Harvard law students (pictured left to right) Kurt Walters, Vail Kohnert-Yount, Sarah Bayer and Jake Meiseles distributed leaflets outlining their arguments against mandatory arbitration outside of DLA Piper's Boston office March 26.

The law students behind a national effort to end mandatory arbitration at law firms stepped up their efforts Tuesday, handing out leaflets outside the offices of Venable and DLA Piper in Washington, D.C., and Boston.

The students, led by Harvard Law School's Pipeline Parity Project, also are asking the National Association for Law Placement to begin collecting information from firms to identify those that require employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements.

The dual actions mark the one-year anniversary of the movement against those agreements used by legal employers, which critics say allow sexual harassment, racial discrimination and other illegal workplace practices to go unchecked. The student movement began last spring after a former Harvard Law School lecturer tweeted about Munger, Tolles & Olson requiring summer associates to sign them. (Munger Tolles quickly ended those agreements amid the backlash.)

“Firms like Venable and DLA Piper need to know that we will continue to hold them accountable for their behavior,” said Lane Shadgett, a first-year student at Georgetown University Law Center. “Today, by physically showing up at their offices, we are doing our part to make sure that both current employees and students who aspire to work there know about their use of forced arbitration, and how it deprives them of their rights.”

The leaflets say that forcing employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements advantages employers by stripping workers of their right to sue. And nondisclosure agreements allow firms to sweep misconduct under the rug without any public acknowledgment of wrongdoing, they say.

The student protesters in November and February called for their classmates to boycott on-campus interviews with both DLA Piper and Venable, in an effort to pressure those firms into abandoning mandatory arbitration for all employees. But neither firm appears to have budged since then.

Asked for comment Tuesday, a spokesman for DLA Piper pointed to an earlier statement issued by the firm after it was first targeted by the student boycott. “There are advantages and disadvantages to every type of dispute resolution process,” it reads. “It has been our experience as a firm that arbitration is a fair and efficient way to resolve internal disputes, and one that benefits all parties in what are often sensitive matters for everyone involved.”

Four Harvard Law students spent the morning outside DLA Piper's Boston office, handing out leaflets with their arguments against mandatory arbitration. They represent a fraction of the estimated several hundred who have gotten involved, with about two dozen core organizers.

A Venable spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday and has not officially confirmed its use of mandatory arbitration, according to the Pipeline Parity Project. But the group said that the firm was deceptive when it told law students last summer that it does not require summer associates to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. It circulated a memo, purportedly from Venable partner G. Stewart Webb Jr., dated several weeks later stating all firm employees are subject to mandatory arbitration.

Three Georgetown students spent the lunch hour outside the firm's Washington office, distributing leaflets.

“We're trying to make it clear that this is an issue that resonates with law students across the country,” said Georgetown student David Vines, who attended the protest.

Meanwhile, the law students are circulating an open letter to NALP asking it to query legal employers about their use of mandatory arbitration and nondisclosure agreements to be included in the data it compiles in the annual directory used by law students to prepare for on-campus recruiting.

“As the dominant organization in legal recruiting and career development, NALP's leadership in this matter can affect meaningful change because it will empower students to make career choices that align more closely with their values,” the open letter reads.

Reached Tuesday, NALP executive director James Leipold said he could not comment on the open letter from the students because he had not yet seen it.

Determining which law firms require summer associates and other employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements has been tricky. Students from more than 40 law schools last May circulated a survey to law firms asking them to disclosure whether or not they require summer associates to sign such agreements. But fewer than half the firms responded.

Since then, the Pipeline Parity Project has experienced some success by targeting individual firms that use mandatory arbitration and asking fellow students to boycott them during the summer associate recruiting season. The students initially zeroed in on Kirkland & Ellis in November, which did away with mandatory arbitration for associates and summer associates within two weeks. (The firm later ended mandatory arbitration for staffers as well.) Sidley Austin voluntarily eliminated mandatory arbitration for all employees shortly after the Kirkland & Ellis campaign.

The Pipeline Parity Project said on Twitter on Monday that Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati told the group it will no longer require any employee to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. A firm spokeswoman did not respond to requests seeking confirmation of the move, however.

Organizers with the Pipeline Parity Project said Tuesday that they are increasing their efforts ahead of the upcoming summer associates recruiting cycle.

“[Non-disclosure agreements] and forced arbitration unfairly silence victims, allowing bad behaviors to persist,” said Harvard law student Sarah Bayer. “No one wants to work in an environment where illegal conduct goes virtually unchecked. Identifying employers that use these coercive contracts is an important first step toward rooting out abuses in the legal industry.”