Diversity in law is still being discussed like it’s a favour, not a competitive advantage.
Jayne McGlynn, senior M&A partner at DWF made a point on LinkedIn that is brutally simple. After two decades at the sharp end of deals and boardrooms, she still gets asked whether she’s a “diversity hire”. The implication being that talent somehow needs an asterisk if it doesn’t come wrapped in the usual male, privately educated, culturally identical packaging.
Her answer flips the script. Yes, she might be a diversity hire, but not in the lazy, box-ticking sense firms like to congratulate themselves for. The diversity that actually matters is cognitive. Who challenges assumptions. Who spots risk early. Who doesn’t mistake process for thinking.
She writes in her post:
The first time someone implied an achievement wasn’t quite mine, I was 17.
I’d been accepted to Oxford. Someone congratulated me, then added:
“Well, she is state school. And a girl.”
As if that made it easier.
I took the achievement back when I got the highest mark in the country in one of my A-Levels.
Fast forward. I’m now a Partner, negotiating deals most people only ever read about. And I still get asked:
“Are you the token woman?”
“Are you a diversity hire?”
Here’s the truth: I probably am. But not for the reason people assume.
Law firms and boards love surface-level diversity because it feels safe and photographable. What they’re worse at is inviting people who genuinely think differently, slow the room down, and make partners uncomfortable for the right reasons. Homogeneous rooms feel efficient right up until they blow up.
The kicker? No one ever asks men if they’re “boys’ club hires”. That alone tells you how far the profession still has to go.
