Can I draw together three recent threads of correspondence in these pages?


1. The anonymous solicitor who wrote describing how they had specialised in a now contracted sector of work and, while too young and too poor to retire, was apparently considered too old to be re-trained elsewhere within the profession.



2. The anonymous female solicitor who joined a profession which serves justice, who now believes that along with many thousands of others she has been discriminated against in pay terms because of her gender.



3. Ronnie Fox's helpful reply to an earlier letter of mine, suggesting that solicitors might enquire about staff turnover figures when applying for what are becoming scarce job opportunities.



Recruiters would do well to heed Ronnie Fox's more enlightened approaches, but in a hardening job market changes are likely to be slow if they are to be driven by the weaker party in the negotiation.



Now might not be the right time to explore how we got to a position where discrimination is still rife in the very profession which holds itself out as the first 'port of call' for legal advice on discrimination matters. Nor do I believe Law Society chief executive Des Hudson needs to spend much time with women and BME solicitors to understand the pay-gap issues. His boundless energy would be much better engaged with the perpetrators, not the victims.



Whether driven by benevolence or self-interest, now is the time for action. The Law Society knows it has a limited opportunity to become the representative body of choice for solicitors, the vast majority of whom are and will always remain employees, never becoming partners. Can someone at Chancery Lane use the pages of this publication to say what the society's strategy is for helping these disadvantaged members of the profession? Meanwhile, our hearts go out to those anonymous correspondents as well as the thousands they represent.



Sue Nelson, council member, City of Westminster



(See President's Podium, p15)