Report comment

If you spend almost all the time you have to become a senior partner in a large law firm - and are being paid extremely well for the years of sacrifice, having built up your client following year after year - why would you then just throw it away to become a judge ? It would make the decades of sacrifice seem absolutely pointless. David Gauke should be addressing the real problem - the stars at the very top of the bar or in Magic Circle firms who refuse to be judges after becoming astronomically wealthy as lawyers. The practice rules should be changed so that if a judicial appointment is offered, it must be accepted or no further practising certificates are granted. Judicial appointments could be for a set term to attract more applicants. But something must be done to attract the best of the best, whether male or female. If London wants to hang onto its global common law crown, this is essential. With the very best performers, gender is irrelevant. You're either very, very good whether you're male or female and get lots of clients and win every case - or you're not and you don't. The gender debate lower down might be about money only where everyone's abilities are fairly similar but higher up it's about merit and ability. David Gauke must start attracting the top performers - or offer them a deal they can't refuse.