120 / 264
GAZETTE
JULY-AUGUST 1978
Union International Des Avocats,
Palais de Justice,
Bruxelles, Belgium
31st August, 1978.
Dear Sir,
I read with interest the article "Women and the Law"
at page 107 of your June issue.
The following text was my editorial which appeared in
the UIA Bulletin No. 4 of 1975, which your readers may
find pertinent.
THE WOMAN LAWYER
1975 was United Nations' International Woman's
Year. Has the woman lawyer free access to the legal
profession? Are there any restrictions or discriminations
against women practising in the profession? Need the
legal profession have participated in 1975 International
Woman's Year?
We all know the answers to the first three questions
and these answers dictate the answer to the fourth
question, which is an unequivocable yes.
The United Nations is seeking to promote both
national and international action is eliminating forms of
discrimination against women. As a non-governmental
organisation of the United Nations, the U.I.A. has of
course played its part and indeed co-Operated with the
International Bar Association to avoid duplication of
effort. Our efforts originally initiated by Vice-President,
Ernest ARENDT, were then led by our very effective
and charming Genevieve AUGENDRE, whose position
in our organisation proves that we are not entirely male
dominated.
But, is there one present or past President, Vice-
President, Secretary-General, Assistant Secretary or
Treasurer from the fairer sex? The fact that there has not
been is not in itself a condemnation of the U.I.A., bearing
in mind that most positions in the U.I.A. result from
candidates being put forward by their own group
members.
If you are a man try answering the following questions:
1. Would you prefer to be judged in court by a man or a
woman?
2. Would you prefer to consult a man or a woman
lawyer on a matrimonial dispute?
3. Would you prefer to consult a man or a woman on a
commercial problem?
4. When you engage a student or newly qualified lawyer
in your office, which sex would you prefer where there
are two equal candidates?
5. Would your answer to this last question be the same if
they were to receive the same salary?
6. Would you prefer to work for a man or a woman?
Now assuming that your answer to all these questions
is not "no preference", ask yourself why.
You many attempt to rationalise your answer. Women
do not so easily gain a client's confidence; they may
become pregnant, etc.
The simple answer is, of course, prejudice — prejudice
in general, or prejudice in not accepting the place of
women in Society, the responsibilities which they carry
out to Society, and the responsibilities which Society must
accept in their regard.
This editorial poses questions to man, but it has to be
admitted that even a woman may have similar prejudices
against other women.
These prejudices must be fought by the legal profession
in particular and by Society in general. Women have a
right on pure merit to every position in the profession
occupied by a man. They have the right to equal
remuneration and so far as concerns the attitude of
clients, the clients must be educated to accepting their
equal role. Not such a difficult problem, once the lawyers
accept that their role is .equal.
It should finally be admitted that this editorial is written
by a man who will also admit that when answering the six
questions posed above, not all his answers were "no
preference".
S.A.C.
The author of your article "for reasons not altogether
abstruse" preferred to remain anonymous. For similar
reasons I have no such reservations.
Yours faithfully,
Stanley A. Crossick, Secretary-General,
International Union of Lawyers.
N.B. Any communication on this matter should be
addressed to: 3 Park Crescent Mews East, London WIN
5HB. Tel.: 4936637.
11th August, 1978.
Dear Sir,
The letter from your male correspondent in the last
issue on the above subject appeared reasoned and logical.
It was neither accurate nor fair however. I would make
the following points in reply:—
1. your correspondent regards it as a fault that a
female should have chosen a legal qualification as
providing the basis for a more challenging career than an
arts degree. Why for heaven's sake? How many
successful Solicitors as youths of seventeen possessed a
genuine interest in the study of juris prudence?
2. Female Solicitors are accused of not working to the
satisfaction of clients. This is an amazing attack upon the
female character generally. I do not wish to err by
generalising in turn, but I feel that a woman will be at
least as conscientious as a man in attending to the
business of her clients. Constantly to deprive an assistant
Solicitor of personal contact with any client however and
to restrict him to researching abstruse points of law for
his employer is to* abuse his enthusiasm for the job. How
can a young person work to the satisfaction of a client if
he has never made that client's acquaintance?
3. I do not wish to start a mud slinging match about
the comparative office hours worked by males and
females. Hours of work differ from person to person and
bear no relation to the sex of the worker. It is as foolish to
suggest that all lady Solicitors powder their noses and
leave the office promptly at 5.30 whatever the crisis, as to
reply that the female midday break is of shorter duration.
4. Your correspondent complains that the lady
Solicitor does not occupy her leisure hours in improving
her knowledge of law. I would submit that any female
would be as anxious to read up on relevant legal
developments as a male. However, any Solicitor who
(concluded on page 122)
120