i feel some sympathy for the firm. I mean she got pregnant in her final seat.

so?

Quite right, you don't want to waste money on someone who won't be focused 100% on their work. Kids, life outside the office? No way, live to work! Then you die

Andrew King isn't a real estate partner...

Thanks anonymous user 24/05/2013 12:24

I suppose women shouldn't really work away from home, anyway.

Poor comment from Travers: “we have complete confidence in the integrity and professionalism of Andrew and Julian" i.e. they don't believe that they discriminated against Katie.

Then, "we will take on board the lessons to be learned" - what lessons can be taken on board if the firm didn't think that they discriminated on the basis of pregnancy?

And this is the worst, in my opinion: "We sincerely regret that one of our former trainees was left unhappy from her experience at the firm." Left unhappy?! Talk about minimising the problem.

Why on earth would one go and get pregnant just before finishing their TC? There are thousands of law grads desperate to get a TC who wouldn't dream of getting pregnant just before finishing it, assuming they ever got one in the first place. On this rare occasion, my sympathy is with the firm.

I too have a great deal of sympathy for the firm. Far too many women become precious princesses when they find themselves pregnant leaving colleagues to pick up the pieces and constantly cover for them. Maybe if this lady had been a bit more focussed on her work - and anyone reading this site knows that there any tens of thousands of eager, bright and talented youngsters coming out of law school that would have given anything to be in her position - she wouldn't have found herself an unemployable NQ as I can't see firms queuing up to hire her.

Well done to her for suing them. It really is quite courageous.

Is that image really necessary? You wouldn't normally post pictures of naked women on here, just because she's pregnant does that make it ok?
Pregnant and grumpy

Although you obviously can't discriminate on grounds of pregnancy, the fact that she got pregant while on a contract surely shows a severe lack of commonsense. If she had simply held off for a few more months (presuming she got an NQ position (a big 'if' from the evidence of her performance)) she would have had the firm over a barrel (and if they had fired her then she would have had a better chance of significant damages).

I would have fired her for her lack of foresight.

Can sympathise with the firm but SO what!!! Deal with it! If she's good, then she's good. If woman are going to be given a proper chance in the City, then mentality, behaviour and working culture needs to accommadate the fact that woman, at one stage or another, will get pregnant. One might argue that it is better that she gets it done early. Boys - if this was your girlfriend or your wife, would you not have more sympathy for her?

I am a male Legal Counsel at a FTSE 100 company and I find some of the comments criticising the Trainee and sympathising with the firm disgraceful. No employee should be treated any differently simply because they are pregnant. I do not use Travers, but if I did or if they approached my organisation to pitch for work, then discriminatory behaviour of this kind would ensure that I did not use them moving forward. I would also say that it is extremely commendable that the Trainee stood up against the firm. This would have been an extremely difficult and scary decision to make and in my view, reflects the kind of lawyer that I want representing my organisation and the kind of lawyer that firms should be recruiting.

Anon @ 14:46 - If you are counsel for a FTSE 100 company then you would surely realise that the only thing Travers did differently to any other business is defend themselves rather than settle. The real question is why this claim ever made it into the light of day in the first place.

I don't know if anyone here writing in support of the firm has ever had a sex education lesson, or read the back of a condom packet, but has it occurred to you that she may not have planned her pregnancy?

In any case: as farfetched as it may seem, women sometimes get pregnant. Sometimes they plan it, sometimes they don't, but either way, it happens. As the facts of life go this is a pretty basic one. The firm should be able to deal with this eventuality when arises.

Also - anonymous at 3.57 - agreed!

PS I mean, of course, Anonymous at 13.57. Sorry.

Nice picture: I like pregnant women.

Anon @ 15.13 - I do not agree with your view that all businesses operate in this way. Any organisation that operates in this way is backward in its thinking and strategy. It is a shame that we, as lawyers, seem to accept this behaviour as the norm and therefore, perpetuate this abhorrent form of discrimination. Pregnancy is an everyday part of life and affects us all. We should therefore be supporting women rather than adding to the stone-age perception that many senior male lawyers seem to have.

After spending years at school and university this woman deserved to be trained during her training contract, it is that simple. The law firm in question should not be sympathised with the training contract given was not an act of charity I am sure they choose the best person they could - so why should they show such little commitment to her in a completely forseeable situation? Law is not kind to women in terms of biological timings and this might have been her only chance to be a parent, what reasonable law firm would expect her to give that up? Also if this was an accidental pregnancy what was she meant to do - abort for the law? Men don't have to make that choice, if daddy was a fellow trainee he would have been ok, this is a major issue and law firms need to act within the law as much as any other organisation, indeed more should be expected of them in terms of compliance. @ 15.13 I am an in house solicitor for a major retailer and think that a law firm which behaved like this would stand a good chance of loosing our work. We are interested in our work being done by diverse and properly supported individuals and pay enough to be able to expect this.

She must be a good lawyer, she has somehow managed to win a case based on the fiction that trainees are guaranteed jobs at the end of their contracts. From my experience the offer of a NQ job is a subjective assessment based on a mysterious process. Given there was no right to a job in the first place it seems incredible that she has managed to win a claim for discrimination. All trainees that do not gets jobs are discriminated against in one way or anyother, but I suppose most can't guess at the reasons why so easily.

What on earth were they thinking hiring a fertile potential young breeder in the first place?

This case shows the limitations that law firms place on women's professional development in the legal profession once they have kids. I have huge sympathy for the trainee in question.

@ 14.46 Indiscriminate use of the phrase 'moving forward'. Please undergo retraining immediately.

Are people below actually advocating the view that getting pregnant makes one nsuitable to be awarded a job as a solicitor because it shows a lack of commitment? What century do you live in? The firm were clearly in the wrong and have egg on their faces here.

I wonder how she proved she was good enough to get a job. Surely they weren't stupid enough to offer her a job and then take it away!?Terrible behaviour. I do think law firms could make things easier to have babies as a junior though. Whilst out on maternity, simply turn off the pqe escalator. If you miss your first year as an NQ it would be so so hard to come back and perform as a one year qualified and do well. That's probably unlawful though.

anonymous user
24/05/2013 14:28

If woman are going to be given a proper chance in the City, then mentality, behaviour and working culture needs to accommadate the fact that woman, at one stage or another, will get pregnant.


Err, not all women WILL get pregnant. Some of us have chosen not to procreate, or can't procreate. I take your general point but many women prefer not to be identified by virtue of the function of our ovaries.

I was interviewed by Travers' litigation dept a few years ago. Never have I come across a bunch of chippier and ruder wannabes.

24/05@16:08 - I would expect my in house solicitor(s) to be able to spell or at the very least to be able to use a spell checker.

29/05 @ 20.33

If I was doing proper legal work I would of course proof read, this is just a forum.

Fun Fact - if you click really quickly on the thumbs up or thumbs down buttons, you can basically vote 1000 times. Might want to get that looked at ROF.......

I can't believe some of the outrageous comments. You have no idea what the circumstances were. But maybe just maybe the pregnancy was unplanned (if she was career focused enough to get a training contract it's likely that this was a surprise), and if she couldn't go through with an abortion who is anyone to judge? Perhaps the grandparents would have taken care of the baby or maybe she would have paid for care.. and ANYWAY you have more energy as a young mother than as an older one (generally speaking)... and maybe she was an older trainee who had chased a TC for a few years and wasn't going to compromise on work/family. Maybe there was a STAY AT HOME dad... shocking really to think outside the box. and shame on the firm. pathetic response.

I can't believe some of the outrageous comments. You have no idea what the circumstances were. But maybe just maybe the pregnancy was unplanned (if she was career focused enough to get a training contract it's likely that this was a surprise), and if she couldn't go through with an abortion who is anyone to judge? Perhaps the grandparents would have taken care of the baby or maybe she would have paid for care.. and ANYWAY you have more energy as a young mother than as an older one (generally speaking)... and maybe she was an older trainee who had chased a TC for a few years and wasn't going to compromise on work/family. Maybe there was a STAY AT HOME dad... shocking really to think outside the box. and shame on the firm. pathetic response.