Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller
True enough, as for blacks. And I don't see an answer. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
|
I have plenty of thoughts. It's just that this profession is going nowhere--at least at firms. And it's because firms want it that way.
In house jobs are really the only viable route for black attorneys. The way firms are structured and what they value means that black people will make only the slowest of steps toward progress. And what is the most annoying is that firms talk all that shit about wanting to be diverse but finding no candidates(!), but they consistently ignore the problem and/or shoo it off on the black associates and partners to solve when they are the fucking issue.
Firms value business. Not surprising. But the path to business is either through family and friends connections, hustling, or being cultivated/inheriting/working on the firm's institutional business.
Obviously given the state of our country and the place black people occupy in it, it is
exceedingly rare for black attorneys to have access to the types of connections which yield business.
Hustling is a fucking myth. We all know someone who we thought was out there networking and built a practice through hard work and effort, but it always turns out that whatever they bring in was through a relationship they have with a family member or friend from fucking high school or college (or one degree of separation from that scenario). That puts us back in the first bucket. (And please spare me the "But I know a guy who..." stories. I'm a corporate finance attorney. I inherited my main client and was lucky to do so. If you think I can go out there, meet decision makers at financial institutions, pitch them, woo them, whatever, and build a client base on my brains and hustle, you're delusional. I've done it all and the business goes to long-standing relationships amongst older white men. Period. End of story.)
So what's left? Working on institutional clients, being cultivated, and inheriting business. This is where firms should be doing most of their work. But the people with the business are not interested in bringing along black associates (and if you're a black woman, you might as well get out before your 4th year, because you have no chance). And because of how firms are run--management is meaningless because all that matters is a big book--no one with business is ever held to account on how they pick who gets the work and who gets sponsored. If firms were smart, they would make people who do the work well, but who don't have the client connections to bring in business partners too. But firms aren't smart. They're greedy and selfish. That's the business model. Black people know there's no place in the partnership ranks for them by their second year. So they flee.
So minority talent goes in house, where it's valued. And because companies have a diverse client base, they actively look to diversify their legal departments at much higher rates than firms. We are headed to a place where companies are starting to push firms to hire, retain, and promote diverse talent, but there is only so much pressure that can be exerted. I know for a fact that firms don't get business because they aren't diverse enough and they don't even know when it happens. And when you tell them, they don't believe it, don't want to believe it, or don't care because it doesn't affect their
personal book (which is built on relationships between white men who don't give a fuck).
So, what are the solutions? Here are a few:
- Have a path to partnership for talented attorneys who don't have a book of business
- Look for talent in places you don't normally look (like night school)
- Raid companies for their in house talent and make strong partnership offers
- Fix the rampant bias at large law firms when it comes to who gets work and who gets brought along
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller
As for women, however, progress has been dramatic in those four (plus) decades. In my first year class there were about 5 women who graduated with that class. After my two year hiatus to the military, when I returned there were about a dozen women in what was then my second year class. At present women are in a majority at the school.
I had a fellowship in my first year of school. It was named after the founder of an ultra white shoe Wall Street law firm. Today the managing partner of that firm is a woman. And while women in practice don't appear to have hit the 50% mark, two of the practice group leaders I deal with in nationwide law firms are women. On the four mega-cases I have had in the last decade, women outside counsel are involved at all levels.
When I was GC of this shop, at one point the legal department had a majority of women. Ironically, that is no longer the case; although it is a woman GC who replaced me.
So all in all, I see genuine, everyday progress for women in the practice of law.
|
Sure, there's been some progress. But I'm not sure anyone in this profession should be patting themselves on the back. Increased numbers of law school students is great, but is that really progress? Over the course of 40 years, law schools now accept applicants without actively discriminating against them such that classes represent real world demographics when it comes to women?
I see you've listed a bunch of anecdotal evidence supporting the "You've come a long way, baby" narrative. And I'm not denying that, when it comes to women, there have been some improvements. But if law school classes are now more female than male, then why is it that women only make up 35% of lawyers at law firms? And when it comes to who is actually making the money, women still only reflect 20% of law firm equity (and that hasn't changed much in awhile). Progress is stagnant and it's going to be for quite some time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/b...-partners.html
TM