Salvos boss says briefing practises need a culture shock

The managing partner of Salvos Legal has told Lawyers Weekly that equitable briefing should be part of the fabric of a firm, not a token gesture.

Leanne Mezrani • 11 March 2015 • SME Law

Luke Geary (pictured) said many briefs go to men over women, not because they are the best person for the job, but due to a variety of other reasons, including conscious or unconscious bias, long-term relationships between a firm and their preferred barrister or a lack of exposure to women who could potentially be briefed.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

That last reason has prompted Mr Geary to hold an event that showcases female talent at the Bar in the hope that solicitors attending will consider briefing them in the future.

The Women of the Law event, which is part of the Salvos Legal Lecture Series, will be held in Sydney this Saturday 14 March.

NSW Supreme Court Justices Ruth McColl and Patricia Bergin, Federal Court Justice Melissa Perry, judge Elizabeth Olsson of the NSW District Court and senior member Sabine Thode, will moderate five panel discussions featuring a total of 15 female barristers.

“The gender balance at the Bar has not yet been struck,” said Mr Geary, who urged firms to review their briefing practices and take steps to weave equitable briefing into the firm’s culture.

VIEW ALL

Salvos Legal has included the Law Council of Australia’s Equitable Briefing Policy in its partner charter.

The policy states that, in selecting counsel, all reasonable endeavours should be made to identify female counsel in the relevant practice area; genuinely consider engaging such counsel; regularly monitor and review the engagement of female counsel; and periodically report on the nature and rate of engagement of female counsel.

Salvos Legal appears to be successfully implementing the policy, briefing women in more than 50 per cent of matters. However, Mr Geary admitted that the firm’s humanitarian practice focuses on areas that generally have a strong representation of female barristers, such as crime, family and children’s law.

The gender divide in terms of briefing practices is more obvious in commercial areas of law, he said.

Consequently, Saturday’s event primarily features corporate barristers who will speak on issues such as competition law and injunctions.

Lawyers Weekly understands that some female barristers in the corporate space are only considered for matters when they are unavailable to take the brief. Their names are reportedly put forward as having been consulted but are unavailable so that firms can claim to have satisfied requirements for equitable briefing when working with government clients.

Mr Geary commented that this trend points to a deliberate desire by firms to brief a barrister with whom they have an established relationship, or it could be driven by the urgency of a matter.

“Firms may not be able to step back and see what other possibilities there may be,” he said.

Click here for more information about the Salvos Legal Lecture Series to be held at The Salvation Army’s territorial headquarters in Elizabeth Street (opposite the Downing Centre).

Shovel Thursday, 26 March 2015

It was also your choice to be "poster boy" for this original article. It's also your choice to so closely ally yourself with this publication. If you read the comments of other people it's your approach that's not cutting it. If you want to personalise this go ahead but you want help your own cause,with or with out the photo shoots & the self indulgent PR . It's the practical implications ,the ground level stuff that matters to working barristers in private practice. If solicitors are bypassing the policy it may be because at ground level they won't cop it.They like the bloke they brief,he pays for lunch,he took a bad debt on the chin,he returns phone calls,he reads the briefs. It's an existing relationship for a reason. There is no new risk. Until he screws up,goes to the bench,gets jammed,gets depressed or what ever else the solicitors aren't looking for another wig ,male or female. When that day comes they should consider whoever is out there. That's equitable briefing!

0
Shovel Wednesday, 25 March 2015

I don't need you pushing a party line to understand the issue. You say understand but you mean agree with.Thats all your doing.You have not had a single independent thought of your own,zero analysis of the practical applications you just hide behind the agenda pushed by this publication.Is that why they gave you an award? A number of people find my commentary helpful.I am a barrister who was practising when you were still in primary school.I haven't had a job on wages since 1983.I'' meaningfully participate'' by looking at the real life implications & applications then comment . Anything about briefing practices is something I have experience in. I raised an obvious point about "existing relationships"after reading one the papers & you have got nothing to say except look at the resources.I am sure you have time between photo opportunities to read policy statements. Its your inability to engage without hiding behind other peoples paper work this thats not helpful,shallow,smug & gutless.

0
Luke Geary Wednesday, 25 March 2015

I think that in order for you to meaningfully participate in a debate on these issues, you need to read through and understand the points already raised throughout the resources I provided links to above. I have tried to assist you to better understand these issues by providing the information which will allow you to better form your own views but you have indicated you are too busy to read that material. Until you have done that and are willing to understand the basis for the argument being put in an intelligent way, I am not sure that further commentary by you on the issues is particularly helpful to anyone reading this.

0
Shovel Friday, 20 March 2015

So you have nothing of your own to add,do you? 

0
Absurdiness Brown Friday, 20 March 2015

*Grabs popcorn*

0
Shovel Friday, 20 March 2015

Yes I would & I have. I used as an example,in the next sentence, the Man Up article written by a man.I have 7 contributions in this discussion. Did you bother to look at any of the others? You set the bar so incredibly low when it comes to reaching for the misogynist label & reach for it so quickly because it suits some of the female barrister agendas. It must be the fault of the male dominated system that briefs are landing on particular womens desks. Briefs dont land regardless of gender for all sorts of reasons that are very hard to moniter because the decisions are made behind closed doors & in a non reviewable way. The real mischief lurking in the background is that this article is suggesting that solicitors not brief "barristers they have a long term relationship with" but instead look for a woman. So the male barrister who hasnt done anything wrong by the solicitor over the years doesnt get the next brief for no other reason than its a "girls turn"! Really thats not bias? If the solicitors are looking around for some fresh talent,the person they want is unavailable, completely different deal. Consider who ever is free & practicing in that field. There will be somebody who gets the brief & others who didnt. The men who didnt get it just cant finger point & talk gender equity.

0
H. Thompson Friday, 20 March 2015

Your language is certainly misogynist. Would you describe a male's tone as "shrill defensiveness?" 

0
Kevin Wednesday, 18 March 2015

If I was still doing commercial litigation I'd have no hesitation in briefing a female barrister. In my experience quite a number of the male barristers were arrogant, disorganised and unprepared. My problem was that the panel of barristers presented to me by the financial institution I worked for at the time didn't have any female barristers on them.

0
Shovel Wednesday, 18 March 2015

"Left wing feminist bias" is part of it & it is boring . Its also about pitching stuff up to a tame audience without putting a lot of journalistic effort or analysis into it. Even then its the self righteousness & shrill defensiveness when you call them on it that is the annoying part of it.That ' Time to Man Up''article a case in point. I am certainly not a troll or a misogynist. ,I just have an opinion about the profession that I have been in for over 30 years. I also take offence at the "its all so obvious" attitude of much younger contributors including those LW staff who haver never really been working lawyers. The alarming speed at which women reach for the misogynist label as a means of disengaging from the argument is a pretty sad. Gender equity has been trotted out to deflect criticism of some blatant cronyism & bias in favour of women. I am going to keep calling LW on it .Thats the thing about lawyers they aren't afraid to voice an opinion.

0
GD Wednesday, 18 March 2015

The problem is that anyone who criticizes Feminism and policies that promote women at the expense of men are automatically labelled misogynist. (A very extreme label) I agree with you I think a lot of those trolling comments you might see are just out of frustration with the lack of an alternate point of view presented in LW.LW has a obvious left wing/Feminist bias. And that's ok (as boring and repetitive as it is). The only problem is that most people can't tell the difference and read it as though it's actually legal news. Which it isn't.I doubt there is even one single lawyer on the staff at Lawyers Weekly. I too would like to see an alternate point of view on these debates.

0