Firstsies

first

forty-eighth!

What if someone was an ethnic minority AND lgbt? Where did they count them?

This report is all about biglaw. So people outside of biglaw are no longer in the legal profession?

Change the name of your report to:

"Top school law students whining about their $160,000 salaries and 60 hour weeks, when tier 2 students have to work just as hard for one fourth of the money."

WGM is amazing with diversity

I'm all about diversity, but I'm sick of seeing some firms hire for "diversity" over quality legal talent. Regardless of which position you takeon AA and diversity hiring, the system is still dysfunctional.

Why doesn't anyone look at the diversity at firms we tier 2 grads have to work at?

Do you think a small firm partner, with a pile of resumes on his desk, is going to hesitate to racially or sexually harass an employee?

If you're not top 10% out of tier 2 schools you have no shot at biglaw. You can't even get premium jobs like the one below if you're not top 1/3.

...........................................................
Employer Name: xxx
Contact Name: xxx
Address: xxx
City: xxx
Telephone: xxx
Facsimile: xxx
E-Mail: xxx
Description: HOURS: Part-time. DURATION: Permanent. SALARY: $20/hour. STUDENT LEVEL: 2L QUALIFICATIONS: I am ONLY looking for a SECOND YEAR law student who ranks in the upper third of his/her class, and who is bright, motivated, industrious, efficient, enthusiastic, eager to learn and who takes ownership of tasks assigned through timely submission to me and through completion of the task, to assist me in various civil litigation matters. The types of cases are varied. Familiarity with Microsoft Word and Excel is a plus. JOB DESCRIPTION: Second year law clerk who can be in the office for a full day at least two days per week through the school year (16-20 hours per week) and then full-time in the Summer 2008, part-time again during the third year and returning full time after taking the bar exam, if mutually desired. EMPLOYER PRACTICE/DESCRIPTION: General civil litigation with some transactional matters. FIRM SIZE: 1 attorney, 1 Loyola 2007 law clerk and awaitee and 1 Loyola 2008 third-year law clerk. The new second year 2009 law clerk will start now and replace my graduate law clerk after she finds permanent employment. NOTES: Please visit xxx to learn more about me. I have an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell and I have been in practice for 30 years. I will contact those applicants I am interested in interviewing, If you are invited to interview and an offer of employment is made, you may speak to my former law clerk who is now an attorney and my existing law clerks to get their perspective on this opportunity. The firm uses Time Matters 9.0 Enterprise Front Office and Back Office; scans all incoming documents and indexes all types of date with Wordlox document management software on the firm’s server for retrieval by query. Remote access to the firm’s server is available from any computer with an Internet location. A large law library is available on the top floor of the building. HOW TO APPLY: Submit resume, cover letter, transcript and writing sample via e-mail to xxx, or via fax to xxx.
Date Entered: 10/09/07
Job ID: 418290

I'm all about diversity, but I'm sick of seeing some firms hire for "diversity" over quality legal talent. Regardless of which position you takeon AA and diversity hiring, the system is still dysfunctional.

Typo alert: "rank the Biglaw shops by how their performance."

I'm wondering what people who value "diversity" are thinking:

1) "I want to know that someone who's like me can succeed at this firm, i.e. that there isn't a lot of subtle discrimination that would push someone like me out."

or

2) "I want there to be other people like me at this firm."

or something else.

L2L, that's a part-time 2L job paying $20/hr that may turn into a full-time gig after the bar exam. surely you can find a better example of a posting actually targeted at T2 grads.

All the big firms should get a poor rating. They hire plenty of qualified minority associates, but when it comes to move up the ladder they only want those that fit into 'the old boys' club' mold. So they promote one or two minority partners and voila! High 'diversity rankings!' because that's still 100% more than other big firms.

"If you're not top 10% out of tier 2 schools you have no shot at biglaw. You can't even get premium jobs like the one below if you're not top 1/3."

Give me a break- this is a student job, not a full time position. Well, you wouldn't want someone who struggles with time mgmt (illustrated by inability to get into at least the top half of the class) to work for you while attending school full time.

"L2L, that's a part-time 2L job paying $20/hr that may turn into a full-time gig after the bar exam. surely you can find a better example of a posting actually targeted at T2 grads."

It's a part time, and summer job. And it requires top 1/3 of class. That guy will get 500 resumes from the local tier 2 schools.

So while top school grads make $80/hour during the summer, tier 2 students make one fourth of that amount. And tier 2 students actually have to work, they don't sit around drinking crystal and eating filet at biglaw parties.

My point is it's preposterous for a group to claim to represent the "legal profession" when in fact they represent one tiny and relatively very happy sliver.

This whole thing is a joke. Who cares about diversity. Hire the best no matter what he/she looks like. All this diversity talk is ruining this country.

Nixon Peabody is #1 in diversity rankings (!)?.

It't true, everyone is a winner at.....

"Give me a break- this is a student job, not a full time position."

Oh I know. As soon as you go full time he throws $100k at you.

All else equal, I would prefer working for a firm that was towards the bottom of the diversity list. A firm that cares about diversity is going to care about advancement of attorneys for things that are other than the skills they bring to the table, and such attention will lead to an unpleasant working environment

Will someone please introduce a feature that allows us to put Loyola 2L on persistent ignore?

"Who cares about diversity."

Those who are not white male heterosexuals, apparently. If a firm kept losing such candidates (who also happened to be the best) because such candidates saw the firm as a place that was uncomfortable for them, then it could be a legitimate concern for the firm.

Of course this wouldn't be an issue if all (or most) such candidates didn't care about diversity, or if the firm concluded that there weren't enough of those candidates that they considered "the best" to care. But this doesn't seem to be the case.

11:26, are you Derek Blank?

"Will someone please introduce a feature that allows us to put Loyola 2L on persistent ignore?"

Yeah let us ignore the real world of law. Let's live in this fantasy land where we get to complain about having the best jobs in the legal profession.

their rankings are based on crap methodology.

is a DC firm necessarily bad for being in the bottom 5th of all firms??? it doesn't take into account the size of the pool. is the last place firm necessarily doing a poor job? is the gay L2L knocking down their door???

and with Asians and LGBT, you are dealing with such small numbers that a ranking like this is not statistically significant. e.g. if the last place firm adds one gay asian partner, they would probably vault to the top half.

and how "groundbreaking" is it to enter NALP forms into a spreadsheet and press sort???

1127- (2) That seems a bit illogical. You are implying that if a firm regards diversity highly, they will be making partner decisions based upon a hybrid of skills and fulfilling a quota of partner spots with minorities. However, diversity initiatives have been on the agenda of firms for over 10 years, yet white males still predominate new partners at the BigLaw firms as demonstrated by this new website. So stop fearing the big bogeyman of diversity.

I can understand hiring ethnically diverse people (assuming they are qualified) for the sake of "diversity", but what does sexual orientation have to do with diversity? Why not come up with a sleeps around on his wife with four different women category and lump that into the "diversity" pool. Can someone please expalin this to me.

the problem with whomever is currenlty posting as L2L is that "new L2L" is no longer making thoughtful, interesting points about the problems w/ the current law school diploma factory system. new L2L simply whines about how em can't land a high-paying job b/c em isn't in the top [insert percentage here] of em's class. the same complaint, repeated ad nauseum without any substantive suggestions, gets annoying after a while.

"I would prefer working for a firm that was towards the bottom of the diversity list. A firm that cares about diversity is going to care about advancement of attorneys for things that are other than the skills they bring to the table"

Or you could argue the reverse: a firm that's already scoring high on diversity will care less about emphasizing it because they're already winning that game.

11:35 - What would the initiative entail? What would the effects on office culture be? People seem to take it for granted that diversity efforts only can have a positive effect on culture as people become more enlightened. However, I am not sure that I agree with this point of view.

"new L2L simply whines about how em can't land a high-paying job b/c em isn't in the top [insert percentage here] of em's class."

Which L2L didn't do this?

11:39 - In theory, yes. In practice, do you really think that would be the case? Anyway, my concern isn't whether offices have actual diversity or not, but the effect that striving for diversity has on workplace culture.

Our society is so warped today. A bunch of whiny top school grads want to address the "legal profession," and all they look at is biglaw!

why don't you do a black top lawyer week...or a mexican top lawyer week...showing that black people and mexican can indeed succeed in the practice of law? the non-top tier lawyer week was not meant to be patronizing or degrading right? so nothing would be wrong with black or mexican lawyer week.

11:38, If you don't like the way I'm running the Loyola 2L moniker, post your own L2L messages. L2L is open source.

When are we going to be done with this whole diversity nonsense? Is a diverse workplace a better one? Prove it.

11:37-

"diversity" is about ensuring that a group is composed of people with differing perspectives and viewpoints, helping avoid a homogenous, restricted response to issues facing the group. as a white heterosexual, i have no doubt that an LGBT person brings a different perspective than i do to many things...probably more different in some cases than a minority who was raised in the same middle-class suburb as me. it's not much different from hiring from various schools and geographic locations.

diversity=new name for affirmative action

It is a better workplace when companies like bank of america have policies mandating that 25% of their legal work goes to minority outside counsel ... can you say "token black partner" ... my firm sure can...

Oh boo fucking hoo,

Lets all beat up on X law firm because all the colors of the rainbow are not represented in a statistically perfect bell curve.

Who cares - can anyone explain to me why a more diverse legal profession necessarily makes it a "better" one. I may or may not make it better, but the only certainty is that it makes it more diverse - and certainly better for minorities. But why, do tell, is diversity for the sake of diversity, better for the legal profession as a whole- especially when we are talking about BigLaw?

Anyone else think that diversity rankings work to perpetuate the lack of diversity at the firms near the bottom of the rankings?

I don't see why there's such emphasis on diversity. As long as a firm is not actively discriminating against people based on criteria beyond their conreol, it's the firm's business what kind of culture they want to maintain, how they want to present themselves and how they choose to make partnershup/hiring decisions.

Biglaw should hire & promote based on the merits of the applicant/employee and not their diversity. The same goes for law schools.

If you consider Biglaw's lack of diversity to be an injustice that needs to be fixed, the proper place to rectify the problem is K-12 and maybe in the college admission process, but definitely not after a person has finished college. The proper means to secure more minority representation at big law is equal quality of education during the development years of a child. If all children are given essentially the same quality of education (far fetched, I know) it is likely we will see a more equal racial/ethnic distribution at Biglaw. Furthermore, the more equal representation will be based on the proven success and capability of the attorney/applicant and not the happenstance of their ethnic/racial background. This approach, if feasible, combines the fairness of a meritocracy with the desired result of more diversity at Biglaw. On the other hand, if you try to solve the diversity problem by pressuring Biglaw, or law schools, to hire/accept based on diversity rather than capability, then you are merely trading one injustice for another.

11:47-

So you are saying that a person that grew up in your suburb that happens to be LGBT is going to have a vastly different point of view than you simply based on their sexual orientation? If that is the case then as I pointed out, a frat boy who goes out and chases skirts or a 30 year old virgin is probably going to have a different point of view as well. The world is perceived differently through everyones eyes, I dont see why sexuality needs to be a diversity issue.

WSJ blog has a picture of Canter, the guy heading this ridiculous group. I love this line:

"The only thing more oblivious than this report is the look on Andrew Canter’s face. He looks like he’s day-dreaming about marshmallows and cotton candy."

Hey, if it makes everybody feel better to have a few "diverse" faces in the associate ranks, fine. I can assure you, though, that those warm fuzzies will fade if you take a look at the mail room, cafeteria, and cleaning staff at any BIGLAW firm. The people bearing the burden of decades of racism are not the ones making $160K out of the gate, my friends.

Also, ditto to 11:01's post. The public sector is far, far more diverse than BIGLAW (you'll have to deign to look beyond federal clerkships and AUSA gigs, though).

Diversity is nothing more than an ideological shibboleth?

WHAAAAAA-OOOWWWWW

I curious how they weighted these scores. I would think the women's diversity score ought to count for a lot more than the LGBT or Asian score -- after all, women account for roughly 50% of the population, whereas the percentages for persons are are LGBT or Asian are much lower.

Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession

Premeds without Borders

Preschoolers Against Drunk Driving

12:14: It is highly unfashionable to be concerned with equality between the sexes, unless it's in the context of "work-life balance." Didn't you know that?

12:14, i doubt "weighting" ever occurred to these people.

basically...

1 Asian partner=F
2 Asian partners=B

in other words, meaningless when applied to Asians and LGBT.

I believe Diversity is an old, old wooden ship.

For those looking for insight: BigLaw is still a straight white male club and it's tough to break in because those already in place find it easier (more comfortable personally, requires less effort) to continue hiring and working with people who appear to be the most like them ("fit").

Diversity is about skimming the cream off of every jar of milk you can find, instead of dipping lower and lower into the one jar you've always used.

It is in a firm’s best interest to be concerned about diversity for two primary reasons. First, diversity is good for recruiting. Many of the top minority or LGBT law students may not want to work for a firm if they will be the only one in the firm. Personally, I have been “the black guy” for much of my life and I would prefer not to continue this trend in my legal career. When I was interviewing with firms, one of the factors I considered was how many minorities are at the firm. If I saw zeros in the minority column, I crossed that firm off my list. Second, diversity can potentially expand your business to minority clients. Many minorities feel more comfortable doing business with firms that have minorities working for them.

LINK TO NYC DIVERSITY PDF IS BROKEN. Should be:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/6nycreportcarddiversityrankings.pdf

Also, if a firm is missing from these rankings, does it mean they didn't have data? (E.g. H&H)

When are we going to be done with this whole diversity nonsense? Is a diverse workplace a better one? Prove it."

It's the clients stupid. The reason why firms even care about diversity is because their clients are demanding it.

Also, it is asinine to say the one need "prove" that a diverse workplace is a better one. Do I need to "prove" that a workplace without racism is a better one? Do I need to "prove" that a workplace where all competent attorneys can succeed is a better one? Your statement merely reinforces to me that you are not trying to see the issue from any vantage point but your own. Since you don't perceive the diversity issue to apply to you it makes it unimportant. However, to people like myself who are "diverse" this issue matters to me.

I don’t want to work at a place where I won’t have a chance to excel because my race and gender act as a barrier. Believe it or not, but some people choose to only mentor and help people that look and act like themselves. I want to go to a firm where a white partner won’t hesitate to mentor someone who is different than them. So to answer your question directly—yes, a diverse workplace IS a better one for someone like me.

It's funny that they misspelled King & Spalding... I really trust their research when they pay this much attention to detail in their final product.

"When I was interviewing with firms, one of the factors I considered was how many minorities are at the firm. If I saw zeros in the minority column, I crossed that firm off my list."

do you notice anything wrong with that logic???

i agree that it doesn't make good business sense to be an all-white-male club.

but if you only look for minorities and gays only look for gays...

The report card is a little unfair because it doesn't take into account that there might be more diverse partners and associates in other offices of the same firm. I know my firm got a bad grade but they actually have much more diversity in other offices. Also, just because there are more people from a particular group doesn't mean that that place will be the best place for diverse attorneys. Just counting people up is just too simplistic to really get at whether a firm is a good place for diversity.

Their website is a joke. How do they expect to be taken seriously.

Any rankings based on hispanic, asian, and gay associates/partners are all but meaningless anyway because the total numbers are so small.

If there is a push to hire Gays as part of all of these diversity programs.....I think you know what to do (just remember the knee pads).

Also, most everyone here has missed the point of why firms ever have diversity plans: CLIENTS. Corporate clients, most of whom have diversity plans, are now requiring their outside counsel to have diversity plans. (see Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, IBM, etc.)

"I don’t want to work at a place where I won’t have a chance to excel because my race and gender act as a barrier. Believe it or not, but some people choose to only mentor and help people that look and act like themselves. I want to go to a firm where a white partner won’t hesitate to mentor someone who is different than them. So to answer your question directly—yes, a diverse workplace IS a better one for someone like me."

Your assuming that associate diversity indicates that a white male partner will not only mentor non-white males but will mentor someone period. That's a big leap. In fact, anyone who looks at diversity numbers and concludes from them whether a firm has a good mentoring program will likely not benefit from mentoring anyway.

Congrats on what? All of their information is published in the NALP guide.

12:55,

There is noting wrong with my logic. My point is that it's 2007 and if you don't have any minorities by now, I will not be your token. Some minorities may not mind, but I do. If a firm does not have any minority partners/associates and it is not actively attempting to gain some (e.g. recruiting at minority job fairs or at Howard), then I am not interested in working there because they’re content with being an entirely white entity.

What kills me is that the same clients want the firm that represents them to have all (or close to all) of the firm's lawyers come from Harvard, Yale, NYU, etc. Please.

I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin (or the content of their underwear or the gender of their significant other) but by the content of their character.

"I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin (or the content of their underwear or the gender of their significant other) but by the content of their character."

smh. It amazes me how people (typically white) love to pull out this color blind society mantra whenever something happens that could be possibly construed as unfair to the majority population, but in the face of continued discrimination or unequal treatment that negatively impacts minorities, their silence is deafening?

Listen up:

1) The numbers for Asians in Biglaw are just as disgusting as those for blacks and Latinos.
2) Minority law partners "tend" to be over-qualified (e.g., former US Attorneys, Harvard, etc., compared to their peers).
3) Connections matter more than grades for BigLaw success.
4) Only low-level associates or law students honestly believe that AA has any bearing on law firm hiring. Really, all the firms I know of don't give two shits, and only pay lip service to "diversity" to retain clients.
5) The firms that do attract minorities only do so because of herd mentality. E.g., "One successful black, so I will also be sucessful there."

So why do white males succeed more (than Latinos, Asians, blacks, women) in BigLaw? Ding, ding, ding. Racism and sexism douches. Several of the posts are all too revealing. The irony of perception...

"Your assuming that associate diversity indicates that a white male partner will not only mentor non-white males but will mentor someone period. That's a big leap. In fact, anyone who looks at diversity numbers and concludes from them whether a firm has a good mentoring program will likely not benefit from mentoring anyway."

No, I am not assuming that just because the diversity numbers are good that all the white partners will want to mentor me. However, I do think that a firm who actually values diversity is more likely to have at least one or two partners (white or not) that will be open to mentoring someone like me than a non diverse firm. I never said that I would make this determination from numbers alone. Like most people who come from a diverse background I made my decision based on the people I met and my firm's reputation for being a good place for minority attorneys. I would never base my decision solely by looking at how many minority attorneys are at the law firm. Still, I think it is safe to say that a firm with zero diversity is probably a place I wouldn’t consider.

Your assuming that associate diversity indicates that a white male partner will not only mentor non-white males but will mentor someone period. That's a big leap. In fact, anyone who looks at diversity numbers and concludes from them whether a firm has a good mentoring program will likely not benefit from mentoring anyway."

No, I am not assuming that just because the diversity numbers are good that all the white partners will want to mentor me. However, I do think that a firm who actually values diversity is more likely to have at least one or two partners (white or not) that will be open to mentoring someone like me than a non diverse firm. I never said that I would make this determination from numbers alone. Like most people who come from a diverse background I made my decision based on the people I met and my firm's reputation for being a good place for minority attorneys. I would never base my decision solely by looking at how many minority attorneys are at the law firm. Still, I think it is safe to say that a firm with zero diversity is probably a place I wouldn’t consider

Speaking of diversity and over/underrepresentation, why aren't Jews, Muslims, etc., in separate categories from Christians?

If you want to have real cultural and experiential diversity- diversity of thought, not just skin tone- you need to look at religion.

So why not break the categories down that way? At least religious minorities are a federally protected class, unlike GLBT.

Is it because the survey's publishers would be embarrassed to find the profession as a whole 50% Jewish when the rest of the country is only 5% (tops) Jewish?

"I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin (or the content of their underwear or the gender of their significant other) but by the content of their character."

smh. It amazes me how people (typically white) love to pull out this color blind society mantra whenever something happens that could be possibly construed as unfair to the majority population, but in the face of continued discrimination or unequal treatment that negatively impacts minorities, their silence is deafening?

Listen up:

1) The numbers for Asians in Biglaw are just as disgusting as those for blacks and Latinos.
2) Minority law partners "tend" to be over-qualified (e.g., former US Attorneys, Harvard, etc., compared to their peers).
3) Connections matter more than grades for BigLaw success.
4) Only low-level associates or law students honestly believe that AA has any bearing on law firm hiring. Really, all the firms I know of don't give two shits, and only pay lip service to "diversity" to retain clients.
5) The firms that do attract minorities only do so because of herd mentality. E.g., "One successful black, so I will also be sucessful there."

So why do white males succeed more (than Latinos, Asians, blacks, women) in BigLaw? Ding, ding, ding. Racism and sexism douches. Several of the posts are all too revealing. The irony of perception...

2:07 -- I agree that religious diversity is a huge plus, e.g., in covering deals & cases, since no matter what holiday is on the schedule, there should be someone on the team who's not celebrating it and can cover.

Pls fix the NY link, it's not working!

2:20- holy crap, you get the prize for finding a real use for diversity. Too bad the knuckleheads doing this report didn't even look at religious diversity.

Oh proponents of meritocracy, let us recall: you did not earn your station in life. The accident of your birth, the tutelage you were given, and your qualification for some Tier 1 school were, for the most part, either beyond your control or themselves poorly correlated to your performance in the legal profession. These are matters of fact. If you were so smart, it should be no problem to achieve that much more than the average person of color, given the vast privilege you have enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy. Minimally lower standards for persons of color offend only those who have no more serious concerns in their lives and careers.

Yours,

White Guy at Tier 2 school

What about regional diversity? What about family socioeconomic diversity? What about dietary diversity? What about highschool peer group (i.e., jocks, band nerds, preppies) diversity?

2:22: Thank you very much! (bowing)

Lat, the nyc diversity rankings pdf link isn't working!!

I'm not totally clear on what is meant by "most diversity." If one firm has 10% minority lawyers, and another has 5%, is the first firm twice as diverse? Does an firm made up of two black men and one white man have 66% diversity? Or 33%? And what if one of the black guys is gay? 100%?

What is the ratio of lawyers in a firm that would achieve perfect diversity?

Diogenes, your question will be ignored. Proponents of "diversity" really just want their "team" to win. They haven't even thought about the issues you raised.

Diogenes, your question will be ignored. Proponents of "diversity" really just want their "team" to win. They haven't even thought about the issues you raised.

What about discrimination against the mustachioed?

Diversity is a giant waste of time and energy that (1) only perpetuates institutional racism, (2) dilutes the qualify of legal talent coming into law schools and law firms, and (3) is just plain unfair to everyone else who isn't a "minority" (whatever that means). Reverse racism, pure and simple.

Is there a list based on merit? What are the top merit-based hiring firms? That way you know you are going to a firm that cares about your work more than your skin color.

Is there a list based on merit? What are the top merit-based hiring firms? That way you know you are going to a firm that cares about your work more than your skin color.

what about the Bell Curve?

I don't know if much has changed in the last few years, but I've talked to a few black, very successful, partners who have shared the many challenges that blacks face when trying to make partner. They seem legit to me; too long to list but I can if you're curious.

This obviously isn't true across the board, but I also know an attorney at a big law firm who was actually told while working on a case by a white co-worker: I have to be honest with you, I've never really worked with a black person at your level and I'm uncomfortable and intimidated. Good for this white guy for sharing-- at least the black dude was validated in knowing that the weird, unprovable vibe he was getting wasn't just him being oversensitive, and he dealt with the situation very well by talking it through. Crazy!

I don't think these observations are fake. As for me, it is a red flag if there are no other black people in the office. I wouldn't write the place off, but I would ask more probing questions to determine if racial minorities and woman are treated differently. At some places they actually are, and frankly I can't afford to experiment with my career and upward mobility.
I am currently at a place that doesn't have an excellent reputation in numbers, but I feel comfortable that I'm not at a disadvantage because of my race. It is really important. You're lucky if once you have your job you don't have to think about it, or worry that at your work you are basically representing your race with everything you do. It is also no fun to have to deal with getting mixed up with another black employee... AWKWARD!

4:17: The mix-up thing is SO outrageous.

There is some interesting information in the charts. For example, based on my count, approximately 63% of the black associates at NY firms are female. This percentage is significantly greater than the percentage of female associates in general (I didn't count, but looking at the chart, it looks like that figure is probably around 40-45%), but consistent with the employment patterns of black men generally in the US (see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html). Given that female associates generally are less likely to stay to become partner than male associates, this suggests that (regardless of any other issues) the percentage of black partners is likely to remain lower than the percentage of black associates for sometime.

Lets put aside, for a moment, the stupidity of the argument that diversity should be ignored and a pure meritocracy favored.

Instead, lets look at the benefits to the firm. I graduated at the top of my class from a top 20 law school. I happen to be gay. I had offers at every top firm in NYC. I refused to consider firms that did not seem to have a good number of gay associates/partners and firms that could not easily arrange for me to meet with gay associates in follow-up interviews.

Why did I do this? Why did I simply not rely on my own merits to succeed as a lawyer? I would wager that anyone that asks that question has never been discriminated against or made to feel uncomfortable because of who they are.

I work...a lot. I didn't want to do it in a place where gay people arre made to feel uncomfortable... one way to evaluate that is to see how many gay people are at the firm and to speak with them in interviews.

So - putting affirmative action aside, if law firms want to recruit minority candidates that happen to be at the top of their class, doing well in these types of studies is important. Even more important is promoting an inclusive environment that encourages minority lawyers to stick around at least as long as their non-minority counterparts.

So true 4:55.

Hi, I'm in a smaller minority than any other minority mentioned so far. I just don't whine about it.

Please note- one can account for diversity in a number of ways, from religion, etc. But it is fair and in no way overreaching, to admit that diversity initiatives are meant to level the playing field for historically disadvantaged groups. To throw in groups of regional, religion, etc. divisions, is quite an insult. Comparing east coast law school discrimination against west coast applicants (this is a random example) to the discrimination faced by homosexuals in today's America or the discrimination faced by minority group members, is quite embarrassing and horrific.

If I remember correctly, I actually learned from Bill Maher that Atheists rep around 20% nowadays so much larger than others. But Bill whines about it. A lot. Also, your "minority" is a little bit different from at least racial minorities, because I can't tell by looking at you that you are an atheist. We'd have to have a few good conversations before I even would have a chance to discriminate! I do feel for the current institutional racism that you suffer now as a result of slavery and disfranchisment.... oh wait...

As others have pointed out, the grades provided by this organization are meaningless and nonsensical. This survey fails to address the industry-wide problem and doesn't account for population size. Receiving an A in this survey is the equivalent of a southern white school in the 1950s being praised for having one black student because all of the other schools in its region were completely segregated.

5:11--The playing field should be leveled by insuring equality of opportunity not equality of result. An argument that minorities should be favored in school admissions may have some merit as a measure to insure equality of opportunity. However, a job as an associate at a law firm after 7 years of school is the resultiest of results, so any attempt to simply get the numbers of minorities hired up is in no way "levelling the playing field."

5:42 - what you fail to understand is that these numbers are not reporting the number of minorities hired but the number of minorities retained and promoted. Its a proxy (although flawed) by which other minority candidates can gauge how accepting of an environment the law firm is.

6:00--I don't buy it. If that were the case, then the relevant number every person would talk about for each firm is the delta (if any) between the percentage of minority attorneys still around after x years and the percentage of all attorneys still around after x years. But you won't find that number in any diversity report Instead, diversity reports only say "firm x has y number of minorities, which is better than firm z, which has w number of minorities."

6:00 - there are a couple of problems here. First, firms don't report number of minorities hired (entry and lateral) every year, they only provide a snapshot of overall numbers when the NALP forms are completed. Second, that delta probably isn't all the effective in judging promotion.

Ideally, you are right, retention numbers would be reported. However, until that information is available, we have to deal with what we have - which is in large part limited to NALP.

Actually, even better would be if firms reported ALL retention numbers - for diverse lawyers and by class. Now that would be interesting. (Good luck).

whoops - 6:21 should have been addressed to 6:09

My observation has been that Asians tend to go into medicine and the health sciences which may explain why you don't have a critical mass in law.

6:21, if you are also 6:00, may I ask what exactly you have been smoking? In the span of 20 minutes you went from "the numbers are really showing retention" to "the numbers don't show retention adn such numbers are impossible to obtain but wouldn't it be nice if they could be."

What happens in a person's bedroom is a private matter.

A powerful argument. So why do we care in the business of law that we distinguish among people that engage in various practices in the bedroom?

The proverbial having your cake and eating it too. I support civil rights for people that are acting within their freedoms, I don't support hiring preferences based on something that is a private matter.

What's next? Affirmative action for LA Clippers fans?

maybe there's a reason why blacks/browns are not so well represented at the top...affirmative action admission policies pushing non-competents into law school for $1000, Alex. Cry me a river bitches, wahhhh! if you have talent, drive and a thick skin you'll make it.

Thank you 7:36. I dont see why the issue of sexual preference would come up unless said candidate brings it up. Also, what is to stop someone from claiming to be gay/lesbian?

it's absurd to group together gays, asians and blacks.

the elephant in the room is the class rankings of blacks hired by BigLaw.

that stigma far outweighs any naked racism or homophobia experienced by any of the groups.

class rankings have little to do with success in Biglaw.

from my vantage at HLS, black students i have had classes with and worked with on projects have on the whole been far more impressive than the white students--more thoughtful, more professional, more on top of their shit, etc. these things matter far more to biglaw success than class ranking, and firms would be (are?) wise to pay more attention to them.

"As long as a firm is not actively discriminating against people based on criteria beyond their conreol, it's the firm's business what kind of culture they want to maintain, how they want to present themselves and how they choose to make partnershup/hiring decisions."

Questionable--discrimination doesn't have to be "active" (if by this you mean conscious) to be illegal. But assuming the passive discrimination you're talking about is legal and thus is "the firm's business," that still doesn't mean prospective employees shouldn't care about what kind of environment they'll be spending 70 hours a week in. You might like a lilly white hetero environment, but I sure wouldn't.

"You might like a lilly white hetero environment, but I sure wouldn't"

Bigot. Who the hell do you think you are?

Hi, I'm in a smaller minority than any other minority mentioned so far. I just don't whine about it.

Posted by: An Atheist | October 10, 2007 05:05 PM

It's too bad veterans don't receive minority status.

7:36 - Come talk to me when LA Clippers fans have been proactively discriminated against for decades in the workforce and otherwise. Come talk to me when LA Clippers fans are denied hundreds of federal benefits of marriage. Come talk to me when LA Clippers fans to this day are denied promotion because of the simple fact of being LA Clippers fans.

6:50 - what's so hard to understand about my two prior posts? At 6:00 I indicated that NALP numbers are indicative of retention and that is the true value of these surveys.

At 6:21 I said that, while there may be better metrics to measure retention, that the NALP form is the best we have. That was in response to a poster that said if the goal of these surveys is realy to gauge retention, then we should report the change (ie, the delta) in the number of minority candidates. My second post highlighted the fact that those types of statistics are not available. There is no way to evaluate from the nalp form or any other publicly available source for every firm how many minority lawyers were hired and/or quit (hint - if you subtract A from B, that's the delta) in a given year.

Its really not that challenging of an argument to understand.

Sadly, this is more politics interfering with actual work. At what point did hiring and promoting based on merit go out of style?

7:36 and 8:37 have never heard of gaydar?

11:15 - the issue is not one of affirmative promotion of minorities. Its one of otherwise highly qualified minority lawyers NOT being promoted because of who they are or not sticking around to be promoted because they do not feel comfortable.

11:15 - oh yes, the good old days of a pure meritocracy... Weren't they great? Back in the day when women, jews and african americans couldn't get hired or promoted at all. That's why firms like Weil exist today. I guess it was a true merit based system as long as you recognized that being a white male protestant was part of "merit".

yes, blacks and brown-skinned hispanics should be equally represented, because they're on average as intelligent as whites and asians.

A realist,

Your attempt at sarcasm is pathetic. So let me break it down for you, idiot. Studies show that blacks and Hispanics score as well as whites/Asians on IQ tests when they are very young. A discrepancy arises as they go further into the educational system. Wonder why, dickwad? Maybe one group is getting better education than the other. I'm sorry, studies that suggest otherwise are also derivavtive of 1920s pro-eugenics research that was used "to prove" the intellectual inferiority of Jews and exploited by Hitler. I hate dumbasses, who try to employ sarcasm and "act smart" when it is clear that they can't tell the difference between their dick and their ass.

annie,

you are a dumb bitch. studies show that black and brown-skinned hispanics raised by upper middle class white parents still do much much worse than whites and asians raised by those same parents. and asians come to this country as poor as blacks and indian hispanics. why do they do better?

the old hitler argument. really compelling dumbass.

A realist - really? Are you really making that argument in 2007? "Studies" also show that global warming doesn't exist, the jerkin' off makes you blind, etc.

And why "brown-skinned" hispanics? Why not light-skinned hispanics?

Any true corelation in these "studies" couldn't POSSIBLY be because of racism could it? Nah. Not in America!

To a realist,

That doesn't explain why their IQs are the same when they are very young, nimrod. Studies also show that Jews have lesser IQs, but we've also accepted this as racist hogwash. Dumbass law students with no analytical skills, speaking out their ass annoy me.

BTW, Asians came voluntarily into the country, and my guess is that many of their parents did not go to segregated schools. Many African and Caribbean students have success similar to Asian students, but racist whites are too stupid to realize that not all "blacks" can be lumped into "African-American" category. Maybe a study evaluating what it is about African-American identity in particular that creates these discrepancies.

I am tired of law firms claiming that minority law students and lateral attorneys do not have the grades and credentials to get hired at the top law firms especially when grades play little or no factor on an attorney's success once he or she is at a law firm. If firms are truly honest, they will admit that they do not put any value on "credentials" once attorneys reach a certain level. Rather, when you are evaluated each year, the firms will look at (1) your billable hours; (2) the amount of business you have generated; and (3) your realization rate. It will not matter if you were the President of Law Review at Harvard Law School: it's all about the money. The debate about grades and credentials is just a red herring to justify the firms' failure to hire minorities.