header-logo header-logo

14 July 2023
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Diversity , Equality
printer mail-detail

Women lawyers give verdict on which workplace equality measures work best

Mentoring and coaching are effective, but external diversity pledges are less so when it comes to tearing down barriers to women’s progress at work, according to the latest research from the Next 100 Years project.

Women in the legal profession gave their verdict on a variety of gender equality initiatives for the research report, published this week. Notably, while 67% of women believe their workplace is committed to removing barriers to women’s progress, only 45% think current measures are working effectively. So, what works best?

Most legal sector workplaces now offer remote or hybrid working (88%) and part-time working (68%)—both measures considered to be very effective by the women surveyed. The research suggests more practical support and increased flexibility would see organisations make further strides.

The survey respondents also recommended mentoring and coaching—less than half workplaces undertake this but 79% of women considered it effective. Flexi-time (offered by less than a third of workplaces) also came highly recommended by 79% of women.

While only one in five workplaces offer additional support for maternity returners, 72% consider it an effective approach. Women’s networks (available at 39% of workplaces) were also popular, with 69% considering them effective.

A majority of respondents also recommended financial support for childcare (offered by 5% of workplaces), gender diverse client teams (implemented by 12%) and enhanced paternity leave (offered by 22%).

External diversity pledges were considered to be the least effective measure, with only 36% considering them to be effective and 27% considering them ineffective.

The respondents welcomed the post-pandemic move to more hybrid and part-time working, but expressed some fears about the impact such working patterns have on the allocation of work between men and women. One in five respondents believe work is unfairly allocated, and only 54% felt confident about fair allocation. More than half thought part-time working meant they were not given the best work. More than a third expressed the same fear about working from home.

Overall, four themes emerged from the report regarding what changes would make the most difference. These were the need for:

  • fair and transparent recruitment and promotion processes;
  • accountability, with leadership taking responsibility;
  • support for working parents; and
  • societal change relating to gender stereotypes about the roles of women and men.

Dana Denis-Smith, founder of the Next 100 Years and CEO of Obelisk Support, said: ‘Although there are outliers, the majority of women lawyers are working for organisations that want to see them succeed and are bringing in measures to remove any barriers.

‘With organisations adopting a wide range of new initiatives, from gender blind work allocation to fertility services and menopause support, it’s time to take a step back and focus on what women are telling us really works. By thinking more strategically, law firms and other organisations can ensure efforts to improve diversity in their workforce are being channelled effectively.

‘Our research suggests that means prioritising practical help with childcare, more truly flexible working options, targeted support for returners and wider uptake of mentoring and coaching schemes or networks.

“A worrying element of the research is that despite the obvious benefits, many women feel that more flexible working patterns limit their opportunities and that as a result, they may be missing out on the “best” work. The profession must work harder when it comes to being transparent about work allocation, promotions and recruitment, making sure that there is a level playing field that doesn’t disadvantage those juggling caring commitments.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll