Surely this is a case for the marketing department. If so, that photo was hopefully pro bono. If not, litigation.
The bigger underlying problem is that blacks have a higher rate of poverty and bad schools.
The politically incorrect fact is this results in proportionally lower percentage of top ranked black lawyers.
I grew up on the south side of Chicago. Few went on to college, mostly local city and state universities and junior colleges. Many never finished.
I can tell you we were not prepared for the best universities.
Quotas are a start but they are really fix the symptom, not the problem.
14
African-American, Latino, Asian and Pacific Islanders are approaching 40% of the population. With birthrates of non-whites outpacing that of whites and immigration running almost totally non-white, it won't be long before whites are outnumbered by non-whites.
.
The situation described in this article will be turned upside down. In the U.S. the white population will become an ever decreasing minority.
.
It will be sweet revenge.
3
Given the amount of attention given to the topic of "toxic masculinity" and the "oppressive patriarchy," if I were a powerful white male in a law firm, I'd be afraid to mentor female or minority associates. I'd actually avoid only the most non-essential contact.
22
How about ensuring that these men were not the most qualified candidates before you attack them for being chosen?
30
Top law firms in NYC are racist. They have no interest in bringing in, mentoring and promoting African-American attorneys.
If they were, they'd cast their nets a little wider than just 're rioting jaunts to Harvard and Yale. Recruiting methods clearly disadvantages law students of color.
14
Thanks to all who upvoted my previous comment. This is not about diversity or making any institution reflect the population of the US. This is about justice and having an equal playing field, plain and simple.
I do not believe in affirmative action. I do believe in hiring the best, and also providing opportunities based on ability, not color of your skin or gender. If this were to happen, most corporations will be overrun by women (I am male) and have more minorities. So be it.
17
Maybe they were the best candidates?
31
They probably were, which says something about a society that is a third white male yet creates a ruling class that is overwhelmingly white male. Where is the equal opportunity?
20
I have worked as an executive / professional in the best-rated law firms (AmLaw 50) in the city for twenty years. This is one of the few times I think the law firm got the short end of the stick, and probably does actually do better than most. I attended a program last year in which Chair Brad Karp discussed his role at the firm, as well as the management of its clients. He was practical and realistic and down to earth. Not alot of smoke and mirrors floating around - he spoke clearly and directly as to what it takes to run Paul Weiss. Clients are first, last and always - and everyone needs to subscribe / be on board to work at that firm. I have worked with enough J.Pemberton Tumbleweeds, III - law firm leader types to know a snob from an “in the trenches” leader. And practical and realistic leaders tend to see way beyond color and gender and sexual preference. They have business to take care of, and Karp is likely getting it done better than most. And here’s what else - law firms are about as far from diverse, generally, as can be. Yet everyone wants to get in and get a shot at the brass ring. Why? Cash. Pure and simple. Corporate lawyers are not saving lives and can not be confused with Attitus Finch-like lovers of the law. These are not great men, unilaterally. These are (mostly) men pushing the boundaries of law to help corporations and other rich people make money. We all know it, yet everyone cries for democracy. Huh? Start your own well-principled firm, instead!
26
Several years ago I was at my Big Law firm's partner's retreat. They had us all in an auditorium at the hotel, and had a panel on diversity. As they showed off one of the few African American partners and one of the few women, touting their diversity, I couldn't help but agree.
It was a diverse firm.
They had tall white men and short white men.
Thin white men and fat white men.
White men with a great head of hair and bald white men.
They had white men from the South, the Northeast, and even the West.
Some liked sports and some did not.
It was so sad that they seemed to have their own set of alternative facts, and no sense of self awareness.
128
@mos
This is not entirely true. With some exceptions, most partners in big law firms are not just white men, but they are significantly taller, have deeper voices, and more hair than your average man. Clients like to hire lawyers that project power. There are always some women and some short or overweight guys that have the charisma to do that, but for the most part, clients like a tall, authoritative guy with a deep voice and a sense of utter entitlement and confidence in intimidating circumstances. And all that firms care about is who can bring in the rich clients, so the market decides.
It is rather hilarious to watch firms try to trot out all their "minorities" and showcase how diverse they are, however.
25
It's pretty obvious that only white males possess the "quality lawyer" gene.
Either that, or there is something very seriously wrong somewhere...
6
As a former lawyer at a top Australian firm, everything in this article about elite firm culture is absolutely spot on, except the number of years to make partner. If only it were 7-10, it was more like 15-20. The partners decide fairly early on who within your cohort might be partnership material. Those people, usually white males, are then groomed for partnership. They are mentored and trained intensively, the firm pays for any extra specialist qualifications they might need, they are invited to client networking events and they socialise extensively with the partners. If you don’t fit the partners narrow idea of the “image of the firm” it doesn’t matter what you do, you’ll never make it. The firm banged on about so-called work/life balance, but that never meant maternity leave or flexible hours for women, that meant that some men could take time off to train and compete in sports events. I was asked to go part-time when it suited the firm, a part-time secondment at a client that is for three days a week, as long as I still did my normal work load at the firm as well. Socio-economic background is also a huge disadvantage. It really helps if you come from legal royalty. If your father’s a judge, a top barrister, a partner at a large firm, or legal counsel or an executive at some big client, you’ll be treated with kid gloves. Don’t get me wrong becoming a partner at a mega-firm is gruelling, it’s just more possible for some than others.
26
The reality is that in order to rise to partner a a major law firm you have to be willing to put the firm ahead of absolutely everything, including spouse and family. Women are less likely to be willing to make that sacrifice, maybe that’s not a bad thing and we should start treating it accordingly. Maybe that is the true route to equality- recognizing that there are different ways to contribute to society and that there are special traits brought by both men and women- stop minimizing the unique role of mothers in our society.
22
@John Wilson
Gee, isn't that convenient? Half the population (actually, women are more than 50% of many law school classes), study hard to get into law school, often go into debt, kill themselves getting good grades in law school, pass the bar but it's only the OTHER half that gets a shot at the real money, power, and prestige?
It also may be unfathomable to you, but there are men who want to spend more time with their kids and would if it wouldn't jeopardize their careers.
20
This article inevitably touches on other problems with the legal profession, because there are so many. One is why these lawyers are considered "elite" in the first place.
It tells you everything about the state of American law that these firms serving the powerful and wealthy - who else can afford $700 an hour? - are feted in mainstream press as the best the profession has to offer.
I am a career plaintiffs' lawyer. Although white shoe corporate firms routinely disparage my ilk as scavengers, ambulance chasers and worse, I look in the mirror every day knowing I am on the side of the issues I care about. Representing the 99%, not the 1% who shamelessly hoard more every day aided and facilitated by Big Law.
Just look at the client rosters of these firms. Paul Weiss and the like represent tobacco companies, white collar criminals, corrupt foreign governments seeking to influence Congress, and the most rotten institutions in American life. What do those clients have in common? They can afford $700 per hour.
The law transitioned from a calling to a business a long time ago. That was a sad day for American justice.
No wonder most people disdain lawyers.
41
Agree 1000%.
The real injustice is not diversity in Paul Weiss but the lack of access most people in the USA, black or white, have to legal help when they need it.
This article is a problem of the one percenters.
Frankly, most lawyers are over paid to begin with considering what they actually contribute to society. Doctors and teachers and firemen should be paid more, but lawyers have a monopoly on the law.
16
All-White*
*Partners who identify as Hispanic counted as white
4
Hispanic partner mentioned is from Spain....
9
This article is a disservice to your cause. By doing what amounts to a hatchet job on one of the major law firms which has more diversity in their higher ranks than others, most other firms will not make public their partner promotions. I doubt Goldman Sachs and the other banks will either. Congratulations, You have accomplished the end of transparency.
20
What debate? White firms serve white clients and they do not care about diversity, they care about getting business. They trot out brown and black associates for client pitches and they staff them on cases if they need to for diversity requirements, but until clients fully demand diversity firms will not do anything. Also a healthy chunk of AmLaw 100 partners think minorities are lazy and stupid. You have to be 5x as smart and hardworking to pull off what a white male is assumed to be from day one.
11
I am struck by the last quote by Ms. Fang, one of the GC's who signed the open letter: "I trust him so much," she said. "I can't see walking away."
If Ms. Fang and the other GC's truly want to effect change, simply signing a letter is not going to do it. They have to be willing to walk away. (Negotiations 101!) And they certainly shouldn't be telling the NYT they have no intention of walking away!!!
What a waste of a good letter.
Without a willingness to divert fees, there is no incentive for law firms (and the banks, consulting firms and Corporate America) to change their ways.
13
@V
I thought the quote was a superb way to end the article. Despite the best intentions, people don't want to take any kind of risk. The feeling of comfort Ms. Fang has illustrates the power of relationships in law and too many minorities and women law associates aren't getting the opportunity to forge them with senior lawyers and clients.
12
I don’t see how you can make partner at one of these firms and still have time for a family.
22
I am tired of articles like this. We built this world as we know it. Let the diverse and inclusion folks build their own. We like being around people we are comfortable with. Start your own company and build it.
29
These firms have a rigorous system to identify the best. It turns out that the best are white this year.
29
I used to proofread at some of the biggest law firms in New York City; the women attorneys often groused about advantage they were denied which the men were getting.
But what their grousing and this article misses is this: they were no better behaved then the men, and often worse, and the problem isn't ladies not getting enough of the opportunities super wealthy law firm life makes available, it is the existence of these law firms themselves and the role they play cementing inequality in society with every new bill they send their clients.
Paul Weiss doesn't need more women, America needs more justice.
110
@jdnewyork
Who says the standard is women and minorities behaving BETTER than white men? Talk about a double standard. Among other things, they have no power to change the system. Perhaps when gross racial and sex disparities are remedied we cam address the social utility of large law firms. Although given a capitalistic society, good luck with that.
You're not the best person to opine on how the "ladies" were treated.
16
@jdnewyork someone gets it!!! Thank you!!!
5
@JDL Thank you!
5
The current diversity hysteria anathema to the concept of genuine objective merit. It is the Emperor's New Clothes - on steroids. The vast disparity in LSAT scores and law school GPAs (between whites and others) explains much of the difference in the make-up of the top echelons of top law firms.
As for women, I've known more than a dozen promising female litigators who left Big Law for the explicit reason that they desired less stress and fewer hours. That was their choice. The answer is NOT the oft-floated notion that women should be offered a "more accommodating" path to the brass ring, as its not only patronizing, but unjustifiable, legally and otherwise.
The legal professions is SO OBSESSED with diversity that people who pride themselves on rational objectivity are willing to indulge the fiction that discrimination, in some form, MUST be to blame for any disparity in outcomes. "Equality of opportunity" has been replaced with equal outcomes at almost any price, even if that means seriously tilting the playing-field while pretending it's still "equal."
43
Is it not possible that the 11 white men where the best talent available among candidates? Seems very possible.
The inference is if there is a lesser qualified candidate but that candidate is of color then that is preferable to having the best qualified talent.
Conversely, if it were an all black color skin .... and those lawyers were deemed the best fit ... then that would be understandable also.
27
No. You are wrong. If they have 50 new hires and promote 10, then you expect the pool of new hires reflected in those promoted, if it is a fair process. If 25 new hires are white men, it would be reasonable to expect about 5 new partners to be white men, not almost all of them. If your system is biased and unfair, then you will not be promoting the best talent, only the most faces you like most. It's not that hard to understand: as noted in the article new hires are 60% white men, 40% everyone else. So what happened to everyone else? By the way, that's still not fair compared to the field of applicants, and shows that they are already biased towards white men. If the playing field were fair, then you would expect to see it broken down in the office just as in the populace and in the classroom. That is the goal, that is the dream, and that is not what happened here.
7
@Grace
The flaw in your "logic" (a charitable characterization) is that you assume that all of the same people who were hired are still there ten years later when they are considered for partnership. That is never the case in big law firms.
3
As to the lack of minority hires:
Those of you who think that the problem is largely at the level of a top-level law firm are incredibly mistaken. Most of those tax and corporate lawyers are the best of the best. I personally can't care less about their skin color or where they are from. I demand competence.
I also am familiar with the "ghetto", where I spent my first twelve years. The failings there are the reason why so few attain the level of skill to excel at the highest levels, whether we are taking about the offices of Paul Weiss or laboratories at Johns Hopkins.
It is much easier to complain about the hiring statistics of a law firm than address the myriad problems that leave millions of children too far behind to ever achieve their share of the American Dream.
Shame, shame, shame.
25
How can these businesses make promises to diversify when it is illegal to base hiring decisions on factors such as gender and race?
16
Did anyone else have a "wait, what?" moment when reading about the attorney fired for pursuing a full time PhD program, in clear violation of her employment terms??
McDonald's would fire you for that.
I am left to conclude either that the authors of this article are so cynical and sympathetic to Paul Weiss that they included that anecdote to preemptively disarm the firm's critics (and I highly doubt that), or more likely, there actually aren't many examples of women and minorities run out of the firm for being women or minorities.
19
Based on the tiny sample size of twelve people, it is impossible to draw any conclusions whatsoever about Paul, Weiss' promotion practices.
16
Maybe the people who got promoted are really, really good lawyers. Kinda weird how that gets lost along the way.
29
I would like to know how everyone thinks they can discern diversity, or not, based on photographs? Diversity is far broader than gender diversity. I am not ready to claim I know the race, the sexual identification, the religious orientation, the country of origin, the age, the family of birth status in terms of economic advantage of these people. A rush to judgment is what this looks like.
21
The incident of a client hiring a young lawyer because he knew the lawyer's father is a perfect illustration of the problem that women and minorities face. White men (such as myself) have a built-in advantage because the existing power structure (mostly white men) favors us. If law firms really want to diversify, they need to look far down the pipeline, and actively help the best aspiring minority law students get into college, make connections in their careers, and find the support they need to succeed. Otherwise, the existing power dynamic will just perpetuate itself.
17
At almost any modern business, and assuming equal capabilities, credentials, aspirations and routine performance between candidates, continued vertical success relies heavily on timely and methodical aggression. Plainly put, some individuals arrive at the business with more selling skills than others (whether they're selling their output externally to clients and bringing in business or internally to management and growing their responsibilities).
Not that selling can't be mentored; it can and should be. A business seems to need as many mean junkyard dogs as it can get in this dog-eat-dog world.
3
If diversity is only for diversity's sake then it's a dysfunctional goal. You hire the best people for the job who are apt to be the most successful and effective. This does not automatically exclude diverse candidates regardless of sex, age, ethnicity, etc. In an immigration law practice, for example, having attorneys with similar backgrounds to the clients and who are bilingual is a plus.
12
To the “I only care about quality...” crowd, one question. Is your doctor, lawyer, accountant, kid’s babysitter,etc, the same race as you? Yeah, that’s what I thought?
15
Well I guess on the positive side if you were in that class your photo is now on the cover of every newspaper
6
I'm a very experienced minority attorney and I own a highly successful (i.e., profitable) law practice. My advice to newly-minted minority JDs/Esqs who are thinking of a career in Biglaw? Gain solid experience, find a good mentor (or two), develop the right mindset (enormously important), and eventually start your own law practice (while still learning from a good mentor). The odds are that you will likely control your own destiny and enjoy an upward career trajectory in terms of having many opportunities, greater confidence, controlling your own time and building wealth. By pursuing a partnership in Biglaw or something similar, the odds are that you're likely to achieve the exact opposite.
14
"In the image, 12 lawyers looked out at the world, grinning."
"And Death grinned horrible a ghastly smile" Paradise Lost.
At least they weren't "smirking" (the word NYT used of that high school student a couple days ago).
Seriously (if that is the right word, for that facial expression), whatever happened to smiling? To my eyes, all of these guys (and the one woman) are smiling. Not grinning. Not smirking. Smiling. That doesn't mean the demographic is as it should be, but good individuals in a bad system can smile. I even think that high school student was smiling (not smirking). But (full disclosure) I have bad eyesight.
15
It is the same in Medicine. It is not meritocracy. We all know what it is. No need to debate the obvious.
10
@ron Best way to lose an argument? Declare that it doesn't even need to take place.
6
I had to laugh at the sentence about the white male from Spain who identifies as "Hispanic". Of course he is Hispanic! That just means his first language is Spanish! Most ethnic Spaniards are white! I remain mystified that so many Americans have such difficulty understanding the simple point that speaking Spanish as a first language does not make someone non-white or "ethnic". There are lots of Hispanics of every race. In Latin America, keeping the "bloodline pure" was a major preoccupation of the white Spaniards who slaughtered and enslaved their way across the region. Of course, they never really succeeded but, for practical purposes, it is often impossible to tell. Is anyone really going to argue that Salma Hayek or Eva Longoria are not "white" just because their first languages are Spanish? (In Ms. Hayek's case, I think that her background is partly Lebanese). Again, of course the partner is white - his being Hispanic doesn't change that in the slightest.
16
@Shaun Narine I love Spaniards that qualify for and received government points for being Hispanic, and therefore under-privileged. Just as much as an Ambassador's child from Nigeria qualifying for Affirmative Action, what a wonderful country.
13
Why is it that endeavors that are dominated by non-whites are thought to be meritocratic, but endeavors that are dominated by white males are racist?
21
@RCH It's probably not best to think of law as a white endeavor.
3
It is impossible to separate the causes for the low minority and female representation at large law firms. Some of it is implicit bias or worse. Some of it is that the marketplace is biased and the firms reflect this in order to make money. Some of it is the business model that forces people to give up a balanced life (whatever it is you want to do outside of work) if you want to make partner. But, as some point out, in the worst case the idea of merit reflects only a person's ability to draw wealthy clients and then send them outrageously large bills that the client is willing to pay. At some point, sophisticated clients demand results and this meliorates the pure pursuit of cash, but that still doesn't mean the lawyer who gets the best results for a client is the best lawyer in an objective sense or that society benefits. We knew this in law school, but people want to believe that there's something like objective merit, especially when they're are deemed to have it!
4
I'm an Italian-American who graduated from a top twenty college and law school, and I have been the subject of massive discrimination, including having a senior partner tell me that I'm very articulate for an Italian. I also was told to monitor a court appearance in Staten Island because the Italian judges would be more responsive to me than they would be to my Jewish colleagues. (Bear in mind, I was in-house counsel and was simply monitoring.) To look at me, one would group me in with the white men in that photo, but there's far more to the story than photos sometimes imply.
23
In most of these major firms the associates start in their mid to late twenties and are required to work 70+ hours per week for 8 to 10 years to make partner. Unfortunately this happens to coincide with the vast majority of woman who have babies resulting in reduced work hours or sometimes even a willingness not to move up the ladder in exchange of more time at home. It is a very difficult decision that needs to be made. However, it is a major factor in these decisions that this article completely ignored. It would be more valid if they posted the hours worked by the lawyers that recently made partner versus those that did not.
22
@Mind boggling
Do men not become parents, too? Hello, you think all these men are single with no kids?
The problem with your premise is that it assumes women will take time off and become less dedicated employees when they have kids-- whether by force or by choice--but men will not. Other than the physical processes of gestation and birth, which are relatively short over an associate's career, there is no reason at all why women should pay a penalty for becoming mothers but not men.
The fact that you asked this question demonstrates implicit bias on your part and on the part of the legal industry.
11
@C's Daughter
Sorry, no bias on my part. If a woman wants to give birth and get right back on the horse and put in as many hours as everyone else and bring in as much business as all the others in line for partner than they should be promoted equally.Note in the article that the co-chairwomen of Paul Weiss said they have made partner of woman who "have reduced or flexible hours. Would they do that for a male?
I am not trying to forward an argument that men should get ahead first. However, science is science. Many woman actually enjoy childbirth and spending time with their children. This may impact promotion progress versus those that do not elect this course in their life.
4
12-0 is indeed pretty stark. But to draw a meaningful conclusion about diversity in big law one needs to consider other firms and other years. As is far too often the case, the media fails us when it reports the most salacious anecdotal example, without doing the homework needed to provide the broader context.
16
@Terrance Malley
Here is a pageful of articles by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), which prepares listings of representation of minorities and women by firm and by position.
https://www.nalp.org/minoritieswomen
3
So Paul, Weiss sent out a congratulatory post about its new partners, all of whom appear white. This prompted a bunch of businesses to have their house counsel draft a letter to outside counsel firms, including Paul, Weiss, threatening to pull their business unless they “reflect the diversity of the legal community”.
Paul, Weiss holds unconscious bias training sessions for its lawyers, has formal programs to help women and minority men associates form relationships with partners, offers partnerships to women working reduced or flexible hours, has an “infant transition” childcare program, has a history of commitment to civil rights, “makes a point of recruiting law students of color” AND recently created a task force of partners working alongside women and minority male associates to advance their career prospects at the firm. It has 23% women partners, and 6 ownership stake African-American partners (no sex given in article).
So NYT, how does Paul, Weiss’s “12 White Faces Reflect Blind Spot in Big Law”?
Michelle Fang, a white woman heading the house counsel legal department at Turo, comprised of one man and the rest women (I don’t know the racial make-up and the NYT doesn’t say) helped draft the letter to Paul, Weiss threatening to pull Turo’s business if the firm didn’t “reflect the diversity of the legal community” but admits she’s not about to pull her business from the outside firm she trusts for lack of diversity. Hahahaha!
15
As a Chief HR Officer, I ask myself Where was HR in all this? For all the talk about diversity, perhaps the CHRO was ‘overruled’ when they did their Talent Review or promotion panels. Sadly, even if HR has a seat a the table, if it’s not used to be catalyst for culture change, then let’s not complain when business leaders continue to perceive as corporate paper pushers, more concerned with telling people what they can and cannot do.
2
HR at firms absolutely does not NOT have a seat at the table.
13
The fact that there are no minorities is shameful, and the large number of comments serve only to rationalize about why that may be so. But the fact that there is only one female can have no such rationalizations. That is simply astounding. I graduated from law school 22 years ago. THEN, there were more females than males in law school nationwide. Simple fact, easy to prove. This trend has continued. Extrapolate those numbers to law firms today. Women should be making partner in massive numbers, at least half of all partnerships. It's just math. So one woman in this group? This firm has absolutely no defense. None. Nor would any firm.
16
This article should have mentioned that in 2018, 85% of lawyers nationwide were white, and 64% were male. Source: American Bar Association's National Lawyer Population Survey. The outrage shouldn't be that minorities aren't being selected as partners, but that minorities are under-represented in law in the first place.
21
I am not at law firm, I work for a Investment bank. One of the VP who is a white Bostonian was doing the hiring and one of the associate was sitting with him. She told me he would dismiss the resume if the name is not American. He said he does not want to hire someone he cannot talk to. He also gave much harsh criticism on a resume from a female candidate. I think many people are thinking like him in their mind, they just didn't say it out loud and are much better at finding excuse to sound not racist.
16
“In an interview, Mr. Karp, the chairman, said the firm needed highly specific expertise when filling these jobs. “We always want diverse attorneys at the firm — always — but if there were none available with that expertise, the choice was to do nothing” or hire the best individuals available, even if they were white men, he said.”
So are they saying they won’t hire the best individual for the job if it happens to be a white male?
4
I can see how isolating being an African American attorney can be. African Americans make up only 5% of the attorney population - it's a very small percentage. In a profession dominated by white males, it can be quite intimidating. I believe most firms today are very sensitive to this issue and provide an environment which minorities can feel comfortable and secure.
4
The key argument against diversity is that it requires a compromise in quality. That would be true if there was - at law firms, in school admissions, in commercial settings - a fail safe objective measure of ability. There’s not. Best you can do is identify a group of highly qualified people which we then consciously or unconsciously put through subjective screens. One of which is who do the powers that be feel most comfortable around.
The answer to that is typically white males with athletic builds and square jaws. A fact that is basically confirmed by the pic.
4
@GC absolutely correct. An evolutionary natural selection exists. Handsome, Ivy League white men populate the firms, they then have their pick of attractive women to have their children, and so the cycle continues. It is the building block of extreme income inequality.
8
@JulieB
Which law firm did you work at while conducting your study of the way things really are?
1
Many comments reference affirmative action and wanting the best qualified people There seem to be multiple presumptions: 1) nonwhite candidate was admitted to college / law school solely via affirmative action. 2) affirmative action means lower academic standards and achievement. 3) Nonwhite law students / attorneys don’t represent the best or brightest. If this mindset is also present among mentors in law firms (and other industries), it’s no wonder few nonwhite people ascend the ranks. People in positions of influence need a paradigm shift if there’s to be meaningful change. Start by reaching out to people unlike oneself, rather than reflections. Think of our government: SCOTUS Justice Thomas benefited from affirmative action. Does anyone suggest he’s unqualified to sit on the bench (I myself rarely agree with his decisions)? How about Justices Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor – are they “lesser” justices because they’re women? The best/brightest argument appears not to resonate with many. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also a U.S. Senator and attorney was rejected in favor of Trump with no government or legal experience (being sued 3500 times notwithstanding) and who’s only worked for his father or himself. Many disparaged President Obama despite 8 years as Illinois State Senator, 4 years U.S. Senator, 12 years teaching Constitutional law at Univ. of Chicago, Harvard Law Review President, Columbia grad and attorney. What must a nonwhite person do to be taken seriously?
7
The Times needs to do an in-depth piece on the shocking lack of diversity in college and professional men's basketball teams
27
@Steve. Nice try with your racial mischief. Considering the recruiters of college men's basketball are mostly white, yes let us find out why their mostly black athletes are asked to work for free for 4 years.
13
It’s the result of applying precise objective criteria to the pool of potential players. No such precise criteria exists when evaluating lawyers.
1
Looks like the Republican Senate.
14
Why do these law firm's hires have to mean on a knee-jerk level that the firm is being racist and/or sexist? The firm has the right to hire the best, most talented people who will product the most success and income for their business. I would suggest that owners of teams in the NFL (70 percent of players are African American) and the NBA (more than 80 percent of players are African American) choose their employees on the same basis. Or should the self-righteous be complaining that there should be more whites, Asians and Latinos selected to those sports teams to produce more diversity, regardless of talent?
14
But Scott these firms do not hire the best most talented, as sports teams do, they hire by recommendations from others in the firm. If they did hire the best most talented then the first thing would be that more than 50% of those firms would be made up of women regardless of color. In addition these firms also limit their hiring of the “best” to the top named law schools, such as Stanford or Harvard which are not diverse economically.
As a husband and son of attorneys I have wondered all these years why the most talented are not hired and the mediocre men from elite schools remain in these firms.
9
The rate at which new hires are accepted should reflect the rate at which new partners are accepted when broken down by race and gender. If the new hires are 30% women, the new partners should be somewhere between 20-40% or 25-35% made up of women. If they 40% of new hires are people of color, 30-50% (or some similar range) of new partners should be people of color. If not, you are clearly giving advantages to others, and you are biased. Instead of turning a blind eye or making stupid excuses like this firm did, one should first acknowledge the bias, then correct it. It seems easy to me; when choosing mentors, coordinate as an office and make sure that y'all don't all have the same bias or are making the same decision. The real issue with the mentorship model is how mentees are chosen: bias is the basis of that system, and biases are not based on merits. They're not tracking and comparing each persons contribution in an fair way, instead they're letting their feeling make decisions. This matters: it is crucial that lawyers reflect the populace, as when they don't, it is minority populations who pay the price. They are over prosecuted at the same arrest rates, finding a lawyer pro bono is hard, and defense lawyers are overworked. If most of those lawyers are white, their bias is working against the population they interact with most. If they are biased against minorities and women in the office, what about as clients? How does that play over? Merits matter. Bros don't.
1
Looks like....... corporate America!
Back when, I had a Ph.D. from a top notch adviser ("best in the field"). I was heavily recruited and started a job at a very reputable research institution, where I found a completely different reality. I was better than all my peers from a pure performance perspective (final products, patents, publications), but still was denied opportunities that were available to them. Basically I was not good enough for promotions and to build a group. Problem is that these corporations need a fair number of competent "slaves" to get the work done, while the "pretty white boys" got promoted and got to "huff and puff" around and look important.
I took my career into my own hands, and have been working at smaller outfits since. I can safely say that I am treated right and at my worth, also by white people. Only a minority of white people are racist, but some of the institutions around really help perpetuate the racism.
15
@Trumpette
" I was better than all my peers from a pure performance perspective..."
Hmmm... never heard that before...
5
@Trumpette
Where do you go to grad school and where did they go? What most employers want is a list of impressive school names (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Pomona, Williams, Vanderbilt, Rice, Chicago). I think most companies would rather say, "all our partners are Ivy League" than 'all our partners are white."
Your advisor might have been well-respected, but did your grad university have an impressive name?
By and large, I think, the most important thing in terms of respect and promotion is attending a super elite name-brand university. I doubt that a white person from Hofstra would be promoted over black person from Columbia. I think the deepest secret about the white collar world and the ivory tower is that school name means EVERYTHING. I think most employers would hire a bad student from Harvard over a good student from UMass.
6
@Anti-Marx I was at Harvard. Plenty of white people from Hofstra get promoted over a black person from Columbia.
2
If I’m in a position where I need an attorney (or an operation) I don’t care the gender or race. I want competent.
I’d hate to get an inferior attorney who got her position in the firm because of the color of his skin or the fact she is a woman.
13
@Matt Williams I would be more afraid of "white boy named Donald" than a minority or woman,
10
And I would hate to get an inferior attorney elevated because he’s a white man.
14
Why am I not surprised at the lack of diversity at a Law firm??
This is to me, the same thing like Congress (the U.S. Senate) or other businesses.
Plain as vanilla.
6
The picture below from Paul Weiss shows 12 whites -- one woman and the rest men -- and right away it's unjust. But are women and minorities truly being excluded from election to partnership? Were there, in fact, minority or female candidates who didn't get elected from this year's class? Perhaps, there weren't; we'll never know the statistics. Yet let's all run and yell "DIVERSITY!" to fix the discrepancy.
9
The photo of the Paul, Weiss partners shows 7 women and 5 men. At least two can identify as African-Americans. Presumably these partners picked the incoming all-white group. Perhaps last year's group was not all-white and perhaps next year's group won't be all-white. Maybe it's all based on how well the beginning lawyers did. Since so many of the partners are female, the firm's success does not seem to be predicated on the expectations that the top lawyers will be male.
4
@angelina The photo shows "a group of partners" that were hand selected by the firm to appear in a picture to defend itself against discrimination allegations. Do you really think it is a representative sampling? The article notes there are 144 partners in the firm and 6 total black partners. 5 of those 6 black partners (83%) are quoted in the piece. Can you imagine if the article included quotes from 83% of the white partners??
9
@Marni I"m not sure what relevance the quotes from the white partners would have. Do you think that they are all racist?
How far does one go to determine if a company discriminates? Is one photo representative of a company's whole philosophy? Perhaps Paul, Weiss offered positions to non-whites and were turned down?
2
Nobody has addressed the role clients play in partner selection. Let’s be honest, a lot of decision-makers aren’t comfortable with attorneys with Muslim-sounding last names, for example. Partners know this and promote accordingly.
5
This is more prevalent than in top-notch law firms. It is much easier with the advent of websites and "about us" pages to see how diverse the leadership of any given firm or business is and, sadly, many of them are not diverse at all, not even in terms of gender. I am glad that Paul Weiss has the decency to be embarrassed about its all-white line-up of mostly male new partners, but I always wonder why, in 2019, so many other firms and businesses are not bothered at all by the lack of diversity in their leadership. When I see a lack of diverse leadership, I know that it's going to be much harder for people of color to get hired at such a place and stay there. All of the lofty comments here about "meritocracy" are self-serving and self-delusional at best. One need only to look at the current presidential administration, Brett Kavanaugh, and the like to know that the idea of white males as the only people with sufficient "merit" is a tenuous one.
2
I firmly believe that a company should hire the most qualified person for a position. I don't think diversity should enter into it.
Those who put too much emphasis on diversity in hiring will end up with less qualified people in the job.
The emphasis should always be on the qualifications for the job. This emphasis on diversity is a canard forcing companies to hire people they would not normally hire. based on their qualifications.
11
The choice faced by women to either stay in a high stress/high reward environment vs starting a family claims most of the best and brightest women. The hoi polloi can whine over the degrees of tilt in the playing field but anyone who has been in this or a similar environment knows that it is far too competitive to allow anyone to take the time away from work needed to have babies and get a family off to a good start. I'd like it if there was a standard of 1 year off with partial pay and a job guarantee rule throughout the US for mothers: we'd have happier kids who are given a better start in the country. Getting more minorities into the top echelons is a bit tougher. Non-whites are roughly 25 percent of the population so one would expect this to be more or less reflected throughout the workforce. However, it's different at the extremes of competition where talent/skill/culture/etc. are all involved...at Paul Weiss partners and say, the NBA/NFL, you will see departures from the averages. The popular (emotion-driven) response in the workforce and academia is to open special doors by creating "affirmative" quotas. This may grant a superficial amount of prestige and appearance of equality but is ultimately more divisive than unifying....unless of course you are the odd sort who thinks there are racial hierarchies. Unify and, I dare say, assimilate the cultures and skills from birth and the talents will emerge naturally and solve the problem.
1
That's Paul, White? Also interesting that the woman is placed last.
5
If things don't work-out in law, all but one of these pictured individuals could seek employment as a coach in the NFL. Sorry miss.
2
How dare they have any institution which is all white. Isn’t there some law which has been broken? Can’t we fine this law firm? Obviously we need a law which mandates a firm with 10 or more partners must have at least one black, one Hispanic, one Asian ( do they count?) 4 women, 2 members of the LGBTQ community and one disabled lawyer. Whatever is left over can be white males.
20
What's the big deal? Looks the opposite of an NBA team. Where is the concern about that?
19
If your mouth “literally” drops open every time you see 12 or so white people grouped together in America, where 61.3% of the population is white (non-Hispanic whites that is–the total goes up to 76.9% if you include white Hispanics/Latinos), then you must be walking around in a near permanent slack-jawed state.
29
Another BigLaw post here:
These firms are not, and never were, meritocracies. That's a sheen to obscure how advancement actually occurs.
Success in BigLaw is all about the $ you bring in and knowing the secret handshake. And the potholes within the firm to avoid. Nothing else really matters in determining whether and how much you advance. Merit and diversity are incidental.
21
@Publius You would have a great point if one's ability to practice law had no bearing on one's ability to bring in fees, but unless I'm missing something, legal advice is the only thing the clients are paying for. If I want someone to play golf or have drinks with, I have a lot of options that don't bill out for $1,000 an hour, and don't put my company/employer at risk of getting subpar legal advice.
2
Wasn't it Emerson who said there will always be people who will claim they know one's duty and obligations better than one does? The glaring fact that based solely on intersectional gender and race doctrine, the private firm's partner choices are the stuff of a critical New York Times article is a form of public shaming, no? A public push, right in the small of the back, to conform to a faction's agenda? People who know and apparently care nothing about the inner workings of the firm or its dynamics, the human beings involved, or why the choices were made, what the field was, feel free to pontificate and judge.
Running businesses, government, hospitals -- which are diverse, research, which is diverse, or a country based first and foremost on division and identity fixations --that's all that matters, 24-7, in any situation, can't and won't stand. The new partners are certainly no less important than anyone else. The subtext of pieces like this one, of course, is that they are.
11
I wonder how much the capacity to play golf, and well, figures into the selection calculus of which particular ones of these relatively equally bright and capable young people ascend to the lucrative, powerful equity partnership heights? Like all businesses the smooze factor counts in running a profitable law firm, and the elite country club course is one of the prime locations to build relationships, while mining for clients, in the rarified world of biglaw. To state the obvious, Caucasian males would certainly appear have an advantage in this winnowing process.
6
@John Grillo
I'm a straight white male. In 2011, I was at a fundraiser party (250 a ticket). Some guy came up to chat with me (I don't think he was hitting on me). He was in finance. I told him I was an English professor. He just walked away. I mean he just stopped talking and walked away. Both us of could afford a ticket and a nice suit. He simply didn't want anything to do with an academic person. He didn't even make an excuse. He literally stopped talking and left as soon as I said "professor." It was, in an understated way, one of the weirdest moment of my life. Everyone in my family is a professor.
9
Great example of implicit bias, which we are just beginning to understand. I’d recommend getting the entire firm evaluated
5
This country does not understand that Diversity is NOT just race and gender. The 11 so called "White" Guys can be a very diverse group when you take in education, background, politics, religion, family, sexual orientation, life and work experiences. I would rather have 11 "White" guys that are diverse than a mixed bag that is only different due to race or gender. If it was 11 black guys would there be any comment?
30
@Hello
The country doesn't understand that "Diversity is NOT just race and gender" because the emphasis on "diversity" was a de facto maneuver to preserve affirmative action policies that courts found unconstitutional during the Obama administration:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-pse-201111.html
Diversity of ideology, regional diversity, or even socioeconomic diversity has never been the goal. It remains to be seen whether "diversity" was meant as a euphemism, or if those who strive toward diversity genuinely believe that the only truly important way to categorize people is based on their race, gender and sexual orientation.
7
Law firms want lawyers who can handle the workload regardless of thier skin color or gender.
Its beyond my imagination that any graduate of Howard Law School would be on an educational par with the other candidates hired by any "elite law firm". These firms only hire the top 10% from the Yales, Harvards and Princetons of the world (all ranked in the top 10 law schools in the country) By contrast, Howard's Law School is ranked at #128th best in the country.
You do the math as to why these firms are even considering graduates from the 128th ranked school and then tell me who is getting an advantage in the hiring process.
18
@Mr. Rational
Princeton does not have a law school.
15
@Mr. Rational Michael Cohen went to the middling Cooley Law School and he got to violate some of the highest laws of the land. Never give up on your dreams.
10
Perplexing. Thought I saw an announcement today indicating that Paul Weiss has entered into Supreme Court practice, with a recruit from another firm who would appear to add diversity to their practice.
1
How about a dose of reality from a Black lawyer who has been intimately involved in minority recruiting as a partner in a top global law firm, as the head of a federal law enforcement agency and as the chief legal officer of a Fortune 100 company?
Minority recruiting is THE MOST COMPETITIVE form legal recruiting, perhaps with the exception of Supreme Court clerks. With every significant firm needing some Black and Brown faces to avoid exactly the publicity PW is receiving now, all of the top firms are scrambling to recruit candidates. But the numbers are against them. A very small number of minority candidates meet the hiring criteria the top firms typically employ, meaning that the truly qualified minority candidates can write their own tickets, and the firms must settle for less qualified candidates to achieve their desired minority recruiting goals.
Remember we are talking about firms at the very top of the legal hierarchy and that, once new associates arrive at the firm, they must excel throughout a 10-12 year trial by fire in competition with some of the most highly qualified young lawyers produced by our very best law schools.
Against this background, firms can rightfully be criticized if they do not strive to provide fair opportunities for minority candidates, but not for simply failing to produce desired numbers of partners in a given year.
BTW, why aren't there more white defensive backs in the NFL?
37
@AR Clayboy Amen. A black lawyer who graduates in the top 10% at Harvard or Yale and does a prestigious clerkship will simply NEVER lack for endless opportunities. And what may surprise many who don't know anything about biglaw is that a lot of those people will choose a different path. Many won't want to be a biglaw partner. They'll become in-house counsels, professors, government lawyers, judges. The pool that's left who have the credentials and the desire to make the long slog to a biglaw partnership is extremely small. It's not like Paul Weiss doesn't want them. It want's them desperately.
7
@AGM. Or they might decide early on that they don't like the sheer drudgery of law in any form and move on to something altogether different.
4
@AR Clayboy
I agree with you and your on career is testament to the "diversity" in your own personal interests and excellence.
I have used so many BigLaw firms (mostly the big West Coast ones as owner/decision-maker/check-writer) and it seems that so many of the posts forget to understand that being an associate for 4-6 years at BigLAW allows a young to learn a trade and master a skill.
Most young men and women's true happiness and professional passions awaits them outside the walls of their first job as an associate in fields and endeavors that they probably could have never imagined.
Plus I am sure your career was shaped by windows of opportunity where you decided to try a new path after an offer was presented to you from place that you never expected and you changed direction and sailed off into a new adventure full of hope and uncertainty. A decision where you bet the "house" on yourself and your peers thought you "crazy".
The linear narrative of most of the readers' posts/comments are surprising to me. Happiness=BigLAW Partner or SocialEquality=BigLAW Partner for all protected classes if they were hired as a 23-24 yr old associate.
It seems to me that 70-80% of the well-meaning posts do not understand how non-linear and dynamic business is when you set out on your own path and follow your bliss.
2
This is a lose lose conversation. It's arguing that firms should hire on the basis of gender and ethnicity. I don't think that will end well. I have been listening to women and minorities whine about how unfairly they're treated for the last 60 years. Back then I was a pre-med student in a top ranked 4 year liberal arts college. ALL of my biology major class mates were going to med school. Competition was intense, not in a dog eat dog sense but in learning more, being better. We worked our buttes off. Gender played no part. Those who didn't succeed in that followed easier majors.
Women and minorities want it handed to them because they're a woman or a minority? Do you want to go to one of them when your life depends on it?
7
So were there people of color and other Women at this law firm that we are supposed believe were better qualified and had more accomplishments for the firm? If so, are we supposed to believe that these folks didn’t make partner based on the color of their skin and gender? Doesn’t the firm exist to be successful and make money?
I’m not sure I see the issue here. The best people made partner so the firm could be more successful and make more money? What does race or gender have to do with this?
11
Great prospects were captured in one frame, that’s all. If you would like to see a performance from your law firm, work with another company.
1
People don't make partner from billing 2,500 hours for 10 years straight, that's a recipe for burnout. They make partner from bringing clients to the firm, and clients (just like the senior partners) are often white, and often male. And they are so much more comfortable bringing male associates to golf outings, baseball games and happy hour than female associates. This was true a decade before in #MeToo - biglaw lawyers have been careful about harassment for a long time. Maybe it's also the Mike Pence type thinking. Mentorship programs are forced upon the lawyers but mostly fail if there is no affinity between the senior and junior lawyer. No matter how brilliant or hard working, those lawyers who don't develop a relationship with the client will not get referrals and will not develop their own book of business. And this is harder for women, for immigrants, for non-whites and everyone else who does not resemble the senior partners and GCs of today. I don't see that Paul Weiss is very different from most of the AmLaw 100.
10
Is there any indication that these particular candidates were not in fact worthy of partnership? Was anyone passed over because of discriminatory intent?
10
As a diverse female associate at a top law firm (equal to Paul Weiss in standing but sadly even worse for total partner diversity), I find the comments promoting "meritocracy" (all from white men of course) so incredibly depressing. When the incoming associates all have the same credentials but only the white men seem to have real "merit," don't we have to ask what this "merit" consists of?
At least at my firm, it doesn't seem to mean that they have better ideas, are better writers, are more detail-oriented, or are otherwise more skilled at the actual practice of law. They do at times seem to be more hungry, more confident, better at working in systems. But is that because they're unburdened by self doubt? Is it because they can picture themselves as a partner (and so believe that their hard work will pay off)?
I am increasingly seeing virtuous and vicious cycles at play. Virtuous ones in which associates arrive confident in their abilities, have that confidence reinforced by partners, are motivated to commit further to their work, and so on. And then vicious ones in which other associates arrive unsure of their place at the firm (despite their glowing credentials), see their uncertainty mirrored by partners, become unmotivated, and eventually leave.
If you're looking at a group of women and minorities who were all at the top of their class at top law schools and they just seem like a bunch of duds to you, you might need to change your perspective.
261
Incredibly well said. And my experience as a a female associate at a firm as well.
20
@Associate They bring in business. That's the difference. I 100% assure you that if you get clients and bring in business you too will be made partner. Businesses exist to make money, period.
20
@Associate
You seem to be confusing "merit" with "credentials." They are very different things.
13
So! Its time to do the same semi-secret female and minority quota hiring of alleged to be "qualified", but not the best job applicants, in law firms that has been done in government agencies, university campuses and too many other professions for decades? Professions in which the few white males that remain can be forced to do what the mediocre diversity hires (usually upper middle class and wealthy white women) can not, or do not want to do? Or jobs in which ... well the job does not really have to get done - like most government jobs, where once someone gets permanent status they can't be fired unless they murder someone. Of course what this article does not say is in the real world where performance is actually required or people die, or firms and businesses go bankrupt, 'carrying' incompetents can't be done. And there's no way to cover up blatantly obvious incompetence provable by numbers and math via threats of making a sexual harassment or racial discrimination accusations to some EEO hack. Thus, the reason for why there has been 'resistance' to do reverse discrimination quota hiring in order to make more "diverse" group photos in businesses that actually have to either make a profit, get the job done. And wow! I can't believe that this article actually is headed with a group photo which proves/screams the truth that 'optics' and virtue signaling not justice are all the NY Times and the rest of our % puppeteers care about.
10
I practiced as an associate at a major NY law firm for 8 years. I am the son of Asian immigrants thus came from a different world than the majority of the other lawyers there. I don't necessarily think there's anything inherently wrong about people gravitating to those that are more similar to them. Diversity efforts (while commendable) can also be a bit heavy-handed and artificial. I think sometimes we look for too much change to come too quickly.
11
Instead of talking about your experiences, think about one basic fact: if 30% of new hires are women but only 5% of women are brought on as new partners, is that letting the best through? Is that merit based? I mean, you've just gone through law school and passed the bar, two merit based processes. Everyone had done roughly the same thing; what makes the other 25% of those new hires that were women unsuitable for new partnership positions? How is that at all acceptable to the group of people who have done the exact same amount of work but are routinely looked over as law offices promote their buddies not their best? That is discrimination based on personal sentiment, and it can't be promoting the best and brightest (I trust facts, not feelings, on who is the best). It needs to be merit based, not biased. Lawyers make decisions across our justice systems, from investigation to prosecution to who to defend and for how much. If they only promote people who look like them, then it makes sense they would only protect those who look like them. That is not just or fair, it is illogical and old fashioned. I don't care about your experiences, I care about the fact that it seems a majority of people who are non white and non male are regularly failed by the system. It's great that you succeeded, but as it appears your experience seems to represent less than 5% of all people in that photo, I don't much care. New hire rates should be similar to new partner rates. Period.
3
Apparently race and gender are now the critical qualifications for everything. And race and gender imbalances are now prima facie (literally!) evidence of bias and white privilege. Martin Luther King, Jr. said we should judge people on the content of their character not on their physiological identity. White faces posted like a police line-up just for being white? My oh my how far the left has strayed from MLK.
33
The problem is that their new hire rates are diverse, but they refuse to mentor or promote said diverse new hires at rates that reflect their pool of new hires. It's not a problem that white people get promoted, it's a problem when only white people get promoted. If white men are 50% of new hires, they should be around 50% of the new partners, not 95%. If women are 30% of new hires, they should be roughly 30% of the new partners. As being promoted to partner is based on feelings not merit (mentees are chosen based on feelings), it means that the best are not being promoted, just the guy they all like to hang out with after work. If you want the best chummiest chum to be your lawyer instead of the most talented mind on the team, good for you. The rest of us disagree.
4
@Underclaw except people are rarely judged just based on merits. Most institutions are corrupt in this respect, and only exist to further white privilege. Please stop trying to co-opt MLK. Go for David Duke or Donald Trump instead as those are more suitable.
2
Does the left including the main stream media and DNC really think they are fooling anyone by calling government sanctioned racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination "affirmative action?"
14
Law firm diversity is a myth, whites are self ethnicizing themselves to reflect "diversity". Law firms hollowly make attempts to interview black law candidates but fail to hire them, replacing them with asians or latinos; primarily asians. Firms are "old boys clubs" that promote only the fairest. Hiring recruiters with firms run their groups plantation style. If there is diversity there, they are usually fair to light-skinned. Women partners are often very negative towards other women. The one thing I have noticed is people are becoming partners having never brought in any clients.
1
This is one more example of how education and enlightenment have little in common.
2
The picture is very telling. Who is in front? Who is in the back? Whose body is fully seen? Whose is behind someone else? Who is at the center and the margins? I know, one of the two men in front is identified as AA, but he doesn't look really AA, at least in the pictures in this article, plus he is the one who came from a very high ranking government position. The really AA-looking woman can be barely seen behind others.
As a diversity trainer said the other day, you don't see color? You cannot see I am AA? Are you really color-blind? "I don't see color is code for "I don't care what you are going through, and I have no intention to examine my own bias when treating you, deal with it and shut up." (If not a simple excuse to display racist behavior)
5
@MR
You're looking at the wrong picture, genius.
But, there are three guys with beards, doesn't that count as diversity?
6
How in the world can one conclude this group is all white, based merely on their pictures?
10
It’s the photo of the recent class - which led to the uproar - as opposed to that of a sample representation. This was explained in the article
Quality rises to the top. The candidates who succeeded were the best, it just turned out that white people ended up being the winners.
12
@No best at having rich parents, white skin, country club memberships and all kind of goodies that we have no control over.
4
You know what? Sometimes the best and the brightest don’t want to be partners in law firms. Sometimes their experiences take them in other directions; public interest law, teaching, public administration, ethics, founding their own smaller firms. Maybe what these data are telling us is that white men have a more narrow focus on convention achievement and wealth acquisition. That can as easily be construed as myopia, rather than intellect. Someone differently oriented might be attracted by positions that allow for rich second vocations as artists, athletes, or politicians. Some may strongly feel the allure of family life. It is our (well, your, NYT) limitation that we view this as the lesser option. In short, these white men may not be the “top” , lawyers, just the most focuses on this particular traditional goal. Time for a broader understanding of achievement.
13
@Edna
That's true. Many talented law school grads aren't interested in working 7 to 10 grueling years at a law firm.
But that doesn't explain the disproportionate number of white males named to partnerships at elite law firms.
6
@Edna
And let's face it, becoming a partner and then being a partner is a miserable job. Almost no one with whom I attended law school still practice law. I don't and I couldn't be happier.
7
Anyone who ever worked in biglaw for any amount of time will tell you that these people busted their tails to get where they are.
Making an example of out them to suit a political agenda is enormously unfair.
25
@Dave
Lack of women/POC at the partner level is a problem that has been recognized in the legal community for a long time. Don't pretend like the NYT has done some hot take to score points.
No one is pretending that these people didn't work extremely hard and aren't extremely talented. Talent and hard work are necessary but not sufficient conditions. The problem is that women and POC aren't necessarily given the same opportunities. Opportunity is a necessary condition.
Anyone who has ever worked in biglaw should understand that.
8
If I know how this set solves these kind of problems, I suspect the solution will be that other people on the lower income scale will have to work harder and longer so that rich women can have babies.
This is so tired. Two of my best friends are very successful lawyers in large law firms and they have been talking the talk of recruiting women, people of color, etc. for decades but nothing changes. It's the mindset of white men who usually come from a privileged family or background who end up running these law firms. They live in mostly gated white communities, associate with mostly white rich people at mostly white country clubs, yacht clubs or private clubs so it's no wonder they are clueless about anyone other than rich white people. They don't feel the need to do anything different than any of the other white, rich, privileged people who came before them did.
9
“Mr. Karp said that he expected some prominent female and minority partners to join Paul, Weiss from other firms in the next several months”.
Translation: Brad Karp will use Paul Weiss’s high profitability to poach successful black and female partners from the law firms that did the hard, risky work of recognizing and nurturing young talent. And Paul Weiss will get the credit. Do the GCs see the problem here?
7
The self appointed diversity police should take a step back and let the market do it's thing. People should not be recruited or promoted because or in spite of whatever demographic division you care to highlight.
17
Same circus, different clowns. It astonishes me daily that this indefensible discrimination still is happening in 2019, and not just a white shoe law firms. The advertising business has been talking about diversity and inclusion for nearly 40 years yet the top of the org charts are still lily white and male. Investment banking and venture capital are not only not including women and POC, they're not investing in them either.
I shouldn't be this difficult to make this happen, but I think the only way it will is to bring on the class action lawsuits. Personally, I'd like to see mediation and NDAs taken out of every employment contract moving forward and have these discrimination cases go to open court. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and so far what we're seeing is pretty rotten to the core.
4
"Meritocracy" is a conservative fantasy used to justify privilege. The old white man who can't use a computer but makes $240k/year at my company did not rise to his position based on his skill. The new Manager who got promoted despite numerous abuse complaints, and who happens to have a 20-year family history with the owners did not get that promotion because he was the "best there was." The wife of the manager who was making 6 figures despite not even being at work 70% of the time did not get her job because she was the most and best qualified.
These are not isolated incidents; this is simply how business works in the real world.
15
If you don't like it, work elsewhere, or better yet, found a women or other minority firm. This idea that others owe you a job to match their interests is weird.
13
I'm glad I'm not one of the 12 new PW partners shown in the photograph. Instead of being lauded for their hard work and achievement, now they'll just be held up by a lot of readers as poster boys, and girl, of "white privilege."
16
And that they are.
2
"Another woman who worked at the firm said she was paired with a male associate to create a document to prepare for a client meeting two years ago. She ended up doing most of the work, she said, but when it came time to meet with the client, the partners left her behind and took the male, whose father was a friend of the partners."
from personal experience I can relate this happens all the time to big firm lawyers, even senior ones, no matter their gender, age, or ethnicity. cronyism is an equal opportunity fact of life. It happens at midsize and smaller firms too. it is less evidence of discrimination than insecurity, poor management of one's own team and the client's expectations. Sometimes, they'll blame client strictures against bringing "too many" people to a meeting but imo that is a copout,-- if a junior person deserves to be there, bring him or her, don't bill it or discuss it later. But if every deserving associate who got left behind when the big client meeting was held could sue, there'd be no one left to do any actual work.
8
I have worked in professional services for decades. Generally women won't make the time commitment they way the men do. They drop of of the work force for years at a time to play mom. Nothing wrong with that. If a man drops out for several years he's unlikely to make partner either.
12
I’m a mom, very little of it is “play”. If you don’t have children and you’re smug about it - I hope my children do not look after you one day when you’re not so invincible. If you do have children, someone else worked extremely hard to raise them while you played career.
15
@Reader In Wash, DC
"Play mom"?
Why am I supposed to believe that people don't hold discriminatory attitudes towards women when people like you produce snide comments dripping with condescension towards women...?
12
@C's Daughter
Any condescension is in your imagination. They're is nothing wrong with staying home for one's kids. But it will not help you become partner. And yes a lot of it is play.
4
As a top litigator, I think Mr. Karp is careful with his words -- therefore where he said he wish he could have given "special individualized mentoring for every single female associate and associate of color" -- I guess that is reflective of his true belief that minorities needed "special" treatment. Meanwhile, it seems minorities are asking for "equal" treatment.
5
If these are the most qualified individuals for these positions at this time, then so be it. I will never understand how people can object to the lack of diversity in this type of organization yet never direct a single word of criticism toward the NBA. The truth is that no one would want to see less talented people on an NBA team just to achieve more diversity. So why can’t the same common-sense rules apply to this law firm?
14
Clearly the firm did not get the message sent out since 2008 - merit has no meaning anymore. It's simply a question of matching or exceeding the minority participation in the population - based on gender, ethnicity, religion, height, weight, etc., etc.
12
Well, the answer to this all white partner class is simple; all local, state, and federal agencies,companies,etc. simply use another firm. All of the hiring groups I mentioned must have anti-discrimination rules written into their contract procedures.
Sadly, this photo looks just like the one back in 1973 taken of the new hires by one of the big eight accounting firms in the Chicago office. I was the only female hired of the 26 people that year. Four and half years later when I left for more pay, I was the top female.
4
As an equity partner in a large multistate law firm and a member of the management committee. these are professional services businesses with no obligation to invite anyone to partner unless they have a significant financial book of business. These are not charitable organizations interested in social experiments. We have had affirmative action help for minorities for decades, so they have every opportunity to become economic engines for these firms. And the life of a big firm partner is not particularly enjoyable.
15
When I was at Yale Law over 50 years ago, there were a handful women in the class. Back then Yale was geared toward social service (DOJ, etc.) and Harvard was focused solely on making money.
Two things have changed: there are more women in the class, and both schools are focused on making money.
Don't be misled by the bright, smiling faces. These people are attack dogs, whose primary goal is $1,500 an hour billings, and enough income to pay for the private schools and the multi million dollar houses.
Brad, is right. Fortunately not as many women are focused on destroying their opponents at all costs.
And don't be misled by the "pro-bono" offerings of these "prominent....law firms." My monthly bar magazine is chock full of all their good work. However, that work accounts for 5% of their time. The bulk of their time is spent defending white collar criminals and mergers and acquisitions, whose only purpose is to increase hedge fund profits and throw employees out of work.
And when a "prominent lawyer" tells you that under our justice system everyone is entitled to legal representation, just remember that the part that's left out is "if they can afford my $1500 an hour fee.
16
THANK YOU NYTIMES! Minority lawyers have been trying to get the elite firms to pay attention to this issue for years, and you have done more to advance this issue with this article than we've been able to do in the last decade. Thank you.
1
It's a private company. They can do what they want. High end law firms are brutal, we all know that. Maybe they bypassed those who took time off, or wouldn't work the hours that motherhood interfered with.
Women and racial minorities can go work at a more progressive company. It's their choice.
It's like buying a home by the airport and then complaining about the noise.
10
@Jus' Me, NYT
Does fatherhood interfere with work? Why or why not?
Think about it.
6
I'm always surprised when articles like this don't mention other benefits of diversity., i.e. not diversity for diversity's sake but why we should value it. Some in the comments don't seem to understand this either. Do you want the smartest, most innovative, and most creative problem-solvers at your disposal? Then you want people with a wide variety of approaches and life experiences. Diverse candidates lead to diverse solutions. The worst team I've ever worked on in corporate America? A team of young, white, privileged 20-somethings. It was like being in an echo chamber of opinions and experiences. The team was competitive, unbalanced, and boring. Several diverse candidates would have been a good shot in the arm. Just like companies with female CEOs do better, teams with different perspectives perform better. Do you want cookie-cutter legal work? By all means, keep hiring boring white men.
Not to mention, each woman and minority (and especially the female minorities) has had to work 10x or 20x harder to get to that position than the white men. When you promote or hire them, you are looking at the BEST candidates, not the least qualified, simply because they've rolled with the punches for far longer.
5
@Gia Sorry to state the obvious, but in my world, the current 20-somethings are relatively annoying in the workplace regardless of ethnicity. Give them a few years, let them gain some experience, some humility, then we can talk.
2
@Gia You've got it completely backwards: firms are DESPERATE for minority/female associates. Do you actually think they're blocking or bypassing female minority lawyers unless they're just sooo sooo amazing (10x or 20x better than the white men) that they simply have fun out of options to keep them out?
No, you've got it backwards: they receive massive support and preferential treatment. They're given exhaustive mentoring opportunities and ongoing support. The white men receive none of the Affirmative Action coddling these groups receive, and STILL they rise.
7
@Jon I would consider coddling being given every advantage from birth to succeed. But given the level of animosity evident in your comment, I won't try to change your mind. It still eludes me why white men feel so threatened (as is obvious from your comment) by women and minorities succeeding. A rising tide lifts all boats.
3
this is about selecting "partners". the current owners of the firm are deciding who they want to share in the ownership of their firm. shouldnt they be able to choose whomever they wish? for whatever their reason? or are we saying that if i own a business and i want to select someone to share in and own a part of that business, i should be subject to rules and regulations about whom i can share it with? that sounds downright un-American to me.
10
Meritocracy? I can’t believe the number of people commenting who state that they believe that most partners get their jobs because of merit.
Have they never been told of how important it is to be “well-connected”? Have they never had someone tell them, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know?”
How can they go through the world and not see how people move up the educational and work ladder because of
a) Who their parents are and know?
b) Who reaches out and mentors them?
c) Who makes a subjective call within HR that they will be a good “cultural fit” for an organization?
Yes, there are many merit-based hurdles that people must climb to get to the top positions in any company. And there are many connection-based hurdles, too.
Ask yourself, what are the non-merit lifelines thrown to people that help them to get ahead? The intern position because your father knows someone else’s father? The job opportunity that you learned about because someone you knew learned about it while playing golf with someone else?
Trace back someone’s work and school history by looking solely at that person’s connections.
Anyone who does not see institutional nepotism is walking through life wearing rose-colored glasses and opaque horse blinkers
19
Exactly! There is this phenomenon in psychology where humans want to believe in a fair world because it gives them the feeling they have control over their lives.
If an innocent person gets shot we will feel scared because it could happen to us. If a criminal gets shots then it's easier because it will not happen to us (we are no criminal so we're safe).
Another example is with smokers vs non-smokers getting sick. How bad is a world where one lives healthy and still gets sick?
And in this case it's about meritocracy: we want to believe that everyone who works hard will get rich because that is a fair world and means we can get rich too. Therefore every successful individual got there through hard work, and those who didn't make it must have not worked hard enough for it. 'tis the basis of the American Dream.
Unfortunately the world isn't fair, no matter how hard we want to believe that.
4
There seems to be a lot of judgement without qualification. Please tell me: how many people of color/woman got into the law firm to start with? What are their track record? (I have no reason to suspect their track record on average is any less than anybody else, but you should have the data, don't you?) How many people of color/women are even in graduate schools of law? If the number is not enough, then why? I think this is a bigger problem for the society to solve. This is not just a few law firms' problem.
13
@RandomPerson ~43% of the incoming associate class at Paul Weiss are minorities. I hope this highlights the issue is rather micro -- it resides at Paul Weiss.
6
Over 50% of law graduates are female
5
I started my career at a big law firm, as did many of my friends. Big law firms were, and I assume to a large extent still are, miserable places to work. The personality types that succeed in big law are generally egotistical, demanding and disagreeable. They do not make good bosses, or partners for that matter. In the worst cases, their abusiveness is tolerated because they are "rainmakers" for the firm. A big law firm name on your CV will certainly jumpstart your career, but why anyone would want to continue working in that awful environment, minority or otherwise, no matter what the financial rewards, is beyond me.
29
Abuse by rainmakers...or their service partner minions...is widespread and persistent.
6
What is not shown is the many minority who left Paul Weiss and made partners at other top law firms -- which highlights that the issue is indeed at Paul Weiss. Paul Weiss also no longer announces counsels -- because you will then conveniently see where all the forgotten minorities ended up.
8
I work at a large tech company. Most of my coworkers are young and Asian or from Africa (black, but born in Africa). Is this discrimination? We are paid salaries exceeding 130k. I wonder why no one else wants to work here.
12
Maybe I missed it, but the article would have benefitted from a paragraph (or a sentence) on how phenomenally difficult it has become for *anyone* to make partner at an amlaw100 firm.
I would bet my left arm that Paul Weiss and similar firms cashier a meaningful number of “superb” but non “superstar” (in the parlance is the interviewed partners) white male associates every year.
This is a business that is still overbuilt for the current demand, and as a result, a career track with almost zero margin for error.
10
Way too much publicity for Paul, Weiss. Company is probably delighted at the coverage...negative or not.
1
My favorite example from the article - the female who complains that she was fired after enrolling in a full-time Ph.D. program. You mean I can't both be a full-time lawyer at a big firm while being a full-time student? Shocking!
47
No, it's the Patriarchy. It HAS to be!
4
If proportional representation in all major U.S. institutions by race, ethnicity, and gender is such an imperative, why don't we just get it over with and repeal the civil rights laws? Title VII, for example, expressly commands nondiscrimination against any person in the terms of employment. This is clearly an obstacle to achieving "diversity" and "inclusion."
This will never happen, of course, since it appears that lots of folks want those civil rights laws in place to protect persons born into the races, ethnicities, and gender they favor, but to toss them aside when it concerns those of other tribes. Also, it would require firing or refusing to hire persons born into the groups that are overrepresented in law, like Jews.
So, we muddle along: in both law and academia, we decry underrepresentation of the tribes we favor, yet are content to discriminate illegally whenever we can secretly get away with it. Such dishonesty is downright Trumpian.
14
The unnamed Paul, Weiss partner who successfully argued on behalf of Edith Windsor in U.S. v. Windsor is Roberta A. Kaplan, renowned litigator and member of the LGBTQ community.
Failing to credit the trailblazing accomplishments of a queer woman in an article identifying barriers that people of color, women, and minorities face in entering the legal profession is surprising and disappointing.
15
Go look at their full list of partners on their website. It must be that this law firm must be of the opinion that white males are the best lawyers, otherwise, why would they select so many for their partners? If such competent people were of the opinion women and persons of Asian, African or Native-American descent also made the best lawyers, couldn't they find them from all over the world, or at least from a sufficient number of English-speaking countries? This is not a rhetorical question!
3
This is the face of executive level corporate america, which is still predominantly white and male.
4
Clearly the point of this article is to castigate this law firm for daring to advance only white persons, regardless of whether they are the most capable persons eligible.
Skin color counts more! Don't you forget that!
Martin Luther King, sorry. You really should not have given your speech advocating character over color.
17
Hiring and promotion should be based on experience and/ability, purely. Color and gender ought to have nothing to do with it.
In our society, “diversity” is based purely on numbers, ability does not count.
13
Do not feed the diversity delusion, and do not believe nonsense about "white privilege" a so-called phenomenon for which there is not even one shred of empirical evidence.
11
@PeteH
There is plenty of evidence, in scholarship going back decades. Look at the reading list of virtually any ethnic or gender studies freshman class and you will find enough new information to change your perspective totally. This is not magic, it's history purposely excluded from "mainstream" primary school education. The fact that you don't know this and have before felt compelled to seek this out speaks directly to the mythical privilege you mock.
3
@PeteH
There is plenty of evidence, in scholarship going back decades. Look at the reading list of virtually any ethnic or gender studies freshman class and you will find enough new information to change your perspective totally. This is not magic, it's history purposely excluded from "mainstream" primary school education. The fact that you don't know this and have never before felt compelled to seek this out speaks directly to the mythical privilege you mock.
Last time I checked, Paul, Weiss was a private enterprise. They are entitled to select who they want to work for them. There is no affirmative action for law firms.
23
and they are selecting "partners". part owners of the company. shouldnt they be able to choose who they want to share their business ownership with?
5
Seems like the appropriate apples-to-apples comparison to the NBA would be a system whereby white players are disadvantaged because all the coaches are black and will typically only coach (mentor) black players, and sports crowds (customers) only expect to see black pros.
I wonder how hollow this reflexive “don’t care about skin color teams should just hire the best” sounds in context? Pretty hollow in my estimation.
7
The idea of working as a grunt in a big firm like this is depressing. You are expected to work 24/7 so that the partners can get rich and your prospects of ever sharing the gravy are questionable at best. To me, it smacks of slave labor.
3
It is. The greed of the equity partners at the top is astounding.
3
@Clark Landrum Admittedly, a terrible lifestyle, but the starting salary of close to $200,000 a year is hardly slave wages
6
Big Law is cutthroat and profit-motivated and the firm promotes to partnership those associates who it believes are the most capable of generating big profits for the firm, as demonstrated by their typical 7 - 10 year slave-like apprenticeship as an associate. Period. The End.
7
Maybe the New York times should ask itself the same question regarding the lack of diversity of its in-house opinion writers.
As I always said, the only industry which is merit based in its hiring process is "Professional Sports". A white NBA coach will not draft Michael Jordan son just because of his name, or draft the son of a good friend of his. The son would have to show that he is better than the rest for him to be drafted ahead of other players.
Even a 5 years old kid could tell who is a better Basketball, NFL player or track runner. We have a set of tools on how to judge a professional athlete. Those tools are the same all over the world. That is one of the reason minorities are over represented in professional sports.
10
@Chaks
The reason there are relatively more blacks than whites in track, football, and basketball is merit. They're better at it than most whites. I'd hardly call that "over" represented.
1
I went to a top law school at 48! And did not and never had any interest in BIG Law. I have morals, ethics, maturity, and a handle on a balanced fulfilling life. Why would anyone but a bloodsucker even want to go to a large status oriented rat race. Pox on all of them.
6
@Mary Rivka
Why would someone want to work at a large law firm?
Money (many associates have huge student loans);
Prestige (which can help at different points of a career);
Opportunity (if lucky);
Training (if lucky).
The hours are horrendous, so a 48-year-old might not be interested or have the stamina to work like that for 7 to 10 years. I also wouldn't rule out ageism as a deterrent.
3
A pox on all of them. Just start suing each other. I love seeing cat fights among lawyers. Especially those making big money in NYC.
1
New York Times could really start making money if they set themselves up as authorized verififaction center of race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation quotas for companies. That profit could be reinvested to hire more investigators to look into the race/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation of companies, non-profits and government organizations everywhere. Out those white boy scofflaws! Shame on their inherited privilege! The information should be public--statistics as easy to find as census data or stock prices. Only thus can racial gender justice be realized--to the exact decimal point of adequate representation!
10
The top comments to this article show gender and racial biases is alive and well... and most alive and well in those who claim they don’t care about race and gender, only “quality.”
Bu why do these comments assume a partner class of all white men plus one white woman represents “quality?” Why do they assume that class was the product of a meritocratic system? (Especially when the article reports the opposite.) That’s bias right there: assuming two rows of white faces must be the product of a meritocracy. Note how none of these top-recommended comments asked, “if it’s a meritocracy, why did only white candidates get promoted?” Everybody tacitly assumed it is the normal result of a meritocracy to elevate nothing but white candidates, and all men except one woman. That is racial and geneder bias in a nutshell.
6
Oh, enough. Maybe these were the most qualified people in this particular year. What are they supposed to do, give some of these spots to minorities who are lesser qualified?
This is a total non-issue.
18
@DRS "Maybe" -- but when they have associate class of over 50% minority and yet make 1 out of 12 partner -- are you promoting the notion that minorities are indeed inferior?
1
If they are the lawyers most deserving of being elevated to partnership, then I have no problem at all that they are all white males. I want to be judged and to judge on merit only - not quotas. And I am most assuredly female. I do not fear competition with men of any color, and certainly would not want to make partner because of my gender.
6
Are you kidding me? If you are a minority or a woman and you put in the work you always get the job because of PC fears for years even if the person you’re beating is more qualified but just happens to be white. let’s stop pretending being a minority or a woman is a hindrance in one’s career if one is willing to put in the work.
10
Oh dear, the horror of this! Except... perhaps these were the best and most qualified people. What a concept.
12
The legal world is finally starting to eat their own. They make up legal concepts like "diversity" (as opposed to merit-based) to be enraged about and sue people over, now it's coming back home to roost. How fitting!
6
How do we know this group is not diverse?
They could all have a disability, all could be immigrants or refugees, could all be from poor families and the first to go to college, could have had troubled families of origin, maybe some are transgender or gay and had some horrific experiences in their past. Some or all might be biracial or all might claim an Hispanic, Arabic or north Indian background. All we know is there are very few white women most likely from some upper or upper middle class background or dark brown people of either sex.
3
I guess it's foolish to consider hiring the best-qualified.
8
Would "people of color" (a racial designation that is all but impossible to prove in multi-racial America without a genetics test) feel better about themselves if they became tokens so the law firms would not have to face "social-media firestorms"? And again, how is one to verify his "person of color-ness"? What is the official standard of "race" and "color" in 21st century America? A swatch book? An actual genetics test? In the long run, people who are obsessed with race become racists themselves.
9
Former BigLaw alum here. Can we all just agree that the culture at ALL BigLaw firms stink? It is the nature of the beast, unfortunately.
6
Gosh! Paul Weiss has learned "very valuable lessons" from utterly failing to mentor and assist minority and female lawyers along to partnership! Wow! Such hard, difficult lessons to learn for these Harvard and Yale Law men! Give me a break -- as we lower down on the rungs in the legal profession often say: "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck." Hey Paul Weiss, looks like your personal duck to me: a blatant, persistent pattern and practice of institutional discrimination no matter how you pretty it up.
3
JTS the consequences of such a difficult lesson- profits per partner of $4.56 million each, that is so painful
1
After all we are talking about lawyers here.
2
If you work hard, you should be rewarded no matter what race or gender you are. I have no doubt to believe that these bright women and minorities at Paul, Weiss work very hard to get to where they are, so they should get an opportunity to make partner.
2
Every time the NYT runs an article where diversity (racial, sex, etc.) is discussed, you see the racist/sexist underbellies of this paper's "progressive" readership. It is to the point where I read the comment section of such articles just to see precisely how typically progressive people use self-serving logic to blind themselves from their residual -isms and what discussion topics unmask it. Ironically, the same race/sex education classes that are mocked as liberal arts school fluff are precisely what would correct this issue. To be clear the histories of American/Western racism and sexism are very rich and are not intuitive. One cannot have a valid opinion on matters such as those discussed in this article without these histories. Denying this is an example of majority privilege.
5
like everything, being smart is only half the battle. you need to play the game. Hook in with an executive, or in this case partner, who can mentor you and guide you through the maze. Learn to play the games, be it golf, tennis, sailing, that they bosses plan and get to know them. push yourself forward as a team player who can bring value to the partnership and then ask for it. Or, option #2, bring so much value, in terms of billing and winning that they wont dream of having you leave. Option 1 or option 2. its that simple. Race, and gender have nothing to do with it.
4
@Sean
This article literally gives evidence of how race and gender have everything to do with a person's ability to do the things you outlined.
I'm starting to wonder if the men commenting here are even fully literate.
None of you have provided any factual or logical basis to refute the article's conclusions, you've simply said "no, race and gender have nothing to do with it. Men are better."
4
So much for Martin Luther King's admonition that we judge others based on their character as opposed to the color of their skin or, as in this case, their genetic makeup (e.g. X or Y chromosome). Another hit job for the New York Times. Are all female firms held to the same standard?
6
“Are all female law firms held to the same standard”? What all female law firms?
1
Very ironic that #Lyft would demand action. Look at the people making more than negative $5 per hour. It's 99% white people managing a 99% minority labor force. Lyft is way more evil than PW. At least PW is working for some good clients. Lyft is making displaced black men into rickshas.
4
I was a partner at one of these firms. I've sat in the meetings where senior associates are discussed and their fates decided. Here's is what's missing:
First, almost no one understands what it takes to make partner at one of these firms. Merely being excellent and working very hard (70 hour weeks for years on end), is not even close to enough. That might get you a job as a junior associate and might help you to survive for a few years, but it's just the beginning.
Second, partnership is the end of a ten year process. It takes an incredible amount of luck along the way. Will the economy be good ten years after you select your practice group? Did you meet the right business people along the way who are sending you business as a senior associate?
Third, did you ever make any mistakes along the way? Miss a single a deadline? Turn in one mediocre assignment because you were completely exhausted? Did you ever just rub any partners the wrong way at a social event?
And after a decade of all of that going perfectly, do you have a champion within the partnership who will push for you when it matters?
Finally, did your interests change between the ages of 25 and 35 (like they do for most people? It takes a certain maniacal personality to succeed in these places, and if your heart's not in it, you're doomed. Bias and racism affect all of this, of course, but even without it, almost no one who starts their career at these firms makes partner. Many don't even want to.
20
Why not complain about the NY Giants and their racial imbalance? Or the spots at the top football universities like Alabama, which are heavily racially imbalanced? Do we need to fix that whole situation too?
Or is it even conceivable that different walks of life will reflect different demographic numbers, especially at the most elite levels that are staffed by the most able and successful?
Somehow I doubt we're going to be seeing articles demanding the Knicks hire more white guys anytime soon.
15
We don't call White Americans of Germanic extraction "German-Americans". We don't call White Americans of Irish extraction "Irish-Americans". We don't call White Americans of French extraction "French-Americans". We simply refer to them as Americans. So why call Americans of African extraction "African-Americans"? Why call Americans of Hispanic or Latin extraction "Mexican-Americans" or Latinos"? Why call Americans of Asian extraction "Asian Americans"? These distinctions are made on the basis of skin color. When White Americans can see beyond the color of an individual’s skin......that day will truly be America the free........but not until then.
5
That picture speaks volumes. All those white men even look like they could be related. So is it so bad that only a certain ancestry will advance, or religion?
3
Here we go again.. Liberal social justice warriors are on the move. Organize the diversity march and form the drum circle.. We have a bunch of white lawyers who need to hear our cries!
I'm so tired of this..
16
What percentage of elite law school grads are minorities and/or women? What percentage of associates with say 5 years experience at elite law firms are minorities and/or women? Would there be this much outcry if there had been three black people in that group of 12 (25% of the partners when blacks are only 12% of the population)?
And why isn't a problem when the millionaire's of the NBA are disproportionately black? When are we going to start counting white men's baskets as being worth 2.5 pts inside the arc and 3.5 outside it to increase white diversity in the NBA?
Orrrr we could stop all this ridiculous PC nonsense. If the boogeyman of "racism" is missing this wealth of minority talent it sounds like a great business opp for an enterprising person like Michellle Fang or Theodore Wells to swoop in and start their own law firm with this glut of talent. The fact that they haven't tells you everything you need to know...
12
I couldn't agree more. The NYT in general is so concerned with PC that there is no room for the concept of what people deserve based upon merit. Personally, I could care less about the color,gender of someone hired for a job. I only want them to do the work at the best possible level.
3
ARGH!!!! Class or race wars are not healthy for anyone. No one questions that these new partners are not deserving, only the wrong color? Gender? To heck with diversity; people should not be rewarded or punished because of the color of their skin. Shame on the NYTimes for continuing to drive divide across the nation under the guise of... ? Fairness? Diversity for diversity's sake?
12
How about merit and brain-power instead of identity group, skin color and gender? Stupider and stupider America is growing...
12
Dear NYTimes,
I think you should apply more scrutiny to the firms that you are pumping up as diversity champs. Lyft is not racially ok. The brown faces all work dead end roles. The brown people don't have any equity. The management of a brown labor business is almost completely white. Paul Weiss' clients are mostly white. PW is not as twisted.
5
“...In an interview, Mr. Karp, the chairman, said the firm needed highly specific expertise when filling these jobs. “We always want diverse attorneys at the firm — always — but if there were none available with that expertise, the choice was to do nothing” or hire the best individuals available, even if they were white men, he said...
.....
Surely you all jest – or at least doth protest too much, Gray Lady...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/30/us/mueller-investigation-team-prosecutors.html
“...Each of the core prosecutors has a specialty, like political corruption, hacking or money laundering, many of which have featured in indictments. They come from familiar places: the Justice Department’s criminal division, federal prosecutors’ offices in New York and around Washington and a law firm where Mr. Mueller worked...
Three women out of 15 – no representation at all, from several other groups...
For two the women – some biographical print-bites...
1. “...she knew she wanted to be a lawyer after a fourth-grade play in which she played an attorney who defended a piece of candy on trial for causing tooth decay...
2. “...She also once competed in the Miss America pageant as Miss Idaho...
1
Are you kidding me, this is a story?! Has everyone gone mad! 12 hard working talented lawyers who have and will go through hell to thrive in these positions are being dissected for their race?! Maybe they were just better than all the other candidates, maybe they worked harder, who cares. The fact that Paul Weiss apologized for this is really the crime, they should have defended their decision vigorously - so now these 12 people have to feel shame at the crowning point of their careers, it is disgusting and infuriating. When will this nonsense stop. As one wise commenter noted here, look at 12 new draft picks in the NFL for some positions and they will be all black males, why isn't that an outrage? Bottom line no matter what all the radical race baiters will have you believe, some parts of the economy and society still want and must value talent over all else, the day that stops we are all in big trouble -
15
Completely agree. One of the reasons Trump won is because the PC is so over the top. Stop the madness NYT !
7
"Only a tiny fraction of associates who join...large firms make partner, and associates of ALL [emphasis added] stripes who believe the have no shot typically leave long before they would become eligible."...As always, the jurinalists at The Times bury the "lede". How tiny is that fraction? How about telling the story of some of the other "stripes"? Do they become baristas in Mid-Manhattan, or do they go on to legal careers? How about some whole truths once in awhile, NYT
5
Another NYT screed, under diversity guise, oozing hateful straight white male envy.
14
As a minority woman who used to be an associate at a biglaw firm, this is a tough one. On one hand, I witnessed how the partners took white male associates under their wing to the exclusion of other associates and provided them with the mentorship and practice development opportunities necessary to make partner. On the other hand, had I chosen to stay at my firm and then succeeded in making partner, I would have resented the inevitable implication that my race or sex played a role in my elevation to the partnership. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
182
@SRB
And the irony is that sex and race play a role in white males being handed all sorts of opportunities, yet people don’t usually think about that because they don’t see it.
12
What we see here is part of a bigger picture. We read here about how law firms like Paul Weiss are contributing to a far broader problem. In this case, minorities and women must overcome unfair additional barriers and challenges.
The prevailing pattern of this broader pattern is, "the rich grow ever richer, while the working and middle classes fall ever farther behind."
The children of rich white families have now taken most of the seats at the nation's better private and public universities. (The middle class has lost most of its seats at those schools. The working class has never had an appropriate number of seats.)
Those rich students are then a shoe-in for the best law or medical schools. When they graduate they get the best and most lucrative jobs, not only at law firms like Paul Weiss but also at Google and Facebook.
This reminds me of a case presently before the Supreme Court. The consensus opinion is that Harvard has been shown to discriminate against Asian-American applicants on the basis of race. What, however, will the court conclude?
3
May be they got promoted to partner because they were the best at their jobs. Would you go out and hire a law firm that advertised "Hey, we are not the best but we are diverse"? I think not.
12
The Paul, Weiss firm's photo shows pervasive ageism. But ageism is so ingrained in our culture that the article does not even mention the implicit bias that practically every law firm indulges: new lawyers should be young:
"But many of these young lawyers described a complicated reality, in which young minorities are welcomed at the firm and then frequently sidelined." Those are lucky young lawyers to be welcomed and sidelined at the firm. Older new lawyer applicants are rejected at first sight. In the old South, discrimination was enforced by reprehensible signs reading "No Coloreds." Law firm hiring committees may as well put up signs reading "No Olders."
Law firms tout their race, gender, and sexual orientation diversity in hiring, not their age diversity. There's a reason for that: ageism.
The American Bar Association and large California State Bar organization set the ageist tone with "young lawyer" groups for new lawyers. Why? Because new lawyers should be young. That's "the way it is." Older? Go away. Older and disabled? Don't bother knocking at our firm's door.
It's too bad the NYT - which bandies about the stereotypical term "white privilege" as though it means something beyond stereotyping - cannot see beyond characteristic measures of diversity to see the biggest "ism" that stares it in the face. But that's the way stereotypes work, and how they are made to endure.
4
Why shouldn't older people retire? Why must every industry and every government be a gerontocracy of old people who just won't retire in their 70s, 80s and beyond? And who then have the hide to blame the negative reaction to their selfishness on "ageism"?
@PeteH
Your comment makes my point. I wasn't talking about 70's, 80's, and beyond, who should also have every right to work.
To law firms, 40 is old.
4
I've practiced at a firm like this for many years now. My experience is that smart, capable POC are rocket-propelled to partnership, with their photo splashed in every publication the law firm can get its hands on, and introduced to as many clients as possible, since all clients of a certain size (the ones who use firms like this) have POC as part of their in-house teams. In litigation, POC are deliberately staffed on cases before judges of color. If there are two people up for partner with similar credentials, the POC will make partner over the non-POC person in today's climate, hands down, because the firm uses those individuals in marketing to clients, who demand diversity in their outside legal teams. Make no mistake, POC partners are a huge marketing "plus" for the firm. And, their promotion avoids the type of scrutiny seen in this piece. I'm not making a judgment about "right" or "wrong" in doing this (I think it depends on the circumstances, frankly), but, if you are a smart POC in a law firm like this, chances are, you were heavily recruited, and the world is your oyster regarding promotion. Follow the money. My husband practices at a similar firm. The only attorney recruiting his firm pays for any more is recruiting events targeting POC. It's not just altruism, it's a business decision. Maybe there's a pipeline problem for POC, but if you are a POC at the other end of the pipe, you are getting hired and likely making partner.
12
Diversity at an elite law firm is hardly a barometer for a social justice measurement. Does anyone believe diversifying an elite law firm will forward a social justice agenda? Or care?
6
@Maxine Epperson
Of course it matters that everyone has an equal opportunity to reach the most elite levels of the legal profession. Law firm partners at the highest level firms are wealthy and influential. They are sought after to sit on boards of organizations devoted to social justice (including pro bono legal aid organizations) and to culture. It can be a stepping stone to other pursuits, such as a career as a judge or politician.
It's not the only measure of the success of a group, but it is an important one.
1
Fret no more about this real and complex diversity problem. In 10 years, lawyers and the individuals/corporations/universities that retain BigLAW, will have a real diversity problem as only AI-directed computer systems will used for most litigation, contract, employment and BK legal work. Lawyers will be reduced to newscasters simply reading their scripts from a teleprompter to judges at court.
As that date arrives on schedule or a bit delayed, we will at least all be will be in agreement that homo sapiens diversity be included in the legal industry. However, I might predict that even then future clients may prefer the machines to their own species for all their important legal issues. I am also sure that these clients will receive greatly reduced rates to the relief of both shareholders and executive management.
And if these predictions accord, there will no longer be a need to worry about the injustice embedded inside BigLAW as BigLAW will have become a quaint idea of yesteryear.
2
If you're a latino or person of color this should look like an opportunity to you. Let's put own heads down and outwork everybody while exceeding expectations. If these new partners aren't the firms best options, it'll reflect in the product. If your argument is "firms like these" control the market, put your head down, exceed expectations and outwork them and that won't be the case for long. We are the stories we tell ourselves. Real change starts from within. (Drop Mic)
3
@José Franco
You clearly have no idea how hard law firm associates work at a top firm. We're talking 80+ weeks, multiple all-nighters, sometimes consecutive, no weekends and vacations when a big case is active. Nearly everyone works that way all the time. The idea that all people of color have to do is hunker down and work twice as hard as other people is ludicrous and a physical impossibility.
And you haven't absorbed the lessons of the article. Ox labor is only a very small part of what it takes to make partner. You need mentors and political support.
3
@Lifelong Reader I'm well aware what it takes to make partner in a law firm. I have a brother that has been putting in 85 hours a week for 21 years. As for myself, I'm an inner city kid from the Bronx, single mom who attended Binghamton University (Business major) while running two small businesses while in college. these businesses helped me pay all my student loans 45 days before I graduated. I currently have a small business which I own the property with no underlying mortgage. I work 7 days a week, self reliant, self motivated and unapologetic. Working a lot is relative. Lifelong Reader, if you knew me you would love me. My point is a simple one (inverse things to create opportunities) Let us by all means endeavor to increase opportunities for all. But we ought to do so with full knowledge that to increase opportunities for all is likely to favor those better able to take advantage of them & may often at first increase inequalities. Where the demand for "equality of opportunity" leads to attempts to eliminate "unfair advantages," it is only likely to do harm. All human differences, whether they are differences in natural gifts or in opportunities, create unfair advantages. But since the chief contribution of any individual is to make the best use of the accidents he encounters, success must to a great extent, be a matter of chance. We are the stories we tell ourselves. (Drop Mic #2)
2
@Lifelong Reader By Bronx I mean I use to live on 172nd St Townsend Ave (would see Cool Herk mixing at the school yard of CES 64)
I guess the world of Pearson Specter Litt where polished black lawyers come and ago is a beautiful work of fiction. As a black women, it pleases me greatly to see blacks portrayed so positively on Suits, even if there's so much wrong with the show's obsession with female materialism. They look great, really, but the focus on women looking *too* fashionable in designer clothes is regressive. But it's Hollywood, so we have to take the one thing that's immensely positive and see what positive contributions comes out of it down the road.
I, for one, am hoping that talented young black students will be inspired by Jessica Pearson and the numerous other black lawyers that have graced the show to set high standards for themselves. And, of course, I am hoping that big law firms, under millennial leadership, will be inspired to consistently open doors to minorities.
But as Jessica's cutthroat politicking have shown Suits viewers time and time again, an open door alone doesn't lead to growth. Ascension, indeed, depends so much on personality, politicking and, of course, connections, which invariably disadvantage minorities. I don't really know what goes on in the world of big law firms, but if it's anything like the rest of the corporate world, you have to scheme your way to the top. Hard work alone doesn't work. It gets seized, manipulated and cashed in by skilled players. Harvey Specter might be huge on loyalty, but he's far from humble or honorable.
The job should be given to the most deserving regardless of race, gender yada yada.
That being said; minorities and the underserved communities are playing catch-up from birth. They do not have access to the great after school programs; LSAT prep courses; debate club; etc etc. even if they do have access; most times parents do not have time from working 2/3 jobs to take their kids to these programs. Upward mobility is lacking in these communities and we need to fix those issues if we are to make America great again.
3
Aside from wondering why the authors of this troublesome article kept its focus on Paul Weiss, even after discovering that it had one of the better partner diversity records of its peers, rather than shifting focus to firms with worse records, the most revealing moments come at the very end. There, one of the general counsels involved in the “We want to see more diversity or we’ll take our business elsewhere” letter acknowledges that she in fact would not, because she “trusts [her white male outside counsel] so much.
If general counsels of major corporations are willing to go to their outside law firms and say “We want our work to be handled by minority and women partners, and we want them to have billing credit within the firm for our business. You have four years to implement this requirement. Or we will find another firm that will,” there will be change. Simply saying “We want you to have more minority and women partners, but not on our business” doesn’t seem to cut it.
1
Despite what prestigious firms like this claim to be doing, they will forever be part the 'good ole white boys club.'
If indeed they really believe they're initially hiring the best, then why the need to recruit from the outside to fulfill their group of partners.
"Mr Karp said he expected some prominent female & minority partners to join Paul, Weiss from other firms in the coming months, and that partners' efforts to increase diversity & inclusion would be given greater attention in setting compensation." Apparently the diverse attorneys currently employed by Paul, Weiss & already putting in their time & efforts in hopes of attaining partnership roles aren't given the opportunity to gain the required mentorship.
Lastly, as with many other elite white collar jobs, nepotism & patronage are huge players in this game. Looking at our current leader, his administration & the seemingly widespread acceptance of this egregious practice is proof, that's not changing anytime soon.
In my experience, mentoring diverse attorneys never factors into the compensation process.
2
Becoming a partner in a law firm is a grueling process. And after you “make it” you are simply rewarded with a lifetime of more stress and long hours. Not surprising that many women and people of color who care about family life, spiritual life, and other pursuits, simply walk away from it. I know. I was a partner in a major law firm for decades, and though I fought for my life, I paid the price.
Nothing will really change until the private law practice itself changes.
6
At every stage of a legal career, there is a bias towards privilege. Think of it like two sailboats racing, but one just has a little bit of extra drag the other one doesn't. Over time, even slight differences can yield a markedly different result. It starts way before people even go to college, much less law school. Take two equally brilliant kids, but alter the amount of social capital they are given. Give one kid successful parents as role models while growing up, let them go to high-quality, well-funded schools from kindergarten on. That kid is more likely to eventually win acceptance to a good college and thrive once there. Those are the kids who then get into the best law schools and are the best prepared for both law school and the myriad challenges of associate life. By the time you get all the way up to who makes partner at a big law firm, every one of those little differences over the previous four decades gets totaled up. In turn, that leads to a very harsh reality: the people who genuinely are the most qualified for these apex jobs are going to end up being disproportionately white and male. It is not because women and minorities are mysteriously inferior, it is because, even with every possible advantage that BOTH society and genetics can bestow on you, these jobs are virtually impossible to obtain. Paul Weiss could do better, but a lot of this is due to things well beyond their control.
6
"One of the new partners is a white male from Spain but identifies as Hispanic, the firm said." This phrasing suggests that he chose to identify as Hispanic instead of white. These are not mutually exclusive things and your phrasing could be seen as implying his choice to use the term Hispanic on his behalf is opportunistic. While white Hispanics aren't the group that needs increased representation in most cases, we shouldn't have to discount our Hispanic heritage to avoid being seen as opportunistic.
2
isn't it possible that the 12 people selected were the best available?
isn't it possible that gender and skin color were not factors in the decision? After all, isn't the whole point of "equality" the fact that gender and skin color are NOT to be considered?
How is the goal of diversity for it's own sake not based on skin color or gender?
While it seems unlikely that so few women or people of color made the Paul, Weiss cut for partner.. it is not impossible.
When I am lying on the surgical table, or facing legal cases, I want the team operating on me to be competent... I really don't care if they are "appropriately diverse".
9
@rick
Ughg. Are you being purposefully ignorant? Did you even read the article? The article is literally designed to challenge the notion that promotion to partnership is not influenced by gender/race bias.
The issue isn't simply just the single decision to promote someone to partner. The issue is the hundreds of decisions along the way... decisions that determine which associates get developed and which ones don't. Associates don't just walk into law firms fully formed. They're trained. Their ability to attract business is developed. Does natural ability and work ethic play a role? Of course. But those are not the only factors (although I know white men like to believe it's all them). The issue is the client development opportunities--meetings, business breakfasts, business lunches, dinners, golf games, etc that most women and most minorities are simply never invited to. It's whether women and minorities are staffed on the best cases and working for the best partners. If you don’t meet people, you can’t develop the client base that will result in your promotion. If you don't work on the best cases, your skill set and portfolio won't develop as quickly. If you don't work for the right partners, you won't have the sponsor necessary to promote you to partner.
3
@C's Daughter..
Nope, not being purposefully ignorant.... and I did read the article.. Oh, and my son who is an associate at an elite law firm upbraided me even better than you did.
My fundamental point, however remains valid:
either you select people based on ability, or you select based on gender, race, etc...
2
Having worked in both an elite firm and been on the corporate counsel side, it is clear to me that money talks loudly to law firms. If the clients send their business to diverse firms and demand the opportunity to work with and hire diverse lawyers, then the law firms will respond. Like any business, they give to the customers what they want. Unfortunately many corporate clients are white men, so the cycle perpetuates itself. So it is absolutely essential that corporate clients demand diversity and women and minorities in corporate positions with money to spend use diverse lawyers.
3
What's infuriating about this article is that it doesn't talk about WHY diversity is needed. Because you actually serve your clients better when you aren't thinking about things from one perspective. Because lawyers who would make excellent partners and grow a firm's business are being passed over. It makes it sound like law firms should diversify the ranks as a social justice initiative. No. There is a business case for it, and these firms are only hurting themselves.
2
There's lots of talk here about only the "best" rising to the top and then I look at Donald Trump and shake my head in disagreement.
4
A lot of the clients that make hiring decisions - company founders and investors for smaller companies, General Counsels and senior attorneys for larger companies - are also white men.
So the white male buddy relationships make a huge difference to advancement not only internally, but also externally, as they affect your ability to win clients and build a book of business.
2
There are hetero-normative assumptions underlying the assertion that the pictured group is lacking diversity. Those assumptions are probably true, but it is worth keeping in mind that even white men can in fact be "diverse", as such term is commonly used in HR parlance.
3
I've been there. I've been Of Counsel in a BigLaw firm on K St. The boys club in business, those who control the $100k+ litigation budgets, don't hire girls. They don't hire girls on K St. and they don't hire girls to do construction litigation in Alaska. They want boys to do that job even when the boys are 1/10 as qualified or experienced as the girls. And when the boys in the law firm make a promise to a girl, it is a fight to the death to get that money out of them. Our culture does not recognize the economic worth of women and that is a fact.
7
So once again, someone saw something they didn't like, commented on it and Shared, and it went viral. So now this particular firm is being singled out, and for a single metric (their new class of partners). As the story goes on to say, Paul, Weiss is apparently better at diversity (in other aspects) than some of their peers. Yet, have any of their peers been called out for their lacks of diversity in certain areas?
My point is, I am so tired of kneejerk PC movements and 24-hour 'movements' that come about, all due to social media and a pack mentality.
Instead of cherry-picking and harping on whatever is trending at the moment, more folks should be spending their energy on effecting meaningful changes at the core. Instead of lambasting Paul, Weiss for this particular metric, folks should be asking more fundamental questions..... 'what's the % of non-white lawyers vs white lawyers, across the US?'.... 'do some firms specialize in certain types of law, and if so, do we see a pattern where white lawyers are more likely to gravitate towards practicing in that specialty area?' ....'and if firms like Paul, Weiss and similar firms DO have a fair % of non-white lawyers employed there, then why are they not attaining partner status?"
9
Why would anyone think they know how to best run someone else's business?
If you don't like what you see in the hiring practices of a private business, why don't you start your own, and then institute the practices you find agreeable?
9
OK, OK, it doesn't look too good for Paul, Weiss, which ironically, has a history of (relative) diversity. But how many white guys are starters on defense in the Super Bowl? Answer: Out of the 11 Rams defensive starters, 10-11 of them are black. Patriots: 9-10 of the 11 defensive starters are black. Is that any more prejudiced? Why is it presumed that merit is the only operative term when minorities are over-represented, but prejudice is always at play when they are under-represented? I know one thing -- it just became very good to be a minority in the 8th year associate class at Paul Weiss....
7
Apparently white males are reared to believe that they have to take these boring, soul-destroying, stress-inducing, life-shortening jobs. Others see that white males are in certain jobs and conclude that must mean that these jobs are desirable. They're not!
It is the ultimate bias to assume that something is worth doing simply because white males are doing it. Those are often the very things to avoid -- unless you want the greatly reduced life expectancy and much higher suicide rate associated with white males in our society.
Stay away. Do something more fulfilling, more meaningful, more interesting, and less health-destroying. If white males were reared to believe that they had more choices, they would too.
5
I guess using photographs isn't such a good idea.
I see two men wearing unprofessional beards, which to me is just as bad as having the photo of 8 be apparently all white.
I am tired of the screeching. This is a private company making private decisions they deem to be important. If you do not like their decisions, don't do business there. If you don't feel you can advance, then do not work there either.
As to Tom Brokaw -- assimilation was always the message of our country. We are a melting pot, not a new mini-country of where newcomers have come from.
5
Law firms have a problem retaining women attorneys long enough to even become eligible for making partner. Many women in the law firms where I worked eventually went to work at in-house counsel positions or for legal aid and non-profit organizations. Even women partners left for other types of positions because they felt at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their male partners still.
3
Waiting until people are elevated to partner is probably a little too late to begin discussing diversity. All of the efforts and money and programs and internships and sponsorships should be aimed at the other end of the experience spectrum, at the earliest levels of education. Anyone who takes a law degree from a top school already has it made and crying about their not being offered partner is risible. Instead we should be worried about the hundreds of thousands of bright minds who never get the tools they need early in their educations. We should be worried about the capable people who give up because law school is too expensive.
6
I'd like to see a photo of all the Times reporters over 55.
41
Before I decided to pursue an MA, I thought law school was the goal. My father was friends with a prominent Canadian labour lawyer (he takes care of his boat). He arranged for us all to have wings so I could hear his advice on being a lawyer.
He gave me some sobering advice, which I'll paraphrase here:
"I make a lot of money, a lot. But I'm divorced from my first wife, I barely see my current one, and I hardly know my son. 70 or 80 hour work weeks are common. If I get a call from a big client at 3 am, I answer. I charge too much money not to. If that's the life you want then go to law school, if not think about doing something else."
After that night I lost all interest in being a lawyer. The sacrifices to be successful are colossal.
10
I am a secretary at a law firm. Over the years I have seen talented women and minorities come and go, work long hours, become cynical and angry and then go in-house, to the government, or leave the profession entirely.
I can tell from the first child born, that a woman's time at the firm will be limited. It just won't be feasible for them to take a business trip while still lactating at 6 months. Or for them to work until 2 am and not put their kids to sleep.
Besides that, often new attorneys are sent abroad or to client sites for weeks and months at a time, so their exposure to other work and partners is limited. Thus they do not develop the relationships or skill sets needed to compete in their career. They are shown the door soon after.
Finally, a lot of men are able to make partner because they have two spouses to take care of their lives. Their actual spouse, and their secretary. With one spouse running the household (usually but not always female), and the secretary running their practice, they are able to work long hours and take those business trips. Unless a woman's spouse is able to provide that support, they are usually doing it all themselves. Male partners have little compunction in asking their secretaries to do their personal administration, while it has been rare in my experience to get those same requests from women.
Big law is not for everyone, its very model is hard for everyone. But it's easier for certain attorneys for sure.
57
One male partner I worked with had his secretary plan his son’s bar mitzvah. And his wife was a stay at home spouse. You are entirely correct that no female partner would have ever asked her secretary to do the same.
11
@Diva
"Or for them to work until 2 am and not put their kids to sleep. "
When men have kids, who puts those kids to sleep?
1
@Diva I agree with everything you say except your choice of the words "feasible" and "able." In fact, women lawyers with children are often "able" to work till 2 am or to go on that overseas trip, they just aren't willing to. When I was at Big Law, my husband was a stay-at-home dad. And, I had a fantastic secretary. I routinely left for work before my children were awake and return home after they were in bed. Flew around the country to take depositions and conduct internal investigations. When I realized my youngest son had learned to walk without me, I decided it was time to go find another legal career.
2
I was a partner at an international law firm before taking the bench. Making partner at any large firm is extraordinarily difficult. You begin from the proposition that all incoming associates are intelligent and driven. But practicing at that level is incredibly demanding, and many people choose to pursue a different goal (which is wholly understandable). Even those who grind it out aren't guaranteed partnership. It depends on his/her ability to attract and retain clients, which depends on creating and fostering personal relationships. As others have suggested, any associate--minority, white, male, female, etc.--must begin that process early and have a mentor or mentors. No matter how wonderful a candidate you are, you won't develop the personal relationships, non-legal skills, and intra-firm political capital necessary to make partner without an experienced lawyer guiding you. The difficulty is pairing minority associates with such mentors and ensuring the associates make it through the grueling 8+ years before partnership consideration. There is no easy answer here.
14
I believe in a meritocracy. That is why I have no objections to NBA teams and college basketball teams starting all black players.
44
@GWS Maybe because they are the best. And the tools used to measure and draft basketball players are objective.
You can't say the same about how a manger decides to hire candidate X or Y. Those criteria are mostly subjective.
6
@Chaks
Doubly silly - how many first round draft choices have proved to be busts?
Secondly - because I used to consult to law firms - there are many objective measures that assess associates each year and decide if they are ready to be partners.
I doubt the SJWs moaning about Paul, Weiss's promotions can afford the rate they charge for partners.
11
Wouldn't it indeed be a shame if all those who complain about working for the old white men were to start their own firms and put them out of business?
14
@Kurt Pickard I had a similar thought. There are apparently plenty of persons from NYTimes and in this comment section alone who desire to hire attorneys who are not male and white. So what are the complainers waiting around for? Please go start your own firm, the clientele are clearly out there in search of such a place.
2
The only issue is that they are all white. If they were of any other race nobody would have an issue with this.
38
@Jeff If they were all other-than-white that would be truly astounding and real news! This is a story about a plane that has landed safely. It happens every day. Sadly.
2
Oh but just look--every face surely a paragon of honesty, deep thoughtfulness, god-given [and next-to-god] scrubbed daily cleanliness. Wouldn't you just die to have your child marry one of these guaranteed money-makers, captains of justice? [And oh, those Trust-Me smiles, worked on and worked over for so many years!]
J.ust D.andy, that's what their new suffix tells us!
4
skin color and genitalia are very very important. you have no idea. thats why this is front page news in the NYT.
think about it- why would a for-profit corporation in 2019, NOT want the best lawyers, regardless of race/creed/sex etc??
should we also include how many catholics, hindus and jews there are in this law firm?? as a jew, i want to know!!
actually, as a jew, i could care less. this is not deep south 1950.
this obsession with race/sex etc is nauseating. catholic nominees are getting grilled on capital hill for their affiliation with catholic organizations...and not one liberal raises an eyebrow. somehow, they are not so live and let live when it comes to catholicism. i cant stop throwing up.
39
Keep telling them their victims so they will always have the entitled victim mentality to blame and not their own lack of skills, work ethic or drive. Great strategy. What do you tell the white associates who didn’t make partner? The minorities and women who put the work in will get written off as PC hires. That’s fair.
19
@Mat
Someone who doesn't know the difference between "they're," "there," and "their" doesn't have any business bashing someone else's skills or work ethic.
5
There has not been a white cornerback in NFL since 2003. That's right, all 64 NFL cornerbacks are black, and no one sees controversy in that. No one calling for diversity in NFL.
Maybe it is time to follow MLK's dream, and live in a nation where we are not be judged by the color of the skin. The country that was racist 50 years ago, is not the same country now, as evidenced by a us having an elected and re-elected a black president.
Only Vladimir Putin is interested in stirring up debate about fake racial injustices in America, as Mueller's investigation has shown.
35
@Herbert Williams
How long did it take the NFL to hire their first black quarterback and where is your complaint about the lack of black coaching jobs.
When a white person announces that the country is no longer racist because the nation elected a black president and then conveniently forgets to mention the racist blow back that black president received from the opposing party and how that led to the rise of a racist, illegitimate president, I am secure in my thinking that nothing has really changed.
3
@Herbert Williams
At one time black Americans (and their white-American, liberal, civil rights-defending crusaders) actually believed in King's ethics -- that individuals (not tribes) should be judged by the content of their character, not their skin color. Look how we have regressed over the years. We're experiencing a kind of tribalism unthinkable in 1963.
1
What better way to defeat equality in society than prevent it in the legal profession?
More excuses, excuses from white dudes. I'll choose my representation in the future accordingly.
3
@LED youre gonna choose a lawyer based on skin/genitalia, instead of who is best??
umm..why??
3
For bright young people who wish to jump four or five social classes in the span of twenty years, I have the following useless advice:
Go back in time and develop your grandparents (all four, preferably) into people with advanced awareness and tastes, a background of learning founded on reading and taking seriously books that have stood the test of time, adeptness in social situations, the ability to transmit to their descendants the most indispensable values, habits, and 'tricks' of handling oneself and others, as well as ineffaceable dedication to planning and saving. Then make sure they keep all those balls in the air till your parents marry. Repeat with your parents, then apply all that to yourself. Make sure you're ready to work as late as anyone else.
Then you're ready to waltz into a major metropolitan law firm, work tons of hours for years, and wait to receive your invitation to partnership.
Not matching the type-of-person criteria that really matter is the problem. Racism and sexism enter into it, but a look at the success of Asian people tells you a lot. To generalize, east and south Asians from educated, stable families are -- when it comes to character -- the closest thing we have to upright upper-middle-class people of the pre-war era, who seem to remain our models for what deserving elites are like and how they act and live. That's why they are doing well. What's needed comes down through families (and cultures). White men without it don't get far either.
10
Didn't see anyone of Asian origin in the list of partners either. For sure that they work hard and get good grades.
4
@MD
This was just one year's cohort at just one firm (and perhaps for that reason a poor excuse for an article). If you're out there, over time you notice. Also, I had in mind, without saying so, careers in other highly competitive, high-reward, socially demanding fields, too, not just big law.
Anyway, maybe it's better for people of Asian descent here in Ontario than down there. I do gather that not having money and an elite family background is more likely to get you considered to be a nobody in the States than here.
It's possible to come out of nowhere and make it to the top. Bill Clinton did it. Obama did it. (Carly Fiorina didn't, nor did Bill Gates.) But it's nearly impossible, rarer now than it was, and getting rarer. We're back to the nineteenth century, when servants were often the children and grandchildren of servants.
It's the way societies naturally shake out and and it can only be countered by a brave and fair-minded government, through taxes and public education. Lots of taxes and lots of education.
1
Anything in isolation looks out of balance. If one considers all the other professions with diversity that more than offsets any lack of it in the legal profession, the world is not the awful racist place that these big legal firms make it appear to be. Peoples color aside, they screw the world up mostly entirely by what do, regardless.
2
Elite law firms are a weird and unique world. To be clear to those on the outside: 90% of associates at a place like Paul Weiss are "good" enough to make partner. Of the ones who do make partner, it is, first and foremost, the ones willing to stick it out for a decade in a soul-crushing job. For all the right reasons, a lot of people aren't willing to do that: making partner requires a certain level of insanity. Of those who remain, making partner is about having the alchemy of the right rainmaker mentors, in the right office, in the right practice, and being up for partner at the right time. Associates have limited control over that. It may be true that Paul Weiss failed to have good minority candidates in the pipeline and in position to be made partner. But the idea that they picked "the best" lawyers is just not accurate, by any objective standard.
9
@D. Green
That is pretty much what every associate or principal in law, accounting or consulting who did not make it as a partner tells themselves.
And no - 90% are not 'good enough' - partnerships are never based on good enough or else they quickly become ex-partnerships in bankruptcy.
Partners need to generate income and support associates and very few juniors can clear that particular hurdle consistently.
2
Half the partners can’t clear that hurdle consistently either.
2
Anyone who thinks that BigLaw firms make partner decisions based purely on "merit" is not very familiar with BigLaw. Frankly, for most normal, well-adjusted people, making partner at a BigLaw firm is probably not something to aspire to.
9
As a former biglaw associate I can attest firsthand that a far, far greater percentage of women leave when they have children than so men. If this is the case, and the starting numbers are 50/50, then how can we ever expect to have equal numbers of male and female partners.
I have not personally seen biases in promotions, if anything firms would love to promote more women, so it seems unfair to chastise them for not giving women something that most of them don’t want!
9
I demand that that the attorneys who represent me in complicated,high stakes litigation are the best available.
In a law firm that employee the best lawyers from the best schools the brightest will rise to the top.
Background counts.
6
How does a company ensure diversity when it is explicitly illegal to hire or promote people with a particular identity?
The issue is systemic, the complexion of this partner class was forged in a long series of decisive moments. These starting at birth and continued into the presenr.
1
Diversity as a metric of law firms or schools can tell us how well we are supporting our underprivileged areas, those who don't start life with the same privilege. They don't get the same opportunity as kids from wealthy backgrounds. We should, as a society be doing more to give our poorer children and their neighborhoods better opportunities to rise out of poverty. However, rarely should diversity be used for hiring decisions. Merit should be the driving factor, skin color and gender shouldn't be factors, hiring and promotion should be blind to color or gender.
2
Labeling the law firm as racist is akin to blaming a doctor for not saving a lifetime smoker from lung cancer. There are perhaps dozens or hundreds of reasons that this happened well beyond the control of Paul Weiss and perhaps out of anyone's control, culminating over years and years. Systemic subtle discrimination, income and education gaps, etc etc.
1
Discrimination is an effective form of social control. That's why partners in law firms (and those in power everywhere) use it to propagate the inequality that favors their group.
Only paying customers can change the system.
Follow the money.
4
@Shiloh 2012
Any qualified lawyer can start their own firm - they can recruit all females or all POC and tap this 'huge' market of socially conscious companies that want to hire them.
Funny they don't and the companies still insist on hiring the best and the brightest regardless of color or gender.
Follow the money? No - follow the talent.
2
I came from corporate banking background. Proudly, a member of visible minority demographics with a successful career in an organization with 60,000 employees globally. Diversity in the workplace is nothing new. Some companies do a better job with promoting and implementing it, some don’t. In my opinion, color has nothing to do with qualifications and experience. Age discrimination in many workplaces is a bigger issue. The experienced workers are getting shut out by the younger workforce!
3
Maybe only certain people WANT to be a partner at Paul Weiss. And these folks represent them well. But PW would also I’m sure bend over backwards if it had diverse candidates - even with that, these are the people who EARNED it. Leave them and PW alone.
8
@Bhj
How did they earn their partnership? What specifically did each of the twelve do?
2
It’s interesting that this article doesn’t mention LGBT attorneys. It almost certainly would have, if it was written 20 or 30 years ago. But today very little attention is devoted to the problem of LGBT inclusion in the law-firm setting — probably because it isn’t an issue any more. It used to be. I have stories.
Hypothesis: the fact that LGBT inclusion is no longer a problem is because law firms have in fact changed and are no longer old boys’ clubs.
What if a journalist asked why LGBT lawyers seem to have succeeded cracking BigLaw while other minorities have not? The answer could illuminate this debate.
2
What is your hypothesis about why LGBT lawyers stay to make partner and people of color don’t?
Most LGBT attorneys I know of at firms are white males. The old boys network can accept gay white men more easily than women and minorities.
5
One of the partners promoted was LGBT. Not an overwhelming number, but true.
I worked in Big Law and spent time at a PE firm. PE firms are some of big law firms' wealthiest clients. When I worked at the PE firm, there was one woman who has reached the Managing Director level and no African Americans. People trust people who look, think, and talk like them, as well as share a similar pedigree. This makes the white male partners a favorite in terms of "relationships" for these PE firms. Until the leadership changes among Big Law's biggest clients, I wouldn't expect much of Big Law. This is truly unfortunate.
8
@Sarah L. Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Private Equity firm Vista Equity Partners. He is one of the wealthiest individuals in the USA . He doesn't seem to be worried about his skin color. He recently married Playboy's 2010 Playmate of the Year. Money.
Would progressives kindly inform us of the number of minority and female individuals required in this image of 12 people to avoid controversy? Which of the 12 qualified and deserving people in the existing group needs to step aside to make you feel better?
It would be helpful to have these quota numbers in advance so we could avoid all the ruffled feathers.
16
About half the white men.
3
Some folks are leaving comments talking about how the partner selection process focuses purely on talent and ability, rather than race and gender.
But we all know that's not true. Bosses tend to promote workers they like personally, who have things in common with them. Because of their affinity for subordinates who look and act like them, bosses may perceive mediocre work as good and view mistakes as less serious than they really are. Other employees -- the ones who don't have a lot in common with their bosses -- don't get these benefits. Unless you are completely blinded by a bubble of extreme privilege, you've probably seen this in action or experienced it yourself. And it's why "talent" alone isn't enough to get ahead when what defines "talent" in and of itself is inherently subjective. It's simply human nature.
So if we're talking about an environment where everyone at the top is white and male, then it is going to be that much harder for talented people of color and women to get ahead.
4
I am not in law, but I am in the field of communications, and that seems to be where the firm made their biggest misstep. If this firm is a true leader in diversity, as it is said in the article, they could have avoided this PR fiasco by posting a group photo of the new partners standing with the existing ones. The collection of the all-white headshots projects an image that is apparently at odds with the firm's ethos (from what I have read) and now they are paying for it. In the future, I would suggest consulting with a communications or social media expert before posting.
2
@Rock Turtleneck
In other words, they should have been deceptive in their announcement of an all-white class.
Great advice. /sarcasm
1
@Lifelong Reader Many people quoted in the article say this firm is actually way ahead of most other law firms in terms of diversity. Placing the new class in the context of their diverse leadership would have helped make this point clear, and avoided the backlash for them. I'm not endorsing their all-white class, or saying they should be deceptive; I'm merely saying that putting out an all-white collection of headshots was something a person with a sense of PR, or even a sense of fairness, should have noticed. Have a nice day!
@Rock Turtleneck
Their practice apparently is to publish all the photos of the newly elected partners each year. You are saying that they should have done something differently purely in order to soften the blow of all those white faces. That IS deception. They would have been called on it. The only way not to draw criticism is to have more actual diversity. No one suggests that this is a problem limited to Paul Weiss. Some firms, as the story notes, have worse records.
Have a nice evening!
1
People who say “I don’t see color” are pretty much guaranteed to be unapologetically biased. Why? Because people who acknowledge they may hold unconscious biases can usually “double-check” themselves and so make better judgments. People who say things like “I don’t see color” basically have convinced themselves their judgment is automatically bias-free. Since they operate from the starting point that everything they do is “colorblind,” every bit of bias they have is rationalized and normalized in their mind. They never learn or improve their judgment since they operate from the assumption that their judgment is perfect to begin with.
11
@citybumpkin in other words, everyone is biased and racist. The people who acknowledge their bias are obviously biased, and the people who don’t acknowledge their bias are definitely biased.
Is there anyone left in this tautology?
3
@HenryParsons (1) That’s not what tautology means. (2) Indeed, experiments in behavioral psychology do show pretty much everyone exhibits some form of group bias. What you failed to read/comprehend in your eagerness to sneer is, as I pointed, people who acknowledge their potential for bias are better at self-correcting and therefore capable of judgment less tainted by bias.
@citybumpkin It is exactly what tautology means. I'd in fact be hard pressed to find a better example. What you call sneering I call pointing out that by your own logic 100% of the population is biased, because (again, according to you) people who claim to be colorblind really aren't, and unless you're prepared to tell us that people who think they aren't colorblind actually are, I don't see who is left. If people are getting fatigued with the diversity and inclusion racket (and they are), shopworn arguments like yours are a big part of why.
I am a female partner at a law firm. There are very few of us. What I think a lot of commenters miss is that making partner isn’t solely merit based. In a starting group of 20 lawyers, there may be 3 or 4 that are excellent, talented and have the capacity to bring in business (if given opportunities). Given the need to keep per partner profits up only one of those 3 or 4 can make partner. And that is where the implicit bias comes in — often the white man is seen as the safer bet for being able to generate business. I was fortunate enough to find an exceptional male partner to mentor me and advocate for my partnership. But he’s unusual and many are not so fortunate.
275
@Laura Mason Congratulations! And I'm sure you're right about one way that bias works, but the most interesting part of your comment to me is that you seem to buy into the whole meritocracy smear that law firms use to justify their profits and exclusionary policies. It's the way of the world, but there is no reason to think it has to be that way at every firm. To open up law firms, a new model has to be found and adopted--and work.
9
@Laura Mason
I worked for big law firm as a computer programmer for a long time. First of all, you're all overpaid. Starting pay for an associate about 10 years ago was $130K. That's ridiculous. My boss didn't make that much and he was far more valuable than an associate attorney. So, I have no sympathy for any lawyers at top law firms. You guys are mostly miserable, because you're main job is to suck up to others and stay out of trouble.
20
@Laura Mason
How many of your female associate colleagues at some point on the road to a possible partnership, "downshifted" to a less arduous career path, or perhaps left the law entirely to get on the "mommy track"?
5
A potential partner has to show that he/she has the ability to earn as an associate. It's about the bottom line. He/she will put their career with that law firm above all else. If a case dictates the need to work 24/7 until it's completed then be prepared to do that. Be prepared to run in the same social circles as the established partners and the clients. Join the same clubs, play the same sports, etc.
Intelligence, ability and determination are just part of it, you've got to be willing to do whatever is necessary for the success of that firm.
This works for some people, others want an actual life.
6
Large law firms, like any other for-profit business, are in business to make money, period. The legal business is no longer "the practice of a profession" and the quaint niceties that used to go along with it. It is one of the most cutthroat types of businesses that exist today. Plenty of these firms talk a good game about promoting diversity, yet few actually do what they say. Large law firms have plenty of leverage when it comes to obtaining and keeping business, that is the nature of the legal business today. The reality of promoting and honoring diversity is way, way down on their priority list.
5
Of course not. They are there to serve their clients. Who are their clients? Mostly rich white men. Many women hit glass ceilings at law firms and never make partner. Many have left. Still old boys club playing by old rules.
9
The best rise to the top: the rest don't.
Thus it has been, and thus it should be, and thus it will be.
And thus it must be.
8
@Bob
You mean like Donald Trump? Thanks but I reject these purported pearls of wisdom.
2
You seem to have missed the entire point of the article. Sometimes the best don’t have the same opportunities to rise to the top as their white male colleagues.
2
@Bob
By your logic, rich white males are the best.
Have you never known someone who was promoted because of who they knew, rather than their level of competence?
Rich white males have flocked together for years. It makes sense in that birds of a feather flock together. But it doesn't mean that they are, by default, the best. It means that of the rich white males, these are the best rich white males.
4
I'm a former associate at a New York law firm on par with Paul Weiss. Graduated top of my law school class, federal district and circuit clerkships. I always got glowing reviews for my work at the firm. I was also lucky to have female partners who mentored me and I feel confident I could have made partner if I had chosen to do so. However...
The amount of time you have to put in to that job -- both as an associate building your profile for partnership and as a junior partner growing your book of business -- is prohibitive for most people, and the bulk of that effort happens during prime child-rearing years.
I had kids and my firm was very accommodating (by US standards)... I even took a reduced schedule for a time. But although I was technically working 80% of a full schedule, I still had many late nights, regularly missed dinner with my kids, and had to spend many weekend days working while my husband (also a biglaw associate) cared for the kids. I was miserable. Most of my contemporaries who have kids felt the same way. Until that changes, many associates will opt out rather than choose to seek partnership -- especially women. It's not ability, but the hard choices a demanding job like this forces people to make, that winnow women out before they become partners.
22
As bad-ass Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has proven, as well as Justices Sotamayer and Kagan, these BIG law firms are making a big mistake.
Smart, courageous women will form their own firms and, since money will not be their main purpose, will soon be the most successful firms in the world.
9
Any woman who works at these all-male BIG law firms should immediately walk out. Secretaries, research assistants, paralegals - you are doing all the work with none of the reward.
Do not put up with it any longer. It must stop NOW.
11
@njglea That's a terrible comparison. Notice that none of your examples are, or ever were, biglaw partners (though Sotomayor did work for a summer at Paul Weiss). All three of them took paths much more common for brilliant young law students. They clerked, Sotomayor was a prosecutor, and the other two went into academia (which is arguably more prestigious in law than big firm partnerships).
1
I’m a female lawyer with a wonderful in house position with a large company. We are very diverse with age and gender respected. However I don’t believe there is a single minority attorney out of 100 lawyers. However part of the problem is the lack of qualified minority applicants. There were only 3 in my class and 2 failed the bar. The solution begins in pre-K.
14
Although I fully agree that a diverse workplace is not only more productive but also psychologically a rich environment. We can pick examples of a diverse environment (any workplace is a subset of an environment) until we go blue in the face. Having said this, I don't understand what the kerfuffle is all about. From the way I interpret the article, it is meant to begin asking questions about deeper issues like mentoring and growth opportunities for 'non-traditional' lawyers and ask whether law firms are doing everything for which we hold other business' feet to the fire. But diversity for diversity's sake is a very, very, bad idea!
7
@ChicagoMaroon - this is not about diversity for diversity's sake, this is about hard-working, smart women and minorities who are also not given the opportunity to make partner at this firm.
5
Much of the reason for bias toward white males comes from the firm's clients: the managers of corporations at top levels and their legal offices tend to be all white males. Who better to wine and dine a patriarchal white male than another patriarchal white male?
14
"Among the firm’s most respected partners are Jeh Johnson, a former Homeland Security secretary who became Paul, Weiss’s first black partner in 1994...".
As I read this, that's when my jaw dropped. You mean it wasn't until 1994 that Paul, Weiss had a black partner? 1994?! You mean ZERO until then? Not even a hire from a competing firm? Were there none? Did the lawyers from, oh, I don't know, the civil rights and voting rights movements, the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, from the Enron case, Barclay's, Freddie Mac, AIG corporate and accounting scandals, etc. etc., NONE were black and NONE had the expertise or leadership or "rainmaking" potential for Paul, Weiss? Maybe I'm missing something, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a big indicative wow to me.
16
in any industry, getting into the top ranks is a game of my daddy plays golf with your daddy.
advice to women and minorities: sign your daddies up for golf! if you cant beat the system you might as well break it.
5
@Ashley This is not true in Big Law. No one is making partner by playing golf or having their "daddy play with another daddy." Would you say this if the partners were women or minorities? Most in America are sick of merit based accomplishments being trashed with these types of defeatist statements.
3
Ashley, in these firms getting hired has almost nothing to do with whose daddy plays golf with whom. The young lawyers hired at the elite firms in NY, DC, Boston etc. are almost always graduates of the top 15 or so law schools in the country, and usually were very high
Academic performers - Law Review, top grades, moot court winners etc. Many also served as clerks to federal judges.
4
@Lawrence Kessner
Wanna hear a story? I watched a federal judge hire a white boy because he came from a good family and the judge knew his daddy. It was for an unpaid internship, so obviously not like hiring his real law clerks, but the reality is this was a great opportunity for him that he got because of his dad. Other employers will look at that opportunity and advance him because of it.
Every person-- male, female, white, minority, who works at Paul Weiss or similar is a brilliant person and high performer. No one is doubting that. But that's not the end of the issue when it comes to determining who makes partner. Getting hired and making partner are different things. Making partner comes down to relationship building more than anything else. It comes down to skill development as well, and business development, but relationship building is a critical piece to both of those things in law firms. I know. I've worked in biglaw. And I've clerked for a federal judge.
Maybe wealthy white client not confident subaltern council capable of zealous representation considering academically based hostility constantly directed against straight white men.
3
Choosing people on merit is so ..... so racist! Or is it sexist? [Is the proper word now "genderist?"]
Results based on equal opportunity are not fair.
Results based on equal outcome ... that's the ticket. That is how the best and brightest will advance and how our society will progress and improve.
13
Big white crime needs little white lawyers. Why would they need diversity if there's no diversity in crime?
3
Imagine if you're a white male, you see the Paul Weiss partners this year, and they're all black women. Or, you're Catholic and they're all Jewish. Or, female and they're all men. This isn't that complicated. They can find a more diverse partnership class of all top-flight lawyers. And, they will. Next up is Cravath . . .
2
When I was a Cravath associate half a century ago, a Catholic associate in another practice area not selected for partnership complained loudly that he was discriminated against because of his religion. Naturally, another tax associate and I, both Catholics, went to our department chair and offered to become sacrificial tax partners to aid in the firm’s defense. Our offer was graciously declined and we went on to have satisfying careers. And oh yes, even back then Cravath had a very talented female partner.
SJWs freak out. why don't you open your own law firm and hire no white?
12
And in other funny news, in the UAE all the winners of the gender equality awards were men (not a joke).
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/28/uae-mocked-for-gender-equality-awards-won-entirely-by-men
1
The Los Angeles Lakers have not drafted a white player since 2011
It's outrageous
37
WRONG!
Moritz Wagner was the Lakers 25th pick in the 2018 NBA Draft.
6
@Luciano What's outrageous is your implication that the pro basketball industry and Big Law industry are apples to apples when it comes to hiring and promoting. Silliness.
2
In the past I have hired a fair number of corporate law firms to do challenging work for my business. I only want to go for the best. I need to feel comfortable that meritocracy is the key ingredient when it comes to who gets to the top positions. I want to be served by a high achievers who will do what it takes to help me get to where I want to be. If I am getting ready for litigation I want a lawyer with a natural killer instinct, unbelievably smart and who will win !
Do I care about race? No
Do I care about gender? No (top female lawyers are natural born killers.)
Do I care about sexual orientation? No
Do I care about track record? Yes
Do I care about fees? Sometimes ..je je je
Let's drop this politically correct cancer that plagues society today. I want the best there is. I don't care about the outer layer. I want the top minds
If diversity comes as a result of a meritocratic system, then great. If not, I could not care less.
227
But the point of the article is not to go out of your way to promote less qualified minorities and women, the point is that they are not being given a fair shot at it from the beginning. They are not being given the opportunities for work that are prerequisites to becoming partner. All the article is saying is let’s look at our daily work practices and be sure to be inclusive and unbiased in those habits because right now there is a glass ceiling to some.
As a female engineer I definitely ran into jaw dropping bias when beginning my career. Not by everyone, yet still career path altering. The point is, those in power, need to be conscious to extend their mentorship to any talented person, even if they don’t look like them.
156
@Juan Briceno, I heard this all the time in corporate america. Yet, the numbers don't lie, and somehow each of the unicorns who claim they treat every person equally continued to promote white men, and then looked back at their own records and were SHOCKED by this fact.
A 'meritocratic system' is determined largely by subjective assessments.
We know that your intentions are good, but the results speak for themselves.
58
The joke is on you then. You aren’t hiring the best. You’ve hired the privileged white males who make it to the top because they have the right connections, etc.
120
We need to limit professional work hours to 50 hours (and consider 40) which would (a) allow professionals to have a life outside of work and contribute to the community, (b) open more opportunities for work for others, and (c) reduce income inequality. Having people live at work is destroying society.
16
I was at a big law firm for 20 years.
Here’s my take, and the PC crowd won’t like it.
If your a good lawyer, hard working, and willing to jump whenever and wherever asked, you stand a chance of making partner regardless of sex.
Woman make up about half the starting class, but most don’t stay the required decade, and those that do, don’t pull the hours and demands.
You say that accommodations should be made for working wives and mothers? Please. That kind of “change” won’t happen until men start having babies.
As for racial minorities (blacks and Hispanics), I barely saw them even at the associate levels. I barely saw them even in law school - but that was in the 1990s, so maybe that is changing. I just don’t know.
27
Do you work at Paul Weiss?
1
Honestly, when was the last time you heard anyone say, “it’s my own fault I didn’t get that promotion”. Tell someone they are a victim, that it’s not their fault, and they will readily agree. I’m sure every white guy who didn’t make partner has stories they’re dying to tell you about management that played favorites, didn’t give them proper credit, etc.
17
Not so terribly long ago privileged European males were trying to limb each other the way they now trim their shrubs: with steel. A mere 600 years ago broadswords and maces clanged against chain mail and plate armor. It is hard to eliminate those impulses. A few centuries of playing ever nicer cannot rinse us clean, especially in those areas of civilization that are decidedly less civilized. Corporate litigation comes to mind. So does the NBA. The teams that win the NBA finals hardly reflect the racial breakdown of our population for one good reason: They want to win. Exact same logic applies to elite law firms.
4
“We have a very good track record in terms of diversity,” Brad Karp, the firm’s chairman, said in an interview.
He shouldn't have said that. Diversity is not something he should be promoting. He should be promoting the best workers.
15
@Mark, That's all you got from the article? Let me break it down for you: minorities and women are being systemically sidelined at big law, which results in vast under-representation at the partner level. You're welcome.
1
There’s another big business that also doesn’t “look like America”—the National Basketball Association. As a group, the starting players in every NBA business unit, or team, lack diversity and are much taller than the average American. The business units’ owners claim that this makes for a better win-loss record, which allegedly translates into a higher return on investment; but I’m not buying it. We need a new US Department of Diversity to force businesses in this country to hire and promote according to every conceivable type of quota. Otherwise, we’ll continue to be stuck with shady enterprises that mock our ideals while basing their employment decisions on merit alone.
23
And mostly all male. That part needed to be included in the headline.
My daughter works for the engineering department at her college. It’s all quota there she says. She says she got her job for sure because she is a girl. And that there are many students way more deserving. To make it worse she says she is smarter then most of the students selected. And the ethnicity, gender, and sexual identity is so equal it looks staged and embarrassing to be part of.
11
@Jim It's "smarter THAN," not "smarter then."
4
This article, like many New York Times articles, is based on a very narrow concept of "diversity," namely one that assumes that ALL organizations ought to be the SAME in their demographics. A broader definition of "diversity" which would be more compatible with individual freedom of voluntary association (created by mutual consent to the exchange or transfer of inducements) would recognize and respect diversity BETWEEN different organizations. I have explained this in one of my columns: What Should A Truly Diverse Society Look Like? https://www.newsmax.com/paulfdelespinasse/diversity-affirmative-action-robert-nozick/2017/08/08/id/806503/
9
Someone should also take a look at HR departments at BigLaw and how these firms treat their underlings. I worked at a BigLaw firm in the IT department for many, many years. The little, competing fiefdoms, the way HR became an arm of partner law enforcement instead of a voice for the employees, was sickening. The bullying, the sexism, the out and out brutality of some of these partners (men, women, people of color - it didn't matter, power is power), was probably illegal. And how the secretaries and paralegals would circle around an abusive partner and protect him or her, was truly disheartening. It kept the partner above the fray and enabled them to continue their abuse for decades. Once a person made partner, they would often just turn into a monster - really. The firm would give certain secretaries who worked for particularly "difficult" partners, something called "combat pay," which was just an extra $10.00 or so in her paycheck to put up with the abuse. That's like FoxConn putting a safety net under the staircase which employees were using to jump from and commit suicide.
125
@Joanna Stelling - How exactly do you expect ruthless hotshot lawyers to behave? Clients hire them to demolish the opposing side in any way necessary.
Perhaps they should be kept in cages until turned loose in court?
11
@Joanna Stelling "The little, competing fiefdoms, the way HR became an arm of partner law enforcement instead of a voice for the employees, was sickening."
thats every HR department in every company. theyre there to protect the employer, not you.
27
@Jonathan Like human beings. Your idea of what lawyers do seems based on television drama. I spend 10 years at a big law firm, and the large majority of work involves drafting agreements, coming to agreements, mediating agreements, etc..
14
As a former partner in a law firm of Paul, Weiss' caliber, I am dismayed by this article but more dismayed by many of the comments here.
But first I salute Paul, Weiss, which has long and deservedly been famous in the big-law world for its efforts toward diversity and its excellent pro bono programs. In that world, they are the best.
Yet it's clear that the battles I fought in the 1970s and 1980s are a long way from over. Performing work anonymously, with credit given to/taken by white men; learning about client meetings only after they were over; watching as select lawyers and clients went off to all-male experiences designed to bond them closely together... There's much more, all ugly.
Which is why I am so angry about the comments here which suggest that advancement in a big law firm is purely meritocratic and that the lack of diversity somehow represents lack of ability or commitment on the part of those excluded.
Merit is involved, sure, but there's a whole lot more than merit. Advancement requires opportunity, which in turn requires senior (mostly) white (mostly) men to choose you to work with them. Advancement requires recognition, which in turn requires them to acknowledge your contributions. Advancement requires clients, which in turn requires them to be aware of your existence, which in turn requires that someone bring you to meetings. Etc. Anyone from outside the white male mainstream must be both darn lucky and impervious to repeated insult to succeed.
538
@Katherine - Hear, hear. I too worked in a large law firm. And you are dead on.
58
Thank you for your insightful and articulate testimonial, Katherine.
31
I too worked in two major league law firms. We also spent money on client bonding experiences: elk hunting in ID, swordfishing in the Atlantic. In every instance partners who did little or no work for the client were invited. I, who did more work for the client, was never invited. Was I crushed? I had no desire to participate, but it was an ugly reminder that I was not a member of the boys’ club and that decisions were made by the boys club.
82
As the article mentions, it is not just hiring or promoting women and minorities, it is the opportunities and expectations. I graduated 6th in my law school class, and had developed an expertise that my first firm wanted. Yet, as a young associate, I noticed that I was expected to know things about the firm’s process which I could not have possibly known.
No one explained how to use the departments who served process or translated confidential documents. No one explained that, in this firm, memos had to follow a particular format not taught in law school. I was expected to know how to compile an appeal packet - again, not something taught in most law schools. When I asked for help, I was told to “look at the file” - which meant that every task took much longer than the associates who had senior lawyers taking them to lunch, assigning them to supportive teams and generally taking care of them.
In my second firm, I was hired for a specific department. Unfortunately, that department dissolved when the lead partner had a fight over compensation. For the next nine years, I was shunted from department to department, developing my own business, which was “institutionalized” by the firm. Translation, they took my clients, then criticized me for not building a book of business.
I learned a lot in both jobs, which enabled me to find a much more satisfactory one. But I have no illusions about the level of the playing field at BigLaw.
184
I'm a female BigLaw refugee. Top 10% of my class. Editor-in-Chief of my law review. District and Circuit Court clerkships. I left after two years for government work so I could be home to have dinner with my kids. There will not be more women in the partnership ranks until male attorneys in BigLaw want to go home to have dinner with their kids, too.
730
@loracle
That just isn't the deal at these firms, and it's not a fit for most people which is why only a very small number of associates ever make partner.
27
@loracle It's the same in Investment Banking.
21
@loracle
I agree totally. And this is also true in Finance, Tech, and various other "prestige" industries. Until we stop characterizing "work/life balance" as a women's issue, we will never get anywhere with the ability for a larger number of women to advance to the higher echelons. I have hope that the upcoming generations of men will want to spend more time with their loved ones, and this madness of destroying family and community life for the sake of the bottom line will stop somewhere.
44
If all your employees are white males from similar backgrounds, you'll have a bunch of people who think and problemsolve the same way. That's bad for clients and bad for business. Diversity means people with many different skill sets, connections, experiences, and approaches. I want lawyers who can attack my problem from all sides, not just one side. THAT is the team who'll win time after time.
200
@e w
The clients the Weiss law firm deals with require white men skill sets, connections, experiences and approaches.
17
@BSB
And when an innovative or effective strategy is uttered or modeled by a non-white person, it will be quickly adopted and claimed by someone with power who will receive backing, credit and promotion.
20
@e w *sigh* I wish more people could think like you.
9
An uncle of mine called me once, at about 3 a.m., drunk, and told me he would pay my way through law school. When I laughingly told Dad about his brother's offer, Dad said if Ned said it, he'd probably do it.
I am so, so, so glad I turned him down.
7
When did being the best of the worst in your profession mean anything humble humane and empathetic?
Being born black African American in a nation where one- drop aka 1/32nd of black blood was the difference between being an enslaved piece of property and separate and unequal by nature and nurture. Being black is an identity that is a physically determinable fact.
There is no chance nor choice involved. There is no " playing the race card" nor " playing identity politics" option for black folks. There is no closet nor synagogue nor church nor mosque nor European nation nor law firm to hide.
God bless Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall and their team of black lawyers. Being in one of these firms is not the key route to black liberation. Malcolm Little of Omaha Nebraska wanted to be a lawyer.
4
The comments in this article indicate how far we still are from a free and open society.
The biased and implicitly racist comments are truly depressing.
14
Women and "people of color" are, in this context, radically different categories. Paul Weiss is a first tier firm. The lawyers there are tops. "People of color" a/k/a blacks and hispanics (not "Asians," who are "of color") score poorly on all test parameters used by the top law schools, which are the source of lawyers for Paul Weiss. So the notion that associates proposed for partnership should have some proportional relationship to skin color is both racist and irrational.
As for women, there are no such discrepancies on testing, aptitude, law school performance, etc. But the skills and personal characteristics for partners are not solely based on that. Aptitude, law school performance are gate entry criteria, but within that group, other skills matter a lot.
This "diversity" fetish is a rebranding of quotas. When all starting quarterbacks in the NDFL are Jewish or Chinese, we can perhaps revisit this racist notion, but for now, it is just that.
12
I just wonder. You name pretty much everyone you discuss in this article, but early on, you observe that "a Paul, Weiss associate argued US. v Windsor." Her name is Roberta Kaplan. All you needed to do was name her too - you didn't have to say she was a lesbian or anything like that. What am I supposed to think about an omission like that?
12
Investigate their hiring practices, who is their pool of candidatand how they make decisions about selection. The last thing you want is token diversity, but you would want to find out if there is a selection bias.
3
The point isn’t the promotion to partner. It is the hundreds of meetings, business breakfasts, business lunches, dinners, dinners at the club, golf games, etc that most women and most non-whites are simply never invited to. If you don’t meet people, you can’t develop the client base that will result in your promotion.
29
Why don’t those who have a problem with the 2019 partner class just admit it: they want quotas. Quotas in college admissions. Quotas in law school admission. Quotas in law firm hiring. Quotas in law firm promotions. Merit is so last century.
27
@JB
I have seen many extremely competent and supremely qualified people of color passed over in favor of less qualified white males with social bonds with management. In my own situation it took the greatest patience I had to advance at half the pace of lesser qualified white superiors. When your supervisor is constantly asking you the why and how, you know what time it is. You’re completely correct that being qualified is so last century., especially if you’re a minority.
20
@JB having a white skin, a good golf handicap and going to the same school as one of the partner’s is not merit - it is the old boy network at it’s finest. Yes, it is human to want to be around people who are familiar and who make us comfortable but don’t confuse that with merit.
13
Other comments have said this, but I will add my two cents.
Any law firm will promote and hire the best and brightest it can afford. Those hired are expected to bring in clients and money to the firm. If those hired are predominately white and male, so be it.
If I need a lawyer, I want the best I can afford. Color and sex do not enter the equation. Period.
21
The irony here is that Ted Wells is someone who visibly and audibly cares about these issues. He has been a magnet for minority talent and he does have a good track record in recognizing the talent of women. That said, he is one man in a system that measures the worth of a potential partner by their perceived potential to bring in revenue -- a chicken-and-egg measure that naturally favors white men as we all know who the most lucrative clients are likely to be.
3
I’m so sorry to hear about people who earn six figures plus!!They probably have a hard time making ends meet.Those of us relegated to earning a living with our bodies,would like to remind you of what real diversity is.I work with approximately 45% Latino,10% African American,The rest white and 30% woman across the board,not to mention LGBTQ.All Of us work hard to provide for our families.Promotions are based on competence.There are many women and people of color in high profile positions.All of us work hard to put out a quality product.It is so sad to see the best and brightest,the elites fail to accomplish what is natural for working class people.
8
Having worked at a large law firm, I believe nothing will change until clients begin demanding that diverse attorneys are given billing credit for the clients they serve. All that matters at firms is the size of your book of business (your biling credits) - and white male attorneys have a stranglehold on the billing credits, hoarding the credits (when other attorneys do the work) and passing the credits on to other white males when they - finally - retire. l worked on a client for years - first point of contact, first person they called - and the GC was shocked to learn I received none of the billing credit. Nope, two white males took all the billing credit. Nothing will change until the clients FORCE the white males to share the billing credits.
18
“But when pressed on whether she would fire a rival firm, which employs a white male partner she has long relied on, if it were not diverse enough, Ms. Fang demurred. “I trust him so much,” she said. “I can’t see walking away.”
Sadly, that last paragraph will be the only take-away for the partners at Big Law. The clients can write all the open letters they want, send out their yearly diversity surveys, host their diversity luncheons. But until they look for legal talent elsewhere -and they may need to go to small and mid-sized firms where the diverse lawyers the big firms spit out go - nothing will change.
11
I have been married to two North Carolina lawyers (not at the same time) who are fathers of my 4 children, both politicians, one president of ATLA and a legislator (Twiggs), the other a district attorney (Winston). Both are self-made, started in solo practice, then established well-respected law firms. The patriarchal nature of the law has been the bane of my existence, and I am delighted so many women are now earning law degrees and taking their places on the bench. But I have advice for female attorneys: establish your own practice and conduct it as you choose, as my husbands did. Don't wait to be invited; go for it!
13
Professional groups are strange animals. To be valued enough to be offered a partner position is not so much expertise based as it is delivery based. Delivery in this case is not court victories, it is bringing paying clients through the doors. Even a law firm of mediocre talent can be financially successful if it has a handful of to producers in the area of client acquisition. It does not matter the face on the producer, it simply matters that they can produce new clients.
If diversity for diversity sake was the only thing that mattered, why are professional and college sports not composed of teams whose racial or ethnic background reflects their portion of the population as a whole?
The same core concepts are present whether you look at a the make up of a law firm, a medical group, a sports team, a consulting company, etc. However, we seem to twist our view depending on which of these we are looking at.
Either we allow all voluntary associations to be as diverse or non diverse as they feel the need or we impose equal rules on all.
3
When the concept of diversity is applied to every group of people selected in any competitive process, and that concept has come to mean "reflecting the diversity of the overall population" or something similar, then we are all just being silly. No group of 12 people should reasonably be expected to reflect every statistical segment of the population. If we were talking about a group of 1200, maybe all of the lawyers who made partner this year in the top law firms, then maybe you could find some meaningful data. But 12 people? No. It's like when you have a single group of 1st graders in a particular school and you expect them to mirror the diversity of the overall population, and then also for their success/performance at various subjects and tasks to be perfectly balanced among the various elements of diversity.
12
Partnerships at big law firms are basically clubs. If you talk the talk and look like them, then you have a leg up when it comes to partnership. Unfortunately, women and minorities who make partner are often looked at as "tokens" by other partners, their skills and abilities are discounted and they are not treated the same as others when it comes to compensation. It is almost impossible for them to be treated as an equal in these clubs. Look at turnover in women partners, I suspect there are very few who remain partners for the rest of their careers.
8
Just read Michelle Obama's autobiography in which she describes her time at a big name, big earning law firm. Having endured a similar work environment (in a different industry) I eventually woke up and said to myself: "Do I want my high school class at my funeral?" The answer was NO. I am from the affluent suburbs like this group and likely attended high school and university with their older cousins, with each adding precisely ZERO to my life. When I left it all behind, life began...I regret I did not make the decision earlier. Enjoy "Dudes".
7
Perhaps the firm based the promotions on the novel concept of merit, proving itself to be one of the few entities that truly doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. If so, that would be refreshing.
16
@Anonymous
Yup, because if there's anything we know in this day and age, it's that merit is the sole or primary determining factor in achieving success throughout American society and industry, including Big Law. Those 12 selected for partner were surely simply the most intelligent, hardworking, and competent at Paul, Weiss that cycle––nothing more.
Everyone else should be inspired by their example and consequently pull themselves up by their bootstraps harder next time.
. . .
4
The concept of merit... Truly novel in a country that has had a non white male leader only once in its 200 year HIStory.
3
The bootstraps for most of these new partners are generations in their past. Not knocking their competence or credentials but their place at the table was set for most of them.
4
Lets talk about "structural imablances".These partners will each make between ~$2M each year.
This princely sum will not be earned because they are tearing down the walls of vulture capitalism. It will come because Paul, Weiss is in the corner of one plutocrat vs. another large corporation.
No underprivileged person in the Bronx will be better off if this class had 3 more black partners. No new opportunities will be created for young women if the new partners were 50% women.
The twitter activists are adept at having it both ways. The problem is either the system or it is that the system is not inclusive enough.
I guarantee the next partner class will be more diverse, but the vast structural change you agitate for will be no closer.
18
Paul, Weiss is doing just fine. The article attempts to degrade them but it failed miserably. This is a business that must be successful for all of its clients. In order to make partner you have to have the "right stuff." This year none of the "minority" associates had it. They even had to go outside the firm to fill their quota.
This article is comparing a top notch law firm to the college/law school admission process. It just doesn't work. This is big business and they must have the best.
8
@Donald - I've been at a large firm. It's not the "best" lawyers that make it to partner now. It's the best salespeople. If you want the "best" lawyers, find the "of counsel" or "counsel" lawyers. They're the lawyers who have great technical expertise, but don't have rich in-laws to give them business and boost them to partner.
35
One question that I am always curious about and rarely get an answer to is how many of the people who make partner have a stay at home spouse?
24
@A. Field - In my experience at a firm, every single one of them. Even the (incredibly few) women partners had stay at home spouses.
13
If competitive positions for schools and business need to “to reflect the diversity of the [legal] community," then it's in everyone's interests to ensure that the community is as homogenous as possible. If there are ten competitive slots, but your ethnic/racial group's proportion of the population is only 50%, then you're down to competing for five slots?
Americans have been continuously told that we need immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do. This is a complete contradiction of this long-standing argument. If this is the way it's going to be then don't be surprised by anti-immigrant sentiment.
4
The results reflect the merit of the individuals. It is unfortunate that those who didn't make it aren't qualified, but it is not due to discrimination, it is due to their lack of ability.
9
@No - You clearly have not worked at a firm. It has nothing to do with merit. These individuals are qualified. They just haven't been given the same opportunities. I worked for years on a client (I am female) and found out that a white male that barely worked on the client had been given billing credit before me. It is an old boys club. Has nothing to do with merit.
22
@No, sigh. Read the article again and read the comments (twice). You're missing salient points. It's more than merit.
5
@No
"The results reflect the merit of the individuals."
Citation needed.
You are commenting on an article that refutes, in detail, this proposition. Simply repeating your previously held belief is not convincing.
3
I am a former partner at Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie I left because the attitude was so Bourgeois.
12
PW and other elite firms are equity partnerships and , thus , new partners have to add a book of work that predicts that net revenue will increase. The decisions are not social or political but simple firm economics.
What is not mentioned is that there are many positions ( Special Counsel, Of Counsel ) that are offered to lawyers of quality that the firm wishes to retain and pay well. This is true across the industry.
What is true is that such firms would not care if you came from Mars,...By the way, many do not want to give their life to the firm and leave on that basis alone...but that is not a reason likely to see the light of day in the Times.
9
If this were a consistent trend I would care more about it. Minimal diversity in a class of 12 could just be a statistical exception to the rule. Much ado about nothing.
I am generally very liberal and generally believe in efforts to achieve diversity, but during my professional career I have found that it often gets to the point of being ridiculous. And the people who suffer the most from this are the minorities who are actually qualified to be there, as others wonder whether they are there because they deserve to be or simply because of their minority status.
9
Aw, c’mon.
They’re so diverse!! Some of the white guys have glasses. Some of the white guys have facial hair. Some have crew cuts. Some are bald!
Kidding aside— to all the people saying, I want the best, I don’t care what they look like... studies have shown that diverse work groups out perform non-diverse ones. So, getting a truly diverse team matters in performance.
12
I'm a retired big firm partner and so, for once, I know something about the subject at hand. Big law firms are in a constant death struggle with one another, and with other would-be lawyer types such as accountants and consultants. Their clients are extremely demanding and even one mistake can ruin a relationship that took ten years to build. If your firm falls short in any regard, other firms will make sure that your clients know it.
In this environment, law firms cannot afford to hire, and then promote, anyone who is not at the very top of the pile. Race and gender are almost irrelevant, except that, in order to promote diversity they often hire less qualified applicants. These come and go with depressing regularity, in spite of special attention and coaching. Now and then a diversity hire works out, and, let me tell you, that's cause for huge celebration. If somehow a firm can get a highly qualified applicant who happens also to be "diverse", that is viewed a manna from heaven. They are extremely rare, and obviously highly sought after.
So when you see all those white faces, you should know that these people have proved themselves to be the best lawyers out there over many grueling years. To say that they are there because they are white is insulting and stupid.
I'm sure that Paul Weiss, like any other big law firm, would love to have more black partners. But they simply cannot compromise on quality.
22
@Ken - I've seen the opposite in a big firm. The well-connected white males - who are just OK lawyers - can schmooze with the big partners and make it. The women and other diverse attorneys aren't even invited to the table. And, in my experience, the women and diverse attorneys are often way, way better lawyers.
21
@Ken
Sigh. Did you even read the article?
You act as if nothing external shapes a lawyer's development, and that how good that lawyer will become is preordained the minute he or she steps into the firm. You are ignoring the fact that race and gender can influence how a lawyer is developed within a firm.
How can someone who is an attorney be so illogical?
6
@Ken "So when you see all those white faces, you should know that these people have proved themselves to be the best lawyers out there over many grueling years." Actually, I think the most you can know at this point is that they were the best of what was left after all those grueling years. I'm 100% confident they were not the best at the beginning, as half of their associate class was assuredly female.
2
Once again, you buried the lead:
""Paul, Weiss, with its 144 partners and about 1,000 lawyers, is, in fact, more diverse at the partner level than most of its peers. It has more African-American partners with an ownership stake, six, than a large majority of the country’s 200 biggest firms, and far more than elite competitors like Cravath, Debevoise & Plimpton and Davis Polk."
Abuses of social media are expected. E tu, NYT?
7
@Factumpactum First, it is lede...bury the lede. In journalism, the lede refers to the intro section of a story built to entice the reader.) Second, this is the more telling and relevant stat: "Data from the firm and ALM Intelligence indicate that white males have accounted for only about 40 percent of incoming associates, but nearly 70 percent of new partners over the past decade."
92
@Pippa
Pippa - the people making partner over the last decade started with the firm between 10 - 20 years ago. The people who came in as associates over the last decade will be eligible for partner from now until 2029 (if they stay). So you can't compare the two percentages and draw any conclusions - yet.
By the way, anyone who has worked in a law firm recently knows that the following 2 things are incontrovertible. First, there is enormous pressure on firms to hire non-male, non-white attorneys at all levels. The firms spend lots of resources on this effort and routinely discriminate against white men in the process. Second, any white man who makes it through this process to be named a partner today must be generating lots and lots of money for the firm.
5
@Citizen Having worked in a law firm for my entire career, neither of those are "incontrovertible."
2
"Hire X or else..." They used to call this sort of thing blackmail.
7
Business is a meritocracy. Promoting people solely on the basis of ethnicity or gender is a rush to the bottom. If it were my business I wouldn't care if all the partners were black, Asian, women, men, transgender or purple with pink polka dots, as long as they were the best lawyers.
3
If you knew the soul- killing meat grinder new associates walk into when they start working at these firms, you would probably pity them, no matter their race or sex. As a newbie, you are there to fortify the greed of your supervisors and their clients. I have known many people who started at these firms over the years, and none of them are still in it. It's easy to focus on the millions a partner might earn, but believe me, those dollars come at a very very high cost.
16
Life in such a firm is survival of the fittest in this particular skill set. Apart from the technical skills, it takes a lot of ambition, hard work, a very tough stance and an extremely competitive attitude. Have those who ask for more diversity considered that those not making partner simply do not posses enough of these properties?
6
@Tommy S *** Agree only the best and brightest reguardless of Gender or Race but that is not the Climate we live in. Social Justice is now the Law of the Land and being White is Racist. As long as you bow to the Leftist they will empty your soul and your pockets.
1
These top law firms are very competitive. Their number one goal is to get and retain wealthy clients and make sacks of money, and everything else goes by the wayside. If you are a rainmaker who can get these clients and please them with your services, you are golden. If not, the door's over there.
If a law firm gave a higher priority to any other consideration, then somebody else would take their clients away, and that would be the end. Everybody in the business knows this.
25
@Jonathan
This is exactly correct. Large firms are strict meritocracies and they don't care who you are; they only care what you can do for them.
3
Isn't making partner at a big law firm or any professional services firm for that matter mostly about being a rainmaker, i.e. bringing in clients? You have to be good at your profession be it law, consulting or engineering, but after about five to ten years it usually comes down to who has or can bring in the most clients. There are exceptions of course. Some professionals are highly skilled and can bill clients at a generous multiplier to base salary. A partner at a big firm may be more responsible for keeping younger associates billable than his/her billability. I'm up for being corrected here by a lawyer in a reply.
It seems to always come down to sales no matter what the product or service is. The sales thing should be discussed when discussing diversity. If a law firm is international, then the clients may be diverse, but not necessarily all that interested in how diverse to American head office is.
11
@Michael Berndtson
Exactly right. You make partner at these firms because you can bring in profitable business and/or can service existing clients better than other attorneys. And of course you must be willing and able to work insane hours and always, always, put the firm before everything else in your life.
3
PW was among the first to send attorneys out (pro bono) to airports to intervene on behalf of Muslim travelers who being turned away because of Trump’s Muslim ban. They, like other firms, were at the border with interpreters advocating for separated children and parents. Many firms engage in important pro bono and civics minded work.
There are very few who make partner. It’s a small numbers game. And for young men and women it means trading in your personal life and that’s why so many leave. Perhaps, in some years, those who remain are not always a diverse group.
Congratulations to those who made partner.
33
No, not in "some years." In every year, there is an extreme lack of diversity. And this has been the case for decades.
5
This article sees a lack of diversity and finds an apparent solution: better mentoring. This analysis misses the mark: people become equity partners not because they are great lawyers; they make it because they are great rain makers. The solution is for diverse candidates to build client relationships. This initiative, in part, begins with these large corporate clients being diverse and reaching out.
6
Were there many--or any--more qualified, harder working, and more lucrative minority lawyers who were passed over? Highly unlikely. Just as in other businesses and often in government, promotion to the highest ranks, when real ability and a proven track record really matter, promotions go to those people. The criteria are much more selective than those used to hire, when quotas and different standards bring in a broader group of people. How many elite students from elite schools are ethnic minorities? Very, very few; it's just a fact, and these firms are about hiring and promoting the best, even if people don't like the appearance of those selected...although we Americans don't care about that, only the quality of people's work, right?
13
I suspect if there were minority candidates who made it far enough for real consideration, they would be talented enough to go even further if given the chance. If the mentors overwhelmingly select candidates to groom who remind them of themselves, the minority candidates are dead in the water. It must be stated, the field of play is not level and many minority candidates make it that far by sheer will and determination. When minority candidates make it to qualify to be at a big law firm, they are already rainmakers. Let their passion to propel forward be an asset to your organizations.
6
Or perhaps the lawyers shown represent the best and brightest the firm could hire.
You know, to the benefit of both the firm and its clients, not to satisfy some anonymous, outraged mob.
17
@EGD Seriously?! You can be sure that half of their hiring associate class (7 to 10 years ago) was female. Where did they all go? Between the moment all those shiny, new first year associates showed up for work and the moment PW announced this year's new partners, a lot of things happened to weed out the half that was female.
9
@loracle
The photo at the top of the article of a group of Paul, Weiss partners shows seven females out of 11 partners. Perhaps the firm is trying to address the over-representation of females among its partners.
1
@EGD That is "a group" (I would suggest a carefully curated group) of PW partners, not all of PW's partners. Yes, there are female partners at PW. But, they are a small percentage of the total number of partners in the firm. This is so despite the fact that the firm's associate classes have been half female for decades.
1
There are several things causing the lack of diversity in biglaw:
1. The good old boy network described in this article.
2. Corporate law departments are hiring more diverse staff, stripping law firms of highly talented diverse lawyers, to meet their own in house diversity numbers.
3. A lack of ability within biglaw ranks to look at themselves and admit the problems caused by 1 and 2 and thereby blocking the ability to come up with appropriate solutions.
13
My it's awfully pale around here. And to think Paul, Weiss is one of the better ones.
4
Let me see if I understand. The NYT decides to write a story on the lack of diversity in elite law firms and chooses as its target the law firm that is widely acknowledged as the leader in diversity for generations. This is the law firm that represented Brown in Brown v Board of Education 65 years ago and Edith Windsor in Windsor v United States 5 years ago. It is at the very top of the rankings, according to the NYT, when it comes to its percentage of black and women partners. Why write a gossipy story about THAT firm? Why not write about the law firms in NYC that have 0 black partners (like Cravath) or 1 black partner (like Debevoise and Davis Polk and Wachtell)? And the firms that have barely 10 percent women partners? And just to be clear, isn’t it likely that the same anecdotes the Times reports would have been shared if the reporters spoke to white male associates who were spurned for partnership? Let’s face it: the deck in Big Law is stacked against everyone — 95% of entering associates do not make partner.
145
Robbie Kaplan represented Edie Windsor. And she left Paul Weiss two years ago and started her own firm. So the credit doesn’t really belong to Paul Weiss anymore.
5
@Esquire I have no affiliation with Paul Weiss (but do live in the BigLaw world) and was thinking the same thing. Did the NYTimes bother to look at partner classes of peer firms for the past 2-3 years or are we just relying on Above the Law, which is really only useful for seeing what associate bonuses will be in any given year. I wonder how many firms would have been so cooperative with reporters.
10
@Esquire -- Right, and if the firm that is renown for diversity can't do it then that speaks volumes for the failure of so many other not to be able to do so either. The NYT chose this firm to review because it is known to try for diversity and failed.
4
One of the problems for minorities is the assumption that they benefit from racial preferences and therefore may not be as qualified as white lawyers. That may or may not be true in any individual case, but as long as affirmative action exists, that will be the default assumption - by blacks as well as whites.
Note that when he first began practicing medicine, Ben Carson's black patients felt they were getting second class treatment by being assigned to a black doctor. Were these patients being racist?
9
Oh my word, so what else is new? Diversity? What’s that? That would mean that white men would have to fairly compete.
11
What about skills, knowledge, and abilities over race, gender, etc.? Hire based on qualifications and experience, not filling and unrelated inconsequential quota. Grow up........
16
That's the point. Out of the 12 of them, there wasn't one cultural minority who was equally talented or more women? The selection defies the demographic make up of our country. And no, I don't believe there were no minorities who were equally talented. That is an ugly myth championed by people who assume quotas are the way people of color or women could ever serve in professional roles of significance. Bring more facts.
5
This isn't new or suprising and it sure isn't just in lawfirms. As of a month ago I worked at Cushman and Wakefield the leading realestate company in America for the last ~23 yrs. I was continuously passed up for a promotion. I was given one raise in the entire 5 yrs I worked with them. And when I complained I was put on a PIP and was ultimately forced to resign. The office manager told me it was my fault and that I should be happy I was "rewarded" a raise two years before. He also told me I was a "different" type of employee and there was no policy in place for me to receive any promotion. I later found out I was the lowest paid employee within my position. I a Hispanic woman & made ~15k less than all other white male employees who had been there far less time than I had. I also found out that they had given a promotion to my exact white male counterpart who only had ~1.5 yrs working with them. I know of 3 other minority women who were put in the same exact situation. After hiring a lawfirm to assist me they refused to respond & called a flat out liar. What suprised me the most is that I went to the same universitiesas many of these white people. I had the same upbringing. But because im Hispanic they shut me out of promotions and anything else you can think of. Unless more minorities are put in positions of power this will never stop. & just because you have one top black lawyer & have a higher diversity rate than other law firms doesnt mean you don't have a race problem.
18
@Gala find a better law firm to work with and file an EEOC complaint. do you have physical evidence? that could be why one of the law firms you contacted denied to take on your case (although calling you a liar is unprofessional, report them to the bar) - its one thing to say X happened, its another thing to have proof that it happened. and keep in touch with the other 3 women, perhaps together as a team you can file a class action against the company for discrimination.
i have experience in suing and winning against employers who discriminated against me. the most important thing is collecting detailed evidence while its happening, which is hard because of the emotional toll that such discrimination takes - you just want to get out of the situation, not dig in deeper.
i won my case by secretly recording my meetings with HR on my iphone. i wouldnt of had a case without it.
2
It's ironic. In the '70s the Wall Street firms in every major city wouldn't hire minorities, including Jews.
This article about Paul, Weiss aptly connotes the difficulty for less bias and change.
The more things seem to change, the "old boy" connections still prevail. Unfortunately. change is slow....
6
@Quandry, sorry, that is simply wrong. I was a partner in one of the biggest law firms for decades. We tried desparatey to hire the best without differentiating between gender, ethnicity, etc. But it turns out that those ultimately willing to get such a tough and extremely competitive job were mostly white man, and those who later turned out to be "partnership material" where even more so male and white. Not every job is right for everyone, so certain people make other choices. So be it, but stop blaming the employers for the unwillingness of the candidates to make certain investments in their carreers.
2
@Tommy S. The author must have relied on his associates to proof read his work.
The article failed to mention how many people were up for partnership and their race and gender. Law firms work people like crazy and treat them as a fungible good that can be exchanged for an equally competent (quality) lawyer.
One consideration that is real, is who will be capable of bringing in business/clients. Because the law firm needs a steady flow of clients to keep operating. It really is not about the associates grandfather played golf with the partners. These are cut-throat businesses.
11
I am certain that the clients of elite law firms like Paul, Weiss do not hire these firms because of their percentage of partners who are women or minorities. Rather, the clients are seeking what they expect will be the best possible representation and outcomes regardless of the attorney's race, color, creed, religion, gender, etc.
14
@Ro Ma As an in-house lawyer, I can tell you that there are many firms that can do any job and we poke hard on diversity when hiring (based on qualitive and quantitative measures). Sadly, most are not very diverse, but some are better than others.
5
That's not true. Some clients do demand that law firm teams be diverse. They understand that to succeed at a law firm women and minorities need meaningful experience on cases.
4
The articles says that the law firm is already one of the most diverse large firms in the industry. How much of this controversy is just driven by our human need to generate narratives from random events? Would we have a controversy if a photo of the last 5 classes was shown instead of the most recent one?
14
A few years back I joined a famous management consulting firm out of a public ivy grad program . The firm likes to tout how diverse they were. However once you stayed there long enough you started noticing how all the diversity was at the analyst and associate level with none reaching management. White men with far lesser accomplishment and credentials made managers while the diversity quietly left or were managed out if they voiced their concerns. Corporations have always learned to say the right things. Next time a company touts their diversity numbers , ask to see how those numbers translate at the management and partner level.
21
One factor that contributes to the lack of diversity is that the funnel of leading law universities may not have that diversity. When I ran the technology at a very white shoe law firm, the incoming associates were "limited" to only the so called top law schools and then only to the very top performers in those schools. Of course if you had a partner that knew your family that certainly would help.
Partners in these law firms as commented as risk adverse and they are very insulated from the "real" world. While very smart they often lack the social skills to navigate in a diverse world. They to my opinion had no ability to understand other lives. Hence the 80 hour work weeks, the working non-stop over Thanksgiving or Christmas. Many associates just do not believe that the end goal is worth it.
Just my two cents... as an observer in such a law firm.
3
This could be an explanation for a lack of minorities, but it certainly doesn’t work for the lack of women partners. Law students have been close to 50% female for many, many years.
5
There is no doubt that Biglaw has a diversity issue. However, it’s frustrating that Disability is largely missing from this much needed discussion.
Race, gender, and sexual orientation are not the only diversity issues. Forgetting other marginalized groups is a disservice to the movement.
15
Agreed. The disability stats at firms are awful.
2
One of my high school classmates announced that he had been able to get scholarships and attend a good college because of help from our high school teachers. I graduated first in our class but received no special help. I didn’t even get the honor of the valedictorian speech. They gave that to a boy whose grades were just OK. Decades later it is no better. I credit my success to me. Yes there were people along the way who were helpful, but mostly I succeeded because I worked harder than my male counterparts. And I figured out that I had to “color outside the lines” if I was going to be a master of my own fate.
15
Why is there no discussion of how awful and immoral these large law firms are in general? Their client lists are who's who of the absolute worst actors in the world. They use their pro bono work as window dressing for their nefarious raison d'etre: sure they'll take on some civil rights cases--but nothing that would ever challenge the status quo in any meaningful way. They are there to keep the existing power structure firmly entrenched.
15
@Elizabeth Because this article is about diversity in the profession, not law firm clients.
5
@B101 The point of diversity initiatives is to change the existing power structure, no? My point is that that aim is absolutely antithetical to these firms' existence.
When did legal work become an "industry" like tech or steel? No surprise in that case that the white man remains the choice meat of the law industry. Happy to be a retired member of the vanished legal profession.
2
To you 12 newly elected partners:
Welcome to Paul, Weiss, to 100 hour work weeks sandwiched between 3 hour daily commutes...for the next 25 years, or your fatal stress-induced coronary, which ever comes first.
24
In law school (I graduate in 1991), I interviewed with four female partners of a "white shoe" law firm headquartered in New York City. I later found out they were the only female partners in the huge firm. I wondered when these women had time to do their legal work when they were traveling all over the country as the "face" of diversity. I also had a screening interview with a smaller firm where the only thing the partner wanted to know was whether I golfed and liked to watch football.
21
@Katie - Every woman at a firm is used to being used as the "token" female. I once spoke on a panel with three white male partners, when I was a fifth year associate. They needed a female. And then they talked right over me.
5
Clients pay the law firms. Law firms will adjust to give the clients what they want. The clients’ first priority question is “Can you win for me?” The diversity question is a much lower priority. In this reality, law firms must compete for talent who can build relationships with clients by winning.
159
Paul Weiss is an infamous sweatshop. Big Law overall has a well deserved reputation as a toxic work environment. It grinds through people very quickly. So very few associates last long enough to make it to partnership.
Minority and female associates in Big Law figure out quickly they have almost no chance of partnership, so they leave for smaller firms or jobs in government, nonprofits, academia, or business. It’s been like this forever. Pointing to a few token minority partners doesn’t change that.
And Big Law firms are overrated. They charge a ton of money and throw a ton of resources at an issue. But their operating model is still built on a constant churn of new graduates, so you have a bunch of new lawyers learning how to practice law and charging clients for it.
483
@H Guess what being a sweatshop does? It naturally shunts women to the side, because still, today, women take on the lion's share of domestic labor and child rearing. Men are free to work all hours and golf all weekend because their wives are taking care of things at home. Women are still expected to do most of the cooking, cleaning, decorating, hosting dinner parties, giving birth to and raising the kids, and then later in life take care of aging parents and in-laws. My profession is the same way, and amazingly, even when women give up marriage and kids to devote their lives to their careers (which no man has to do) they're still pushed aside once they reach their 40's, while the guys, remarkably, go on climbing the corporate ladder.
20
@H
This " infamous sweatshop" is no plantation nor prison work gang.
Being an enslaved African in America was the ultimate inhumane evil infamy.
No one ever worked harder and longer for less return than they did followed by their separate and unequal black heirs.
See " 13th:
Read " The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and The Making of American Capitalism" Edward Baptist; " Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II " Douglas Blackmon; whitneyplantation.com
1
@H
Big Law maybe be fine for some that support mixed race diversity like the lawyers and associates under the auspices of Atty. Robert Mueller will succeed. Under the guidance of Paul Weiss Partners very few associates will not last long enough to make partnership due to chronic sleep deprivation.
3
I am a lawyer with over 30 years in the practice, and spent the first several years of my career in one of the big name “White Shoe” firms.
Lawyers are risk averse. So when they decide who to make their partners, they tend to look for people who look and think like them, because they assume these people will work hard, practice law, financially produce for the firm the same way they do. Sure, there may be some deeply buried, unconscious racism there, but mostly it is social and economic. They view themselves as successful and want to name partners who they think give the firm—and themselves—the greatest chance of future success.
That being said, every one of these law firms only exists because they have large clients who pay them a lot to do their legal work. When these clients decide they are tired of only seeing white guys as their lawyers, these firms will change. But they really haven’t done so yet.
Right now, large corporations give a lot of lip service to diversity and throw some scraps to more diverse firms to help their stats. But when the game is on the line and they need a lawyer for a major matter like a game-changing M&A deal, an activist trying to take over their company, material litigation or crucial compliance matter where tens or hundreds of millions are at stake, they are not going to try out a new firm just because it has more minority partners. That’s risk aversion, too.
235
@Jack Sonville
Having worked at these firms I agree. They are notoriously risk averse. Even in how they embrace technology. I've worked at investment banks and they are almost the complete opposite. Interestingly enough, they also seem to be slightly more diverse than the top tier law firms. Before working at these places I'd expect them to be the same but I met many more high level women and people of color bankers than I did high end law firms. I still find that strange.
20
@Jack Sonville a lady prior to you said that she did most of the work and her white male associate did not contribute much. Yet when time came to make the presentation he was the one chosen to be with the client and she was excluded. So this idea of hard work and looking like them is not necessarily true. Someone else does the majority of the work and a white male steps in and benefits. Just being a white male is no guarantee of working hard and doing a great job. Just look at the man in the White House. It's fair to say he got elected over an intelligent woman with a track record in public service and volunteerism, He got neither. Matter of fact he's vulgar and misogynistic yet still won. Look at the latest fiasco where 35 days went by wasted where airplanes could not land at La Guardia airport, and many federal workers were working without pay while others were idle at home without pay. Yet many assumed he looks like them and should be competent because he was able to sell himself despite about six bankruptcies, and bogus deferments from the military draft. It's really called white male privilege nothing to do with being a hard worker.
30
@Wayne "Someone else does the majority of the work and a white male steps in and benefits." That is 100% my experience in firms.
20
My firm promoted 10 attorneys this year. Only two were women. It’s not for lack of talent.
The problem truly is that there is no real standard benchmarks for what you need to achieve to make partner. It’s all relationship driven. And there aren’t enough women and minorities in the partnership to advocate for the female / diverse associates when their time comes.
If things are going to change, it will start with clients. If you hire outside counsel and you like a female or diverse senior associate - you can help that attorney. Tell the partner you like working with that attorney and would like to see them promoted; call them directly with new matters so they get the credit. Clients must provide the motivation that BigLaw lacks.
374
@Lawyer
not sure what type of firm, or size of firm, you work for, but every major law firm has very clear rules on how to make partner.....and the first is accept that you will have no life outside the office if you are to make your billable hours. If you are talented but unwilling to put in the work, you will not make partner.
25
@mike
"[E]very major law firm has very clear rules on how to make partner...and the first is accept that you will have no life outside the office if you are to make your billable hours."
Absolutely correct.
Spouse had summer job at Paul, Weiss and returned home at 3AM in car service; ditto after passing the bar and getting hired by Fried, Frank.
Nice limos, lousy hours.
Despite going on for LLM, and moving to another white-shoe firm for a good number of years, ultimately not the sort of life spouse wanted to lead.
Whenever that's the case, whenever there's a whiff of balking, there's no making partner. But as long as you can hack it, the salary's good; and if you're not stupid and wasteful, you can amass (after having paid off the law school bills) a small nest egg.
5
@Lawyer
"BigLaw" is a strict meritocracy. You make partner because you can bring in profitable business or can serve existing clients better than the next person. Clients don't care about diversity; they want things done when they need them done and they want whomever can deliver results.
6
I'll take quality over "diversity" in any service profession.
I don't care about sex preference (all three), religion, color, dress, or what people eat for lunch, as long as they are competent, insightful problem solvers who help.
Am I being unreasonable?
391
I think you missed the point. These are all quality lawyers, but development and promotion decisions are instead being made based on whose grandfather plays golf with whose.
396
The choice here isn’t quality vs. diversity. The choice is quality (picking from any staff) and being white and male. The issue is not being promoted or given preferential treatment based upon being white and male.
49
Highly unlikely that these partners are of the highest quality ....
63
“Do all the work and be left behind” is just another way of saying “barefoot and in the kitchen.” When we rewire our brains and inclinations from power and control to fair and care, then we might begin to see a world in which all are treated with respect.
5
Ok let's go over it again, what history has taught us.
1-If there is obvious institutionalized discrimination written in law, change the law. This has pretty. much been done in this country.
2-In a traditional male professional, if you see non white male share of the profession dramatically rise, it's usually PC stuff like quotas, 50% of the profession must be non white male etc. etc.
3-If you see percentages of non white male in a profession dramatically shrink, especially after they have rising, it is usually a sign of de facto discrimination coming back against the non white male.
What not to do? Social engineer, rationalize , intellectualize, finger point, scapegoat, ax grind, start quotas, etc. etc. to get what you want on either side.
6
Ted Wells is one if he most prominent and competent lawyers at Paul Weiss. It would be interesting to understand what role he has played in the partner mentoring and selection process, and to what extent it has had a positive impact in building a diverse pool of partners of color at the firm, and why or why not.
6
The problem is not confined to the US. A sociological study, called The Class Ceiling, has just been published here, evoking widespread interest and concern. It demonstrates with research data that the children of upper middle class parents have an overwhelmingly greater chance of obtaining prestigious employment and reaching the top echelon. That is the case even if working class aspirants have gone to a top University and obtained a good class of degree. Ethnic minorities are under-represented in the British upper middle class, so that this phenomenon disadvantages them as a group. A number of factors are in play. A child of the upper middle class, typically educated at an elite private school, has an ease of manner, confidence, facility in manner and speech, even verbal register, and, importantly, "connections", that a working class child will find difficult, or impossible, to attain. On top of that, those making the crucial selections tend to be from the same socially advantaged background, and strongly prefer to choose "people like them", with whom they are comfortable and in whom they have greater confidence, whatever the objective qualities of those who are overlooked. I wish I knew the solution to this perpetual state of affairs, which is grossly unfair to so many talented individuals.
14
Hire and promote the best and most talented. Who cares what they look like.
29
@Jason
I agree with you Jason. I feel sorry for the new partners. It is wrong tarnish their accomplishments. They worked hard. I say put the picture back up. If the firm has an issue they will handle it internally.
19
In my experience with the legal sector, top law firms have a very hard time retaining talent of any kind. This is not a situation where the best rise to the top.
Smart attorneys work at a big law firm for a few years to pay off their loans and then leave to do more fulfilling work, either in another kind of law or outside the sector entirely. This is particularly true for women and POC's, but I've known plenty of smart and ambitious white men who have followed this path.
The white guys who stay at these firms are the ones whose fathers were lawyers in the same mold, or who fully embrace the notion that they are not truly lawyers, more like high commission salespeople whose main job is to keep clients happy.
23
A law firm serves its clients. The clients have to demand change. They pay the bills.
8
Is there any evidence that PW withheld or delayed the advancement of black attorneys?
15
I worked for two elite law firms, one as an associate and the other as a partner, before spending over a decade on the buyside, as a corporate GC. I returned to private practice with one of my firms less than a year ago and have been pleasantly surprised at how much progress my firm made on the diversity docket during my time in-house, especially gender diversity. I only wished they had managed to transform earlier, in time to save my wife, who was exited as a junior partner for being “too opinionated.” I really cannot imagine that happening now.
11
This article is somewhat unfair to Paul, Weiss. The firm has a commitment to diversity that far exceeds other law firms in the United States. It was the first firm to sponsor an annual diversity networking reception, and has done so for twenty years. Paul, Weiss is staffed by highly-intelligent, ethical and compassionate people. The firm is being held to a higher standard by its clients only because the firm itself has established those standards. In light of the statistics cited in the article, the present class of incoming partners does appear to be an outlier.
36
Uhm no. Paul Weiss is not known for compassionate people. It has a reputation as a place with incredibly mean people. Talk to people in the legal community.
And the diversity talk is standard public relations. Every Big Law firm runs events and sponsorships. But when you look at their actual hiring and promotion, it tells a different narrative.
The fact they published that photo and no one at Paul Weiss thought there’d be a reaction - that tells you a lot about their commitment to diversity. They didn’t even notice its absence.
9
American racial politics are bizarre, but this sentence really illustrates the insanity:
“One of the new partners is a white male from Spain but identifies as Hispanic, the firm said.”
Actually, the definition of Hispanic, according to the Census Bureau, is someone from a Spanish speaking country- which Spain is. The “but” in the quoted sentence is incorrectly used.
Who else in that group of “white” partners isn’t “white?”
I’ve learned all sorts of strange things talking to Americans about race, such as Afghans, Palestinians, and Turks aren’t white (but they aren’t really considered Asian, even though they are), and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are minorities, even though they both have European genes.
Of course, put any of them in a picture of new partners at a law firm and everyone will say, “Hey, they are all white!” Weird.
The really interesting diversity question for me is: how many of Paul Weiss’ new partners had single parents? Who grew up in a place not resembling Greenwich or Summit? How many had parents under the 50th percentile in income?
I think we all know the answers to those questions.
94
@Objectively Subjective Hispanic is a Spanish-speaking person living in the US, especially one of Latin American descent. The especially is key here.
3
What's ironic is that Paul Weiss was founded by Jews who couldn't get hired by the old line, WASP, white shoe firms. According to the article, the older, elite firms are doing even worse in terms of diversity.
9
Stefan, while that may be your opinion of what “Hispanic” means, it is not the definition used by the government.
And all you’ve done is make Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio “especially” Hispanic. I’m not sure exactly what that accomplishes. Even Mitt Romney has a claim to be “especially” Hispanic according to your definition.
7
If you have ever worked in a high end law or consulting firm you know all too well their oppressively arrogant (white) frat boy culture. Sure, the odd (white, attractive) woman gets through the filter, but she is typically even worse because she needs to fit in with the guys.
In reading a lot of the comments I see pure ignorance from people who have no experience in these business environments. So let me put it another way: they all think alike, they all share the same prejudices, they never have any concerns other than maximizing billable hours and exploiting their employees and flaunting their wealth. But worse, their old-school blinkered approach is informed by privilege and as a result, if your need doesn’t fit into their box you will be ill served, but fully billed.
In closing, I would also like to stress that in those environments even if you are a white male that is not enough. School, clubs, fraternities, family and personal wealth are the real ‘colour line’.
These firms need to be named and shamed to achieve any progress in social justice. I must stress here that social justice will pay huge dividends for those firms that wake up.
178
@D Priest These firms operate almost on a feudal system. Each partner has his/her own loyal group of supporters, and there is always so much infighting. But just as an aside, when I finally reported my male, white boss to HR because he had physically thrown me out of my chair and punched the wall of my cubby, I believed I would have a safe haven to voice my concerns. HR was all female and diverse, the CAO was a white female. The response I got from the HR director? She told me I wasn't "alpha" enough, and while mixing herself an iced tea and checking her cellphone she said she was "sick and tired of all of this 'women's rights' stuff." All the CAO did was to tell me what a wonderful person she was and how many 'humanitarian' awards she'd won. What finally happened was that they called my boss in for a talk, told him who had 'reported' him, which of course put a bull's eye on my back, and then, in due time, I was laid off along with every other female in the department who was over 50. So what's the takeaway from this?
21
D Priest, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Given the choice between two equally good students, the firm will choose the associate whose parents were in the Maidstone Club and had their wedding reception at the University Club as opposed to kid who went to the KOA summer camp and whose parents got married at the KofC.
The color of your blood matters first... if your blood is blue, the color of your skin can be whatever you like. And women from that blue-blooded class often “volunteer” and lunch, rather than work, which is why gender diversity is so bad. I know. I see it every day.
Does anyone seriously think Sasha or Malia would have trouble becoming partner should that be their choice? Black, women, and yet their blood is just the right color.
9
Spot on that "schools, clubs and familial connections are the actual color line"!
Its a difficult nut to crack: bringing in high billing clients (consulting, banking, law) SHOULD be colorblind and the clearest way to a meritocracy.
But we all know that who you know matters more than anything. A brilliant white guy who had the misfortune of coming from a small town in Kansas and went to Georgetown law will simply not have the connections of his classmates whose schoolfriends from Sidwell are now leading potential clients.
11
If I ever make a lot of money, and find myself in a situation where I need good legal representation, I will NOT be using this law firm! And I encourage others to follow my lead, to boycott this systemically racist firm.
If it means I have to settle for legal representation that is not as well educated, well spoken, well supported, and well incentivized, compensated and driven to fight for me and win for me, then so be it!
For the fight for racial and gender justice means we must make sacrifices, yes - even personal sacrifices! And exercising affirmative action CAN be a personal act of sacrifice for what is ultimately right!
Stop this injustice! Use less qualified firms and partners, until this oblivious from gets the message, and reduces their quality accordingly!
6
It is unlikely that investors would trust you as a CEO or Chief Legal Officer if your management rule was “Choose a service provider on some criteria other than excellence and winning.” A reputation for winning and quality must be at the top of your criteria, if you are to serve as a proper fiduciary to your investors.
8
I see a lot of bias in the comments, mainly in the argument that these individuals were made partner because they are the best and brightest and work the hardest of all.
The problem is that in many companies the people rising to the top are not always the best and brightest, but often the ones that management knows and likes best.
Ask yourself this: if we really promoted everyone on merit, would we really have this many incompetent managers around?
68
@MD The Peter Principle -- people are promoted until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence.
Book by same name by Laurence J. Peter
6
@MD Clearly people are not promoted on merit which is why there is so much incompetence in companies and institutions that promote and appoint as a result of affirmative action. You only have to go to any government agency to witness that. It is no coincidence that Paul Weiss Partners is made up almost entirely of white men and the fact that it is very successful.
5
@MD This isn't about "everyone." It's about a large law firm that has recently promoted some of its associates to partners. I'm sure that this class of partners rose to the top because, as you say, management knows and likes them the best, and that's because their work habits, productivity, and intelligence makes them the "best and brightest." Good law firms such as PW didn't get where they are with incompetent managers.
1
The blatant racism expressed in the comments on this article are all the explanation one needs for why large law firms lack diversity at the top. Their clients,major American corporations, in spite of platitudes expressed in letter like that prompted by the partnership announcement, reflect the same uninformed biases as reflected in the comments below.
Wealth remains concentrated in the hands of white males because that is how this society has always been structured. It will remain so until the country’s demographic changes are more fully reflected in the leadership of corporate America.
When the clients change, as is increasingly happening, these law firms will miraculously discover the depth of their benches that they previously ignored. When clients realize that top opportunities are being given to only 40% of the firms’ incoming classes perhaps they will start challenging why 60% of the potential talent is not being put at their disposal. The standards for recruitment of the incoming class of associates are substantially the same whether the new hire is white or minority, male or female. But then 60% of the class is very consciousy given less important assignments, fewer interactions with clients and the bare minimal in mentoring commitments.
At the end of eight or nine years, the candidates eligible for partnership are overwhelmingly (70%) White and male. Their fellow minority and female associates are often long gone. This is no accident, it’s deliberate.
21
@Sherry Bellamy Consider how much "wealth" was historically concentrated in Europe and Asia vs Africa. Lots vs nothing. That's why things are the way they are.
Perhaps these numbers reflect female lawyers' choices to "have it all" - both to nurture a family and practice law, which decreases the hours traditionally billed by aspiring partners. It is quite possible that male lawyers acting similarly would end up with the same result.
Not everything need to be viewed as a gender issue.
33
Wouldn't that itself be a gender issue? Of that's the case why aren't male lawyers doing more to help at home? (by the way, as a lawyer myself, I see males and females take time off equally)
8
So what! It's a private corporation, not publicly owned and operated. It is free to do as it pleases and take whatever consequences await it in the marketplace. I neither support nor reject what I see as the moral and legal right for them to do as they please with their positions.
If this were a function of the state, then I might care, but it is not and I don't.
58
@Watchful. A lot of the commenters here probably wish that it were a function of the state, and the way things are headed in this country, eventually that will come to pass.
3
@Watchful Actually, no, they aren't free to do as they please. It's a little law called Title VII, which applies equally to private and public employers. As for the marketplace, perhaps articles like this will help exert the kind of pressure these firms need (via their corporate clients) to examine their current practices and see what they can change to produce a partnership class that better reflects the diversity we see coming out of law schools.
So?
Clearly they're successful, should we MAKE them hire less talented people so we could have some diversity?
Liberal non sense taken to the extreme.
People are free to hire who they want and who's best for the job.
If you don't like it, don't use their firm........next !
90
@There why do you assume that diverse candidates are “less talented?” Did you not read the article - it expresses that’s it’s not a difference in talent but rather in opportunity to develop talent, skills, and relationships that is causing the stark contrast.
21
@There what makes you assume that they are less talented?
4
You cannot be mad at them. They worked hard to get there. If you are a minority like I am please do not complain. Be humble, work hard and don't expect the world to be handed to you because you are less fortunate.
30
What???....don’t get mad? It’s been 400 years and there’s still lots of racism in this society and you say don’t get mad. So in other words people of color, women, etc. should continue to work hard for the next 1000 years or maybe 2000 years and “not be mad” that our society can’t change for the better due to racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it. Of course I realize that anger without perseverance to do well in this world will not help but it doesn’t mean we have to feel good about it either. Also we wouldn’t even be where we are now if folks never got tired of the status quo and then sought ways to better our circumstances.
7
What on earth makes you think that other minority law firm associates aren't humble and hard working? I have been reading about the minuscule number of minority law firm partners for over 30 years! Nothing is changing.
11
When I was young, I worked at a partnership organization (a forerunner of KPMG). I went to work there because everyone, and I mean everyone, was so smart (compared to me at least). And so well educated (compared to me with just a lowly bachelors degree). Out of 100 new hires, only one would make partner. An up or out policy. So, most of these smart, well educated people were out within 3-4 years (although most placed in good jobs at companies using the partnership services). Only the rainmakers survive! No matter how good a lawyer you are (in my case an IT consultant), you need to bring in business. That's the only criteria that matters. If you are a black woman that brought in tons of business, believe me you would be made a partner.
70
It's not that simple. Large law firms have large clients with large matters, usually corporations. Economically, it doesn't make sense for them to take small cases unless they want to give an associate training. A law school graduate a few years out of law school without family contacts isn't going to be able to bring in new clients that will be attractive. Partner development has to come from the firm and the client.
9
And to put a finer point on it, many of these large corporate clients are passed down from partner to partner. In big law, if you look at the top rainmakers, much of that rainmaking traditionally comes from clients that were passed down to that rainmaker from their retired mentors. Thus, its not not fair in many cases to look at this as the ability to generate business (or not) because many top firms have institutional clients that go to the next lucky groomed guy or gal.
2
Of the candidates up for partner at Paul Weiss this year, were there women and minorities who were passed over? If not, you can't just blame insensitivity to diversity. Maybe the lower ratios of minorities and women in law firms is due to the fact that they don't want to work 2,000 to 2,500 hours a year for a bonus and instead go the in house, private or public sector for a better quality of life.
31
@Charlie
just as information, the standard 40 hour week produces a 2080 hour work year. Lawyers Tier 1 law firms work 80 to 100 hours a week as associates and do so for years before being made eligible to be a partner.
Their work yeas is 4000+ hours, which makes your point all the more on target.
10
The 'whiteness' of the partners is just a symptom. Why would you fight symptoms when the problem lies elsewhere such as lack of access to education and opportunities for minorities.
If the best candidates happen to be white and male, so be it!
30
@Hans
every person in the U.S. who is not a felon can get Federal Student Loans with no credit check.
3
@Hans
Opportunities? In Baltimore, last time I looked, each day half the students were absent from their $15,000 per year high schools.
1
Comments here seem to support the firm.
But how would they like it, as a man, and did all the work and a woman got the credit?
18
@MIMA Leaving aside the "he said, she said" element, of course one would not like it. But men tend not to tolerate this sort of behaviour as much as women do. They confront, negotiate and if they lose the negotiation, they move on. Women tend to be far more docile and willing to accept treatment that they believe to be unjust. They tend to avoid confrontation. Men are more hierarchical than women who are more consensus driven. It is just a reality. Life is not fair, work is not fair, human nature is not fair. If you believe in equality of outcome, then how about the US sharing its wealth, yourself included, with the poorer countries of the world?
10
I’m all for sharing wealth with poorer anyone, no matter where, nationally or globally. I’m a Democrat. That’s what we believe in.
5
Women are often punished for standing up for themselves. They are called "difficult" and "hard to work with" when a man would be respected. Very few people commenting here know much about business environments, much less big law firms.
7
Does Paul Weiss law firm employee a single Native American? Is there a Native American partner? I would surmise no. Very little has changed in this country relating to employer employee relationships in the U.S.A., whites first, certain other ethnicity second, everyone else never.
4
Elite law firms like Paul Weiss will only recruit from the top 10 law schools (perhaps top 15). Mediocre students who were admitted to college through affirmative action will not have the grades to make it to a top law school. Mediocre students who are nonetheless able to squeak into a top law school through affirmative action will not have the grades to make it into a top law firm.
As for women, many a time the biological reality of motherhood collides with the law firm's need for 2,500 billable hours years after year after year before making partner. Those are nights and weekends and lost vacations. Any woman taking maternity leave or wanting to leave the office at 6:00 to be home for dinner is unlikely to make the cut. It's a brutal, perhaps unfair, mathematical reality.
Workspaces can decide to disregard this "lost time" as beneficial to society (which it is) and diversity (which it is) or not.
120
@FOIL
This is a comment I can understand. My black colleagues, with their MAs and home libraries, were sometimes mistaken for nannies or excoriated for the same educational philosophies that white teachers routinely practiced.
Nevertheless, they were hired -- sometimes actively sought out in order to promote diversity -- and, as I can attest, admired by both colleagues and students. And the smarter parents liked them a lot.
One of them is among my 3-4 favorite colleagues in an almost 40-year teaching career. Razor-sharp, she could run a corporation.
Black people have to put up with a lot.
That too many black people opt instead for loutishness and violent antics doesn't make things easier for people like my colleagues and neighbors.
We don't base our estimation on white people on the example of the trashiness of some of them.
9
@C In NY: As a black man who spent years in a couple of elite law firms in New York (both direct competitors of Paul Weiss) and who did not rely on affirmative action (I worked my tail off to get the grades and earned my place there like everyone else), the problem is more complicated than you describe. Not accusing Paul Weiss of anything (I never worked for them so I would not know), but once in the firms, it was obvious that we faced all kinds of challenges that you can only imagine - from silly micro-aggressions like being told "sorry, lawyers only" when I went to reception to ask for car vouchers to watching in amazement as one of my firms implemented a bizarre layoff program that very obviously disproportionately affected female associates. It was a frequent topic of discussion at my first firm that there was a clear pattern of the firm suddenly finding fault with African American associates that had been there for years and received great annual reviews at the point where such associates were senior enough for potential partnership to be considered. I cannot count how many times I showed up at meetings accompanied by my paralegal to assist me and people walked up to him automatically assuming he was the lawyer! This is all hard to prove definitively but we all knew it was there. That's a big reason why I left and never looked back- enough was enough and life's too short (especially when constantly pulling back-to-back all-nighters)!
452
@FOIL
Sorry -- "of," not "on."
1
Keep moving, no news here. White men control most of the USA's wealth, run its corporations by sitting on their boards and populate the seats in Congress. There are still few exceptions to this fact despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and Title VII, that guarantees equality between the races. As long as the critical mass of capital is in the hands of white men of some description, this will remain our status quo.
21
@Tournachonadar
The "news here" is to call attention to the situation and inform the public about that status quo. Many in our society believe that all can "get ahead" if they just work hard enough without ever understanding the great big thumb on the scale in favor of certain groups (here whites, men) which maintains an unbalanced system. Examples of how things actually work are needed, e.g., that mentors take mentees who remind them of themselves thus setting up a pipeline for certain groups and making it much harder for others.
14
@Anne-Marie Hislop Please visit my Federal workplace not far removed from you in Chicago and see the innumerable abuses of Affirmative Action. They include people who don't have any demonstrable legal knowledge but who pretend to preside over complex legal issues while they shepherd innumerable grievances and EEO cases forward in the hope of a big financial score. These are people who have already ruined Affirmative Action for their peers.
14
@Sipu, did it occur to you that the "free market economy" is an economic construct created and controlled by white men to ensure their dominance? Do you really believe they are superior to women and non-white men? It's obvious you have never worked in an elite law firm (or been to law school) - as I have - or you would know better. Success in those environments has very little to do with aptitude, and everything to do with fraternization and the discomfort of white men with recognizing excellence in people who do not look, act, or think like they do. As a new associate in a corporate law firm, I sat in my open office that was literally in the middle of the hallway and watched as the white male partners went from door to door, inviting the young white male associates to lunch, and never stopped by my door to ask me to join them. Tell me that the reason was my lack of ability and not obvious racism and sexism.
11
Being mentored by an influential person is a key element of advancement in most professions, not just law.
While a doctoral student in an interdisciplinary program at an Ivy institution it quickly became clear to me (and my fellow students) that those who worked as teaching assistants or research assistants for the most prestigious (influential) professors in any academic discipline were most likely to be mentored and assisted in achieving the most prestigious teaching appointments or other desirable employment opportunities.
However, in the #MeToo era many male executives are increasingly reluctant to mentor females, sometimes going to the extremes of keeping their office doors open while meeting with a female mentee, or avoiding traveling out of town with a female mentee.
I have great sympathy for male executives who sincerely wish to help female employees break through the glass ceiling but fear being charged with harassment or exploitation. One of the many benefits of retirement is that I no longer have to deal with these thorny issues.
45
I am tired of hearing this excuse from men. If you act in a professional manner and don't sexually harass a woman you have nothing to fear.
18
This article fails to look back seventy years, when after World War II Paul Weiss was one of the few New York firms that accepted Jewish lawyers. The firm was also one of the first to consciously move away from being identified by religion or national heritage to trying to be a truly ecumenical firm.
While Paul Weiss must be held to the highest standard, the racism and anti-semitism that dominated New York during the second half of the 20th century, and the firm's progressive leadership in that very ugly environment, should not be easily forgotten.
No doubt they will do better.
The workplace culture at Paul Weiss, along with several of its top New York competitors, is widely perceived as unnecessarily harsh. Given the personalities of America's top law school graduates, and the profit-driven nature of the modern law firm, one can only wonder if this will change.
18
I'll say what nobody quoted in this article will dare say: affirmative action in law schools creates law graduates who are not capable of the high performance law firms expect of potential partners. And it's an open secret in all elite law firms.
123
@Mark Nuckols
You are among those who justify bias or discrimination by claiming that 'affirmative action' is to blame. Behind that is the suggestion that young lawyers who are people of color (or women) are universally unqualified or inferior to their white piers. Yet, while affirmative action (or a drive for diversity) may or may not have gotten a student into a particular institution, it did not get them to graduation nor did it get them to the top of their class.
50
@Anne-Marie Hislop "Behind that is the suggestion that young lawyers who are people of color (or women) are universally unqualified or inferior to their white piers."
WHOA! That was not at ALL implied.
28
@Anne-Marie Hislop
"...them to graduation nor did it get them to the top of their class. "
here you are dead wrong and also make an absurd claim.
many affirmative action students do 'earn' a degree solely on their skin color, and most are NOT at the top of their class.
I do believe in affirmative action, I just oppose the abuse of the protected class status and those that perpetually wallow in their self inflicted victimhood.
19
The Big firms have only changed superficially in the last 30 years. POC are hired but they rarely make partner. Until the clients back up their “concerns” and move their business, there won’t be real diversity.
26
@RH
blackdemographics.com states that as of 2017 there are 2.1 million black people with advanced degrees, including MD's, JD's, and MBA's.
so exactly how many of those "should" be made partner or ceo because of their skin color?
3
If I hire a lawyer or a doctor or, well, anyone for anything, I want the best.
I don't care the gender or color, just the best.
If these people are the best for this law firm, well, that's the way it should be.
Diversity is just a cry for the lowest common denominator.
133
@Randy L. I believe you are missing an important point here which how do you know that you are getting the best? If you accept one premise of the associated piece the prospects for promotion relies heavily on building relationships between senior managers and junior associates. Just because, for example, a white male senior manager builds a better relationship with a junior white male associate and thusly helps advantage the junior associate's career doesn't mean the best individual was chosen. If most of these promotions are based off of relationships as opposed to strictly merit then that's a huge part of the problem. There should not be any bias in the selection process. I just don't believe it's a coincidence that the "best people" selected for senior positions are disproportionately white people. And I don't believe anyone who is really being fair and objective believe that's the case either.
79
@Randy L. If they're all white men, they clearly aren't the best - just as they would not be if they were all black women.
For them to be the best they would likely reflect the gender and race balance that was prevalent in the best law schools about ten years ago.
While it's true that clients and existing partners play an important role in getting a diverse mix, it is in admissions policies of the law schools that the real future lies.
20
That’s just it Randy, these lawyers aren’t the best in the firm. They’re the lowest common denominator: White and male.
Per the article, other lawyers who do all the work weren’t invited to client meetings. The white male lawyers swept in to take credit.
54
"The LinkedIn image was a stark illustration of what can happen when promotion decisions are relationship-driven and concentrated in the hands of white-male rainmakers"
...
"Because most firms have a very difficult time actually bringing real diversity and inclusion into those spaces."
Well, which one is it? These statements cannot coexist; either white people are banding together and hiring their white buddies, or firms try their best to acquire "diverse" talent (purely for PR, of course) and yet still can't find enough. But it's not both. What is the racial makeup of top law schools (after, of course, the rather heavy affirmative action admissions policies)? Does that even matter?
Absolutely ridiculous times we live in. How phony people are to sniff out new material for outrage, and then act appeased when corporate PR purports to assuage their concerns. Twitter storm, twitter apology, new smiling picture with more diversity....ahh, mission accomplished. Another successful day in the fight for forward progress in 2019.
64
"A handful of women have been made partners at the firm while working reduced or flexible hours..."
If some people are not as physically present as others at a workplace, it stands to reason that they will be less visible, less available, and maybe even less reliable, as compared to those who work the standard hours, regardless of identity. People who spend more time together are more apt to bond with each other versus people who spend less time together.
If someone works "reduced hours," it stands to reason that compensation and opportunity would also be reduced.
In addition, in the #MeToo era, many men, even the most moral, well-intentioned, and decent men, may have reservations working with women due to the knowledge that one accusation, even without evidence, can destroy a man's career. Many men, consciously and subconsciously, may seek to avoid this legitimate danger, just as a woman may seek to keep her distance from a suspicious-looking man while she is walking alone at night.
54
@Eternal Tech. If a firm ends up promoting more white men because they somehow manage to be present for twelve hours a day, 51 weeks of the year, then perhaps this reflects a cultural problem that might run right across the industry.
I do agree with your second point regarding #MeToo. I'm not sure what the answer is, but, as you say, in the recent climate, for a firm currently predominantly male, recruiting women does create - as you put it - a "legitimate danger" both to individuals and to the firm as a whole.
11
@Londoner
"... reflects a cultural problem that might run right across the industry."
I want my lawyer working my case 24 /7 and pay them to do so. I want the best and pay for it...
the cultural problem is not the workload, it is those who don't want to do the work but demand the glory and the gains.
8
@Eternal Tech This does not explain the lack of racial diversity.
6
If the unconscious bias mentioned in the article is true, that just suggests to me that lawyers are people more disposed to an inflexible stereotypical mindset without knowing it, more than people in many other profession. This actually matches my impression of law students from college and grad school. So the whole thing may not be surprising after all.
10
@american expat...or they just want the best to work for them.
I know I want to hire the best, not someone hired based on physical traits.
14