Old Problem of Legal Industry Bias Requires New Tools, Study Says
Law firms and in-house legal departments are barely moving the needle when it comes to combating gender and racial discrimination, a new report said. But researchers said even implicit bias can be countered.
September 07, 2018 at 03:38 PM
4 minute read
Despite the legal industry's efforts to promote racial and gender diversity in the profession, a new report said implicit gender and racial biases are systematically holding women and minorities back—and a new set of tools is needed to combat the problem.
The study, “You Can't Change What You Can't See,” was conducted by the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in partnership with the the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA). The goal? Understand how law firm lawyers and in-house counsel experience gender and racial bias, and why past efforts have failed.
“There was nothing that was surprising,” MCCA president and CEO Jean Lee said of the survey results. “If anything [...] it just confirmed a lot of what we have been hearing and it validates a lot of those experiences of people of color [and] women of color in our profession.”
First launched in April 2016, the survey asked its 2,827 respondents about implicit bias in the workplace, including hiring, assignments, business development, promotions and compensation as well as questions about sexual harassment.
Women of all races and men of color in in-house positions reported lower levels of bias than those in law firms, whereas white men reported lower levels of bias in law firms than they did in-house.
White women and women and men of color all reported that they had to go “above and beyond” in their work to get the same amount of recognition and respect as their colleagues, with 63 percent of women of color responding in the affirmative.
Overall, women of color reported the highest level of bias in almost every workplace scenario, the survey found.
Fifty-eight percent of female attorneys of color and half of white women reported being mistaken for administrative staff or janitors, as compared to only 7 percent of white men.
Two-thirds of women of color said they were being held to a higher standard than their colleagues. Some 53 percent of women of color reported having equal access to high-quality assignments as compared to 81 percent of white men.
The survey also found significant bias when it came to parental leave. Woman of all races reported being treated worse after having children by being passed over for promotions, given low-quality work, paid less and being unfairly disadvantaged for working part time or having a flexible schedule.
About half of people of color, 57 percent of white women and 42 percent of white men agreed that taking parental leave would negatively impact their career.
The study also looked at parity with respect to compensation and found large amounts of bias reported by white women and women of color. Nearly 70 percent of women of color and 60 percent of white women said they were paid less than their colleagues with similar seniority and experience, contrasted with 36 percent of white men who reported the same.
The survey also found that in-house white women reported roughly the same amount of compensation bias as their law firm counterparts.
“I do think that the experience is better in-house overall, but it's modest at best,” Lee said, noting the MCCA's 2017 Annual General Counsel survey that found that minorities only make up 11 percent of general counsel at Fortune 500 companies.
About 25 percent of women reported sexual harassment at work, including unwanted physical contact, sexual comments and/or romantic advances. But more than 70 percent of all groups surveyed said they've encountered sexist comments, stories and jokes.
'Interrupting' Bias
Based on their findings, researchers compiled two “Bias Interrupters Toolkits”—one for in-house departments and the other for law firms—that offer guidance on how to overcome entrenched, implicit bias in hiring, assignments, performance evaluations and compensation.
“We are going to work with our members, firms and companies to help them implement these strategies,” Lee said.
Ultimately, Lee said the survey provides convincing evidence that bias is persisting and offers real solutions. She said legal departments and law firms should see it as a chance “to think a little bit more about the policies that may negatively impact women and people of color in the profession,” and take action.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Eckert Seamans Snags Reed Smith Global Financial Intelligence Director
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250