header-logo header-logo

Social mobility hit by legal aid cuts

29 October 2015
Issue: 7674 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Fewer opportunities than ever for lawyers without family wealth

Recent attacks on publicly funded law are not only a disaster for clients and lawyers but also for the hope of a more inclusive profession, according to the author of a recent report into social mobility and diversity in the legal profession,

The report, Opening up or shutting out? Social mobility in the legal profession, written by NLJ columnist and editor of The Justice Gap, Jon Robins, was compiled by Byfield Consultancy and Funke Abimbola, managing counsel at Roche UK. It reveals that, while 58% of trainees at the top 50 firms surveyed are female, the figure drops to 24% at partner level. Ten per cent of trainees are black and minority ethnic (BME) but that figure reduces to just four per cent among law firm partners.

“It is easy to see why aspiring lawyers from ordinary backgrounds are deterred from pursuing careers in the law”, writes Robins, in an article for NLJ. “The debate around social mobility in the law almost exclusively focuses on City firms. Yet it has been legal aid where many lawyers without family wealth typically begin their careers.

“There are fewer opportunities than ever because there is less work and that is largely, but not exclusively, the result of the crisis in legal aid.

“Increasingly young lawyers without family wealth are finding their entrance into the profession blocked.”

The report’s recommendations for the profession include: maintaining a set of key diversity data; committing to being transparent about the data; adopt social mobility targets rather than quotas; promote recruitment practices to broaden intake; adopt mentoring, sponsoring and early outreach programmes; and implement retention strategies such as support networks.

Funke Abimbola says: “Social mobility and diversity are some of the biggest issues facing the legal sector. From the most senior judiciary—there are no black, Asian or minority ethnic judges in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court—to high street firms and universities, more needs to be done to push for access to this profession for all who are able.”

Issue: 7674 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll