Mintz Levin’s Bold Diversity Stroke Crumbles

Diversity

Mintz Levin’s Bold Diversity Stroke Crumbles

Posted Dec 12, 2007, 08:14 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

When Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo hired a predominantly minority practice group in 2005, newspaper accounts touted the “bold stroke” that doubled the firm's number of minority partners from six to 12.

The move gave Mintz Levin a large corporate diversity counseling group in Washington, D.C., and an influx of minority partners that the firm hoped would aid in retention of minority associates.

But now, the group’s last three partners have jumped to a different firm, “leaving in their wake questions about how the much-touted group could fall apart in such a short period of time,” Legal Times reports.

The three partners have joined Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, along with three associates and a special counsel from Mintz Levin.

One of the jumping partners, Edmund Cooke Jr., told Legal Times the move was a business decision. “Thelen is helping us do a bit more rapidly and a bit more broadly what we were doing at Mintz,” he said.

The legal publication says Mintz Levin housed the group on a separate floor of its D.C. office, with the aim of helping the lawyers, from different firms and in-house positions, get to know one another. But the isolation meant that other law firm partners were slow to cross-sell the group’s services to their clients.

One lawyer told Legal Times that there was some grumbling in the firm about the cost of supporting the practice group. The firm did not disclose its investment, but one law firm consultant said it could cost as much as $3 million to start up such a new practice group.

Harvard law professor David Wilkins, who studies diversity in the legal profession, said the firm took a risk that it would be difficult to integrate so many new people. "Mintz should get credit for trying," he said.

Updated 12:21 p.m. CST to correct name of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by JB - 6 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 15 hours, 6 minutes ago

Separate but equal, eh? Rest assured everyone, for those of you who thought that it had gone away, proponents of affirmative action are still able to keep it alive and well. On Grutter, on Gratz, on Mintz!

This is what happens when you force diversity for diversity’s sake. What was it, exactly, that Mintz thought that ‘minority’ associates needed/wanted differently/more than what they must consider a ‘majority’ associate? “Hmm… they have darker skin - they must want/need something different that any other associate. What could it be? Let’s go to a seminar!”

By the by - if you’re wondering what the ABA considers to be diverse or a minority status (especially when it comes to law school recruitment, enrollment and matriculation into the legal profession) it is people with disabilities, African-Americans and Latinos, only.

Best of luck on the diversity crusade; equality & meritocracy be damned.
Posted by Confused - 6 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 14 hours, 15 minutes ago

What is a “corporate diversity counseling group” and what makes lawyers the experts on corporate diversity?
Posted by The Whiners and the Victims - 6 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 17 minutes ago

I agree (I think) with JB’s comment “This is what happens when you force diversity for diversity’s sake.” It is obvious that Mintz did this because the Whiners and Professional Victims of the US (Al Shaprton, Jackson, the Far Left) push an agenda on all of us that encourages “Diversity for Diversity’s Sake.” What I dont understand is if a ‘minority’ lawyer has made it to Mintz in the first place, why on earth would (or does anyone even think) they need special treatment of any sort?

Although I agree that racism is alive and well at lower socio-economic-educational levels of society, it is Reverse Racism that thrives in the upper-echelons of American Society these days. And this Mintz program is a clear example of that. After all the affirmative action programs and admission preferences, it’s baffling that ‘minority’ associates would continue to receive ANY special treatment at the workplace at this level of acheivement. And it creates resentment in the minds of the ‘majority’.

Where’s my Focus Group”? Dedicated floor? Expanded, specialized budget? Job Security? Admissions Preference? Employment Preference? Classes on Irish History and Culture? Irish History Month? ....oh WAIT...I almost forgot...I’m not ENTITLED to any of these things because I’m an old pastey-pale white guy!!
Posted by Voice of Reason - 6 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 9 hours, 35 minutes ago

The Whiners and the Victims....sounds like you have some experience in that <whining and being a victim>

Your focus group, your floor, your budget, your job security, your employment preference, etc. IS your Firm.

Every so often I hear this same uninformed argument. People like you receive so many benefits, it is impossible for you to understand the obstacles others (e.g., women) face.

There is a reason this profession is dominated by white males. Once you are able to look past your own ignorance (and stop being a closet racist) and try to understand the other side of things, maybe—just maybe—you will understand why these initiatives are important.
Posted by JB - 6 months, 1 week, 6 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes ago

Voice of Reason, you are missing the point. These initiatives make everyone the victim because it completely contradicts the ideas of equality and meritocracy. Did you take a constitutional law class?

Also, ad-homonym attacks aren’t going to get you anywhere, except right back in the isles of ignorance. Closet racist? Really?

I’ll be checking the mailbox everyday for your “list of benefits” that I have apparently received - I would be shocked if you did not send it C.O.D.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Diversity