ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Diversity=Racism - 1 year, 1 month, 5 hours, 39 minutes ago

   Diversity for diversity’s sake is the new racism that is taking big law by storm.  I had to sit through one of those diversity fact finding missions at my law firm.  The lady in charge of the discussion wanted to know how we thought the firm should right the wrongs found at the firm.  When I asked who was wronged she brought up eight women associates who were passed over for partnership because they took a year off for maternity leave.  She also brought up how most of the minority associates left the firm before they were up for partnership.  I was floored.  These associates made choices to take them out of the running for partner and it was a problem?  Disparate impact strikes again.  The only associate to have a solution said that the firm should hire only minorities for the next 10 years so that the only associates that could be up for partner were minorities.  I am all for giving everyone an equal chance, but if you do not have the ability or the drive you do not deserve the prize no matter your race or sex.

2. Posted by #1 - You are Missing the Point - 1 year, 1 month, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago

   Diversity is NOT the new racism - it is an initiative that is trying to right several wrongs.  Your indignation comes, im sure from the fact that you are no longer the full beneficiary of privilege..

3. Posted by Devan - 1 year, 1 month, 5 hours, 22 minutes ago

   Decisions regarding partnership should be based on talent and what you can bring to the company.  If talented attorneys are being passed over because they choose to take maternity leave, then there is something wrong. 
   On a side note:  One year of leave for maternity?  That’s remarkable.  I’ve never even heard of a law firm allowing a one year leave for maternity reasons.  Hopefully there is a generous paternity leave program as well.  Regardless of how generous the program is at this firm, however, you should feel free to exercise your personal leave options without fear of losing professional opportunities.

4. Posted by Think it Through - 1 year, 1 month, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago

   Yeah, that makes sense.  Restrict non-diverse law firms from seeking out diverse candidates at a law school that prides itself on diversity.  Way to think that one through, Liptak & Co.

5. Posted by John J. McGowan - 1 year, 1 month, 4 hours, 46 minutes ago

   There’s something fundamentally wrong, here.  First, law students—even those from top law schools—don’t know dirt about the realities of practicing law.  They are not worth the starting salaries being offered, and forget that vednors from Idia are selling basic smarts for a fraction of even the going rate.  Second, those law students do not have a monopoly on talent or intelligence, just cache.

   What these smart a** students need is a good old fashioned lesson in economics.  I propose that all the major law firms impose a moratorium on hiring from law schools for the next 2 years, and simultaneously cancel their (apparently, mis-guided) partnership retirement policies.  We’ll just keep the old guys around for another 5-7 years (most of them want to stick around anyway), and tell these kids they’ll need to fuind some other way to pay off their student loans.  Maybe pumping gas and flipping burgers for the next couple of years will clear their heads.  Leverage, indeed!

6. Posted by Amy - 1 year, 1 month, 2 hours, 36 minutes ago

   You don’t get a pass on gaining experience just because you’re a woman that had a baby.  If you took a year of maternity leave (wow; more than I ever took), you’ll need to get that back in experience before being considered for partnership.  Firms shouldn’t discriminate, but nor should they elevate diversity over other, more important considerations—like talent, intelligence, commitment, and experience.  I also question whether law students have any idea how to approach these issues and would agree with the previous posters that most know nothing about the realities of managing a law practice.

7. Posted by Rick - 1 year, 1 month, 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

   You don’t get a pass on gaining experience?  What claptrap! When I started out, 16 years ago, the partnership track was 7 years.  Within 2 years it was up to 8.  Now it’s at 11 or more.  Has the law changed so fundamentally or become so much more complex that it now takes 11 or more years experience to achieve what used to be done in 7?  I doubt it.  No, I think that either law firms are doing an inadequate job of getting their associates “experience” or, more likely, they are jealously guarding the golden trough.

8. Posted by Uchenna Maduka - 1 year, 1 month, 1 hour, 22 minutes ago

   In as much as there may be some cases of discrimination in some firms, I do not think (even as a black atty) that color or gender should be factored in when it comes to partnership or any other benefit. I oppose affirmative action for this same simple reason. You have to prove that your merit.

9. Posted by C.A - 1 year, 1 month, 1 hour, 10 minutes ago

   I am still in school so I will not address that partnership issue, but I can address diversity.

   Diversity is something that is very necessary. While doing a summer at a firm, a partner was in the process of “closing a deal” with an African company and realized that it would really help if he could show that there were Africans who worked at the firm. Two associates and I came in and spoke our native language. We had a great conversation and gave the person our assurances that our firm was the right choice.

   I remember another example of when diversity was a lifesaver. When an issue arose in Brazil thankfully, we had a Brazilian associate who spoke Portuguese who was able to handle the matter.

   The world is changing (Globalization), and firms that do not adapt will be left behind. Firms offer many of the same services. What sets them apart are the little things. In this day and age, many positions require someone who is bilingual and bi-cultural is preferred.

   Therefore, the person who wrote that economics is the catalyst change is right. With the more and more minority and women owned business popping up all over the world, everyday. The firms that embrace diversity will have a better shot at getting those companies than those firms that do not.

   Diversity in firms needs to be substantially increased. Bottom line is that “Money Talks.”
   1. The CEO’s and Boards of these Multinational/International companies are diverse, and want to see that diversity reflected in the firm representing them.
   2. The Dollar ($) losing ground to Foreign currencies and Generation X is made up of Diverse “New Money.”
   So, firms have a decision to make.

10. Posted by A.M - 1 year, 4 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 59 minutes ago

    As a female African-American attorney, former partner in a national law firm and now general counsel of a publicly-held company, I feel I am qualified to speak. Diversity is about recognizing that the pool is larger than the top 10% of lawyers from the top 10 law schools. It is about looking someplace else, and once hired, overcoming biases in law firms where partners tend to give work to those they “like”, who by the way, had better do a good job, but get first ante. It is about recognizing that quality and merit are not always found in neat little traditional buckets. People promoted to partner should prove their merit, but we all know its not just about merit - It’s also about “fitting in”. How many times do I get invited to golf with my CEO, but he takes our lead outside counsel all the time. That is also found in law firms. Women and minorities do not always have the same opportunities to do the rain making or recruiting as the old boys network - how comfortable is it for a woman to take a male client 1x1 to the basketball game or anything else 1x1? Yes, the opposite problem exists for men taking female clients, but female clients are generally fewer and farther in between. The problem is doubly so for a minority female and a white male client.
    Diversity is about understanding that there are differences that need to be affirmatively acknowledged and addressed and not assume someone isn’t qualified because of the differences and complaint that somebody is trying to get special treatment. Some people who oppose diversity also refuse the recognize the leg up given to ‘legacies” or the college roommate’s son (or daughter) who gets an open door.  That is also a form of affirmative action, so let’s be real about what diversity is.

    By the way, I graduated in the middle of my class in a second tier school, so not all quality is found in the top 10%. I worked full time during law school which necessarily means I wasn’t going to be the #1 student.

11. Posted by diversity+racism=contract attorney - 1 year, 4 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 52 minutes ago

    “Diversity” in the law firms listed is a farce.  Temporary or contract attorneys, which are primarily minorities, have been used to undermind and to mischaracterize “Diversity”.  I am floored that these firms would pride themselves on diversity, at the expense of the contract attorneys, which for practical purposes are the firm’s legal janitor.  To the first speaker….your dumb.

12. Posted by Anne - 1 year, 4 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes ago

    The author of Post No. 1 fails to grasp and likely fails to acknowledge the existence of “white-male privilege,“ which attaches at birth and is a per se privilege for those born: (1) male; and, (2)white. It is that simple.

    The content of Post No. 5 underscores the entrenched “good ol’ boys network” (GOBN) mentality, complete with its collective “attack to destroy” anyone who questions the existence of the GOBN sacred cow.

    Your hatred and imbred bigotry is so blatant. You could not have painted a more accurate picture of your mindset if you had been paid a $2,000 per hour fee to do so. Your arrogance and viciousness are a huge factor in the public disdain for the legal profession. May the smart a** students, as you refer to them, leave you in the dust. And may the “old guys” tell you to take your ageist offer of retaining them another 5 or 7 years and stick it. You deserve no less.

13. Posted by your dumb = you're using bad grammar - 1 year, 4 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 2 minutes ago

    Please, correct your grammar so that your otherwise intelligent comments won’t be undermined by underminded writing!  Even a student at a non top-ten school is sensitive to this type of sloppy work!

14. Posted by Christian Eades - 1 year, 4 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Hey Anne (posting #12),

    Ease up, YOUR anger has the best of you.  How would you know ANYTHING about “white all male” privilege?  Sounds like you’ve got a little self-hate going on or you agree with the Univ of Delaware that all white people are racist.  You would be better served by focusing on hard work, passion and intelligence rather than be distracted by misguided notions of how to achieve equality through a preoccupation on mellanin content or reproductive organs.  Better yet, what is it about YOU that hold you back in the workforce?

15. Posted by John J. McGowan - 1 year, 4 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 43 minutes ago

    I will pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Anne (Post #12).

    I see no GOBN.  That may have existed 20-25 years ago, but it is long gone.  Here’s the reality.  I am 51 years old, work 3,000 hrs per year, and bill about 2,100 of them.  I am a partner at a national law firm, having worked my way through undergrad and law school (nights), while supporting a wife and family throughout the law school days.

    All savvy clients now divide legal services into commodity work, which they shop by price and generally purchase at between $200 and $250 per hour, and non-commdity work, which they usually purchase at retail, but which they increasingly insist be performed by partners or senior associates who work exclusively in the substantive area involved.  (Most savvy purchasers of legal services, particularly foreign clients, insist that their work NOT be done by anyone with less than 3-4 years of expereince, because they do not see value being provided, for the price(s) being charged.)

    That means the junior associates, at best, can be put to work on “commodity” matters which, at best, can generate $400,000 to $500,000 per year (assuming relatively full capacity of 2,000 hours).  Paying them $160,000+ in salary and $40,000 in benefits, plus incurring about $200,000 in overhead (in Midwest and Southern cities only, through lease costs, support staff, technology, malpractice premiums, etc., and higher on the coasts) means the firm ither breaks even or loses money.  And the associates are all free agents (due to judicial and reegulatory temperment about restaint of trade).  Simply stated, most law firms lose money on junior associates. 

    I, for one, am no member of the GOBN.  Dad and Mom did not put me through school.  I did, and have the scars to prove it.  But I know the economics; I live them, every day.  Anne needs to engage in some self-examination, and consider whether the bigotry and hatred she sees come from within, before railing at a GOBN that was driven from the field by Adam Smith (i.e., economics) at least 10 years ago.

    My point (made in Post #5 ) stands.

16. Posted by Not a Skadden partner - 1 year, 4 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 47 minutes ago

    I’m gonna have to say that most fact do not in fact lose money on junior associates.

    Can one of you conspiracy theorists please inform me as to how somebody who only works 7 of 8 years, and thus billed 2000 less hours is equally qualified as the other members of [her] class for partnership?

17. Posted by I wasn't taught to proof-read at my non-diverse sc - 1 year, 4 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 44 minutes ago

    It’s supposed to read “that most IN fact do not….“

    i’ll just wait with my hands behind my back for the grammar police to arrive

18. Posted by 3L - 1 year, 4 weeks, 21 hours, 24 minutes ago

    Like many of my classmates who were born in the 1980s, I am still concerned about the unpleasant work experiences that attorneys before us have faced, and we want change. I think it’s empowering to see students joining together to call for this type of improvement in the legal industry. Keep in mind that diversity is not only about race, and does not simply speak to a ‘white/black associate’ issue. We want better work environments, and want to be part of firms that are truly concerned about pro-bono work, community, family life, and the many aspects of diversity including geography, culture, and lifestyle/orientation. Sure, there are tough-nosed attorneys out there who might tell us to take a hike over to Mayberry, but there may be other partners and firms that may give consideration to these kinds of concerns. I can’t say whether BBLP is going to make this happen overnight, but it’s still a worthwhile effort.

19. Posted by Class of '08! - 1 year, 4 weeks, 20 hours, 48 minutes ago

    It’s easy for some people to default on the GOBN argument because the legal industry is predominantly composed of white attorneys. However, that numerous population that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current status quo still mirrors the GOBN of 20 or 30 years ago. I think the more powerful network in place today is “GOGN” : Good Ole *GREEN* Network! At the end of the day, a firm is still a business and they want people who are going to bring in the money. Who cares what color the attorney’s hand is – as long as they are bringing in cash, the GOGN is happy.

    In response to the diversity issue, I am a 3L who is female and black, and am approaching my job search like any other candidate. I don’t want nor do I expect any hand outs or special favors, but I also don’t want an employer to be less interested in me because of my extra melanin or matching sex-chromosomes. I’m not expecting to walk into a “We Are the World” video when I show up to work, considering the demographics of most law schools and the legal profession in general. But I also don’t want to work in an environment where I (or similarly situated colleagues) are being excluded, ignored, or made to feel uncomfortable due to my inherent traits. I care about the community I live/will work in, and am interested in employers that contribute to it. I’m not concerned with I what color my fellow attorneys are, or what gender they love, or whether they were lactating 3 months ago – and I would hope those things wouldn’t matter at work. But at the end of the day, what matters to me most is having the chance to work in a firm where I can demonstrate my work ethic and develop my skills in a conscientious environment, while also being accepted and contributing to a winning team. I really hope the efforts of BBLP will make an impact throughout the legal industry.

20. Posted by 1993 Grad - 1 year, 4 weeks, 11 hours, 9 minutes ago

    When I graduated from law school, President Clinton had just come into office with his phrase that he was going to make government look more like America.  As a white male midwestern law school grad, this gave the government hiring officers the ability to treat me as a second class citizen.  Those with less relevant experience and knowledge of the subject matters were given preference over me to the point where I was not even considered in most cases.  And where I was, I was told that the agency was choosing to hire the female 1993 grad applicant that had failed the bar exam over me for diversity reasons.  So why should I respect the government’s position on anything?  They choose the lesser qualifed applicants and came to the lesser opinion.  Now some of the agencies want to further regulate those of us who have had to work our way up in the private sector.  They say what we are doing is unfair.  And maybe it is because they are not as smart as we are.  Diversity is the liberal push for racism.  Fight it everyway you can.  It is merely one more way to dumb down America.

21. Posted by It's not about race - 1 year, 3 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes ago

    Yes, the GOBN exists.  But this does not mean that simply any white male reaps the benefits.  It’s not about race.  It’s about elitism.  There is a reason our President went to Yale.  Certainly not his intelligence or ability.  Yet his going to Yale (and others like him) guaranteed his position in life.  #10 hit the nail right on head about this being another form of affirmative action.  But it’s not necessarily about race; it’s about privilege—rather, legacies, and the job going to his Harvard roommate’s son.  The bashing of Thomas Cooley law school in the other article regarding rankings clearly demonstrates this.  It’s disappointing to think that other attorneys made those juvenile, frat-boy type comments.  A perfect example of the GOBN still in full force, not going anywhere soon. (& no, I did not go to Thomas Cooley, but I do think the elitism is disgusting).  So really, those types of comments only make the argument FOR affirmative action.  And I say this as someone who is on the fence about affirmative action.

22. Posted by Clarification - 1 year, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 47 minutes ago

    The idea of “diversity” is somewhat misguided.  We look around and see that those in power are mostly white & male. However, affirmative action hurts less privileged white males.  The elite will be given their place in life no matter what.  That’s what connections are all about.  There is an argument for minorities needing a “boost” because of their clear disadvantage due to the established network.  So the white guy who had to put himself through college, whose father is not a Yale legacy, loses out.  I am a minority, and my husband is white, so I see both sides.

23. Posted by Crackers are for soup - 1 year, 3 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 26 minutes ago

    This is in reply to the poster at #14.  You sound like a typical white-privileged cracker. Why don’t you put down the gold-plated chaw cup down for awhile and find out what’s going down. 

    Also, suggesting that there’s some sort of ethereal connection between work and success is rascist.  You’re probably one of those bubbas who was driving water to Florida after the hurricanes in your pick-up truck and selling it to the poor hurricane victims who didn’t have any, for $5 a bottle.  Shame on you, Bubba.

24. Posted by Liz - 1 year, 3 weeks, 6 days, 7 hours, 16 minutes ago

    I must respond to post 23 and its attack on the south. As a woman, practicing at the same firm in the south for 25 years, I was never denied any opportunities. While the practice has changed substantially in my career, it is unfair and untrue to characterize southern law firms as being full of “bubbas” and “crackers.“

25. Posted by Shocked at #23 - 1 year, 3 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes ago

    At what point did it become acceptable to call people “Crackers” and “Bubbas”?  What happened to respect for people, regardless of race, sex, etc?

26. Posted by John - 1 year, 3 weeks, 5 days, 23 hours, 27 minutes ago

    If the firms give into this, the people in charge are even dumber than I thought.  They deserve to be retired—immediately.  There is a great big pool out there of very bright and qualified law grads.  If you limit your prospects to coif and law journal from Yale (a good school), you deserve what you get.  Diversity is a laudable goal—but firms should seek diversity because it is good business and not because some young law students want to force them to conform.

27. Posted by K. Krasnow Waterman - 1 year, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I’ve been working for nearly 30 years and spent nearly 20 of them as a lawyer.  I have worked at a large firm, a small one, the federal government, and even briefly at a law school as the Assistant Dean of a law school responsible for Career Services.  I have lots of experience to voice an opinion, but I’d like to suggest that we use our legal skills and consider the evidence.

    With a limited amount of time, I was able to find this recent study of about 4,000 new graduates in their first five years out of school.  http://www.nalp.org/assets/863_ajdgendermonograph2007.pdf

    This particular study if focused on gender and provides an interesting perspective on the comments made at this page.  For example, it reports that 76% of the women did not have any children during their first five years of practice, a higher number than their male counterparts (64%) and more than double the number for women in the population in general (36%) . This would seem to undermine the focus on the effect of maternity leave.

    I invite others to refer to this or other studies to support their positions.