Are law firms responsible for easing social mobility?

Alan Milburn’s report on social mobility has sparked some interesting debate within the legal profession. Whilst most law firms have improved their anti-discrimination policies relating to disability, sexism, racism and ageism, questions over the social diversity of their employees have largely been off the radar.

Not only is there no consistent measure of social diversity, there is not even universal acceptance that it is the responsibility of employers to monitor the backgrounds of their workers, let alone actively encourage social diversity through their recruitment and promotion policies. For a profession that prides itself on being a meritocracy this issue poses any number of philosophical questions.

most lawyers, whether they practice in the Magic Circle or on the high street, support the idea of social mobility

Recent comment in the press suggests that most lawyers, whether they practice in the Magic Circle or on the high street, support the idea of social mobility. There is far less of a consensus, when asked, if it is the job of a law firm to promote social mobility. If the primary focus is on parents, schools, universities and the government to equip all members of society for the workplace, shouldn’t law firms simply hire those employees with the right academic backgrounds to succeed in the role? As an example the existing policy of many city firms to only hire from The Russell Group universities already puts a clear emphasis on the academic credentials of people, irrespective of their background.

If entry into law firms is based primarily on academic qualifications (these still act as the primary filter, with performance at interview only a way of choosing between people of a similar academic level) then we can address the social mobility issue by ensuring that everybody has access to a decent education.

There is an even more complicated issue that then comes into play: the social background of people that rise to the very top in the profession, i.e. partners, QCs and general counsel. By way of example, if the role of a partner is to be an effective networker and business developer for their firm, then academic rigour alone will not determine success. Alan Milburn’s report highlights the soft skills including confidence, communication and raised expectations that children from a higher social background have. These are the very skills that are so critical to succeed in law and are much harder to target by government initiatives or university admission policy.

Another significant barrier to entry into the legal profession remains cost, with completing the LPC costing up to £12,000. Unless a law firm covers this cost on behalf of graduates – which they are proving to be less enthusiastic about given the current economy – those who are not able to afford it will struggle to progress their career in the legal profession.

Even if people can raise the money, investment in the LPC is also a risky one in this economic climate – 7000 graduates enlist annually but there are only 6000 training contracts available. Last week (3 August 2009) the Law Society started a campaign warning students to think twice about starting a career in law, citing the high number of graduates that end up in debt without the route to qualification.

Whatever the arguments around the role of the legal profession in promoting social mobility, it is likely to become a larger issue in the future. Numerous factors, including the closure of the grammar school system, have been credited with making the situation worse in recent years. But ultimately there is an appetite for a more diverse workforce in almost every arena, and social diversity is just one piece of this larger puzzle.