The views of supreme court justice Jonathan Sumption exemplify what is wrong with the way women are viewed within the legal profession, according to the barrister Charlotte Proudman.
In an article for the Guardian, Proudman – who faced a recent backlash after publishing her response to a comment made about her appearance by a solicitor - criticised Lord Sumption over an interview in which he said that pushing through equal representation for women at the top of the legal profession could result in “appalling consequences” for the quality of British justice.
“The supreme court justice denies that traditional ‘old boys’ networks’ are part of the reason for lack of women’s progress to the rank of Queen’s Counsel and the bench,” said Proudman.
“Statistics from a Bar Council report show that while 50% of people called to the Bar are now women, only 12% are QCs, 24% are judges, and only one of 12 supreme court justices is a woman.
“[Sumption’s] comments exemplify what is wrong with the way women in the legal profession are viewed by those in the highest echelons of power.”
Speaking to the Evening Standard earlier this week, Sumption, who is one of 11 men on the 12-person UK supreme court, also pointed to “lifestyle choice”as one of the reasons women do not tolerate the long working hours culture that paves the way to a career on the bench.
Proudman accused Sumption of failing to identify one of the major barriers: “institutional sexism”, saying: “In the last fortnight lawyers from around the world have contacted me to share their experiences of sexism. One woman told me that after negotiating a multimillion-pound deal, she was told by her boss that it is unbelievable what ‘a good bottom’ can achieve.”
She added: “Incrementalism has failed. We need the introduction of quotas for silks [QCs] and the judiciary. ”
Her forthright comments come as Labour’s shadow justice secretary, Lord Falconer, vowed that the party would consider introducing positive discrimination in appointments unless “very significant progress” was made in accelerating judicial diversity over the course of this parliament.
In the run up to the last election, the Labour party commissioned a report by Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Karon Monaghan QC which called for quotas to ensure that at least a third of all senior judges are women. It did not, however, immediately adopt the proposal as party policy.
But Falconer moved the party closer to that commitment on Wednesday. He told the Guardian that Sumption’s comments were “very dismaying and worrying. This is sending a signal to people joining the legal profession and [those considering] becoming judges”.
He continued: “We are way behind most other countries. The US supreme court has 30% who are women, we have under 10%. [Sumption’s comments] are wrong in their premise that nothing can be done about it.
“It’s insulting when [he] says that women are not prepared to make the changes that will lead them on to become judges.” More job shares, part-time working and school holiday time leave should be offered to enable women to progress to the bench, he added.
“Unless very significant progress has been made within five years, we may need to think about introducing quotas [for female judges],” said Falconer.
“I’m not saying we need to have got to 50/50, but we need to have made significant progress. It’s 25% now. We need to be seeing 50% of new appointments in this next five years [being women].”
The supreme court, sounding a corrective note in the debate, has put out a statement on Lord Sumption’s behalf. It said: “He believes that increasing diversity at all levels of the profession is important, and that the range of hidden barriers to improving diversity – particularly of the judiciary – present a very complex problem.
“Nowhere did he try and reduce this to a simple question of ‘lifestyle choice’. The concern he expressed was against introducing any form of positive discrimination to the judicial appointments system without careful analysis of the full range of potential consequences.”
The debate over how to ensure the judiciary better reflects British society revolves around whether appointment on merit should be trumped by positive discrimination to rectify gender or ethnic inequality. In the UK, women make up only 25 of judges – lagging far behind other European countries.
Amid the blizzard of comments on social media and Twitter about judicial gender equality, Matthew Ryder QC pointed out: “Worth remembering: one high court judge of black or asian heritage. None in court of appeal; none in supreme court.”
