EDI initiatives not “shifting the law’s systemic inequalities”

---

EDI: Culture change needed

There are multiple factors behind the failure of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives to “shift the systemic inequalities that are entrenched” across the legal profession, a report for the Legal Services Board (LSB) has found.

Researchers said the legal profession faced “unique challenges” in embedding EDI due to commercial pressures and a “deeply embedded culture” that favoured those who resembled the traditional image of ‘what a lawyer looks like’.

“There is an established shared view of what a prototypical lawyer is. The further away a person or group is from this idea, the more difficult it is for them to progress within the legal professions.”

Ultimately it would be a wider culture change – rather than giving specific people support to overcome the current barriers – that would influence the overall make-up of the profession.

The report identified six ‘pillars’ that upheld the structure “as it is”, and underpinned many of the barriers to inclusion.

These are elitism and the perpetuation of a ‘public school culture’, along with the devaluing of non-traditional routes into the profession – chartered legal executives “consistently reported” feeling undervalued compared to their solicitor colleagues, for example.

This was likely to be repeated with the new breed of apprentices. “Combatting this perception represents a complex behaviour change and there is no ‘quick fix’ solution, but it is certainly an area that should be considered,” the report said.

Then there was “misplaced heuristics of competence” – described as when a mental shortcut is used for assessing someone’s ability that may not be accurate, and is often based on a person’s privilege rather than ability.

The other pillars were “mentorship and feelings of unbelonging”; microaggressions, bullying and harassment; and a culture of overwork.

The Social Change Agency carried out a literature review and interviewed 21 people who currently or formerly worked in various roles in the profession for the report.

They used this to create a ‘system map’ showing “some of the underlying systemic factors that impact EDI across the different legal professions”, which accompanied the report.

Researchers said what “emerged powerfully” from the mapping exercise were the factors that underpinned the failure of EDI initiatives to make “a significant impact and shift the systemic inequalities” entrenched across the legal professions.

While law firms and chambers needed to recruit “bright and talented” people, metrics used to determine who is ‘the best’ could be skewed heavily towards achieving particular grades or attending a particular educational institution, that were “more likely to be a measure of opportunity” than of potential or ability.

Mentoring schemes could “play a role” in diversifying the professions by “supporting some of those for whom the current system is inhospitable” to navigate it more effectively.

“However, mentorship can represent a mechanism by which marginalised people assimilate to the wider culture and therefore perpetuate it.

“Mentorships are also generally limited in number and so are inherently not very inclusive.”

The report, published alongside one on barriers to diversity in the judiciary, recommended “promoting, expanding and developing” professional networks, EDI forums and “formal and well-organised sponsorship schemes” to increase the “visibility and incorporation of perspectives of those that are culturally unrepresented”.

Organisations “should actively encourage an open supportive culture in which individuals can challenge unacceptable behaviour without fear of repercussion”, it went on, and ideally training around microaggressions and allyship should be provided for all staff.

Meanwhile, the “culture of long hours” posed a “specific challenge” for the legal profession that would be a long-term project.

However, unless there was “some way to mitigate this”, disabled people and those with caring responsibilities or long-term health conditions would “always remain at a disadvantage”.

Professional membership and regulatory bodies could help address the systemic issues by putting EDI “at the heart of what it means to be a professional” and indeed setting higher standards for professionals, the report said.

But they also needed to have a dialogue with the profession, encouraging the sharing of good practice. It would be better to offer “realistic road maps to increasing EDI, rather than simply setting targets that small or medium organisations may find di cult to meet without support”.

Alan Kershaw, chair of the LSB, said that despite progress in some areas, “significant challenges and cultural practices” still hindered entry to and progress in the legal profession.

“The problems are complex and deep-rooted and prevent a fully inclusive and healthy professional culture from thriving.”

Mr Kershaw said regulation could not “offer a silver bullet”, but it was time to consider whether it could “play a more active part in driving change to create a fair, healthy, diverse and inclusive profession”.