Social immobility the norm in legal profession
The legal world emerges badly from the findings of government research into social mobility published today. According to the Phase 1 report of the Cabinet Office’s Fair Access Panel, solicitors and barristers were far more likely than the population at large to have been privately schooled.
Law firms also far outstripped other professional employers in requiring internees and work-experience students to be based in London – a barrier to many applicants from less well-off backgrounds.
Reflecting previous research, the report says that professionals born in 1970 were far more likely to come from the professional classes than those born in 1958. It notes that 75% of judges attended independent schools, compared with 70% of finance directors, 45% of top civil servants, 32% of MPs and 7% of the population as a whole. However, it concedes that the figure for judges reflects trends when present incumbents entered the profession, rather than now.
The analysis is based on formal evidence hearings, youth forums and a national call for evidence which received more than 120 formal submissions. A Phase 2 report will be published next month, the Cabinet Office said.
- Download a copy of Phase 1 Report: an analysis of the trends and issues relating to fair access to the Professions here (452kb)
Comments
The profession is elitist
Time and time again the legal profession is found to be predominantly white, elitist and out of touch, served by archaic, irrelevant institutions - the Inns of Court being a prime example. Surely it's time for judges and other lawyers to reflect the realities of British society?
As it's not in doubt that
As it's not in doubt that independent / private schools outperform state schools in every measurable way, is it not unsurprising that their pupils figure so highly in the legal profession - and so low in Parliament & the civil service? After all, their parents paid the considerable fees specifically so that they could enjoy the spoils of privilege.
How tragic it would be to see one's progeny held up for public ridicule for netting a meagre public salary and miserly expenses, having forked out a fortune on their education.
The legal & medical professions should not feel cowed by what is essentially an assault on a minority by state-sponsored ideologues. Parents who send their children to the local sink-academy when they can well afford better should be open to prosecution for child cruelty.
Not being white or privately
Not being white or privately educated I found it harder than some of my peers to enter into the legal profession. I do believe that when parents invest in their child education, the way my parents were unable to do, one should expect their investments to show some return but this should ONLY be if their children display the merit that warrants such rewards. There are many who are underserved of their privileges and are taking up valuable space that could be have been better allocated to an able academy/comprehensive pupil.
Sending your children to Academies and the likes is, in many cases, not parent inflicted cruelty, it is abuse at the hands of the government.
As an aside, in this climate, it appears to be more attractive to be earning a meagre "secure" public salary than to be an unemployed lawyer.
Equality, yes, it is there ...
I am Irish and came to the UK in 1997 to train as a solicitor. I came across Oxbridge people at the COL and later in practice and I discovered that they (and their parents) had worked hard all their lives to make the grade and that they were in the main very bright people - that is just a fact - now, why should they not get ahead? Why should their parents not care for the education of their children? I myself gave it my all and qualified and now practice as a commercial solicitor. If I did meet barriers from time to time, I just overcame/ignored them.
To those complaining about entry into the UK legal profession I would say to look at yourselves first, and in particular at each shoulder ..if there rests a chip, then dust it off and start again - your children will thank you.
Having read comment from 22:12
I now know why anyone bothered with this Phase I/II think-tank tripe! No doubt we would soon learn that if one wasn't a debutante, has alien or blue blood connections, he/she'd be unfit to enter the profession. I think that's a clear case of the oppressed becoming the oppressor (in denial). This is not just discrimination but cruelty. Thanks to people like you, I'm beginning to think I had a lucky escape. It is true that pride comes before a fall but only the foolish would be impressed by their own conceit. No wonder we have laws that are running this country into the ground when those who can influence the law choose to be demons instead of angels.
23.02, please don't represent
23.02, please don't represent any client in the way you have represented your views above. Nonsensical. In an attempt (probably in vain) to put meat on your skinny bones, it seems you may be suggesting that the legal profession is populated only with the offspring of English gentry (the 'blue bloods'), and that their political proclivities would lean towards those of privilege.
Far from it.
The legal profession's vision is that of a sec-mod upper stream turned sixth-form student union refectory view of the world in which the 'vulnerable' are the touchstones credibility whilst the able are necessarily villains and tyrants.
The pampering of the savage, the indolent and the feckless produced at least 30 knife and gun deaths last year within the M25 alone. Our profession might consider standing up for its own values. And against those of the violent bullies who sheild themselves behind victimhood and vulnerabilty in order to carry out their indefensible acts.