BigLaw ‘Ghetto’? Former Staff Attorney Raps Covington’s D.C. Office

DoesItMatter
Mar 20, 2008 10:25 AM CST

First, I applaud Ms Young on speaking out on this system.  I only wish that she had commented on the full spectrum of “non-associate/partner” attorneys as they may be creatively titled, yet traditionally oppressed. 

Second, one of the things that is apparent to anyone who has ever been a staff, contract or temporary attorney is that the arrogance of Biglaw is the assumption that none of these people will ever make it out of these professional ghetto’s and slums such that they might broadcast these “business models” to the world.  Or, perhaps they don’t care, as the vision associated with this view is short-sighted and distorted by unbridled greed in any case.

Flag this comment

Biglawstrikesagain
Mar 21, 2008 7:21 AM CST

Three Comments…
1. While I’ve not seen the ghetto-ing of minority associates at the large law firm where I slave, I do suspect that this is more widespread than generally reported.  We have, in the past, seen the identical progression with women lawyers and law firms are creatures of habit, if nothing else.

2. I would argue, also, that this ghetto-ing is not limited to racial minorities.  There is a clear delineation between (i) older attorneys with families and the like and (ii) young single (or newly married) men and women.  The perception is that the younger less attached group is moldable while the older group is set in their ways and less loyal.

3. With regard to the hiring of minority attys from better schools, say what you will, but this is the trickle down effect of affirmative action in the law school admission process.  Law schools that use “diversity” as a bonus in selecting applicants use this to bolster otherwise insufficient academic criteria.  The result is that the minority student at many (not all) law schools is thrown into a pool that is somewhat deeper than his/her undergraduate academic achievements have prepared him/her for.  Of course, the end result is that the hiring firms have to go to first tier schools to get second tier talent, and so on. 

Disclaimer (read this before calling this post racist): This is not to say that all or any minority students are sub-par, rather I posit that affirmative action only serves to put individuals in situations that they do not have the supporting background for.  Had these students sufficient opportunity from the start, for example, affirmative action would not be necessary and everyone, regardless of race or gender would be “judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.”

Flag this comment

New Attorney
Mar 21, 2008 7:37 AM CST

The term “ghetto” is used loosely in recent years. Any job within the legal profession is hardly “ghetto” especially when it’s at BigLaw firm. Furthermore, I strongly believe if the firm you’re working for is not challenging or sufficiently setting you up for success in your career, then find another job where that can happen. Take control over your own destiny!

Flag this comment

UVA Alum
Mar 21, 2008 8:04 AM CST

#2’s opinion is so far-stretched from reality it is ridiculous.  It is a minority/non-minority thing.  There are plenty of competent staff/contract attorneys who are not given the work assignments needed to progress.  Hiring is still a huge problem too, which is why the legal profession is less than 10% of color yet people of color make up over 1/4 of the U.S. population.

People keep hiding behind the competency issue.  As if every minority hired is below-average and incapable of the work. 

For example, I went to UVA which is still struggling with minority recruitment.  People always claim diversity recruitment and affirmative action means lowering the admission/academic criteria.  If that was the case then the retention and/or attrition rates would prove so.  UVA has the best african-american graduation rates out of its sister schools and the ivy leagues.  Clearly the SAT is not the best predictor of College grades, graduation rates or professional capability.

A lot of these firms are trying to bulk up their diversity statistics by placing minorities in contract attorney positions with no chance of career progression, substantive legal work, etc.  They are not put in front of rainmakers or taught how to navigate firm culture.  They are not approached for assignments.  This starts in the summer associate programs as well, when minority summer associates are often paid less than other associates.

Flag this comment

JS
Mar 21, 2008 8:18 AM CST

I look forward to the day when our society views race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation the way these “categories” should be viewed—completely irrelevant to the work place.

Good luck to all of those people who may be suffering because they don’t fall into the “category” that their employers want.  I hope these people find a job that treats them according to their merit, not their “category” membership.

Flag this comment

2L of color
Mar 21, 2008 8:33 AM CST

AD’s comment is offensive and misses the point. The “minimum requirements” to get a foot in the door in BigLaw (grades, top school, journal experience), even as a “diversity hire,” are so high that it is absolutely ridiculous to off-handedly label any associate, irrespective of race, as incompetent. Billing from 2000-2200 hours a year and wanting to exert some level of control over the kind or quality of work you do, for at least some portion of that, is far from asking for a “free ride for life.”

Is that Alvin DeBonis the same who commented here…
http://www.observer.com/node/33149#comments?
Stating “. . . just because they’re smart doesn’t meen their Jewish.”... Perhaps DeBonis’s comment is symptomatic of a larger personal issue with those of different ethnic backgrounds. (Sidebar: While race and ethnicity are rarely indicative of incompetence, poor writing can be).

Flag this comment

DoesItMatter
Mar 21, 2008 10:11 AM CST

Marc H..

Thank you.  It is what is going on and it is inexcusable. 

However, the ABA is controlled and dominated by BigLaw. And, BigLaw is perpetuating this and also reaping the rewards of such a caste system.  Moreover, I hate to point out the obvious, but if these staff, contract and temp attorneys are so incompetent and incapable, why are they utilized at all, let alone retained in such large numbers?  The idea that these attorneys are so incompetent as to warrant being treated this way and abused (yes, ABUSED) by such highly and superbly competent and qualified associates is ridiculous.  They passed the bar, even when some associates do not.  They often are assigned the responsibility of helping the associates learn how to do various tasks.  But, again…they are too incompetent. Whatever.

If you are going to create a caste system and make up rules as you go along in order to solidify and justify it, have the balls to own up to it.  Oh, that’s right…You are smarter than everyone else and we can all be fooled by your clever words….Case in point:  The mess that the ABA keeps publishing wondering why black women are leaving BigLaw???  Please.  Explain to my stupid, incompetent self how is it that I leave a room that I am not permitted to enter?  Sorry, that one should have been on the LSAT.  I might have actually got THAT one wrong.

Flag this comment

honest discussion
Mar 21, 2008 11:22 AM CST

I agree with Joe that an intellectual discussion on race relations never happens because white people aren’t allowed to talk about it without being labeled a racist.  So, here are some honest thoughts from a white guy that I hope will start an intellectual discussion and not just substance lacking retorts with allegations of racism.  I’m not trying to be inflammatory.  I just want to see how other people will respond to complete and unfiltered honesty. 

At the risk of being that white guy that always prefaces every racially insensitive remark with “But I have lots of black friends”, I am going to be completely honest about my own prejudices.  But despite my prejudices I do like to think I’m not a racist since I actually do have lots of black friends.  I would think that a true racist would exclude everyone from the target race from his or her inner circle.  So, perhaps there is a distinction between having some biases or prejudices and being a racist. 

I often try to analyze my own biases, as I don’t want to be part of the problem.  And I try to make efforts to be as inclusive as possible.  Yet I often find myself labeling strangers based on stereotypes.  However, my bias seems to be based more on culture than skin color.  And I wonder if other white men do the same…or if it’s really the same thing. 

For example, I have interviewed lots of candidates for positions in the past; including lots of black candidates.  When a candidate was well spoken and well groomed, the thought of excluding them based on race would never even cross my mind.  I hired most all of these candidates that were otherwise qualified.  However, I have also interviewed candidates that dress sloppy and speak with a thick urban dialect.  I’ll admit that I automatically have a bias against these people.  And it would be very difficult for me to actually hire a candidate like this.  However, I would argue that it’s not because they’re black; it’s because I perceive them to be undereducated.  The logical extension of this, I suppose, is that I perceive a person that embraces the black culture to be undereducated because I must perceive black culture as one that doesn’t value education.  For the record, I would never hire a white guy that spoke ebonics either; which I think bolsters the proposition that this is a culture issue and not an issue of skin color.  Just as I would classify the ebonics speaking white guy as a subscriber to black culture, I guess I wouldn’t view an educated black person as being part of what I perceive to be black culture.  I’m not sure if this fair or accurate, but these are my perceptions nonetheless. 

My own biases outlined above illustrate, I think, the insistence by a predominantly white culture that minority cultures assimilate.  As long as you act like me and talk like me, then I don’t care what color you are.  But if you act or talk like a stereotypical black person then I will assume, at least until you prove otherwise, that you fit the stereotypical mold.  So the real question that I ask myself is “why should I insist that a black person adopt my culture instead of their own”?  Does that imply that I think that black culture is fundamentally flawed somehow? Why should they have to talk like me?  I don’t have any expectation that an intelligent Asian, Indian, or even a white European must act and speak like me.  Furthermore, I have no expectation that an intelligent black man with an African accent act or speak like me.  My discriminatory tendencies, to the extent they exist, are directed only at American black culture…but importantly not against individual black people.

So my big question is…does it make me a racist if I discriminate on culture and not color?  I hope that this post will be accepted for what it is; that is an open and honest statement of how I actually think and act as a white male professional.  If you think I’m a racist, then feel free to say so.  I truly am interested in what others think about this.  Also, if you think my perceptions are flawed, I would be interested to hear what you think we could do as a society to change those perceptions since I imagine they are endemic among the white population.

Flag this comment

Ruth Mattson
Mar 21, 2008 12:28 PM CST

I just re-read the comment stream and I suggest again to the persons responsible for editing these comment streams that bullying and aggressive language should not be permitted content in comments posted on this site.

The ABA has no Constitutional or contractual obligation to provide a forum for “free speech”, but it does have a contractual obligation to its members to ensure that the content on the ABA’s website is consistent with the organization’s objectives.  Surely hate-mongering and bullying are not goals or objectives of the ABA. 

Hate speech and abusive language should not be tolerated anywhere, and certainly not on the ABA’s website.

Flag this comment

Ruth Mattson
Mar 21, 2008 1:50 PM CST

Those who agree with me likely stopped reading comments shortly after #2, and that is my concern.  I only went back to re-read the comments because the editors emailed me that the content stream was “self-correcting”.  I disagree.

By leaving a post that is hateful, one limits the resulting discussion by reducing the pool of readers who will tolerate the content of the material being discussed.

Stupid content should be allowed.  Content which is misguided but contains reasoned thoughts should be allowed.  Content which is blatantly hateful and without substance should be deleted for the benefit of the discussion, and to maintain the image of the ABA as a culturally integrated, tolerant and professional organization.

Flag this comment

JesAClog
Mar 24, 2008 8:00 AM CST

Jessica,

“One of these days, someone will realize that it would make good business sense to hire contract/staff attorneys (of all colors and both genders) with the idea that if they did good work, they’d have the opportunity for advancement—the quality of work would improve, turnover would decrease, and those who are unwilling or unable to do competent doc review with the understanding that their efforts would be rewarded with more meaningful assignments down the line would find new careers”

This would be an excellent hiring strategy, but I doubt it serves some of the “other” goals that such a caste system clearly advances.  Even if one gives BigLaw the benefit of the doubt and says that such consequences are completely unintentional and random, what this board and others has revealed is that there are those among their ranks who would have the practice continued for other reasons—-reasons not so unintentional.

Flag this comment

SuTorro
Mar 24, 2008 10:47 AM CST

First, the diversity issue is much larger than blacks and women.  If you take a picture of almost any DC doc review site, you’d have a poster for diversity (and I’ve heard of at least one law firm doing just that).  There are greater numbers of women and people of color than you’ll find elsewhere in BigLaw.  There are also greater numbers of immigrants, disabled, lgbt, older/second-career attorneys, and attorneys from less affluent backgrounds. 
The big point that people are missing is that this idea of the law firm as a meritocracy is a myth.  They hire people who have the highest grades from the best law schools because it’s a marketing gimmick to get clients and because there is a higher likelihood that these people have the rich and powerful contacts necessary to bring in rich and powerful clients.  Those associates without such contacts generally only last 3-5 years at these firms.  At the same time, corporations are starting to grow their in-house legal departments to deal with the growing number of discovery requests and large volumes of documents produced from their daily activities.  Despite the fact that the rainmaking abilities coveted by BigLaw are of little use in a corporate legal department, the corporations have bought into BigLaw’s fairy tale and deemed former associates as the only attorneys worthy of hire.  Some job postings go so far as to state “no document review attorneys”. 
I have no problem with law firms wanting to hire rainmakers.  My problem is that they tell the world they hire these people for their legal skills and ability as attorneys, and that the attorneys they don’t hire are incompetent.  Law schools are churning out ridiculous amounts of attorneys who have bought into the myth and believe that if they work hard and do a good job, they too will have a chance at a good job and a nice office.  Yes, there is always the option of going solo, but that has it’s own set of problems in a world where BigLaw and nonprofits control the bar associations and decide when the ethics rules apply. 
I can’t imagine any other industry where people with the same education are divided into two groups with all of the benefits, advancement potential, and job openings being reserved only for the smaller, whiter, more male, and more affluent group.  Meanwhile, the other group is segregated into basements, storage spaces, and warehouses; paid substantially less (though often billed to clients at substantially similar rates) than the elite group;  and told that they will never, ever be allowed to join the elite group or advance in any way, no matter how good of a job they do, no matter what level of skills they demonstrate, no matter how often they are asked to train new members of the elite, and no matter how often they are asked to do more substantive tasks.  If they don’t like the basement, they can go start start their own business or find employment outside of that industry because their kind need not apply to any other jobs available within that industry.  BigLaw employment attorneys would be salivating over the potential lawsuits if they found this situation in any other industry.

Flag this comment

MC
Mar 25, 2008 8:29 AM CST

The race issue aside, people who write books and have side careers don’t just walk into biglaw firms and expect to get anywhere.  If you’re not committed to a career in law then you can’t reasonably expect anything but “staff attorney” or “contract attorney” jobs to be given to you.  My sympathies are with the people who actually want to be firm lawyers as a primary career, and not those who are doing ten other things and just taking a firm job because they think it would be nice to get a little more stable income.  I’d like the next perspective aired on this to be from a minority attorney who’s making a serious effort to succeed in the law profession and not one who’s just hopped on board to do some kind of expose/hatchet job, one suspects, in order to promote her own writing career.  I work hard and I do have a few interests outside my job, but on balance I don’t have much respect for people who just dabble around in law and expect to be handed goodies, no matter where they went to school.

Flag this comment

People's Truth Squad
Mar 25, 2008 3:50 PM CST

I think I can speak for Ruth Mattson that #18 and #22 are offensive and they should be removed.

Flag this comment