Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.

Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

          
   

Discussion

Discussion
The discussion board has the answers to all life's questions. Get advice on how to get a job, where to work, how your salary matches up and where to go after hours.

Find a Job

With the market picking up, don't miss out on Job Search for all the best vacancies from the World's leading law firms.
Syndicate  

Top Stories 2012

Send Us Your News
Hogan Lovells aims for 30% female partners
12 October 2012
Rate it
-1

Hogan Lovells has announced that it aims to have women making up 30% of its partnership in ten years' time.

Given that around 60% of the firm's graduate intake is currently female, that might not seem like an overly ambitious target. But women currently make up only 21% of the firm's partnership, and only represented 23% of those who were promoted this year (eight out of 35). However by City standards even those depressing figures are pretty much class-leading: in a RoF survey of a dozen firms last year, most (with the notable exception of Herbert Smith) struggled to beat this.

The firm has now confirmed to The Times that it aims for 25% female partners by 2017 and 30% by 2022. David Harris, CEO of Hogan Lovells, said that the target was "ambitious but achievable". Clifford Chance has also confirmed that it is aiming for 30% in the long term, and Eversheds is aiming for 25% by 2016.

  Some HogLove yesterday
 
Firms in Australia have already started raising their game, and there seems to be a genuine desire across the profession to try to fix the imbalance. Although whether anything significant will be achieved until firms start taking flexible working and job sharing seriously remains to be seen.


Comments

Feel free to enter your comments on the news story below, subject to our terms and conditions. Please note that comments are subject to moderation and so will not appear immediately.

Please keep it nice. Thanks.
Order By:
anonymous user
12/10/2012 10:26
Rate it
2
Report as offensive
30% in the long term? Why not 50%

anonymous user
12/10/2012 11:03
Rate it
8
Report as offensive
As with most quota systems this ignores the underlying problem and simply focuses on the end result. Any woman promoted to partner at HogLov will now have to put up with the lingering suspicion that they may not be there entirely on their own merit.
anonymous user
12/10/2012 11:08
Rate it
6
Report as offensive
Nice to see they are basing promotions on sex rather than ability.
Matthew @ RoF
12/10/2012 11:13
Rate it
16
Report as offensive
Re the previous comment, do you really think that promotions will be based on sex rather than ability? Come on...

More than half the firm's new joiners are female. Less than a quarter of those made up to partner are.

This clearly has nothing at all to do with their being less able, and everything to do with the a promotion process that is skewed in favour of men. Anything that can be done to rectify this has got to be a good thing.
anonymous user
12/10/2012 12:20
Rate it
10
Report as offensive
Matthew @ ROF

No, those figures probably have nothing to do with the ability of female lawyers. Rather it concerns how many 'able' female lawyers are available for appointment.

Given that a significant proportion of female lawyers will take time out for maternity leave etc, it is inevitable that the pool of potential partner appointees will be smaller than for men - even where female joiners make up the majority. This can be addressed to some extent (flexible working etc) but I imagine a reasonable number of women will still end up dropping out of the profession.

Imposing a quota/target doesn't fix this problem - it just grabs headlines.
Matthew @ RoF
12/10/2012 12:30
Rate it
9
Report as offensive
The pool will be smaller, of course. But not so much smaller as to account for this massive discrepancy. Taking a year or two out of a 30 year career to have children shouldn't be the death knell of your partnership prospects.

There are no easy answers, but there's a lot more that all firms should be doing to address this. These targets may grab headlines but if they help change things they should be applauded.
anonymous user
12/10/2012 13:17
Rate it
-2
Report as offensive
I applaud this too- there has been quite a bit of research now about women in management improving the bottom line due to different attitudes to risk, team management and technology. Interesting to see where it goes.

Would ROF fancy updating their survey on % female partners of the latest round? Perhaps with a comparison to the % of female partners overall as well? (I last read the average was 12% across city firms?)
anonymous user
13/10/2012 10:26
Rate it
12
Report as offensive
@Matthew

"do you really think that promotions will be based on sex rather than ability"

Why else would there be a gender quota, other than to promote based on sex?

"More than half the firm's new joiners are female. Less than a quarter of those made up to partner are."

Why should the proportion of joiners determine who, eight or ten years later, get made up to partner? The relevant proportion should be how many women are at the eight or ten year level and eligible for partnership (if proportions matter).

"everything to do with the a promotion process that is skewed in favour of men."

How so? We would need to see the statistics for eight and ten year PQE solicitors to even be close to verifying that.

We both know what the real issue is, and that is women dropping out of the law in large numbers before partnership. Having been around law firms for a while, that reflects that it takes a lot of hard work, long hours, and an ability to put up with tedium, that a lot of people won't put up with, especially it seems young women. Who can blame them for deciding there are betting things they'd rather be doing?

But surely it is unfair to say to the male associates who did stick it out in greater numbers, that their promotion chances are going to be reduced because of gender quotas.

Isn't that illegal?
anonymous user
13/10/2012 10:30
Rate it
3
Report as offensive
@anonymoususer

"I applaud this too - there has been quite a bit of research now about women in management improving the bottom line due to different attitudes to risk, team management and technology".

What an appallingly sexist thing to say. The same as saying we should exclude women from the law because men think more logically than women.

In any case, it can be left to law firms to decide which people will improve their business as a matter of individual merit, without the need for quotas.
diceman
17/10/2012 13:53
Rate it
5
Report as offensive
why is the domination of entry level jobs (training contracts) by women not considered a problem?

why is the dominance of women in in-house jobs not considered a problem?