In July 1997, I resigned from my position as a solicitor in the claims handling department of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) and started proceedings in an employment tribunal in respect of my claims for sex discrimination.Around one year later, my claim was settled, a week before the hearing.

I was the fourth female solicitor who had resigned because all and any requests for permanent family-friendly working were refused.

However, I firmly believe that my employers were not unique in their attitudes towards flexible working.My employer formally introduced a policy of not allowing part-time work or job-sharing in March 1994, although it is evident that such requests were being refused earlier.

As a result of the introduction of this policy, one employee who had prior to that time been working part-time was required to work full-time again.

Another employee, in a similar situation, refused to return to full-time employment, on the basis that unlike her colleague, she had shown the foresight to have her contract amended to reflect her part-time hours.In the course of my proceedings, the SIF was asked why the policy not allowing part-time work or job-sharing was introduced.

This was stated to be because: 'It was felt, that, if the option were extended to all employees, there would be insufficient overall continuous cover and [the SIF] would be unable to maintain its standard of service to the profession.

Therefore, in order to be fair to all employees, the policy was introduced.'Whatever this means, the job of a claims handler at the SIF involves investigating claims of alleged negligence against solicitors on the basis of legal principles, and establishing whether negligence has occurred.

If it has, then the measure and means of compensating the former client has to be considered.

Claims handlers come from a variety of backgrounds and with differing areas of expertise.One has to accept that there are jobs where flexible working practices would be difficult to implement.

The job of a claims handler at SIF, however, was one ideally suited to flexible working practices.

Job-sharing might bring together two solicitors with different legal backgrounds, offering a wider pool of expertise, and greater use of home-working would have been ideal in a job involving a proportion of reading into a file for the purposes of investigation.

In my own case, I had pointed out that if I were in the office three days a week, and working at home two days a week, taking into account travelling time and lunch breaks, I would have saved some six hours a week.

At a time when London office space is at a premium, greater use of home-working seemed mutually beneficial.It is necessary to present a well-researched and reasonable request for flexible working.

Where one is dealing with an intransigent employer, and where refusal is made without proper regard to the request made, ultimately the choice is either to accept the position, or to take proceedings.It is an extremely anguishing decision to resign from a job which one enjoys, in order to embark upon tribunal proceedings; but if all else fails, and the alternative is to wait for the inevitable breakdown in one's health or one's family, what other choice is there? It is the only way to effect change for the betterment of both your own and your colleagues' positions.

What advice would a solicitor give to clients who found themselves in the same position?The most important thing is to establish what rights you have to request flexible working in the first place.

I would strongly recommend that if finances allow, you seek the advice of a specialist lawyer in this field of indirect sex discrimination.

The area is so complex that specialist advice is crucial -- a standard high street practice or one which dabbles in general employment law is not sufficient.

The success of my case and the measure of my damages was owed to the pre-eminent expertise of my solicitor, Camilla Palmer of London firm Bindman & Partners.Prepare a written request for flexible working, stating your proposals in this regard but pointing out that you would be prepared to consider other arrangements if your employer would prefer.

It would be beneficial if your solicitor checked your written request.In building a case for flexible work, assistance may be obtained from New Ways to Work.

This charity provided me with a bundle of articles relating to solicitors which showed the enormous benefits to be derived from the operation of job-sharing.

As well as New Ways to Work, the Maternity Alliance provided me with invaluable initial advice and indeed recommended a specialist solicitor, while the Equal Opportunities Commission provided me with considerable advice and will fund appropriate cases.

It is important to bear in mind the three-month time limit for instituting proceedings in the employment tribunal, and to establish as early as possible therefore the date by which you must commence your proceedings.I will not underestimate the enormous strain which pursuing proceedings brings.

However, having committed myself to a career in the law, I could not simply walk away from a situation which was both unlawful and unjust.

At the end of the day, I received a negoti ated settlement, and my employers have had to abandon a discriminatory policy.

The SIF has issued a statement in which it referred to having a 'very successful flexible working policy'.I am of course enormously proud that this is now in place, although of course it has come too late for myself and my three colleagues whose talents and training have now been lost to the SIF.

Had the U-turn not been forced on the fund, the loss of such women would no doubt have continued.I am aware that there were requests for some measure of accommodation which were initially refused, but allowed after and because of the commencement of my proceedings.

Negotiation alone, would not and did not achieve this.-- The Solicitors Indemnity Fund responded by issuing this statement: 'This case was settled some time ago with no admission of liability on our part.

Ms Diamond was granted a great deal of flexibility during her time with us.

However, we do not consider it appropriate to discuss our reasons for not agreeing to any individual requests.'USEFUL ORGANISATIONS-- The Equal Opportunities CommissionOverseas HouseQuay StreetManchester M3 3HN0161 833 9244.-- New Ways to Work309 Upper StreetLondon N1 2TY-- The Maternity Alliance0171 588 8582CHANGING THE LONG-HOURS CULTURELong hours are normal for solicitors, writes Camilla Palmer.

Women, unable to combine long hours and childcare, are often compelled to leave their jobs, forced into less interesting work or told that part-time work means forgoing a professional partnership.The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) prohibits practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on women where the employer cannot justify them.

The woman must show that:-- the employer has applied a requirement, for example, to work full time, overtime, anti-social hours, or to be office-based;-- the requirement is one with which a considerably smaller proportion of women than men (or married women than single women) can comply.

This may be shown by comparing the proportion of part-time female and male solicitors in the workforce or in the labour force.

More than 80% of part-time employees are women.

Workplace figures can be obtained by using the SDA questionnaire.

Labour force statistics are available from the Equal Opportunities Commission or Labour Force Survey; and-- the woman must show that she cannot comply, not that she just chooses to work part-time.

This may be because of her childcare arrangements or the stress of working long hours.Employers have a defence if they can show that the hours required are necessary for the job.

Bald, unsubstantiated statements, such as 'it's a full-time job' or 'there would be a problem with continuity' or 'clients won't like it' will not generally be enough.The employer must show proper objective justification, backed up with evidence.

The more flexible the woman is able to be in relation to the days she works, by being available by fax, telephone or e-mail in emergencies, the easier it will be to deal with the employer's objections.And what of men? Where a woman is allowed to reduce her hours to fit in with her childcare, refusal to allow a man, in a similar situation, to do so may be direct discrimination.

And the Part-time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 are intended to 'ensure that part-timers are not treated as second-class employees with worse pay and non-wage benefits than full-timers'.

Although it is stated that the aim is to raise the status of part-time employment and create the conditions where more p eople are willing to vary their hours of work, there is nothing in the regulations about access to part-time work and the promised code has now evidently been shelved.