Secretary of State, Elizabeth Truss MP gave a speech this week, celebrating 100 years of women in law, which she said was a “call to arms“.
The aim of the speech was to highlight a new focus inside the legal profession which would aim to source future judges on the bases of talent and potential, rather than hours spent at the office or the court room.
In order to do this, she put forward four proposals:
1. A Top 100 Talent competition.
- In the next Recorder competition, expected to launch in February 2017, we will appoint judges from the top 100 talent.
- No longer will they be required to have experience in any particular type of law, be it crime, family or civil.
- Nor does it matter where they live, as applicants will no longer be bound to a specific location. We will simply be looking for the best 100 applicants from across England and Wales.
2. Opening up the High Court.
- We are also going to make it easier for our top talents to go straight into the High Court. The next recruitment campaign will for the first time open the door to a wider pool of ‘direct-entry candidates’ – individuals who while exceptionally talented have not had previous judicial experience. These may be academics, in-house counsel or perhaps Magic Circle solicitors who spend more time in boardrooms than courtrooms.
3. Quicker progress for Deputy High Court judges
- I also want to do more for the Deputy High Court bench – highly-valued individuals from the legal sector who sit part- time in the High Court. They are a vital source of talent for the senior judiciary. And I want to make it easier for the best of them who wish to seek promotion to make quicker progress.
- This is why I have agreed with the senior judiciary and Judicial Appointments Commission that a new fast-track process will let them apply for full High Court office as soon as they are ready.
- The process of selection will be more straightforward. While merit and ability must always be paramount, experience as a Deputy High Court judge will carry far greater weight than at present.
4. Potential
- I want also to talk about potential. I have already explained that we will always select our judges on the basis of merit. However, I feel – and I know the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Kakkar – agree, that the assessment of merit needs to include an assessment of potential.
- I think that future recruitment campaigns should make clear to all candidates that their potential counts. You should not be put off just because your career so far hasn’t taken you into a courtroom because we will offer training and support where that is necessary.
- What matters should be your potential to preside as a judge in court – to develop your ‘judgecraft’ as it is known.
What do you think? Will these measures encourage more women to enter the legal profession?
Researching Reform 
Hmmm potential?
If you listen to ‘estate agent speak’ about houses they always say “this house has potential” but very often people stretch themselves financially just to pay off the mortgage and that ‘potential’ is never realised as they settle for what is affordable.
Everything and everybody has potential but most times it’s never realised so I don’t think that a person should be chosen on ‘potential’ but that they have proven transferrable skills that could be applied.
LikeLike
Hi Dana, thank you for your comment. I think it depends how potential is measured. Sometimes you come across someone who’s passionate and clearly able but doesn’t have the means or opportunities to get ahead. Initiatives which help people in that situation have made a difference to those peoples’ lives and even the sectors they end up working in. But it is a difficult thing to measure.
LikeLike
In my humble opinion, it matters not whether this attracts more women into the Judiciary – only if it helps improve the chances and performance of all Judges. This should not be made into a gender issue at all. Select on merit and, indeed, potential.
LikeLike
Hi Roger, thank you for your comment. I agree, it’s just that the trouble with that is that we still need to combat gender bias in some way. Perfectly good women are being looked over because they’re not male, and that can’t be right. We also need to tackle other obstacles to talent sourcing too, but how do we have a truly meritocratic system without addressing each inequality, including gender? How do we teach men not to overlook women just because the worry they might leave the workplace to have babies or may not be as ‘tough’ as men? All these things speak to deeper issues about how we work, society and bias, and it’s a big know to untangle. I’m not convinced even that this kind of drive helps.
LikeLike
I’m all for more women being considered for the top jobs in any profession; none more so than the law. What we need are more honest brokers among those in the legal profession. We need to improve the image. It’s record has become tarnished over time. Respect has diminished while fear of the law and lawyers, among ordinary people, has increased.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
I’m all for more women being considered for the top jobs in any profession; none more so than the law. What we need are more honest brokers among those in the legal profession. We need to improve the image. It’s record has become tarnished over time. Respect has diminished while fear of the law and lawyers, among ordinary people, has increased.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
You may also want to look into this report, regarding Women in Prison, Natasha: http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/women-in-prison-is-the-justice-system-fit-for-purpose/
LikeLike
Thank you Sabine, I tweeted about this yesterday xxx
LikeLike