Watch the winning entry

Hannah Klein, a politics and French graduate from Bristol University, was the clear winner this week in the inaugural The Times/Herbert Smith Student Advocacy Competition with her compelling discussion of the proposition Diversity: a band wagon or real issue? Her advocacy style and strong arguments brought acclaim from the judging panel (Mrs Justice Rafferty, who presented the prizes, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, Nigel Savage, chief executive of the College of Law, Frances Gibb, The Times, and Ian Gatt, QC, Herbert Smith).

“What we were looking for was a well-balanced approach to both the arguments and the oral presentation plus the ability to deal effectively with a series of penetrating questions from the judges,” Ian Gatt, chairman of the inclusivity group at Herbert Smith, said. “I am delighted to say that Hannah excelled in all three fields and handled some tough questioning particularly well.”

Klein, who has a first-class degree and is about to read law at Cambridge, faced stiff competition from five fellow finalists in what amounted — with one exception — to a collective and full-frontal assault on the narrowness of the legal Establishment. When the competition was launched in May the point was made that of 1,200 QCs about 1,120 are white and only 66 from ethnic minorities. Other startling statistics include that fewer than 10 per cent of High Court judges are female (although there are now two more, with QCs Sonia Proudman and Elizabeth Slade appointed last week) and partners in top law firms are overwhelmingly drawn from the usual suspects (I use that word advisedly).

Our finalists spelt out the adverse consequences of this unrepresentative make-up of the upper reaches of the profession. The whole (allegedly) prejudiced, blinkered conspiracy of the British legal system was summed up neatly by our winner: “When wealthy white men dole out justice to the rest, already daunting legal processes can seem totally impenetrable to the public. Those subject to the system are forced to judge whether justice can truly be equal for all when it is decided by the few.”

The point was echoed by Aba Osunsade: “Looking at the composition of the Queen’s Counsel, we see the legal profession in the eyes of the socially excluded who are disproportionately more at the behest of it: too white, too middle-class, too male and too straight.”

This analysis characterised the predominant view of our shortlisted entrants. Senior lawyers were regarded as being monochrome in terms of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. These were the criteria by which they, collectively, were judged — and by which they failed.

What was the consequence of this? Primarily the concern was about perception and empathy. “The legal profession must be seen as a reflection of society, including minorities, not as an institution alien from them,” Aba Osunsade said. “After all, perception is of utmost importance — justice must be seen to be done.” The theme was taken up by Terry McGuinness, of Nottingham Law School: “The lack of ethnic diversity and of lawyers from working-class backgrounds impacts upon the legal system’s perceived legitimacy.” He argued that the effectiveness of law, and in particular human rights, in addressing problems in our diverse society would be improved by “new perspectives of lawyers from communities that have known poverty, discrimination or political alienation”.

Not quite every finalist agreed. Ali Vass distinguished between the judiciary and the rest of the legal sector when debating the merits of diversity. “It is common knowledge that the fundamental rule of thumb for every barrister or judge is personal objectivity,” said joint second-placed Vass. “Judges must be rational, unbiased, objective, neutral, unprejudiced, above all, fair. Cultural diversity celebrates difference — the very thing that must be ignored when one steps up for the judiciary.”

It was a complaint that senior members of the Bar were too different from ordinary folk that formed the basis of Simon Purkis’s critique. “The dress codes of the profession; the old-fashioned language used in court; the predominance of Queen’s English. This is the intimidating façade that faces the diverse society now living in the United Kingdom. These traditions create a vicious circle. People who do not fit the mould at the outset feel marginalised by the images they see.”

So what could be done? “Diversity within the legal profession can be furthered by full transparency and diversity monitoring in the selection processes for training contracts, pupillages, tenancy, partnership and QCs, and making the information more readily available,” said joint second-placed Annabel Lee. “Law firms and chambers should be encouraged to look for their recruits from a wider range of backgrounds.”

The majority view, then, was clear. Diversity (or its absence) is a genuine cause of concern and no mere ephemeral fad. In reviewing the entries Ian Gatt, who gave a one-hour coaching session to each finalist, said he was heartened by what he had read and heard. “It’s encouraging that so many young people are concerned about the need for a more diverse profession especially at the top.”

Klein, who is also a winner of the English Speaking Union’s debating competition, is delighted at being £3,000 better off with the chance of a vacation placement at Herbert Smith. “This has been an incredible experience for me,” she said, “especially appearing before a panel of such distinguished judges.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure