Quote:
|
But, given everything I've said and everything you've said, and assuming that's all the evidence we have, would you feel comfortable voting for a verdict that said all (or even one) of these firms have violated civil rights statutes?
|
Not at this point. I think further investigation must be done and other facts gathered. The tough part in these types of cases is that no one wants to believe that such behavior is condoned (expressly, impliedly, or through self imposed ignorance). If such a quota theory is true, what does that say about our community and our principles as professionals? Better yet, are we morally and ethically strong enough to do anything about it once it appears such allegations have a foundation.
Instead, I think the State Bar should investigate these firms under a claim of false advertisement and ultimately penalize those who are not living up to their claims. Just a thought.
Quote:
|
However, firms are in a tough position, if they don't proclaim their allegience to the god (goddess?) of diversity, their savaged on campus, so they all do. I don't think if a firm just said "we don't discriminate in hiring," that would be good enough, though maybe more truthful (or not).
|
It's the same thing with probono. Anybody who has spent more than a week with most of these firms in SV know that pro bono is another "brochure" filler that has very little backing by firm management. But since everyone else thinks it looks good to say, they throw it in as well. They may even try to allot a certain percentage of billables for probono but the practical reality is that most partners want that time spent for paying clients and many of those "do gooders" were kicked into the cold when the economy began tightening.
