Women have been patient for 100 years, Lord Sumption

Though we are but four short years away from marking a century since the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 paved the way for women to become lawyers, it is clear that equality between the sexes still has some way to go.

It was not until 1922 that the first women, Ivy Williams and Helena Normanton, were called to the Bar. It took the latter a further 27 years to become one of the first women to be appointed King's Counsel. The Bar had to wait until 1965 to see Elizabeth Lane become the first female High Court judge, and it was only in 1972 that Dame Rose Heilbron became the first woman to preside at the Old Bailey.

The solicitor profession did not fare much better. November 1922 saw Carrie Morrison, Maud Crofts, Mary Pickup, and Mary Sykes become the first female solicitors admitted by the Law Society. Moreover, it took until 1981 for Fiona Woolf to become the first female partner in a UK law firm, and not until 1999 that a top 100 firm appointed its first female chairman, Diana Parker of Withers.

While the latest research from the Law Society found that although 48 per cent of solicitors are now women, only 24 per cent of are represented at partner level. Further, equal pay for lawyers is not expected before 2021, according to the latest estimate. It is of little surprise, therefore, for female only partner promotions at elite City firms - such as at Mishcon de Reya and Olswang - to make headlines.

It is when considering the above that Lord Sumption's recent remarks in the London Evening Standard - that a rush to achieve equal gender representation at the top of the profession would lead to 'appalling consequences' on the quality of British justice - must be seen as astonishing.

The Supreme Court justice's contention that it was 'rubbish' to say the law was run by an 'old boys' network' is perhaps only eclipsed in its absurdity by his insistence that a lack of female judges was because the 'lifestyle choice' of women unwilling to tolerate 'demanding' hours and 'appalling' working conditions.

Sumption - whose father's 'string-pulling' found him two pupillages as a wannabe barrister, and who was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court in 2012 when his former pupil master, Lord Phillips, was its president - said change was happening and that eventually the profession and judiciary would get somewhere close to parity on gender. He cautioned, however, that positive discrimination was not the way forward: 'If we were to pass a decree that every alternate judicial appointment was to be a woman, it would still take us 20 years to get to 50/50. Nobody is proposing that.'

Though it is possible some of the nuance from Sumption's arguments was lost in translation - a fear of many interviewees when being grilled by the press - his claims are just the latest from a cadre of senior legal figures that expose the proverbial mountain women lawyers must still climb to be recognised.

While Sumption argued the Bar is a meritocracy, the justice minister, Lord Faulks QC, recently disagreed, opining that Amal Clooney only gets top cases because of her marriage to an A-list movie star. 'I'm sure she gets such high-profile cases and everyone wants her because she's married to George Clooney. And by employing her they'll give publicity to their case,' he told the Daily Mail. 'I mean, look at Cherie Blair - being married to Tony Blair didn't do her career any harm.'

This argument, however, hardly stacks up when the full weight of Clooney's accomplishments were laid out by Doughty Street's head of chambers, Geoffrey Robertson QC. Though the minister has since apologised for 'any offence, distress, or inconvenience' caused, his unguarded comments give further credence to just how women lawyers are perceived by the old guard of the profession.

Such old-fashioned views were once again on display when the Garrick Club, one of London's oldest gentlemen's clubs, once again voted to keep out women members earlier this year. At least 11 QCs were among those who voted against reform of the antiquated fraternity. 'If you're a judge, publicly committed to the principle of equality, it is incompatible with that, to be a member of that type of club,' observed Dinah Rose QC.

Though opinion on Charlotte Proudman's reaction to receiving a sexist message on social networking site LinkedIn is split, the fact that solicitor Alexander Carter-Silk thought it appropriate to comment on her 'stunning' photograph is indicative of just how far women still have to go before they reach parity with their male counterparts.

As the number of other women who came forward with similar tales demonstrated, Proudman's case is not an isolated incident, not to mention the number of lawyers willing to defend Carter-Silk's 'compliment' and dismiss the junior human rights barrister as a 'silly girl' or 'feminazi' on social media, blogs, and messaging boards.

Let us not forget that a major Bar Council report from 2014 found that women barristers experienced 'a hostile environment, inappropriate behaviours, and discrimination in the allocation of work' when beginning their careers at the Bar.

It is depressing that such views are still held by senior members of the legal profession as we prepare to celebrate the accomplishments of women in law. What is perhaps worse, though, is the realisation that a century on from the prohibition of females in the profession, women judges make up just 21 out of 106 in the High Court, eight of 38 Court of Appeal judges, and take up one sole seat in the nation's highest court.

Lord Sumption may be right in his suggestion that no one should demand positive discrimination in the profession, but his call for 'patience' is injudicious. Women lawyers have been patient for 100 years. It is time to recognise them accordingly. Surely the 'brain of Britain' must know this.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal