| | | Effective PR

Judge's apparently sexist remarks irritate working fathers

Editorial Staff

A report in The Law Society's Gazette about a male Judge's comments to a women's group meeting has raised the hackles of working men in the solicitor's branch in England and Wales. So who is to blame? The judge for making the comments that can be rightly regarded as sexist or the Law Society which after decades of being "right on" or whatever the current phrase may have finally gone too far in its apparent approval of the Judge's comments? Or perhaps both.,

Lord Neuberger, formerly President of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, is reported (see https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/p... as follows: "female lawyers should tell judges if they cannot attend court at 9.30am because they are doing the school run, the former president of the Supreme Court has suggested."

To be fair, all the direct quotes attributed to the former President are far more balanced and, in the absence of actual evidence of what he said, the Gazette's report, which is editorialised, cannot be considered factual. But as reported it is enough to have had a number of men commenting that it is not only women who do the school run, that many men do it too.

But the alleged comments have raised other questions: some sa that having children is a lifestyle choice and, in effect, that the whole world cannot be expected to revolve around individuals who have made that choice. Others point out that judges have always been less than sympathetic with advocates who keep entire court-rooms full of expensive people inactive and that the school-run, which is to all intents and purposes, a personal errand should (one commenter said" akin to saying "I'll be late for court because I've a hairdressing appointment."

While some of the language may be intemperate, it is interesting to see that the usually cowardly male side of the profession has, on this issue at least, made some noise. Is this the last hurrah of the once proud profession now reduced to a mish-mash of politically correct policies which have led to something that is neither respected nor, frankly, particularly competent or is it the first salvo by those who can remember what being a solicitor stood for and wants a return to the days when solicitors were proud of their place in the community?