In October 2011, Brenda Hale, then the only female justice on the Supreme Court, spoke at a diversity forum sponsored by law firm Norton Rose, expressing regret that so many of her colleagues were male judges. did. -Gallick Club only.
Members of the club at the time included the Chief Justice, the three Supreme Court justices who sat alongside Hale, and an estimated 25% of the most senior male judges in England and Wales. “I think it’s quite shocking that so many of my colleagues belong to the Garrick Club and they don’t understand what all the fuss is about,” she said. Hale is the third woman and first woman to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
It took 12 and a half years, but the four judges finally seemed to understand her meaning and resigned from the bench.
What happened that changed their mind? Why did they feel they could ignore the clear, consistent and repeated warnings of the most senior woman in British legal history for so long?
All four come just days after The Guardian published the names of 60 influential figures in Britain’s establishment who were members of the club, which has drawn criticism for decades for denying women entry. I resigned. They included leaders in the arts, politics and Whitehall.
Labor MP Harriet Harman, a lawyer and former Labor deputy leader, said it was clear the decision was driven by discomfort at being named as a member in the media.
“If they feel embarrassed to have their name associated with a men’s-only club, then that’s a sign that the Garrick era is over,” she says.
As for why it took so long, she said: “This kind of male privileged position is deeply ingrained. But the usual pattern is that when this kind of thing is challenged, people quickly stop believing that it used to be that way.” .”
Other senior male lawyers became sensitive to Garrick’s ban on women members decades ago. Prominent human rights lawyer Anthony Lester resigned his membership in the club after the vote to admit women in 2006 failed.
Helena Kennedy said: “I am very pleased that the judges are reflecting on why it is so inappropriate to belong to a club that excludes women.”
She said she was shocked to find that the UK was so far behind the US in this regard. “I remember being taken to a club in Washington by a federal judge. When I commented on the presence of women, he made it clear that a U.S. judge would not be allowed to belong to a club that excluded women. We did – and that was decades ago. Representatives of justice must visibly adhere to the values on which we seek to base our society.”
Women lawyers have been trying to draw attention to the issue for years, arguing that the high concentration of senior male barristers, judges and lawyers who regularly gather at the club is symptomatic of broader diversity issues across the profession. I’ve done it.
In 2015, then-Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption (also a member of the Garrick Club) said any attempt to speed up the process of achieving gender equality in the senior judiciary would have “horrible results”. He said that this could lead to unreasonable feelings towards male candidates. “The cards were stacked against them,” sparked an outcry among female lawyers.
In 2022, more than 300 senior lawyers signed an online petition. womenatthegarrickclub.org It claimed the club had contributed to the “serious underrepresentation of women at the top of the legal profession”.
For decades, equal numbers of men and women have studied law, but equality has not been maintained throughout lawyers’ careers. Only 20% of the Crown Counsel (KC), the most senior barrister in England and Wales, are women, and only two of the 12 Supreme Court judges are women.bar council research has shown Male lawyers earn more than female lawyers at every professional level.
Herman pointed out how many male commentators had dismissed the uproar over Garrick’s membership as inconsequential.
“Why do we seem to think everything about women’s empowerment is trivial and doesn’t need to change?” she asked. “The idea that men tell women that their exclusion doesn’t matter is patronizing, condescending and disgusting.”
