‘I’m Not One of Those Women’s Libber Type People but...’: Gender, Class and Professional Power within the Third Branch of the English Legal Profession
| Author | Andrew Francis |
| Published date | 01 December 2006 |
| Date | 01 December 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0964663906066619 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
‘I’M NOT ONE OF THOSE
WOMEN’S LIBBER TYPE PEOPLE
BUT . . .’: GENDER, CLASS AND
PROFESSIONAL POWER WITHIN
THE THIRD BRANCH OF THE
ENGLISH LEGAL PROFESSION
ANDREW FRANCIS
Keele University, UK
ABSTRACT
Legal executives are the third branch of the legal profession in England and Wales.
While their professional body (ILEX) has made progress in recent years, they remain
in a subordinate position to solicitors. Drawing on detailed interviews with legal
executives in a range of settings, this article will argue that women legal executives
experience a distinctive disadvantage in legal practice. Intersections of class, gender
and professional power contribute to a highly unstable professional identity for legal
executives, and one which is particularly acute for women. The dissonance between
their ‘expected’ and ‘experienced’ professional identity reinforces their lack of engage-
ment with ILEX. This article argues that the negative and gendered connotations of
the professional identity of legal executives reinforce the hierarchies of legal practice.
KEY WORDS
class; gender; identity; lawyers; legal executives; professions
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, www.sagepublications.com
0964 6639, Vol. 15(4), 475–493
DOI: 10.1177/0964663906066619
476
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(4)
INTRODUCTION
THISARTICLEexplores the ways in which gender, class and professional
power intersect to produce different experiences of disadvantage and
privilege for the frequently ignored third branch of the legal
profession in England and Wales – legal executives. While recent years have
seen the professional association, the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX)
make progress, in terms of an enhanced profile with government and
increased rights and responsibilities, they remain a subordinate profession
operating under the jurisdictional shadow of solicitors – who, in most work-
place settings, are their employers (Francis, 2002). Simply focusing on the
collective dimensions of a profession reveals only a limited picture of the
roles, responsibilities and relationships of those in practice. It ignores the way
in which professional ideologies are shaped in different settings (Nelson and
Trubek, 1992). Similarly, Silius (2003: 141) argues that greater attention must
be paid to the specific contexts of individual stories to fully understand the
way in which gender orders hierarchical relationships within legal practice.
To do otherwise risks focusing on the essential woman lawyer without fully
taking into account her individual background or circumstances (Sommerlad,
2003: 195).
Intersectional analysis reminds us that the experiences of those within
subordinate groups will vary significantly according to other indices of
disadvantage (Grillo, 1995). Gender is clearly a significant category of dis-
advantage, and the subordination of women within legal practice has been
well documented (Thornton, 1996; Sommerlad and Sanderson, 1998; Hagan
and Kay, 1995; Schultz and Shaw, 2003). It is particularly significant for legal
executives as the profession is, numerically at least, becoming feminized with
two-thirds of the fully qualified Fellows and 72 per cent of all members being
women. Women account for 78.2 per cent of all students and 84 per cent of
those in the 17–25-year-old category (ILEX Membership Survey, 2000).
In applying an intersectional framework to the experiences of legal
executives, this contribution seeks to add greater sophistication to our under-
standing of women in the legal profession. It moves beyond collective
conceptions of legal professionalism, towards a more nuanced consideration
of the individual circumstances of women lawyers. As Grillo (1995) points
out:
To look at white, middle-class women as subordinated is accurate as far as it
goes, but their experience of oppression is not interchangeable with the oppres-
sion of non-white, non-middle-class women. The whiteness and the middle-
class status supply privilege even as femaleness conveys oppression. (p. 19)
In focusing on the subordination faced by women lawyers we downplay the
roles of those women lawyers who hold positions of privilege over other
women (and men) in different ways, for example, straight/gay, commercial/
legal aid, partner/assistant, assistant/legal executive, lawyers/administrative
staff. Equally, in simply focusing on legal executives as our category of
FRANCIS: GENDER, CLASS AND PROFESSIONAL POWER
477
analysis we ignore the ways that gender, class, race and occupational context
can intersect to produce very different experiences. Thus, we need to explore
the position of female legal executives much more closely. The disadvantage
that they face may not simply be as women within law or as legal executives
within law, but distinctively as female legal executives within law.
Drawing on interviews with legal executives, this article argues that
women legal executives experience a distinctive disadvantage within the
workplace. Moreover, contextual factors also affect the way in which women
legal executives experience privilege and disadvantage differently, even
compared to each other. It suggests that the intersections of class, gender and
professional power contribute to a highly unstable professional identity for
many legal executives; and that this is particularly acute for women. The
dissonance between their ‘expected’ and ‘experienced’ professional identity
reinforces their disengagement with the ‘official’ professional identity
promoted by ILEX. For legal executives, the continued emphasis of the
negative connotations of their professional identity serves to keep the hier-
archies of legal practice firmly in place.
METHODOLOGY
In order to take account of the complexity of the ‘multiple visions of lawyer-
ing’ (Nelson and Trubek, 1992: 179) and to complement earlier work focused
on professional associations (Francis, 2002), this article draws on semi-
structured interviews with legal executives in a range of workplace settings.
Mail-shot questionnaires or statistics would have had limited use in teasing
out complex, underlying attitudes held by legal executives about their
relationships with colleagues, principals, their perceptions of their professional
identity and the role that gender (and other indices of disadvantage) may play
in ordering hierarchical relationships within legal practice. Thus, interviews
were the most appropriate data-collection technique for the subject matter
(Silverman, 1993: 12). Given the decision to use interviews, practical
considerations limited the sample size. This is not uncommon in studies of
this nature (Sommerlad, 2002; Boon, 2005), however, I would argue that this
limitation is offset by the richness of the data gleaned.
I identified possible interviewees from Waterlow’s directory of legal prac-
titioners and sought a sample that was ‘random within [the] broad categories’
(Boon, 2005: 233) of location, firm, work, gender and ethnicity through
cross-referencing firm details. I contacted the individuals with a letter
explaining the research, identifying 14 interviewees in this way. These have
been augmented by a further 11 interviews from an earlier study. Despite
difficulties in securing interviews, the interviewees are broadly representa-
tive of legal executives as a whole. Of those interviewed, 16 were women and
9 were men. This 64 per cent female/male split is roughly similar to the
overall profession split of 66 per cent. Those interviewed represented a good
spread of age, specialism, firm and geographical location. For example, the
478
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(4)
largest number in the sample (8) worked in medium-sized regional firms, 5
worked in London firms (with 2 based in the City) and the rest from a range
of different-sized regional firms and local authorities. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed for analysis. They lasted between 30 minutes and
2 1/2 hours, and respondents were assured of their anonymity, consequently
limiting the biographical detail accompanying interview responses in the text.
Morley (1999: 24) suggests that researchers always have a standpoint upon
entering the field. Given my previous research and knowledge of the litera-
ture relating to women and professions, I approached the study with aware-
ness that gender was likely to be a key organizing factor in legal practice. The
question schedule, which formed the basis of the interview covered biogra-
phy, before discussing ‘working lives’, ‘position within the firm’, ‘socializ-
ing’, ‘aspirations’ and an ‘overview of the profession’. Gender was not raised
explicitly until the end of the interview, and then only in broad terms. It is
important to note that the women interviewees raised this as an issue, inde-
pendently, much earlier. Hopefully this brief summary provides the reader
with some guidance about the ‘interactional cues . . . given off by the inter-
viewer’ (Dingwall, 1997: 57).
Silverman (1993) notes that the fragmentary presentation of interviews
means that ‘the critical reader is forced to ponder whether the researcher has
selected only those fragments of data which support his argument’ (p. 162).
In an effort to alleviate these concerns, I have explained how the sample was
achieved, in terms of its focus on the workplace and broad representative-
ness to the overall population (p. 152). Denzin and Lincoln (1994: 14–15)
caution against interpretative bias on the part of the researcher. I have, there-
fore, attempted to alert the reader to my standpoint when approaching this
...
WOMEN’S LIBBER TYPE PEOPLE
BUT . . .’: GENDER, CLASS AND
PROFESSIONAL POWER WITHIN
THE THIRD BRANCH OF THE
ENGLISH LEGAL PROFESSION
ANDREW FRANCIS
Keele University, UK
ABSTRACT
Legal executives are the third branch of the legal profession in England and Wales.
While their professional body (ILEX) has made progress in recent years, they remain
in a subordinate position to solicitors. Drawing on detailed interviews with legal
executives in a range of settings, this article will argue that women legal executives
experience a distinctive disadvantage in legal practice. Intersections of class, gender
and professional power contribute to a highly unstable professional identity for legal
executives, and one which is particularly acute for women. The dissonance between
their ‘expected’ and ‘experienced’ professional identity reinforces their lack of engage-
ment with ILEX. This article argues that the negative and gendered connotations of
the professional identity of legal executives reinforce the hierarchies of legal practice.
KEY WORDS
class; gender; identity; lawyers; legal executives; professions
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, www.sagepublications.com
0964 6639, Vol. 15(4), 475–493
DOI: 10.1177/0964663906066619
476
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(4)
INTRODUCTION
THISARTICLEexplores the ways in which gender, class and professional
power intersect to produce different experiences of disadvantage and
privilege for the frequently ignored third branch of the legal
profession in England and Wales – legal executives. While recent years have
seen the professional association, the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX)
make progress, in terms of an enhanced profile with government and
increased rights and responsibilities, they remain a subordinate profession
operating under the jurisdictional shadow of solicitors – who, in most work-
place settings, are their employers (Francis, 2002). Simply focusing on the
collective dimensions of a profession reveals only a limited picture of the
roles, responsibilities and relationships of those in practice. It ignores the way
in which professional ideologies are shaped in different settings (Nelson and
Trubek, 1992). Similarly, Silius (2003: 141) argues that greater attention must
be paid to the specific contexts of individual stories to fully understand the
way in which gender orders hierarchical relationships within legal practice.
To do otherwise risks focusing on the essential woman lawyer without fully
taking into account her individual background or circumstances (Sommerlad,
2003: 195).
Intersectional analysis reminds us that the experiences of those within
subordinate groups will vary significantly according to other indices of
disadvantage (Grillo, 1995). Gender is clearly a significant category of dis-
advantage, and the subordination of women within legal practice has been
well documented (Thornton, 1996; Sommerlad and Sanderson, 1998; Hagan
and Kay, 1995; Schultz and Shaw, 2003). It is particularly significant for legal
executives as the profession is, numerically at least, becoming feminized with
two-thirds of the fully qualified Fellows and 72 per cent of all members being
women. Women account for 78.2 per cent of all students and 84 per cent of
those in the 17–25-year-old category (ILEX Membership Survey, 2000).
In applying an intersectional framework to the experiences of legal
executives, this contribution seeks to add greater sophistication to our under-
standing of women in the legal profession. It moves beyond collective
conceptions of legal professionalism, towards a more nuanced consideration
of the individual circumstances of women lawyers. As Grillo (1995) points
out:
To look at white, middle-class women as subordinated is accurate as far as it
goes, but their experience of oppression is not interchangeable with the oppres-
sion of non-white, non-middle-class women. The whiteness and the middle-
class status supply privilege even as femaleness conveys oppression. (p. 19)
In focusing on the subordination faced by women lawyers we downplay the
roles of those women lawyers who hold positions of privilege over other
women (and men) in different ways, for example, straight/gay, commercial/
legal aid, partner/assistant, assistant/legal executive, lawyers/administrative
staff. Equally, in simply focusing on legal executives as our category of
FRANCIS: GENDER, CLASS AND PROFESSIONAL POWER
477
analysis we ignore the ways that gender, class, race and occupational context
can intersect to produce very different experiences. Thus, we need to explore
the position of female legal executives much more closely. The disadvantage
that they face may not simply be as women within law or as legal executives
within law, but distinctively as female legal executives within law.
Drawing on interviews with legal executives, this article argues that
women legal executives experience a distinctive disadvantage within the
workplace. Moreover, contextual factors also affect the way in which women
legal executives experience privilege and disadvantage differently, even
compared to each other. It suggests that the intersections of class, gender and
professional power contribute to a highly unstable professional identity for
many legal executives; and that this is particularly acute for women. The
dissonance between their ‘expected’ and ‘experienced’ professional identity
reinforces their disengagement with the ‘official’ professional identity
promoted by ILEX. For legal executives, the continued emphasis of the
negative connotations of their professional identity serves to keep the hier-
archies of legal practice firmly in place.
METHODOLOGY
In order to take account of the complexity of the ‘multiple visions of lawyer-
ing’ (Nelson and Trubek, 1992: 179) and to complement earlier work focused
on professional associations (Francis, 2002), this article draws on semi-
structured interviews with legal executives in a range of workplace settings.
Mail-shot questionnaires or statistics would have had limited use in teasing
out complex, underlying attitudes held by legal executives about their
relationships with colleagues, principals, their perceptions of their professional
identity and the role that gender (and other indices of disadvantage) may play
in ordering hierarchical relationships within legal practice. Thus, interviews
were the most appropriate data-collection technique for the subject matter
(Silverman, 1993: 12). Given the decision to use interviews, practical
considerations limited the sample size. This is not uncommon in studies of
this nature (Sommerlad, 2002; Boon, 2005), however, I would argue that this
limitation is offset by the richness of the data gleaned.
I identified possible interviewees from Waterlow’s directory of legal prac-
titioners and sought a sample that was ‘random within [the] broad categories’
(Boon, 2005: 233) of location, firm, work, gender and ethnicity through
cross-referencing firm details. I contacted the individuals with a letter
explaining the research, identifying 14 interviewees in this way. These have
been augmented by a further 11 interviews from an earlier study. Despite
difficulties in securing interviews, the interviewees are broadly representa-
tive of legal executives as a whole. Of those interviewed, 16 were women and
9 were men. This 64 per cent female/male split is roughly similar to the
overall profession split of 66 per cent. Those interviewed represented a good
spread of age, specialism, firm and geographical location. For example, the
478
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 15(4)
largest number in the sample (8) worked in medium-sized regional firms, 5
worked in London firms (with 2 based in the City) and the rest from a range
of different-sized regional firms and local authorities. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed for analysis. They lasted between 30 minutes and
2 1/2 hours, and respondents were assured of their anonymity, consequently
limiting the biographical detail accompanying interview responses in the text.
Morley (1999: 24) suggests that researchers always have a standpoint upon
entering the field. Given my previous research and knowledge of the litera-
ture relating to women and professions, I approached the study with aware-
ness that gender was likely to be a key organizing factor in legal practice. The
question schedule, which formed the basis of the interview covered biogra-
phy, before discussing ‘working lives’, ‘position within the firm’, ‘socializ-
ing’, ‘aspirations’ and an ‘overview of the profession’. Gender was not raised
explicitly until the end of the interview, and then only in broad terms. It is
important to note that the women interviewees raised this as an issue, inde-
pendently, much earlier. Hopefully this brief summary provides the reader
with some guidance about the ‘interactional cues . . . given off by the inter-
viewer’ (Dingwall, 1997: 57).
Silverman (1993) notes that the fragmentary presentation of interviews
means that ‘the critical reader is forced to ponder whether the researcher has
selected only those fragments of data which support his argument’ (p. 162).
In an effort to alleviate these concerns, I have explained how the sample was
achieved, in terms of its focus on the workplace and broad representative-
ness to the overall population (p. 152). Denzin and Lincoln (1994: 14–15)
caution against interpretative bias on the part of the researcher. I have, there-
fore, attempted to alert the reader to my standpoint when approaching this
...
To continue reading
Request your trial