Women outnumber men in the solicitors' profession

conorh91

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/scales-of-justice-tip-in-favour-of-women-but-more-needs-to-be-done-1.2111182

Figures for the end of 2014 show there are 4,623 women practising as solicitors and 4,609 men practising as solicitors.

The article doesn't mention figures for the Bar, but it isn't far off 50-50 overall.

It would be interesting to understand what's happening here, perhaps as a template for other professions, especially private-sector employment.

People cite a large number of female teachers and nurses, but those can be explained by reasonably advantageous employment benefits and job security in the public sector.

Also, career progression in the public sector has very little to do with networking. In the legal professions, maintaining social activity is pretty crucial and the work/life balance can be unforgiving (if you're lucky).

So why is this happening? Are women in law having fewer children or not marrying? Or is there a high degree of co-operation? Whatever the answer, I think it's important to identify the cause, so that it might be replicated.

CJ Haughey

The women do be smarter so they do be.

TinkledPink

CJ Haughey wrote: »

The women do be smarter so they do be.

Yep. They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

hullaballoo

Don't be at that.

MarkAnthony

For what it's worth I think (from talking to friends who wish to pursue a legal career) that the solicitors profession is seen as more stable and gives one the ability to have a family. That wouldn't explain the 50/50 split at the bar though as, if true, that means more women are going into the profession regardless of stream.

mikhail

INEQUALITY! When is the government going to do something to attract more men to become solicitors?

hfallada

Women outnumber men at university in Ireland too. AFAIK I think Trinity is something like 60/55% Female vs 40/45% Male. Even in courses where you expect there to be more males, there is still more females eg Business

MarkAnthony

mikhail wrote: »

INEQUALITY! When is the government going to do something to attract more men to become solicitors?

Female devils.

Grolschevik

MarkAnthony wrote: »

For what it's worth I think (from talking to friends who wish to pursue a legal career) that the solicitors profession is seen as more stable and gives one the ability to have a family. That wouldn't explain the 50/50 split at the bar though as, if true, that means more women are going into the profession regardless of stream.

That said, I remember hearing that, in Britain, only about 20% of women solicitors make it to partner level, and that in general women lawyers earn only 70% of male earnings.

Can't find a source for the former, but the latter is from a paper delivered to the DSBA by the President of the District Court last year.

Edit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7104876/Female-partners-at-prestigious-city-law-firms-in-the-minority-survey-finds.html

Uno my Uno.

Grolschevik wrote: »

That said, I remember hearing that, in Britain, only about 20% of women solicitors make it to partner level, and that in general women lawyers earn only 70% of male earnings.

Can't find a source for the former, but the latter is from a paper delivered to the DSBA by the President of the District Court last year.

Edit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7104876/Female-partners-at-prestigious-city-law-firms-in-the-minority-survey-finds.html

There are very very few Women at partner Level in the Big 5. The amount of effort required to become a partner makes it all but incompatible with having a family (for a woman).

TOMs WIFE

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

There are very very few Women at partner Level in the Big 5. The amount of effort required to become a partner makes it all but incompatible with having a family (for a woman).

Or a man that chooses to focus on the home life. There is no glass ceiling for anyone, the person that chooses to try and have a work/family balance has to accept the consequences. And that's ok.

December2012

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

There is no glass ceiling for anyone, the person that chooses to try and have a work/family balance has to accept the consequences. And that's ok.

Why do you say that's ok?

Uno my Uno.

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Or a man that chooses to focus on the home life. There is no glass ceiling for anyone, the person that chooses to try and have a work/family balance has to accept the consequences. And that's ok.

Except of course that a man can have a family without any of the concequences that a woman must face. The glass ceiling is still there without a doubt.

TOMs WIFE

December2012 wrote: »

Why do you say that's ok?

Because to get to the top in most professions dictates that you prioritise work over home life. Prioritise home life over work and it impacts. I'd have a problem if there was something specifically preventing women reaching the top but there isn't. Those that prioritise work get to the top as easily as men. Men that don't prioritise work won't get to the top either. So there is equality. The only reason less women get to the top is that more women choose to prioritise home life.

In plenty of couple situations a choice is made between your typical female/male relationship as to who will continue their careers and who will prioritise kids (assuming that they don't get child minders) and it's normally the woman that wants and chooses to stay at home. Those men who make the choice fare similarly in their professions. For similar reasons, plenty of women will start off in legal or other professions in equal numbers to men and drop off as they have kids. More women opting out - greater proportion of men with years of experience - greater chance of men reaching the top.

But what would I know. I'm only hypothesising !

lawfilly

I dont think the law library is quite 50-50. As a female colleague pointed out to me the other day whilst we stood in the main floor of the law library, the room was in fact almost all male members!

However, I think there is shift in increasing amounts of women practising in law and I wonder if this is because men are now more driven to the better paid jobs in technology, IT etc? Apparently, these jobs have taken precedent over traditional professions such as lawyers and doctors with pay and conditions outstripping traditional professional roles.

Women may feel, in particular, in a two income household that they may take up traditional employment roles like those in law as perhaps men dont see them as secure or well paid anymore.

Uno my Uno.

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Because to get to the top in most professions dictates that you prioritise work over home life. Prioritise home life over work and it impacts. I'd have a problem if there was something specifically preventing women reaching the top but there isn't. Those that prioritise work get to the top as easily as men. Men that don't prioritise work won't get to the top either. So there is equality. The only reason less women get to the top is that more women choose to prioritise home life.

In plenty of couple situations a choice is made between your typical female/male relationship as to who will continue their careers and who will prioritise kids (assuming that they don't get child minders) and it's normally the woman that wants and chooses to stay at home. Those men who make the choice fare similarly in their professions. For similar reasons, plenty of women will start off in legal or other professions in equal numbers to men and drop off as they have kids. More women opting out - greater proportion of men with years of experience - greater chance of men reaching the top.

But what would I know. I'm only hypothesising !

I think you have rather missed the point that a man can have a family and a high flying career. However if a woman want to have a high level career she must forego having a family hence the disparity and the inequality.That is a form of discrimination (aka the glass ceiling) and must be addressed. It should be possible for a Woman to have a child and take maternity leave and be able to spend time raising her child without being denied opportunities and promotions.

blue note

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I think you have rather missed the point that a man can have a family and a high flying career. However if a woman want to have a high level career she must forego having a family hence the disparity and the inequality.That is a form of discrimination (aka the glass ceiling) and must be addressed. It should be possible for a Woman to have a child and take maternity leave and be able to spend time raising her child without being denied opportunities and promotions.

Or give men comparable paternal leave removing the difference between genders for employers.

MarkAnthony

lawfilly wrote: »

I dont think the law library is quite 50-50. As a female colleague pointed out to me the other day whilst we stood in the main floor of the law library, the room was in fact almost all male members!

However, I think there is shift in increasing amounts of women practising in law and I wonder if this is because men are now more driven to the better paid jobs in technology, IT etc? Apparently, these jobs have taken precedent over traditional professions such as lawyers and doctors with pay and conditions outstripping traditional professional roles.

Women may feel, in particular, in a two income household that they may take up traditional employment roles like those in law as perhaps men dont see them as secure or well paid anymore.

This is actually an excellent point. The only reason I'm able to pursue (at a snails pace) a legal career is my wife is the main earner.

goz83

This is slightly off topic, but relevant.

I would personally never choose a female solicitor to represent me. Years ago, a lady friend and I were suing a company for damages. The case went on for a few years and both cases were treated individually. A female solicitor was recommended at the time and so we both hired her. After 2 years, my friends case was settled and her damages were low, but better than expected. The damages I incurred were far more significant. The solicitor was very good and on the ball..........until a week before my court date, she decided to go on maternity leave and I was left with someone who "was brought up to speed" on the case. At the time, I just wanted it over with and a very poor settlement was reached on the steps of the court. The new female solicitor suggested letting it go to court, but I was not feeling confident that even she would be there on that day. A bump on her belly made me wonder who I might end up being represented by and who else would be "brought up to speed".

It was partly me being impatient, but had the original solicitor been present, I would have agreed to go to court. I just had little faith in my new representation and was too young and dumb to ask for someone who knew what they were doing. This would not have been a problem with a male solicitor, so that's where my papers go.

conorh91

lawfilly wrote: »

I dont think the law library is quite 50-50. As a female colleague pointed out to me the other day whilst we stood in the main floor of the law library, the room was in fact almost all male members!

I didn't say 50-50, but that it was not far off.

There was an event at the Inns last year at which point the figure given was 45%.

The proportion of females taking the call is even higher.

They're not necessarily distributed equally to men throughout the various court locations.

Grolschevik

blue note wrote: »

Or give men comparable paternal leave removing the difference between genders for employers.

But in those circumstances, those men and women who chose to become parents and took parental leave would be disadvantaged with regards to opportunities and promotions relative to those men and women who chose not to be parents.

It's not equality of parental leave that is the issue really, it's the impersonal structural workplace discrimination against those who choose to take time out from a 100% career focus in order to become parents.

Or who choose to try their hand at poetry or art. I'm not sure there actually is a solution to that problem with the structures of a capitalist society.

So yeah: equality of parental leave would be a good thing, but there's a fair chance that it alone won't solve the real structural problem...

Stheno

MarkAnthony wrote: »

For what it's worth I think (from talking to friends who wish to pursue a legal career) that the solicitors profession is seen as more stable and gives one the ability to have a family. That wouldn't explain the 50/50 split at the bar though as, if true, that means more women are going into the profession regardless of stream.

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

There are very very few Women at partner Level in the Big 5. The amount of effort required to become a partner makes it all but incompatible with having a family (for a woman).

Agreed look at the split at a higher level than students/devils

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Because to get to the top in most professions dictates that you prioritise work over home life. Prioritise home life over work and it impacts. I'd have a problem if there was something specifically preventing women reaching the top but there isn't. Those that prioritise work get to the top as easily as men. Men that don't prioritise work won't get to the top either. So there is equality. The only reason less women get to the top is that more women choose to prioritise home life.

In plenty of couple situations a choice is made between your typical female/male relationship as to who will continue their careers and who will prioritise kids (assuming that they don't get child minders) and it's normally the woman that wants and chooses to stay at home. Those men who make the choice fare similarly in their professions. For similar reasons, plenty of women will start off in legal or other professions in equal numbers to men and drop off as they have kids. More women opting out - greater proportion of men with years of experience - greater chance of men reaching the top.

But what would I know. I'm only hypothesising !

I agree with you as a childless woman in IT, I have been chosen to be the consultant to travel as opposed to a male on the basis that their are children involved;.

blue note

Some people will always choose work over family. There's a real problem now that even if a woman wants to do that, people and employers will see it as a risk that she'll get pregnant and therefore be a cost / liability to a company. If that risk is similar for both genders then people won't worry that the person in charge of their case / that they're employing is a woman, because it would be the same risk if it were a man.

But people are entitled to make sacrifices for whatever they want. If someone wants to sacrifice a family life for their career then I wish them well and hope they're happy. It wouldn't be my choice, but if I won't complain if I'm spending time with my family and someone else is working an extra 4 hours that the company is paying and promoting him more than me.

Of course I'm single and have neither family nor decent career, but that's incidental!

Stheno

blue note wrote: »

Some people will always choose work over family. There's a real problem now that even if a woman wants to do that, people and employers will see it as a risk that she'll get pregnant and therefore be a cost / liability to a company. If that risk is similar for both genders then people won't worry that the person in charge of their case / that they're employing is a woman, because it would be the same risk if it were a man.

But people are entitled to make sacrifices for whatever they want. If someone wants to sacrifice a family life for their career then I wish them well and hope they're happy. It wouldn't be my choice, but if I won't complain if I'm spending time with my family and someone else is working an extra 4 hours that the company is paying and promoting him more than me.

Of course I'm single and have neither family nor decent career, but that's incidental!

I'm female and relatively senior in a profession/specialisation as you have in Law

I know of two other women I'd relate to at the same level compared to about 100 men.

I once went to an interview and was asked straight out how I combined my personal life/parental responsibilites/location with my role

At the time I was married and had no children and a ten year history or working in areas 50 miles single trip commute.

When offered the role I carefully explained to the HR person the assumptions that had been made, and outlined why I wouldn't be working in such an environment.

The person who made those assumptions was let go/looking for a new job shortly thereafter.

however that's a fairly unusual situation maybe women don't speak up/expect that?

Thankfully I'm now of an age where having remained childless employers either assume I have them and have advanced despite them and have gotten over it, or else can't have them due to my being in my mid forties.

As it happens it's irrelevant, I've been invited to consider my last three roles, as opposed to having to apply for them

Grolschevik

blue note wrote: »

Some people will always choose work over family. There's a real problem now that even if a woman wants to do that, people and employers will see it as a risk that she'll get pregnant and therefore be a cost / liability to a company. If that risk is similar for both genders then people won't worry that the person in charge of their case / that they're employing is a woman, because it would be the same risk if it were a man.

But people are entitled to make sacrifices for whatever they want. If someone wants to sacrifice a family life for their career then I wish them well and hope they're happy. It wouldn't be my choice, but if I won't complain if I'm spending time with my family and someone else is working an extra 4 hours that the company is paying and promoting him more than me.

Of course I'm single and have neither family nor decent career, but that's incidental!

There is of course the biological reality that women are the only ones to bear and give birth. And that in itself has career implications, as Goz adverts to above.

But you never know: technological advancement is a marvellous thing, if our ethical systems only kept pace.

(On a slightly related note, there's an excellent speculative fiction legal thriller called 'The Third Procedure' that deals with gender-based reproductive rights. Can't remember the author and on phone so too much hassle to google it.)

Stheno

Grolschevik wrote: »

But you never know: technological advancement is a marvellous thing, if our ethical systems only kept pace.

There is also the idea that maternity benefit become parental post birth benefit shared between parents a la Sweden so it's possible anyone any gender at childbearing age becomes a target?

Rather than women who are very career orientatated being discriminated against because they might decide to have ba children or even must have due to their age?

Grolschevik

Single celibate candidates only

conorh91

Stheno wrote: »

I once went to an interview and was asked straight out how I combined my personal life/parental responsibilites/location with my role

At the time I was married and had no children and a ten year history or working in areas 50 miles single trip commute.

When offered the role I carefully explained to the HR person the assumptions that had been made, and outlined why I wouldn't be working in such an environment.

How long ago was this?

Can't believe anyone entrusted with a HR role would be so stupid. Right up there with asking whether you've ever lived in a caravan.

I know a guy who has been rapped on the knuckles for greeting a candidate and asking whether he had far to travel (he was just making conversation). It's a bit OTT perhaps, but these rules exist for good reason.

MarkAnthony

goz83 wrote: »

This is slightly off topic, but relevant.

I would personally never choose a female solicitor to represent me. Years ago, a lady friend and I were suing a company for damages. The case went on for a few years and both cases were treated individually. A female solicitor was recommended at the time and so we both hired her. After 2 years, my friends case was settled and her damages were low, but better than expected. The damages I incurred were far more significant. The solicitor was very good and on the ball..........until a week before my court date, she decided to go on maternity leave and I was left with someone who "was brought up to speed" on the case. At the time, I just wanted it over with and a very poor settlement was reached on the steps of the court. The new female solicitor suggested letting it go to court, but I was not feeling confident that even she would be there on that day. A bump on her belly made me wonder who I might end up being represented by and who else would be "brought up to speed".

It was partly me being impatient, but had the original solicitor been present, I would have agreed to go to court. I just had little faith in my new representation and was too young and dumb to ask for someone who knew what they were doing. This would not have been a problem with a male solicitor, so that's where my papers go.

Bit of sweeping generalisation there Goz, a male solicitor might have a midlife crisis and run off with the secretary. Many female solicitor's days of having children are long behind them.

Stheno

conorh91 wrote: »

How long ago was this?

Can't believe anyone entrusted with a HR role would be so stupid. Right up there with asking whether you've ever lived in a caravan.

I know a guy who has been rapped on the knuckles for greeting a candidate and asking whether he had far to travel (he was just making conversation). It's a bit OTT perhaps, but these rules exist for good reason.

9 years ago

johnnyskeleton

lawfilly wrote: »

the room was in fact almost all male members!

Quite the daunting sight id imagine.

Uno my Uno.

goz83 wrote: »

This is slightly off topic, but relevant.

I would personally never choose a female solicitor to represent me. Years ago, a lady friend and I were suing a company for damages. The case went on for a few years and both cases were treated individually. A female solicitor was recommended at the time and so we both hired her. After 2 years, my friends case was settled and her damages were low, but better than expected. The damages I incurred were far more significant. The solicitor was very good and on the ball..........until a week before my court date, she decided to go on maternity leave and I was left with someone who "was brought up to speed" on the case. At the time, I just wanted it over with and a very poor settlement was reached on the steps of the court. The new female solicitor suggested letting it go to court, but I was not feeling confident that even she would be there on that day. A bump on her belly made me wonder who I might end up being represented by and who else would be "brought up to speed".

It was partly me being impatient, but had the original solicitor been present, I would have agreed to go to court. I just had little faith in my new representation and was too young and dumb to ask for someone who knew what they were doing. This would not have been a problem with a male solicitor, so that's where my papers go.

the only conclusion I can draw from this is that the poster is an exceptionally sexist person. Because one solicitor who happened to be a woman was no longer able to act this person now considers all Solicitors who happen to be women unsuitable for their instructions.

They disregard the fact that the poor settlement came about because they ignored the advice of the solicitor who took over because, she had a "bump on her belly". Considering that the settlement was so poor we can take it that the best course of action was to proceed to court, so when the posters says they should have asked for someone "who knew what they were doing" they actually mean, someone who would have given them the exact same advice while in the possession of a penis.

Incidentally men also leave jobs (including solicitor's firms) at short notice all the time, they get ill, they move to other companies and they move to other locations. The poster ignores all this though because they feel gender is a sound basis for discriminating against someone, i.e. they are sexist.

hullaballoo

Ah, I had a big long post that the hamsters ate because I took too long to post it. Hopefully it won't happen this time.

The societal paradigm shift that allowed for the end of a male-dominated legal profession happened many years ago. I don't think it's particularly relevant here and now because what we're seeing is simply the natural corollary of that shift.

For years, we've been hearing that women in Ireland are far outstripping men in terms of academic focus, from Junior Cert, right through third level. It's not surprising that women are now entering third level courses that have always required the highest Leaving Cert grades or CAO points and naturally progressing along a path from there. Law, medicine, dentistry etc. I don't think the rationale is as convoluted as some people are making out and I certainly don't think girls of 16-18 are making serious philosophical choices around their future careers. Isn't it usually a case of putting down something on the form you think you might be interested in and do it in such a way that the highest points courses are first on the list?

I'm a man and I did that. I didn't know whether I wanted to be a lawyer until I actually started studying it.

The way I see it is that in the past, law was regarded as a male-only profession but those days are long since passed. Now, I don't think a prospective law student would factor their gender into the analysis at all. In fact, if someone were to indicate that it might have an impact it would flabbergast most people. That's simply because it makes no difference whatsoever.

Goz has obviously taken a position that because he has had a negative experience dealing with a lawyer who happened to be a woman (and involved in part something that only a woman can do), it's a gender thing. It isn't. Any lawyer can take time off work for any number of reasons and it's down to the individual lawyer to manage that process in a professional way. As it happens, most women have plenty of notice that they will be taking maternity leave and have the time to get their house in order by ensuring cases are disposed of appropriately or handed over to another competent professional.

There are other views within the profession as to why there has been an increase in women going into the legal profession and those views certainly aren't helpful but I think most would say they are just relics of the past.