped drive $5.5 billion (£3.5 million) in sales for small local businesses. What does it involve and are there any plans to target specific struggling sectors within this initiative? And by sectors we (openly confessing to bias) mean small, independent law firms. CU: Well, I firmly believe that we must to do more to celebrate the contribution that local, small, independent businesses make to our economy. This day is all about encouraging

people to buy from their local businesses and about giving small businesses an extra opportunity to promote themselves to each other, particularly other businesses in their local area. We don’t plan to target specific sectors; we want to keep the focus on giving everyone in the country the opportunity to celebrate what all small businesses do. It was great in Streatham recently that at a small business event one of our local law firms put on a free advice session for local businesses, introducing themselves to new potential customers. One thing I would encourage your readers to do is to see this as a great opportunity to go out

CU: I led a trade delegation to Nigeria and Ghana earlier this year because there are huge opportunities in the emerging economies in Africa that as a country we must make full use of. An area like I represent in Lambeth has a fantastic opportunity to make the most of our Diaspora links in doing that, and I think there is a cross-party consensus on the need to increase exports as part of boosting growth. That said, I have been very frustrated at some of the things that the government has been very slow to do. In 2011, the government promised it would produce a report into access to finance for ethnic minority businesses but it

“I don’t think business people want to be constantly going to lawyers to interpret things for them...” into your local community and make sure local businesses know the great service that you can provide to them. DLT: In a recent interview, you touched on the subject of emerging economies in particular voicing your concerns that we might be focusing too much on the Bric (Brazil, Russia, India, China) economies at the expense of the emerging African economies. As Shadow Business Secretary you are familiar with supplier diversity and how important that is for SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises). However, the notion of “diversity of your supplier” is a question that can be asked of the largest UK businesses, then allowed to pass down from client to supplier and then to their suppliers (along the “diversity food chain”). It has the potential to provide real competitive advantages to UK businesses looking to trade with the emerging Bric and African economies. With this in mind, is there potential to see more support from the Business Department (shadow or coalition) in the area of equality and diversity at all levels of UK plc, as the UK prepares to increase trade within a fiercely competitive and diverse global marketplace? If so, what could this support look like? And if not, why not?

was almost two years before anything came of that. On this point of access to finance, I have been very clear that I want the big high street banks to be working to reach out so that ethnic minority business people access their services. Wider than that, I think it is very important that Labour in government ensures a revitalised banking system, which includes a proper British investment bank as well as a regional banking system that works in the interests of all of our diverse small businesses. DLT: You are considered one of the rising stars of UK politics. Unfortunately, that increased profile has started to generate increased personal attacks from some sections of the UK media. This is probably a sign that whatever you’re doing in politics, you’re doing it very well. But how do you rise above such negativity towards you? CU: The negative stuff is politically driven so I don’t let it trouble me too much. Unfortunately, though, I fear the next election will be a personal, aggressive and negative one because that is the kind of campaign the Conservatives have signalled they will run. It is not how Labour will run our campaign, not least because it switches people off and certainly doesn’t win them over.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 65

Mr Umunna is good for diversity: a positive role model for many aspiring young black men, at a time when there are still too few in the public eye. We would like to say that he stands out simply because he is good. As a society we are not there yet. He stands out because he is black. In a House of Commons that is close to 95% white, that’s hardly surprising. But he is getting noticed because he is very good at what he does. Mr Umunna is part way through what could be a very interesting journey. Cited as a future leader of the Labour party and referred to by some as the UK’s answer to US President Barak Obama, his future, however, appears more likely to be shaped by his own convictions rather than comparisons to others. When you put someone on a pedestal, there is always the potential for the odd slip-up. He is, after all, only human and a politician. If the last few years are anything to go by, the media are unlikely to forget (or forgive) any slip up he might make, but maybe that’s because he stands out. An article on Mr Umunna by Matthew d’Ancona in GQ Magazine (February 2013) ended with the following quote: “…I am powerfully reminded of a moment in 1994, when a leaked memo by the late John Maples, then the Tory deputy chairman, warned, ‘If Blair turns out to be as good as he looks, we have a problem.’ Sorry, guys: I think you may well have a problem again.” It is looking that way, isn’t it?

66 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

“Mr Umunna is good for diversity: a positive role model for many aspiring young black men, at a time when there are still too few in the public eye.” Photography: Nicholas Kay / GQ © The Condé Nast Publications Ltd.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 67

Difference is our strength. A primary strength for Linklaters is our ability to attract, retain and develop the finest people from a range of backgrounds and experiences. Our people should be as diverse as our global client base and the work we undertake for them – we have a responsibility to deliver a service that not only responds to our clients’ needs, but reflects their diverse cultures and values.

Best International Firm for Talent Management (for the Linklaters Women’s Leadership Programme), Euromoney LMG Europe 2013 Best International Law Firm for Women Lawyers, European Women in Business Law Awards 2012 and 2013 Retention: “Talent Management”: Commendation: Non Executive Director (NED’s) Programme, UK Diversity Legal Awards 2012 “1st place” Policy and Practice Ranking, Diversity League Table 2011 and 2012 Best International Law Firm for Minority Women Lawyers, European Women in Business Law Awards 2011 Diversity Law Firm of the Year, Black Solicitors Network 2010

linklaters.com 68 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

FIRM -BYFIRM ANALYSIS:

Presented in alphabetical order, this section allows you to locate firms by name, presenting you with a summary of their individual results. The charts relate to fee earners only.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 69

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Addleshaw Goddard

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

22 24 37

42 42 21

Partner Associate Trainee

82.6%

80% Rank

Score

36 37 37

21 21 21

OVERALL RANKING

42

OVERALL SCORE

167

60% 40% 20% 0%

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 58 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

422

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

589

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

30 31 22

42 42 42

54%

46%

The composition of firm by gender

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

14 7 15

63 83 63

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

14

333

79.1%

60% 40% 20%

17.0% 3.9%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 38 58 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

384

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

717

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 1056 1124

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

40

Allen & Overy LLP

70 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

12.1%

5.4%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 780 428

19

Male Female

80% 60%

53.4% 46.6%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

ARNOLD & PORTER (UK) LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

13 38 18

63 21 63

Partner Associate Trainee

Partner Associate Trainee

Score

7 34 22

83 21 42

OVERALL RANKING

23

OVERALL SCORE

292

60% 40% 20% 8.5% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

58 115 38 115 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

345

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

637

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 60%

59.6% 40.4%

The composition of firm by gender

35

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Ashurst LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

91.5%

80% Rank

City of London 68 35

Rank

Score

35 30 21

21 42 63

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity

80% Rank

Score

19 35 9

63 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

33

City of London 1182 948

73.4%

60% 40% 20%

16.0%

10.6%

292

0%

Score

100%

POLICY & PRACTICE Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

752

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

12

Male Female

80% 60%

56.6% 43.4%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 71

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Baker & McKenzie LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

25 22 23

42 42 42

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

24 18 6

42 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

40%

12

20%

313

0%

23.2% 14.6%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

479

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

792

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

21 26 13

63 42 63

Partner Associate Trainee

51.7%

48.3%

The composition of firm by gender

89.7%

80% Rank

Score

16 26 19

63 42 63

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

16

333

60% 40% 20% 10.3% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 58 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

384

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

717

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 784 544

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

9

BERWIN LEIGHTON PAISNER

72 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

62.1%

60%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 440 317

19

Male Female

80% 60% 54.4% 45.6%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

BLAKE LAPTHORN

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Rank

Score

14 13 4

63 63 83

Partner Associate Trainee

82.5%

80% Rank

Score

31 41 39

42 21 21

OVERALL RANKING

29

OVERALL SCORE

292

60% 40% 20% 0%

14.6% 2.9%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 38 19 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

326

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

618

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

15 3 10

63 83 83

46.4%

53.6%

The composition of firm by gender

90.2%

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

37 20 39

21 63 21

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

18

333

60% 40% 20% 8.5% 1.3%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 19 58 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

365

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

698

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 412 207

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

38

Charles Russell

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity

South East 381 255

25

Male Female

80% 60%

57.6% 42.4%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 73

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

40 42 41

21 21 21

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

4 2 17

83 83 63

OVERALL RANKING

31

OVERALL SCORE

292

60%

20%

21.9%

20.0%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 192 38 115 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

733

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POISTION

Score

28 29 15

42 42 63

58.1%

21.9%

20.0%

The composition of firm by gender

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Rest of Greater London Number of Fee Earners 982 Number of Non-Fee Earners 905

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female Unknown

80%

16

Clifford Chance

80% Rank

Score

22 21 14

42 63 63

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

19

313

40% 23.0%

20%

12.8%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 38 58 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

384

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

697

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

64.2%

60%

POLICY & PRACTICE

74 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

58.1%

40%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 90 84

27

Male Female

80% 60%

53.1% 46.9%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DENTONS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

17 32 24

63 42 42

Partner Associate Trainee

82.8%

80% Rank

Score

27 14 18

42 63 63

OVERALL RANKING

23

OVERALL SCORE

313

60% 40% 20% 11.6%

5.5%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 135 38 115 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

384

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

697

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 60%

57.6% 42.4%

The composition of firm by gender

27

Location North West (incl. Merseyside) Number of Fee Earners 1521 Number of Non-Fee Earners 933

DWF LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 397 345

Ethnicity Rank

Score

36 5 5

21 83 83

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 80% Rank

Score

40 42 38

21 21 21

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

39

250

60%

20% 0%

2.1%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 192 38 77 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

422

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

672

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POISTION

56.9% 41.0%

40%

33

Male Female

80% 59.7%

60% 40.3%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 75

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER UK LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

42 35 12

21 21 63

Partner Associate Trainee

85.4%

80% Rank

Score

32 8 7

42 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40%

27

20%

313

0%

Score

0.0%

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

754

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 65.9%

60%

34.1%

The composition of firm by gender

11

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

FLINT BISHOP LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

86.6%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

6 1 42

83 83 21

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

3 19 39

83 63 21

OVERALL SCORE

8

354

60% 40% 20%

13.4% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 115 19 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

345

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

699

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

East Midlands 101 91

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

OVERALL RANKING

76 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

14.6%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 92 69

24

Male Female

80% 60%

58.2% 41.8%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Freeth Cartwright LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

17 4 39

63 83 21

Partner Associate Trainee

85.5%

80% Rank

Score

23 12 36

42 63 21

OVERALL RANKING

22

OVERALL SCORE

292

60% 40% 20% 10.6%

3.9%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 115 19 38 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

268

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

560

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 60%

52.0%

48.0%

The composition of firm by gender

42

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Freshfields

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

East Midlands 374 224

Rank

Score

32 33 19

42 21 63

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity

80% Rank

Score

38 31 20

21 42 63

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

41

250

60% 47.4%

40%

43.2%

20% 9.4%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

691

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 1075 893

30

Male Female

80% 60%

56.2% 43.8%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 77

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Hogan Lovells

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

20 23 26

63 42 42

Partner Associate Trainee

Score

33 36 29

21 21 42 40

OVERALL SCORE

229

60% 40% 20% 8.9%

6.8%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

479

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

708

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 60% 51.8%

48.2%

The composition of firm by gender

22

Location Yorkshire and the Humber Number of Fee Earners 1217 Number of Non-Fee Earners 975

Irwin Mitchell

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Ethnicity Rank

Score

12 2 1

63 83 83

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 80.7%

80% Rank

Score

34 25 25

21 42 42

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40%

5

20%

333

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

793

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

10.4%

9.0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

78 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

84.3%

80% Rank

OVERALL RANKING

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 734 639

8

Male Female

80% 62.4%

60% 37.6%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

K&L Gates LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

33 28 40

21 42 21

Partner Associate Trainee

86.4%

80% Rank

Score

40 13 7

21 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

38

60% 40% 20%

10.7% 2.9%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

479

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

729

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

39 40 34

21 21 21

63.3%

36.7%

The composition of firm by gender

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

20 4 21

63 83 63

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

37

271

62.8%

60% 40% 20%

19.0%

18.2%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 115 38 38 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

306

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

577

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 236 176

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

18

LATHAM & WATKINS

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 144 99

41

Male Female Unknown

80% 60% 48.5% 32.5% 19.0%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 79

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

LINKLATERS LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

27 36 28

42 21 42

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

11 5 11

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

12

OVERALL SCORE

354

60%

26.3%

20%

19.5%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

479

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

833

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

9 7 3

83 83 83

Partner Associate Trainee

56.7% 43.3%

The composition of firm by gender

86.0%

80% Rank

Score

10 23 1

83 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40% 20%

2

458

14.0% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 192 38 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

899

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

South East 139 91

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

4

MATTHEW ARNOLD & BALDWIN LLP

80 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

54.2%

40%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 1144 981

1

Male Female

80% 60%

55.9% 44.1%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Mayer Brown International LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

23 21 29

42 63 42

80.5%

80% Rank

Score

9 9 23

83 83 42

Partner Associate Trainee

OVERALL RANKING

10

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20%

14.6% 5.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 19 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

422

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

776

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

1 16 17

83 63 63

Partner Associate Trainee

55.9% 44.1%

The composition of firm by gender

80% Rank

Score

2 1 1

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

37.0%

20%

1

458

0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 154 38 77 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

365

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

823

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

63.0%

60% 40%

South East 109 79

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

10

Mcmillan williams solicitors

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 264 238

5

Male Female

80% 60%

58.7% 41.3%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 81

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Mills & Reeve LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

19 10 6

63 83 83

Partner Associate Trainee

Score

35 39 34

21 21 21

OVERALL RANKING

30

OVERALL SCORE

292

60% 40% 20% 0%

Score

1.7%

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 58 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

403

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

695

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

41 34 29

21 21 42

Partner Associate Trainee

55.1% 44.9%

The composition of firm by gender

87.5%

80% Rank

Score

13 15 23

63 63 42

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

36

250

60% 40% 20% 12.5% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

710

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 35 37

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

29

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

82 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

4.7%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

93.5%

80% Rank

East 465 337

21

Male Female

80% 60%

65.0%

35.0%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

mundays llp

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

11 17 29

83 63 42

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

15 40 39

63 21 21

OVERALL RANKING

34

OVERALL SCORE

292

60%

53.2% 42.6%

40% 20% 0%

4.3%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

58 77 38 115 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

307

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

599

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

26 25 25

42 42 42

Partner Associate Trainee

48.9%

51.1%

The composition of firm by gender

80% Rank

Score

17 24 12

63 42 63

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

19

292

69.6%

60% 40% 20%

18.5%

11.8%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

752

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 681 481

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

39

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South Eath 35 8

12

Male Female

80% 60%

53.4%

46.3%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 83

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Olswang LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

24 12 6

42 63 83

Partner Associate Trainee

Score

28 33 32

42 21 42

60% 40% 20%

26

OVERALL SCORE

292

7.3%

6.9%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 19 58 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

365

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

657

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

60% 48.7%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Score

3 18 29

83 63 42

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

1 6 4

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

70.0%

60% 40% 20%

3

438

26.7%

3.3%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 19 115 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

422

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

860

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 30 19

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

51.3%

The composition of firm by gender

34

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

84 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

85.8%

80% Rank

OVERALL RANKING

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 301 224

2

Male Female

80% 60% 46.7%

53.3%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

PAUL HASTINGS (Europe) LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

34 37 29

21 21 42

Partner Associate Trainee

85.1%

80% Rank

Score

20 17 1

63 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

28

OVERALL SCORE

292

60% 40% 20%

14.9% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

752

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 66.7%

60%

33.3%

The composition of firm by gender

12

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Reed Smith LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 50 26

Rank

Score

29 11 35

42 83 21

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity

80% Rank

Score

25 16 30

42 63 42

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

31

292

60% 45.9%

40%

44.1%

20% 10.0%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 192 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

752

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 377 223

12

Male Female

80% 60%

53.8% 46.2%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 85

Location Rest of Greater London Number of Fee Earners 159 Number of Non-Fee Earners 120

Russell-Cooke

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Ethnicity Rank

Score

7 20 6

83 63 83

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

28 27 32

42 42 42

OVERALL RANKING

15

OVERALL SCORE

354

40% 20%

15.4% 7.7%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 77 19 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

326

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

680

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female Unknown

80% 60% 44.3%

50.0%

5.7%

The composition of firm by gender

31

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Shoosmiths

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

89.0%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

10 9 2

83 83 83

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

18 32 27

63 42 42

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40% 20%

4

396

8.0%

3.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 77 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

837

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

East Midlands 680 629

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

OVERALL RANKING

86 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

76.9%

60%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

3

Male Female

80% 60%

57.9% 42.1%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Sidley Austin LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

37 27 20

21 42 63

Partner Associate Trainee

81.0%

80% Rank

Score

8 3 13

83 83 63

OVERALL RANKING

60% 40% 20%

6

OVERALL SCORE

354

19.0%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 154 38 115 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

795

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

16 19 27

63 63 42

Partner Associate Trainee

61.0%

39.0%

The composition of firm by gender

81.0%

80% Rank

Score

26 28 35

42 42 21

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

34

271

60% 40% 20% 11.2%

7.9%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 192 38 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

731

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 447 357

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

7

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 125 96

17

Male Female

80% 60%

53.1%

46.9%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 87

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Trowers & Hamlins

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

8 14 37

83 63 21

Partner Associate Trainee

87.2%

80% Rank

Score

12 22 16

63 42 63

OVERALL RANKING

7

OVERALL SCORE

333

60% 40% 20% 11.4%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 154 38 77 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

365

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

698

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

5 8 16

83 83 63

49.8%

50.2%

The composition of firm by gender

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location North West (incl. Merseyside) Number of Fee Earners 777 Number of Non-Fee Earners 487

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

25

Weightmans LLP

80% Rank

Score

39 38 26

21 21 42

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

23

313

60% 52.2%

20% 0%

5.0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 115 38 77 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

364

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

677

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

42.7%

40%

POLICY & PRACTICE

88 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

1.4%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 301 216

32

Male Female

80% 60%

56.5% 43.5%

The composition of firm by gender

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

Score

31 41 6

42 21 83

Partner Associate Trainee

84.3%

80% Rank

Score

30 10 5

42 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

17

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20%

15.7% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

58 154 38 77 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

346

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

700

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

60%

Score

38 39 11

21 21 83

36.6%

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

6 11 10

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

11

375

69.7%

60% 40% 20%

17.0%

13.3%

0% The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

96 173 38 96 38

40%

OVERALL SCORE

441

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

816

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 341 165

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

63.4%

The composition of firm by gender

23

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

White & Case LLP

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

City of London 137 116

6

Male Female

80% 60%

59.9%

40.1%

The composition of firm by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 89

Location Rise of Greater London Number of Fee Earners 179 Number of Non-Fee Earners VV

WINCKWORTH SHERWOOD LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Partner Associate Trainee

87.1%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

2 6 36

83 83 21

Partner Associate Trainee

80% Rank

Score

5 30 31

83 42 42

OVERALL RANKING

8

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20% 10.8%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

Score

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100%

77 58 38 77 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

269

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

623

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 60%

58.1% 41.9%

The composition of firm by gender

36

Location Number of Fee Earners Number of Non-Fee Earners

Withers LLP

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

4 15 13

83 63 63

Partner Associate Trainee

Score

40 29 28

21 42 42

OVERALL SCORE

19

313

60% 40% 20% 7.1% 1.1%

0%

The composition of  firm by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

77 135 38 38 19

40%

OVERALL SCORE

307

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

620

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

City of London 224 201

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

91.8%

80% Rank

OVERALL RANKING

90 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

2.2%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Partner Associate Trainee

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

37

Male Female

80% 60%

56.5% 43.5%

The composition of firm by gender

ESSEX STREET

"Thirty Nine Essex Street is committed to the implementation and promotion of equal opportunities and to ensure an absence of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, nationality, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, religion or political persuasion."

London 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Tel 020 7832 1111

Manchester 82 King Street Manchester M2 4WQ Tel 0161 870 0333

email [email protected]

39essex.com

Singapore Maxwell Chambers 32 Maxwell Road #02-16 Singapore 069115 Tel +(65) 6634 1336

Chief Executive and Director of Clerking David Barnes 020 7832 1115 Senior Clerks Alastair Davidson 020 7832 1181 Michael Kaplan 020 7634 9076

Thirty Nine Essex Street is an equal opportunities employer Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number 0C360005) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street, London WC2R 3AT. Thirty Nine Essex Street's members provide legal and advocacy services as independent, self-employed barristers and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services. Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative, operational and support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street, London WC2R 3AT.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 91

“…the BSB shares and supports the aims of, and good work behind, the Diversity League Table.” Baroness Ruth Deech Chair, Bar Standards Board

92 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

CHAMBERS -BYCHAMBERS ANALYSIS: Presented in alphabetical order, this section allows you to locate Chambers by name, presenting you with a summary of their individual results. The charts relate to members only.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 93

Location South East Circuit Number of Members 89 Number of Employees 9

11KBW

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

93.8%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

25 19 3

21 42 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

80% Rank

Score

16 21 5

42 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

24

OVERALL SCORE

313

60% 40% 20% 0%

Score

0.0%

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 120 40 40 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

320

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

633

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

28 13 3

21 63 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

76.5%

60%

23.5%

The composition of Chambers by gender

South East Circuit 93 5

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 88.2%

Ethnicity Rank

Male Female

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

80%

25

12 king’s bench walk

80% Rank

Score

21 10 5

42 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

19

354

60% 40% 20% 11.8%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 180 40 80 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

400

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

754

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

94 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

6.2%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

13

Male Female

80% 71.0%

60%

29.0%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

23 ESSEX STREET

South East Circuit 123 3

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Ethnicity Rank

Score

11 22 3

63 42 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Rank

Score

2 4 5

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

7

OVERALL SCORE

23.5%

438

0.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 140 40 60 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

400

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

838

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

20 8 1

42 83 83

73.2%

60%

26.8%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

South East Circuit 80 10

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Male Female

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

80%

6

25 BEDFORD ROW

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

76.5%

80% Rank

Score

1 1 1

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

1

458

40% 32.9%

20% 2.9% 2.9%

0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 80 40 80 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

320

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

778

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

64.3%

60%

11

80%

6832+

Male Female

67.1%

60%

32.9%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 95

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

4 BREAMS BUILDINGS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Score

15 26 3

63 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

90.0%

80% Rank

Score

10 18 5

63 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

16

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20% 10.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

60 140 20 40 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

260

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

614

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

15 23 3

63 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

76.7%

60%

23.3%

The composition of Chambers by gender

South East Circuit 13 3

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Male Female

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

80%

27

4 KING’S BENCH WALK (CHAMBERs OF LAWRENCE POWER)

84.6%

80% Rank

Score

10 6 5

63 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

12

396

60% 40% 20%

0.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 80 40 40 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

280

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

676

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

15.4%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

96 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

0/0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 97 11

20

Male Female

80% 69.2%

60%

30.8%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

4 NEW SQUARE

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Score

10 25 3

63 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

96.0%

80% Rank

Score

21 22 5

42 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

23

OVERALL SCORE

333

60% 40% 20% 4.0%

0%

0.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 140 40 80 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

400

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

733

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

80%

Male Female 78.7%

60%

21.3%

The composition of Chambers by gender

16

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

9-12 BELL YARD

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 78 25

Score

11 14 28

63 63 21

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 87.9%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 87 7

80% Rank

Score

9 9 29

63 63 21

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

27

292

60% 40% 20% 12.1%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

60 160 40 60 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

380

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

672

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

0.0%

0%

21

Male Female

80% 71.7%

60%

28.3%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 97

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

9 BEDFORD ROW

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Score

8 18 1

83 42 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

82.4%

80% Rank

Score

3 7 3

83 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

60% 40% 20%

4

OVERALL SCORE

458

17.6% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 140 40 60 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

340

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

798

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

Queen's Counsel Barristers

1 12

83 63

Pupils

3

83

67.6%

32.4%

The composition of Chambers by gender

South East Circuit 50 6

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 89.8%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

9

ATKINSON BEVAN CHAMBERS

80% Rank

Score

Queen's Counsel Barristers

3 24

83 21

Pupils

5

83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

8

417

60% 40% 20% 10.2%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 140 20 40 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

300

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

717

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

98 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 73 8

17

Male Female

80% 65.3%

60%

34.7%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

ATLANTIC CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

2 11 3

83 63 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

80% Rank

Score

21 25 5

42 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

14

OVERALL SCORE

375

60% 40% 20% 0%

Score

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100%

80 80 40 20 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

220

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

595

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

0.0%

Score

63 83 83

60%

63.2%

36.8%

The composition of Chambers by gender

80% Rank

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Male Female

South East Circuit 73 8

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity 15 1 3

3.9%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

80%

28

CORAM CHAMBERS

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

4+96 6337+

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

96.1%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE

Rank

South East Circuit 79 -6

10 3 5

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

63 83 83

60% 40% 25.8%

20%

2

458

0.0%

0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 200 40 40 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

440

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

898

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

74.2%

Score

2

Male Female

80% 71.2%

60%

28.8%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 99

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

CORNERSTONE BARRISTERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Score

24 16 3

21 42 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

88.9%

80% Rank

Score

15 10 5

63 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

15

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20% 11.1%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 200 40 60 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

400

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

754

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

22 27 3

42 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

75.9%

60%

24.1%

The composition of Chambers by gender

South East Circuit 50 22

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 66.7%

Ethnicity Rank

Male Female

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

80%

13

DEVEREUX CHAMBERS

80% Rank

Score

8 14 5

83 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

18

375

60% 40%

10.4%

0% The composition of  chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 180 40 60 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

440

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

815

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

22.9%

20%

POLICY & PRACTICE

100 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 68 0

8

Male Female Unknown

80% 60%

62.5%

20.8%

16.7%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DOUGHTY STREET CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Score

6 4 27

83 83 21

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

90.4%

80% Rank

Score

21 17 2

42 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

16

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20% 9.6% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 180 40 40 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

380

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

734

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Male Female

80% 60%

63.5%

36.5%

The composition of Chambers by gender

15

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

FIVE PAPER

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 156 0

Score

15 9 3

63 63 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 54 8

83.3%

80% Rank

Score

10 13 5

63 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

10

417

60% 40% 20% 11.1%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 180 20 80 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

440

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

857

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

5.6%

0%

5

80% 60%

6139+

Male Female

61.1%

38.9%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 101

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

FOUNTAIN COURT CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Score

27 28 3

21 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 93.4%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 127 29

80% Rank

Score

7 23 5

83 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40%

26

20%

313

0%

6.6% 0.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 160 40 80 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

400

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

713

0%

80%

Male Female

86.1%

60%

13.9%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

18

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

HARDWICKE

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Score

3 10 3

83 63 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

89.8%

80% Rank

Score

21 15 5

42 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

11

417

60% 40% 20% 10.2%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 200 40 60 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

877

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

102 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 91 24

3

Male Female

80% 60%

63.3%

36.7%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

KBG CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

15 3 3

63 83 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

97.3%

80% Rank

Score

10 27 5

63 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

13

OVERALL SCORE

396

60% 40% 20% 0%

2.7%

0.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 100 40 20 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

260

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

656

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

8 17 3

83 42 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

51.4%

48.6%

The composition of Chambers by gender

100%

Ethnicity Rank

60%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

22

LINENHALL CHAMBERS

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

West Circuit 44 7

Northern Circuit 84 5

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

98.8%

80% Rank

Score

21 29 5

42 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

21

354

60% 40% 20% 0%

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

0.0%

100%

60 60 20 0 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

140

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

494

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

1.2%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

29

Male Female

80% 70.9%

60%

29.1%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 103

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

LITTLETON CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Score

11 24 3

63 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

89.9%

80% Rank

Score

21 16 5

42 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

19

OVERALL SCORE

333

60% 40% 20% 10.1%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 160 20 80 40

40%

OVERALL SCORE

380

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

713

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

7 5 3

83 83 83

23.2%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

South East Circuit 72 35

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100% 90.5%

Ethnicity Rank

76.8%

60%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

18

MATRIX CHAMBERS

80% Rank

Score

5 20 5

83 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40% 20%

6

458

9.5%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 200 40 80 40

40%

OVERALL SCORE

460

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

918

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

104 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

North East Circuit 82 6

1

Male Female

80% 60%

64.2%

35.8%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

NEW PARK COURT CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Score

22 15 3

42 63 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

91.4%

80% Rank

Score

21 19 5

42 42 83

OVERALL RANKING

22

OVERALL SCORE

354

60% 40% 20% 8.6% 0.0%

0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

60 120 40 60 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

280

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

634

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

5 7 3

83 83 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

30.1%

The composition of Chambers by gender

South East Circuit 120 25

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

69.9%

60%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

24

One Crown Office Row

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

North East Circuit 96 19

85.8%

80% Rank

Score

20 8 5

42 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

60% 40% 20%

8

458

12.5%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 180 40 80 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

400

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

858

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

1.7%

0%

4

Male Female

80% 64.2%

60%

35.8%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 105

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

Outer Temple chamBers

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Score

28 20 3

21 42 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

89.3%

80% Rank

Score

21 12 5

42 63 83

OVERALL RANKING

24

OVERALL SCORE

333

60% 40% 20% 10.7%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

100 220 40 80 60

40%

OVERALL SCORE

500

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

833

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

4 6 3

83 83 83

23.7%

The composition of Chambers by gender

100%

Ethnicity Rank

76.3%

60%

Location South East Circuit Number of Members 110 Number of Employees 12

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female

80%

7

RED LION CHAMBERS

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

82.8%

80% Rank

Score

17 5 5

42 83 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

4

458

40% 20%

17.2%

0% The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 160 40 20 0

40%

OVERALL SCORE

300

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

758

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

60%

POLICY & PRACTICE

106 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

0.0%

0%

POLICY & PRACTICE

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 96 17

12

Male Female

80% 60%

62.1%

37.9%

The composition of Chambers by gender

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

SERLE COURT

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

100%

Ethnicity Rank

Score

26 29 3

21 21 83

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

80% Rank

Score

19 28 5

42 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

29

OVERALL SCORE

271

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

79.7%

60% 40% 20% 0%

17.6% 2.7%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

80 140 40 60 40

40%

OVERALL SCORE

360

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

631

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

Score

11 21 28

63 42 21

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

14.9%

17.6%

The composition of Chambers by gender

100%

Ethnicity Rank

67.6%

60%

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender

Male Female Other

80%

26

THIRTY NINE ESSEX STREET CHAMBERS

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

South East Circuit 74 21

South East Circuit 166 0

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

95.0%

80% Rank

Score

18 25 3

42 21 83

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

28

271

60% 40% 20% 0%

0.0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

60 160 40 80 40

40%

OVERALL SCORE

380

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

651

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

5.0%

23

80%

Male Female 74.9%

60%

25.1%

The composition of Chambers by gender

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 107

Location Number of Members Number of Employees

TOOKS CHAMBERS

DEMOGRAPHICS: RANK AND SCORE Gender Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

21 2 3

Score

42 83 83

80% Rank

Queen’s Counsel Barristers Pupils

EM Non-EM Other & Unknown

100%

Ethnicity Rank

South East Circuit 98 7

6 2 5

OVERALL RANKING

OVERALL SCORE

83 83 83

60% 40% 20%

3

458

24.0%

0.0%

0%

The composition of  Chambers by EM groups

POLICY & PRACTICE Score

100%

Monitoring Leadership and Policy External ‘Face’ Staff Development Recruitment, Retention and Promotion

60 160 40 60 20

40%

OVERALL SCORE

340

20%

DIVERSITY QUOTIENT

798

0%

DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE: OVERALL POSITION

76.0%

Score

9

Male Female

80% 60%

54.0% 46.0%

The composition of Chambers by gender

looking lookingfor forsome somereal-life real-lifechallenges? challenges? looking for some real-life challenges? then thenjoin joinus usas asaatrainee trainee then join us as a trainee

WeWe areare a broad-based, a broad-based, top-100 top-100 lawlaw firm firm based based in London. in London. OurOur work work is diverse, is diverse, ranging ranging from from high-value high-value commercial commercial property property and and corporate corporate law law to charity, to charity, professional professional regulation, regulation, private private client client and and family family law.law. We are a broad-based, top-100 law firm based in London. Our work is diverse, ranging from high-value commercial property and corporate law to charity, professional regulation, private client and family law. OurOur expertise expertise andand career career development development areare highly highly rated, rated, with with many many of our of our lawyers lawyers ranked ranked as as leaders leaders in their in their fields. This This year year wecareer we areare a Lex a Lex 100100 toptop twenty twenty firm firm in ainnumber a with number of categories. ofof categories. Ourfields. expertise and development are highly rated, many our lawyers ranked as leaders in their fields. This year we are a Lex 100 top twenty firm in a number of categories. Trainees Trainees areare an an essential essential part part of our of our legal legal teams. teams. WeWe willwill give give youyou significant significant responsibility responsibility early early on,on, with with your your own own cases andand plenty plenty client oflegal client contact. contact. Although Although there there issignificant aisfriendly a friendly andand professional professional Trainees are ancases essential part of of our teams. We will give you responsibility early on, support support structure, youand you need need to be toofbe the the kind kind of person of person who who will will thrive thrive on thethe challenges challenges that that with yourstructure, own cases plenty client contact. Although there is aon friendly and professional real-life real-life legal legal work work throws throws at to you. at be you. support structure, you need the kind of person who will thrive on the challenges that real-life legal work throws at you. Please Please visit visit ourour website website to apply to apply by by 31 31 July July 2014 2014 forfor training training contracts contracts commencing commencing obtain obtain aa in September in September 2016. 2016. Interviews Interviews will will take take place place in August in August 2014. 2014. Please visit our website to apply by 31 July 2014 for training contracts commencing obtain a in September 2016. Interviews will take place in August 2014.

www.russell-cooke.co.uk/recruitment-trainees www.russell-cooke.co.uk/recruitment-trainees www.russell-cooke.co.uk/recruitment-trainees 108 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

‘‘ ‘broad broad

broad range range ofof experience experience of experience in range in a supportive a supportive

’’ ’

in a supportive environment environment environment

diversity IN ACtion

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 109

Case study: Freshfields LLP

Opening doors by Azadeh Khalilizadeh

The legal profession has made significant inroads into tackling diversity challenges across the board. However, the proportion of black lawyers from less privileged backgrounds is still worryingly low. For the first time, international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has developed an innovative scholarship scheme in partnership with the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust to address the disproportionate underrepresentation in Magic Circle law firms of black men from low-income households.

110 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 111

Working together to broaden access The Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, established in 1998 by Stephen Lawrence’s parents Doreen and Neville Lawrence, aims to ensure that future generations of young people enjoy opportunities that were denied to their son. Stephen, who was killed in a racially motivated attack in 1993, was on the path to becoming an architect and one scheme the Trust has been running is a bursary for architecture students. However, the Trust was keen to extend its reach into the law while Freshfields had also been considering what it might do to broaden access to the legal profession. After a year’s joint discussion, the Freshfields Stephen Lawrence Scholarship Scheme was launched in summer 2013. The key entry criteria is that applicants must be black males from low-income households. This was a result of conversations with the Law Society, which proved this group to be disproportionately underrepresented. An additional criterion is that students must be in their first year of a law degree and show a commitment to a career in the law. “Freshfields is keen for successful scholars to join the firm as soon as possible, but recognises that students will have more chance of being offered a training contract following the interview, which is guaranteed as part of the scholarship and after the 12-month development programme tailored to each student’s needs,” says Kate Laffar, Freshfields’ head of diversity and inclusion.

Members of the first cohort

112 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

It is this tailored approach, and the fact that Freshfields runs the entirety of the scheme itself, from designing the assessment centre, to mentoring the students, to designing the development programmes, that makes this scheme one of a kind. Some financial support is also provided, but it is the broad and tailored package of benefits that makes the scheme so interesting.

Scholarship scheme rollout

Kate Laffar

Initially, all universities across the UK were invited to meet the Trust and Freshfields at two events and 50 universities responded.

“Freshfields is keen for successful scholars to join the firm as soon as possible…”

“We had no idea firstly how many universities would want to take part in the scheme and we were delighted with the commitment and effort made by those that did respond to our invitation,” Laffar says. Universities were invited to find their most talented law students and sponsor them by writing application forms outlining why the firm should consider them. “We felt this was an important part of the process,” Laffar says. “Freshfields receives up to 2,000 applications for fewer than 100 places, so the scholarship is for students of the very highest potential. At that stage, the universities are best placed to judge this.” The universities that had expressed an interest and met with Freshfields were also asked to send their most talented law students who met the eligibility criteria to a half-day “Inside Freshfields” event. This was designed to provide an opportunity for students to see inside a Magic Circle law firm, in each case for the first time ever. “Inside Freshfields was a key part of the recruitment process,” Laffar adds. “The firm knew that for applicants to perform well at the two-day assessment centre, they must be relaxed to be at their best. Inside Freshfields provided an opportunity, although unknown to students at the time, to meet the people who would be running the programme as well as get used to the formal surroundings of one of the world’s top law firms.”

“The firm knew that for applicants to perform well at the two-day assessment centre, they must be relaxed to be at their best.”

Rewarding initiative In only its first year, the initiative proved a resounding success in terms of quality of applicants received and overall student experience. This is fuelling excitement for further rollout in the coming years. “Freshfields was delighted and impressed, but not surprised by the quality of the applicants and was very happy with the success of the first year’s rollout,” Laffar says. “We have ended up with six excellent scholars who we are very much looking forward to working closely with across the length of the scholarship. We wouldn’t do anything differently next year.” However, although as a firm Freshfields visited more than 30 universities around the UK, it knows it has not reached everyone. Even in the places the firm did reach, not everyone actually considered a career in commercial law. “We also know that many people self-select out of applying because they don’t think a place like Freshfields is for them,” Laffar adds. “It was so rewarding for us and the Trust to be standing in a roomful of talent, all of whom said they would not otherwise have known anything about Freshfields and would not have applied to us, or any Magic Circle firm. It shows how much more the profession needs to do, but also how much difference our scholarship can make.”

For information about the scheme contact Andy Dent at Freshfields: [email protected]

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 113

Case study: Morrison & Foerster

Familyfriendly policies improve retention by Azadeh Khalilizadeh

114 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Right to work reduced hours at MoFo helps retain female talent

Female lawyers who wish to continue their legal careers following maternity leave can face significant challenges balancing family commitments and work. At the same time, in today’s global competitive market, law firms are under pressure to demonstrate the value of their services and to better understand their clients’ business needs and culture. For Morrison & Foerster (MoFo), fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace supports this commitment to providing clients with the highest level of legal services possible. In order to strike a balance between ensuring matters are staffed with the most qualified lawyers, while at the same time maintaining diversity, the firm has launched an exciting new initiative to provide women with the absolute right to work from maternity or adoption leave at reduced hours. Following its successful launch in the United States, the programme was rolled out in London in early 2012 and gives women the absolute right to return to work from maternity or adoption leave at 67% of their hours for at least one year. This goes far beyond the UK statutory right to request flexible working, which only requires employers to consider such requests but not necessarily to accept them.

Breaking down barriers to promotion Prior to 2009, a small number of people left after their maternity leave each year. However, since MoFo’s programme began in the US in 2008 and in the UK in 2012, every single person who has gone on maternity leave has returned to the firm and stayed. Not only have female lawyers stayed with the firm, but those who worked the reduced-hours schedule have found it has not been a barrier to promotion. This is one of the key reasons why the initiative won the UK Diversity Legal Award 2012 for Retention: Talent Management.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 115

London partner and head of the Employment and Data Protection Group, Ann Bevitt, for instance, was promoted to equity partner while working a reduced schedule in 2007. Although her promotion came before the reduced-hours programme was introduced in London, Ann was instrumental in the adoption of the firm’s reduced-hours programme by the London office.

Ann Bevitt, London partner and head of the Employment and Data Protection Group

“I am very proud of having been made a partner while working on a part-time basis,” says Ann Bevitt. “Prior to my appointment in January 2007 there were no female partners in the firm’s London office and I believe that the promotion of someone on a reduced-hours schedule clearly illustrates the firm’s commitment to parttime working.” More recently, in 2013, Sue McLean was promoted from associate to counsel in MoFo’s London Technology Transactions Group. One of the first beneficiaries in London of the new reducedhours programme when she returned from maternity leave in 2012, she is currently on maternity leave, having recently given birth to her third child.

“I am very proud of having been made a partner while working on a parttime basis,” says Ann Bevitt. “Prior to my appointment in January 2007 there were no female partners in the firm’s London office and I believe that the promotion of someone on a reduced-hours schedule clearly illustrates the firm’s commitment to part-time working.” 116 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

“When I had my first child people queried whether flexible working was really going to be possible at a US firm,” McLean says. “However, I have to say that our reducedhours policy has been fantastic for me. I work four days a week, and one of those days I work from home. The policy has enabled me to spend time with my young family, while continuing to focus on my career at MoFo.” According to McLean, the firm has been very supportive of the reduced-hours arrangement and as a result of working four days a week she has not at all felt as though it was holding her career back. “With similar arrangements in place, other colleagues from San Francisco to Shanghai are showing that the policy is working,” McLean adds. “It allows women to continue to progress their careers, while balancing family needs, which helps ensure that we retain the fantastic female talent that we have in the firm.”

Part of a global strategy The reduced-hours initiative is part of MoFo’s wider-scale commitment to attract, develop, nurture and retain the most talented diverse lawyers, recognising that lawyers have responsibilities outside the firm that need to be supported. The firm’s strategic plan identifies diversity as a global priority and regularly reviews progress to ensure diversity takes place at practice group level, with substantial support from firm leaders. Among the firm’s 18 affinity groups is the MoWomen Group in London, chaired by Sue McLean. This group has a broad remit, covering issues such as female retention, promotion and development, along with women’s marketing and networking initiatives. In spring 2013, MoFo’s mentoring scheme came to full fruition. Fee earners and non-fee earners now volunteer to mentor students from Christ the King Sixth Form College in Lewisham, assisting them in preparing CVs, providing career advice, building confidence and hosting visits to the firm’s London office to give them insight into how a law firm works. On top of this, the firm actively supports the needs of women lawyers through local office events such as social gatherings, educational forums and lunch meetings. MoFo’s London office, for instance, provides a Working Mum’s Resource List that includes the names of attorney mothers at the firm who have offered to mentor their colleagues and to speak with them about their experiences. Firm-wide events include an annual women in-house counsel summit and a retreat for female partners. In 2013, approximately 60 women lawyers from MoFo’s US, European and Asian offices participated in the two-day event, which helped them develop the skills needed to advance within the firm and the legal profession. This year’s summit provided women lawyers the opportunity to network with 90 female in-house counsel from more than 60 leading global companies.

“To maintain diversity within their associate and partner ranks, law firms need more flexibility and greater appreciation that the work-life balance changes over time...” Advancing diversity

Outcomes

With diversity as a core value at Morrison & Foerster, the firm maintains a longstanding commitment to promoting the advancement of women in the legal profession. Moving forward, MoFo managing partner, Trevor L James, says the legal profession needs to unite in its efforts to promote law as a career among diverse groups, by providing more opportunities and greater access to individuals from diverse backgrounds.

In total, 64 women have been on the programme (23 in 2010, 23 in 2011 and 18 in 2012); 7 of these women were black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). In May 2011, 4 of the 6 female lawyers promoted to partner in Norton Rose LLP had attended the CSP pilot (67%) and in May 2012, 9 of the 11 female candidates for promotion completed the CSP (82%). In 2012, 44% of the new partners we announced were women.

“To maintain diversity within their associate and partner ranks, law firms need more flexibility and greater appreciation that the work-life balance changes over time,” James says. “Morrison & Foerster is proud of what it’s accomplished as a firm. At the same time, we know we can do more and are committed to taking the steps necessary to lead the profession in advancing diversity.”

Sue McLean, counsel

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 117

Case study: Prime

Prime example of social mobility by Azadeh Khalilizadeh

Enabling equal access to a career in the legal profession When it comes to the provision of legal services at the highest level, there is still a significant lack of diversity by way of ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic background. This may not necessarily be a result of overt discrimination, but rather barriers to initial education, training, experience, entry and progression that start from the early stages of schooling.

backgrounds. This means that a pool of talented and motivated students are potentially missing out on opportunities to access the legal and other business professions.

To help overcome this challenge, a handful of City firms joined forces to form PRIME, which along with the Sutton Trust has created an exciting initiative where students gain fair and equal access to quality work experience and access to opportunities in order to progress their future careers. PRIME, picked as a name because it can function both as noun and verb, requires firms to sign up to certain minimum standards and principles.

“If the legal profession in particular is to achieve fairer access, it is important that law firms commit to providing quality work experience in line with certain principles and to make such work experience accessible to those who would not otherwise easily gain access to it,” she says.

“Quality work experience is an essential first step for schoolage students if they are to be inspired to consider continuing their education or training in order gain access to careers in professions like law, or the other professions which work hand in hand with the legal sector,” says Jane Masey, project leader for PRIME and diversity manager at Allen & Overy.

Untapped talent pool According to Masey, students from privileged backgrounds are likely to be able to access informal work experience opportunities more easily than those from less privileged

118 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Jane Masey

Working together to improve access to quality work experience Prior to the launch of PRIME in September 2011, many law firms were already providing work experience programmes, which varied in scale and scope across the country. However, what makes PRIME different is that it is about the legal sector across the whole of the UK working together to

improve access to quality work experience. “PRIME has underpinned these work experience programmes with minimum standards to help ensure fair access to quality work experience for those from less privileged backgrounds across the UK,” Masey says.

David Morley

“We’re trying to create a more level playing field so that young people from all backgrounds have a chance to get a foot into the business.”

PRIME signatory firms use a variety of different methods for recruiting students to their work experience programmes, including partnerships with schools and organisations such as Pathways to Law, The Brokerage City Link and SEO London. Currently, the number of UK law firms offering PRIME work experience placements stands at around 85, up from around 22 firms since the initiative’s launch. PRIME is supported by the Law Societies of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. “A number of firms from across the UK have signed up and we are in discussion with others who are keen to join,” Masey says. “Encouragingly, our initial data shows that 20–25% of PRIME placements were outside of London in Year 2.”

The largest programme of its kind run by a firm to give structured work experience to young people from underprivileged backgrounds across London is Allen & Overy’s Smart Start Experience, a week-long programme for around 100 students aged 16 to 17. “We’re trying to create a more level playing field so that young people from all backgrounds have a chance to get a foot into the business.” says David Morley, senior partner at Allen & Overy LLP. Similarly, Break Into Law, a global initiative run by DLA Piper, focuses on removing barriers to careers within the legal sector for underrepresented young people, involves a variety of programmes run throughout the world including mentoring, work experience, CV and interview skills workshops, research, thought leadership events and scholarships. “I was the first in my family to go to university,” says Sir Nigel Knowles, joint CEO and managing partner of DLA Piper. “It is important to help

The minimum standards and commitment made by firms signing up to PRIME • Work experience must include at least 30–35 hours per placement and a commitment to developing key business and personal skills in areas such as oral and written presentation, networking and negotiation. • Firms must offer a way to maintain contact after work experience has ended as well as provide financial assistance during the programme. • Firms must provide a number of work experience placements totalling no less than 50% of the number of training contracts they offer each year. To qualify for a PRIME work experience placement, participants need to attend a state, non-fee paying school, in Year 9 to Year 13 in England and Wales, S2 to S6 in Scotland, or Years 3 to 5, or Lower and Upper Sixth in Northern Ireland. Students must also either be or have been eligible for free school meals, or would be of the first generation in their immediate family to attend university. The National Foundation for Education Research (NFER) has provided an independent evaluation of the first year of PRIME and is due to report on the second year of PRIME in late 2013.

young people from all kinds of backgrounds to reach their full potential and encourage them to achieve the best they can. By investing in young talent today, we are ensuring we can face the challenges of tomorrow.” Other examples include Addleshaw Goddard’s Legal Access Week, Eversheds’ Unlocked programme, Herbert Smith Freehills’ Networked scholarship scheme, Linklaters’ Learn to Work programme, Hogan Lovells’ Ladder to Law programme, Slaughter and May’s The Key Project and Pinsent Mason’s award-winning placement scheme. “Having run our school work experience scheme for the last three years, it is clear how much the students take from the programme, including building their skills and knowledge, and increasing their confidence in a professional environment,” says Mary Gallagher, diversity and talent manager at Addleshaw Goddard. “While recruitment is not a direct aim of the scheme, we have recently hired one of our past students as a legal apprenticeship, which has been a great outcome for us.”

“Quality work experience is an essential first step for school-age students…” diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 119

Case study: Prime

Expanding opportunities According to Gallagher, creating fair and equal access to the profession for young people from less privileged backgrounds is not something that will happen overnight. It requires a long-term, coordinated strategy with a range of interventions at different stages of a young person’s education. “To see real change, firms need to make a commitment to initiatives such as PRIME over a sustained period, not only for a year or two,” Gallagher says. “This is coupled with improvements to their recruitment policies and processes.” Already, PRIME signatory firms have provided more than 1,800 work experience placements to date. Of these, 750 placements were provided in Year 1 and initial data suggests that Year 2 placements could easily total more than 1,000 – an increase of around 50%.

Mary Gallagher

“To see real change, firms need to make a commitment to initiatives such as PRIME over a sustained period, not only for a year or two…” Although there is more to be done to have a greater number of firms on board, Masey is confident that firms will not need an incentive from PRIME to continue to support the initiative beyond 2015. “The founding firms made a commitment to provide 2,500 work experience placements per year by 2015 – a target that is still in sight, albeit a challenging one,” Masey says. It is this sort of progress that has seen the Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission comment in its ‘State of the Nation 2013: social mobility and child poverty in Great Britain’ report, that “…the PRIME work experience programme remains a benchmark access programme.” In order to grow, PRIME is continuing to engage with the top 100 law firms in the UK, as well as US firms with UK operations, to provide sizeable PRIME programmes. PRIME also receives a significant number of inquiries from in-house legal teams that wish to partner with the initiative. “The interest and enthusiasm from in-house legal teams to take part in PRIME has been a key outcome for us,” Masey says. “It has deepened the experience of the students and shown that PRIME is not just for law firms, but for the profession in a much wider sense.”

120 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Sir Nigel Knowles

“It is important to help young people from all kinds of backgrounds to reach their full potential and encourage them to achieve the best they can.”

Proud of our people Our people are our business and our success is down to their commitment, drive and enthusiasm We integrate diversity throughout all aspects of our business. Maintaining an inclusive and diverse working environment through our recruitment, training and development policies not only makes us an employer of choice but also enhances the services we provide.

www.mablaw.com

Giving you a lot more than just law…

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number: OC343595) and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of members of the LLP is open to inspection at the LLP’s registered office: 21 Station Road, Watford, WD17 1HT, United Kingdom.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 121

DLT and Diversity Awards advert 2013_Layout 1 25/09/2013 14:57 Page 1

Matrix Chambers is “an extremely efficiently run machine, which is very professional and modern in its outlook” Chambers & Partners 2013

Matrix is delighted to support the publication of the 2013 Diversity League Table and the Diversity Legal Awards.

Matrix is proud to be committed to diversity amongst its staff and members and seeks actively to promote equality of opportunity.

www.matrixlaw.co.uk

@matrixchambers

(0)20 7404 3447

THE RANKINGS: FIRMS The rankings, the league tables... the definitive breakdown of how well the leading UK firms are doing in the area of diversity.

• The Demographic League Tables • Policy & Practice Rankings • Overall Diversity League Table: Firms

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 123

TABLE A: RANKING OF ETHNIC MINORITY PARTNERS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

1

Firm Name

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

28.57%

0.00%

14.29%

14.29%

71.43%

0.00%

0.00%

2

McMillan Williams Solicitors

17.65%

5.88%

11.76%

0.00%

82.35%

0.00%

0.00%

3

Flint Bishop LLP

17.39%

13.04%

0.00%

0.00%

82.61%

4.35%

0.00%

4

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

16.00%

12.00%

0.00%

0.00%

84.00%

4.00%

0.00%

5

Winckworth Sherwood

14.29%

2.38%

0.00%

2.38%

78.57%

9.52%

7.14%

6

White & Case LLP

10.71%

5.36%

1.79%

0.00%

87.50%

3.57%

1.79%

7

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

10.00%

5.00%

5.00%

0.00%

90.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8

Sidley Austin LLP

9.52%

7.14%

2.38%

0.00%

90.48%

0.00%

0.00%

9

Mayer Brown International LLP

9.41%

2.35%

1.18%

5.88%

84.71%

0.00%

5.88%

10

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

9.38%

9.38%

0.00%

0.00%

90.63%

0.00%

0.00%

11

Linklaters LLP

8.91%

2.97%

0.50%

2.48%

71.29%

2.97%

19.80%

12

Trowers & Hamlins

8.26%

3.67%

1.83%

2.75%

89.91%

0.00%

1.83%

13

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

7.69%

0.00%

7.69%

0.00%

92.31%

0.00%

0.00%

14

Allen & Overy

6.78%

3.95%

0.00%

1.13%

88.14%

1.69%

5.08%

15

Mundays LLP

6.67%

6.67%

0.00%

0.00%

13.33%

0.00%

80.00%

16

Berwin Leighton Paisner

6.42%

4.81%

0.53%

1.07%

93.58%

0.00%

0.00%

17

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

6.33%

4.43%

0.63%

1.27%

70.89%

0.00%

22.78%

18

Shoosmiths

5.60%

2.40%

1.60%

0.80%

88.80%

0.80%

5.60%

19

Ashurst LLP

5.38%

0.77%

1.54%

0.00%

94.62%

3.08%

0.00%

20

Latham & Watkins

5.26%

1.75%

0.00%

0.00%

57.89%

3.51%

36.84%

20

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

5.26%

5.26%

0.00%

0.00%

94.74%

0.00%

0.00%

22

Clifford Chance

5.14%

3.43%

0.57%

0.00%

78.29%

1.14%

16.57%

23

Freeth Cartwright LLP

5.00%

5.00%

0.00%

0.00%

93.00%

0.00%

2.00%

24

Baker & McKenzie

4.82%

1.20%

1.20%

2.41%

53.01%

0.00%

42.17%

25

Reed Smith

4.46%

4.46%

0.00%

0.00%

45.54%

0.00%

50.00%

26

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

4.35%

2.90%

0.00%

0.72%

76.81%

0.72%

18.84%

27

Dentons

4.03%

0.81%

0.81%

1.61%

87.90%

0.81%

8.06%

28

Olswang LLP

3.70%

2.47%

0.00%

0.00%

85.19%

1.23%

11.11%

28

Russell-Cooke

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

1.85%

75.93%

1.85%

20.37%

30

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

3.57%

0.00%

3.57%

0.00%

96.43%

0.00%

0.00%

31

Blake Lapthorn

3.53%

2.35%

0.00%

1.18%

71.76%

0.00%

24.71%

32

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

3.45%

3.45%

0.00%

0.00%

96.55%

0.00%

0.00%

33

Hogan Lovells

3.33%

0.67%

0.00%

2.67%

80.67%

0.00%

16.00%

34

Irwin Mitchell

3.19%

2.66%

0.00%

0.53%

82.98%

0.00%

13.83%

35

Mills & Reeve LLP

3.13%

2.08%

1.04%

0.00%

91.67%

0.00%

5.21%

36

Addleshaw Goddard

2.47%

1.23%

0.00%

1.23%

85.19%

0.00%

12.35%

37

Charles Russell

2.33%

0.00%

0.00%

1.16%

95.35%

1.16%

2.33%

38

Freshfields

1.71%

0.57%

0.00%

1.14%

51.43%

0.00%

46.86%

39

Weightmans LLP

1.54%

1.03%

0.51%

0.00%

60.51%

0.00%

37.95%

40

DWF LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

61.04%

0.00%

38.96%

40

K&L Gates LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

96.15%

0.00%

3.85%

40

Withers LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

124 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE B: RANKING OF FEMALE PARTNERS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

McMillan Williams Solicitors

47.06%

52.94%

0.00%

2

Winckworth Sherwood

45.24%

54.76%

0.00%

3

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

42.86%

57.14%

0.00%

1

Firm Name

4

Withers LLP

42.59%

57.41%

0.00%

5

Weightmans LLP

41.54%

58.46%

0.00%

6

Flint Bishop LLP

39.13%

60.87%

0.00%

7

Russell-Cooke

36.54%

63.46%

0.00%

8

Trowers & Hamlins

34.86%

65.14%

0.00%

9

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

34.38%

65.63%

0.00%

10

Shoosmiths

33.60%

66.40%

0.00%

11

Mundays LLP

33.33%

66.67%

0.00%

12

Irwin Mitchell

31.38%

68.62%

0.00%

13

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

30.00%

70.00%

0.00%

14

Blake Lapthorn

28.24%

71.76%

0.00%

15

Charles Russell

27.91%

72.09%

0.00%

16

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

26.09%

73.91%

0.00%

17

Dentons

25.00%

75.00%

0.00%

17

Freeth Cartwright LLP

25.00%

75.00%

0.00%

19

Mills & Reeve LLP

23.96%

76.04%

0.00%

20

Hogan Lovells

22.67%

77.33%

0.00%

21

Berwin Leighton Paisner

22.46%

77.54%

0.00%

22

Addleshaw Goddard

22.36%

77.64%

0.00%

23

Mayer Brown International LLP

22.35%

77.65%

0.00%

24

Olswang LLP

22.22%

77.78%

0.00%

25

Baker & McKenzie

21.69%

78.31%

0.00%

26

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

21.52%

78.48%

0.00%

27

Linklaters LLP

21.29%

78.71%

0.00%

28

Clifford Chance

18.86%

81.14%

0.00%

29

Reed Smith

18.75%

81.25%

0.00%

30

Allen & Overy

18.64%

81.36%

0.00%

31

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

17.86%

82.14%

0.00%

32

Freshfields

17.51%

82.49%

0.00%

33

K&L Gates LLP

15.38%

84.62%

0.00%

34

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

15.00%

85.00%

0.00%

35

Ashurst LLP

13.85%

86.15%

0.00%

36

DWF LLP

12.99%

87.01%

0.00%

37

Sidley Austin LLP

11.63%

88.37%

0.00%

38

White & Case LLP

10.71%

89.29%

0.00%

39

Latham & Watkins

10.53%

52.63%

36.84%

40

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

8.00%

92.00%

0.00%

41

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

7.69%

92.31%

0.00%

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 125

TABLE C: RANKING OF ETHNIC MINORITY ASSOCIATES FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

McMillan Williams Solicitors

38.98%

15.25%

20.34%

1.69%

61.02%

1.69%

0.00%

2

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

25.42%

13.56%

3.39%

6.78%

49.15%

1.69%

25.42%

3

Sidley Austin LLP

24.59%

22.95%

0.00%

1.64%

75.41%

0.00%

0.00%

Rank

1

Firm Name

4

Latham & Watkins

23.45%

8.97%

4.83%

4.14%

62.07%

5.52%

14.48%

5

Linklaters LLP

21.26%

9.24%

0.92%

2.93%

50.39%

8.17%

28.35%

6

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

20.00%

13.33%

0.00%

6.67%

80.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7

Allen & Overy

18.76%

12.40%

1.68%

2.01%

78.89%

2.68%

2.35%

8

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

18.42%

15.79%

2.63%

0.00%

81.58%

0.00%

0.00%

9

Mayer Brown International LLP

17.19%

13.28%

2.34%

1.56%

77.34%

0.00%

5.47%

10

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

17.02%

10.64%

2.13%

4.26%

82.98%

0.00%

0.00%

11

White & Case LLP

16.15%

10.00%

0.77%

0.00%

79.23%

5.38%

4.62%

12

Freeth Cartwright LLP

15.67%

11.19%

1.49%

2.99%

78.36%

0.00%

5.97%

13

K&L Gates LLP

15.07%

10.96%

0.00%

4.11%

83.56%

0.00%

1.37%

14

Dentons

14.81%

5.56%

1.85%

5.56%

79.63%

1.85%

5.56%

15

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

14.29%

4.76%

4.76%

0.00%

85.71%

4.76%

0.00%

16

Reed Smith

13.69%

8.33%

0.60%

2.38%

40.48%

2.38%

45.83%

17

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

13.64%

9.09%

4.55%

0.00%

86.36%

0.00%

0.00%

18

Baker & McKenzie

13.36%

6.45%

1.84%

4.15%

62.67%

0.92%

23.96%

19

Flint Bishop LLP

13.16%

10.53%

0.00%

0.00%

86.84%

2.63%

0.00%

20

Charles Russell

13.02%

6.25%

2.08%

2.08%

85.94%

2.60%

1.04%

21

Clifford Chance

12.63%

10.18%

0.70%

1.58%

64.21%

0.18%

23.16%

22

Trowers & Hamlins

11.72%

6.21%

0.69%

4.14%

87.59%

0.69%

0.69%

23

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

11.32%

5.66%

0.00%

5.66%

88.68%

0.00%

0.00%

24

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

11.28%

8.46%

1.28%

1.54%

69.49%

0.00%

19.23%

25

Irwin Mitchell

11.05%

8.89%

0.54%

0.81%

81.40%

0.81%

7.55%

26

Berwin Leighton Paisner

10.46%

8.85%

0.80%

0.80%

89.54%

0.00%

0.00%

27

Russell-Cooke

10.39%

6.49%

1.30%

0.00%

77.92%

2.60%

11.69%

28

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

10.04%

5.24%

0.87%

2.62%

80.79%

1.31%

9.17%

29

Withers LLP

9.71%

7.77%

0.00%

1.94%

89.32%

0.00%

0.97%

30

Winckworth Sherwood

9.30%

4.65%

2.33%

2.33%

90.70%

0.00%

0.00%

31

Freshfields

9.18%

6.18%

0.83%

2.17%

44.57%

0.00%

46.24%

32

Shoosmiths

8.61%

5.24%

0.75%

1.87%

89.14%

0.75%

2.25%

33

Olswang LLP

8.33%

4.86%

0.00%

3.47%

86.11%

0.00%

5.56%

34

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

8.00%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

92.00%

0.00%

0.00%

35

Ashurst LLP

7.72%

4.03%

0.67%

1.34%

64.43%

1.68%

27.85%

36

Hogan Lovells

6.68%

2.63%

1.43%

2.15%

86.16%

0.48%

7.16%

37

Addleshaw Goddard

6.61%

3.42%

0.46%

1.82%

83.14%

0.91%

10.25%

38

Weightmans LLP

6.49%

5.19%

0.32%

0.65%

48.38%

0.32%

45.13%

39

Mills & Reeve LLP

4.85%

2.61%

1.12%

1.12%

94.78%

0.00%

0.37%

40

Mundays LLP

3.85%

3.85%

0.00%

0.00%

65.38%

0.00%

30.77%

41

Blake Lapthorn

2.98%

1.19%

0.00%

1.79%

85.12%

0.00%

11.90%

42

DWF LLP

2.64%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

39.90%

0.24%

57.45%

126 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE D: RANKING OF FEMALE ASSOCIATES FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

Flint Bishop LLP

76.32%

23.68%

0.00%

2

Irwin Mitchell

73.58%

26.42%

0.00%

3

Charles Russell

69.79%

30.21%

0.00%

1

Firm Name

4

Freeth Cartwright LLP

67.16%

32.84%

0.00%

5

DWF LLP

66.35%

33.65%

0.00%

6

Winckworth Sherwood

66.27%

33.73%

0.00%

7

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

66.04%

33.96%

0.00%

8

Weightmans LLP

65.91%

34.09%

0.00%

9

Shoosmiths

65.54%

34.46%

0.00%

10

Mills & Reeve LLP

64.55%

35.45%

0.00%

11

Reed Smith

64.29%

35.71%

0.00%

12

Olswang LLP

63.89%

36.11%

0.00%

13

Blake Lapthorn

63.69%

36.31%

0.00%

14

Trowers & Hamlins

63.45%

36.55%

0.00%

15

Withers LLP

63.11%

36.89%

0.00%

16

McMillan Williams Solicitors

62.71%

37.29%

0.00%

17

Mundays LLP

61.54%

38.46%

0.00%

18

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

60.00%

40.00%

0.00%

19

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

58.08%

41.92%

0.00%

20

Russell-Cooke

56.58%

32.89%

10.53%

21

Mayer Brown International LLP

56.25%

43.75%

0.00%

22

Baker & McKenzie

56.22%

43.78%

0.00%

23

Hogan Lovells

55.85%

44.15%

0.00%

24

Addleshaw Goddard

55.13%

44.87%

0.00%

25

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

54.62%

44.87%

0.51%

26

Berwin Leighton Paisner

54.16%

45.84%

0.00%

27

Sidley Austin LLP

53.23%

46.77%

0.00%

28

K&L Gates LLP

52.78%

47.22%

0.00%

29

Clifford Chance

52.11%

47.89%

0.00%

30

Ashurst LLP

52.01%

47.99%

0.00%

31

Allen & Overy

51.86%

48.14%

0.00%

32

Dentons

51.85%

48.15%

0.00%

33

Freshfields

47.75%

52.25%

0.00%

34

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

47.62%

52.38%

0.00%

35

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

47.37%

52.63%

0.00%

36

Linklaters LLP

47.15%

52.85%

0.00%

37

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

45.45%

54.55%

0.00%

38

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

44.00%

56.00%

0.00%

39

White & Case LLP

43.51%

56.49%

0.00%

40

Latham & Watkins

37.93%

47.59%

14.48%

41

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

36.36%

63.64%

0.00%

42

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

25.42%

49.15%

25.42%

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 127

TABLE E: RANKING OF ETHNIC MINORITY TRAINEES FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

Firm Name

EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

25.00%

12.50%

12.50%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

50.00%

1

McMillan Williams Solicitors

50.00%

31.25%

12.50%

0.00%

50.00%

6.25%

0.00%

1

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

37.50%

12.50%

12.50%

12.50%

50.00%

0.00%

12.50%

5

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

27.78%

27.78%

0.00%

0.00%

72.22%

0.00%

0.00%

6

Baker & McKenzie

27.71%

15.66%

2.41%

8.43%

69.88%

1.20%

2.41%

7

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

26.67%

6.67%

0.00%

20.00%

73.33%

0.00%

0.00%

7

K&L Gates LLP

26.67%

6.67%

0.00%

13.33%

66.67%

6.67%

6.67%

9

Ashurst LLP

25.49%

12.75%

1.96%

4.90%

72.55%

5.88%

1.96%

10

White & Case LLP

25.45%

12.73%

3.64%

7.27%

29.09%

1.82%

45.45%

11

Linklaters LLP

23.68%

9.21%

1.32%

3.51%

50.00%

9.65%

26.32%

12

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

23.40%

18.09%

1.06%

4.26%

68.09%

0.00%

8.51%

13

Sidley Austin LLP

22.22%

16.67%

0.00%

5.56%

77.78%

0.00%

0.00%

14

Clifford Chance

21.30%

13.61%

2.37%

3.55%

49.70%

1.78%

28.99%

15

Allen & Overy

20.90%

13.93%

1.49%

3.48%

71.64%

1.99%

7.46%

16

Trowers & Hamlins

20.00%

11.43%

0.00%

2.86%

77.14%

5.71%

2.86%

17

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

19.05%

14.29%

0.00%

0.00%

52.38%

4.76%

28.57%

18

Dentons

18.97%

5.17%

1.72%

5.17%

81.03%

6.90%

0.00%

19

Berwin Leighton Paisner

18.52%

11.11%

1.23%

3.70%

81.48%

2.47%

0.00%

20

Freshfields

17.28%

10.99%

3.14%

3.14%

52.36%

0.00%

30.37%

21

Latham & Watkins

17.24%

10.34%

0.00%

3.45%

75.86%

3.45%

6.90%

22

Mayer Brown International LLP

16.67%

6.25%

2.08%

0.00%

81.25%

8.33%

2.08%

22

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

16.67%

16.67%

0.00%

0.00%

83.33%

0.00%

0.00%

24

Irwin Mitchell

12.64%

9.20%

0.00%

2.30%

72.41%

1.15%

14.94%

25

Weightmans LLP

12.12%

12.12%

0.00%

0.00%

39.39%

0.00%

48.48%

26

Shoosmiths

11.11%

4.44%

4.44%

0.00%

88.89%

2.22%

0.00%

27

Withers LLP

11.11%

7.41%

0.00%

3.70%

85.19%

0.00%

3.70%

28

Hogan Lovells

10.87%

7.25%

0.00%

2.17%

82.61%

1.45%

6.52%

29

Reed Smith

9.80%

3.92%

1.96%

1.96%

64.71%

1.96%

25.49%

30

Winckworth Sherwood

9.09%

9.09%

0.00%

0.00%

90.91%

0.00%

0.00%

31

Olswang LLP

8.33%

5.56%

0.00%

0.00%

86.11%

2.78%

5.56%

31

Russell-Cooke

8.33%

0.00%

0.00%

8.33%

75.00%

0.00%

16.67%

33

Mills & Reeve LLP

7.69%

5.13%

0.00%

0.00%

89.74%

2.56%

2.56%

34

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

7.55%

3.77%

0.00%

1.89%

92.45%

1.89%

0.00%

35

Freeth Cartwright LLP

4.76%

4.76%

0.00%

0.00%

95.24%

0.00%

0.00%

36

Addleshaw Goddard

4.29%

2.86%

0.00%

1.43%

72.86%

0.00%

22.86%

37

DWF LLP

1.09%

0.00%

0.00%

1.09%

29.35%

0.00%

69.57%

38

Blake Lapthorn

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

38

Charles Russell

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

38

Flint Bishop LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

38

Mundays LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

‘-’ No ranking provided when counting fewer than 5 people.

128 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE F: RANKING OF FEMALE TRAINEES FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

1

Firm Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

Irwin Mitchell

81.61%

18.39%

0.00%

2

Shoosmiths

80.00%

20.00%

0.00%

3

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

75.00%

25.00%

0.00%

4

Blake Lapthorn

70.37%

29.63%

0.00%

5

DWF LLP

68.48%

31.52%

0.00%

6

Mills & Reeve LLP

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

6

Olswang LLP

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

6

Russell-Cooke

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

6

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

10

Charles Russell

63.16%

36.84%

0.00%

11

White & Case LLP

61.82%

38.18%

0.00%

12

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

60.00%

40.00%

0.00%

13

Berwin Leighton Paisner

59.26%

40.74%

0.00%

13

Withers LLP

59.26%

40.74%

0.00%

15

Clifford Chance

58.58%

41.42%

0.00%

16

Weightmans LLP

57.58%

42.42%

0.00%

17

McMillan Williams Solicitors

56.25%

43.75%

0.00%

18

Freshfields

55.79%

44.21%

0.00%

19

Sidley Austin LLP

55.56%

44.44%

0.00%

20

Ashurst LLP

55.05%

44.95%

0.00%

21

Allen & Overy

54.95%

45.05%

0.00%

22

Baker & McKenzie

54.22%

45.78%

0.00%

23

Dentons

53.45%

46.55%

0.00%

24

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

53.19%

46.81%

0.00%

25

Hogan Lovells

52.90%

47.10%

0.00%

26

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

52.83%

47.17%

0.00%

27

Linklaters LLP

51.75%

48.25%

0.00%

28

Mayer Brown International LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

28

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

28

Mundays LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

28

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

28

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

50.00%

50.00%

0.00%

33

Latham & Watkins

48.28%

44.83%

6.90%

34

Reed Smith

47.06%

52.94%

0.00%

35

Winckworth Sherwood

45.45%

54.55%

0.00%

36

Addleshaw Goddard

42.86%

57.14%

0.00%

36

Trowers & Hamlins

42.86%

57.14%

0.00%

38

Freeth Cartwright LLP

35.00%

65.00%

0.00%

39

K&L Gates LLP

33.33%

66.67%

0.00%

40

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

28.57%

42.86%

28.57%

41

Flint Bishop LLP

16.67%

83.33%

0.00%

-

-

-

-

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

‘-’ No ranking provided when counting fewer than 5 people.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 129

TABLE G: RANKING OF ETHNIC MINORITY PARALEGALS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

Firm Name

EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

35.71%

21.43%

0.00%

42.86%

0.00%

0.00%

1

McMillan Williams Solicitors

57.14%

2

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

53.66%

34.15%

14.63%

4.88%

46.34%

0.00%

0.00%

3

Olswang LLP

41.67%

25.00%

8.33%

8.33%

58.33%

0.00%

0.00%

4

Russell-Cooke

37.50%

12.50%

12.50%

12.50%

37.50%

0.00%

25.00%

5

White & Case LLP

31.58%

15.79%

5.26%

10.53%

36.84%

0.00%

31.58%

6

Berwin Leighton Paisner

31.25%

25.00%

2.08%

4.17%

68.75%

0.00%

0.00%

7

Reed Smith

30.00%

5.00%

0.00%

10.00%

55.00%

15.00%

15.00%

8

Baker & McKenzie

27.78%

22.22%

0.00%

0.00%

44.44%

5.56%

27.78%

9

Allen & Overy

22.22%

16.67%

1.85%

3.70%

77.78%

0.00%

0.00%

10

Ashurst LLP

21.74%

21.74%

0.00%

0.00%

78.26%

0.00%

0.00%

11

Charles Russell

17.50%

12.50%

0.00%

2.50%

80.00%

2.50%

2.50%

12

Withers LLP

16.67%

12.50%

0.00%

0.00%

83.33%

4.17%

0.00%

13

Dentons

15.38%

7.69%

0.00%

7.69%

84.62%

0.00%

0.00%

13

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

15.38%

7.69%

7.69%

0.00%

53.85%

0.00%

30.77%

15

Linklaters LLP

14.29%

7.14%

7.14%

0.00%

21.43%

0.00%

64.29%

16

Shoosmiths

13.65%

8.43%

2.01%

2.01%

84.74%

1.20%

1.61%

17

Weightmans LLP

13.53%

8.70%

0.97%

3.38%

41.06%

0.48%

45.41%

18

Flint Bishop LLP

12.50%

9.38%

3.13%

0.00%

87.50%

0.00%

0.00%

18

Freeth Cartwright LLP

12.50%

10.00%

0.00%

2.50%

77.50%

0.00%

10.00%

20

Freshfields

12.31%

6.15%

4.62%

1.54%

30.77%

0.00%

56.92%

21

Irwin Mitchell

11.21%

7.36%

1.75%

1.58%

80.91%

0.53%

7.88%

22

Hogan Lovells

11.11%

7.41%

0.00%

3.70%

88.89%

0.00%

0.00%

22

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

11.11%

7.41%

3.70%

0.00%

81.48%

0.00%

7.41%

24

Addleshaw Goddard

10.45%

7.46%

0.00%

1.49%

41.79%

1.49%

47.76%

25

Mills & Reeve LLP

9.84%

8.20%

0.00%

1.64%

88.52%

0.00%

1.64%

26

Blake Lapthorn

8.91%

3.96%

2.97%

1.98%

84.16%

0.00%

6.93%

27

DWF LLP

3.95%

3.07%

0.44%

0.00%

33.33%

0.44%

62.72%

28

Clifford Chance

2.94%

1.47%

1.47%

0.00%

16.18%

0.00%

80.88%

29

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

29

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.33%

0.00%

66.67%

29

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

29

Trowers & Hamlins

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

92.31%

0.00%

7.69%

Winckworth Sherwood

29

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

60.00%

0.00%

40.00%

-

Mayer Brown International LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Latham & Watkins

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

K&L Gates LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mundays LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sidley Austin LLP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

v

‘-’ No ranking provided when counting fewerthan 5 people.

130 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE H: RANKING OF FEMALE PARALEGALS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

1

Firm Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

Reed Smith

90.00%

10.00%

0.00%

2

Olswang LLP

83.33%

16.67%

0.00%

3

Mills & Reeve LLP

81.97%

18.03%

0.00%

4

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

80.49%

19.51%

0.00%

5

Winckworth Sherwood

80.00%

20.00%

0.00%

6

Irwin Mitchell

78.63%

21.37%

0.00%

7

McMillan Williams Solicitors

78.57%

21.43%

0.00%

8

Blake Lapthorn

77.23%

22.77%

0.00%

9

Flint Bishop LLP

75.00%

25.00%

0.00%

9

Russell-Cooke

75.00%

25.00%

0.00%

11

Shoosmiths

74.70%

25.30%

0.00%

12

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

74.07%

25.93%

0.00%

13

Weightmans LLP

73.43%

26.57%

0.00%

14

Berwin Leighton Paisner

72.92%

27.08%

0.00%

15

DWF LLP

70.61%

29.39%

0.00%

16

Charles Russell

70.00%

30.00%

0.00%

16

Freeth Cartwright LLP

70.00%

30.00%

0.00%

18

White & Case LLP

68.42%

31.58%

0.00%

19

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

66.67%

33.33%

0.00%

20

Ashurst LLP

65.22%

34.78%

0.00%

21

Dentons

64.29%

35.71%

0.00%

22

Allen & Overy

62.96%

37.04%

0.00%

22

Hogan Lovells

62.96%

37.04%

0.00%

24

Withers LLP

62.50%

37.50%

0.00%

25

Freshfields

60.00%

40.00%

0.00%

26

Clifford Chance

58.82%

41.18%

0.00%

27

Addleshaw Goddard

55.22%

44.78%

0.00%

28

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

53.85%

38.46%

7.69%

28

Trowers & Hamlins

53.85%

46.15%

0.00%

30

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

52.38%

47.62%

0.00%

31

Baker & McKenzie

44.44%

55.56%

0.00%

32

Linklaters LLP

35.71%

64.29%

0.00%

33

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

16.67%

16.67%

66.67%

-

Mayer Brown International LLP

-

-

-

-

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

-

-

-

-

Latham & Watkins

-

-

-

-

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

-

-

-

-

K&L Gates LLP

-

-

-

-

Mundays LLP

-

-

-

-

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

-

-

-

-

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

-

-

-

-

Sidley Austin LLP

-

-

-

‘-’ No ranking provided when counting fewer than 5 people.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 131

TABLE I: TOTAL RANKING OF THE CITY 10 FIRMS Partners Rank

Overall Rank

1

12

2 3

Associates

Trainees

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Linklaters LLP

27

11

36

5

28

11

14

Allen & Overy

30

14

31

7

22

15

19

Clifford Chance

28

22

29

21

15

14

Firm Name

4

19

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

26

17

25

24

25

12

5

31

Reed Smith

29

25

11

16

35

30

6

40

Hogan Lovells

20

33

23

36

26

29

7

41

Freshfields

32

38

33

31

19

20

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

Eversheds LLP DLA Piper LLP Slaughter and May

-

-

-

-

-

-

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Shoosmiths

10

18

9

32

2

27

n/a: No data provided.

TABLE J: TOTAL RANKING FOR THE UK 100 FIRMS Partners Rank

Overall Rank

1

4

Firm Name

Associates

Trainees

2

5

Irwin Mitchell

12

34

2

25

1

25

3

7

Trowers & Hamlins

8

12

14

22

37

16

4

8

Winckworth Sherwood

2

5

6

30

36

31

5

12

Linklaters LLP

27

11

36

5

28

11

6

14

Allen & Overy

30

14

31

7

22

15

7

15

Russell-Cooke

7

28

20

27

6

32

8

16

Berwin Leighton Paisner

21

16

26

26

13

19

9

18

Charles Russell

15

37

3

20

10

39

10

19

Clifford Chance

28

22

29

21

15

14

11

19

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

26

17

25

24

25

12

12

19

Withers LLP

4

40

15

29

13

28

13

22

Freeth Cartwright LLP

17

23

4

12

39

36

14

23

Weightmans LLP

5

39

8

38

16

26

15

26

Olswang LLP

24

28

12

33

6

32

16

29

Blake Lapthorn

14

31

13

41

4

39

17

30

Mills & Reeve LLP

19

35

10

39

6

34

18

31

Reed Smith

29

25

11

16

35

30

19

33

Ashurst LLP

35

19

30

35

21

9

20

39

DWF LLP

36

40

5

42

5

38

21

40

Hogan Lovells

20

33

23

36

26

29

22

41

Freshfields

32

38

33

31

19

20

23

42

Addleshaw Goddard

22

36

24

37

37

37

132 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE K: TOTAL RANKING FOR INTERNATIONAL FIRMS Partners

Rank

Overall Rank

Firm Name

Associates

Trainees

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

1

6

Sidley Austin LLP

37

8

27

3

20

13

2

10

Mayer Brown International LLP

23

9

21

9

29

23

3

11

White & Case LLP

38

6

39

11

11

10

4

12

Baker & McKenzie

25

24

22

18

23

6

5

17

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

31

30

41

10

6

5

6

27

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

42

32

35

8

12

7

7

31

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

40

4

42

2

41

17

8

31

Reed Smith

29

25

11

16

35

30

9

34

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

16

26

19

28

27

35

10

36

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

41

13

34

15

29

23

11

37

Latham & Watkins

39

20

40

4

34

21

12

38

K&L Gates LLP

33

40

28

13

40

7

Different People, Equal Rights, The Same Great Opportunity

At MW we know our clients are diverse people with diverse needs and to service them requires an equally diverse workforce. We could not be prouder to be officially recognised for attracting talent from such a diverse pool. Different people, equal rights, the same great opportunity. To learn more about working with MW contact us through [email protected] or by phone at 0208 619 1 619. Find us on twitter @mwsolicitors or on LinkedIn. Pictured: The staff of MW Carshalton office

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 133 Advert Diversity.indd 1

30/09/2013 17:15:40

TABLE L: RANKING - LGB EMPLOYEES (FEE EARNERS) FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS Rank

Firm Name

LGB (%)

Unknown

1.63%

1

Withers LLP

4.89%

2

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

4.48%

0.00%

3

Linklaters LLP

3.71%

32.81%

4

Baker & McKenzie

3.66%

34.46%

5

K&L Gates LLP

3.60%

4.32%

6

Ashurst LLP

3.54%

5.03%

7

Latham & Watkins

3.46%

19.91%

8

Dentons

2.91%

17.73%

9

Freshfields

2.90%

35.40%

10

White & Case LLP

2.89%

27.27%

11

Russell-Cooke

2.86%

30.71%

12

Addleshaw Goddard

2.70%

0.00%

13

Olswang LLP

2.68%

8.81%

14

Clifford Chance

2.63%

52.63%

15

Hogan Lovells

2.55%

17.96%

16

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

2.50%

67.50%

17

Irwin Mitchell

2.48%

49.85%

18

Mayer Brown International LLP

2.30%

59.77%

19

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

2.18%

49.22%

20

McMillan Williams Solicitors

2.17%

0.00%

21

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

2.08%

0.00%

22

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

1.90%

20.95%

23

Berwin Leighton Paisner

1.72%

0.00%

24

Sidley Austin LLP

1.63%

98.37%

25

Charles Russell

1.58%

57.91%

26

Allen & Overy

1.50%

43.29%

27

Winckworth Sherwood

1.47%

8.09%

28

Blake Lapthorn

1.43%

39.29%

29

Mills & Reeve LLP

1.24%

72.21%

30

Shoosmiths

1.14%

23.34%

31

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

0.95%

13.10%

32

Freeth Cartwright LLP

0.39%

14.17%

33

Weightmans LLP

0.37%

25.37%

34

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

0.00%

0.00%

34

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

0.00%

10.98%

34

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

0.00%

96.67%

34

Reed Smith

0.00%

97.89% 100.00%

34

DWF LLP

0.00%

34

Flint Bishop LLP

0.00%

100.00%

34

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

0.00%

100.00%

34

Mundays LLP

0.00%

100.00%

34

Trowers & Hamlins

0.00%

100.00%

134 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE M: RANKING - DISABLED EMPLOYEES (FEE EARNERS) FOR ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS

Rank

1

Firm Name

K&L Gates LLP

Disabled (%)

Unknown (%)

6.43%

10.00% 38.51%

2

Russell-Cooke

2.70%

3

Baker & McKenzie

2.49%

77.06%

4

Hogan Lovells

1.91%

32.70%

5

McMillan Williams Solicitors

1.89%

0.00%

6

Ashurst LLP

1.61%

6.43%

7

Mayer Brown International LLP

1.53%

98.09%

8

Berwin Leighton Paisner

1.45%

0.00%

9

Withers LLP

1.44%

0.00%

10

Charles Russell

1.40%

0.00%

11

Addleshaw Goddard

1.30%

0.00%

12

Irwin Mitchell

1.15%

12.16% 61.98%

13

Allen & Overy

1.14%

14

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

1.14%

2.27%

15

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

1.12%

18.34%

16

Linklaters LLP

1.10%

21.59%

17

Flint Bishop LLP

1.01%

98.99%

18

Weightmans LLP

0.94%

18.17%

19

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

0.92%

99.08%

20

Dentons

0.84%

21.79%

21

Freshfields

0.78%

35.40%

22

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

0.75%

0.00%

23

Mills & Reeve LLP

0.65%

0.22%

24

Blake Lapthorn

0.52%

20.73%

25

Latham & Watkins

0.43%

20.00%

26

Olswang LLP

0.37%

13.19%

27

Freeth Cartwright LLP

0.34%

0.00%

28

Trowers & Hamlins

0.33%

0.00%

29

Shoosmiths

0.29%

0.00%

30

Clifford Chance

0.20%

54.99%

31

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

0.00%

0.00%

31

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

0.00%

0.00%

31

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

0.00%

0.00%

31

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

0.00%

0.00%

31

Winckworth Sherwood

0.00%

0.00%

31

Sidley Austin LLP

0.00%

14.63%

31

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

0.00%

21.62%

31

White & Case LLP

0.00%

27.59% 80.00%

31

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

0.00%

31

Mundays LLP

0.00%

97.92%

31

Reed Smith

0.00%

98.01%

31

DWF LLP

0.00%

100.00%

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 135

THE OVERALL DEMOGRAPHIC LEAGUE TABLE (FIRMS)

136 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE N: TOTAL RANKING OF ALL PARTICIPATING FIRMS (DEMOGRAPHIC LEAGUE TABLE) Partners Overall Rank

Firm Name

Female Rank

Associates

EM Rank

Female Rank

Trainees

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

League Score

16

1

17

1

458

1

McMillan Williams Solicitors

1

2

2

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

9

10

7

23

3

1

458

3

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

3

1

18

6

29

4

438

4

Shoosmiths

10

18

9

32

2

27

396

5

Irwin Mitchell

12

34

2

25

1

25

333

6

Sidley Austin LLP

37

8

27

3

20

13

354

7

Trowers & Hamlins

8

12

14

22

37

16

333

8

Flint Bishop LLP

6

3

1

19

42

39

354

8

Winckworth Sherwood

2

5

6

30

36

31

354

10

Mayer Brown International LLP

23

9

21

9

29

23

354

11

White & Case LLP

38

6

39

11

11

10

375

12

Baker & McKenzie

25

24

22

18

23

6

313

12

Linklaters LLP

27

11

36

5

28

11

354

14

Allen & Overy

30

14

31

7

22

15

333

15

Russell-Cooke

7

28

20

27

6

32

354

16

Berwin Leighton Paisner

21

16

26

26

13

19

333

17

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

31

30

41

10

6

5

354

18

Charles Russell

15

37

3

20

10

39

333

19

Clifford Chance

28

22

29

21

15

14

313

19

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

26

17

25

24

25

12

292

19

Withers LLP

4

40

15

29

13

28

313

22

Freeth Cartwright LLP

17

23

4

12

39

36

292

23

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

13

7

38

34

18

22

292

23

Dentons

17

27

32

14

24

18

313

23

Weightmans LLP

5

39

8

38

16

26

313

26

Olswang LLP

24

28

12

33

6

32

292

27

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

42

32

35

8

12

7

313

28

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

34

20

37

17

29

1

292

29

Blake Lapthorn

14

31

13

41

4

39

292

30

Mills & Reeve LLP

19

35

10

39

6

34

292

31

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

40

4

42

2

41

17

292

31

Reed Smith

29

25

11

16

35

30

292

33

Ashurst LLP

35

19

30

35

21

9

292

34

Mundays LLP

11

15

17

40

29

39

292

34

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

16

26

19

28

27

35

271

36

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

41

13

34

15

29

23

250

37

Latham & Watkins

39

20

40

4

34

21

271

38

K&L Gates LLP

33

40

28

13

40

7

250

39

DWF LLP

36

40

5

42

5

38

250

40

Hogan Lovells

20

33

23

36

26

29

229

41

Freshfields

32

38

33

31

19

20

250

42

Addleshaw Goddard

22

36

24

37

37

37

167

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 137

POLICY & PRACTICE RANKINGS (FIRMS)

138 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE O: RANKING OF FIRMS ACCORDING TO RESPONSES TO POLICY & PRACTICE QUESTIONS Rank

1

Firm Name

Baker & McKenzie

Policy & Practice Score

Monitoring

Leadership and internal policy/ strategy

External Face

Staff Development and Support

Recruitment, promotion and retention

479

96

192

38

115

38

1

Hogan Lovells

479

96

192

38

115

38

1

K&L Gates LLP

479

96

192

38

115

38

1

Linklaters LLP

479

96

192

38

115

38

5

Ashurst LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Irwin Mitchell

460

96

192

38

96

38

5

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

460

96

173

38

115

38

5

Reed Smith

460

77

192

38

115

38

5

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

460

96

192

38

96

38

12

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

441

77

192

38

115

19

12

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

441

96

173

38

96

38

12

Freshfields

441

96

173

38

96

38

12

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

441

77

192

38

96

38

12

Shoosmiths

441

96

192

38

77

38

12

Sidley Austin LLP

441

96

154

38

115

38

12

White & Case LLP

441

96

173

38

96

38

19

Addleshaw Goddard

422

96

192

38

58

38

19

DWF LLP

422

77

192

38

77

38

19

Mayer Brown International LLP

422

96

154

19

115

38

19

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

422

96

173

19

115

19

23

Mills & Reeve LLP

403

96

173

38

58

38

24

Allen & Overy

384

96

154

38

58

38

24

Berwin Leighton Paisner

384

96

173

38

58

19

24

Clifford Chance

384

96

154

38

58

38

24

Dentons

384

77

135

38

115

19

28

Charles Russell

365

96

154

19

58

38

28

McMillan Williams Solicitors

365

77

154

38

77

19

28

Olswang LLP

365

96

154

19

58

38

28

Trowers & Hamlins

365

77

154

38

77

19

32

Weightmans LLP

364

96

115

38

77

38

33

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

346

58

154

38

77

19

34

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

345

58

115

38

115

19

34

Flint Bishop LLP

345

77

115

19

96

38

36

Blake Lapthorn

326

96

154

38

19

19

36

Russell-Cooke

326

77

77

19

115

38

38

Mundays LLP

307

58

77

38

115

19

38

Withers LLP

307

77

135

38

38

19

40

Latham & Watkins

306

77

115

38

38

38

41

Winckworth Sherwood

269

77

58

38

77

19

42

Freeth Cartwright LLP

268

77

115

19

38

19

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 139

THE OVERALL DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE (FIRMS)

140 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE P: OVERALL DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE – FIRMS Rank

Firm Name

Diversity QuotientTM

League Table Score

Policy & Practice Score

1

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

899

458

441

2

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

860

438

422

3

Shoosmiths

837

396

441

4

Linklaters LLP

833

354

479

5

McMillan Williams Solicitors

823

458

365

6

White & Case LLP

816

375

441

7

Sidley Austin LLP

795

354

441

8

Irwin Mitchell

793

333

460

9

Baker & McKenzie

792

313

479

10

Mayer Brown International LLP

776

354

422

11

Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP

754

313

441

12

Ashurst LLP

752

292

460

12

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP

752

292

460

12

Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP

752

292

460

12

Reed Smith

752

292

460

16

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

733

292

441

17

Squire Sanders (UK) LLP

731

271

460

18

K&L Gates LLP

729

250

479

19

Allen & Overy

717

333

384

19

Berwin Leighton Paisner

717

333

384

21

Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP

710

250

460

22

Hogan Lovells

708

229

479

23

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

700

354

346

24

Flint Bishop LLP

699

354

345

25

Charles Russell

698

333

365

25

Trowers & Hamlins

698

333

365

27

Clifford Chance

697

313

384

27

Dentons

697

313

384

29

Mills & Reeve LLP

695

292

403

30

Freshfields

691

250

441

31

Russell-Cooke

680

354

326

32

Weightmans LLP

677

313

364

33

DWF LLP

672

250

422

34

Olswang LLP

657

292

365

35

Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP

637

292

345

36

Winckworth Sherwood

623

354

269

37

Withers LLP

620

313

307

38

Blake Lapthorn

618

292

326

39

Mundays LLP

599

292

307

40

Addleshaw Goddard

589

167

422

41

Latham & Watkins

577

271

306

42

Freeth Cartwright LLP

560

292

268

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 141

“We are proud that once again a number of barristers’ chambers have decided to contribute to this year’s Diversity League Table. The findings reflect our positive commitment and hard work towards striving for greater equality and diversity within the legal profession…” Maura McGowan QC Chairman of the Bar for 2013

142 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

THE RANKINGS: CHAMBERS The rankings, the league tables... the definitive breakdown of how well the leading UK chambers are doing in the area of diversity.

• The Demographic League Tables • Policy & Practice Rankings • Overall Diversity League Table: Chambers

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 143

TABLE S: RANKING OF ETHNIC MINORITY QUEEN’S COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTICIPATING CHAMBERS Rank

Firm Name

EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

5.88%

1

25 Bedford Row

41.18%

17.65%

5.88%

0.00%

52.94%

17.65%

2

23 Essex Street

23.08%

7.69%

7.69%

0.00%

76.92%

7.69%

0.00%

3

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

20.00%

20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

80.00%

0.00%

0.00%t

3

9 Bedford Row

20.00%

20.00%

0.00%

0.00%

80.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5

Matrix Chambers

13.04%

4.35%

0.00%

8.70%

86.96%

0.00%

0.00%

6

Tooks Chambers

11.11%

11.11%

0.00%

0.00%

88.89%

0.00%

0.00%

7

Fountain Court Chambers

10.34%

6.90%

0.00%

3.45%

89.66%

0.00%

0.00%

8

Devereux Chambers

9.09%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

36.36%

9.09%

54.55%

9

9-12 Bell Yard

7.69%

7.69%

0.00%

0.00%

92.31%

0.00%

0.00%

10

Cornerstone Barristers

7.14%

7.14%

0.00%

0.00%

92.86%

0.00%

0.00%

11

11KBW

5.88%

0.00%

0.00%

5.88%

94.12%

0.00%

0.00%

12

Red Lion Chambers

5.56%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

94.44%

5.56%

0.00%

13

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

5.13%

2.56%

2.56%

0.00%

94.87%

0.00%

0.00%

14

Serle Court

5.00%

5.00%

0.00%

0.00%

80.00%

0.00%

15.00%

15

One Crown Office Row

4.35%

0.00%

4.35%

0.00%

95.65%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Atlantic Chambers

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

12 King's Bench Walk

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Doughty Street Chambers

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Hardwicke

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Linenhall Chambers

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Littleton Chambers

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

4 New Square

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

New Park Court Chambers

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Outer Temple Chambers

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

-

Coram Chambers

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 Breams Buildings

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Five Paper

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

KBG Chambers

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

‘-’ No ranking provided when counting fewer than 5 people.

144 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE T: RANKING OF FEMALE QUEEN’S COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTICIPATING CHAMBERS Rank

Firm Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

40.00%

60.00%

0.00%

2

Atlantic Chambers

33.33%

66.67%

0.00%

3

Hardwicke

28.57%

71.43%

0.00%

4

Red Lion Chambers

27.78%

72.22%

0.00%

5

One Crown Office Row

26.09%

73.91%

0.00%

6

Doughty Street Chambers

23.33%

76.67%

0.00%

7

Matrix Chambers

21.74%

78.26%

0.00%

8

Linenhall Chambers

20.00%

80.00%

0.00%

8

9 Bedford Row

20.00%

80.00%

0.00%

10

4 New Square

15.79%

84.21%

0.00%

11

23 Essex Street

15.38%

84.62%

0.00%

11

Littleton Chambers

15.38%

84.62%

0.00%

11

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

15.38%

84.62%

0.00%

11

9-12 Bell Yard

15.38%

84.62%

0.00%

15

25 Bedford Row

11.76%

88.24%

0.00%

16

Tooks Chambers

11.11%

88.89%

0.00%

17

Devereux Chambers

9.09%

90.91%

0.00%

17

New Park Court Chambers

9.09%

90.91%

0.00%

19

Cornerstone Barristers

7.14%

92.86%

0.00%

20

11KBW

5.88%

94.12%

0.00%

21

Serle Court

5.00%

80.00%

15.00%

22

Fountain Court Chambers

3.45%

96.55%

0.00%

23

12 King's Bench Walk

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

23

Outer Temple Chambers

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

-

Coram Chambers

-

-

-

-

4 Breams Buildings

-

-

-

-

Five Paper

-

-

-

-

KBG Chambers

-

-

-

-

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

-

-

-

‘-’ No ranking provided when counting fewer than 5 people.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 145

TABLE U: RANKING OF ETHNIC MINORITY BARRISTERS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING CHAMBERS Rank

Firm Name

EM (%)

Asian (%)

Black (%)

Mixed (%)

White (%)

Other (%)

Unknown (%)

1

25 Bedford Row

29.17%

8.33%

10.42%

0.00%

68.75%

10.42%

2.08%

2

Tooks Chambers

24.72%

8.99%

11.24%

4.49%

75.28%

0.00%

0.00%

3

Coram Chambers

24.19%

16.13%

6.45%

1.61%

75.81%

0.00%

0.00%

4

23 Essex Street

23.23%

8.08%

5.05%

1.01%

76.77%

9.09%

0.00%

5

Red Lion Chambers

21.21%

12.12%

3.03%

0.00%

78.79%

6.06%

0.00%

6

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

18.18%

0.00%

0.00%

18.18%

81.82%

0.00%

0.00%

7

9 Bedford Row

16.67%

14.81%

1.85%

0.00%

83.33%

0.00%

0.00%

8

One Crown Office Row

15.05%

4.30%

4.30%

2.15%

82.80%

4.30%

2.15%

9

9-12 Bell Yard

13.58%

7.41%

4.94%

1.23%

86.42%

0.00%

0.00%

10

Cornerstone Barristers

12.50%

7.50%

5.00%

0.00%

87.50%

0.00%

0.00%

10

12 King's Bench Walk

12.50%

5.00%

2.50%

5.00%

87.50%

0.00%

0.00%

12

Outer Temple Chambers

12.07%

5.17%

1.72%

3.45%

87.93%

1.72%

0.00%

13

Five Paper

11.54%

5.77%

1.92%

3.85%

82.69%

0.00%

5.77%

14

Devereux Chambers

11.43%

5.71%

0.00%

0.00%

74.29%

5.71%

14.29%

15

Hardwicke

11.36%

3.41%

3.41%

4.55%

88.64%

0.00%

0.00%

16

Littleton Chambers

11.32%

3.77%

0.00%

7.55%

88.68%

0.00%

0.00%

17

Doughty Street Chambers

10.92%

4.20%

3.36%

0.84%

89.08%

2.52%

0.00%

18

4 Breams Buildings

10.84%

9.64%

1.20%

0.00%

89.16%

0.00%

0.00%

19

New Park Court Chambers

10.13%

5.06%

5.06%

0.00%

89.87%

0.00%

0.00%

20

Matrix Chambers

8.45%

2.82%

1.41%

4.23%

91.55%

0.00%

0.00%

21

11KBW

6.56%

4.92%

0.00%

1.64%

93.44%

0.00%

0.00%

22

4 New Square

5.56%

0.00%

0.00%

5.56%

94.44%

0.00%

0.00%

23

Fountain Court Chambers

5.48%

2.74%

0.00%

2.74%

94.52%

0.00%

0.00%

24

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

4.88%

4.88%

0.00%

0.00%

95.12%

0.00%

0.00%

25

Atlantic Chambers

4.35%

0.00%

1.45%

2.90%

95.65%

0.00%

0.00%

25

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

4.35%

3.48%

0.87%

0.00%

95.65%

0.00%

0.00%

27

KBG Chambers

2.70%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

97.30%

0.00%

0.00%

28

Serle Court

1.96%

1.96%

0.00%

0.00%

78.43%

0.00%

19.61%

29

Linenhall Chambers

1.27%

1.27%

0.00%

0.00%

98.73%

0.00%

0.00%

146 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

TABLE V: RANKING OF FEMALE BARRISTERS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING CHAMBERS Rank

Firm Name

Female %

Male %

Unknown %

1

Coram Chambers

70.97%

29.03%

0.00%

2

Tooks Chambers

49.44%

50.56%

0.00%

3

KBG Chambers

48.65%

51.35%

0.00%

4

Doughty Street Chambers

39.50%

60.50%

0.00%

5

Matrix Chambers

39.44%

60.56%

0.00%

6

Red Lion Chambers

37.88%

62.12%

0.00%

7

One Crown Office Row

37.63%

62.37%

0.00%

8

25 Bedford Row

37.50%

62.50%

0.00%

9

Five Paper

36.54%

63.46%

0.00%

10

Hardwicke

36.36%

63.64%

0.00%

11

Atlantic Chambers

36.23%

63.77%

0.00%

12

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

31.71%

68.29%

0.00%

13

12 King's Bench Walk

31.25%

68.75%

0.00%

14

9-12 Bell Yard

30.86%

69.14%

0.00%

15

New Park Court Chambers

30.38%

69.62%

0.00%

16

Cornerstone Barristers

30.00%

70.00%

0.00%

17

Linenhall Chambers

29.73%

70.27%

0.00%

18

9 Bedford Row

29.63%

70.37%

0.00%

19

11KBW

29.51%

70.49%

0.00%

20

Outer Temple Chambers

28.81%

71.19%

0.00%

21

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

28.46%

71.54%

0.00%

22

23 Essex Street

28.04%

71.96%

0.00%

23

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

27.27%

72.73%

0.00%

24

Littleton Chambers

24.53%

75.47%

0.00% 0.00%

25

4 New Square

24.07%

75.93%

26

4 Breams Buildings

22.89%

77.11%

0.00%

27

Devereux Chambers

22.86%

54.29%

22.86%

28

Fountain Court Chambers

17.33%

82.67%

0.00%

29

Serle Court

15.69%

64.71%

19.61%

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 147

THE OVERALL DEMOGRAPHIC LEAGUE TABLE (CHAMBERS) TABLE W: TOTAL RANKING OF ALL PARTICIPATING CHAMBERS (DEMOGRAPHIC LEAGUE TABLE) QCs Overall Rank

Firm Name

Female Rank

Barristers EM Rank

Female Rank

Pupils

EM Rank

Female Rank

EM Rank

Leagure Score

1

25 Bedford Row

20

1

8

1

1

1

458

2

Coram Chambers

15

10

1

3

3

5

458

3

Tooks Chambers

21

6

2

2

3

5

458

4

Red Lion Chambers

4

17

6

5

3

5

458

4

9 Bedford Row

8

3

18

7

1

3

458

6

Matrix Chambers

7

5

5

20

3

5

458

7

23 Essex Street

11

2

22

4

3

5

438

8

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

1

3

12

24

3

5

417

8

One Crown Office Row

5

20

7

8

3

5

458

10

Five Paper

15

10

9

13

3

5

417

11

Hardwicke

3

21

10

15

3

5

417

12

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

15

10

23

6

3

5

396

13

KBG Chambers

15

10

3

27

3

5

396

14

Atlantic Chambers

2

21

11

25

3

5

375

15

Cornerstone Barristers

24

15

16

10

3

5

354

16

Doughty Street Chambers

6

21

4

17

27

2

354

16

4 Breams Buildings

15

10

26

18

3

5

354

18

Devereux Chambers

22

8

27

14

3

5

375

19

12 King's Bench Walk

28

21

13

10

3

5

354

19

Littleton Chambers

11

21

24

16

3

5

333

21

Linenhall Chambers

8

21

17

29

3

5

354

22

New Park Court Chambers

22

21

15

19

3

5

354

23

4 New Square

10

21

25

22

3

5

333

24

11KBW

25

16

19

21

3

5

313

24

Outer Temple Chambers

28

21

20

12

3

5

333

26

Fountain Court Chambers

27

7

28

23

3

5

313

27

9-12 Bell Yard

11

9

14

9

28

29

292

28

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

11

18

21

25

28

3

271

29

Serle Court

26

19

29

28

3

5

271

148 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

POLICY & PRACTICE RANKINGS (CHAMBERS) TABLE X: RANKING OF CHAMBERS ACCORDING TO RESPONSES TO POLICY & PRACTICE QUESTIONS Rank

Chambers

Policy & Practice Score

Monitoring Leadership and External Staff Recruitment, Internal Policy/ Face Development Promotion Strategy and Support and Retention

1

Outer Temple Chambers

500

100

220

40

80

60

2

Hardwicke

460

100

200

40

60

60

2

Matrix Chambers

460

100

200

40

80

40

4

Coram Chambers

440

100

200

40

40

60

4

Devereux Chambers

440

100

180

40

60

60

4

Five Paper

440

100

180

20

80

60

7

Cornerstone Barristers

400

100

200

40

60

0

7

12 King's Bench Walk

400

80

180

20

80

40

7

Fountain Court Chambers

400

100

160

40

80

20

7

23 Essex Street

400

100

140

40

60

60

7

4 New Square

400

80

140

40

80

60

7

One Crown Office Row

400

80

180

40

80

20

13

Doughty Street Chambers

380

100

180

40

40

20

13

Littleton Chambers

380

80

160

20

80

40

13

Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers

380

60

160

40

80

40

13

9-12 Bell Yard

380

60

160

40

60

60

17

Serle Court

360

80

140

40

60

40

18

Tooks Chambers

340

60

160

40

60

20

18

9 Bedford Row

340

100

140

40

60

0

20

11KBW

320

100

120

40

40

20

20

25 Bedford Row

320

100

80

40

80

20

22

Atkinson Bevan Chambers

300

80

140

20

40

20

22

Red Lion Chambers

300

80

160

40

20

0

24

4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power)

280

100

80

40

40

20

24

New Park Court Chambers

280

60

120

40

60

0

26

KBG Chambers

260

80

100

40

20

20

26

4 Breams Buildings

260

60

140

20

40

0

28

Atlantic Chambers

220

80

80

40

20

0

29

Linenhall Chambers

140

60

60

20

0

0

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 149

“Greater transparency of published diversity data will allow more careful scrutiny by regulators, consumers and others.” David Edmonds, Chairman Legal Services Board

150 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

THE OVERALL DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE (CHAMBERS) TABLE Y: OVERALL DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE – CHAMBERS Overall Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 13 13 15 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Chambers

Matrix Chambers Coram Chambers Hardwicke One Crown Office Row Five Paper 23 Essex Street Outer Temple Chambers Devereux Chambers Tooks Chambers 9 Bedford Row 25 Bedford Row Red Lion Chambers Cornerstone Barristers 12 King's Bench Walk Doughty Street Chambers 4 New Square Atkinson Bevan Chambers Fountain Court Chambers Littleton Chambers 4 King's Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power) 9-12 Bell Yard KBG Chambers Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers New Park Court Chambers 11KBW Serle Court 4 Breams Buildings Atlantic Chambers Linenhall Chambers

Diversity QuotientTM

918 898 877 858 857 838 833 815 798 798 778 758 754 754 734 733 717 713 713 676 672 656 651 634 633 631 614 595 494

Demographics Score Policy & Practice Score

458 458 417 458 417 438 333 375 458 458 458 458 354 354 354 333 417 313 333 396 292 396 271 354 313 271 354 375 354

460 440 460 400 440 400 500 440 340 340 320 300 400 400 380 400 300 400 380 280 380 260 380 280 320 360 260 220 140

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 151

“Transparency is a hugely powerful tool in helping us drive forward change.” Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP Minister for Women and Equalities

152 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Conclusions &

Recommendations What do this year’s DLT findings imply for those working in the legal profession, and for the firms and chambers where they work? 1 Gender and ethnicity In April this year, Baroness Hale of Richmond, the only female Supreme Court justice, suggested that “unconscious sexism” was to blame for the lack of women in top jobs across the legal profession. This is perhaps a reflection of wider frustration, as the sector-wide Law Society and Bar Council statistics cited in the DLT show a continued upward trend in gender diversity among senior staff, but with year-on-year improvement that is painfully slow. As we have pointed out before, at the top of the professional ladder (firm partners and chambers’ QCs) there seems to be less gender diversity across chambers, when compared to firms. Women make up only 12% of QCs in chambers, compared to 27% of partners in firms. While things are (slowly) improving, over the years we continue to observe a wedge between the representation of women at the highest level of the Bar, compared to the situation at the top of firms. However, in both chambers and firms the patterns of female attrition are very similar, as it is this last step up the ladder that remains the main barrier to progression. Figure 13 describes the pattern of diversity across levels of practice within chambers.1 There is a steady decline in levels of female representation as we move from consideration of

45 Figure 13: Diversity across levels of practice in chambers

40 35 30 25

Women

20

Ethnic Minorities

15 10 5 0 QCs

Bar Barometer: Trends in the profile of the Bar (November 2012)

1

Barristers in Practice

Pupils

the 41% of pupils who are women, to 35% of barristers in practice, but then we have a precipitous decline to 12% of QCs. Similarly, Figure 14 underlines the high levels of female representation among trainees and associates in firms, but as soon as we consider partners, the level of representation falls from around 60% to 27%. In Figure 13, the suggestion is that the fall in representation of ethnic minorities as we move from barrister to QC is steeper than the fall we observe moving from trainee to associate. This last step barrier seems less pronounced than for women, but it is still the case that we observe greater levels of attrition at this point in the professional hierarchy. Interestingly, Figure 14 suggests that in firms we see a steeper decline in ethnic diversity when moving from trainee to associate.

2 Recommendations: gender and ethnicity Considering these findings next to our analysis of individual firms and chambers provides interesting insights into the dynamics of diversity, and the strategic winners and losers from these dynamics. For instance, many firms and chambers have diversity profiles that mirror those in Figure 13, in that they have relatively high levels of gender and ethnic diversity at the more junior levels of the profession, but then experience a precipitous decline when we jump to consideration of diversity among their partners and QCs. In contrast, we also observe firms and chambers that figure highly in the league tables for the diversity of partners and QCs, but this is not underpinned by particularly large numbers of ethnic minorities and women in more junior roles. diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 153

Given the high costs of investment in human capital of junior staff, the implication is that these latter firms are gaining a strategic advantage by attracting talented female and ethnic minority solicitors and barristers who are frustrated by their lack of promotion prospects in firms where they face this last step barrier. One should rightly be concerned if some are free-riding on the investment of others, but if this is because of a lack of opportunities at the very top in some institutions, then there would seem to be a clear business case for some employers to take advantage. Even if there were no barriers to attaining the top positions in a particular firm or chamber, a lack of female and ethnic minority representation can give the impression to more junior staff that they do not have realistic promotion prospects, pushing them to consider their options elsewhere. Some firms and chambers, which poach talented women and ethnic minority employees, secure competitive advantage from a clear diversity strategy. However, even considering this basic example, we can see why Urwin et al. (2013; p. 33) suggest that: “Single-threaded diversity solutions, such as reliance on recruitment or requiring every employee to take diversity training, are not sufficient to create lasting change or sustainable advantage.” Particular firms and chambers could not poach and retain talented employees if they were not able to provide the sort of opportunities denied them elsewhere. Any approach that emphasises the poaching of disillusioned talent from elsewhere must be ”threaded” with other strategies that ensure progression of the poached staff. Coming back to consider the comments of Baroness Hale, one solution that she approves of is the use of a “tie-breaker” whereby candidates from less well represented groups are favoured when candidates cannot be differentiated by ability. 154 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

70 Figure 14: Diversity across levels of practice in firms

60 50 40

Women

30

Ethnic Minorities

20 10 0 Partners

Barmes, L. (2009). “Equality law and experimentation: the positive action challenge”. Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 68 (3) pp. 623–654. 2

Associates

Trainees

This seems in line with the extended scope for lawful voluntary positive action created by the Equality Act 2010 (see, for instance, Barmes, 20092). However, while these developments suggest a greater freedom for organisations to take positive action, there remain questions of how EU law will affect interpretation of the new UK positive action provisions depending on “whether the extended scope for voluntary positive action is seen as going further than European Union equality legislation or as contravening it” (Urwin et al. 2013; p. 36). It will perhaps be some time before there is clarity on these issues of voluntary positive action. However, the recent BIS/GEO Diversity and Equality report has good practice examples from the legal profession that show what firms are doing now. The following case study (reproduced from the report) shows how one firm is trying to lower last step barriers.

3 LGB and disability Last year’s DLT included a thought piece that considered the extent to which the Paralympics would represent a game-changing moment and what lessons could be taken from its success. The focus of this discussion was on whether the incentives of the market present opportunities to help us push forward the equality and diversity agendas. The thought piece ended by hoping that: “The Paralympics has helped to communicate the view that disability does not rule out potential, and in some cases the diversity that arises from disadvantage can act as a spur to achievement, innovation and compensating abilities.” It is too early to tell, but there is clearly some change in the way that those with disability are perceived, and it will clearly help if more companies, such as Marks & Spencer, include disabled individuals in their promotional campaigns.

“Even if there were no barriers to attaining the top positions in a particular firm or chambers, a lack of female and ethnic minority representation can give the impression to more junior staff that they do not have realistic promotion prospects.”

Similarly, there are a number of pioneering companies that recognise the value of the 3.7 million people in Britain who are lesbian, gay or bisexual. As Stonewall suggests,3 there are examples out there of “pioneering campaigns from leading companies engaging this substantial, and often affluent market.” However, in the Stonewall report we again see this reiteration of advice that businesses must adopt holistic rather than single-threaded approaches, as “one common feature of many of those successful companies is that they have an organisational culture to back up their campaigns and have deployed the priceless resource of their own gay staff in developing and marketing their products and services”. If companies manage to create environments where disabled and LGB employees feel valued and included, they will be able to engage employee groups or other bodies to gain ideas on new markets and business opportunities. Once companies have the trust and confidence of diverse groups of workers, they need to think how to leverage such advantage to secure market opportunities.

4 Policies, practices and targets Diversity approaches need to be threaded across the organisation and in this respect one can see the critical role that policies, practices and targets play in ensuring a consistent framework that supports diversity. “There is no single approach that all businesses can adopt to ensure equality and diversity are beneficial. To be effective, equality and diversity need to be embedded in the business strategy, not treated as an ad hoc addition.” (Urwin et al., 2013) So what sort of business benefit can firms expect to see from such an approach? In the first instance, there are possible gains when firms better represent the diversity seen in wider

“…diverse teams include a greater range of perspectives, and this can improve creativity and problem-solving.” WheelerQuinnell, C. (2012). How to Market to Gay Consumers. Stonewall Workplace Guides. 3

society (and also the legislative environment) around them. For instance, having staff with roots in other countries helps businesses better target their products; the costs of integrating diverse workers poorly can be high; firms and chambers can only ensure they attract the most talented by selecting from across a full range of diverse groups; customers are becoming more diverse and firms/chambers need to reflect this. In addition, a case is made in the literature (ibid) that diverse teams include a greater range of perspectives, and this can improve creativity and problem-solving. In this context, the suggestion is that “diversity is, of itself and independent of external drivers, a desirable workforce characteristic that can enhance productivity and other business outcomes” (Urwin et al., 2013). However, many of the studies that test for this link between team diversity and problem-solving ability reveal mixed findings, mainly because there is such a pivotal and variable role for managers. The suggestion is that: “Diversity, if well managed, has the potential to lead to business benefits; but if it is poorly managed there is the potential for increased business costs.” To remind readers of the sort of threaded approach we would recommend, it is useful to reiterate some of the basic steps we have previously suggested. First, define what diversity means to your organisation, what benefits it brings and prepare a strategy. From a

Eversheds case study: Increasing Overall Female Representation International law firm Eversheds LLP has a strategic commitment to being a great place to work. Issue Eversheds has a significant number of women at entry level, but fewer female partners. They have an aspiration for 25% of the partners in the organisation to be female by 2015.

Action Eversheds introduced a flexible working scheme called FlexAble. This allowed staff to agree flexible working hours on a short-term basis with their managers rather than formal contractual changes.

Result • The number of people working flexibly has nearly doubled from 48% to 91%. • Productivity improved by 5% compared to the same period the previous year. • Partnership is now 22% female following the 1 May 2012 promotions process. Source: BIS/GEO Diversity and Equality report (2013)

strategic perspective, consider the factors that are essential for success in the sector and how diversity can help secure such success. Consider what the organisation should do to support the needs of staff and to make the most from the diversity of their ideas and experiences. Analysis of employee data on diversity identifies where diversity may be lacking in the firm.

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 155

Different is good.

Different is good. It helps you stand out in a crowded market place.

Publishers of the BSN Diversity League Table

Art Direction | Branding | Graphic Design | Publishing | Web | …be creative! Satsuma Design & Publishing Satsuma (Europe) Ltd | t: +44 (0)84 50 57 05 15 | f: +44 (0)84 50 57 05 25 | e: [email protected] | w: www.satsumadesign.co.uk 156 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Headline findings So what are the main points to take from this year’s DLT? Gender and ethnicity •

Across both chambers and firms the 2013 DLT shows a continued upward trend in the gender and ethnic diversity among senior staff, but with year-on-year improvement that is painfully slow.

•

While there are now relatively high levels of gender and ethnic minority representation at some more junior levels of the profession, it is the last step up the ladder that remains the main barrier to progression. For instance, this last step barrier results in only 12% of QCs and 27% of partners being women; and while 23% of trainees are from ethnic minorities, this is true of only 8% of partners in firms.

•

Some firms and chambers seem to be gaining a strategic advantage by attracting talented female and ethnic minority solicitors and barristers who are frustrated by their lack of promotion prospects in firms and chambers where they face this last step barrier. Even if there were no barriers to attaining the top positions, a lack of female and ethnic minority representation can give the impression to more junior staff that they do not have realistic promotion prospects – pushing them to consider their options elsewhere.

•

The situation of Black solicitors and barristers is particularly parlous, with this group making up only 0.6% of partners and 1% of QCs. This is in contrast to the approximate 33% of students starting a first degree in law who are from a minority ethnic background,4 many of whom are Black. The majority of firms and chambers placed in the top 10 of our ethnic diversity league tables tend to be there because they have relatively high proportions of solicitors and barristers who are Asian.

•

International firms and the seven City 10 firms in our survey tend to have achieved greater levels of ethnic diversity when compared to their relative lack of gender diversity, particularly at the level of partner. In contrast, UK Top 100 firms at the top of our tables tend to be there because of enhanced levels of gender, rather than, ethnic diversity.

•

While there is still a long way to go in promoting ethnic diversity at the level of QCs, so that we may improve upon the 5% who are from an ethnic minority background, there seems even further to travel to improve gender representation, as only 12% of QCs are female.

•

Arrangements for maternity and paternity leave are an important part of a firm’s strategy for retaining valued staff. As one would perhaps expect, across our DLT sample a higher proportion of maternity/paternity leave continues to be taken up by women, but the proportions are closer than one might expect, with this year only 59% of these employees being women, compared to 56% last year. The suggestion is that an increasing number of men take up the opportunity of leave when they start a family.

LGB and disability •

We would ideally have very few firms reporting high proportions of employees whose disability status is “unknown” or “undisclosed”. Disability can be something that is not immediately apparent to an employer, and a culture where employees feel comfortable reporting any disabilities they have is an important first step in creating an inclusive workplace. This year, our top firm K&L Gates LLP reports that 6.43% of its employees have a formal registered disability, but we still see large numbers of firms unable to provide figures on the proportion of their workforce who are disabled.

•

Similarly, the willingness of staff to be open about their sexuality is reflective of an open and understanding workplace culture. This year’s top ranked firm is Withers LLP, with 4.89% of its staff reporting that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual.

•

If firms and chambers wish to be successful in attracting, retaining and engaging with their LGB or disabled employees, their approach to diversity must be threaded across the organisation and embedded in the business strategy, not just treated as an ad hoc addition.

Dixon, D. (2012). “Entry to the solicitor’s profession 1980–2011”, Law Society. Figures are for 2009.

4

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 157

Ashurst LLP is proud to support the Diversity League Table As a global organisation with 28 offices in 16 countries around the world, diversity is core to the success of our business. If you’re looking for a career in an international law firm, we are currently recruiting for 40 trainee solicitors (to start their training contracts in September 2016/March 2017) and 60 placement scheme students (for 2014). To find out more visit: www.facebook.com/AshurstTrainees www.ashurst.com/trainees

make your presence felt Ashurst Grad Rec - diversity league table (A5) Land.indd 1

Chambers of Philip Havers QC

Committed to Equality and Diversity We are proud to participate in the Diversity League Table and share with the Black Solicitors Network a sincere commitment to promoting and supporting diversity and equality in our own Chambers and at the Bar as a whole. 1 Crown Office Row, Temple, London EC4Y 7HH T 020 7797 7500 F 020 7797 7550 E [email protected] Contact: Senior Clerk, Matthew Phipps www.1cor.com

158 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

26/09/2013 16:41:03

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Thank you...

…for reading the Diversity League Table 2013. We hope that you found it useful, interesting and informative. If you work within one of the chambers or firms who took part in this year’s survey, we would like to thank you for your time, involvement and support. Naturally, we hope you will work with us again towards the 2014 report. For those who were not able to take part, for whatever reason, we thank you for your consideration, and hope that on reading this year’s report you make the decision to join us in 2014. You are most welcome to do so. We would also like to thank all of those participants who supplied us with case studies. There were too many for us to publish, but it is important to say that nearly every participating firm and chambers was able to provide us with a best-practice case study to consider, demonstrating the depth of proactive work taking place across the profession. A special thank you is extended to the Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP, Minister for Women and Equalities, for taking the time to write the foreword for this publication. It is also important that we thank those across the profession who support the content, research and the overall publication by way of sponsorship, advertising and other contributions, without which this work would not be possible. Finally, we would like to thank all of the firms, chambers, contributors and everyone else who supported the 2013 Diversity League Table.

The Black Solicitors Network [email protected] diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 159

Coram Chambers are delighted to support the publication of the 2013 Diversity League Table and the Diversity Legal Awards. Coram Chambers is recognised as a leading family law Chambers providing strength in depth across all practice areas. We act in leading and landmark cases and continue to be at the forefront of practice in key areas of family law including family finance, children, human rights, international and mediation

Coram Chambers 9-11 Fulwood Place, London Wc1V 6HG 020 7092 3700 email [email protected]

Today’s outlook: refreshingly diverse This isn’t just a meeting of the finest legal minds, it’s a collaboration of attitudes, orientations and mutual respect.

Find out more at www.multiplyingyourpotential.co.uk

Baker & McKenzie International is a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm.

160 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

Championing Equality & Diversity at the Bar Commercial | Employment Family | Property & Housing To find out more about Five Paper visit our website at www.fivepaper.com A: 5 Paper Buildings | Temple | London | EC4Y 7HB T: 020 7815 3200 | F: 020 7815 3201 | DX: 415 LDE E: [email protected]

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

LEAD SUPPORTER AND SPONSOR:

PARTNERS AND SUPPORTERS:

Editorial contributors and supporters: Government Equalities Office • Parliamentary Office of Chuka Umunna MP • Freshfields LLP • Morrison & Foerster LLP • Prime • Lloyds Banking Group • Roche UK • Association of Asian Women Lawyers • Lawyers with Disabilities Division • Society of Black Lawyers • Women Lawyers Division

FIRMS: Addleshaw Goddard • Allen & Overy • Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP • Ashurst LLP • Baker & McKenzie • Berwin Leighton Paisner • Blake Lapthorn • Charles Russell • Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton • Clifford Chance • Dentons • DWF LLP • Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP • Flint Bishop LLP • Freeth Cartwright LLP • Freshfields • Hogan Lovells • Irwin Mitchell • K&L Gates LLP • Latham & Watkins • Linklaters LLP • Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP • Mayer Brown International LLP • McMillan Williams Solicitors • Mills & Reeve LLP • Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP • Mundays LLP • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP • Olswang LLP • O’Melveny & Myers LLP • Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP • Reed Smith • Russell-Cooke • Shoosmiths • Sidley Austin LLP • Squire Sanders (UK) LLP • Trowers & Hamlins • Weightmans LLP • Weil, Gotshal & Manges • White & Case LLP • Winckworth Sherwood • Withers LLP

CHAMBERS: 11KBW • 12 King’s Bench Walk • 23 Essex Street • 25 Bedford Row • 4 Breams Buildings • 4 King’s Bench Walk (Chambers of Lawrence Power) • 4 New Square • 9 Bedford Row • 9-12 Bell Yard • Atkinson Bevan Chambers • Atlantic Chambers • Coram Chambers • Cornerstone Barristers • Devereux Chambers • Doughty Street Chambers • Five Paper • Fountain Court Chambers • Hardwicke • KBG Chambers • Linenhall Chambers • Littleton Chambers • Matrix Chambers • New Park Court Chambers • One Crown Office Row • Outer Temple Chambers • Red Lion Chambers • Serle Court • Thirty Nine Essex Street Chambers • Tooks Chambers

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 161

diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2014

The Diversity League Table 2014: We aim to continue working with an increasing number of firms and chambers across the UK We hope to explore further, and profile the work of, the diversity champions within those firms and chambers We are looking to promote best and better practice by showcasing more new case studies We are keen to seek out the views and opinions of leading figures in and around the profession – nationally and internationally We aim to continue working with the sector’s key stakeholders and regulators to promote and bring about transparency and equality of opportunity To take part in the BSN Diversity League Table please email: [email protected] or call 0845 057 0515. Notes for press officers: Articles: The Diversity League Table does not usually accept article submissions. However, the editorial team are always happy to hear from press officers who would like to propose spokespersons or commentators. To do this, send details of your client with a summary of why they are relevant to the publication. We accept details all year round. However, details received within two months of the publication date are likely to be passed over to the following year. Case studies: Best-practice case studies are usually only accepted from participating firms or chambers. We accept details all year round. Please forward initial enquiries to: [email protected] 162 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013

SPACE FOR RENT 1.  Height 87mm  Width 140mm Pref Specs: CMYK Colour Format, 3mm Bleed All Round, .PDF File Type

TO TAKE PART IN THE DIVERSITY LEAGUE TABLE 2014 please call 0845 057 0515 or email [email protected] diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013 | 163

Diversity is at the core of our vision and values That’s why Hogan Lovells is proud to host the launch of the 2013 Diversity League Tables and the 4th UK Diversity Legal Awards. We believe that promoting diversity is simply the right thing to do and is an integral part of Hogan Lovells. To support our diversity objectives we have an extensive range of programmes and activities in place. Find out more at: http://www.hoganlovells.com/citizenship/diversity/

Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses. www.hoganlovells.com © Hogan Lovells 2013. All rights reserved.

164 | diversity LEAGUE TABLE 2013