We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.)

Point 1: Big law can't help.

My first biglaw, my entire class got turned down for partner at the last minute because "the firm wasn't doing well, and they needed to ensure that each current partner could expect a certain income." So they added a year to the track.

A bit after that a young partner gave me a list of billings from the "current partners." It was full of deadwood. Guys who once had a promising practice but now had no work and did very little. there was the problem- people who wanted "assurance" they'd be paid, when their anemic practices were the problem.

Meanwhile, my class? there were 7 of us. At first we'd been 50. Across 8 years they'd weeded us out. the associates who made it to the vote were 100% skilled and hard working. Yet they passed us over, rather than cut the comp for the real problem. BECAUSE the real problem had equity. The very clear business reality didn't matter.

I'm not looking for a boo-hoo for me- just making the point Big Law cannot change, not to keep me, and likely not to adjust to a diverse culture.

Point 2: I had no business or family connections- I'm from a lower middle class family. I tried "hustling" and got nowhere. Spent evenings at "Italian American Bar Association" meetings trying to network, only to see the dinner speaker talking about drunk driving defenses; meaning there was no possible connection there.

I have had a great career because one young woman I was friends with got shit out of my biglaw and went in house. the first chance she had to send work, she was 100% on board with helping a young lawyer; my good fortune was she picked me. then she became a pinball bouncing between several big companies and always pulling me in- For all my BS, my practice is solely because someone decided to help another young lawyer, rather than a GP.

Of course, being nice to people and "hoping someone with work picks you," isn't really a plan that can effect major social change.

So it does fall back on the firms to recognize the client base is becoming diverse, so they'd be smart to do so. But again, see Point 1.

the answer may be for in-house counsel to be willing to move away from big law and look to mid-size firms that have more ability to adjust to realities, and to look to build a firm that looks more like the clients they represent?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the answer may be for in-house counsel to be willing to move away from big law and look to mid-size firms that have more ability to adjust to realities, and to look to build a firm that looks more like the clients they represent?

The only hope is from those who control the pocketbook. Of course, they largely report to CEOs and boards that are mostly white men too...

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Point 1: Big law can't help.

Can't help? No, they're not interested in changing.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My first biglaw, my entire class got turned down for partner at the last minute because "the firm wasn't doing well, and they needed to ensure that each current partner could expect a certain income." So they added a year to the track.

A bit after that a young partner gave me a list of billings from the "current partners." It was full of deadwood. Guys who once had a promising practice but now had no work and did very little. there was the problem- people who wanted "assurance" they'd be paid, when their anemic practices were the problem.

Meanwhile, my class? there were 7 of us. At first we'd been 50. Across 8 years they'd weeded us out. the associates who made it to the vote were 100% skilled and hard working. Yet they passed us over, rather than cut the comp for the real problem. BECAUSE the real problem had equity. The very clear business reality didn't matter.

I'm not looking for a boo-hoo for me- just making the point Big Law cannot change, not to keep me, and likely not to adjust to a diverse culture.

?

Yes. They are not interested in changing because they built a business model that rewards greed and selfishness and is based on maintaining the status quo.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the answer may be for in-house counsel to be willing to move away from big law and look to mid-size firms that have more ability to adjust to realities, and to look to build a firm that looks more like the clients they represent?

This is happening. But in house legal departments are also starting to move business away from firms who don't give a shit about changing. But it is a major uphill climb because, as we both said, firms aren't going to change on their own.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is happening. But in house legal departments are also starting to move business away from firms who don't give a shit about changing. But it is a major uphill climb because, as we both said, firms aren't going to change on their own.

TM

The more this happens the better. It needs to happen from governmental agencies as well as corporations.

[ferrets_bueller]

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?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

The co-chair of our department used to be in-house at one of our biggest clients. As did one of our newest laterals. Both white men, but still.

Maybe it's less likely at bigger firms, especially where partnership means automatic big money, but in the middle part of the market it seems doable.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

The co-chair of our department used to be in-house at one of our biggest clients. As did one of our newest laterals. Both white men, but still.

Maybe it's less likely at bigger firms, especially where partnership means automatic big money, but in the middle part of the market it seems doable.

In-house into firms is tough- the work one does in house is not usually the work one does at a firm. Also, what ever client relationships one develops in early firm years is completely lost once one goes in house. And you don't build any in-house, surpringingly. I've seen people come into firms from in-house thinking all those contacts they have from in-house groups will turn into big billings! it has never worked though.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

In-house into firms is tough- the work one does in house is not usually the work one does at a firm. Also, what ever client relationships one develops in early firm years is completely lost once one goes in house. And you don't build any in-house, surpringingly. I've seen people come into firms from in-house thinking all those contacts they have from in-house groups will turn into big billings! it has never worked though.

We had a guy leave to go in house at a rival of said large client only to get reorganized out of the job and come back with visions of big billings from his old colleagues. I was part of the "team" for them, which meant when the in house lawyer was swamped or had neglected something, she'd loop me in at the last second and then complain that I hadn't fixed it. She eventually got fired after the figured out that she was the problem. I, personally, never heard from them again.

He did get some ongoing business from them, I think, but he eventually left again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

In-house into firms is tough- the work one does in house is not usually the work one does at a firm. Also, what ever client relationships one develops in early firm years is completely lost once one goes in house. And you don't build any in-house, surpringingly. I've seen people come into firms from in-house thinking all those contacts they have from in-house groups will turn into big billings! it has never worked though.

I've been shifting into business development for a couple companies over the past year (setting up r/e deals, projects, etc.). I'm still practicing to keep the lights on, and to work on certain of the deals, but I really, really want to stop doing the detail work. Not some of it. All of it.

The sales/consulting side is much lower stress, much more creative. Instead of nasty deadlines, you have goals. Feels more like forward progress, and that one is building something, rather than managing something, staying on top of something, and satisfying annoying personalities.

Sometimes, I think I'm unreasonable. That I'm taking another chance, when I should just resign myself to cranking hours in a time entry system for the duration. Be happy with the gig.

When I read threads like this, I feel a lot better. I don't know how anyone survives in an organization of any size made up of lawyers. Particularly in this vicious market, where the corporate push is to efficiency, and the law firm model is all about inefficiency and brutally overpriced services.

I imagine a lot of people have this thought: "I can't live the rest of my life looking for downsides to things and warning people about them. I want to be the guy looking for the upside, and leave someone else to search for the pitfalls."

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When I read threads like this, I feel a lot better. I don't know how anyone survives in an organization of any size made up of lawyers. Particularly in this vicious market, where the corporate push is to efficiency, ...

The intellectual masturbatory aspect of practicing law is great. It is unfortunate, however, that the practice necessitates interaction with other lawyers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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've been part of a couple of raids of in-house lawyers. It works when you have patience and provide support.

The in-house attorney is often a better general counsel than the over-specialized firm attorney, has a better understanding of how business and law interrelate, and has access to a broader network of in-house attorneys than firm attorneys. But they almost always need help figuring out how to translate those advantages into business, and a couple of years to do it.

Most big-law shops don't have that patience or support network.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Now to the point about women being 50% of the initial work force but only 35% percent of the partners.

You have this wrong. 35% of attorneys at firms are women. 20% of them are currently partners and it's been at that number for quite awhile. That's a significant difference.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

Yes. I'm not sure why we are discussing the baseline reality for everyone. The point I'm making is that diverse and female attorneys flee law firms at way higher numbers because they do not see a future for themselves as owners and/or in firm leadership. This is borne out by the numbers.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

Sure. But the real problem is how those who are in a position of power perceive those who have children. Men who have children are considered solid, grounded, and mature. Women who have children are perceived as having a shift in their priorities, a risk in that they will surely leave, and distracted. Confirmation bias comes into play when a woman leaves work early to go to a kid's play vs. when a man does the same thing. One gets, "Here we go, choosing family over work," and the other gets, "Wow, what a dedicated father." And the work, and therefore the opportunities, available to those two people differs greatly.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

What's interesting now is that for millenials, diversity is a big issue for everyone. The white candidates judge the fuck out of firms on their diversity numbers and frequently ding them for poor performance. Yeah, imagine my shock.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Your “Path to Partnership” point about law firms wanting “legacy” wealthy associates who can generate business is valid.

Uh...thanks.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

You also note that you inherited your major client.

Not sure I understand your point. Do you need me to outline the fact that my experience is so rare that pointing out how it happened is almost completely irrelevant? Again, 1% of firm partnership is made up of black attorneys. 1%.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

Which part? That it happens or that it should happen for diverse associates more than it does?

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

This is standard practice and the only way a firm can create institutional clients. The question is, who gets picked to inherit the work and credit?

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

This is where clients can make a huge difference. You can ask why more diverse attorneys and women aren't on your matters and you can request that they staff them. You can mention to the relationship partners that talented women and attorneys of color be given more work and more responsibility. When the time comes, you can ask what succession planning they have in mind and whether they have considered such-and-such in that planning. Etc.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Alas, in only one the major handoffs was the new engagement partner a woman, and none of the three handoffs was to a minority.

How involved were you up until the point of the handoff on who was doing your work? Were you making calls to firm leadership to express how happy you were with the diverse associates who did your work? When you were pitched or had a meeting or went to a firm dinner or function, did you ask why there were so few women and diverse attorneys in attendance?

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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 held the 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.

I'm on the hiring committee. It amazes me how people who went to second tier law schools and who made it will sit in those meetings and talk about how we can only hire from top tier schools and how there are so few candidates of color available at those schools since the competition for them is so heavy. I look at them like they're out of their fucking minds. They're not coming here. Hell, you wouldn't even hire yourself out of law school. Why is looking for talent at other schools such a big deal to these people. They're all fucking nuts.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

No shit. You asked for solutions. This is one. If you wanted me to restate the current state of affairs, then what's the point of having the conversation?

If you want female and diverse talent, stop looking at lateral partners who have a book of business you like. Have your headhunters put together impressive offers to people who are rising stars at companies and who have deep connections at potential clients. Since this is where women and attorneys of color go to escape big law fairly early in their careers because they don't see opportunity, that's where the talent is. Poach them and give them attractive offers to become a part of your firm's leadership.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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.

In the last article I posted about a safe space for white men to discuss diversity issues, there is a great quotation. "Often, when people hurt others, they want to focus on the intent, but what really matters is the impact." This is gospel. White people seem to be capable of only seeing racial issues from a perspective that revolves around intent. Disparate impact is to be explained away constantly. So ask yourself, do you not see rampant bias because you're looking for (or only see) nefarious intent?

Then read this: http://nextions.com/wp-content/uploa...per-series.pdf

And take this implicit bias (race task) test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

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?

What do I think about it? I think white people have spent generations trying to set up a system for which they can claim that "objective" standards are the most important measures of who should be admitted to the best schools and given the most opportunity. In order to keep those spots to themselves, they segregate themselves, send their kids to the best schools where one can have a 5.0 GPA, pay a ton of money to tutors, enroll their children in test-taking courses to ensure success, institute and take advantage of a legacy system, pay tons to colleges in order to secure admission, etc. When their kids benefit from all of these advantages, they point at those who didn't have them and say, "Objectively speaking, my kid is a superior student and using any other measure for admission other than the ones we spent all this time defining is completely unfair!"

Now that Asian parents and students have mastered this criteria in such a way that they would dominate almost every single elite school in this country if the decisions were made solely based on "merit" (as defined the way white people have set it up), white people are now pissed off that Asians are now being "overrepresented." It's absolutely hilarious. Now they want to go the other way and talk about how there should be some balance when it comes to admission standards.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And take this implicit bias (race task) test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

link is bad. repost?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

link is bad. repost?

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

I think a lot of us have done this here before. Click, "I wish to proceed" and then click "Race IAT."

TM

[ferrets_bueller]

Raiding in house: My point is that because a large percentage of in-house talent left the law firm life on purpose, this is not likely to be a source of people who want to return to the 2,000 plus billable hour lifestyle. I just don't see this as a practical solution. So let me offer you better one: Raid the government. Government lawyers are underpaid and they know it. Again, no statistics but I just know it's true: there is a greater percentage of minority attorneys working in all phases of government than in the private sector. In a number of specialties, green, just out of law school types go into government with the specific intent to use a revolving door. There's your talent pool of people who want to work in the private sector.

Asian lawsuits asserting discrimination: I am in general agreement with your thesis about "objective criteria." Even if not originally discriminatory, these standards have been hijacked to be exclusionary. I think at least with respect to public colleges and law schools, the plaintiffs are correct. If you allege objective criteria, it is nonsense to have quotas based on physical characteristics. The best answer to this at the high school to public university transition is to allow the top X% from every high school in the state to go to the flagship. That provides geographic, and, almost certainly, ethnic balance from the pool of applicants.

I don't have an answer for the Asian discrimination issue for private institutions. In my view, a more difficult question.

Finally, I listed your points in the order you gave them, so as not to omit anything, and to signal agreement or disagreement. No need to get your knickers in a twist.