Taking the side of trainees
I was interested to read your Leader on the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s abolition of the mandatory minimum trainee salary (25 July). I recall that this happened when I was vice president of the Law Society.
Working with the Junior Lawyers Division, I understood that the mandatory minimum was a useful negotiating tool for many trainees, as it would be accepted by many firms as a minimum. It would also tend to assist in social mobility or at least be consistent with the Society’s strong advocacy in that area.
I took the paper through the governance process and made sure it was on the board agenda during my term. Arguments against included that there would be fewer training positions which many, including me, rejected – there was no evidence to support this and no moral argument to suggest that underpaying trainees (or anybody else for that matter) was good for the profession. The decision was also seen as evidence to the profession of a growing dividing line between the Society and SRA – that we were on the side of the profession and its future and the SRA clearly was not.
Your final sentence (on the diversity benefit) is right on point. The decision to have a TLS recommended minimum certainly helps some and puts the Society on the side of those entering the profession who are its future.
For my own part, I started articles in 1984, when the minimum salary had not long been introduced. My memory (I am happy to be corrected!) is that the figure was £3,500, less than the secretarial staff were paid. My firm was progressive, paying me £4,000. I think I was the only articled clerk in the town at the time on more than the minimum. I stayed at that firm for 32 years, ultimately as senior partner, until I came to Australia.
An inflation calculator would work out whether today’s figure has kept pace. However, the financial position of today’s aspiring solicitors is very different, so it would not be a like-for-like comparison.
Jonathan Smithers
CEO, Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, Sydney; president, Law Society of England and Wales 2015-16
Neurodivergent people and mental health
I read the Gazette every week and want to share some feedback about the feature article on ‘Mental health and the law’ by Catherine Baksi (18 July).
Overall, the article is excellent and a helpful reminder about prioritising mental health issues. However, in three places the article incorrectly implies that neurodivergent conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are types of mental health conditions.
I am an autistic person and would like to point out that neurodiversity is a natural variation in how the human brain works. Neurodivergent conditions, such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, are not mental health issues. They are simply different ways of interacting with and experiencing the world around you.
Just like everyone, neurodivergent people can sometimes struggle with their mental health. Research shows that they are more likely to get stressed, anxious or depressed than neurotypical people. There are several possible reasons for this in the workplace context:
- Lack of understanding: Others may not always understand neurodivergent employees’ differences or experiences. This can lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation.
- The impact of ‘masking’: Neurodivergent employees often feel pressure to hide or ‘mask’ their natural characteristics to fit in with their team. This involves a lot of effort, which can cause exhaustion in the long term.
- Extra challenges at work: Neuro-divergent employees may find some aspects of working life more challenging. For example, they may experience sensory overload in a busy environment, find it hard to socialise or get distracted more easily. These types of challenges can increase stress levels and anxiety if not enough support is in place.
So, while neurodivergent individuals may be more vulnerable to stress, anxiety or depression due to barriers in society, neurodivergent conditions themselves are not mental health illnesses.
There are many natural strengths associated with being neurodivergent, such as having exceptional attention to detail, creativity and empathy. It is important that your readers understand this because otherwise there is likely to be more stigma and misunderstanding.
Azmina Gulamhusein, via email
Duty solicitor gender divide
In your recent article on criminal duty solicitors (25 July), I was surprised to see no mention of the current gender split in the make-up of practising duty solicitors. That split surely has a significant impact on the declining numbers. Are these figures available? It would be interesting to compare this with the figure of 62% of current practising solicitors being women.
I would expect there to be fewer women for various reasons: notably, unsociable hours, which are less compatible for those with care-giving responsibilities (roles still disproportionally held by women); and safety concerns during one-to-one police visits in respect of client behaviour.
A starting point to help counter the fall in numbers and address the underlying reasons for this would surely be data transparency in this area.
Anna Lowe
Real Estate Counsel UK, Søstrene Grene, Manchester
Editor’s note: A fair point. In 2024, the split was 2,323 men and 1,245 women. (In 2019, 65% male and 35% female, according to the Bellamy legal aid review).
No comments yet