Welcome to the first ever interview of Leadership+, from National Student Pride. This series of interviews will shine a light on the day-to-day lives of LGBT+ partners, executives, and directors in the businesses many students are looking at applying to.
I’m Max, and I’m a recent graduate. I know exactly the angst students feel about finding a graduate job, and I hope this series can spark some ideas about your own long-term career goals by reading about the journeys of LGBT+ industry leaders who were once just like us.
In this first conversation, I sat down with Eraldo d’Atri, a Senior Associate at Clifford Chance. Originally from Italy, Eraldo has been with Clifford Chance ever since he graduated, and is now the co-chair of the firm’s LGBT+ network, Arcus.
This interview was recorded on Friday 16th October, 2020.
In this interview:
Life as a Senior...Senior Associate
The ‘X’ Passports Case
On Remote Working
Graduating into a Financial Crisis
Life as a Senior...Senior Associate
MT: Firstly, to jump right into it - let’s speak a bit about your role:
What you do at Clifford Chance, and what does your day-to-day look like?
ED: I am a Senior Associate in the litigation and dispute resolution department at Clifford Chance. I’m a lawyer, in other words.
Specifically, I’m a lawyer who deals with disputes between large corporations, but sometimes also individuals.
In particular, I look after international arbitration. Arbitration is a form of private dispute resolution mechanism - so it’s similar to courts, but done privately and usually confidentially. It’s preferred in international transactions, because the arbitrators are sometimes considered to be more impartial as opposed to national courts.
As a more senior lawyer within the department, I tend to run and manage a dispute with a team of more junior lawyers. There would normally be a partner above me, but as a senior associate you’re the person that runs the arbitration or litigation, with a number of junior associates and trainees that work on the matter with you.
MT: Where is a Senior Associate on the ‘ladder’?
So, there are paralegals and non-qualified lawyers who will do things like document review, and they tend to have a legal education, but they’re not qualified.
The entry level position as a solicitor is a trainee - which means you have to do your training contract. This is usually two years where you try out different departments in the law firm to find out what your vocation is: are you more of a disputes lawyer, a transaction lawyer, do you like tax, derivatives...all sorts of things.
After those two years, you tend to choose a department to qualify into, and if that department also liked you, you will qualify as an NQ - a newly qualified associate.
That becomes the first tier of qualified lawyers - an NQ lawyer.
Now, after your NQ level, you are a 1 PQE, 2 PQE 3 PQE, which is post-qualification experience. Sort of around the four/five year mark, you become a Senior Associate. In some ways, that’s just a name - even after that, your PQE level will have an impact on the responsibilities you get.
I’ve been at Clifford Chance for 12 years, so I’m a 10-year PQE Senior Associate, which makes me one of the more senior Associates within the department.
After that there are partners, which is the top level.
MT: So how long have you been a Senior Associate?
ED: Six and a half years now.
MT: So you are quite a senior...Senior Associate.
ED: That’s a fair thing to say…
MT: So what would a normal calendar day look like for a senior...Senior Associate? What does a Monday morning look like?
ED: Firstly, there are calls…which used to be meetings.
There are calls we have with other team members on a particular matter. My role is to keep everything on track and to make sure everything runs smoothly.
Also, there are calls with your clients to update them about the progress of the matter.
One of the most exciting things to do is when you get to draft submissions. Drafting pleadings or statements from witnesses that will then be submitted to a court or tribunal. You will study the case, study the law. You need and try to be coherent and persuasive in your argument as to why your client should be successful in the dispute.
Many solicitors don’t do any advocacy at trial, but I am a ‘solicitor advocate’’ - it’s a special qualification whereby you’re allowed to appear in court, as well. And also as I work in arbitration where there’s a less formal distinction between lawyers and advocates.
Now, appearing before the court or tribunal is not your day-to-day job, it’s very time consuming. You’ll get maybe one, maybe two hearings a year. Then a week or two weeks of appearing in court, conducting strategy, and so forth. But that’s not day-to-day.
Mostly, it’s thinking about the case - how you’re going to present your case - and that involves a lot of strategic thinking. I could run this argument, but if I do, is it inconsistent with this other argument which is more important to be ultimately successful in your dispute?
And as the most senior person, you get to do a lot of this strategic thinking.
The ‘X’ Passports Case
MT: For instance, you took on the ‘X’ Passports case, and represented Christie Elan-Cane. How did the strategic approach go with that case?
ED: Let me say one thing - we undertook this on a pro bono basis, which means we don’t get paid for the work we do.
Clifford Chance takes on work that we think it’s worthwhile to do for society and for the client in particular. It’s very different from my day-to-day job.
The ‘X’ passports case is an ongoing case, so I can’t let you in on much in terms of strategic thinking, in particular.
MT: Ah! Maybe it’s better, then, to ask if you can give a bit of background about the case in general.
ED: Okay, so this is a judicial review. That happens when someone takes the government to court to challenge a policy decision that the government has taken. This is about a government decision that we argue, in this case, infringes upon human rights.
The government refuses to issue passports with the gender marking ‘X’. They only issue passports with ‘M’ or ‘F’.
What we say is: ‘X’ is a type of gender marking that is acceptable by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standards. For them, a document is valid with an ‘X’ marking, which stands for unspecified.
We say that their refusal to issue ‘X’ passports is discriminatory against people such as Christie, who do not identify as either male or female.
Christie likes to be referred to as ‘per’. Per preference is to have an ‘X’ on per passport. And in the absence of good reasons to the contrary, the decision not to issue an ‘X’ passport is discriminatory.
We started the proceedings some years ago now, and it took a long time to go through the various levels. The first level is the first instance decision by the High Court, and they disagreed with us that ‘X’ passports should be issued, but agreed with us that protection for gender identity in terms of human rights legislation also covers those people that do not identify as male or female.
That was a very important first step.
What the Court then said was that - even though they recognise that there is an obligation for the government to respect and protect non-gendered identity - the government maintains a margin of appreciation of how to implement this protection, and they are allowed to take other factors into consideration when considering the issue.
That’s where the Court disagreed with us - that the government should be allowed to say no in order to prevent regulatory incoherence.
By that I mean, if some people had an ‘X’ passport, but their birth certificate still had an ‘M’ or ‘F’. There were other arguments, too, but that was one of them.
So we decided to appeal the case before the Court of Appeal, which confirmed that non-gendered identity is worthy of protection, but that this did not translate into an obligation for the government to issue ‘X’ passports.
The case is ongoing, and we are in the process of appealing to the Supreme Court.
Overall, we’re getting there. We think we have very good arguments.
MT: And what’s the timeline on that?
ED: Well, COVID-19 came along and that has delayed things, so we’re still waiting on permission from the Supreme Court to appeal. Then you have to prepare the arguments
We’re looking at over a year. Unfortunately, it’s not an immediate thing.
On Remote Working
MT: So you say there have been delays with COVID, which makes me think back to when it first started disrupting our work lives.
When I first think about those crazy weeks in March, when I first found out Italy had gone into something called a ‘lock-down’. It was crazy. Everything was getting emptier. What was this word ‘fur-lough’ about? It all sounded so peculiar and happened so quickly.
How did March go for you in your role?
ED: Well funnily enough, I was on shared parental leave until the beginning of March. I was only in the office for ten days or so, and then we all started working from home!
In certain ways, of course, this has made clear that my sector is a very resilient profession. We have been able to maintain our quality of service with clients despite moving to remote working.
Also, to go from a meeting in a conference room to our secure equivalent of Zoom, it has made it easier to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.
Unlike in a conference room when one person can dominate the conversation, you have twelve blocks on a screen with everyone’s faces on it. It’s easier to spot who wants to say something.
In dealing with clients - that’s changed. It used to be totally standard to travel and meet a client abroad, and that’s not possible anymore.
The downside is for juniors.
It’s easier for established, senior lawyers who already have a network within the firm, who know everyone, they know who to call, they know who to have a chat with without a problem.
But how do we make sure a junior person feels part of the team? They can’t go for coffees.
It’s more difficult to have a joke. You’ll crack a joke in a physical meeting. But to crack a joke in a Zoom meeting...when everyone else is muted and you don’t know if they laughed. You can’t even hear them.
That’s the sort of thing that gives junior people confidence to speak up on substantive issues.
MT: Ha - I’m going through this at the moment as a junior member of a team.
It can often be difficult to feel in the loop. Even if I am in the loop. And I probably am. I thinkI am...I’m just not in a physical space where I can be fully aware of what everyone else is doing.
Graduating into a Financial Crisis
You started your career around the time of the last financial crisis - and students reading this may be about to start their career into another financial crisis.
How did your career start out? And why law?
ED: I did not think I would be a lawyer. That was never what I thought I would do. It never crossed my mind. I probably also didn’t know what a lawyer did. You see stuff on TV, and it’s not entirely realistic.
Friends told me I was made to be a lawyer because I loved arguing...and debating. It probably wasn’t a compliment, in hindsight…
I was a bit concerned because English is not my first language. I had this assumption that it would be impossible to be a lawyer. I was wrong on that.
I did my LLB and a couple of vacation schemes. Then the next stage is training contracts in the summer before your final year - you start applying, and honestly I always wanted to go to Clifford Chance. I always saw it as the most international of the Magic Circle firms that still managed to be down to earth and approachable.
It never seemed to appear like the stereotype of law firms of being ‘old school’. That always plays on your mind as an LGBT+ person - am I going to be accepted in the place I’m working?
That was important. My now-husband and I were both trainees at Clifford Chance, and we did the LPC together.
I got immediately involved with the LGBT+ network - and now I am the co-chair.
MT: So you did your LPC in 2006-2007.
ED: I graduated in June 2007, and that summer was the beginning of the global financial crisis. By the time I started at CC in February 2008, we were right in the middle of the recession.
MT: So, how does a recession affect the legal sector?
ED: It had an impact on the transactional department: the mergers, acquisitions, loans - a lot of that work dried up. I remember it was a tough time.
But law firms are structured by the idea that there must be continuity. You must look at the long run. It’s inevitable that, even if there might not be as much work as we like, we’ll always need juniors. They’ll be the leaders of the future.
The market will pick up again, and that’s inevitable. When it does, you can’t have a gap in your seniority levels where there’s nobody with the experience you need.
MT: So this was my thinking - the legal sector will always be there. The impact is really on the externals, with the clients you work with.
This is probably a much easier question to ask than to answer, but - how do you see the next year or two in the legal sector?
ED: Lawyers will always be needed. Particularly in disputes - after recessions, there are a lot of disputes that arise from a recession. A law firm needs to look at all aspects of its business. We might have to adjust to a new normal with how we run our business, whether there is a need for a physical office, and so on. But businesses have always adapted to change, and that will always continue to happen.
I’m hopeful, that’s what I’ll say.
MT: So, to tie that all in - let’s say I’m a final year student reading this interview, I’m looking to apply to Clifford Chance, ready to take on remote interviews - what kind of advice would you give to me?
ED: Don’t be put off by the conditions of the market. Give it a go. Even if you’re not sure, send off an application.
I can see different industries and can see why they may find it more difficult to recover, but I can only speak for law. Think about what you want to do long term, stick with it, and try Clifford Chance. It’s a good place to work.
MT: And join Arcus?
ED: And join Arcus.
Thank you for reading the first ever interview for Leadership+. You can subscribe here to get an email for every new interview (which will be once a month starting...now). Send any thoughts, feedback, or comments over to me on email and check out National Student Pride.
With special thanks to Clifford Chance for this first edition of Leadership+. It’s also worth looking at their opportunities for undergraduates. The ACCEPT Conference is a groundbreaking event in collaboration with National Student Pride and myGwork for undergraduates who identify as LGBT+ and are interested in a career in law. Clifford Chance are also the founding sponsor of the LGBT+ Undergraduate of the Year Award, in partnership with Attitude Magazine and NSP.