We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

I am a consumer of law firm services with a truly staggering need and budget for those services.

Sounds like you can switch up and do a bit with this budget to move diversity forward. I just got my 23 and me and I'm 1% native american and 2.3% north african. can you tell me the product areas you work in so i can conflict check?

[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?

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Sounds like you can switch up and do a bit with this budget to move diversity forward. I just got my 23 and me and I'm 1% native american and 2.3& north african. can you tell me the product areas you work in so i can conflict check?

Sorry Hank. I have the next couple of engagements reserved for those, like me, whose dna shows a smidgen of Neanderthal. "We are a race of hairy chested men, hairy chested men..."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

No need to get your knickers in a twist.

23 skidoo, daddy-o.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I first joined a small boutique. After 3 months it merged into my first biglaw. The first set of reviews, the IP guys had no idea what the reviews were about. 1 of the 7 partners had a legit beef about the quality of my work. I'd fucked up a project for em. but i got 5 reviews saying I did sloppy work. when i asked, the other 4 pointed to the one guy's complaint. i about got fired. don't know what you mean by "co-ordinate" but I don't trust most of these guys to do that. reviews are about what each reviewer feels about work they've reviewed; not about what they've heard others say.

Damn, man, you're darker than just swarthy, aren't you?

I think a key to good reviewing is getting people who haven't worked with someone to shut up and listen. As lawyers, we're really bad at this. But it's critical.

Best I've seen it done was my original firm, which had everyone do written reviews that included a line for how many hours and on which projects the associate had worked for someone. If it was less than 20 hours, someone read it but other than that you weren't part of the full review. If it was more than 20 hours, it got put in the stack with others, a single reader culled through and wrote a summary of where there were themes and outliers, and then the review was given (by two partners). But it all was in writing to avoid the herd mentality.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

sorry hank. I have the next couple of engagements reserved for those, like me, whose dna shows a smidgen of neanderthal. "we are a race of hairy chested men, hairy chested men..."

i am part neanderthal!!!!

[ferrets_bueller]

For me, this is like looking in the mirror.

[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]

If only Atticus were here.

Because the jokes would write themselves.

[ferrets_bueller]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

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

Dealing with opposing litigation counsel is surely is one of the least enjoyable things about being a lawyer. But some lawyerly wag once said that lawyers are the only people worth having a drink with. I agree. I'd rather drink with lawyers than any other gaggle of professionals. There are obvious exceptions, of course, but in general the rule holds.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Dealing with opposing litigation counsel is surely is one of the least enjoyable things about being a lawyer. But some lawyerly wag once said that lawyers are the only people worth having a drink with. I agree. I'd rather drink with lawyers than any other gaggle of professionals. There are obvious exceptions, of course, but in general the rule holds.

Really?

First problem with drinking with lawyers: disproportionately a bunch of urban white dudes with urban white dude stories and pretty much the same education. If you go drinking with a group of politicians, especially Democratic ones, you'll get a mix of religions, races, and these days even genders, and you'll get people who vary from PhDs (occasionally) to union workers (occasionally). If you go drinking with entrepreneurs, they'll come from all over the world. I mean, lawyers are better than corporate middle management, but....

[ferrets_bueller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Really?

First problem with drinking with lawyers: disproportionately a bunch of urban white dudes with urban white dude stories. If you go drinking with a group of politicians, especially Democratic ones, you'll get a mix of religions, races, and these days even genders. If you go drinking with entrepreneurs, they'll come from all over the world. I mean, lawyers are better than corporate middle management, but....

Each profession has its own Esperanto; a language known only to the initiated. Having that common ground I think allows for a rapport.

Doctors? Engineers? Come on. Dull. Teachers can be hilarious.

The only people I enjoy drinking with as much as lawyers are soldiers. In my neck of the woods, within shouting distance of the Pentagon, many are my neighbors. About every third or fourth house near me has a soldier, sailor, airman, or vet. Most have views which are, to put it mildly, rather different from mine. But I can speak their particular Esperanto as a result of putting in two years as a draftee.