Society in general and the legal profession in particular, are not lacking in strong female role models.
Recently, however, serious concern has been raised by the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) and other organisations at the unwarranted and scurrilous attacks that have been levelled against Public Protector, advocate Thuli Madonsela, particularly after the release of her report ‘Secure in Comfort’, and Pretoria High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa following her judgment in the Oscar Pistorius matter (see 22 of this issue). One wonders whether the same level of criticism and insensitive personal comment would have been generated had the incumbents been male?
In various news items in this issue, the challenges faced by female lawyers are raised repeatedly at a number of different forums. Granted, there are those that are of the view that female attorneys and candidate attorneys do not require ‘special’ treatment. But there is no evidence that special treatment is what female practitioners expect. However, in the past few months the same concerns have been echoed across various platforms – at a session on the challenges faced by female lawyers at the SADC Lawyers Association conference (see 18 of this issue), at the South African chapter of the International Association of Women Judges’ (IAWJ) conference (see 6 of this issue), in a survey conducted by the LSSA Gender Committee, as well as in a report published in September by the Foundation for Human Rights and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand.
The challenges faced by female lawyers are startlingly the same throughout the region and in small and large firms: The patriarchal nature of the profession, sexual harassment; the pressures created by the multifaceted care roles that women are obliged to take – caring for children, parents and extended families – which need to be recognised and properly acknowledged by their firms and workplaces; gender stereotyping in practice areas, as well as the challenges in reaching leadership and decision-making roles within law firms and in the structures of the organised legal profession.
Gauteng High Court Judge President Dunstan Mlambo noted this at the IAWJ conference when he said: ‘Very competent and able women practitioners are forced to take up legal positions away from practice and in government due to the dictates of their personal environments.’
The Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) is conducting research on the lack of gender transformation in the judiciary, taking into account systemic issues in the profession, as the pool from which judges are drawn. The CGE indicates that the lack of transformation is not only applicable to permanent judicial posts only, but it is also reflected in the appointment of acting judges which, on the face of it, also seem to favour men more than women. It has noted that that gender transformation in the profession is not receiving priority and reflects the slow pace of women representation and participation.
With the Judicial Service Commission interviews of candidates for the Bench this month, the dearth of suitable female candidates will again be a talking point in the media. In the past four years, the JSC has appointed 155 candidates as judges; 40 have been women (see 10 of this issue).
Of course, suitably qualified and experienced female candidates must be available and willing to be interviewed by the JSC. But even before that stage, women must be available for acting appointments, and here the role of Judges President – with the assistance of practitioners – is crucial in identifying and nurturing appropriate candidates.
But what is the profession itself doing? Is there a lack of vision or a lack of will to tackle the challenges head on?
The challenges faced by female lawyers appear stuck in a catch 22 situation – every August, around Womens’ Day, the issues are canvassed and ventilated at various forums and then everything abates again until the conferences the following August. In addition, when they are discussed, it is at ‘women lawyers’ conferences’ and separate, smaller, dedicated sessions attended by female delegates. It is seldom in the plenary sessions at general meetings where all practitioners – male and female alike – participate in charting the way forward.
We know what the problems are; what are the solutions?
October and November traditionally sees the attorneys’ profession taking stock of developments that have impacted on it throughout the year. Five of the six LSSA constituent members – the four statutory provincial law societies and the Black Lawyers Association – will be holding annual general meetings during these two months, while the sixth, the National Association of Democratic Lawyers will hold its AGM early next year.
Attorneys and candidate attorneys are urged to attend these meetings as not only is it an opportunity to touch base with colleagues, it is also your platform to raise concerns and ask your Council members for information and feedback. The profession is in the process of systemic change with the Legal Practice Bill looming, and ancillary matters that will arise from it, such as the change in the way attorneys charge fees (see also 40 of this issue), community service (see 37) and the uniform rules, that will require serious attention.
These are also ideal forums to brainstorm implementable strategies that will level the playing fields for women to participate fully in the profession that they have chosen, but that sadly, many are forced to abandon.
This article was first published in De Rebus in 2014 (Oct) DR 3.