Exploring diversity in law

Peter Jackson (00:08): Have you ever had a 3:00 AM conversation? I’m talking about those times when you just can’t settle because your mind’s racing throughout the night. If you’ve ever led a business, a team, or aspired to do so, then you’ll definitely know what I’m talking about. I’m Peter Jackson. In my time as the CEO of international law firm, Hill Dickinson, I’ve had a fair few of those moments myself. As a coach and mentor, I’ve guided many people through them.

(00:39): In this podcast, you’re going to hear from high achievers about their own 3:00 AM conversations. You’ll be able to apply their insights to your own life. In this episode, you’re going to hear from Dr. Sally Penni, MBE. Now, Sally is a barrister, an author, and a podcaster who works tirelessly towards improving diversity in the legal profession. She has experienced racism as well as conscious, and unconscious bias in her own career. It’s something she says is best countered with humour, but always with a strong drive to change things. You’ll hear how she motivates herself to do just that coming up.

(01:21): But first, let’s hear from my co-host for this episode, Joanne Radcliff. Joanne is a partner in our Manchester office, and a family law specialist. Let’s talk about Sally. You know her pretty well already, don’t you? How did you get to know her?

Joanne Radcliff (01:37): The way I met Sally I think is a really good illustration of the person that she is. I ran a charity fashion show at one stage. I was a young lawyer in my 20’s at the time. Sally attended, and she just really took me under her wing after that, helped me meet useful contacts for my career, supported me, mentored me, and I never asked her to do that. She didn’t have to do it. It was just something she decided to do. It really does demonstrate how giving she is, and how much she believes in trying to bring on other young people in her profession.

Peter Jackson (02:13): If you didn’t know her, how would you describe Sally?

Joanne Radcliff (02:17): I would describe Sally as a force of nature. There is so many things that she’s involved in, that she’s incredible at. Of course, she’s an excellent barrister. But as you mentioned, she’s written books. She’s hosted a really great podcast talking law.

(02:33): But I think what really sets Sally apart is everything that she gives back to the community. She set up the women in law organisation, which has done so much for supporting women in law, which of course is really important to me as a female lawyer, but also her work around diversity, wellbeing, charitable endeavours. She really is something else.

Peter Jackson (03:01): Let’s hear now from Dr. Sally Penni, MBE. Sally is a barrister at Kenworthy’s Chambers in Manchester, the Joint Vice Chair of the Association of Women Barristers, and the founder of Women in the Law UK. She’s also an author, a podcaster, and her podcast, Talking Law, is regularly cited as one of the top law podcasts in the UK. I’ve listened to several episodes recently, and they are excellent. Some very big names in there.

(03:28): Sally, I’m going to be fascinated to hear about your 3:00 AM conversations. But first of all, let’s hear a bit about you. Because I think I’m right in saying, law doesn’t run in the family. You’ve no legal background in a family sense. What was growing up like? Tell me a bit more about that.

Sally Penni (03:47): Firstly, thank you for inviting me onto this brilliant podcast. I’m glad it’s not being recorded at 3:00 AM. I’ll be up to that because I’m still up prepping cases.

Peter Jackson (04:01): We’re going to talk about that, so yes.

Sally Penni (04:01): It’s nice to be in the daytime. But no, I have no links in the family. There’s no father, grandfather, or anything who’s in law. My parents are medics who came to England to study. I’m one of five. None of us are lawyers. The aim for me was to do medicine, at least a dentist. Growing up, we didn’t really watch television. We read. We had Encyclopaedia Britannicus. People my age probably remember those as leather-backed history books, if you like. They just contained everything. I think the equivalent now is Wikipedia.

(04:34): We read a lot of those. Then I read Rumpole of the Bailey. I didn’t know what Rumpole looked like, because I did in time watch the John Mortimer books on television. He was an overweight, large white man. I thought, “Yes, that is my role model. I love what he’s doing.”

(04:54): The path then for me therefore was not easy. It was very clever, but I didn’t know anyone in law, even work experience was quite hard to get. I wrote a lot of letters asking for work experience. Then once you got work experience, then on the ladder, then of course, pupillage, that comes afterwards, and so on. Yeah, I’ve a very happy childhood. As I say, I’m the eldest of the five, so I am quite bossy, although I think I should say that as assertive to my siblings. Yeah, a happy childhood, and Rumpole played a big part in my love of the law and the importance of justice, access to justice, the rule of law.

(05:31): Because actually, those books are quite fascinating just reading them. But it was obvious to me even reading those books, there was never a reference to anybody that looked like me being the advocate for example.

Peter Jackson (05:45): I’m going to dob in my co-host here, because would you believe that Jo has never seen or read any of the Rumpole series?

Sally Penni (05:53): What?

Peter Jackson (05:54): For the benefit of listeners, Rumpole was a 1970’s TV drama about a criminal barrister, played by Leo McKern. Books written by another doyen of the bar, John Mortimer QC.

Sally Penni (06:05): Yes.

Peter Jackson (06:07): Joanne’s never seen or heard any of them.

Sally Penni (06:09): No. I can’t believe that.

Joanne Radcliff (06:11): I may be an elder millennial, but I am a millennial. It’s totally outside of my cultural reference, I’m afraid. So yeah, never seen them. Never seen them.

Peter Jackson (06:20): I’m going to come back to fictional characters, because I have, as I say, listened to some of your podcasts. You always put your guests on the spot over their fictional characters. I’m going to do that later.

Sally Penni (06:30): Oh, yes. Peter, your turn’s going to come. Don’t ruin our podcast.

Peter Jackson (06:33): Don’t worry, I’m going to hold you to that. But perhaps more seriously, I watched Rumpole as well. I read all the books. It’s my generation, really. I do remember watching Rumpole, and thinking that I couldn’t do that because I didn’t feel that I was quick-witted enough on my feet. I didn’t think I’d be in a position to conduct an argument with learned academic judges or what have you. Did you see in his character that led you to the bar as to perhaps one of the other branches of the legal profession?

Sally Penni (07:08): Because I read a lot, I quite like writing, and I quite like the advocacy part. People see barristers. You know from your part of the profession. That you instruct barristers to be the advocates in court. Of course, some of that’s changed now with higher rights, and so on. But I liked also the wits that he had. It wasn’t always Benny Hill type or carry-on type humour. Often it was witty, but quite sarcastic.

(07:41): If you are asked to translate for somebody because you are the only Black woman in court, and everybody else in the dock are Black from various parts of the world, actually my pitch in French isn’t bad, but I can’t translate just because we’re the same colour. You can say that to a judge without offending them, but saying, “Shouldn’t have said that. I can’t help you.” Why do you think that somebody living in South Manchester can translate?”

(08:06): I quite like that by Rumpole, even though the jokes so, and all, the quick wittedness that he was making weren’t quite like that. Although I’d never actually got into using that sort of conversation or replies in court really, until I’m 24 years’ call, 25 years’ call next year. It was only way into 20 years’ call that I might say something vaguely witchy. I stored it up. But I liked the way that he could use both his voice, and his prep. He was also always very well prepared. He was never called out.

Peter Jackson (08:36): Oh, he did things properly, didn’t he? Yeah.

Sally Penni (08:38): Yes. When we talk about what makes a good advocate, I teach advocacy for every new barristers, new people course, and new practitioner’s course, compulsory course every new barrister has to do. They say, “What’s your best advice?” “Preparation, preparation, preparation.” That appealed to me.

Peter Jackson (08:58): Yeah. Excellent. Can I switch tack a little bit then? Because you’ve been awarded an MBE, and largely that’s for services towards diversity, particularly in the law. You’ve almost touched on it in what we’ve said so far, but you must have seen certain obstacles. Could you talk a little bit about what you’ve seen? Also, perhaps think about how far we’ve come as a profession in how things have evolved over the years, and have changed?

Sally Penni (09:28): Yeah. It’s timely, really. Because when I was applying for a pupillage, which is the training part, equivalent of a training contract for people going the solicitor’s route is different if it’s apprentices, and so on. I just didn’t see Black barristers. Firstly, the first time I saw a Black barrister in real life I mean, you would often read about them. There used to be a publication called Black Letter Law. It contained largely solicitors. I don’t know where or how I came about it, it must have been in a library, school libraries or something. But that had a list of Black barristers in there. Some of them were counsels to the American.

(10:04): But the first time I saw a Black barrister on their feet, and I’ve said this before actually, is a KC called Anesta Weekes. She now actually regularly appears in Liverpool. She’s from London. It was because we were all being taught the Human Rights Act. This is probably showing my age, which was compulsory.

(10:20): She came on to teach my cohort of pupil barristers after lunch. Everyone’s eating too much, and we’re all a bit noisy, and rowdy. It was a compulsory course. She walked on. She didn’t have long hair or anything like me. She had quite a short crew cut hair, greying, sort of very expensive red glasses, and very elegantly, walked onto the stage, spoken to the mic, and there was deadly silence. We all thought, “Oh, my God, who was that?” I was thinking, “Oh, my gosh, I want to look like her. Who is that?” She commanded the stage, and taught it. We knew most of it anyway, but the importance of what we needed to learn.

(11:03): That was the first time. I didn’t even think I was in pupillage then. Because I’d never seen a Black barrister or Black solicitors, really, I didn’t have a chip on my shoulder. But what I found was there were just few. Often whenever I went for interviews, it’d often be sort of me, and somebody who didn’t look like me, probably more like you, but maybe six foot tall or whatever. That was difficult, and different. But what it did was it meant that I had to be twice as good as anybody else.

(11:29): I do think even though when you look at some of the statistical evidence, times have changed, the entrance levels of Black, and minority entering the profession is much better, I think social mobility, and social class is a big factor. I think that’s also much better. I think it’s also an area that we could all improve on.

(11:49): Also, neurodiversity. That was never really a thing in sort of my general. I don’t know about yours.

Peter Jackson (11:54): No, never.

Sally Penni (11:55): No one ever talks about people being autistic or having anything. Often, they bring a different thinking, don’t they? Certainly, it’s the boardroom, and to our practises. My barriers have been about getting in. Then, of course, once you are in, and you are working your bum off to be better than everybody else, because if you make a mistake, people remember the person who doesn’t look like everybody else, rather than just being part of it.

(12:21): You can’t afford to blag it either. You can’t really afford to go to court, be asked a question, and be going, “Oh, not sure. Just bear with me.” Or, “I’ll just ask my solicitor.” What? It can’t. They turned into, for me anyway, much more of a fuel to kind of … I couldn’t afford to be a mediocre. The barriers were often about being good enough, being just as good, or being better.

(12:45): Because my parents were very much like, “You’re a woman, and you are Black, so you do need to be much better,” which is why now, it’s funny when I see the diverse range. Even in your firm, you’ve got a lot of women. You’ve got work to do in other areas.

Peter Jackson (13:02): I have the stats. I’m going to tell you.

Sally Penni (13:02): You tell me.

Peter Jackson (13:07): No, I thought it was very interesting. Obviously, I’m out of operational management now, so I was just reminding myself. The SRA statistics, Solicitor’s Regulation Authority statistics would say that 37% of women are now the average in management positions, so senior positions, Hill Dickinson is at 36.

Sally Penni (13:29): Great.

Peter Jackson (13:30): Our ambition is to be 40% in senior positions by 2028. That’s on gender. Women in the law generally, 53% the SRA would say. 58% at Hill Dick’s. We’re also finding, again, that there are certain disciplines that seem to be attracting women. Why that is, I don’t know. But certainly, Jo’s discipline, family law does. Our health sector sees a lot of women going in. It has come a long, a long, long way.

Sally Penni (14:06): It has. Yeah. Actually, what’s great is recognising that, yeah, it’s come a long way.

Peter Jackson (14:13): There’s a way to go.

Sally Penni (14:13): And there’s a way to go. No, it’s true. Because quite often people just say, “Look, we’re actually doing all right.”

Peter Jackson (14:18): Yeah, we’re not.

Sally Penni (14:18): Then you think, “You know you’re not.” That’s much more important, actually for me, having the desire to say, “We could be doing a bit better, and these are the ways that we’re trying,” especially at decision-making levels as well. Because that’s really important. Top down, great having the bottom level, but having the pipeline to reach the top, I think is really, really crucial.

Peter Jackson (14:42): That’s where you get the benefits, I would think. You’ve touched on it already. Because that’s where you get the diversity of thought process.

Sally Penni (14:50): Absolutely.

Peter Jackson (14:51): It makes for better decisions.

Sally Penni (14:52): Absolutely. Absolutely.

Peter Jackson (14:54): In the boardroom effectively.

Sally Penni (14:56): Yeah. Yeah. It’s a big factor.

Joanne Radcliff (14:57): You obviously talk about the fact that you had to work so much harder to succeed. Do you think that’s still the case?

Sally Penni (15:04): No. Gosh, I think millennials have got it totally different, totally different.

Peter Jackson (15:10): Sally, we could be here all afternoon.

Sally Penni (15:13): I know, I know. People brewing beer, so they can’t be in, on a Friday, doing triathlons, so they can’t. I think that’s different now. I need to have a caveat, which is burning out, and working all the hours isn’t the answer. It’s just the profession attracts that. We need better balance.

(15:30): Recent events in other law firms, deaths, people taking lives, and so on have shown that actually what I would say the traditional way isn’t always the answer. I worked that hard just because I didn’t know any better. My parents worked hard, and often the work ethic came.

Joanne Radcliff (15:46): Then you do that partly because of your race though, feeling that in comparison to the other people, you had to prove a point.

Sally Penni (15:53): Yes. I don’t think we’ve reached that yet. People say, if women can become mediocre lawyers, or just excel by just doing very little, then that would be okay. It means we’ve achieved equality because we’re not feeling like we need to do that. But I do think we need better ways of working. I do think we need a balance. Some parts of me thinks that actually some of the trainees haven’t had some of the hands-on. “Can I just run this by you?” The water cooler, the court [inaudible 00:16:25].

Peter Jackson (16:22): Draining by osmosis.

Sally Penni (16:27): Exactly. I don’t know if that’s the term for it.

Peter Jackson (16:28): That has become the term for it. Yeah, I think that’s right.

Sally Penni (16:30): Yeah. I think they’ve really missed out on some of those, because of the pandemic. I think it’s on each of us to try, rectify, and teach that. That doesn’t mean everyone should be coming into offices five days a week. I’m not sure it’s beneficial by way of productivity to have that.

(16:46): I think it’s just as important to have people being productive but enjoying their families, and family life because that is the balance. How many children do you never see is completely pointless, because it stores up all sorts of problems later on. I do think we need a better balance. I don’t think burning the candle at both ends is necessarily the answer. I think we need a balance. I don’t think we’ve achieved it yet, so don’t ask me how I achieved it.

Peter Jackson (17:13): I will ask you. We’ll go out of order then, because one of your 3:00 AM conversations was about well-being. What do you mean by that, first of all?

Sally Penni (17:29): When you’re at work, you’ve got the mum guilt. You are constantly thinking, “What are my kids doing? What do they think of me?” All you’re doing is earning a living. I’m not sure that my husband is thinking the same thing at all, actually. I think he’s probably thinking I’d love to go sailing, or I’d like to go and play golf, whatever it is. It’s that mum guilt. It’s a constant at you.

(17:50): Then when you are at home, I try to be present. That’s the only way I can cope with my work. Whether it’s sitting on the sofa eating popcorn, watching some awful DC comic thing that one of my sons is really into, being engrossed in it, and working out the plot or whatever, to going out on long walks with our dog, with all the kids moaning that it’s too long or whatever, I need those in order to rebalance the working week.

(18:20): Also, quite often a lot of us, if you have a son who’s got an illness, you’re a carer for somebody or whatever, that balance is required. Because you can’t do your day job properly if you are not fully balanced elsewhere. But I’m not saying I’ve got the balance. I just feel when at 3:00 AM that mum guilt is always there. That is a 3:00 AM conversation in your head, worrying about them.

(18:47): Of course, when children get older, other things happen. When they’re in secondary school, it’s a whole different ball game. When they’re young, they just need a few play dates, some toys, you need to keep them alive. It’s great. Because somebody told me this, I was shocked, and thought it was absolutely absurd, that I thought, “They could walk to school. They’ll get a school bus or whatever.” No, they need much more. They need emotional conversations, a lot more going on. People being friends with this group, and that group or whatever. That feeds into my 3:00 AM, whether actually I am there around enough or I am offering a fullness of a well-being, not just for myself but for the family. That’s one of my 3:00 AM. I don’t care. I think men have it as well. They probably just don’t talk about it-

Peter Jackson (19:36): Oh, I think men do.

Sally Penni (19:37): … as much as we do.

Peter Jackson (19:39): I think, dare I say, older men still have it. I hate to tell you, but my sons are in their 30’s, and he just goes away.

Sally Penni (19:46): Oh, my gosh.

Peter Jackson (19:46): I’ve got this for a long time to come.

Sally Penni (19:50): Forever a parent, I think, is the thing, isn’t it?

Peter Jackson (19:51): It is forever parents.

Sally Penni (19:54): I can see Joanne nodding. You probably feel the same.

Joanne Radcliff (19:55): I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever spoken to a working woman who doesn’t have that mum guilt, carry it around with them, and be constantly the push and pull of trying to be great at their job, and great as a mum. I’m sure it applies equally to men. But certainly women, I find are becoming very open at talking about that, and how difficult that challenge is. I don’t think any of us have the answer. That’s the problem.

Peter Jackson (20:19): There’s the famous Sheryl Sandberg quote. She was the CEO of Facebook, I think it was.

Sally Penni (20:27): Oh, yes. Yes.

Peter Jackson (20:27): Who was a superwoman, obviously, and incredibly successful. She was asked in an interview I heard, what her views were on work-life balance. She said, “I don’t believe in it. There’s life, work it out.” Clearly, she did. Came to the situation where she could run an incredibly successful business, and have a life. I can’t remember how many children she had, but she had several. You’ve got to work it out.

Sally Penni (20:51): Exactly.

Peter Jackson (20:52): Do you think you’ve worked it out?

Sally Penni (20:54): Oh, goodness. No. I don’t have a stay-at-home husband. If you look at the bar, quite a lot of successful women in solicitor’s profession will say, “Yes, me and my husband made this decision that he would stay at home.” No, we both work. Often, it’s kind of working out if one person’s job is more important than the other. No, they’re both equally as good.

(21:14): It’s trying to allow for time when one’s looking at balance, that allow for the good times, and the balance. Whether it’s the holidays, the weekends away, or just sport, if you have kids who play a sport, I don’t know about you. You might play a sport. You’re literally passing in the night. The days out tend to be more of an enjoyable thing for everybody. Also, when kids have different activities as they get older, you kind of say, “How did I ever manage this?” Aside from childcare, and all the rest of it, then you realise, “Oh, no, now you’re a taxi.”

Peter Jackson (21:54): Oh, you become a chauffeur service.

Sally Penni (21:54): Totally. That’s between me, and my husband. No, I don’t have any answers. I don’t think I’ve mastered it. I’m just trying to do the best that I can in each of those camps. Sometimes dropping balls. Then now, you don’t have to go to a school sports day anymore. Much to my upset, as my children have told me. “You can’t go, run in a suit, and then run off back to court.”

Peter Jackson (22:14): Run straight away.

Sally Penni (22:15): Yeah, it’s not allowed in secondary school.

Joanne Radcliff (22:18): That challenge though, worrying about being a mum, and doing the day job, did that form part of your thinking when you set up the Women in Law organisation?

Sally Penni (22:29): Yes.

Joanne Radcliff (22:31): Because I feel like there must’ve been a springboard for that, and motivation behind it.

Sally Penni (22:35): Yeah, it was. Because I felt that most working mothers or carers, if I can put it like that, you go on maternity leave, and you expect this wonderful thing. Then you come back. Then suddenly, you think, “Oh, I’ve not really changed apart from all the baby sickness, and sleepless nights, but you are still the lawyer that you were.” But what nobody tells you are some of the skills that you need to stay really good at your job, and to progress.

(23:04): I was thinking that about the mother guilt. “What if we can get coaches?” Peter, I know you’re a coach, and a mentor, to actually teach us some of these skills through the webinars, the seminars, the events that women in the law hold. That was exactly one of the motivations, Jo.

(23:21): Also, I wanted us to be slightly better connected. I know I say this a lot, and Jo, you know this. But I sometimes feel like we’re all working in silos. We, as women, and as lawyers, we need to be just a bit better at inspiring, supporting, and connecting each other, and having environments where we can all thrive is really important. It’s not about the day job. If you are not great at a day job, and I feel very passionately about this, then that’s a competence issue. You need to say it.

(23:48): If your work’s not up to scratch, then you need to go on a course to up the work. I’m talking about something different. We need to be honest about that. I’m talking about the other stuff that comes from being a professional woman or professional person. Some of those are to do with juggling the home life, being on a board, I think more women lawyers, and men should be on business boards. I think we’ve got fantastic skills that we can all bring. But we often don’t know where to get the information.

(24:19): When we wait till we retire, then somebody speaks to you about being with a board, and you go, “Oh, yes, okay.” You can get a bit of pocket money, too. “Yes, thanks.” But actually, in the currency of our work, I think it’s really important because often those boards can actually enable us to have skills we can bring into our profession.

Peter Jackson (24:34): I was going to say, it is a two-way street, isn’t it?

Sally Penni (24:36): Yeah.

Peter Jackson (24:37): We can add value, I think, I agree with you entirely.

Sally Penni (24:39): Absolutely.

Peter Jackson (24:40): But also we can evolve. We can learn, and bring those skills into our own practises or businesses, whatever it might be. I totally agree with you. Can I move on to your second?

Sally Penni (24:49): Oh, yeah, the 3:00 AM.

Peter Jackson (24:49): Yeah, the conversation.

Sally Penni (24:54): Oh, yes.

Peter Jackson (24:54): It is a bit more tactical, and how you described it was strategic trial, advocacy, crime, and employment. Is that worrying about the day job?

Sally Penni (25:04): It is a bit. It is. Actually, what I mean about that is I reflect on all my wins and losses. I’m not sure anyone can be aware. Jo’s nodding. You obviously did the same thing. Yeah, it’s true. It doesn’t matter.

Peter Jackson (25:22): It is a scorebook.

Sally Penni (25:22): Yes, yes, there is. It’s not like LA Law, something or God forbid, Suits, that dreadful programme. It’s good to an extent for entertaining, but that is not England.

Peter Jackson (25:31): Give me LA Law any day.

Sally Penni (25:32): Exactly. Take us back to LA Law. But I don’t mean counting that. But what I mean is that actually reviewing what you did in that case that went well, and then thinking, “Okay, can I apply that to something else, or another case?” Or where there are losses, try not to lose endless sleep over it, because I do do that only from a learning point of view. Every case has to have a learning aspect, otherwise it’s pointless for me.

(26:01): I do have that. I don’t think it goes away. I talked to a lot of KCs. It doesn’t go away, the older you get. I thought the more senior you become, you are in partnership, Jo, you’ve stepped down as CEO. People think, “Oh, you have better night’s sleep.” I’m not sure that that’s entirely true. I think it comes with different challenges, and different 3:00 AM conversations.

Peter Jackson (26:24): I think it does. I think also the benefit of experience actually makes it worse on occasions, because you’re more likely to spot what you might not have got right.

Sally Penni (26:35): Yes.

Peter Jackson (26:37): Can I just put a twist on this as well? I notice your is practise very diverse from crime, employment, all the way through to you’ve written books on data protection, whatnot. Does that inspire you or is it more stressful the wider your practise is, and keeping on top of the law?

Sally Penni (26:54): The law. I would probably say it inspires me. But part of the reason I got into a slightly diverse practise was because when I came to the bar, we used to do things called Common Law Pupillage. One day, you would be one year’s court in the magistrates’ court, and a drunk driver or whatever, prosecuted. The next day, you were in the mercantile court. It’s of course something else now.

(27:17): But the idea was that the ability as the advocate was good enough to be able to pick up in those areas. Then as time went on, of course, you just became specialists, especially as in one area or two areas over others. But after I had children, after I came back from maternity leave, I did find that I didn’t get the cases that I used to do. I used to do big, violent, serious cases, frauds, and then often the clerks would say, “Oh, of course, the children.” I’d be like, “Actually, no. If I have noticed, I can go and do whatever the case is.”

(27:55): I’m not saying that that’s the same for every chambers, every part of the country, or whatever. But actually, oddly, they probably thought they were doing me a favour, or, “You want to be near at home.” No. Anyone who’s had children, as much as we all love our children, work is the only place you can go where nobody interrupts you when you are eating. When you are talking, people listen to you. In some aspects, you enter a room, people rise for you. The notion that you suddenly didn’t want to do that, but actually thinking, “Oh, it would help just to keep you local.” No.

(28:27): With the big cases, because as we know for progression, and certainly in terms of gender, you need access to a larger range of cases. I always did those areas. I probably did slightly more crime, but I felt that having had children, I wanted to have much more of an interest in the areas that I was particularly interested in. Before I had children, I did a lot of maternity. Then after maternity, I did lots of sex discrimination, and a variety of other areas. Now, I do a lot of menopausal cases.

(29:00): I’m quite interested also in conducting cases that have an aspect in changing the law, and the future. Even with the cybercrime stuff, and so on, the Online Safety Bill, I think it needs to have more teeth, but that’s my own opinion. I write a lot about that.

(29:17): Actually having a family has impacted some of my career choices in ways or my leadership choices, if you like, in more ways than I thought. I never thought I would set up a women’s organisation with 52,000 members. For goodness sake, people have done it, and have done it better than me. But there’s obviously something. There are men who are members. Men who are carers in profession, too.

(29:41): But I think that, yeah, my family life has affected my career, and using really negative experiences into positive, which is something I’m very much about. But I do think that the areas that I’m interested in are now changing. I don’t like to be stuck in the mud. I don’t know about you.

Peter Jackson (30:01): No, no, I agree.

Sally Penni (30:02): Yeah, I like to change with the times if you like.

Peter Jackson (30:06): Yeah. No, I can see that. That’s inspiring to you, isn’t it? All of that diversity of approach in modern …

Sally Penni (30:10): Exactly, exactly. Not just the obvious diversities. I talk a lot about the obvious diversities, but in fact, it’s important to look at the other ranges of diversity, and indeed, diversity of thought.

Joanne Radcliff (30:23): I think it’s really fascinating when you talk about some of the challenges that you’ve faced, is that you don’t seem to have a chip on your shoulder. You don’t seem to be angry about that. I think in some respects, it would be justifiable when you’ve been mistaken for a defendant just because of the colour of your skin, to actually feel very angry about those things happening.

(30:42): But you seem to have been able to channel it in really positive ways, which I think is fascinating that you’ve managed to do that. Is that something of a real conscious choice or is that just your nature?

Sally Penni (30:55): I think it’s probably a bit of both. I think it’s Martin Luther King who said, “I’m sticking with love, because hate is too much hard work,” or something. It’s a quote that I used when I did a TED talk. I think that we need the majority to bring change. Often, when people share the awful experiences, one has to think about what was the purpose, and what impact do you want to? I can tell you about all the incidents of racism I’ve had. This podcast isn’t long enough to account for it. All the incidents, professionally. The type of cases that I’ve conducted just because I’m a Black woman or whatever, whatever.

(31:30): But, to what purpose? What we need to do is find the learnings from lots of the awful experiences. One of the things that encouraged me when we were in the pandemic, in the sense that after the death of George Floyd, which was a horrible, horrible murder, and awful death, because it was quite invasive, we’re all stuck in our homes, yet this occurred. It felt even more invasive because it was played on the news repeatedly. It felt like actually, suddenly, this was in our homes. Then it was a catalyst for all of us to look at ourselves, and our practises to see what is happening on race, and so on.

(32:06): What I found encouraging was the people who were out protesting weren’t just the typical people you would expect, maybe the brown, and Black people. Like in the American Civil Rights, people protesting there were certain groups. Actually, it was white people, normal people, people’s grannies, young people who were white, and whatever the obvious diversities were, who were saying, “No, this isn’t right. We need to build back better,” which was a term we used, didn’t we? A lot.

(32:35): I was really encouraged by that, because we need to the factual incidence of the negativity, and the awful incidence. But we need to learn from it because for me, otherwise, it’s completely pointless sharing awful experiences, because you’re just triggering a trauma that’s not really progressed or indeed moved on.

(32:54): I suppose, maybe it is a conscious choice to try and have a learning from that, and to think, “Oh, actually, maybe we can do that.” Because otherwise just having narrative, after narrative, after narrative of incidents of racism, misogyny, or sexism doesn’t do anything. For me, it doesn’t improve. We need to think, “Okay, we know there’s a lack of progression in gender,” when I set up Women in Law, for example. But we know that nobody’s keen on quotas, so we can’t really implement that.

(33:25): But we can think about progression in other ways, which isn’t just upwards. Progression can be linear. Often, we think about just going up. Sometimes, it’s actually going sideways for a bit until you can go up. Yeah, I hope that answers the question. I try to use the negative stuff, because quite frankly, I think, I would then just be overcome by the sheer awfulness. There’s still stuff that goes on. In 14 years, there’s only been a 1% increase of Black women judges in the judiciary.

(34:04): There are no Black full-time judges in the Supreme Court, in the High Court, and indeed in the Court of Appeal. There’s a long way to go. But there are lots of others, other areas which are improving. That could become, actually, the headline. But it’s not because it’s important for us to recognise where we have improvement. The tribunals have a great deal of obvious diversities, and people with protected characteristics there.

(34:30): We’ve got to celebrate that. As well as saying, “Okay, but at the top, we are lacking. How do we try, and make the leap from the ends where there’s an overpopulation of appointments to the areas where they’re lacking?” That’s much more meaningful than just saying, “These are the statistical evidence,” and that’s it. The lack of Black partners, okay. But how are we going to move up? Generally, that’s my own narrative. That’s how I kind of deal with the work that I do, if you like.

Peter Jackson (35:02): Let’s move on to the final 3:00 AM conversation. It’s about career progression, and what’s next. Because you’ve done an awful lot.

Sally Penni (35:11): I haven’t. I’m so young. Obviously, I started my career at 12.

Peter Jackson (35:15): For someone so young, you’ve done an awful lot.

Sally Penni (35:18): I’m channelling myself on Taylor Swift. That’s why I’m French.

Peter Jackson (35:21): Let me twist the question at you then. Because, what’s next, who knows? Maybe you’ll tell us. But our last guest, Andy Grant, who was a ex-Marine commando amputee, he was describing how many of his friends in their 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, very successful, still hadn’t really worked out what their purpose was. Do you think you’ve worked out what your purpose is?

Sally Penni (35:46): Oh, goodness, no. I suppose that is a 3:00 AM conversation. I’m friends with lots of high-achieving people. Jo, you are one of them. People who are really big women and men, high achievers in various different veins. I don’t just mean financially. But quite other KCs, judges in the legal profession, and then outside of the legal profession.

(36:12): My 3:00 AM is often thinking, “Oh, yeah. What is next?” I don’t really think I’ve achieved that much. My kind of what’s next or my purpose is really, and it’s probably a bit cheesy, but it’s the truth, is to raise happy, healthy children.

Peter Jackson (36:30): Nothing wrong with that.

Sally Penni (36:31): Everything else is extra. Obviously, doing my day job, and not being struck off by anybody is a given, and making sure that the knowledge aspect. But I do think about things like purpose, because I’m not envious. I don’t look at people, and think, “Oh, look what they’ve achieved.” But I do always think, “Oh, yeah. What is supposed to be next?”

(36:56): Often, when I get my better ideas, if you like, whether it’s a cross-examination question or an idea for a book, it is often when I’m in that wellbeing space, whether it’s camping in the field or whatever. You’re in a cottage where it’s raining outside, and it’s like the umpteenth board game with the children with big jigsaw. If I don’t have that, then I go back to thinking about, “What is next? What is the purpose? What will I do?”

(37:22): But ultimately, it is. One of my kids has been poorly when he was quite young. Having healthy, as I say, healthy, happy children as a family unit is really important to me, because I think family first. I wasn’t always like that. I think before I had children, I would work my backside off. I still do that now, but not to that extent. Because you have got little people there.

(37:46): I remember sending a fax once to you. I don’t know if it was a Court of Appeal or High Court. One of my sons, I’ve got two sons and a daughter, kept trying to come in to play with me. The fax, it wouldn’t go through. I don’t think it was school holidays, but I needed to get it in before the deadline. It wasn’t even like the day before the deadline. I just like to be ahead. I remember being so cross with him, because all he wanted was a cuddle. I just thought, “Oh, my God. What’s life resorted to?”

(38:15): Yes, whilst that sounds cheesy as to purpose, and really, what I’d like to achieve, I’d like to think I’ve made a very tiny impact. I think they call it a ripple effect, in whether it’s our profession or indeed in people’s lives, that I’ve touched. Ever so tiny. If I made a tiny impact, then great. If someone’s listened to the podcast, decided they’d like to be an apprentice, and follow the apprenticeship, whatever it is, enter the law or do an aspect of the law where funding isn’t as available or whatever, then that’s a tiny bit of impact. If women have stayed in the profession, because one of the reasons I set up Women in the Law UK was because I got fed up with women leaving the profession, because a workplace just couldn’t accommodate work, and caring responsibilities.

(39:04): I suppose I sort of answered that question. That yes, I want happy, healthy children, and family first. But I’d just like to think as a purpose, my 3:00 AM, am I making a small dent in people’s lives, however tiny to make an improvement? It might just be inspiring them to run a 10K, raise money for a charity that never gets anything. Or a workplace choosing a charity as the charity of the year or something for a cause they’ve never heard of. I’m sure the management people, the coaches, the gurus, like you will have some clever word for that type of leadership. But that’s what I would like to be. I don’t see in our profession leadership just being CEO, KC, and so on.

Peter Jackson (39:51): No, I agree.

Sally Penni (39:52): I think it’s so much more than that. I think we need to embrace it. It’s not just …

Peter Jackson (39:56): Totally agree with you. It’s about being a role model, isn’t it?

Sally Penni (39:59): Yeah. I don’t think I am, but I think it’s much more.

Peter Jackson (40:05): Oh, I might beg to differ on that, but again.

Sally Penni (40:05): Much more than. Yeah.

Joanne Radcliff (40:05): I was going to say, I dare to disagree with you, Sally, when you said, “I don’t think I’ve achieved much.” Because as a woman working in the law, I would say that you’ve made a huge impact with your books, your podcasts, the Women in Law. Don’t do yourself a disservice.

Sally Penni (40:21): Oh, I’m going to cry. This is going to ruin my hardened image. The Americans will put …

Peter Jackson (40:26): That’s what happens. Before we wrap up, I’ve got to get the profession’s own back on you. As I said earlier, you always ask the guests on your podcast, “What’s your favourite fictional legal character?” You can’t choose Rumpole. That was your inspirational character. What’s your favourite? It can be books, it can be TV, it can be films.

Sally Penni (40:49): Gosh, I’d probably need a few. Gosh.

Peter Jackson (40:53): Go on then, a few.

Sally Penni (40:54): Recently, I’ve been thinking about Erin Brockovich. Nobody ever says Erin Brockovich. I don’t know why because she was never quite a lawyer, but she used the law. But Albert Finney in that film, I know you said he can’t be a man, but theoretically, I thought he was so brilliant as a sort of elderly statesman working with this woman who was able to engage with people, and bring that. Because I quite like this sort of films. But yeah, Ally McBeal, Erin Brockovich, Albert Finney.

(41:21): But I suppose there are many Black lawyers. There is a lawyer from Suits whose name escapes me, who works with them all, and then she goes off.

Peter Jackson (41:30): Yeah, the managing partner.

Sally Penni (41:32): The managing partner. But she doesn’t ever seem to do any real law. She just wears nice designer.

Peter Jackson (41:38): Yeah. We don’t do managing partners. We don’t.

Sally Penni (41:39): This is obviously the aspiration, Jo. Jo’s laughing. Forget being a kick-ass family lawyer, Jo. You need to just wear nice suits, and not do any more law.

Joanne Radcliff (41:44): Put heels upon the desk.

Sally Penni (41:45): Yes, heels on the desk, whiskeys in the evening. But there is a lawyer in a film in a series called How To Get Away With Murder. The character is played by Viola Davis, the American actress, who I like enormously. I don’t know if I would like her to play me.

Peter Jackson (42:08): Who would play you in the film version of your life?

Sally Penni (42:11): Sophie Okonedo. She’s a brilliant British actor.

Peter Jackson (42:13): Excellent. Thank you so much for your time. It’s been a pleasure. Thank you very much indeed.

Sally Penni (42:20): Thank you. Thank you for inviting me, both of you. They’re very testing questions. I can’t wait to hear it.

Peter Jackson (42:24): Good.

(42:24): Jo, you said she was a force of nature. I have to agree with you. It really was great to hear about her drive, her sense of justice, and her sense of fairness there. What really struck you from the conversation?

Joanne Radcliff (42:45): What I really liked about Sally, and our chat with her is that she always speaks in such honesty. She isn’t the kind of person that says what people want to hear. She’ll always give you a very frank view. I thought it was particularly refreshing when she was talking about the challenges that she faces as a working mother in terms of balancing her family life, and her working life. Because that’s something that I really identify with. It’s something that’s very topical at the moment.

(43:16): We’re all thinking as businesses about how we deal with that work-life balance, and the demands that people have on their life. Peter, you’ve obviously been in the game quite a long time. You must have seen attitude shift during that period on that issue of well-being and work-life balance.

Peter Jackson (43:34): Oh, definitely. If you go back to the early days of my career in the late ‘80’s and through the ‘90’s, I’m sure work-life balance existed, but one never spoke about it. It was not a topic that was ever discussed openly.

(43:53): Sally combined her thoughts on work-life balance with how a work-life balance can be used to assist with mental health issues. Again, mental health issues were never spoken of in the early stages of my career. They weren’t perceived to be a reality if the truth were known. Now, we’ve come a long way. We’ve moved a long way now towards a situation where any business will recognise the need for its people to have some form of work-life balance. Also, will recognise that mental health issues are genuine illnesses that need to be the subject of treatment, sympathy, and all that goes with it.

(44:38): I think we’ve gone so far that we’re in danger sometimes of conflating the two concepts. They are very, very different in my view. I do totally agree with Sally that a work-life balance can be used as a means of avoiding mental health issues, of assisting with the treatment of mental health issues. But of course, the desire for a work-life balance can be a massive choice, and have nothing to do with mental health issues. Just be a simple recognition of how someone wants to run their life. I referred in the conversation to the Sheryl Sandberg quote, where, “It’s just life, work it out.”

Joanne Radcliff (45:22): My question then, Peter, is it possible to be successful, and also maintain what we might regard as quite a generous home life?

Peter Jackson (45:34): I think it is possible to be successful. But with any success comes sacrifice, doesn’t it? Somewhere along the line, particularly in the service sector, and you must remember as lawyers, we operate in the service sector. We are at the beck and call of clients. They’re our lifeblood. I think there has to be sacrifices, if you’re going to succeed.

(45:59): It is possible to succeed, but you have to recognise that, and indeed, Sally recognised this, didn’t she? There was an irony, wasn’t there? Between her crying for the work-life balance, but openly admitting that when you’ve got to be up at 3:00 in the morning to prepare your case for court, you’ve got to be up at 3:00 in the morning to prepare your case for court. That’s just the nature of the job. I think we’ve got to recognise that.

(46:22): It is a difficult balance. I totally agree. It’s very difficult to achieve it. But it is possible. People can be successful, and have a life. I like to think I’ve got a life. I think I had a life when I was a CEO. I watched Liverpool play football all around the world. I watched the England play cricket all around the world. My two sons are my best mates. It is possible. It is possible.

Joanne Radcliff (46:47): Yeah. It does play a little bit into the discussion we had with Sally around gender equality there. She was advocating women being on boards. The fact that perhaps you do need to make sacrifices to be successful does answer the question of why perhaps more women are not in more senior roles, because perhaps it’s not very easy for them to make those sacrifices when it comes to their home life. Because inevitably for some, not all, those home responsibilities, the burden falls more heavily on them.

Peter Jackson (47:19): I think, Jo, that was definitely the case, historically. Certainly in the legal profession, which was a male-dominated professional society for many, many, many years. As we discussed, change is coming. It’s coming slowly. But it is coming. It has to come from the bottom of the profession, if you see what I mean. It has to be by way of new entrants to the profession. Those entrants with a much more sympathetic view of work-life balance to support them, able to get to more senior positions, and to do other things.

(47:51): I would like to think that seeing more women on boards, for example, the example that Sally used, will come just as we will see more women becoming partners in law firms, becoming partners in accountancy practises, over a period of time because of that more sympathetic, and assisting environment which now pervades.

Joanne Radcliff (48:13): But presumably you see that as something of an organic change rather than being a force change like quotas or something more dramatic.

Peter Jackson (48:23): I do see it as an organic change. I don’t think that quotas will work. I think we have to treat the people who gain the success with respect, and not make them feel like second-class citizens. But I believe that can be done. I believe that merit-based organic approach now is possible. Because as a professional society, as a sector, we have a much more balanced view of what is required to enable people to achieve success, to achieve their ambitions.

(48:54): It’s not just in my view, a moral imperative. It’s not happy-clappy, this. This is a commercial imperative. As a profession, we have lost so much talent over the years, because we have not had the right environment to enable particularly female lawyers to flourish. That is what is changing, I think. That is how I think the organic methodology of change will bring a more balanced profession in due course, and the ability for more women to use their professional skills in other environments.

Joanne Radcliff (49:30): I entirely agree with you in terms of the loss of talent in the past. Just for the record, Peter, I would never describe you as happy-clappy. There we go.

Peter Jackson (49:39): Oh, I’ll take that as a compliment. To sum up, any takeaways for you, Jo?

Joanne Radcliff (49:47): Yes. I feel that whenever I speak to Sally, there’s so much that I take away. You feel like you’ve covered so much in a short space of time. What was particularly, I suppose, moving for me is the way that she takes really negative experiences in her life, things as horrendous as racism, and everything that comes with that. Yet she’s able to channel that into something so positive, to use it as a learning experience, to use it as a rallying call for change rather than simply being bogged down by all the emotions that you would expect to feel when you’ve been through negative experiences. I think that that’s a fantastic way to look at it, and really productive. Yeah, that was very impressive.

Peter Jackson (50:36): No, that came through. I think there were a couple of things for me. First of all, her desire to prepare for everything. That story she told about being awake at 3:00 in the morning preparing for court. It spoke volumes about her professionalism, her discipline. My mentor, the guy who was my managing partner, Phil Dickinson, before me, always used to have an expression that, “He who does the most homework, wins.” That really came across, I think, with Sally. That whatever your discipline, whatever your role is, whatever you sit in an organisation, prepare.

(51:13): But the final thing that really struck me, and I think it went through the whole of the conversation, was just what great fun she took out of everything she did, quite frankly. “Why did you become a lawyer?” “I thought Rumpole was funny. It took me 20 years before I gave the judge a bit of back chat type of thing.” It just oozed out of her that she, for all the difficulties, as you say, for all the obstacles that she’s had put in her way, she’s just overcome them with this great sense of humour, this fizz of fun, and enjoyment. I thought that was a great message, that if you’ve got the opportunity to do a job, a role, a series of jobs in her case, that you really enjoy, that you find great fun, then do them because you’ll get fantastic satisfaction out of doing so.

(52:17): Thanks for listening to this episode of 3:00 AM Conversations. You’ll hear from us again in a month’s time. Please remember to rate, review, and follow. That way, you’ll be able to spread the word. If you’d like to find out more about Hill Dickinson, then head to our website at or follow us on LinkedIn or X. See you soon.