We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not exactly news:



https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...upport/558674/

It is amazing to me how many articles like this get written without using words like "racist" or "misogynist".

On that particular article, it is interesting how heavily it focused on race as an issue. I have no doubt the racists were out in full force for Trump, but it's worth at least noting that the Dem's candidate was a woman and there were a shit-load of misogynists constantly focused on her.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It is amazing to me how many articles like this get written without using words like "racist" or "misogynist".

I'm not sure those terms are all that helpful, since they seem to mean different things to different people. They can illuminate but sometimes like flash-bang grenades instead of spotlights.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

I think this is an interesting idea. I worry, of course, because I know very few white men capable of guiding a discussion on diversity--especially one in which only white men are in attendance. But I like the fact that this is something that isn't driven by people of color and women. I do a lot of work in the diversity space and you can spot white men's feelings of being coerced into participation at every diversity function.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...photo-15419898

TM

[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?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.)

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

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

First, thank you. This is really helpful stuff for thinking about and acting on.

I want to weigh in with some thoughts on "being cultivated" because it's something I've been thinking about and working on for a long time. I've tried to cultivate a lot of diverse associates over the years, as a partner at three different firms and with varying degrees of success, and one really big issue for me is that there are a lot of barriers put up when you are mentoring someone of color or a woman that are not there when mentoring white men. If I give some constructive criticism to a woman or minority (especially a minority who is black), something that is important for their development, it gets picked up and repeated over and over again. I'm reminded I said they needed to be more detail oriented, or needed to slow down a bit and think harder before they jump in, and I'm sometimes reminded of that for years after making the comment. As a result I've become very guarded in my reviews. On the other hand, if I say something positive, it gets forgotten quickly by many people unless I repeat it constantly. Also, minority candidates get criticized by people they don't work for much more than white candidates. Criticize someone who is black, just a little, and some old white guy in the room will give you an Amen, even if he's barely nodded hello to them.

I can quantify some of this. I had a top notch black associate who was bringing in north of $100K as a fifth year and bringing it in from top of the line clients with huge growth potential. A star. His work generation was regularly "put in context" in reviews. Things like people saying, Well, it's a start, but we can't tell yet if he can expand the relationships, he needs to defer more to partners brought in and they should run the matters, etc. etc. On the other hand, I regularly see more senior associates bringing in their first $20K matter getting all kinds of praise, credit and mentoring, even when it is commodity work sent in by some friend of the family. (This particular guy has since been recruited from me by a top 20 national firm, but I remain bitter.)

All this has led me to believe that finding ways to create consistent standards is very important to the cultivation effort. I know we've also got to change the attitudes of some white men, especially some of the liberals who should know better, but in the meantime imposing standards that holds every mediocre white boy to the same standards the old white guys hold women and non-white candidates to seems to be one way to even the playing field.

[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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If I give some constructive criticism to a woman or minority (especially a minority who is black), something that is important for their development, it gets picked up and repeated over and over again. I'm reminded I said they needed to be more detail oriented, or needed to slow down a bit and think harder before they jump in, and I'm sometimes reminded of that for years after making the comment.

No offense, but these do not sound like constructive criticisms. Recognizing that you're describing things in general on the internet, there's a big difference between, "during the meeting with client X, you concluded Y without considering Z" is an example they can learn from. The general "slow down a bit and think harder before jumping in" sounds like "shut up."

As a result I've become very guarded in my reviews.

Oh. Yeah. Reviews are not for feedback.

[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?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I want to weigh in with some thoughts on "being cultivated" because it's something I've been thinking about and working on for a long time. I've tried to cultivate a lot of diverse associates over the years, as a partner at three different firms and with varying degrees of success, and one really big issue for me is that there are a lot of barriers put up when you are mentoring someone of color or a woman that are not there when mentoring white men. If I give some constructive criticism to a woman or minority (especially a minority who is black), something that is important for their development, it gets picked up and repeated over and over again. I'm reminded I said they needed to be more detail oriented, or needed to slow down a bit and think harder before they jump in, and I'm sometimes reminded of that for years after making the comment. As a result I've become very guarded in my reviews. On the other hand, if I say something positive, it gets forgotten quickly by many people unless I repeat it constantly. Also, minority candidates get criticized by people they don't work for much more than white candidates. Criticize someone who is black, just a little, and some old white guy in the room will give you an Amen, even if he's barely nodded hello to them.

It is absolutely vital to have women, LGBT, and people of color in the room when these high-level conversations are taking place. We see the bullshit as it is being applied and hopefully are secure enough at the firm to call it out.

I would recommend delivering constructive criticism to associates directly and minimizing such criticism at those review meetings. I'm sure you've read the brief experiment white paper from Nextions. Confirmation bias is real, as you've just confirmed.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I can quantify some of this. I had a top notch black associate who was bringing in north of $100K as a fifth year and bringing it in from top of the line clients with huge growth potential. A star. His work generation was regularly "put in context" in reviews. Things like people saying, Well, it's a start, but we can't tell yet if he can expand the relationships, he needs to defer more to partners brought in and they should run the matters, etc. etc. On the other hand, I regularly see more senior associates bringing in their first $20K matter getting all kinds of praise, credit and mentoring, even when it is commodity work sent in by some friend of the family. (This particular guy has since been recruited from me by a top 20 national firm, but I remain bitter.)

Yes. This kind of achievement is seen as a fluke by so many. I don't know how many times I've heard, "Wow, you're a partner? You don't look like a partner." And this isn't from non-lawyers. I brought in a $700k matter for another partner at my last firm soon before I left. That shit wasn't even mentioned in my comp conversation. Pure fluke in their eyes.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

All this has led me to believe that finding ways to create consistent standards is very important to the cultivation effort. I know we've also got to change the attitudes of some white men, especially some of the liberals who should know better, but in the meantime imposing standards that holds every mediocre white boy to the same standards the old white guys hold women and non-white candidates to seems to be one way to even the playing field.

Yes. I would hope that that is part of the bare minimum efforts that firms need to undertake.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

No offense, but these do not sound like constructive criticisms. Recognizing that you're describing things in general on the internet, there's a big difference between, "during the meeting with client X, you concluded Y without considering Z" is an example they can learn from. The general "slow down a bit and think harder before jumping in" sounds like "shut up."

They are always tied in to specific instances, which I'm not going to recite on the internet. But the slow down and think harder is a common issue for some of the best young associates I've seen, who are eager to crank like crazy and turn documents, work late through the night, and make people happy, but who may need to stop and chat with a tax lawyer or think about whether there is a need to consider alternative structures for a deal.

Oh. Yeah. Reviews are not for feedback.

As I matured as an associate I got some very helpful reviews, especially in my early years. I have seen also tough reviews turn around and refocus a couple of older associates who had developed some bad habits along the way.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

No offense, but these do not sound like constructive criticisms. Recognizing that you're describing things in general on the internet, there's a big difference between, "during the meeting with client X, you concluded Y without considering Z" is an example they can learn from. The general "slow down a bit and think harder before jumping in" sounds like "shut up."

Disagree. This shit needs to be said to associates often (although, I've only had to say it to white males). And it is indeed constructive criticism.

TM

[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.