I am not at all surprised to see that women lawyers are paid 21% less than men (see [2006] Gazette, 2 March, 1). Briefly stated, my experience as senior partner of a modest-sized firm of five partners, 15 fee-earners and some 50 souls in all, is this.

When we recruit young lawyers, we want simply the best person for the job. Because women tend to be more mature at an early age, the best candidate is more often than not a woman. She is appointed. She is likely to be as keen as mustard and hell-bent on pursuing a career. At a certain point, she takes a husband or a partner and they decide to have a family.


I can say that almost without exception at that stage that the woman's priorities change. The first priority is the child and the second priority the job. The career becomes less important. She will want to work, probably part-time, so as not to waste her qualifications and also 'to keep the brain active'. Economic necessity may also be a factor. She is, however, no longer primarily career driven. She is not interested in the bonus schemes, or going the extra mile or seeking promotion, which will bring with it extra work commitments. This is entirely natural.


All that is hidden in the broad 21% statistic. It is not a like-for-like comparison.


What I can say is that our highest-paid employee is a woman. She had her family a long time ago. She is the best in the business and earns more than anybody else because she deserves to. It is nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, of course, but everything to do with the fact that she is extremely good at her job and has a commitment to match her ability.


Bald statistics are a blunt instrument and will always hide a deeper truth.


RA Jameson, Jameson & Hill, Hertford