There are plenty of editors who live on the conference circuit but I’ve never been one of them. Still, I did accept a spot on a recent Georgetown panel discussion hosted at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s London office to talk about the wider issues facing the profession. You know the kind of stuff: recession, diversity, Google Law.
As often happens on these occasions, I was struck by the strong emotions that are triggered if you dispassionately describe how the legal industry works. In this case the trigger was my argument that the law firm model and the tournament of partnership, in pure economic terms, functions perfectly fine while losing large numbers of female associates.
In the case of diversity – the debate is shot through with half-truths and platitudes.
My job is to describe and report on the legal profession as accurately and honestly as I can – it’s not about trying to be controversial or making a point. Empirically, the facts speak for themselves, I would say.
In the case of diversity – the debate is shot through with half-truths and platitudes. Strangely, you can touch on similarly sensitive ground when discussing the complex dynamic between client and adviser – a relationship heavy with conflicting incentives and self-interest on both sides.
But many choose not to address such realities. How many times have we all heard that, whatever ails the profession, ‘clients will drive change’ as if that is a guarantee of virtue or even economically efficient outcomes? The actual results of client behaviour over the last ten years point to something rather more complex and ambiguous. In-house legal teams have driven positive change in many areas, but in some fields they have pushed for things of dubious merit or tolerated questionable practices from advisers because it’s someone else’s money.
One of the oddities when you describe such issues is that lawyers often get agitated and then, curiously, assume you are endorsing what you’re describing, which I am not.
Here is the nub of it. If the profession thinks something is worth changing, it should start by honestly accepting the current situation and why it exists. So if the profession believes the lack of senior female lawyers demeans it, leadership will be needed to create change. If collectively the profession doesn’t reach that conclusion Legal Business won’t be hectoring it. It’s for you to decide and, personally, I don’t find the saddle on my trusty moral high horse that comfortable. But framing everything in terms of market solutions or widening the talent pool is not only a cop-out, it ignores the fact that we are dealing with individuals, who are entirely capable of making self-interested or even perverse decisions. None of this is to attack the industry – it’s a profession with much to be proud of. But on certain topics it still indulges in too much wishful thinking, hand-wringing and self-deceit. And that rarely gets you very far.