Nova Scotia Barristers Society Practicing Law: Minority Groups. Final Report

Transcription

1 Nova Scotia Barristers Society Practicing Law: Minority Groups Race Relations Committee, Nova Scotia Barristers Society Final Report June 23, 2008

2 Contents Background and Purpose of the Survey...4 Survey Design...4 Procedures...4 Participant Group...5 Figure 1: Participant Age...5 Table 1: Participant Annual Income...5 Employment Status...6 Table 2: Employment Status...6 Ethnicity...7 Table 3: Participant Ethnicity...7 Education in Law...7 Table 4: Year of graduation from law school...8 Table 5: Factors influencing decision to study law...9 Education prior to law school...9 Table 6: Highest academic level achieved prior to law school...10 Table 7: Discrimination or Bias experienced in Law School...11 Articling Experiences...12 Table 8: Articling Applications in Nova Scotia...12 Difficulties in finding articles in Nova Scotia?...13 Feedback on Articling experiences...13 Discrimination as an articled clerk...14 Table 9: Experiences of Discrimination as an Articled Clerk in Nova Scotia...15 Hiring back after completion of articles...15 Work Experiences of Law Practitioners...16 Call to the Bar...16 Table 10: Practicing Law since call to the Nova Scotia bar...17 Practising Law Page

3 Areas of Law representing components of participant s practice...18 Figure 2: Areas of Law representing participant's practice...19 Degree of Satisfaction with law practice...19 Table 11: Participant level of satisfaction with practical aspects of work...21 Challenges faced as a lawyer...21 Employer Policies...23 Aspects in life influencing Career Choice...24 Experiences of discrimination in the work place...25 Taking action about discrimination experienced?...26 Role of the Nova Scotia barrister s society...27 Box 1: The role of the NSBS in relation to discriminatory practices in the law profession...27 Box 2: Suggestions for policy and programmes...28 Recommendations...29 Annex 1: Participant Comments on Articling Experiences P age

4 Background and Purpose of the Survey According to a Race Relations Committee interoffice memorandum (August 9, 2006; RRC Survey ), this survey is the second survey of its kind conducted by the Nova Scotia Barrister s Society (henceforth NSBS). In the mid 1990 s a survey was done with African and East Indian members of the Bar Society and resulted in a report titled Pursuing The Law: The Experience and Perceptions of African, East Indian, and Caucasian Canadians in Becoming Lawyers and in Practicing in Nova Scotia. Following this, in the Race Relations committee (henceforth RRC) decided to do a survey of Aboriginal and Visible Minority members of the society so as to 1. update the information found in the first survey and 2. collect data regarding Aboriginal members. Survey Design The Society has been collecting self identification questionnaires of articling clerks since 2001 but this had not captured other members. Therefore the Committee decided to distribute a self identification questionnaire through the Society Record with the hopes that the remaining members would selfidentified. Following the self identification questionnaire, a survey was placed on line at the Survey Monkey website. This survey was designed to capture data relating to Aboriginal and Visible Minority people and was titled Nova Scotia Barristers Society Practicing Law: Minority Groups. A notice was then sent to those people who had self identified asking them to fill the questionnaire. As well, these members were asked that if they knew of anyone who self identify as Aboriginal or visible minority but who did not receive the notice to have them contact the Equity Officer. As well, a notice was send out via Inforum letting people know that if they self identified as Aboriginal or visible minority and they wanted to fill out the survey then they should contact the Equity Officer. Procedures As the NSBS had been collecting self identification questionnaires of articling clerks since 2001, the committee distributed another self identification questionnaire by the Society Record with the expectation that remaining members would self identify. The survey was placed online at and a notice was sent to people who had self identified as Aboriginal or visible minority asking them to complete the questionnaire. In addition, potential participants were asked if they knew of anyone else who would self identify as Aboriginal or visible minority but who did not receive the notice to ask them to contact the Equity Officer. Also, a notice was sent via Inforum to let people know if they identified as Aboriginal or visible minority about the survey and if they wished to participate in the survey, they were directed to contact the Equity Officer. 4 P age

5 Response rates, according to the memorandum, were rather poor and notices were repeated. A total of 24 people participate in this survey in which 54 were invited to participate. Participant Group There are twenty four participants in this study. Eighteen participants chose to disclose personal details such as age, income, and so forth. Of these 18 participants, ages range from 26 yrs to 61 yrs 1. The median age is 38 yrs. Thirteen participants are female and five are male. The first language of these 18 participants is English. Figure 1: Participant Age Number of participants Age Age Age Age Age The majority of these participants work in the Halifax Regional municipality (n=15), and one participant works in the Southwestern region. One participant indicates they are currently employed and working in Australia, while another is on sick leave. Income ranges from less than $20,000 to $120,000 or more. A third of participants (n=6) are earning in the $20 to 40k per annum range, while another third (n=6) are earning in the $60 to 80k per annum range. An additional three participants earn upwards of $100,000 per annum. Participant s income can be seen in Table 1. Table 1: Participant Annual Income Income Per Annum Number of Percentage of 1 The ages of individual participants are as follows: 61 (n=1), 49 (n=1), 48 (n=1), 45 (n=1), 44 (n=1), 43 (n=2), 39 (n=1), 38 (n=1), 37 (n=1), 36 (n=1), 35 (n=1), 34 (n=1), 33 (n=1), 32 (n=1), 31 (n=1), 29 (n=1), 26 (n=1). 5 P age

6 Participants participant group* Less than $20, % $20,000 39, % $40,000 59, % $60,000 79, % $80,000 99,999 $100,000 $119, % $120,000 or more 1 5.6% Total 18 *This percentage is based on the 18 participants who chose to disclose their income Employment Status Of those who chose to indicate their employment status (n=18), the majority (n=14; 77.8%) are employed and practising law. It is important to note that two of the employed law practitioners also indicate that they are completing their articling. In addition, one participant is employed in a non practising but law related position. This participant currently works in a government agency or commission, however, would prefer to be working with the federal government. Also, one other participant is employed in a non practising and non law related field. This participant is currently self employed but doesn t want to be. A further two participants indicate that they are not employed. Table 2: Employment Status Status Number of Participants Percentage Employed and practising law % Employed and non practising law but law related 1 5.6% Employed and non practising and non law related 1 5.6% Not employed % n=18 6 P age

7 Ethnicity Fourteen participants indicate that they are a member of a visible minority. Six participants identify themselves as African Nova Scotian, three identify as Black or of African descent, and two of South Asian descent. One participant identifies as East Asian, one Caribbean/Central American and a final participant, West Indian/Canadian. Table 3: Participant Ethnicity Ethnicity Number of Participants Percentage of participant group* African Nova Scotian % Mi kmaq 4 22% Black/African descent % South Asian descent % East Asian descent 1 5.6% Caribbean/Central American West Indian (Caribbean)/Canadian 1 5.6% 1 5.6% Total 18 *This percentage is based on the 18 participants who chose to disclose their ethnicity. Overall, it is somewhat troubling that there is such a small participant group in this survey of minority groups practicing law in Nova Scotia. Indeed, the small number of participants makes the ability to find statistically significant connections difficult. It also makes it challenging to draw conclusions based on the data. Also worrying is a lack of representation by immigrants with international qualifications in law and barrister s who may have changed career paths due to challenges in the legal profession or who may have moved to practice in another province of Canada. Education in Law The majority of participants attended universities in Atlantic Canada 21 participants attended Dalhousie University and one attended the University of New Brunswick. In addition, one participant studied in Ontario at the University of Ottawa and one participant studied in Vancouver at the University of British Columbia. One participant graduated as early as 1975, however most participants graduated after the year 2000 (n=18). See table 3 for graduation years from law school. 7 Page

8 Table 4: Year of graduation from law school Year of graduation Number of Participants Percentage of participant group % % % % % % Total % 12.5% 20.8% 8.3% 20.8% 4.2% Why did you decide to study law? The most important reason why participants decided to study law was their desire to address issues of social justice. Thirteen participants (54.2%) indicated that addressing issues of social justice was very important, while seven participants indicated this was somewhat important (29%). Serving their community was also a large factor behind the decision to study law, as 10 participants indicate this was very important. It was felt to be most interesting as a career option for at least nine participants who indicated this was very important to them. Similarly, fulfilling their academic interests was an important factor for eight participants in their decision to study law. Financial or income considerations in relation to studying law were somewhat important for 13 participants and very important for only four participants. Gaining social status through studying law is clearly not a factor for participants in their decision to study law, as only four participants indicated this 8 P age

9 was somewhat important, while the majority (n=13) indicated it was not very important. An additional six participants indicated this was not applicable. Table 5: Factors influencing decision to study law Reason to study law Very important Somewhat important To address issues of 13 7 social justice To serve my community Financial/income 4 13 consideration To fulfill academic 8 12 interests Most interesting as a 9 11 career option Social status 4 Other factors which influenced the decision to study law include, for example, the challenge, networking, Trying to find right career path, as well as job security and ability to contribute to society. Two participants mention personal experiences which led them to study law. For example, one wrote I had very supportive teachers over the years who suggested I pursue a career in law. Another participant wrote that they were motivated by [a] personal child custody situation. Education prior to law school The majority of participants (70.8%; n=17) indicate that they had acquired an undergraduate university degree prior to entering law school. In looking at the highest academic level achieved prior to law school, two participants had a community college diploma and another two participants had completed some undergraduate university courses. Fifteen participants had completed a university degree and four participants had acquired a postgraduate university degree. One other participant indicates that they completed an MBA degree prior to law school. Another participant indicates that they had even acquired two undergraduate degrees prior to attending law school. 9 P age

10 Table 6: Highest academic level achieved prior to law school Level Achieved Number of Participants Percentage of Participant group* High School diploma or GED Community college diploma 2 8.3% Some undergraduate university courses Undergraduate university degree Postgraduate university degree 2 8.3% % % MBA 1 4.2% Total 24 Discrimination at Law School In general, it appears that many participants experienced or observed some form of discrimination or bias during their years at law school. Indeed, 70.8% (n=17) of participants indicated they had experienced or observed discrimination or bias, while 29.2% (n=7) indicated they had not. A participant s year of graduation appears to have no relationship with the experience of discrimination or bias at law school. Eleven of the 17 participants experienced, at least occasionally, some insensitivity to aboriginal or racial issues. Social isolation was also occasionally experienced by nine participants. Derogatory statements or jokes were also experienced occasionally by eight participants. However, racist slurs and demeaning remarks were never experienced by the majority of participants (n=9), and occasionally experienced by eight participants. The most frequent source of this discrimination was fellow law students, according to 11 of 16 participants who answered this question. To a lesser extent, faculty within the school were also a source of discrimination, though only occasionally for 11 participants. Administrative staff was a frequent source of discrimination for one participant, an occasional source for three participants, while for the majority (n=12), they were never a source of discrimination. Other sources of discrimination at high levels of institutional authority were identified by three participants as follows: Government at the time later provided an apology (2002 law graduate), University president and vice president (2002 law graduate) and former Director and funding committee of IBM programme (2005 law graduate). 10 P age

11 This data suggests that there remains much that needs to be done by way of educating law students to be more sensitive to aboriginal or racial issues as well as be more inclusive in social and academic settings. The repetition of derogatory statements or jokes as well as racist slurs or demeaning remarks, despite their being occasionally experienced, should be of particular concern to law schools as well as the barristers society. Table 7: Discrimination or Bias experienced in Law School From of discrimination or bias Insensitivity to aboriginal/racial issues Frequently experienced Occasionally experienced Never experienced Social isolation Derogatory statements or jokes Racist slurs and demeaning 8 9 remarks Excluded/ignored in academic setting Evidently, particular experiences of racism or discrimination are also experienced within the classroom, as two participants indicate in their comments. Such negative experiences can remain in people s awareness and may contribute to feelings of marginalization. Participants remarked on their experiences with discrimination and bias as follows: Basic Hostility, diferential treatment (2002 law graduate). In one class, the Professor looked at me and asked me to teach the class about a particular subject [because] they did not fully understand it (2004 law graduate). Racial slurs used in exam material (Just once) (2003 law graduate). [I] was made to feel less Aboriginal or eligible for assistance in IBM programme (former Dir) because I identify as a Metis (of Mi'kmaq and Wampanoag descent) as opposed to status or nonstatus Indian (2005 law graduate). 11 P age

12 Articling Experiences The majority of participants began articles immediately to two months after their graduation from law school (70.8%; n=17). One participant began articles two to six months after, and another began six months to a year after. In addition, two participants began one to two years after school (ID8&23) and another two participants began two to three years following law school. One participant also began articles more than three years after finishing school (2005 law graduate). In addition, the majority of participants applied for articles in Nova Scotia (91.7%; n=22). Of the two remaining participants who did not apply for articles in Nova Scotia, one indicated that they instead articled in Ontario and commented: I did not wish to return immediately to NS and I wanted the benefits of a Bay Street articling experience (2002 law graduate). Of the 22 participants who applied in Nova Scotia, 21 participants indicated the number of articling applications they submitted in a range from 0 to 60. The average number of applications submitted is approximately 16 (mean=15.57; n=21). However, over half of participants submitted five or less applications (n=12), which may indicate issues to do with accessibility to work. Of those who answered (n=18), the average number of first interviews received is three (mean=3.44; n=18). The average number of second interviews received is one (mean=1.19; n=21). The average number of offers received is also one (mean=1.18; n=22). The majority of participants received one offer, however three participants received two offers and one participant received three offers. Table 8: Articling Applications in Nova Scotia Number of Articling Applications submitted Number of Participants n=21 Therefore, of the 22 participants who applied for articles in Nova Scotia, all report that they completed their articles in Nova Scotia. It would appear that the majority received their first choice when it comes to their articling position. Seventeen participants indicate they accepted a position which was their first choice, two participants accepted their second choice, and three participants accepted their third choice or above. 12 P age

13 Of these 22 participants, 41.7% (n=10) articled in a Private firm, while 45.8% (n=11) articled with the government: 7 at the provincial level, 2 in legal aid, and 2 with the federal government, while 1 articled with a sole practitioner. No participants articled in municipal government, in a government agency/commission, community law offices, corporate/in house or with an Indian band or Aboriginal organization. For the ten participants who articled with a Private firm, the size of firm ranged from 5 to 95 lawyers practicing in the firm 2. Difficulties in finding articles in Nova Scotia? Participants were asked whether they experienced difficulties in finding articles in Nova Scotia due to a range of factors. The most interesting finding is that while the majority of participants answered no they did not experience difficulties with respect to age, gender and so forth, only eight participants answered decisively that race was not a factor. Instead, many participants (n=10; 45.5%) were unsure whether their difficulties in finding articles were related to race. Similarly, eight participants were unsure whether difficulties were related to their ethnic background. Another eight participants were unsure whether their age resulted in difficulties in finding articles. Overall, about a fifth of participants (n=4; 18%) affirmed that they experienced difficulties in finding articles due to either their gender or race or ethnic background. Of those who identified their gender (n=17), all of those experiencing difficulties related to gender were female (n=3). Finally, two participants experienced difficulties due to age and parental status. Feedback on Articling experiences Of those who answered (n=19), the majority of participants were satisfied with their Nova Scotia articling experience (n=11; 57.9%) or very satisfied (n=6; 31.6%). However, two participants (10.5%) indicated they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Of these two participants who were ambivalent on this issue, one stated: Was not given broad exposure to practise of law. Not given much responsibility. Did [mostly] research and background work. Certain work went to favoured clerks (1989 law graduate). The other participant wrote: Articling is very different from practicing law it is a necessary experience but doesn't necessarily prepare you for practicing (1997 law graduate). It appears that both participants felt they had an articling experience that did not adequately expose them to their field or provide them with enough preparation for the practice of law. Eighteen participants chose to comment on their articling experience, and their answers help to understand factors which led to their satisfaction. (See Annex 1 for all participant comments in answer to question 22). 2 Participants stated that the number of lawyers practicing in their firm as follows: 5, 6, 15, 18, 32, 40, 60, 95, and large firm. 13 P age

14 Participants who were very satisfied with their articling experience (n=6) commented on the provision of working opportunity and respectful treatment by other lawyers. For example, one participant writes, I had a very positive articling experience as the lawyers I worked with were very fair and full of integrity. They treated me with respect and judged me on the job I did and not my race (1995 law graduate). Another participant writes, My principal was excellent. My rotations were varied across a wide range of areas. I feel like I got a well rounded articling experience, with the opportunity to have some autonomy over my own client departments, files and projects (2005 law graduate). Participants who were satisfied with their articling experience (n=11), assert that they had good exposure to a variety of tasks and areas of law, and benefited greatly from this experience. One writes: Have had exposure to a variety of areas of law, court appearances, research, clientele, conferences and contacts and have benefited greatly from same (2005 law graduate). Another writes: My articling experience is no different than my fellow articled clerks in the sense that I was exposed to many different areas of law. I enjoyed my exper[i]ence and learned a great deal. I did find it a little dissatisfying because I am the only Black articled clerk or even lawyer at the firm. So, at times you need someone to talk to and you do not have it. (2005 law graduate) However, a few participants point to some challenges: It took so long to find an articling position, that I was just happy to be employed. I was satisfied with my work done for the firm. All along I was also informed that my work was very good. However, I also found that my mistakes were magnified as compared to my colleagues who made the same mistakes (2004 law graduate). Another participant states: I gained a wealth of experience. I was well respected by fellow clerks and lawyers. I did experience some difficulty with staff that I think may be related to these issues being discussed (not taking instructions, not the same level of respect). Overall, [a] good experience (2003 law graduate). These two comments suggest that while they experienced respect amongst lawyers and clerks, there was some differential treatment towards them in relationships with staff or increased scrutiny when making mistakes similar to that of other colleagues. (See Annex 1 for all participant comments related to articling experience). Discrimination as an articled clerk Participants were asked to indicate whether they frequently, occasionally or never experienced a list of different discriminations, such as cultural insensitivity by other articled students. Of those who responded to this question (n=22), eight participants indicated they never experienced any form of discrimination as an articled clerk. Of the remaining participants (n=14), there are some occasional and frequent experiences of discrimination, as seen in Table 8. One 2002 law school graduate frequently experienced almost all forms of discrimination listed, including discrimination based on being Aboriginal or visible minority, demeaning remarks and cultural insensitivity by lawyers or staff in the firm. However, the participant s written description of their articling experience is a positive one and does not address any experience of discrimination. 14 P age

15 Amongst forms of discrimination occasionally experienced, six participants experienced occasional cultural insensitivity by lawyers or staff in the firm, and another six participants occasionally experienced demeaning remarks. Five participants also indicated they were occasionally subject to racist slurs, and four participants were occasionally discriminated against in relation to the amount or degree of client contact they had and through practices of favouritism in work assigned. Table 9: Experiences of Discrimination as an Articled Clerk in Nova Scotia Form of discrimination Favouritism in work assigned Channeled into area of law not my area of interest Cultural insensitivity by other articled students Frequently Experienced Occasionally Experienced 4 3 Cultural insensitivity by lawyers or staff in the firm Discrimination based on being Aboriginal or a visible minority Racist slurs 5 Demeaning remarks Amount or degree of client contact n= In cross tabulations, it appears as though discrimination, whether experienced occasionally, frequently or not at all, has no impact on whether or not a participant was hired back after articles. For example, three participants who frequently or occasionally experienced cultural insensitivity by lawyers or staff were hired back, while three participants who occasionally experienced the same cultural insensitivity were not hired back. Hiring back after completion of articles Of those participants who responded (n=19), 42.1% (n=8) were hired back after completion of articles, while 57.9% (n=11) were not hired back after completion of articles. For those who were not hired back (n=11), three participants indicate that they did not want to be considered for hire back to this firm or employer. The data also suggests that this was not due to experiences of discrimination by this firm or employer, as all three of these participants indicate that 15 P age

16 they never experienced various forms of discrimination during articling. Two participants indicate that they were not hired back because their employer was not in a position to hire back, and one participant indicates that their employer did not practice in their area of interest. Eight participants also listed other reasons as to why they were not hired back after completion of articles. These are listed below: I had failed the bar exam and had to resit it. (2000 law graduate) preferred private practice. (1975 law graduate) I do not know. No [explanation] given. (2004 law graduate) [favouritism]/family connections were reasons for hire back. (1997 law graduate) Limited no of associates hired (1989 law graduate). Was offered a position in an area I did not want to practice in. (2003 law graduate) starting my own practice (2005 law graduate) Not all aspects of my articling were complete. (2004 law graduate). Looking closely at these responses, two participants indicate reasons related to their own need to complete required tasks before practicing law, such as re sitting the bar exam or completing their articling assignments. Three participants indicate reasons related to their own personal preference, either to do with a mis match in the area of law practiced or wanting to start their own private practice. Three remaining participants indicate reasons associated with the decision making of the firm. For example, there was a lack of transparency by the firm as to why they were not being hired back in one case, and the perception of favouritism practiced towards those with family connections to the firm in another case. Work Experiences of Law Practitioners Call to the Bar Eighteen participants were called to the Nova Scotia bar in a 30 year range, between 1976 to Most participants were called to the bar within the last five years: six participants were called in 2006, 16 P age

17 four in 2004, and three in In addition, one participant was called from each of the following years, 1998, 1996, 1990 and Thirteen of these 18 participants have practiced law since being called to the bar, while five indicate they have not practiced law since the bar. Four of these participants are the most recent to have been called to the bar, 2006, while one participant not practicing law was called in This participant indicates that they have not worked in any job practicing law, although they have held one job which was law related but non practicing and two jobs which were not law related since They also indicate that they are currently not employed (2001 law graduate). Of these 13 participants who have practiced law since being called to the bar, length of time practicing law ranges from two months to 30 yrs, and all but one (who was called in 1976) are employed and practicing law. Table 10: Practicing Law since call to the Nova Scotia bar Year called to the Bar Length of time practicing Law Number of jobs practicing Law since called to the Bar months 1 2 months yrs 2 2 yrs 1 2 yrs 1 2 yrs (Sept. 2006) yrs 1 Since 2003 to present yrs 7 mos yrs yrs Almost 16 yrs yrs 1 n=13 The participant who was called to the bar in 1976 has been practicing law for 30 years, and indicates that they have only had one job practicing law, however they have had 14 jobs which were law related but non practicing, as well as 10 jobs which were not law related since In addition, they indicate 17 P age

18 that they are currently not employed. As was suggested earlier, it is possible that this participant has retired. Finally, three participants who were called to the bar in 2006 indicate that they have had employment in law related jobs as well as non law related jobs since Practising Law Of the 14 participants who are employed and practising law, the two participants that are still articling answered only a few questions related to the practice of law (both are 2005 law school graduates). For this reason they were excluded from the analysis of this group, however where they do respond to certain questions, their responses will at times be noted. Of the 12 participants currently practicing law, a third (n=4; 33.3%) are an associate or employee of a law firm with six or more lawyers. Six participants work with the government: three participants (25%) are practicing law with the federal government, and another three participants (25%) are practicing law with the provincial government. One participant indicates they are office sharing with other practitioner(s), and one participant indicates they are an associate or employee of a law firm with two to five lawyers. In addition, one participant who was articling at the time of the survey indicated they are an associate or employee of a law firm with six or more lawyers. Satisfaction as a lawyer? Six of the 12 participants indicate that they like their current employment. Five participants also selected they would prefer to be in the same area of law in which they are currently practicing, which suggests that they are also happy with their current employment. One participant currently with the provincial government would prefer to practice in a public interest or community law office. Another participant who is completing articles indicates they are an associate/employee of law firm with 6 or more lawyers would prefer to be a partner in a law firm (2005 law graduate). Overall, law practicing participants appear to be quite satisfied with their employment and the most do not indicate a preference for another area of practice or another position within a law firm. Areas of Law representing components of participant s practice The largest number of participants practicing law (n=6) practise in the area of family law. Three participants also practise in the area of administrative law. A further two participants practice in each of the following areas: constitutional law, insurance law, personal injury law, employment/labour law, real property. One participant practices in each of the following areas: Aboriginal law, debtor/creditor law, criminal prosecution law, environmental law and as a solicitor in criminal law. 18 P age

19 No participants are involved in human rights law, criminal defense law, or immigration law; however one participant indicates they will be practicing in immigration law when finished articling (2003 law graduate). Figure 1 outlines the main areas of law representing the practice of participant s who are law practitioners (n=12). Figure 2: Areas of Law representing participant's practice Degree of Satisfaction with law practice The 12 participants practising Law rated their level of satisfaction with different aspects of their work as a lawyer over the last five years on a 5 point lickert scale ranging from very satisfied (1) to very dissatisfied (5). Different aspects of work experience appear to fall in categories of: 1. practical aspects, 2. the availability of opportunities, 3. recognition for work, 4. treatment by others, and 5. relationships with others. Bearing in mind that two participants have only been working for two months, and another six participants have worked for less than five years as a lawyer, these aspects are presented according to the categories above. Practical aspects of work With respect to the nature of their work, the majority of participants are either satisfied or very satisfied with their work and are content with their balance with personal life (n=11, 91.7%). However, one Page

20 law school graduate is dissatisfied with the nature of their work and their work life balance (2002 law graduate). Similarly, hours of work and job security are satisfactory or very satisfactory to most participants (n=10), while two participants indicate that these aspects are dissatisfactory or very dissatisfactory. With respect to salary, 10 participants are satisfied or very satisfied, while two participants are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. In terms of Employment benefits, of those who answered (n=11), nine participants are either satisfied or very satisfied, one participant is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while one is very dissatisfied. Despite some instances of dissatisfaction, almost all participants indicate that they are satisfied with their choice of law as a career (n=11), and only one participant indicates they are dissatisfied with their choice (1997 law graduate). See table 11 for a breakdown of these responses. The availability of opportunities Most participants are satisfied with their contact with clients (n=10), while two participants are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. There is slightly less contentment with the opportunity for advancement: two participants are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, and three participants neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. For the most part mentoring seems to be available to participants, since most indicate they are very satisfied or satisfied with mentoring (n=9), and one participant neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, two participants express dissatisfaction; one dissatisfied (1998 law graduate), and one very dissatisfied (2006 law graduate). Recognition of work The majority of participants are satisfied with the control they have over their work (n=10), while one participant is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and one participant is dissatisfied (1997 law graduate). Similarly, 10 participants are satisfied with the credit they receive for their work, and two participants are dissatisfied. Overall, almost all participants are satisfied with the prestige of their work (n=10), while two participants are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. In a somewhat related issue, two thirds of participants are satisfied with their standing among colleagues (n=8, 66.7%), however three participants are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and one participant is very dissatisfied (2002 law graduate). 20 P age

21 Treatment by others While ten participants are satisfied with the manner in which they are treated by colleagues, two participants indicate that they are very dissatisfied with how they are treated. Of those who answered (n=11), there appear to be no issues with how participants are treated by the public; 10 participants are satisfied, while one is ambivalent. Relationships with others Working relationships with colleagues and support staff are felt to be positive ones: 11 participants are very satisfied or satisfied with these relationships, however one participant indicates they are dissatisfied (2002 law graduate). For those who answered, indicating they work with court personnel (n=10), nine participants are satisfied with these relationships, while one participant is ambivalent. Table 11: Participant level of satisfaction with practical aspects of work Level of Satisfaction with Nature of Work Level of Satisfaction with Hours of Work Level of Satisfaction with Job Security Very dissatisfied 1 1 Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied n= 12 n=12 n=12 Challenges faced as a lawyer 21 P age

22 The survey chose to explore a range of issues that may be of concern to current law practitioners, such as professional development, building up a private practice or discrimination. Whilst there are no large numbers of response in any one category, indicating that not any one issue is a challenge amongst all participants. However, one main issue which stands out as affecting all participants is the challenge of managing stress as a lawyer. These challenges facing law practitioners are listed below: Concerns over client complaints: Of those who answered (n=10), seven participants indicated client complaints were not a concern; while three felt it was somewhat of a challenge. Balancing professional and personal life: Finding work/life balance seems to be a significant issue for participants, as half of participants (n=6) indicated this was a very important challenge, and the other half indicated it was somewhat of a challenge. Changing area of law in my practice: Most participants agree that changing the area of law in their practice is not a large challenge or does not affect them; five participants say it is not very important, four find it somewhat important, while only one participant signals it as a very important challenge for them. Lack of civility in other lawyers: Interestingly, over half of participants responded that a lack of civility in other lawyers is a challenge that they face in their work. Indeed, two participants deemed it a very important challenge and four found it somewhat important. However, five participants also indicated that it was not an issue for them; selected not very important. Managing stress: Managing stress appears to be a large challenge for participants, as five indicate this is a very important issue, and seven indicate that this affects them at least somewhat. Concerns over professional liability claims: While for a third of this group this question was not applicable (n=3), three participants indicate that professional liability concerns affect them somewhat, while the majority (n=6) find this to be not very important. Building up my practice: For those who answered this question (n=7), only one indicates this was a very important challenge for them, while five indicate it was only somewhat important and one not very important. Controlling costs and overhead: Six participants provided answers to this question, four of which signaled this issue to be of low importance, and two only somewhat important. 22 P age

23 Being able to retire/transition to retirement: Of those who answered (n=10), only one participant indicated this was very important challenge they face, while six indicated it is somewhat important, and 3 not very important for them. Staying current/professional development: Of the 12 participants, one finds professional development an important challenge, while which eight finds this somewhat important, and three find this not very important. Making a living: Of those who responded (n=11), the majority of participants found this to be somewhat important (n=7), while two indicated this to be very important and another two not very important. Lack of support and resources within the administration of justice: Of those who responded (n=9), five participants found the lack of support and resources within the administration of justice to be moderately challenging, while four signaled this was not an important issue for them. Discrimination: While two participants indicated this issue was not applicable to them, two participants find this to be an important challenge for them, while three participants find this to be somewhat of a challenge. In addition, five participants find this to not be a challenge for them whatsoever. This is an important finding, and points to at least half of practising lawyers in this group as experiencing some degree of challenge with discrimination in their practice. Employer Policies Employer policies are an important indication of employer commitment to equity procedures which support the needs and requirements of a diverse workplace. In many cases participants have employers which policies in place, however, some are not aware of their employer s policies. Maternity or parental leave? Eighty three percent (n=10) of practising participants have employers with policies on maternity or parental leave, while one does not, and one participant does not know. Equality in employment interviews? Two thirds of practising participants (n=8) assert that their employer has adopted policies or guidelines for equality in employment interviews, while four participants are not aware of their employers policies in this regard. Gender inclusive communications? 23 P age

24 Two thirds of participants (n=8) are aware that their employer has policies or guidelines for gender inclusive communications, while four do not know. Alternative work schedules? Three quarters of practising participants (n=9) have employers with policies or guidelines regarding alternative work schedules, while one participant does not and a final two participants are not aware of their employers policies. Anti harassment? Half of participants are aware of anti harassment policies at their work, while one indicates that there are no policies for anti harassment by their employers. Five participants do not know if their employer has such policies or guidelines. Respectful workplace? Two thirds of participants (n=8) confirm that their employers have respectful workplace policies, while four participants do not know. Anti discrimination policies? Seven participants are aware of anti discrimination policies at their work place, six do not know of their employer s policies and one indicates that their employer has no such policies. Aspects in life influencing Career Choice All participants were invited to answer questions related to which aspects in life influence their career choices and their experiences with discrimination in the workplace. Eighteen participants answered questions related to which aspects in life influenced their career choices. Personal interest was a large factor impacting career choice; it was a large factor for two thirds (66.7%; n=12), only somewhat for two participants, and not much/not at all for four participants (22.3%). 24 P age

25 Availability of job impacted career choice somewhat for a third of participants (33.3%; n=6), a great deal for a fifth of participants (22.2%; n=4), and not much/not at all a final fifth of participants (22.3%; n=4). Mentoring available does not appear to be a large factor influencing career choice. Three participants indicated it matter a great deal (16.7%), another three somewhat, and the majority of participants not much or not at all (66.7%; n=12). Type of work assigned impacted career choices a great deal for a third of participants (33.3%; n=6), somewhat for almost a third of participants (27.8%; n=5). However, for most participants type of work was not a large factor impacting career choice (38.9%; n=7). Availability of clients did not/not much impact career choice for the majority of participants (77.8%; n=14). However, it was somewhat of a factor for two participants and a large factor impacting career choice for another two participants. For over half of participants (55.6%; n=10), gender was not a factor impacting their career choice. However, it had somewhat of an influence for seven participants (38.9%) all of whom are female, and meant a great deal for one female participant. Ethnicity was a factor which influenced slightly more participants. Three participants (16.7%) indicated that ethnicity impacted their choices a great deal, and all of these participants identified themselves as either Black/African descent or African Nova Scotian. Four participants (16.7%) it impacted their choices somewhat. However, for the majority of participants this was not an influence (61.1%; n=11). Participant race impacted career choice a great deal for one participant who identifies as Black/African descent, and somewhat for four participants. However, for most participants this was not much or not at all a factor (61.1%; n=11). Participant marital status was not a large factor impacting career choice; for ten participants it was not much/not at all factor. However, interestingly, for four participants it was somewhat of a factor and one participant a large factor. For the majority (72.2%; n=13), it was not a large factor. Participants parental status was not a large factor impacting career choice for ten participants. For eight participants (six female and two male participants), however, it was somewhat of a factor. Participant s age factored a great deal in making their career choice for three participants and somewhat of a factor for four participants. Experiences of discrimination in the work place All participants were asked to respond to questions regarding experiences with discrimination. Eighteen participants chose to provide answers to these questions. 25 P age

26 One participant indicates that they were sometimes denied the opportunity to work on a file or develop business because a client or lawyer in a firm objected to their Aboriginal/minority status (2002 graduate). This is without doubt a serious instance of discrimination, and this participant indicates they are engaged in note taking with regards to experiences of discrimination such as this. Being mistaken for someone other than a Lawyer & Social Exclusion Three participants have at times been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by other lawyers and another three have been mistaken by clients. A 2003 law school graduate is sometimes mistaken by court personnel while another participant is on rare occasions mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by court personnel (1995 law graduate) One participant is sometimes mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by a judge, and also indicates they have often been mistaken for someone other than a lawyer by other lawyers as well as by a client or by court personnel. This same participant indicates they are sometimes excluded from work related social, networking or business development activities on the basis of their Aboriginal or minority status (2002 law graduate). This is an experience shared by one other participant, of South Asian descent, who on rare occasion is also excluded from the same activities on the basis of their ethnicity/status (2004 law graduate). Taking action about discrimination experienced? One participant indicates that they have taken action about the discrimination experienced while seeking or during employment as a lawyer. This participant comments: I told persons who have used the N word when repeating what was said in a court room or on a movie that even though they are not using the word intentionally to discriminate or project a racial slur onto me, by using the word it still has the same painful effect (2004 law graduate). Interestingly, 7 other participants indicate that they did not take any action about discrimination. Of this group of participants, one comments that they are Note taking (2002 law graduate) while another comments that they are Not sure this was an issue in hiring process for articles (2005 law graduate). In addition, 10 participants indicate that this is not applicable to their situation. One of these participants chose to comment that, in response to the rare lawyer or client that mistakes them for someone other than a lawyer, they: politely told the ignoramus "i am a lawyer surprised?" (1975 law graduate). 26 P age

27 Role of the Nova Scotia barrister s society In an open ended question, participants were asked what the Barrister s society s role was in relation to discriminatory practices in the law profession. There were a variety of responses which spoke to the need for the society to be a leader in policy making for firms, and to work in a preventative capacity by educating members of the legal profession around issues such as racism, and finally to reduce barriers to finding employment for Aboriginal or minority groups. All comments by the 13 participants who chose to answer are presented in Box 1 below. Box 1: The role of the NSBS in relation to discriminatory practices in the law profession Lead and Leaders To be proactive to consisten[t]ly 'educate' white lawyers with respect to racism prevalent in the legal profession Be a leader and ensure that there are effective policies in place for law firms to prevent racial practices and unfairness to Aboriginal or a person of a minority race encouraging the hiring of aboriginal and racialized lawyers and staff To provide direction as relate complaints of discriminatory practices 1) To educate members of the profession, 2) work to reduce existing barriers 3) to address systemic problems management of the profession is the Society's role and addressing discriminatory practices is part of managing the profession what you are doing now Investigate when there is a complaint, educate the Bar Ste[w]ardship and implementation 27 P age