IN THE SECOND OF A SERIES OF EXTRACTS FROM HER FORTHCOMING BOOK WOMEN IN THE LAW: SUCCESSFUL CAREER MANAGEMENT, ELIZABETH CRUICKSHANK TRACES THE CAREER OF DAME ELIZABETH BUTLER-SLOSS

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was the first woman to become a Court of Appeal judge.

As President of the Family Division, she was appointed to the highest office ever attained by a woman in the English legal system.

She considers that her parents, although both born in the 19th century, held enlightened views.

'Their view was that women should have exactly the same rights as men, so that when I said that I wanted to go to boarding school after the war at the age of 12 just like my brothers, that was fine, and when I said that I wanted to go to the bar just like my brother Michael, that was fine as well.

My father said that it would be difficult for me because I was a woman, but that he would support me.'

Dame Elizabeth had decided fairly early that she wanted to be a lawyer.

She visited court with her barrister-turned-judge father, by whom she felt influenced but never directed.

She is unusual in reaching such high judicial office without having attended university.

Having attained the higher school certificate at the age of 16 (the equivalent of A-levels), she tried for Cambridge, but 'I was not interested, and so I did not get in.

I was much more interested in going to Switzerland to study in Lausanne'.

She was called to the bar at the age of 21 to find herself one of only 60 women among 2,000 barristers.

'None of us had any work, and none of us had any money.' Being a judge's daughter had helped in securing chambers.

'Everyone knew who I was, and everyone knew my brother, but initially I did not get any work because solicitors were unwilling to brief a woman.'

Following in the footsteps of her father, who had been a founder member of the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Party, Dame Elizabeth had a brief flirtation with another profession where declamatory skills are useful.

In 1959, the year after she married another barrister, Joseph Butler-Sloss, she was asked to stand as Conservative candidate for Vauxhall.

She was well aware that this was a hopeless challenge for the seat was a Labour stronghold.

Heavily pregnant, she lost the election, gained a daughter a week later, and gave up all future ideas of standing for Parliament.

'After the election, I decided that my marriage, my baby and the bar were more important to me than politics.' Success at the bar did not come immediately.

Although her particular chambers specialised in divorce work, they also had 'an extensive sub-interest in buses and lorries, which in those days all needed licences'.

She built up her own reputation and client base, and her elevation to the judiciary coincided with a change in the law of lorry licensing which would have rendered her particular expertise almost useless.

The potential diminution of her practice coincided with a growing concern about the number of women in the judiciary.

Just about the time when Elizabeth Lane had been appointed as a High Court judge, Dame Elizabeth was summoned by the President of the Family Division and was asked to become a registrar in the Divorce Registry.

'They felt that it was time to appoint a married woman with children to the position if at all possible.

I said that I was very flattered, but thought that I was a bit young at 36 for this position.

The President then told me that he had already told the Lord Chancellor that I was 46.'

She took up the appointment in 1970 and her promotion out of what she terms 'a very nice little backwater job' caused quite a stir.

This was followed nine years later by elevation to the High Court.

It was unheard of for registrars to become High Court judges; despite the regard in which she was held by family lawyers because of her courtesy and sound judgement, her appointment was seen by some as 'simply amazing', and there was much press comment.

'There was,' she explains, 'a serious shortage of women with the requisite experience and age available to become High Court judges.

I am convinced that I got the position because I was female.

This is not to say that I wasn't very good at the registry, but there was a serious shortage of women and the new government of Mrs Thatcher with Lord Hailsham as Lord Chancellor was very keen to appoint women.

So they did a bit of lateral thinking and plucked me out from the registry.

They wouldn't have had to do any lateral thinking if they had been looking for a man to fill the post.'

There is an interesting dichotomy in her analysis of the position of women at the bar and the position of professional women who are mothers.

She considers that in many ways it is more difficult now to be at the bar because of the hours required and the intensity of the profession.

On the other hand, it is much more acceptable now to be a working mother.

However, even with the best possible and most helpful partner, many women feel an almost proprietorial relationship towards their children and find it difficult to pursue a career when the children are young.

As a judge who has had to deliver many difficult decisions in family law cases, she is acutely aware of the difficulties.

'There is a distinct lack of parenting by the middle-classes where both parents have good jobs.

It's not their fault.

It's the fault of the system, and we need to change the culture so that being a parent is seen as being as important as having a good job.' At the bar, 'if you want to become a silk etcetera, you have to go down a well-trodden road of overwork and long hours.

This should not be seen as a female problem.

It should be seen as a parent problem.

We are too concerned about work, and should be more concerned about the needs of the family.

The City is particularly bad for this'.

Despite these apparent criticisms, Dame Elizabeth would recommend young women to go into the law.

And what clearly fascinates her is advocacy.

Early in her career, she decided that she would have to change her voice, which was very high pitched.

'I worked on that as much as I have worked on anything in order to get it deeper.

I also spoke far too fast and I have had to learn to speak much more slowly to make myself understood.

But advocacy is important in so many aspects of life.

It is just as important in the boardroom and in meetings, in government and at conferences to be able to marshall your facts, to order them and to put your point of view in a reasoned way.'

She is clear about the other attributes required in a good barrister.

'First of all you must have stamina.

And you must have resilience to get over the knocks and disappointments, especially when you are younger and just starting out.

And you must be quick.

Except at the Chancery Bar, it's almost more important to be able to think on your feet than to be a good lawyer, especially for knockabout criminal, family and straightforward litigation work.

And you must be able to put together an argument that will convince the judge and the jury.'

The attributes required in a good judge move on from there.

Speed reading is a sine qua non.

'I read very fast but I read everything.

Then, if I am giving the lead judgment particularly, I go back and read with a great deal more care.

And there are a lot of qualities that I don't have, such as patience.

Patience is very important.' As is 'an enormous amount of common sense and good sound judgement of people.

That's not so important in the criminal side, that's rather different, because your view of people is subject to the overriding decision-making powers of the jury.

Although you do have the opportunity to direct them, your role comes later when you have to decide on the appropriate punishment.

It's different in the civil and family courts when you are assessing credibility and whom you should believe.'

Being an Appeal Court judge is again different.

'Once a judge has made a decision based on character judgement and assessment of the facts, it is difficult for the Court of Appeal to intervene, except of course on points of law.' In this connection, she remembers one of her own early decisions as a High Court judge.

The father in custody proceedings was a complex and manipulative man and the mother was an inadequate young woman who was devoted to the child.

'I agonised about my decision as it seemed that whatever conclusion I came to could not be the right one.

In the end, I set out all the pros and cons in my judgment, and noted that although I had to come to a decision, whatever I decided would in some respects be wrong.

I granted custody to the mother as I felt that that would be the least detrimental alternative, but of course I had given the father clear grounds to appeal, which he duly did.

The Court of Appeal upheld my decision, but told me firmly that I must never again say that my decision was wrong.'

Obviously, a good knowledge of the law is required, but that 'is not the first requisite.

You don't have to be an erudite lawyer to be a trial judge, unless of course you are sitting in Chancery.

But you do need a reasonably quick mind and sufficient diligence to be able to pick out the important points and to research them if necessary'.

Many of the cases that come before her are inevitably the subject of much media comment and speculation because they deal with life-and-death situations concerning the desirability or otherwise of the giving or withholding of medical treatment.

It is the case of Miss B which displays most poignantly the difficult and sometimes agonising position in which the President of the Family Division can find herself.

Miss B had been rendered quadriplegic and she asked that treatment be withheld as she had no quality of life and there was no possibility of rehabilitation.

Dame Elizabeth went to the hospital to take Miss B's evidence on commission in a private room surrounded by lawyers representing all parties.

She was moved by Miss B's situation and her courage, 'because what this clearly intelligent woman wanted was to be taken seriously and not to be treated as a child because she had a total inability to move'.

The hospital authorities, which were inexperienced in giving the sort of palliative care that hospices provide, 'could not bring themselves to the idea that she might want to die.

I agreed with her that paraplegics have a right to be taken seriously.

But although I granted her wish to be permitted to refuse treatment, I unusually put in my judgment that I hoped that she would reconsider the decision that she could now make because I felt that she had so much to give.

I felt that she had a lot to offer to people in her situation by her example, by forcing the hospital and those in authority to take her seriously'.

And what of the future for the most senior woman in the English judiciary? She could if she wished continue as a judge for another five years, until she is 75, because she was appointed under 'the old system', but it is probably unlikely that she will do so.

She has five grandchildren and numerous great-nieces and nephews she would like to see more of, and there is travel to do with her husband 'before we get too old, and a great deal of reading that I still want to do.

But I haven't done five years as president yet'.

This is an edited version of an interview that appears in Women in the Law: Successful Career Management, edited by Elizabeth Cruickshank and scheduled to be published in October by Law Society Publishing.

It can be ordered from Marston Book Services, tel: 01235 465 656, at 29.95 plus 3.50 postage and packing