Female barristers who are pregnant often keep working – going to court for hearings, meeting clients in conference or drafting paperwork – almost up to the time of delivery and shortly after, to keep income flowing in.

In light of this, the council of the Hong Kong Bar Association has proposed a scheme to provide a one-off subsidy of HK$20,000 to barristers within six months of the birth of a child.

The scheme is socially progressive in the Hong Kong context as the proposed subsidy would be equally available to the association’s male and female members, in recognition of childcare being the privilege and responsibility of both the mother and father. The subsidy, which will be funded by increased subscription fees, will also be available to parents who adopt children.

There is nothing revolutionary about this. The English bar also requires chambers – where barristers practise – to provide “parental leave” for their members, in the form of rent breaks. The bar in Victoria, Australia, underwrites 75 per cent of a barrister’s chambers’ rental for eligible members for six months. Supporters of the Hong Kong Bar Association’s proposal believe that the bar should be committed to the future health of this branch of the legal profession and to its diversity.

The proposal has apparently been welcomed by non-legal women’s groups and human-rights NGOs, which consider it a step towards achieving equal opportunities. The proposal has, however, also aroused negative reactions from some barristers, both male and female.

They argue that the provision of such a subsidy fundamentally changes the ethos of the barristers’ profession as a self-employed line of work, in which everyone practises the law independently. The subtext here is that a barrister should know how to best manage his or her own financial affairs before deciding to have children.

Such views are understandable. Many female barristers have had children and endured the struggle to keep their practice afloat in the absence of maternity support during a particularly physically demanding phase in their lives. Meanwhile, the rationale goes, for male barristers, what struggle? This is the way the profession has worked and it does not feel wrong.

However, what feels natural and familiar may not, in fact, be fair. The objective effect of a gender-blind state of affairs is to put a section of the profession – female practitioners – at a disadvantage compared to their male counterparts, who are not precluded from continuing with their practice out of physical inability in the event of childbirth.

A similar example of a gender-blind provision may be found in Moldova, where a lawyer, to qualify for a number of leadership positions in the legal profession, must have five years’ continuous work experience in the field, which excludes female lawyers who wish to take maternity leave.

The UK government provides statutory maternity payments to self-employed mothers. It is time for the Hong Kong government to consider similar measures. This will encourage women to apply their multifaceted abilities to various self-employed pursuits, so that we will see more women becoming artists, musicians and entrepreneurs.

For now, it is hoped that the Hong Kong Bar Association’s parental support initiative will send a strong message of inclusiveness to existing barristers as well as potential entrants, that barristers need not cease to practise, to become in-house lawyers or judges, if they aspire to raise a family. Hopefully, this will also engender meaningful debate on equal opportunity in the legal and judicial profession.

Wing Kay Po is vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Equality and Diversity of the Hong Kong Bar Association