|
Re: We are all Slave now.
Thurgreed:
I concur that your response is helpful. I'd like to address the points in your original response to my post.
I’ll tackle the “women” issue first, because, as I indicated, I see progress.
As to your point that law schools no longer discriminate against half the population: When I was a lad, there was no need to discriminate against women applicants.There just weren’t that many to begin with. As that changed, I think law schools have been leaders in the profession to expand opportunity, when compared to either law firms or in-house legal departments.So I’m inclined to give law schools some credit on that score.Current student demographics look fairly reasonable.
Now to the point about women being 50% of the initial work force but only 35% percent of the partners. As the billable hour became the be all and end all of law firm, some percentage of associates…particularly those who don’t see the partnership brass ring within their grasp… prefer to go in-house or some other form of employment that allows a sane life style.And here is the part where, to use your phrase, I get “anecdotal”, because I have no numbers…I would be shocked if women with children don’t exercise this option in greater numbers, and sooner than their male counterparts. As Bill Maher would say, “I can’t prove it; I just know it’s true.” Firms might be able to recapture this cohort of potential partners with high quality on-site day care facilities.
The problems for blacks trying to enter and remain in the legal profession are, in my view, much more difficult to solve. I can’t say I have much experience with the issue because when I was an associate at a firm I had no insight into the hiring process other than to note the results:Pale and male.So I should start with what law firms can do now.
Your “Path to Partnership” point about law firms wanting “legacy” wealthy associates who can generate business is valid. You also note that you inherited your major client. I can fairly assume that you worked for that client extensively. I am a consumer of law firm services with a truly staggering need and budget for those services. Over the years, smarter firms do allow the process of “inheriting” clients that you mentioned.I have seen my business handed down to younger partners who had worked on my business as associates. I can think of three major firms that have done this.Indeed, I have seen one firm hand down my business twice.I have been very satisfied with the handoffs. I agree that this is an excellent way to place associates who otherwise can’t generate their own book.Alas, in only one the major handoffs was the new engagement partner a woman, and none of the three handoffs was to a minority.
Your “Night School” talent pool. Fair point. One of the attorneys on my staff went to New York Law School.He became a District Attorney, and can try cases in his sleep. Ironically, at a point when I heldthe number three position in the legal department, the two non-New Yorkers people above me thought he went to NYU.I corrected them; we took a chance, he is now the number 2 person in the department.
Your “Raid the In-house counsel” point does not appear to me to be realistic. It works precisely the other way: People go in-house to escape Biglaw and Biglaw-wannabe life.
I cannot speak to your “rampant bias at large law firms” point because I can’t say that I have been exposed to this. Or if I have, I just didn’t notice, which is also a possibility.
So generally, yeah, I don’t have many answers.
Now:Just to be contrary:What say you to the increasing number of lawsuits alleging that Asian applicants to colleges and law schools are held to such a demonstrably higher standard as to constitute prima facie discrimination?
|
