Reflections on Diversity in the Legal Market from the Nordic Perspective
THE AUTHOR:
Jake Lowther, Specialist Counsel at the SCC Arbitration Institute
In the week following International Women’s Day 2026, the SCC Arbitration Institute (“SCC“) together with host Cirio Advokatbyrå held a breakfast seminar bringing together academic research, law firm leadership and the institutional perspective of the SCC. The focus of the discussion was gender equality in the legal profession, viewed through a lens increasingly relevant for international arbitration. That is, the role of client relationships in shaping professional opportunities.
The seminar, moderated by Karin Ljungman, combined two complementary perspectives. The first was Project E.V.A. (Equally Valued Attorneys), presented by Jenny Lantz, Stockholm School of Economics, and developed in close collaboration with Cirio. The second was the SCC’s ongoing work on diversity and transparency in arbitration, grounded in data and long-term institutional responsibility. Together, these perspectives highlighted how early-stage professional dynamics – often well before a dispute ever arises – can influence who is visible, trusted and ultimately appointed in arbitration.
Why this Matters for Arbitration
From the institutional perspective, diversity is not an abstract aspiration. It goes to the legitimacy, quality and long-term sustainability of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. Who appears as counsel, who builds client relationships, and who is perceived as a “safe pair of hands” are all factors that, over time, feed directly into arbitrator appointments.
The SCC’s diversity reporting has consistently shown that while institutions can and should take responsibility for their own appointments, the decisive factor in arbitrator diversity remains party appointments. That reality makes it particularly important to understand how professional visibility and trust are built in the first place. In that sense, the client relationship – long before any arbitral tribunal is constituted – deserves closer scrutiny.
At the same time, recent data demonstrates that progress is both possible and tangible when diversity is treated as a strategic priority. According to the SCC’s forthcoming Report on Arbitrator Appointments in SCC Cases 2020–2024, women arbitrator appointments increased by 70 per cent in the period 2020–2024 compared to 2015-2019. Of the 1,107 arbitrator appointments covered by the report, 33 per cent were women and 67 per cent were men. Where the SCC itself made the appointment, the picture was even more balanced: 51 per cent of arbitrators appointed by the SCC Board were women, and 49 per cent were men.
These figures are not coincidental. They reflect consistent, deliberate commitment.
A Revealing Room
The composition of the room itself illustrated the issues under discussion. Participants included both transactional and disputes lawyers, spanning seniority levels from associates to partners. Yet, out of the entire group, only three participants were men. While the seminar was not designed as a representative sample, the imbalance was nonetheless striking – and familiar. It echoed a recurring pattern observed in both law firms and arbitration. While women are often well represented in discussions, initiatives and junior to mid-senior roles, structural bottlenecks continue to appear further along the pipeline, particularly in positions associated with client origination, visibility and ultimate decision-making power.
From an arbitration perspective, this matters. Who builds client trust, who leads mandates, and who is perceived as a natural choice for complex disputes are factors that, over time, influence who is put forward – and accepted – as arbitrator.
Project E.V.A.: Shifting the Analytical Focus
Project E.V.A. starts from a practical observation that resonates far beyond any single firm. Clients, particularly in traditionally male-dominated sectors such as finance, often gravitate towards male lawyers. Because client origination and revenue generation remain critical to career progression, these patterns can compound over time, reinforcing inequality at senior levels.
Rather than treating this as a purely internal law‑firm issue, Project E.V.A. deliberately places the client relationship at the centre of the analysis. Lantz presented research based on an interview study involving 17 participants, drawing on organisational and gender research to identify which aspects of client relationships are most relevant from an equality perspective.
Among the most critical factors identified were long‑standing and personal client relationships, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, working conditions and organisational structures, as well as professional culture and networks. A key insight, Lantz observed, was that without understanding how these dynamics operate in practice, equality initiatives risk addressing symptoms rather than causes.
From Insight to Implementation
One of the strengths of Project E.V.A. is that it does not stop at diagnosis. Following the interview study, a series of thematic workshops were organised, each combining empirical findings with relevant research. Participants then developed concrete proposals for change, which ultimately formed the basis for Cirio’s code of conduct launched in 2025.
The code is intentionally practical. It is not designed as a rigid compliance tool, but as a reminder of everyday choices and behaviours that can either reinforce or challenge inequality in client interactions. Inequality is often sustained not by explicit decisions, but by unexamined habits. That also means that relatively small, conscious adjustments can have a measurable impact.
Professional Services, Trust and “Opaque Quality”
During the seminar, Lantz focused on two dimensions of the client relationship: long-term personal ties, and perceived risk and uncertainty. Placed in the broader context of research on professional services firms, these factors are especially relevant for arbitration.
Legal services are characterised by what researchers often call “opaque quality.” For non‑experts, legal advice – and by extension arbitral advocacy – is difficult to assess, even after it has been delivered. As a result, reputation, familiarity and personal trust play a disproportionate role in client decision‑making. These dynamics, Lantz noted, are not unique to law firms. Rather, they are equally present when parties select counsel or arbitrators.
Professional services firms are also environments in which individual autonomy is highly valued. Client relationships can further strengthen that autonomy, which can render leadership and change management particularly challenging. Lantz referred to literature stating that leading such organisations can at times feel like “herding cats.” None of this makes change impossible, but it does mean that equality efforts must be deliberate, well-anchored and consistently reinforced.
Technology, Transformation and Future Risks
The seminar also addressed the broader transformation currently underway in the legal profession, including technological change. New tools, new business models and evolving client expectations are reshaping how legal work is delivered and evaluated. From an arbitration perspective, these developments may also influence who gains visibility and how expertise is recognised.
Without an explicit equality lens, there is a risk that new systems simply reproduce existing patterns in a different form – whether through how work is allocated, how performance is measured, or how professional profiles are built. Continued research, transparency and institutional engagement will be necessary to address this.
Law‑Firm Leadership: Responsibility Starts at Home
From Cirio’s side, Managing Partner Emma Dansbo shared reflections on how the firm has continued its equality work following Project E.V.A. A central theme was persistence. Equality, Dansbo argued, is not achieved through one‑off initiatives, but through sustained effort, cultural change and a willingness to challenge established norms.
While clients and the wider market clearly play a role, Dansbo emphasised that responsibility ultimately rests with law firms themselves. Structural challenges do not resolve themselves. Change requires active leadership, including making career paths more transparent, addressing culture and leadership issues, and enabling flexible working models.
For the SCC, seminars such as this one form an important part of a broader, long-term approach to diversity in arbitration. Through its diversity reporting and related initiatives, the SCC has consistently sought to make patterns visible, to share data openly and to encourage more systematic approaches to appointments.
The forthcoming SCC report also shows where progress has been most pronounced. Women appointed as sole arbitrator or chairperson increased from 29 per cent (2015–2019) to 44 per cent (2020–2024), while women appointed as co-arbitrators increased from 14 per cent to 32 per cent over the same period. These developments demonstrate that when institutions take gender diversity seriously, and apply that commitment consistently, meaningful change will follow.
At the same time, the SCC’s experience confirms that institutions alone cannot solve issues of representation. Because party appointments play such a decisive role, progress depends on awareness and engagement across the entire arbitration ecosystem: clients, counsel, law firms and institutions alike. Understanding how professional trust and visibility are built is therefore not peripheral to arbitration – it is central to its future.
Concluding Reflections
The seminar offered a focused examination of how equality, client relationships and arbitration intersect. It reinforced a point that deserves greater attention: who appears in arbitral proceedings is shaped long before a dispute arises.
By combining academic research, firm‑level experience and an institutional perspective, the seminar demonstrated how different actors can contribute to a more inclusive arbitration landscape. Small changes, grounded in evidence and implemented consistently, can have lasting effects – particularly when they are supported by transparency and shared responsibility.
From the SCC’s perspective, that is precisely where the most meaningful progress is made.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jake Lowther refers to himself as a “civilized common law lawyer”, having first qualified in Australia and then in Sweden. He is currently Specialist Counsel at the SCC Arbitration Institute (“SCC”) in Stockholm. Prior to joining the SCC, Jake was an Associate in the M&A and dispute resolution teams at Nordic-Baltic law firm Magnusson. Before this Jake worked in Seoul, Korea as Foreign Legal Specialist at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board’s international division, KCAB INTERNATIONAL. Jake also has experience of arbitration practice in Germany, which he obtained alongside completing the International Dispute Resolution LL.M. program at Humboldt-University of Berlin. Jake began his legal career at Ashurst in Australia, where he worked in the employment, M&A, and infrastructure teams.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
