Today The Times announces the launch of our Student Advocacy
Competition, to be held jointly with Herbert Smith, the leading City law
firm. This is a new development for Times Law and neatly complements
our annual Times Law Awards student essay competition run with One
Essex Court chambers during the autumn and winter.
How to enter The Times/Herbert Smith advocacy
competition and the rules
The idea of the competition — which is open to all students, full or
part-time, registered with UK universities or colleges (including schools
and colleges of law) — is to provide entrants with the opportunity to
develop their advocacy skills on a theme of topical interest to the legal
profession.
The challenge for the inaugural competition is the question Diversity in
the legal profession: cause for concern or trendy bandwagon?
Related Links
The statistics are stark. Ian Gatt, QC, a member of Herbert Smith’s advocacy
team and chairman of its inclusivity group, says: “Of 1,200 QCs, around
1,120 are white with just 66 from ethnic minority groups; only 116 are
women. This does not reflect the composition of the self-employed Bar
generally where nearly one in three barristers is a woman and one in ten is
from a ethnic minority group.”
The position is similar elsewhere within the senior ranks in the legal
profession. “Partners in City law firms, for example, overwhelmingly conform
to the white, male stereotype. The senior ranks of the judiciary are also
male-dominated with fewer than 10 per cent of High Court judges being women
and one ethnic minority judge of the 108 High Court judges. There are no
ethnic minority judges in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords.”
It is not surprising then that Mrs Justice Dobbs, the liaison judge for
diversity, said in her lecture Diversity in the Judiciary last October:
“Diversity is a hot topic. Diversity in the legal profession and the
judiciary is an issue getting warmer by the day.”
Entrants might wish to consider to what degree it matters if the composition
of the legal profession — in its upper ranks — does not reflect the society
that it serves. Is the quality of justice or the conduct of legal process
poorer as a result? Do clients get worse service or are judgments flawed
because of the predominant gender and ethnicity of the people who make the
key decisions? Or if it does, to what degree is it right to try to correct
the imbalance — should change emerge over time as a result of changed
patterns of entry to the profession (more than half are woman) — or should
urgent and pro-active steps be taken to make the top of the profession more
diverse?
Some may argue that the real issue is one of social equity. Are opportunity
and privilege skewed in one direction? Perhaps we need to consider diversity
more widely: the setting-up of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
networks (as at Herbert Smith itself) suggests that much more needs to be
done to encourage people of all persuasions to feel more comfortable in the
workplace. But perhaps the biggest area of contention is class. After all,
how many white working-class boys from deprived areas of the country are
recruited to the profession — let alone start to climb to its upper
echelons?
So there are complex issues and the reasons of those who defend the status quo
and those who deplore it deserve to be put under the microscope. In the
first round we invite entrants to develop an outline argument of no more
than 400 words that highlights (in bullet-point form if preferred) the key
issues you wish to address. The judges will look for originality of thought,
clarity of expression and logicality of presentation. To supplement this
students are strongly encouraged to submit a video overview of their outline
argument. This should last no more than 90 seconds — enough to give the
judges a flavour of their advocacy skills.
Based on these entries a shortlist of six candidates will be selected to make
a ten-minute presentation at a half- day finalists event to be held on
Tuesday, September 16, in the offices of Herbert Smith in London. Those
selected will also have the opportunity to hone their skills in advance, at
an advocacy workshop, with one of the firm’s experienced advocacy trainers.
Among the high-profile judging team that will take the final decision on the
winners is: Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty; Ben Summerskill, chief
executive of Stonewall; Nigel Savage, chief executive of The College of Law;
and Ian Gatt, QC, of Herbert Smith. They will also have the task of
questioning candidates on their submissions.
The prizes, to be awarded at a winners’ reception on the evening of the
finalists event, are: £3,000 for the winner; £2,000 for the second-placed;
£1,000 for third; and three of £500 for each of the runners-up. All those
shortlisted will also be invited for interview for a vacation scheme
placement at Herbert Smith. The winning entries will be published on Times
Law online.
This is an exciting and challenging competition on an important issue to the
legal community. We look forward to receiving your entries.
