Journal

Editorial – Diversity in the IP profession

One of IPReg’s key priorities over the next few years is to stimulate, encourage and facilitate greater diversity in the IP profession. This happens to be one of the major objectives the Legal Services Board has established for its family of regulators; but this isn’t the principal reason for wanting to do it. The most important reasons for encouraging diversity are that it helps the profession to resemble more closely its customer base, and that it ensures the widest possible pool of talent is brought into the IP business. An increasingly diverse profession will be a better profession.

That’s why, a few weeks ago, IPReg contacted all of our registered attorneys and asked if they might complete a diversity questionnaire for us. We had a rapid and good response, with 1,180 attorneys replying, including those dealing with trade marks, with patents, or with both streams of work. The picture that emerged was fascinating: 42% were women; 10% were from a BAME background; 64% were in the age range of 35-55. (I was heartened by the number of women attorneys, though we still need to make further progress, especially at drawing in young women to study science and engineering in the first place. I was disheartened by the absence of people of colour coming into the profession.)

Two figures from the survey results really stood out for me, though. The first was that over 40% said that they were part of the first generation from their family to go to university. I was really pleased to see this. It betokens greater social mobility within the IP profession than – sadly – yet exists in society more broadly. And the second was that 40% of respondents said they had caring responsibilities, mostly for children. This is a salutary reminder to us that we need to make sure we shape our rules and requirements – for example for continuing professional development – whilst bearing in mind the fact that many attorneys will have periods in their career when childcare needs will come first. As we address the major review of our rules through the coming months, we need to remember this.

We are still analysing the figures carefully, and we will hope to repeat the exercise in future years, so that we can establish patterns and trends more clearly. But. in the meantime, we need to learn as many lessons as we can. We must redouble our efforts to support the fantastic work of IP Inclusive. We must continue to support schemes to encourage young women into STEM subjects. We must advocate strongly for the most diverse, welcoming, inclusive profession possible.

I know personally – from the world of politics – how important this inclusivity is. When I came out publicly as being gay over 35 years ago, the first MP to do so, I believed passionately that everyone – no matter who or what they were, or what sexual orientation they happened to have – could do an equally valid job at representing their constituents in Parliament. The same is surely true of trade mark and patent attorneys working for their clients. Let’s do even more, in the years ahead, to demonstrate that truth.

Lord Chris Smith, Chair of IPReg